Tag: Trump

Please reach out to your Qanon friends this week

This is not the blog I thought I would be writing this week. I had plans to write something hard-hitting about the death of truth, or about Bonhoeffer’s antifascist theology. But I feel led to offer a different piece, one that is both more gentle and yet more potent. (And isn’t there a mysterious potency in gentleness, when you really think about it?)

Here’s what I want to say: After Joe Biden’s is inaugurated, I invite you to lovingly and graciously extend an olive branch to your friends, family, and acquaintances who’ve fallen into conspiracy theories – particularly Qanon and/or the Christian “prophecies” that Trump will be a president for two terms. Only 1 out of a 100 of these conspiracy believers might be willing to emerge from the rabbit hole they’ve disappeared into. But you might be the one to help pull them out.

See, Inauguration Day marks a very significant deadline for both Qanon believers and the Christian prophets who are certain that Donald Trump will serve two consecutive terms. Right now, there are tens of millions of Americans – from a variety of ages, ethnicities, geographies, and socioeconomic backgrounds – who are convinced, against all logic and odds, that Donald Trump will somehow remain the president after January 20th. (I could post screenshots of people I personally know who believe this, but perhaps even more illustrative is to scroll for a few minutes through this Facebook group). Whether it’s through an act of God, a military coup, or some fancy legal maneuvering, these believers just know that Trump/Q/God couldn’t allow someone so wicked as Joe Biden to become president. (In fact, that’s what the insurrection on January 6th was all about; attempting to force Congress into throwing out the election results and keeping Donald Trump in power.)

Admittedly, the leaders of these cults have given other failed deadlines before January 20th, none of which have come to pass, and so they will probably just kick the can to some other deadline. But after Biden’s inaugration, some of the followers might be fed up and willing to start to back out of these conspiracy movements. And this is where you come in. By reaching out after the inauguration in a kind, confident, and non-aggressive manner, you may be able to win these people back to reality. This isn’t something I recommend for everyone, as it can be very emotionally draining and potentially risky if the person lashes out. And it will look different for different people. But by reaching out to your conspiracy-minded friend after Inauguration you may prevent the next terrorist attack, or the next lone wolf gunman–and never realize just how much of a difference you made.

Here’s a few tips and thoughts shared by a @QOrigins on Twitter that I think perfectly encapsulate the importance of this moment:

“For those with friends or family in QAnon, [Inauguration Day] will be quite a day. The Inauguration is going to plunge many Q believers into doubt and dismay. The most committed will simply double down, but others will want a way out. If you’re able, give them an off-ramp. No mocking. It’s HARD not to mock or taunt or say “I told you so” when, for months or years, the person you’re talking to has chosen conspiratorial, antidemocratic Trump worship over… y’know… a relationship with you. But the thing is, QAnon provides its followers with certain benefits: replacement friends. A substitute family. A wholesale new reality. And a sense of community that’s a powerful draw, especially when they’re feeling confused and upset. So… to compete with it, you have to draw on your old ties — and remind them what life was like before Q. Because the truth is that QAnon immiserates its followers. Their relationships falter. They find it difficult to sleep. They fear for themselves and their children — unreasonably, but the fear is often quite real. And while conspiracism GENERATES the fear, it also soothes it.

“So this is, however unfairly, on the shoulders of people who DO have a connection with reality. And that’s NOT to say that you absolutely must reach out to your Q person in a spirit of unity and rainbows. You’ve learned, & shouldn’t rush to un-learn, some ugly truths about them. And it might not be safe, either. Some of these folks were abusive and toxic before Q and will be abusive and toxic after. Some WEREN’T abusive and toxic before Q but will be afterwards. They’ve marinated in bitterness and revenge fantasies. It’s a long and bumpy road back.

“But if there are people in your life who you DO want back, odds are good that [Inauguration Day] is a pivotal moment. So if you want to reach out, what does that look like? Well, I can’t tell you the details. I don’t know your relationship. But I can tell you that it’s not triumphalist, it’s not mocking, it’s not taunting. It doesn’t demand they disavow all their beliefs immediately (if they do it on their own, GREAT). It offers them empathy. It establishes that you care about them as people & want a relationship. And understand they won’t shed all their beliefs in a day. You don’t have to SHARE their beliefs. You shouldn’t pretend to agree with them. Neither is healthy. But talk to them & then follow up. Stay in *very* frequent contact. Give them genuine love. And folks… good luck. (P.S. If you can’t do this, no judgment. QAnon folks are isolated from friends and family because they’ve *hurt* friends and family, and generally refuse to recognize that or make amends. It’s not always healthy to engage with someone like that. It’s VERY much OK not to try.)”

There’s not much I can add to QOrigin’s post, except to close with a story that feels very relevant here. If because of this blog even a one single person who is swallowed in conspiracies can be nudged even slightly towards the path of truth, love, and real community, it will have been well worth it. Helping one person out of a conspiracist mindset doesn’t erase the larger systemic, political, cultural, economic, and spiritual work that’s still to be done in our world. But it’s not nothing, either.

The Starfish Story

One day a man was walking along the beach when he noticed a boy picking something up and gently throwing it into the ocean. Approaching the boy, he asked, “What are you doing?”

The youth replied, “Throwing starfish back into the ocean. The surf is up and the tide is going out. If I don’t throw them back, they’ll die.”

“Son,” the man said, “don’t you realize there are miles and miles of beach and hundreds of starfish? You can’t make a difference!”

After listening politely, the boy bent down, picked up another starfish, and threw it back into the surf. Then, smiling at the man, he said…..

“I made a difference for that one.”

[Original Story by: Loren Eisley]

The Starfish on the Beach Parable

Bad Shepherds

One of the most common metaphors throughout the Bible is that of shepherds (political and religious leaders) who are in charge of the sheep (AKA the common people). Throughout the Hebrew scriptures, God continually calls out the bad shepherds that are misleading and mistreating the people under them, while trying to put into place good shepherds instead – Ezekiel 34 is a great example of this type of metaphor.

Truthfully, as an individualistic American, I don’t really like the shepherd metaphor as it implies that most human beings are simple sheep, without the capacity to make complex decisions on their own. (The pejorative use of the term “sheeple” as a secular insult to castigate people who believe in vaccines and a round earth hasn’t helped my aversion to the concept.)

However, after witnessing the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th, I actually realize the metaphor of sheep and shepherds is quite apt. Without shifting away any blame from the average Joes and Karens who perpetrated the Capitol invasion (I hope they all face appropriate civil and criminal penalties), the simple truth is that this act would not have happened without the long list of political, cultural, and religious leaders/shepherds who instigated it. After all, six months ago virtually none of these Capitol invaders knew about the role Congress plays in certifying the Electoral College vote. Thus the mass gathering and violence we saw on January 6th is almost entirely due to the bad shepherds that organized it, promoted it, and then allowed it to happen.

Many of those who stormed the Capitol were planning to take hostages–note the zip ties– and execute them on camera. There was even a noose and gallows set up outside the Capitol.

It’s easy to imagine how differently January 6th would have gone if we didn’t have so many bad shepherds misleading the sheep  

If Trump, the political shepherd of our nation, had peacefully conceded the election back in November or December, most of these sheep would have grumbled but peacefully gone along with it. If Trump had not demanded a mass rally in Washington DC on January 6, calling for his followers to march on the Capitol, a few diehard protesters still would have been there, but not the thousands we saw overpower the police.

If far-right newscasters, politicians, and media personalities hadn’t invented and spread hundreds of false and misleading narratives about the election, the sheep would have accepted the conclusions of the 60+ different federal judges (many of whom were appointed by Trump!) that the elections was free, fair, and without widespread fraud. If these same shepherds hadn’t kept stringing along false hopes that Mike Pence would magically overturn the election on January 6, the sheep would not have been so devastated when the inevitable certification of the election results happened.  

If conservative Christian pastors and theologians had taught their flocks to love their enemies, instead of dominating and killing them, we would not have seen Christian banners and symbols waved as battle flags and taken into the halls of Congress. If these Christian leaders had accurately taught that white supremacy and Christian nationalism are satanic heresies from the pit of hell, these sheep would not have been so bloodthirsty and eager to overturn the legitimate election of someone who doesn’t represent those things to them. If these Christian shepherds had spent more time speaking against the dangerous Qanon / End Times conspiracies actively spreading in their pews instead of against scary liberal acronyms like “CRT”, “BLM”, and “AOC”, maybe their congregants would have been less likely to fly to Washington DC to beat up cops and scrawl “Murder the Press” on the Capitol walls.

A STUNNING 45 % of Republicans support the storming of the US Capitol Link

The blame for what happened on January 6th does not solely fall on the far-right: If the liberal shepherds who run social media corporations such as Facebook and Twitter had heeded the warnings of experts and taken steps to stop the radicalization of sheep on their platform via viral fake news and incendiary accounts, there would be far fewer people falling prey to conspiracy theories like Qanon or the election fraud narrative. Granted, there’s always a few kooks in every society, but without the aid of social media their numbers would be much smaller.  [On a related note, I have actually come around to agree with conservative pundits that Section 230 should be repealed and the federal government should regulate social media corporations much more firmly than it currently is. These massive, greedy companies have shown over and over that they care more about profit than people; they are the bad shepherds that are allowing wolves to eat their sheep and cannot be trusted to keep self-regulating without any checks and balance.]  

Those are just a few of the bad shepherds who are to blame for the shameful actions we saw on January 6th. To my knowledge, none of these shepherds have publicly repented of their ways. What will God’s judgment upon these bad shepherds look like? And perhaps an even more important question: who will raise up a generation of good shepherds to better guide the sheep?

4 Political Hot Takes in the Wake of Coronavirus

Here are a few quick things I’ve been thinking about from a political science perspective in the wake of coronavirus. (I also have a host of other thoughts from a religious perspective, a mental health perspective, and my personal perspective; those aren’t included here. If you’re curious for my thoughts from those angles, let me know!).

1. We’ve proven the skeptics somewhat wrong about American capitalism

For a while now, it’s become a truism in certain circles that, when it comes down to it, capitalist America cares more about money than saving people’s lives. There’s a host of evidence one could point to (on both sides of the political aisle) to show that that’s true. Lack of funding for veterans, lack of universal healthcare, lack of funding to fight the opioid epidemic, lack of regulations to prohibit pollution (like cancer-causing chemicals in the water supply), support for abortion even up to the point of birth… I could go on and on. In general it does feel like American culture cares more about financial convenience than in protecting human life.

But then came coronavirus. All of a sudden, millions and millions of people, led by leaders from all across the political spectrum (some sooner than others), banded together to stop almost all economic activity purely for the sake of saving human lives. Think about it: we’ve essentially decided to put our economy into a recession–indefinitely– to save the lives of thousands of people (primarily older people who no longer contribute much to the economy). Thus, I would argue that we have at least partially proven the skeptics wrong about American capitalism: it’s not true that there is an unconditional value for money over human life, and our society’s overall response to the pandemic so far bears witness to that fact.

2. I honestly feel bad for Donald Trump

Most political scientists I was hearing from were fairly certain a couple months ago that Donald Trump was on track to be re-elected: he was an incumbent President, with a strong economy, incredibly popular ratings among Republicans, had overcome impeachment hearings, and had an electoral map skewed in his favor. Historically speaking, he was virtually guaranteed to be re-elected. A few months ago, these political scientists would say that the only thing that could keep him from being re-elected would be if the economy massively crashed, or if Donald Trump did something very unpopular.

Then came coronavirus. Coronavirus is something that, no matter who the president was right now, would have crashed the economy and forced it into a recession. Not only that, but Trump’s usual tactics of Twitter sniping, backroom agreements, and Fox News bullying don’t work on a virus, which cannot be cowed or threatened by those strategies. Moreover, even if he didn’t want to, Trump has to pay attention to the coronavirus pandemic, which threatens the economy and preys disproportionately on the elderly, a demographic that tends to vote for Trump by substantial margins. He could no more ignore coronavirus than he could ignore American farmers targeted by Chinese tariffs last year.

All this to say, Donald Trump is trapped in a truly unenviable position right now: he will be forced to work incredibly hard to unleash a host of unpopular measures to contain a problem that he didn’t cause, knowing full well that it will all pretty much be for naught when the election comes. Worst of all, his personal businesses (real estate, tourism, Mar-a-Lago, etc.) have also been hit hard by coronavirus, so he won’t even have a profitable business to retire to next year. This is not the type of thing Donald Trump became president for, but now here he is. I kind of feel bad for him.

3. Everyone’s a deficit-spending socialist right now.

      This point has been stated by others, but it’s still worth noting: all our politicians, whether they are on the right or the left, are advocating for full-blown, deficit-spending government handouts right now. Whether it’s bailouts for tourism and food industries, $1,200 checks mailed to every adult American, or massive amounts of government spending to provide free healthcare and coronavirus testing for sick people, it feels like no one cares about the deficit anymore. I’m old enough to remember when Trump’s tax cuts added $1.5 trillion to the federal debt (while boosting the stock market), but now that the stock market has collapsed again we’re talking about adding trillions more just to keep Wall Street from collapsing below its pre-2017 levels! And that’s not to mention the need to take care of everyday Americans, whose consumption habits are crucial to keeping the economy moving forward. I’ve heard it said, and it seems accurate, that “in the same way as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no libertarians in a pandemic.” Everyone in the government is advocating for massive government spending, intrusive regulations, and safety nets to catch newly sick or unemployed workers. As Congress debates a variety of plans, the main sticking point will be whether the government spending ends up helping Americans across the economic spectrum, or whether once again all the benefits will primarily flow to large corporations and the wealthiest 1%. But regardless of how that debate is decided, it’s clear that government deficit spending is the one thing everyone is agreeing on.

covid coronavirus government check democrats not my president republicans socialism
Some bipartisan humor for you 🙂

4. Fake news doesn’t rest in a pandemic

            Fake news stories have been rising in dramatic fashion in recent years, aided by social media outlets that make it easy to “share” posts that people agree with, even if they’re totally false. I can’t tell you the number of posts I see that are blatantly false or misleading, that have only a handful of “likes” or “comments” but DOZENS of shares! Recently, Jim Bakker (a televangelist “prophet” who sells food buckets and thinks Trump is God’s chosen person to usher in the End Times) got in trouble with the FDA for claiming his expensive silver pills can cure coronavirus. But it’s not just Jim Bakker, there are a lot of other fake claims being advanced right now. Here’s one I saw this morning, blaming “sanctuary cities” for coronavirus cases:

Glenn didn’t make this meme, but he did repost it. Only 1 comment, but 14 shares!

Anyone who takes more than 3 seconds to think about the meme can easily see the flaws here. It’s a case of confusing correlation with causation. Of course there are more coronavirus cases in cities, because there are more people who live there. Sanctuary cities in coastal cities also cannot be the cause of coronavirus in Arkansas, Kentucky, and other conservative states. Moreover, if undocumented immigrants in “sanctuary cities” are to blame for coronavirus, then why are there so few cases of the disease in Central and Latin America? It’s obvious that whoever made this meme wants people to think of immigrants as “dirty” and “diseased”, and so they made a meme to make that point with a complete disregard for the actual facts of the matter. Perhaps the meme’s creator was a Russian troll looking to divide us, or a white supremacist, but more likely the maker of this image is just a garden-variety American racist who wants to blame foreigners for their problems. That isn’t the saddest thing; what’s sad to me is how many people (mostly Boomers…sorry gotta say it) uncritically shared this post! Yet that’s where we are nowadays, where so many people are happy to repost lies just to advance their own narrative. I wish I could say I’m surprised, but at this point I’m not. Stay awake, and watch out for other viral lies.

Anyway, those are just a few political hot takes I’ve been thinking about recently–let me know your thoughts!

P.S. BONUS HOT TAKE: It’s been hilarious to me seeing how quickly the same people who were saying “coronavirus is a liberal media hoax” are now the ones agreeing with Donald Trump on its dangers and the need for social distancing. Will anyone who called it a “media hoax” apologize, ask forgiveness, and admit they were wrong? Don’t hold your breath.

Want fewer abortions? The evidence suggests you should vote Democrat

Today was the annual “March For Life,” the largest pro-life demonstration in the US, hosted in Washington DC on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It’s particularly significant this year because Donald Trump was the first sitting US president to attend in its 47-year history (I won’t dwell on the latent hypocrisy of having Trump speak, who was staunchly pro-choice until recently and is said to have paid for as many as eight of his lovers’ abortions). At the March For Life, all of the pro-life speakers and marchers wish to see fewer abortions, and the vast majority believe that voting for Republicans like Donald Trump are the way to do it.

But what if that’s not the case? What if, despite their pro-choice rhetoric, Democrats actually have the best path to fewer abortions? And what if, despite their pro-life rhetoric, Republican policies lead to an increase in the number of abortions?

New York Times, January 24, 2020

Obama’s Legacy

In 2008, many evangelicals voted for John McCain over Barack Obama, and one of their main stated reasons was that Obama had stated support for overturning the ban against so-called “partial-birth abortions”, a statistically rare but very graphic procedure. During his eight years in office, that issue never actually came up, and the ban stayed in place.

Interestingly enough, despite being “pro-choice,” President Obama actually presided over the largest decrease in abortion the United States has ever seen. By the time Obama left office, abortion rates were at their lowest since the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973. This was not due to states passing anti-abortion laws: in fact, states that limited abortion, such as Mississippi, saw an increase in the number of abortions. So why did abortions rates fall nationally? The main reason is that Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) increased access to cheap, effective, contraceptives. In barely two years after Obamacare was passed, the rate of unplanned pregnancies had already dropped by 6%.

It’s incredibly simple: when there are fewer unplanned pregnancies, there are fewer abortions.

Because cheap, easy access to contraception prevents unplanned pregnancies from ever happening, it serves as a more effective prevention of abortion (at least as compared to working on the back end to try to ban/convince women from procuring an abortion after they’re already pregnant).

Why the rhetoric doesn’t match reality

If Obama’s policies indeed lowered the abortion rate, why is it that Democrats don’t get any credit among the people at March For Life? Well, it’s a bit complicated. In the early 90s, Bill Clinton pioneered the phrase that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” This promoted the Democrat’s pro-choice platform, while still making room for pro-life advocates. But in 2016, Hillary Clinton’s platform severed the word “rare,” because it seemed to compromise the party’s pro-choice position. In a tight race, the Clinton campaign gambled that it was worth doing this to bolster the enthusiasm of her left flank–but at the ultimate expense of pro-life Democrats and independents.

It feels to me that even a small shift in Democrats’ rhetoric in 2020 could help them capture back pro-life voters who dislike Donald Trump but aren’t enthusiastic about abortion. There are a number of prominent activist groups espousing a “consistent life ethic” who fit in well with the Democratic Party on every other issue–anti-pollution, social welfare, anti-death penalty, anti-war, etc…except for abortion. If Democrats would simply argue–”We will defend abortion rights at all costs, but please notice that we are also doing more to decrease the need for abortion in the first place than the Republicans ever would”– that feels to me like a winning argument for them.

Of course, that’s all hypothetical. I’m not sure if any leading Democrats would make that argument in 2020, and certainly not right now in the primaries when they are trying to win over the staunchest liberals.

Decision time

So what’s a pro-life voter to do? Ultimately, I would argue that, despite being counter-intuitive, the evidence suggests that a vote for Republicans is a vote for more abortions, and a vote for Democrats is a vote for fewer abortions. There are three main reasons for this:

  1. Contraception. Republicans hate government-funded healthcare, particularly when it comes to contraception. Since 2016 they have fought tooth and nail to repeal Obamacare and to prevent government funding for contraception. If more Republicans are elected, they will continue make it more costly and difficult to have contraceptives, which will likely lead to more unplanned pregnancies (and thus more abortions). In contrast, if Democrats are elected, they will work for cheaper, more widespread access to contraceptives which will lead to fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer abortions.
  2. Social safety nets. One of the main reasons women choose to have an abortion is socioeconomic–they fear that they will not have the support they need to raise a child: cheap healthcare, fair wages, paid maternity leave, quality schools, etc. In general, Democrats want to increase the amount of assistance that goes to poor people, while Republicans want to cut it off. When there is a stronger safety net for women, it decreases the need for abortion, so if more Democrats are elected in 2020 we will likely see a continued decrease in the abortion rate.
  3. Comprehensive sex education. In recent years, the rate of teen pregnancies has dropped to record lows. The explanations are varied, but one of the key factors is the rise of comprehensive sex education that teaches teenagers about topics like contraception. In general, Republicans are opposed to sex education and prefer abstinence-based approaches (which have lower rates of success), while Democrats wish to see even more sex education.

One of my predictions in 2016 was that if Donald Trump was elected, we would see the number of abortions increase for all the reasons mentioned above. It’s a bit early to tell and the data is complicated, but in general it seems like my prediction has been proven true. Since Donald Trump became president, the number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood in the US has increased substantially (despite “pro-life” Donald Trump having control of all 3 branches of government). In addition, Trump’s cuts to foreign aid via have decreased international funding for contraception, leading to an increase in the number of abortions overseas as well.

It’s unfortunate that rhetoric has become so confusing. But the answers seem pretty clear: in the 2020 election, if someone’s #1 priority is seeing fewer abortions, then that person should not vote Republican, they should vote Democrat. It’s counterintuitive, but that’s what the facts suggest.