Tag Archives: culture wars

MAGA’s Closing Argument: Dad’s Coming Home

October 28, 2024 – 9:18 am

If you can’t see any sense in the pro-Trump case, you’re looking at the wrong level.

“How can this election be close?”

It’s a cry of frustration I hear almost every day in one way or another, not just from Substack bloggers and TV talking heads, but also on social media and from personal friends.

Sure, there are about as many Republicans as Democrats in the country, and as many conservatives as liberals. But one of the two candidates is Donald Trump. I could easily imagine someone like Nikki Haley winning. But the case against Trump should be both obvious and compelling.

We all saw him raise a mob and send it to attack the Capitol in an attempt to overturn an election his own people told him he lost fair and square. We lived through his mismanagement of Covid, which led to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary American deaths. We see him day after day, rambling incoherently through interviews and unable to answer questions about the few policies he has proposed. We see key members of his first administration — like Chief of Staff John Kelly and JCS Chair Mark Milley — warn us that he is a fascist and should never again hold an office of public trust. We hear him repeat the words of past fascist leaders, telling us that his chosen scapegoats — immigrants, in preference to Hitler’s Jews (most of the time) — are “poisoning the blood of our country” and need to be rounded up by the millions. We hear him recite the eternal tropes of racism, claiming that immigrants have “bad genes” that make them criminals, but that he himself has “great genes” that make him smart. We hear him lie, virtually with every breath, about a bad economy, soaring crime, and an immigrant crime wave — none of which exist anywhere outside his imagination.

How is this election close? How is it still possible that he could win? Is half the country as far gone as Ruben Bolling’s version of Snoopy?

If you feel this frustration, imagine what it’s like for bloggers like me. Day after day, I motivate myself with this myth: If I could only explain things clearly enough, people would understand; and once they understood, the great majority of them would do the right thing. So the prospect of another Trump presidency doesn’t just make me fear for my country, it undermines my identity.

More and more it becomes apparent that the problem isn’t that half the country doesn’t understand. Many of them actively want a fascist government that will implement the cruelty they feel in their hearts. Many who aren’t openly rooting for that cruelty refuse to understand what Trump is, and no one can make them understand against their will. They will accept any excuse for his behavior, even excuses that shift from month to month and contradict the previous excuses.

Thank you for letting me get that out of my system. Now I can try to go back to being calm and reasonable.

A few weeks ago I took a long, leisurely driving trip from my home in Massachusetts out to west-central Illinois, where I grew up. I led a church service there, and then took a long, leisurely drive back. Along the way, I saw the lawn signs in neighborhoods very different from mine, and I heard campaign ads not just for the national race, but for a variety of close Senate races.

I think I understand something now.

Fantasies of crime. In the northwest neck of Pennsylvania, road closures threw me off of I-90 and sent me through a small town that sits between Cleveland and Buffalo, but is outside the orbit of either city. In a peaceful middle-class neighborhood I saw numerous yard signs that said

Trump safety
Kamala crime

I doubt the people who live in those houses are recent victims of crime or live in any realistic state of fear. I also doubt that they have looked very deeply into the crime problem nationally. If they had, they would know that crime has been dropping for decades, and was no better under Trump than under Biden and Harris. Crime briefly blipped upward during both the Trump and Biden years of the Covid pandemic, but in recent years the long-term decline has resumed.

Unlike many of the fantasy problems Trump presents in his speeches, he at least has proposed fantasy solutions to this one: deport all those brown people with criminality in their DNA, and stop making the police follow rules.

The trans “threat”. Trans people figure prominently in several of the ads I saw. One purported to compare the Trump military to the “woke” Harris military. The scenes representing Trump were of a drill sergeant screaming abuse at recruits. The ones representing Harris showed dancers of indeterminate gender. We are supposed to draw the “obvious” conclusions that these images are typical of Trump and Harris military policies, and that the abused recruits will perform better on the battlefield than the gender-fluid recruits.

An attack ad directed at Sherrod Brown said that he voted to allow men to compete in women’s sports. An anti-Harris ad said she supported paying for the sex-change operations of criminals in prison. It concluded “Kamala is for they/them. Trump is for you.” During the Olympics, Trump falsely said that a gold-medal-winning female boxer was a man who had “transitioned”, and implied that women competing against her were in danger. Republicans often attack the inclusion of transwomen in women’s sports by invoking the image of men beating up on women.

Again, these ads seem directed at people whose lives are not affected by the issues being raised. The Algerian boxer Trump attacked was not trans. The actual number of transwomen athletes in school sports is tiny — about 40 out of 500,000 NCAA athletes, according to one report — and no women’s league in any sport in the country is dominated by trans stars. The real stars of women’s sports — Caitlin Clark, for example, or Serena Williams — were identified as female at birth. Transwomen who have taken puberty-blocking drugs have only minor advantages over other high-school or college-age women. The problem of transwomen beating down “real” women is itself not real.

Of course, there is a real men-beating-women problem in our society, but Republicans do not seem concerned about it. Whenever proposed legislation would protect women — say, by closing the “boyfriend loophole” in laws the prevent domestic abusers from owning guns — the opposition will be almost entirely Republican.

Similarly, the number of trans soldiers in our military or trans inmates in our prisons is tiny. Kicking out the one or making the other pay for their own surgery is not going to perceptibly improve the daily lives of MAGA voters.

Immigrants “destroying our country”. The third major argument, which I hear more from Trump himself than in TV ads, is that immigrants are “destroying our country“. The examples Trump offers are horrifying: In Springfield, Ohio “They’re eating the dogs. They’re eating the cats.” Aurora, Colorado is a “war zone”, occupied by “an army of illegal alien gang members and migrant criminals from the dungeons of the third world”.

But none of that is true, and even local Republican officials push back against Trump’s false claims. Such lies can’t be aimed at winning votes in the communities he’s talking about, because local people can simply open their eyes and see that the world he’s describing isn’t real.

So the target audience must be elsewhere.

Something similar is going on in Trump’s rhetoric about American cities, especially major cities in key swing states: Milwaukee is “horrible”. Philadelphia is “ravaged by bloodshed and crime”. If Harris is elected, he claims, “the whole country will end up being like Detroit.” (Harris and Detroit struck back with this ad, about how the city has rebuilt itself: America will be like Detroit? “He should be so god damn lucky.”)

“These cities,” Trump said in a 2020 town hall. “It’s like living in hell.”

Those comments aren’t intended to earn votes in Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Detroit — Democratic strongholds where people can simply open their eyes and see that on the whole life is not particularly hellish. Rather, they’re aimed at suburban and rural voters who never go to the cities because they believe terrible things about them.

What’s going on? I set out to explain how this election can be close, and so far I haven’t. If you think of politics as being about problems and solutions, none of the arguments Trump and other MAGA Republicans are making add up. They are offering to solve problems their voters don’t have, and to protect them from people who do them no harm. (Trans people, for example, have issues with their own genders, not yours. Crime in Atlanta hurts Atlantans, not people in Marjorie Taylor Green’s district, where the largest city, Rome, has 37,000 people. If undocumented immigrants affect your life, it’s probably by picking the vegetables you eat or washing the dishes in your favorite restaurant.)

So how do all these arguments work? Why doesn’t it matter that so many of them are easily debunked? And how do they coalesce into a coherent whole? Fortunately, we don’t have to figure this out for ourselves, because we can call in a MAGA expert: Tucker Carlson. Speaking at a Trump rally in Georgia Wednesday, Tucker pulled it all together:

If you allow people to get away with things that are completely over the top and outrageous, if you allow your 2-year-old to smear the contents of his diapers on the wall of your living room and you do nothing about it, if you allow your 14-year-old to light a joint at the breakfast table, if you allow your hormone-addled 15-year-old daughter to, like, slam the door of her bedroom and give you the finger, you’re going to get more of it, and those kids are going to wind up in rehab. It’s not good for you and it’s not good for them.

No. There has to be a point at which Dad comes home. [loud cheering] Yeah, that’s right. Dad comes home, and he’s pissed. Dad is pissed. He’s not vengeful; he loves his children. Disobedient as they may be, he loves them, because they’re his children, they live in his house. But he’s very disappointed in their behavior, and he’s going to have to let them know: “Get to your room right now and think about what you did.”

And when Dad gets home, you know what he says? “You’ve been a bad girl. You’ve been a bad little girl and you’re getting a vigorous spanking, right now. And no, it’s not going to hurt me more than it hurts you. No, it’s not. I’m not going to lie. It’s going to hurt you a lot more than it hurts me. And you earned this. You’re getting a vigorous spanking because you’ve been a bad girl. And it has to be this way. It has to be this way, because it’s true. And you’re only going to get better when you take responsibility for what you did.”

That’s not said in the spirit of hate. It’s not said in the spirit of vengeance or bigotry. Far from it. It’s said in the spirit of justice, which is the purest and best thing there is. And without it, things fall apart. …

Not only do I think Donald Trump’s going to win, I think that the vibe shift has been so profound. … What you smell around you is the return of freedom, it’s the return of the country you grew up in. …

[The Democrats] need to lose. And at the end of all that, when they tell you they’ve won: No! You can look them straight in the face and say, “I’m sorry. Dad’s home. And he’s pissed.” [1]

How does that pull it all together? Most of us don’t parent teen-age girls we wish we could spank, so how does this little vignette capture why we should vote for Trump?

Let me explain: If you’re looking for the problems of ordinary American life, you’re looking in the wrong place. Trump is not talking about how you’re going to pay for college or find a job or afford a house or get healthcare or retire without starving. The problem his campaign is all about is on a different level altogether: You feel dislocated in today’s world.

That’s why his slogan is backward-looking: Make America Great Again. When is “again”? Back in July, the folks at Salon posed that question to people at the Republican Convention:

What we found is that, whether they’re 30 or 70 years old, the typical RNC attendee thinks America was “great” when they were kids. They believe America lost its way coincidentally right at the time they were maturing into adulthood.

For whatever reason, they now find themselves living in a world very different from “the country you grew up in”. Maybe it’s all the people chattering in languages they don’t understand. Maybe it’s being told that it’s racist or sexist to talk the way they’ve always talked. Maybe it’s having to deal with people who don’t look like either men or women to them, and being told that they’re the problem when they can’t keep track of which name or pronoun to use. Maybe it’s not being able to assume that everybody’s Christian or heterosexual, or not knowing what’s funny now, or hearing music that doesn’t sound like music. Maybe it’s not being able to get a real person on the phone, or receiving 100 pieces of junk mail for every letter they actually want, or dealing with women who earn more than men. Maybe it’s not recognizing half the countries on the globe or being reminded about George Washington’s slaves or hearing “land acknowledgements” about the Native Americans who once occupied the property where they live.

The core MAGA message is that all these problems are really one problem: The world feels wrong now, because people don’t know how to behave.

All the apparent problems Trump talks about are just symbols, just ways to get his hands around this larger, more ineffable problem. Illegal immigrants, terrorists, criminals, transsexuals, women who get abortions — they’re all just people who don’t know how to behave. And that’s why it doesn’t matter if he’s making up his facts or that some particular thing never really happened. People don’t know how to behave, and they make the whole world feel weird and scary That’s real.

Similarly, all the solutions he talks about are really just symbols of one solution: We need to put somebody in charge who will be strong enough to make people behave.

That’s what Tucker spelled out: Dad needs to come home, the old-fashioned kind of Dad who yells and judges and punishes. He’ll tell the bad kids they’re bad, and he’ll keep spanking them hard until they learn to be good.

And then America will be great again, like it was when all of us were children.

[1] This clip got a lot of play on social media and elsewhere, but most of the response focused on the spanking-little-girls aspect and ignored the fascist threat at the end: Even if Kamala Harris wins, MAGA will try to install its strongman.

By weeklysift | Posted in Articles | Also tagged , , | Comments (16)

Mifepristone, round 2

October 21, 2024 – 8:59 am

A previous lawsuit to ban the drug used in about half of all US abortions failed at the Supreme Court for technical reasons. But a new suit fixes those problems. It also introduces some truly weird and creepy arguments. Is it really a problem if a state’s teen pregnancy rate gets too low?

Back in June, a lawsuit asking federal courts to ban the abortion drug mifepristone was thrown out unanimously by the Supreme Court on technical grounds: The plaintiffs (mainly physicians who don’t prescribe the drug) were not sufficiently affected by mifepristone’s availability to have standing to sue. So the Court never got to the heart of the case: whether the FDA was right to declare the drug safe to use.

Naturally, that couldn’t be the end of the story, so the anti-abortion forces are back with a new suit. This time three states — Kansas, Missouri, and Idaho — are suing the FDA, attempting to reverse the FDA’s approval of mifepristone for pregnancies of 7-10 weeks. And of course the suit has been filed in Amarillo, Texas (which has no connection to either the FDA or the plaintiff states) because that’s where the plaintiffs can be guaranteed to get the most anti-abortion federal judge: Matthew Kacsmaryk, who somehow failed to see the problems with the first suit. (Anti-abortion radicals Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas could see the standing issue, but not Kacsmaryk.)

The current suit has a much better standing argument: Missouri and Idaho have “almost completely banned” abortion, but their residents sometimes get mifepristone from another state. (Abortion is legal up to 22 weeks in Kansas, so I’m not sure why it joined the suit.) They then return home to use the drug, and if there are complications they may wind up in some home-state emergency room, where Medicaid may wind up paying the bill. This costs the states money, so they have suffered an injury the courts can redress.

But in addition to that reasoning, the lawsuit also includes some weird and creepy stuff, if you read deep enough into it.

Defendants’ [i.e., the FDA’s] actions are causing a loss in potential population or potential population increase. Each abortion represents at least one lost potential or actual birth. … Defendants’ efforts enabling the remote dispensing of abortion drugs has caused abortions for women in Plaintiff States and decreased births in Plaintiff States. This is a sovereign injury to the State in itself [due to] “diminishment of political representation” and “loss of federal funds”.

OK, we get it: Missouri and Idaho have reasons to want to increase their populations, and the FDA is interfering with their power to force unwilling women be their brood mares. How dare the Feds violate states rights like that?

And then it gets even a little creepier: A study has shown that birth rates increase the further that a woman has to drive to get an abortion, and that teen-age women (15-19) should be especially affected by this. (I suspect that’s because the younger ones can’t drive and the older ones probably don’t have their own cars.) But the recent bans are not raising the teen birth rate the way they ought to.

When data is examined in a way that reflects sensitivity to expected birth rates, these estimates strikingly “do not show evidence of an increase in births to teenagers aged 15-19,” even in states with long driving distances despite the fact that “women aged 15-19 … are more responsive to driving distances to abortion facilities than older women.” The study thus concludes that “one explanation may be that younger women are more likely to navigate online abortion finders or websites ordering mail-order medication to self-manage abortions. This study thus suggests that remote dispensing of abortion drugs by mail, common carrier, and interactive computer service is depressing expected birth
rates for teenaged mothers in Plaintiff States, even if other overall birth rates may have been lower than otherwise was projected.

So in particular, the FDA is interfering with the states’ right to make teenage girls be their brood mares. I can’t emphasize this enough: One “injury” Missouri and Idaho complain about is that their teen birth rates are too low.

And there’s one set of girls the suit calls special attention to: those in the foster care system, who might be able to sneak out and get mifepristone somehow or have it mailed to them.

As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have suffered injury to their sovereign interests in enacting and enforcing their laws. Defendants … seek to displace and nullify the States’ state-law parental rights of notice and consent for abortions for teen girls in foster care.

Just picture this for a second: A girl for one reason or another has lost her birth parents. Maybe they died, or maybe they misparented in some way that caused the state to take the girl away. Either way, there’s bound to be some trauma involved.

Traumatized girls sometimes take foolish risks, and it’s also possible they might be sexually abused by a foster parent or by some other adult their foster parents didn’t watch closely enough. So unwanted pregnancies happen, and Missouri’s abortion ban has no rape or statutory rape exception. But the girl is so desperate and so determined to end the pregnancy that she might figure out how to do something about it. Being such a loving parent, however, the state wants to thwart that desire, make her carry a pregnancy for nine months, and then give birth to a child she doesn’t want.

I think if I had gone through something like that, I might be a serial killer.

What lovely, God-fearing states you’ve got there, Missouri and Idaho. (And I still can’t figure out what Kansas is doing.)

By weeklysift | Posted in Articles | Also tagged | Comments (13)

Lessons from the Haitian Fright

September 16, 2024 – 9:52 am

Many Americans are ready to believe and pass on any horrifying rumor they hear about non-White immigrants, without checking their sources or looking too hard at the evidence. Trump, Vance, and other Republican politicians have been eager to exploit this gullibility.

The Simpsons is set in Springfield because there are 35 Springfields in various states, including five in Wisconsin alone. So wherever you live, the Simpson house might be just down the road. Given this near-universality, it shouldn’t be surprising that the Trump/Vance lies about the Springfield in Ohio have grabbed public attention on both sides of our political divide. If immigrants really are stealing and eating pets in Springfield, your pets may be in danger too. Conversely, if Trump can tell such a baseless and vicious lie about Springfield, he could just as easily lie about your town, your neighbors, or even you.

It’s important to be clear from the beginning: He is lying. Everybody from the local police to the city manager to the Republican governor of Ohio has denied this pernicious internet rumor, which is a lesson in how easy it is to create “evidence” for anything. (Here’s a photo that purports to show a Haitian in Springfield carrying off two geese, presumably to eat. Actually it’s a non-Haitian in Columbus, removing two road-kill geese from the pavement.)

Lots of articles trace the rumor through right-wing sources that invented it, so I’ll cover that history only briefly: The influx of legal Haitian immigrants in recent years had created discomfort among some White Springfield citizens. During Covid, city services got stretched — as services did nearly everywhere — and some locals blamed the Haitians. In any large group, somebody will eventually do something wrong; last year, an unlicensed Haitian driver killed an 11-year-old boy (whose parents have begged the public not to use their son’s death to fan hatred). That created an exploitable opportunity for neo-Nazi groups like Blood Pride, which began targeting Springfield with negative disinformation about the immigrants. From there, stories multiplied until the eating-dogs-and-cats rumor got started. It spread mainly online, and not so much by word-of-mouth in Springfield itself. Then J. D. Vance picked it up, from which it got to Trump.

If you want more detail, I can recommend a post on Justin Ling’s blog Bug-Eyed and Shameless, which relates the story to the Irish Fright of 1688, when tens of thousands of panicked Englishmen barricaded bridges and crossroads to stop the advance of marauding Irish troops, who in fact did not exist.

The Irish Fright didn’t make it into my high-school history texts, but maybe it should have. There’s a lot to learn from what what 19th-century historian Charles Mackay famously dubbed “extraordinary popular delusions“.

How racism manifests. To begin with, the Haitian Fright of 2024 provides a teaching opportunity about racism. I am constantly seeing accounts from White people online and on television, who believe they are not racist because they don’t internally experience what they imagine racism to be: a blind and senseless hatred of other races. “I don’t hate anyone,” they claim, and believe that they are telling the truth.

But the Haitian Fright points out a more subtle and widespread kind of racism: a propensity to believe (and even pass on) negative stories about other races without requiring evidence. A sudden influx of Scots or Danes could have put just as big a strain Springfield’s schools and hospitals, but I doubt we’d be hearing stories about them eating cats.

A similar lesson can be drawn from the Birther controversy of the Obama years (where Trump also was a major player). Many Whites were eager to believe that Barack Obama wasn’t a legitimate president, so they credited any justification for that belief, no matter how flimsy. The birther story served to mediate their racism: They could deny that they disapproved of Obama’s presidency because he was Black, and instead disapprove because he wasn’t really an American. But they believed that evidence-free claim because he was Black.

Myths about immigration. Similarly, many Americans claim that they don’t object to immigrants per se, but only to illegal immigrants. If people would only come to America “the right way, like my ancestors did”, they would be welcomed.

Personally, my ancestors arrived in the United States from Germany in the mid-1800s. And yes, they did come “the right way”, but at the time there was no wrong way. Other than occasional quarantines for health reasons, the US had few restrictions on immigration prior to the openly racist Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

You know who else is here the right way? The Haitians in Springfield. They qualify for a program known as “temporary protected status“, which provides legal status to people from countries which (because of either natural disaster or political unrest) are not safe to return to. Others came “as part of a parole program that allows citizens and lawful residents to apply to have their family members from Haiti come to the United States”.

And Springfield is lucky to have them. Governor DeWine said yesterday:

Here’s what we do know, though. What we know is that the Haitians who are in Springfield are legal. They came to Springfield to work. Ohio is on the move, and Springfield has really made a great resurgence with a lot of companies coming in. The Haitians came in to work for these companies. What the companies tell us is that they are very good workers. They’re happy to have them there. And frankly, that has helped the economy.

This matches an observation Deborah and James Fallows made in their book Our Towns, about their travels across America, particularly in the section about Dodge City, Kansas: One key difference between small towns that are dying and those that are thriving is that the thriving towns are welcoming immigrants rather than discouraging them.

Governor DeWine had previously mentioned his own trips to Haiti and observed:

[I]n Haiti education is prized. So when you look at all of these things, people who want to work, people who value their kids, who value education, you know, these are positive influences on our community in Springfield, and any comment about that otherwise, I think, is hurtful and is not helpful to the city of Springfield and the people of Springfield.

In short, whatever you may think you want out of immigrants — legal status, work ethic, family values … anything other than white skin and speaking English since birth — the Haitians of Springfield have it.

Another complaint I’ve run into is that the Biden administration “sent” the Haitians to Springfield. Here’s J. D. Vance:

Kamala Harris dropped 20,000 Haitian migrants into a small Ohio town and chaos has ensued.

But like any person with legal status in the US, the Haitians can go where they like. They weren’t “sent” or “dropped”, they came to Springfield looking for work and a low cost of living.

Thousands of new jobs had been created [in Springfield], thanks to a successful effort by the city’s leadership and Chamber of Commerce to attract new business to Springfield, which sits between Columbus and Dayton. Once a manufacturing hub, Springfield saw its economy shrink after factories closed and jobs migrated overseas. By about 2015, its population had dwindled to under 60,000, from about 80,000 in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Companies that set up shop, however, confronted a dire labor shortage.

Haitians in Florida, Haiti and South America heard from friends and family about Springfield and its need for workers. They began arriving to take jobs in warehouses, manufacturing and the service sector, and employers urged the new workers to encourage other Haitians to join them.

We often hear how jarring it must be for a town of 60,000 to accommodate 15,000-or-so new residents. But few note that the immigrants are simply restoring Springfield to its historic size. They are making Springfield great again.

Consequences. History teaches that lies can lead to violence, particularly when they make a group of people seem monstrous or subhuman. The pet-eating lie has been likened to the blood libel against Jews, which often circulated prior to pogroms. According to the libel, Jews needed the blood of Christian children to ritually prepare matzah for Passover. So any child who went missing prior to Passover could spark a bloody attack on a town’s Jews.

Often associated with the Middle Ages, a blood libel pogrom happened as recently as 1946 in Poland. Forty-two newly returned Holocaust survivors were killed.

The pet-eating lie has not yet led to any murders in Springfield. But a series of bomb threats followed Trump’s outburst at Tuesday’s debate. City hall had to be shut down on Thursday. Friday, a middle school closed and two elementary schools had to be evacuated. Saturday, two hospitals went into lockdown. Two local colleges have temporarily shut down in-person classes. I can only imagine the bullying that Haitian children are experiencing in schools all over the country.

Thank you, Mr. Trump.

Trump has expressed no remorse and repeated the lie Friday in California, long after it had been widely debunked. On talk shows Sunday, J. D. Vance simultaneously acknowledged that the stories are false while justifying his own role in continuing to spread them.

On Sunday, Ohio’s junior senator was pressed by journalists as to why the Trump campaign was spreading a claim it could provide no evidence for beyond the anecdotal “I heard it on television” excuse Trump himself gave during the debate.

On CNN, he seemingly admitted that his claims were lies, then continued by saying that he would keep spreading such tales, even knowing them to be untrue, if they resulted in the media talking about issues he claimed were still just as real despite the deception.

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” said the senator.

It is worth pointing out that even though non-citizens can’t vote, anyone legally in the State of Ohio is Vance’s constituent. (That’s why congressional districts are distributed according to total population rather than the number of citizens, a provision Republicans are trying to overturn.) He has a responsibility to them whether he recognizes it or not.

Vance’s interviews point out something else: He and Trump are often accused of “falling for” the pet-eating lie, as if the problem were simply their gullibility in the face of an internet conspiracy theory. But they haven’t fallen for anything. They looked for a hateful lie they could tell about immigrants, and they found one.

What is a joke? The internet is now full of cat-and-dog-eating memes, most of which are intended to be humorous. Both sides are spreading them with very different motives. For Democrats, the lie is so unbelievable that people who are taken in by it deserve to be laughed at. That’s why many of my liberal friends have shared The Kiffness’ musical version of Trump’s debate lines. The song doesn’t explicitly criticize Trump, but does make him seem ridiculous.

Meanwhile, Republicans are indulging in bully-humor, as they so often do. By posting a cat-eating meme with three laugh-till-I-cry emojis, Ted Cruz can promote cruelty towards immigrants while hiding behind a veneer of comedy. When challenged, he is undoubtedly saying, “It’s a joke! Doesn’t anybody have a sense of humor any more?”

The problem, of course, is that not everyone agrees that it’s a joke. Many on the internet still take the Haitian Fright seriously, and virtually no Republicans are condemning Trump for promoting it. (Even Governor DeWine has stopped short of faulting Trump or specifically asking him to stop.) And even if they did agree, jokes can still be cruel.

As for the liberal memes, I have changed my mind several times. Yes, Trump deserves to be ridiculed for this. And yet I find myself agreeing with media studies scholar Whitney Phillips:

While Phillips said she doesn’t begrudge people “having fun online,” she warned that liberals who think they’re cutting Trump down to size risk giving oxygen to a trope that ultimately plays into his hands — and endangers the Haitians who were its original targets.

“When you’re making a joke using the frame” of immigrants as cultural invaders, she said, even if you’re pushing back on it, “the frame is still amplified.”

By weeklysift | Posted in Articles | Also tagged , | Comments (8)

This week’s legal decisions

June 17, 2024 – 9:24 am

A temporary victory for abortion pills, the effective legalization of machine guns, and lower court protection for families with trans children. Meanwhile, continued stalling to protect Donald Trump from prosecution.

We’re getting near the end of the Supreme Court’s term, so the rulings will come hot and heavy for the rest of the month. Several important cases are still pending, but a few decisions came in this week.

The abortion pill mifepristone got a reprieve. As I’ve explained in the past, there is a federal district around Amarillo where cases are wired to go in front of a Christian nationalist judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, and go from there to the nation’s most conservative appeals court, the Fifth. In the spring of 2023, anti-abortion groups (established in Amarillo precisely to take advantage of this legal pipeline) targeted mifepristone, the drug used in more than half of abortions nationally.

Predictably, Kacsmaryk suspended the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, effectively banning it nationally. That decision was partially reversed by the Fifth Circuit, and then totally stayed by the Supreme Court, pending its own decision. (So far, no one has been prevented from using mifepristone in states where it would otherwise be permitted.)

There are many ways to reverse Kacsmaryk’s decision, because it is baseless both legally and scientifically. Vox described the scientific situation like this:

The case has virtually no scientific merit, and challenging the use of a drug that has been studied and safely used for over two decades is highly unusual. Jack Resneck Jr., the president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement Friday night that Kacsmaryk’s “disregard for well-established scientific facts in favor of speculative allegations and ideological assertions will cause harm to our patients and undermines the health of the nation.”

But the Court decided not to go there. Instead, it pointed to the legal ridiculousness of the lawsuit: The plaintiffs have no standing to sue. [1]

As was obvious from the beginning, these plaintiffs — primarily doctors who don’t prescribe mifepristone — have no standing. They made up, and two levels of federal courts accepted, a ridiculous explanation of how mifepristone harms them: On the rare occasions when mifepristone fails, a woman caught in the middle of a miscarriage might show up on their doorsteps or emergency rooms, and they might have to do a procedure they morally object to in order to save her life.

Putting aside the issue of how any principle requiring a doctor to do nothing while he watches a woman die can be considered “moral”, Justice Kavanaugh (writing for a rare 9-0 Court) noted that federal conscience protections already protect the doctors, so they are not injured. So the suit should never have been heard in the first place. Slate’s Dahlia Lithwich and Mark Joseph Stern comment:

A doctor who opposes abortion, the court affirmed, may stand by and watch a patient bleed out rather than treat her in contravention of his conscience. Ironically, then, an anti-abortion statute that protects anti-abortion doctors played a key role in defeating the plaintiffs’ claim. Their own lavish safeguards against terminating a pregnancy—or even just treating a patient who already terminated a pregnancy—helped defeat their attempt to pull mifepristone off the market.

They go on to observe:

Yet the decision was not a total defeat for anti-abortion activists. Among other things, Kavanaugh slipped language into his opinion that could expand protections for physicians who refuse to provide emergency abortions, potentially imperiling the lives of patients.

The Court’s ruling also left open the fundamental issue — whether the FDA was right (or within its legal authority) to approve mifepristone at all. The most likely course forward from here is that new plaintiffs with different explanations of why they are not busybodies will pick up the suit, and the whole circus will start again.

One path flows from a brief line near the end of the Alliance opinion: “[I]t is not clear that no one else would have standing to challenge FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone.” Last January, Kacsmaryk ruled that three red states — Idaho, Missouri, and Kansas — could join this lawsuit and press the claim that mifepristone should be banned. 

It is far from clear how these states are injured by the mere fact that mifepristone is legal. But Kacsmaryk’s (and the Fifth Circuit’s) behavior in this case and others shows that he’s willing to bend the law into pretzels in order to rule against abortion rights. It is likely, in other words, that Kacsmaryk will simply make up some reason why the red states have standing to sue and then issue a new order attempting to ban mifepristone.

In other words, this isn’t over. Another path forward is that Trump could win the election and instruct the FDA to rescind its approval or impose new restrictions on mifepristone’s use, or reinterpret the Comstock Act of 1873 to prevent distribution of mifepristone by mail. Good luck getting a straight answer out of him on those questions.

It’s now legal to alter your AR-15 to function as a machine gun. If you’ve ever watched a gangster movie set in the Al Capone era, you’ve seen the destructive power of that era’s submachine guns, the weapon of choice in the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929.

Responding to that problem, Congress made tommy guns and other fully automatic weapons illegal for civilian use in the National Firearms Act of 1934. By 2002, though, a new technology had inserted a loophole in that ban: the bump stock. A bump stock is an add-on piece of equipment that uses a semiautomatic rifle’s recoil to release and pull the trigger over and over again, so that the shooter’s experience resembles firing a machine gun.

Most explanations of bump stocks available on the internet are by pro- or anti-gun activists, and so should be taken with a grain of salt. However, this one comes from a general how-things-work channel, Zack Nelson’s JerryRigEverything. The video was made while bump stocks were legal.

Zack refuses to state an opinion on whether bump stocks should be legal or not, saying ambiguously: “Personally, I think guns are a great hobby, but not everyone in the world is sane.”

Most people had never heard of bump stocks until the Las Vegas massacre of 2017, when a gunman used one to fire more than 1,000 rounds down on a crowd gathered for a music festival. He killed 60 and wounded over 400, with an almost equal number injured in the stampede of people trying to get to safety. (Like tommy guns, bump-stocked AR-15s aren’t very accurate, making them poor sniper weapons. But if you’re firing at thousands of people, accuracy isn’t that important.) To the untrained ear, audio from the massacre certainly sounds like somebody is firing a fully automatic weapon. (For what it’s worth, real gun people claim otherwise, that a fully automatic machine gun fires even faster.)

Responding to public outrage, the Trump administration Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) changed its interpretation of the NFA’s machine gun ban, ruling that a bump stock converted a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic weapon, and so was illegal. That ruling was challenged in court, and the case has taken six years to make it to the Supreme Court.

Friday, the Court struck down the bump stock ban in a ruling that split 6-3 along the usual ideological divide. The majority opinion was written by the corrupt Justice Clarence Thomas [2]. It centers on the exact definition of “machinegun” in the NFA:

any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

Thomas goes on to focus on the “function of the trigger” in its mechanical sense: As far as the gun is concerned, its trigger is being pulled once for each shot. In her dissent, Justice Sonya Sotomayor focuses on the experience of the shooter, who pulls the trigger once and keeps his finger stationary as the gun bucks back and forth against it. The Congress of 1934, I suspect, intended to focus on the experience of the victims, but they didn’t phrase the law that way, so here we are.

In an ideal world, it’s obvious what would happen next: Congress would say “oops” and would amend the NFA based on some other criteria, like perhaps the rate of fire. That’s what President Biden wants [3], and what Justice Alito’s concurrence suggests, perhaps disingenuously.

There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.

The reason I suggest Alito’s recommendation might not be completely serious is that he knows his right-wing allies won’t allow this to happen. I would be amazed if Speaker Johnson allowed even the narrowest possible bump-stock ban to make it to the House floor for a vote, and Republicans would almost certainly filibuster such a bill in the Senate.

Sunday, possible Trump VP Senator Tim Scott dodged taking any position on a bump stock ban, while another Trump VP hopeful from the House, Byron Donalds went full gaslight:

A bump stock does not cause anybody to be shot in the United States. That is the shooter that does that.

Donalds might want to explain that to the families of the Las victims, many of whom would probably be alive if the shooter had not been able to use a bump stock. It’s also worth pointing out that Donalds’ logic justifies legalizing any weapon, no matter how destructive. After all, nuclear weapons don’t destroy cities, people destroy cities.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Republican Party’s lord and savior, convicted felon Donald Trump, for once expressed faith in our justice system.

The court has spoken and their decision should be respected.

This pattern is not a coincidence: If you make Congress dysfunctional and unresponsive to the people, and then interpret the laws and the powers of agencies like the ATF strictly, the result is that when technology changes, old regulations lapse and can’t be updated. That’s not some unfortunate bit of happenstance; it’s two sides of the same strategy. Today it results in the effective legalization of machine guns. Tomorrow the loophole will be in the Clean Air Act or the antitrust rules. When the laws stand still, malefactors adapt.

Gender-affirming care. In an important lower-court case, a judge found a Florida law banning gender-affirming care for minors to be unconstitutional. This ruling differs from the case of a similar Alabama law, which was upheld by the 11th Circuit appeals court (where this case is headed) in that Judge Robert Hinkle found malice on the part of the legislature. That issue wasn’t raised in the Alabama case.

The plaintiffs have shown that animus motivated a sufficient number of statutory decisionmakers.

Judge Hinkle found that “gender identity is real” and is distinct from an individual’s “external sexual characteristics and chromosomes”. He also noted that the treatments at issue — puberty blockers and hormones like estrogen and testosterone [4] — are legal in Florida for other purposes.

[C]onsider a child that a physician wishes to treat with GnRH agonists to delay the onset of puberty. Is the treatment legal or illegal? To know the answer, one must know whether the child is cisgender or transgender. The treatment is legal if the child is cisgender but illegal if the child is transgender, because the statute prohibits GnRH agonists only for transgender children, not for anyone else.

If these treatments have risks, parents of non-trans kids (in consultation with doctors) are allowed to judge those risks for themselves. But in trans cases, the state’s judgment prevails.

Susan Doe, Gavin Goe, and Mr. Hamel have obtained appropriate medical care. Qualified professionals have properly evaluated their medical conditions and needs in accordance with the well-established standards of care. The minors, to the extent of their limited ability, and their parents, and Mr. Hamel, all in consultation with the treating professionals, have determined that the benefits of their gender-affirming care will outweigh the risks. The parents’ and Mr. Hamel’s ability to evaluate the benefits and risks of this treatment in their individual circumstances far exceeds the ability of the State of Florida to do so.

Judge Hinkle found a motive for the State of Florida assuming the power to overrule parental and medical judgment:

The defendants [i.e., the State of Florida] have explicitly admitted that prohibiting or impeding individuals from pursuing their transgender identities is not a legitimate state interest. But the record shows beyond any doubt that a significant number of legislators and others involved in the adoption of the statute and rules at issue pursued this admittedly illegitimate interest.

The ruling quotes numerous statements by legislators or Governor DeSantis that show animus, such as referring to transgender witnesses at hearings as “mutants” and “demons”, denying the reality of gender identity, or exaggerating gender-affirming care by talking about “castrating” young boys. The fact that no one supporting the anti-care bill contested these statements, according to the judge, was evidence that such sentiments were widespread in the legislature.

Trump’s immunity. The Court continues to sit on the apparently simple issue of Donald Trump’s absolute-immunity claim, which has been rejected by every lower-court judge who heard it. By taking the case and refusing to rule promptly, the Court has made it all-but-certain that no trial can be held prior to the election on Trump’s plot to stay in power after losing in 2020. Without the Court’s interference, the public would already have heard testimony under oath from key witnesses like Mike Pence and Mark Meadows.

Particularly given the apparent bias of Justices Alito (whose home and vacation home were the site for pro-insurrection flags) and Thomas (whose wife traded texts with Mark Meadows to encourage resistance to accepting the will of the voters), it’s hard to see the Court’s actions as anything other than an attempt to put its thumb on the scale to Trump’s benefit.

My prediction is that the immunity ruling will come out on the second-to-last day of the term. Putting it last would underline the Court’s intent to delay justice, so the conservative majority will probably sacrifice a day or two of delay to avoid that poor appearance.

[1] Standing is one of the basic concepts of civil lawsuits: A court can only rule on a situation if a suit is brought by someone actually affected. For example, I can’t sue for divorce on behalf of one of my friends, no matter how convinced I am that she needs to be out of that marriage. Requiring that a plaintiff have standing is basically a no-busybodies rule.

[2] I am going to use the word corrupt whenever Thomas’ name comes up until he is either removed from the Court or is called to account in some other way. This week we found out that Thomas has received even more billionaire gifts than the $4 million that were previously known.

Thomas claims these gifts are not bribes, but fall into a loophole for gifts from “friends”. However, Thomas’ rich friends are right-wing donors he had never met before joining the Court.

So as far as this blog is concerned, “corrupt Justice Clarence Thomas” is his full name.

[3] Biden would also like to see an assault weapon ban in that amended bill, but is likely to sign a smaller reform if he gets the chance.

[4] Gender-affirming surgeries on minors, according to the judge, “are extraordinarily rare and are not involved in this litigation.”

By weeklysift | Posted in Articles | Also tagged , | Comments (13)

Wide Right: that kicker’s commencement speech

May 20, 2024 – 8:58 am

Let’s not do to Harrison Butker what Trump did to Colin Kaepernick.

As you’ve no doubt already heard, last Saturday a football player (Kansas City Chief kicker Harrison Butker) gave the commencement address at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas. Much has been said and written about this speech, and there’s a petition asking the Chiefs to “dismiss Harrison Butker immediately for his inappropriate conduct”. Last I heard, more than 200K people had signed.

I try to know what I’m talking about before I write, so I watched the full speech on YouTube. (You can also read a transcript.) It’s a very traditional Catholic talk, including a lengthy endorsement of the Latin mass, so if you feel wounded by a Catholic upbringing (as many people I know do), you shouldn’t torture yourself with it.

That said, I would not sign the petition, because taking away someone’s livelihood is a big deal and should be reserved for more serious offenses.

Here’s what I think should happen: People who disagree with Butker and find themselves at a game where he takes the field should feel free to boo loudly. If you have access to any public platform, from your own TV show to a window-facing whiteboard, it would also be appropriate to make fun of him mercilessly. (Here’s an example to get you started.) I don’t know if he endorses any products, but if he does you can boycott them. All those actions just exercise the same freedoms he claims for himself.

So far, the Chiefs have said nothing and the NFL has distanced itself from his message without threatening any sanctions. That, again, is their right.

Of course, this response is nothing like what happened to Colin Kaepernick, whose NFL career ended prematurely after he knelt during the national anthem to protest racism. (Kaepernick’s unofficial shunning by teams who needed quarterbacks accorded with then-President Trump’s demand to “get that son of a bitch off the field.“) That gross injustice should not be forgotten — and in fact this is a good time to remember it — but dealing out a similar injustice to Butker will not right that wrong.

Anyway, here’s why I think Butker should not be punished beyond verbal humiliation: Benedictine College is a Catholic college that in recent years has moved to embrace traditional Catholic teachings and values. Students presumably choose to go there at least partially for that reason (though not all the graduates approved of Butker’s speech, and neither did the Benedictine Sisters associated with the College who said: “We reject a narrow definition of what it means to be Catholic”). Butker told the graduates, in essence, that they should feel good about what their school stands for. Places like Benedictine, he said, “are showing the world how an ordered, Christ-centered existence is the recipe for success.”

I have a lot of tolerance for religious groups making their case positively, as in “This is what we’re doing and it works for us. You should try it.” For the most part, that’s what the Benedictine College leadership seemed to be looking for and what Butker provided. At the end, he got a standing ovation.

Of course, Butker’s speech also included a lot annoyed me, beginning with his fairly snide remarks about “bad policies and poor leadership” during “the Covid fiasco”, which he seemed (without naming names) to attribute to Anthony Fauci but not Donald Trump (whose negligence is implicated in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans). He talked about the importance of Catholics “staying in their lane”, but did not seem to do so when he criticized unnamed bishops. He denounced the “tyranny of diversity, equity, and inclusion”, and referred to “the deadly sin sort of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it”, i.e. gay pride.

He also spoke for his wife, telling “the ladies” what she “would” say about her choice to embrace her vocation as a homemaker rather than pursue her dream of having a career. For all I know he may be totally right about her lack of regret, but couldn’t he have asked her directly and then quoted her exact words, rather than ask himself and imagine her response? I was left to wonder (perhaps unfairly) how many opinions Mrs. Butker is allowed to have.

Mainly, though, he did what defenders of tradition so often do: justify a system in which he himself is privileged. Billionaires extol the virtues of low taxes, white Supreme Court justices tell us why laws protecting non-Whites are no longer needed, and Butker explains that

As men, we set the tone of the culture, and when that is absent, disorder, dysfunction, and chaos set in.

Yes, we men are being totally selfless when we demand to set the tone of the culture. We only do it so that society will be spared the chaos that would inevitably ensue if our God-given authority were ever questioned.

You’re welcome, ladies.

By weeklysift | Posted in Articles | Also tagged | Comments (11)

Republicans Scramble to Contain Their Abortion Disaster

April 15, 2024 – 10:20 am

Trump’s let-the-states-decide statement looked clever until Arizona actually decided.

All across the country, the abortion issue has been helping Democrats and hurting Republicans.

For decades it worked the other way: Pro-choice women were confident the Supreme Court would protect their rights, so they mostly ignored the extreme positions Republican politicians took and based their votes on other issues. But since the Dobbs decision reversed Roe v Wade last year, the intentions of elected officials matter again.

After taking their lumps in the 2022 elections, Republican politicians have been trying to figure out how to finesse the issue. How do they avoid the ire of female voters without alienating their personhood-at-conception base? Last fall, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin thought he had the formula: a “compromise” abortion ban at 15 weeks. But that idea went down in flames as Republicans lost control of the Virginia legislature.

Trump also has been searching for an answer. For a while he also toyed with a 15-week ban, but then last week he stalled for time, saying he’d make a statement this week. I was skeptical about this, because Trump often says he’s going to do something and then doesn’t. But in fact he did make a statement on Monday.

I don’t usually post Trump videos, but I think you need to see this to appreciate just how far off-the-rails this guy has gone. To start with, his make-up is comical; he almost looks like he’s wearing blackface. Then there are the obvious, how-stupid-do-you-think-we-are lies about how “all legal scholars, both sides, wanted and in fact demanded” the end of Roe, and Democrats “support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month”. (In fact, Biden supports restoring the pre-Dobbs status quo, which drew a line at viability, i.e. 24-28 weeks. More radical people, like me, want the government to butt out completely and let women decide how to handle their own problem pregnancies. But describing that view as “support” for abortion is dishonest. I, for one, am neutral on abortion; I have never tried to persuade a woman to get one.)

But the gist of the statement is that Trump is proud of engineering the conservative Supreme Court majority that decided Dobbs, and he doesn’t want to take any public position beyond letting the states (and not women together with their families and doctors) decide when abortion is permissible. He later said he wouldn’t sign a federal abortion ban if Congress presented him with one. (But then, Trump says a lot of things, and most of them turn out not to be true. When he was president, he claimed his tax plan wouldn’t help the rich. But when Paul Ryan gave him a plan that focused most of its benefits on the rich, he signed it. And we’re still waiting to see the “terrific” health care plan he promised in 2015. )

He’s also proud of being opportunistic on the issue.

You must follow your heart on this issue. But remember: You must also win elections.

That let-the-states-decide position looked clever for about a day. But then a state decided: Tuesday, Arizona’s Supreme Court reinstated an 1864 law banning all abortions that aren’t necessary to save a woman’s life. (In the previous post, I explain why I believe this is a correct reading of a horrible legal situation. It’s the legislature, not the court, that should never have allowed this to happen.)

Then Trump had to scramble: He said Arizona went too far, and predicted the situation would be “straightened out”. Arizona’s mini-Trump, Senate candidate Kari Lake, completely reversed her position. Previously, she had specifically endorsed the 1864 law (by its number in the legal code). But now she says

I oppose today’s ruling, and I am calling on Katie Hobbs and the State Legislature to come up with an immediate common sense solution that Arizonans can support.

So far as I know, this is the first time Lake has admitted that Katie Hobbs (who defeated Lake in 2022) is indeed governor. I also love the invocation of “common sense solution”, a conservative buzz phrase Sarah Palin popularized: It’s a placeholder. You’re supposed to insert whatever position you think makes sense, and then imagine Lake said that.

But Lake hasn’t said anything. As of this moment, neither Lake nor Trump (nor any other Republican who either has real power or is running to get it) has made an actual proposal to fix Arizona’s draconian abortion law. When it comes time to govern — and not just posture — that’s what you need to do: put a real proposal on paper and vote it up or down, knowing that you’ll make some people unhappy.

Are any Republicans, at either the state or national levels, ready to govern? That’s what the coming weeks will tell us.

By weeklysift | Posted in Articles | Also tagged , , | Comments (3)

A Different Take on Retro Conservative Fantasy

April 15, 2024 – 8:54 am

Sometimes unrealistic fantasies raise questions that deserve serious answers.

The Washington Post’s “Tradwives, SAHGs and the dream of feminine leisure” is one of those rare articles that is way more interesting than its apparent topic. OK, there’s a “tradwife” trend of sorts: social media influencers who style themselves as classic 1950s housewives, and a parallel group of stay-at-home girlfriends (or what we used to call “kept women”). But this “trend” doesn’t represent all that many women, and you probably don’t need a major newspaper to tell you what to think about them. After all, if women had been happy in these kinds of roles, second-wave feminism would never have caught on.

But Monica Hesse takes a much more interesting approach. She doesn’t analyze tradwifery as a serious option, as in “Were women really happier before feminism?”. Instead, she approaches that vision for what it is: a fantasy. “I dream of feminine leisure”, say many of the tradwives and SAHGs. And then Hesse asks why that dream might be beguiling.

Her down-to-earth answer is simple: Life is hard these days.

The fact of the matter is that almost nobody who works for a living has the time they wish they did to look, feel or be their best, much less to cultivate a highly aesthetic relationship with a thing called ease.

What if the problem is not feminism but capitalism — specifically the American version, where work-life balance is a punchline? What if instead of 11 paid vacation days, as the average American gets, these women got the full month that is standard in the United Kingdom? What if instead of five (or six or seven) days a week, they worked the four days that countries such as South Africa and Belgium are piloting? Would that allow enough time to do a full skin-care regimen and pack a great suitcase? If college weren’t so ghastly expensive here, maybe that one lady’s daughter wouldn’t be so keen on the patriarchy as a route to leisure that bypasses the long, uphill road to financial independence.

It wasn’t fair when women had no choice to stay home. It’s not fair if women are working but are still doing the work of maintaining a home. It’s not fair if both men and women are trying to juggle it together and are still finding that there aren’t enough hours or dollars in a day.

Who wouldn’t dream of feminine leisure?

To her credit, Hesse also imagines the male side of this fantasy: Who wouldn’t want to return from work each evening to find a home in perfect order, dinner on the table, and a well-rested spouse ready to draw you into the “ease” she has been cultivating all day? (Now you just need a willing partner and a senior-vice-president salary to pay for it all.)

Hesse’s article expresses a point of view that could generalize: Maybe we’re approaching retro conservative fantasies all wrong. At root, most of them aren’t really about then, they’re critiques of now: Why does life have to be so hard? Why is it so hard to pay for college? To get a career started? To find a serious relationship partner and stay together? To afford a home? To fit children into the equation and offer them at least as good a chance as you had?

Maybe people who are trying to wish their way out of this box deserve our empathy rather than our condemnation. The various retro fantasies they indulge may not be fact-based or workable in practice, but at least they address the question: Life wouldn’t be so hard if some sugar daddy would take care of me. Or if immigrants and minorities hadn’t stolen my place in line. Or if everybody went back to Jesus. Or if the government stopped sending our money overseas. Or if we had a strong-man leader who could make our country great again (whatever era “again” is supposed to point to).

Maybe the best liberal response isn’t a screed about the evils of sexism or xenophobia or authoritarianism. Maybe we should skip past the specifics and give our own answer to the underlying question: Why is life so hard these days?

We do have such an answer, one that I believe is far more realistic and supportable than anything conservatives offer: Life is hard because sometime in the late 1970s, the US scrapped the controls that kept the rich from capturing all the growth in the economy.

We scrapped antitrust enforcement, so as a consumer you have to take whatever deal monopolies offer you. (The endless “choices” you face at the mall are often just different tentacles of the same octopus.) We scrapped unions, so as a worker you have no negotiating power. And we changed the tax system so that whatever the rich capture, they keep. The result is this graph, which every American voter should be able to draw on a napkin.

If hourly compensation had kept up, the average Americans would make more than double what they do now. So you could afford a one-income household, if that’s what your family wanted. Or you could save up for year-long sabbaticals and return to the workplace with new vision and energy. Or you could retire at 50 and see the world.

Corporate talking heads may denounce this point of view as “class warfare” or “socialism”, but such name-calling isn’t really a refutation. And it is nostalgic in a manner of speaking, but the point isn’t to recreate some past era; it’s to get back to the trends that held in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s, when economic gains were widely shared.

By weeklysift | Posted in Articles | Also tagged | Comments (15)

The Supreme Court will have to carry this case to term

April 1, 2024 – 9:32 am

The mifepristone suit from Amarillo is so embarrassingly bad that even the Court’s conservative majority can’t justify doing what it wants.

The anti-abortion-pill case that right-wing culture-war groups primed to get to the Supreme Court got to the Supreme Court. Oral arguments happened Tuesday, and did not go nearly as well as anti-abortion groups probably imagined when they filed the case. Even Amy Coney Barrett seemed skeptical.

There probably won’t be a decision until June, so there’s no sense going into great detail now. But there are a couple of things worth noting:

  • When you grease the way for a case to make it to the Supreme Court, you wind up with a greasy Supreme Court case. Legally, this was a bad argument that never should have come this far, and even some conservative justices seemed embarrassed by it.
  • US courts continue to entertain notions of “Christian conscience” that are so expansive as to be passive aggressive. The rest of us are expected to change our lives so that right-wing Christians can have a buffer zone around extensions of “conscience” they have intentionally constructed to control us.

I explained the greased slide that brought this case to the Supreme Court back when the case was first being heard in Amarillo, almost exactly a year ago: The Northern District of Texas, which contains Amarillo, has one judge who hears just about all the cases. That judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, is a right-wing culture warrior who can be counted on to rule in the “right” way, independent of facts or the law. The Northern District sits inside Fifth Circuit, whose appellate court is not quite as lawless as Kacsmaryk, but has a similar right-wing bias and will not examine his rulings too closely.

So in this case, foes of abortion rights incorporated their group in Amarillo precisely so they could file their suit in Kacsmaryk’s court. (The Judicial Conference has since changed the rules to limit this kind of judge shopping.) Kacsmaryk did his part and issued a nationwide injunction stopping the sale of mifepristone. The 5th circuit cut that injunction down a little, leaving mifepristone legal but limiting the possibilities for prescribing it. The Supreme Court previously stayed both rulings pending its own examination of the injunction.

That’s what they were discussing Tuesday.

The big reason the case should never have come this far is the plaintiffs’ lack of standing. In non-legalese, they can’t show how the availability of mifepristone harms them, so there’s no injury for the court to try to correct.

According to the doctors, their concrete injury is that someone might take mifepristone, might experience medical complications, might go to the hospital for care, and then the physicians in question might have to complete the abortion despite their moral objections to doing so.

Standing is supposed to be real, not speculative. The injury is supposed to be either happening, or so close to happening that it seems bound to happen without an injunction. A maybe-maybe-maybe argument doesn’t give you standing. There’s a good reason for this requirement: Otherwise, judges could make pronouncements about any topic that interested them, and the awesome power our system gives the courts could be abused.

A lot of articles have covered the case’s standing issue. But I was pleased to see Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern raise the passive aggression issue in Slate. (They don’t use that terminology, which I started using in 2013.) Under questioning, plaintiff lawyer Erin Hawley (wife of the famously swift senator) made an even stronger claim than the quote above would imply. When you read “complete the abortion”, you probably pictured a woman taking mifepristone, her body starting to eject the fetus, but not quite succeeding in getting it out. She might then show up in an emergency room, where an ER doctor opposed to abortion might have to complete the removal of a fetus that is doomed but not yet entirely dead.

However, that grisly scenario is exceedingly unlikely. A far more likely complication (still rather uncommon) is that the woman takes mifepristone, miscarries, but then doesn’t stop bleeding afterward. In this scenario, the abortion is over, the fetus is dead, and now an ER doctor needs to treat a bleeding woman.

The plaintiffs don’t want to, because patching up a woman who has taken a drug to give herself an abortion would make them “complicit” in the abortion.

Hawley … then approached the lectern and cleared up any confusion: Yes, she insisted, treating a patient who has undergone a medication abortion violates the conscience of the plaintiff physicians even if there is no “live” fetus or embryo to terminate anymore. “Completing an elective abortion means removing an embryo fetus, whether or not they’re alive, as well as placental tissue,” Hawley told Kagan. So the plaintiffs don’t object just to taking a “life.” They also object to the mere act of removing leftover tissue, even from the placenta.

Of course, these doctors must remove “dead” fetal tissue and placentas all the time—from patients who experienced a spontaneous miscarriage. By their own admission, the plaintiffs regularly help women complete miscarriages through surgery or medication. Those women they will gladly treat. Other women, though—the ones who induced their own miscarriage via medication—are too sinful to touch. Before the plaintiffs can administer even lifesaving emergency treatment, they need to know the circumstances of this pregnancy loss: Spontaneous miscarriages are OK; medication abortions are not.

It’s impossible to imagine this logic being accepted in any non-abortion circumstance. Suppose a guy gets drunk and drives his car into a tree. When he shows up in the ER, would a doctor (maybe from a religious sect that forbids alcohol) refuse to treat him in order to avoid being complicit in his drunk driving? ERs don’t work that way. In any other circumstance, injured people show up and get treatment. The guy who stitches up participants in a barroom brawl doesn’t need to know what started it or who was right.

It is a twisted line of logic, one that should never have reached the Supreme Court in the first place. But it is also a product of the court’s past indulgence of outlandish claims about moral “complicity.” … All this is reminiscent of Little Sisters of the Poor, a case about a Catholic charitable group that was afforded an exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate. The Little Sisters were asked to check a box signaling to the government that they could not comply with the mandate, at which point the government would step in to cover their employees. But the Little Sisters refused, viewing this action—the checking of a box to opt out of coverage—as “complicity” in abortion because it would in turn trigger government payment for contraception (which they viewed as abortifacients). The Supreme Court and the Trump administration ultimately indulged the Little Sisters’ claim.

It may violate conservative political correctness to say so, but the Little Sisters were just being assholes in that suit. They invented an extravagant claim of conscience in order to screw up ObamaCare and interfere in other women’s lives.

Refusing to bake cakes or make web sites for same-sex weddings (other situations the Supreme Court has treated seriously) are similar examples of passive aggression. Going far beyond any legitimate Christian concern, such cases involve constructing an enormous hypersensitive conscience that will feel “complicit” in anyone’s behavior that it fails to control. Making the world safe for such a construction restricts the freedom of everyone else.

No non-Christian religious group would be allowed to do this. And Christians will keep extending such notions of “complicity” until courts tell them to stop. That should have happened a long time ago.

By weeklysift | Posted in Articles | Also tagged , | Comments (8)

Sweet Home, Gilead

February 26, 2024 – 10:52 am

With its ruling affirming the rights of “extrauterine children” and invoking “the wrath of a holy God”, the Alabama Supreme Court takes a giant step towards theocracy.

Given all the bad press Alabama has gotten this week for its supreme court’s ruling that frozen embryos are “extrauterine children” covered by the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, you might imagine that the media is just piling on. You might be thinking, “It’s probably not really that bad.” Maybe if you took the time to read the full 131-page decision, you’d understand and even respect where the justices were coming from, even if you still didn’t agree.

Let me shoot that generous notion down: I read the decision. It’s even worse than it looks in the news reports. I started reading newsworthy court opinions with the 2003 Massachusetts same-sex marriage decision, and since then I’ve easily read 100 or so. I’ve never seen one this flat-out insane or this scary in its implications.

It’s tempting to go off on a rant. But instead, let me back up and give you the context.

IVF. The reason anybody freezes embryos in the first place is for in vitro fertilization (IVF), a medical procedure that helps otherwise infertile couples have their own biological children rather than adopt. It’s been going on since 1978 and it’s popular: CNN estimates that about 2% of babies born in the United States are conceived through IVF. Chances are that you know someone who conceived or was conceived through IVF. (I know I do.)

Leaving out a bunch of details, it works like this: Ova are removed from a woman’s ovaries, and then they are fertilized in a laboratory with sperm from that woman’s chosen partner (or maybe a sperm bank). The cells start dividing, and after a few days they are ready to implant in a uterus (either the woman’s own or, if the whole point is to overcome some medical problem there, the uterus of some other willing woman). This is a hit-or-miss process that may require several attempts, so typically a number of ova are fertilized simultaneously, and the embryos not used are frozen in case they are needed later.

Many of the frozen embryos will never be implanted in a uterus, where they might develop into fetuses and eventually babies. Perhaps they are defective in some way. (For example, it’s possible to test the embryos for some heritable genetic issues the parents want to avoid passing on.) Or perhaps the woman succeeds in having all the children she wants before all the embryos are used. The remainder are usually destroyed in one way or another, though they can stay frozen more-or-less indefinitely (“several decade, if not longer” according to the court’s majority opinion).

Bad theology. So far, so good, but then IVF runs into a dogma invented by Catholic and/or Evangelical theologians: At the moment of conception, the fertilized egg becomes a full human being for all moral purposes. (As I’ve explained before, this notion is not just against common sense, it’s also ahistorical and non-Biblical. Among Protestants, virtually no one believed this until after abortion became a conservative political issue in the 1970s.) If this dogma is true, then destroying these clumps of cells means murdering human beings. So unless women can be convinced (or forced) to gestate the extra embryos (even the defective ones), the only moral choice is to grant them a peculiar sort of immortality in a freezer.

An unfortunate accident in Alabama. I’ll let Justice Jay Mitchell, who wrote the Alabama supreme court’s majority opinion, sum up the incident that started the recent case:

The plaintiffs’ IVF treatments led to the creation of several embryos, some of which were implanted and resulted in the births of healthy babies. The plaintiffs contracted to have their remaining embryos kept in the Center’s cryogenic nursery. … [I]n December 2020, a patient at the Hospital managed to wander into the Center’s fertility clinic through an unsecured doorway. The patient then entered the cryogenic nursery and removed several embryos. The subzero temperatures at which the embryos had been stored freeze-burned the patient’s hand, causing the patient to drop the embryos on the floor, killing them.

So there are obvious grounds for a lawsuit: The clinic should have kept the embryos safer and the wandering patient shouldn’t have mucked with them, with the result that something the plaintiffs valued was destroyed. But rather than (or in addition to) suing under the kinds of tort laws that would apply to accidentally destroyed property, they sued under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, a law that would apply if, say, someone had run over their six-year-old.

The trial court didn’t buy it.

In each of its judgments, the trial court explained its view that “[t]he cryopreserved, in vitro embryos involved in this case do not fit within the definition of a ‘person’ ” or ” ‘child,’ ” and it therefore held that their loss could not give rise to a wrongful-death claim.

But then the Alabama Supreme Court got involved.

Strange coinages. Conservatives love to make fun of the “politically correct” ways that liberals use words, saying things like “enslaved person” rather than “slave” or “pregnant person” rather than “pregnant woman”. Well, I invite them to read this decision.

You’ve already run into one of the strange coinages: The embryos were stored in a “cryogenic nursery” rather than a “freezer”. (I wonder whether the freezer technicians are listed as “cryogenic nurses”.) Worse, Justice Mitchell frames the case’s main issue like this:

whether the [Wrongful Death of a Minor] Act contains an unwritten exception to that rule for extrauterine children

That’s right: “extrauterine children”. (I bet you have never thought of yourself as a “uterine child”.) And perish the thought that the authors of the 1872 act, writing more than a century before the first IVF baby was born and only two decades after the first commercial ice-making machine, weren’t thinking about frozen embryos when they said “child”, or that we shouldn’t try to guess what their opinions would have been, if some science fiction author could have explained the concept to them. No: We can stretch the notion of “child” to include frozen embryos, and the 1872 law doesn’t explicitly tell us not to. So there you are.

The stretching of “child” happens in two steps. First to “unborn children”, which Mitchell explains was always included in the notion of a “child”.

the ordinary meaning of “child” includes children who have not yet been born.

He gives two arguments for this, neither of which is particularly convincing: Long before 1872, people said that a pregnant woman was “with child”, clearly meaning that her fetus was already a child. (Of course, they also said that she was “expecting” a child, indicating that the child exists in the future, not the present. Mitchell’s cherry-picking technique does not require him to explain this.) Mitchell then misconstrues Blackstone’s 17th-century classic Commentaries on the Laws of England, which Chief Justice Tom Parker’s concurring opinion quotes more precisely: life “begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.” With that larger context, Blackstone was plainly drawing a boundary at quickening, not conception.

But once you take as established law that the boundary of childhood is conception, then why should it matter whether the conception happened in a womb or in a test tube? Of course the law must protect “extrauterine children”. The law, he writes, “applies to all unborn children, regardless of their location”.

He goes on to fret over the possible unforeseen consequences of limiting the law’s protection to uterine children: What will happen in the future, when laboratories remove women from the gestation process completely?

one latent implication of the defendants’ position — though not one that the defendants seem to have anticipated — is that, under the defendants’ test, even a full-term infant or toddler conceived through IVF and gestated to term in an in vitro environment would not qualify as a “child” or “person,” … [and] then their lives would be unprotected by Alabama law.

God forbid the legislature should have to write a new law for this situation. And speaking of God …

The Chief Justice’s theological treatise. Bonkers as it is, Mitchell’s opinion sounds downright reasonable once you read the concurrence by Chief Justice Parker, a 23-page lesson in Christian theology that begins on page 26.

You see, the Alabama Constitution, which was rewritten in 2022, affirms “the sanctity of unborn life”. Parker feels compelled to interpret this “sanctity” as a uniquely Christian notion, stemming from “the creation of man ‘in the image of God.’ Genesis 1:27 (King James)”. He quotes at length from a 17th-century Protestant theological treatise on the significance of creation in God’s image, which he says accords with the opinions of Catholic saints Thomas Aquinas (13th century) and Augustine (5th century). He then says:

Man’s creation in God’s image is the basis of the general prohibition on the intentional taking of human life.

This would seem to imply that no culture outside the Judeo-Christian tradition cares about murder. Parker also gives attention to John Calvin’s writings on the subject before concluding:

In summary, the theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself. Section 36.06 [of Alabama’s constitution] recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life — that even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.

No doubt you have heard about judges threatening some malefactor with jail or fines or injunctions, but when was the last time a judge invoked “the wrath of a holy God” against those who would “efface his glory”?

Truly, Alabama has become Margaret Atwood’s Republic of Gilead.

Effects. The immediate legal effect of the ruling is not that big: It sends the case back to the court that had dismissed it, with instructions to apply the Wrongful Death Act.

But fear of the ruling’s implications has thrown Alabama’s IVF facilities into chaos. At least three have suspended operation, worrying not just about the embryos in their own freezers, but also about the possibility that the ideas expressed in this civil case might seep over into criminal law. Vox quotes Stephen Stetson, the director of Planned Parenthood Alabama.

I can appreciate the desire of lawyers who are advising fertility clinics to be conservative. No one wants to be on the hook for any legal liability or risk of criminal prosecution if some district attorney gets the wrong idea.

And then there are the Alabama women who have invested a considerable amount of money, inconvenience, and hope for the future in IVF. They are just out of luck, it seems.

Possibly the Republican-controlled state government will try to help them. A state senator has announced his intention “to introduce legislation that would clarify that embryos are not viable unless they are implanted in a uterus”. Governor Ivey has endorsed this effort.

[Senator Tim] Melson, who is also a medical doctor, says his proposal would make clear that “a human egg that is fertilized in vitro shall be considered a potential life,” but should not be legally considered a human life until it is implanted in a uterus.”

In other words, the state would be saying that ensoulment-at-conception theology is wrong. I wonder how many legislators will be willing to do that, even given how popular IVF is across party lines. (Both Mike Pence and Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth have children conceived via IVF.)

I also wonder if legislation would be enough. Chief Justice Parker based his opinion on the state constitution and the will of God, so a mere law probably wouldn’t move him. It’s hard to say what the other justices would do. The ruling had an 8-1 majority, but several of the concurrences read like dissents. They reject the majority opinion’s reasoning (sometimes for the very reasons I’ve given above), but reach the same conclusion by a different path.

Beyond Alabama. Arizona, Missouri, and Georgia have fetal personhood laws similar to Alabama’s, though Arizona’s is currently blocked by the courts. Similar laws have been proposed in 12 other states (though the laws are unlikely to pass in some of them, like Massachusetts and New York).

Any of those states could be the site of the next IVF case. Further, a number of birth control options are technically murder, if ensoulment happens at conception. An IUD, for example, primarily works by preventing conception, but it also can prevent a fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus, effectively killing it.

Marching towards Gilead. Amanda Marcotte examines the deeper implications of the extremist faction that wants to ban IVF. On the surface, she says, their opposition to IVF seems puzzling.

A lot of people are understandably shocked to learn that the anti-abortion movement also hates IVF. After all, the movement claims to be all about motherhood. One would think the people who are always yammering on about how a woman’s greatest purpose is giving birth would celebrate those who endure IVF, which is both painful and expensive, just so they can have a baby.

But she sees an underlying motive:

It’s important to understand that what the Christian right really wants is not motherhood, per se, but a social order where women are second class citizens. They take a dim view of not just abortion and contraception, but all reproductive technologies that make it easier for women to exercise autonomy over their lives.

It also must bug them that many lesbians use IVF to conceive.

Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic Magazine, reposted a Heritage Foundation post from May which proposes to “end recreational sex”. It includes a video in which a woman proposes to “restore consequentiality” to sex by ending birth control. Chris Rufo, the conservative theorist behind the Critical Race Theory panic, replied with

“Recreational sex” is a large part of the reason we have so many single-mother households, which drives poverty, crime, and dysfunction. The point of sex is to create children—this is natural, normal, and good.

So if you’re one of those couples that has been using sex to express your love for each other rather than to conceive children (a path my wife and I have been following for nearly 40 years), Chris Rufo thinks you’re doing it wrong.

It’s important not to paint this issue with too broad a brush: Most people who call themselves Republicans, and even most people who would tell a pollster they support Trump, don’t agree with this extreme anti-sex, anti-choice position. But in the Trump era, the most radical voices consistently prevail in the GOP. Reasonable moderates, to the extent that any still exist, have been consistently unwilling to stand up to ideologues on their right flank. Will they this time? That’s not a bet I’d want to cover.

By weeklysift | Posted in Articles | Also tagged | Comments (16)

The Corruption of the Evangelical Movement

January 15, 2024 – 9:10 am

Tim Alberta indicts the religion he grew up in, but ends on a hopeful note. How convincing is that?

In the news sources I follow, Tim Alberta and his new book The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an age of extremism have been everywhere lately. As of yesterday, it was the #1 best seller in Amazon’s “Christian Church history” category. The book’s web page boosts it as a “New York Times Bestseller, one of Barack Obama’s Favorite Books of the Year, and an Air Mail best book of the year.” An excerpt — the book’s prologue, in which Alberta reminisces about his Evangelical-preacher father and describes how his father’s flock assailed Alberta for his politics when he returned to the megachurch his father founded for his father’s funeral — has appeared in The Atlantic. He’s been interviewed on numerous MSNBC shows, including The 11th Hour. Michelle Goldberg wrote a column about his book, though I can’t find any clue that she read all the way to the end.

So chances are you’ve heard about Alberta, and maybe you know the thesis of his book: He surveys how right-wing politics has taken over the Evangelical movement, which today is often more about Trump than about Jesus, and whose Promised Land is not Heaven, but an America re-dominated by Christian leaders (who are probably White, male, and Republican, and definitely straight). Christianity, whose “kingdom is not of this world“, has been corrupted by a very worldly American nationalism.

What is special about Alberta’s perspective is that he critiques Evangelicalism from the inside. The fundamental problem he sees in Christian Nationalism isn’t that it violates the Constitution or opposes democracy or goes down the rabbit holes of absurd conspiracy theories, but that it is a heresy. Worshiping America (or Trump) is a form of idolatry. Jesus, in Alberta’s view, would have us change the world by channeling God’s love, not by promoting an angry, fearful, hateful brand of politics. God is eternal, and He cares little about nations, which come and go. (Galatians 3:28 says “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”)

Access. Alberta’s book demonstrates a level of access that I find hard to imagine. Some of the most famous — and most outrageous — characters in American Christianity sit down with him and share their unguarded (or barely guarded) thoughts.

  • Robert Jeffress (the Dallas megachurch pastor who was key in bringing Evangelicals to Trump in 2016 and in defending his worst excesses) discussed his post-1/6 doubts about how far he went to promote Trump. “I had that internal conversation with myself — and with God, too — about, you know, when do you cross the line? When does the mission get compromised?” Alberta pushed on that a little and Jeffress confessed, “I think it can be [compromised]. I think it even was, these last few years.” (Jeffress is back in the Trump fold now.)
  • Greg Locke, the Tennessee preacher whose church mushroomed when he defied public-health restrictions to stay open during the pandemic, and instead turned his church into a center of anti-vax, anti-liberal, and anti-government conspiracy theories, tells Alberta, “I’ve grown. … Are there times that it’s been perceived that I cared more about the kingdom of earth than the kingdom of heaven? Probably. And that was probably my fault. I probably shot myself in the foot and got a little too animated about things.” (Maybe he meant it.)
  • On election day 2022, Alberta had breakfast with the Christian Coalition founder Ralph Reed, who predicted a big night for Senate candidate Herschel Walker.
  • He reports numerous conversations with Russell Moore, a central character in the right/left struggles of the Southern Baptist Convention. And with Jerry Falwell Jr., who was pushed out as president of Liberty University under a cloud of scandal.

It goes on like that. List everybody you wish you could talk to about these issues, and Alberta talked to them. They appear to have taken his questions seriously rather than stiff-arming him as part of the liberal media. People who usually take a double-down, show-no-weakness attitude towards probing questions seem to have wanted Alberta to understand them and their points of view.

What point of view? Because we so seldom get our questions answered, people like me have a hard time piecing together how Evangelicals look at themselves and come to their (to me) bizarre-looking political positions. As best I can piece it together now, the logical order goes like this: Over the last 50 years or so, American culture has either de-emphasized or outright rejected many conservative Christian ideas about morality. So now abortion, homosexuality, interracial marriage, same-sex marriage, pre- and extra-marital sex, and even (in some communities) transsexuality are all OK. Evangelicals see this creep of standards as moving primarily against them, rather than in favor of previously oppressed groups like, say, gays. So they extrapolate forward to a society where they will be persecuted the way the early Christians were by Rome. When churches were closed during the pandemic — along with theaters, sporting events, and any other place where crowds typically assemble — they took it personally, as the first act of a liberal Deep State that is eager to shut them down.

This interpretation and this fear looks paranoid to me. (After all, I’m pretty liberal and I never run into anybody who is eager to shut down churches permanently and persecute their members. The suggestion just never comes up.) So I have no idea who in particular they should be afraid of. But it’s very real to them, which is why many of them have a we-are-facing-the-apocalypse mindset. Preachers and politicians have promoted this fear, preyed on it, and taken advantage of it. The result is a sense of desperation, a willingness to believe ridiculous conspiracy theories, and an eagerness approve some very un-Christ-like tactics.

That result looks to Alberta like a profound loss of faith in the message of Jesus, who said “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” Instead, Evangelicals find themselves looking for someone more badass than Jesus, which is what they like about Trump.

Structure. Alberta’s book is made up of three parts: The Kingdom is his tour of Evangelical churches, where he talks to the Trumpiest pastors he can find, as well as to pastors who are struggling not to lose their churches to this Christian Nationalist movement. One such church is Cornerstone Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brighton, Michigan, which was founded by Alberta’s father and is where Tim grew up. In Chapter 1 we meet his father’s hand-picked successor, Chris Winans, who isn’t willing to endorse right-wing politics from the pulpit, and so is watching his membership plummet. But in Chapter 7 we meet Bill Bolin, whose Floodgate church in the same town is riding the right-wing wave — stolen election, vaccine horror stories, looming Christian persecution — to grow and prosper.

Part II, The Power, focuses on politicians and political operatives who are harnessing Christian Nationalism, people like the fake historian David Barton, Ralph Reed, and Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA. Alberta attends a session of Michael Flynn’s ReAwaken America tour, which is like a tent revival for QAnon types. But he also talks to an apostate of the religion-meets-rightwing-politics movement: Cal Thomas, who anticipated much of what ultimately went wrong in his 1999 book Blinded By Might.

Part III, The Glory, is the hopeful part of the book, which I found unconvincing. He focuses on people who have survived the right-wing wave, including a return to Winans at Cornerstone, who over a period of years has rebuilt the church’s membership while keeping his message Christian rather than nationalist. Activists who want the Southern Baptist Convention to address its sex-abuse issue win a vote, and then beat back a right-wing counterrevolution. Jerry Falwell Jr. gets ousted at Liberty University, and is replaced by people who maybe maybe will start to take LU’s stated mission seriously. Stuff like that.

In the final chapter, one of the book’s sympathetic characters, LU Professor Nick Olson, delivers this optimistic vision of a revitalized Christian church:

I think the first step is reimagining the Christian worldview. And that means replacing our dominant metaphor — culture war — with something different. That’s been the running theme for evangelicals: we’re always embattled, always fighting back. But what if we laid down our defense mechanisms? What if we reframed our relationship to creation, to our neighbors, to our enemies, in ways that are more closely aligned to the Sermon on the Mount? What if we were willing to lay down our power and our status to love others, even if that comes at cost to ourselves?

Good luck with that, Nick. It’s a beautiful thought, but the currents still seem to me to be running in the other direction.

My response. In his hopeful Part III, I think Alberta underestimates how deep the structural problems in Christianity run, a case I made in a 2022 post “How did Christianity become so toxic?“.

In my experience, the style of motivated reasoning we see in the Trumpist movement (where, for example, Bill Clinton’s sexual excesses were disqualifying, but Donald Trump’s as-bad-or-worse actions are just part of his charm) began a long time ago. The willingness of Christians to deny facts, to seize on any useful misrepresentation, and to apply more favorable standards to people on their own side — I was running into this back in the 70s when fundamentalists argued against evolution, and probably it had been going on for decades before that.

Over time, anti-evolution became a template for denying anything conservative Christians didn’t want to believe: global warming, the effectiveness of vaccines, anything. The nonsense put out by the anti-abortion movement — that six-week-old fetuses have a heartbeat, 15-week fetuses feel pain, abortion can cause breast cancer, and so on — is unkillable, because conservative Christians live in a world where facts and science don’t matter. If some argument advances your position, then it must be true. Standing against this kind of nonsense means that you have turned against your faith.

Any serious attempt to clean this all up and teach sound reasoning will cost Evangelicals things they value far more than the truth. They’ll have to admit that the Earth has been around far longer than a few thousand years, that the diversity of human languages must have started much earlier than the Tower of Babel, that there never was a worldwide flood, and so on. They’ll have to account for obvious contradictions in the Bible. (The clearest, I think, is between the two genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. It’s not just a matter of the names being different; they don’t have the same number of generations between David and Jesus.)

They won’t have to give up on the teachings of Jesus, but they’ll be left with a faith far more complicated than “that old time religion” they want to believe in.

Above all else, Evangelicals believe the things they want to believe. So it’s not going to happen — which means that even if the Trumpist heresy ultimately fails, there will soon be another one, because the tools to build one are so widely distributed and easy to use.

And then there’s the propensity to invent paranoid conspiracy theories. This is baked into the theology at a very deep level: There is a Devil, who represents ultimate evil and has human minions to work his will.

When rational people confront a conspiracy theory, the unraveling usually begins with one question: Who would do all this and why? But Evangelical theology provides a ready-made answer: The Devil and his minions would do this because they’re evil. The diverse pieces of the conspiracy may have no apparent contact with each other, but they share inspiration from a being not of this world. If in addition you allow them occasional acts of supernatural power, then there’s no conspiracy you can’t rationalize.

The paranoid part comes from the fact that Devil’s primary goal is to destroy the One True Church and persecute its followers. You may belong to the biggest, richest, most powerful religion on the planet, and your pastor may meet regularly with the President of the United States, but it doesn’t matter. Some powerful entity is trying to persecute you, and you will never be safe from him.

This is not to say that all Evangelicals are necessarily paranoid and captured by false narratives that they cannot examine rationally. But the DNA of their faith makes them vulnerable to paranoia and false narratives. If they understood that fact, they could guard against those traps and call each other back when they fall down those rabbit holes. But the vulnerability that their faith builds into their thinking processes is the very first thing they are driven to deny.

POSTSCRIPT

After reading the comments, I feel like I should post some general remarks about my attitude toward religion.

I am not, in general, against religion. I belong to a church myself, albeit a Unitarian Universalist church, which some people would say is not really a religion. (I disagree.)

There are obvious social advantages in belonging to a church: In our atomized society, we usually only meet people in specific roles, and it’s hard to form the kind of relationships where the whole of my life is involved in the whole of somebody else’s life. In a church, you not only meet a person, you may also meet the person’s spouse, kids, possibly parents, and some of their friends. Deeper conversations about what we’re each trying to do with our lives and what’s stopping us from doing it — they don’t violate our roles, the way they might in another setting.

But beyond the social, a weekly church service is a way to regularly remind myself, and for a community of people to remind each other, that we want to be better than this. Overall American culture places such importance on money, status, fame, career success, and so on. It can be hard to remember that life should be about more than that.

At its best, religion can posit what a better world looks like: a place where everyone is treated with respect, where people care about each other too much to let them fall through society’s cracks, where we aspire to find truth and beauty, and where everyone has a chance to become their best self. It’s valuable to know that this vision is not just some crazy idea I dreamed up, but that a community of people shares it.

So far I haven’t said anything about God, because traditional notions of God don’t play a big role in my thinking. I sometimes describe myself as a “functional atheist”. If you have a vision of God that is meaningful for you and helps you be a better person, I won’t try to talk you out of it. I may even use your God-language in our conversations, if it helps get an idea across. But “this is what God wants me to do” usually doesn’t come up when I’m trying to make decisions in my own life.

That said, I have an appreciation of even theistic religion. If a religious community has its vision of a better world right (or even close to right), the idea that God wants this for us can be powerful. If a religion motivates its believers to do the hard work of improving the world, I’m not eager to change their minds.

Now, obviously, a lot of religion isn’t like that. Communities of people can get together each week to justify being their worst selves, or to share a vision of a world where large parts of humanity are made to suffer. I’m not defending that. I just don’t think that religion necessarily has to turn out that way.

By weeklysift | Posted in Articles | Also tagged , , , , | Comments (20)