January 6, 2021: Lessons Learned?
Image
Even at our best, we humans often botch the job of identifying what’s true and right. The important thing is to recognize what went wrong, learn the lessons, and aim to do better.
If I could gather every American who self-identifies as conservative and deliver one message to them right now, that would probably be the bottom line: Face the facts of January 6 and start identifying how to do better and be better.
Facing Up
There’s much we still don’t know about what went wrong leading up to, and on, January 6, 2021. But many points are already known. Here’s a baker’s dozen.
- Large numbers of Trump supporters gathered to protest a stolen election that had not been stolen.
- A significant number of these supporters were radical enough to make a violent attempt to prevent Congress from completing the transition our Constitution requires.
- Some of these radicals were willing to carry weapons, and some were willing to assault and murder.
- Hundreds more were fanatical enough to join these radicals in illegal trespassing of the Capitol exterior, or in damaging government property, in defiance of police on the scene attempting to control the situation.
- Thousands more were fanatical enough to remain in the throng outside, lending visible and sometimes vocal support as these events took place (example).
- Some of those gathered prominently displayed Christian symbols and slogans, linking their identity as Christians with their identity as Trump supporters. (See photos here, here and here, for example.)
- For two months, the Republican President of the United States actively encouraged Americans to believe that “massive fraud” occurred in the election and that the election had been stolen from him.
- Many popular pundits on the right echoed these claims, along with some members of the U.S. House and Senate, as well as state and local Republican leaders across the country.
- Other influencers in politics and conservative media indirectly added legitimacy to the stolen election hoax by emphasizing “fraud” in ways that muddied the distinction between isolated local incidents and a coordinated effort altering the outcome of the election.
- Months before his post-election propaganda campaign, Trump planted seeds of doubt in the integrity of the election in public statements. The narrative, even before November, was Trump wins or it’s rigged (quotes and many references).
- Trump’s political career has emphasized populist emotional appeals focused on fighting and winning. He has framed his politics as a war with enemies, rather than as persuasion of fellow citizens. He has frequently expressed support for conspiracy theories.
- Trump had multiple opportunities to act to prevent the predictable events of January 6. As a leader, it was his responsibility to steer his followers toward accepting his defeat and acknowledging the rule of law—beginning in December, at the latest. (Post-riot, he has remained true to his never-apologize ways, even continuing to try to use the risk of his supporters’ anger to his advantage.)
- Congressmen and Senators loyal to Trump encouraged Americans to believe that the scattered cases of election irregularities and/or fraud could be addressed properly by objecting to the electoral college count, which they could not. These leaders knew that, but chose to pander to Trump-loyal constituents rather than telling them the truth.
Doing Better
In the wake of this disaster, the questions for conservatives are simple: what went wrong, and how can we do better?
The answers are not simple. We didn’t get here overnight. Nothing that happened on January 6 was actually “sudden,” though it seemed that way. But though the problems that led to the capitol attack are many, complex, and long-brewing, there is a path to a better future for conservatives in the U.S.
I can’t do much to fix conservatism in general or the Christian piece of it in particular. But I can pray. Some things I’m praying for:
I’m praying that the Republican Party/conservative influencers will …
- Nurture a culture of responsibility vs. a culture of victimhood, blaming, and resentment (rejecting this kind of populism), acting intentionally and patiently to shift the balance much further from “what’s wrong with Them” toward “what can be better with Us.” (We’ll know we’re making progress when whataboutism becomes the exception on the right rather than the rule.)
- Start regaining the moral high ground we’ve lost. Though conservative appeals to high morals have long met with skepticism, we’ve reached the point where we can’t even believe those claims about ourselves. I’m praying that leaders who still believe in high moral ideals will gain influence and insist that actions follow principles. We need our ethos back.
- Shift emphasis away from winning tactical fights to winning hearts and minds. If abortion is so important to conservatives, I’m praying more of us will see what winning on abortion would look like: millions of Americans changing their minds and concluding that killing an unborn baby is morally wrong, because they listened to people who spoke with moral authority.
- Recover genuine commitment to constitutionalism and rule of law vs. selective appeal to these when convenient—refusing to appeal to the basest instincts of the most uninformed and foolish citizens. I’m praying that conservatism and the GOP will become an increasingly uncomfortable place for the likes of the Proud Boys, “boogaloo boys,” QAnon supporters, and other conspiracy theory promoters.
- Refocus on educating people on conservative principles (vs. slogans and clichés) and their historical roots until most conservatives know what conservatism is supposed to be conserving and why—that it’s not a set of policies, much less an individual leader.
I’m praying that Christian churches and ministries in the U.S. will …
- Begin a new focus on building discernment and wisdom among Christians, especially to develop skilled, thoughtful, disciplined consumers of media (mainstream, social, and right wing).
- Increasingly reject a vision of Christians’ relationship to their country that blurs the distinction between loyalty to Christ, truth, and Christian principles vs. loyalty to political party, political agenda, or political leader.
- Recover an emphasis on character in leaders, both within churches and ministries and outside them in society and government. I pray that may will come to believe that character matters more than agenda.
- See that colleges and seminaries train ministry leaders in civics and government from a biblical perspective, so they can teach and influence their congregations and ministries. Davenport is probably wrong about how to solve our national problem, but he’s right that America “suffers from a pandemic of civic ignorance and a deep deficit of civic respect.” I pray that Christians will stop being as ignorant and lawless as most unbelievers.
- Many more Christians will develop an integrated worldview—one that rightly relates and values theology, Christian living, the arts, and the sciences. I pray for a day when conservative pastors commonly understand and teach that being a Christian plumber, pathologist, poet, or politician is as much a calling and a service to God as being a Christian pastor.
- Do a better job of teaching and preaching a biblical view social ethics, government, and our role as citizens. If there’s ever another right wing, stolen-election hoax protest at the U.S. capitol, I pray that zero Christians will attend. I also pray conservative evangelicals will grow out of thinking they have to elect unprincipled, third-rate candidates just to beat the other guys.
Teach believers the difference between “the world” (in the John 15:18-19 sense) and “the Left.” Maybe it used to be good enough to loosely identify “the Right” with biblical ways of thinking about society and “the Left” with secular/anti-Christian ways of thinking. The last five years have proved that will no longer do. I pray that more conservative Christians will come to understand that they must greet the claims and agendas of “the Right” with just as much critical thinking as they do those of “the Left.”
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 61 views
Many thanks. I am surprised that Baptists haven’t written much on this, because religious freedom is such a key to Baptist identity. I suspect, if folks have written on it, it isn’t from America.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Baptists have written extensively on religious freedom for many decades. But a Baptist political philosophy textbook/resource - I am not aware of one. Many individual articles on the internet however.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
In view of the desire of some to stop talking politics, the thinking demonstrated over the last year (or more) indicates that we probably should talk politics more than ever. There has been a sound and irrefutable demonstration of poor critical thinking skills, poor biblical application skills, and poor civic duty on all sides. Now that the personalities are gone, it might be able to be discussed on a more rational note.
On another note, Aaron asks for something that is not a verifiable fact. In his list, it isn’t so much that it is verifiable or not. The issue, I think, is different. Consider this:
Large numbers of Trump supporters … A significant number of these supporters … Some of these … Hundreds more … Thousands more
How many people were there? Because “large number … a significant number … Some … Hundreds … Thousands” only have meaning in relation to the whole. Thousands in church is a big deal if your average attedance is 50. It’s also a big deal if you are an NFL team but for an entirely different reason. And herein is the groundwork for the issue going forward. People have to tell the truth, not just in raw facts, but in interpretation of facts. Presenting raw information without context is useless and often misleading. So while everything above might have some merit, what if we consider the facts.
75 millionish people voted for Trump. By that measure, a “large number of Trump supporters” did nothing at the capitol. They weren’t even there. The percentage of Trump supporters that invaded the capitol is about 0.000004%. That is 4 millionths of 1% if my math is correct. So why not simply say that? Why pretend that a “large number” or “significant number” did anything? They didn’t. The situation was horrific and unacceptable and everyone involved should be held accountable. But it was four millionths of 1% of Trump supporters.
Even if we take “thousands more” as 10,000, there is still .013% of Trump supporters and what were they actually doing? Supporting? Watching? Who knows?
Is this type of language because “4 millionths of 1% of Trump voters” won’t really move the masses to do anything? Or “13 hundreths of 1%” won’t catch anyone’s attention?
The capitol invasion was bad. It was criminal and beyond any excuse. And it was so serious, that within a few hours, the capitol was back in full operation.
So I suggest that if we are going to have a helpful conversation about politics, it should start by painting the picture accurately.
I suspect Christians, Baptists in particular, and me specifically, need to do a great deal more critical thought about the Church’s relationship to the State. Baptists typically do little more than emphasize separation of church and state + soul liberty, and call it a day. I suspect there’s more substantive Baptist material out there on political philosophy, but I’m not aware of it. Someone please tell me what it is, and I’d be grateful.
I know there’s a whole host of literature out there on natural law theory and political philosophy from Christian perspectives, a significant amount of which is from Roman Catholics. I haven’t even begun to mine this material yet. I ordered a primer on natural law theory just yesterday to help me think through these issues for research for a book project.
Check out Dr. Andrew T. Walker-one of the ethics profs at SBTS and the Executive Director of the Carl F. H. Henry Institute for Evangelical Engagement (a far better scholar than the former director in Owen Strachan, IMHO) He’s not only Southern Baptist but is also a Natural Law Scholar. He has a forthcoming volume on religious liberty from Brazos Press titled Liberty for All: Defending Everyone’s Religious Freedom in a Secular Age. He is also co-editor alongside Paul Miller and Thomas Kidd of the forthcoming volume Explorations in Baptist Political Theology.
I follow him on Twitter and have learned much from his writings. Although I don’t agree with everything he writes, I have been challenged many times by him. He also created a Political Theology Catechism that would be very beneficial for those here on Sharper Iron. Within a Biblical Worldview, it defines and terms such as the Common Good, Justice, Natural Law, Common Grace, Subsidiarity, and etc… https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1303292704986738692.html
Many thanks. I just listened to a Mortification of Spin podcast where Walker and Trueman chatted about natural law and our political climate. It was very helpful. I jotted down some initial thoughts on this issue just today. I admit my thoughts may be a bit naive and simplistic, but it’s where I’m at right now.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
One addition to my last post: Not enough voter fraud in the traditional sense in order to change results in key states. However, large social media (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc) used voter manipulation to affect voting. That kind of fraud is harder to confront and solve.
You mean all the stolen election hoax nonsense they let users multiply all over the internet?
In any case, private entities are allowed to promote and censor whatever information they like. Maybe there should be a debate about laws to limit that, but there are not. Our laws are designed to prevent the government from interfering with the exercise of free speech. Laws that force social media to make their messaging comply to government standards is the opposite.
I’m pretty sure nothing that can be called “fraud” happened on social media or on Google.
On another note, Aaron asks for something that is not a verifiable fact. In his list, it isn’t so much that it is verifiable or not. The issue, I think, is different. Consider this:
Large numbers of Trump supporters … A significant number of these supporters … Some of these … Hundreds more … Thousands more
How many people were there? Because “large number … a significant number … Some … Hundreds … Thousands” only have meaning in relation to the whole.
Just look at the photos and videos. I watched a good bit of it live. “Large numbers” is factual, as are my references to “some,” “hundreds more,” and “thousands.” I included links to photos and video for a lot of that. But it’s super easy to verify.
I don’t think the % of total Trump voters is meaningful, but even if it is, that doesn’t changes the facts of what happened there that day.
As a thought experiment, try this on: BLM affiliated looters = .013% of Biden voters. Does that make the left’s problem with rioting and looting less serious? Maybe so, but they never had a president tell them to gather at Washington to try to reverse an election. The right has absolutely no leg to stand on in criticizing lawlessness on the left until it gets its own act together.
On Baptist political philosophy
One of the reasons Baptists have neglected this area is that we have anabaptist roots. The anabaptist and other ‘radical reformation’ threads tended to equate “society” with “the world” (in the sense of “love not the world” etc.) and there was a strong component that viewed earthly government as part of that also. Check out the Schleitheim Confession for example… article IV, VI.
An excerpt from VI…
Lastly one can see in the following points that it does not befit a Christian to be a magistrate: the rule of the government is according to the flesh , that of the Christians according to the Spirit. Their houses and dwelling remain in this world, that of the Christians is in heaven. Their citizenship is in this world, that of the Christians is in heaven.
So for these, the relationship between church and government was simple: we have nothing at all to do with eachother.
An inadequately nuanced view of believers/church’s relationship to society vs. the world has been a tradition in fundamentalist heritage Baptist circles, and I think the anabaptist roots are one major contributing factor.
Another is that the more mainstream Reformed pieces of the Reformation initially went sort of the other direction: church and state closely united. But it didn’t take long for leaders and thinkers to realize this was actually complicated. So more thought went into “how does the church relate to society and government” in those circles and still does. Abraham Kuyper comes to mind (19th century mostly).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Voter manipulation by social media and journalistic media involves different forms: Restricting or canceling social media accounts which the social media determines is “inappropriate”, such as Twitter shutting down The New York Post articles about Hunter Biden and his father; Journalistic media practically ignoring the story, CNN distorting facts to fit its election agenda. Google, Apple, Amazon, and others have become huge monopolies, working with major media - CNN, NY Times, Wash Post, etc - to advance, control, and manipulate information and, as a result, popular opinion. This is one of many characteristics of fascism, control by certain social groups who believe they are entitled to that control, using large business to advance their agenda. They not only want to “de-platform” Parler, but also put it out of business completely so that they maintain control.
I never said that social media engaged in voter fraud, just voter manipulation. Voter fraud/irregularities did occur, but enough to change election results in key states.
As far as free speech, there are many rules already restricting free speech on social media. For example, someone can use all kinds of filthy language, but cannot use words which society considers “ethnic, racial, or sexual slurs”. Inconsistent. Consider the large number of athletes, actors, and politicians who used certain “inappropriate” words, then had to profusely apologize and consent to “sensitivity training”. Just because the gov’t is not directly involved does not make this any less dangerous. Although the gov’t is becoming more involved as Biden said last week that anyone in the Executive Branch who “disrespects” others will be fired.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Correction: In my last post, the next-to-last paragraph should read “but not enough to change election results in key states.”
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Just to try to reiterate something important…
Voter manipulation by social media and journalistic media involves different forms: Restricting or canceling social media accounts which the social media determines is “inappropriate”, such as Twitter shutting down The New York Post articles about Hunter Biden and his father; Journalistic media practically ignoring the story, CNN distorting facts to fit its election agenda. Google, Apple, Amazon, and others have become huge monopolies, working with major media - CNN, NY Times, Wash Post, etc - to advance, control, and manipulate information and, as a result, popular opinion. This is one of many characteristics of fascism, control by certain social groups who believe they are entitled to that control, using large business to advance their agenda. They not only want to “de-platform” Parler, but also put it out of business completely so that they maintain control.
I never said that social media engaged in voter fraud, just voter manipulation.
On that last sentence… this doesn’t say what it appears to say?
However, large social media (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc) used voter manipulation to affect voting. That kind of fraud is harder to confront and solve.
But if you want say manipulation, not fraud, that’s moving in the right direction.
Not far enough, though.
Facebook and Twitter are businesses that sell a service. They’re absolutely free to come right out and endorse a candidate and only allow comments that favor their candidate, if they want. This is not “manipulation,” it’s delivering a crummy service. Until recently, one of the things conservatives believed passionately in is the power of the free market to weed out low quality services.
There are differences between the social media giants and, say, an old-media publishing company that puts out magazines, newspapers, and books. But if a publisher puts out a very one sided, biased book, we usually call it “one sided, biased book,” not “manipulation.”
If it’s “manipulation” when Facebook et al. do it, how does it become so? It sounds to me like giving it a special category is an effort to argue that they need to be forced in some way to be what we see as fair. That would be cancel culture.
But leaving the service or boycotting or whatever—that’s free market. It’s the genuinely conservative way.
But other than the Hunter Biden misstep (which, let’s be fair, all media outlets make bad calls sometimes, and the thing really did look like a last minute hoax to tilt voters toward Trump) I’m not sure they’ve gotten it wrong much. If anything, they were too late and too lax going after the “stolen election” hoax and other QAnon tainted stuff.
The ability of every uninformed person to express themselves on social media is not a right. Many should lose the privilege a lot sooner than they often do. Is more active filtering going to be unfair to conservatives? Probably. But we kind of brought it on ourselves. Hopefully the social media giants will restrain themselves mostly to putting wet blankets on hoaxes, conspiracy theories, and radicals. If they sometimes overdo it and silence someone legit., well, it’s probably worth the price. There are always tradeoffs.
(Parler, if it ever gets off the ground, will slowly—or maybe quickly—discover that it has to make tough calls that it sometimes botches also. There is no way around this.)
But this is a huge topic and pretty far off where we started…. which is they forward for the right. Step one in that way forward is that we stop pointing our fingers at what’s wrong with everyone else until we’re at least going in the right direction ourselves. There are some hopeful signs and some very discouraging ones. Time will tell if wisdom will dominate (or at least sufficiently mitigate).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
To resurrect this after a bit partially to continue to let things die down and partially because of time … I still think there are things to think about apart from the heat of controversy.
Just look at the photos and videos. I watched a good bit of it live. “Large numbers” is factual, as are my references to “some,” “hundreds more,” and “thousands.” I included links to photos and video for a lot of that. But it’s super easy to verify.
Once again, this is to completely miss the point. It’s not about verification, but about truth. “Large numbers” only has meaning in comparison to something. A “large number” at a birthday party for a 3 year old is entirely different than a “large number” at an NFL football game, even in COVID, or a “large number” of voters in a presidential election. All three can be “super easy to verify” but both have entirely different meanings.
The verifiable fact is that when we compare the number of capitol rioters with the number of Trump supporters, it simply isn’t large. That is a verifiable fact though it’s not super easy because the math can be staggering when you get to all the zeros. That doesn’t minimize the wrong that happened. It simply tells the truth.
I don’t think the % of total Trump voters is meaningful
Why isn’t this meaningful to you? Is it because politics is more important than truth? Is it because it is a whole lot harder to establish fault or blame if we are clear about the context? Is this about spin? Do you want to spin it a certain way by omitting things so as to paint certain people in the most negative light possible?
You seem to have had a pretty strong agenda of targeting Trump voters and trying to argue that the worst of Trump supporters applies to all Trump voters. The truth is that your point is far weaker if the % is emphasized. The reality is that most Trump voters did not have whole-hearted support for Trump and even more than that did not support the riots in any way. In fact, how many Trump voters support the capitol riot? Do you know? (I don’t.)
Should you be held responsible for the election of Biden because you are generally associated with people who supported Biden? I wouldn’t say so. I don’t think it is fair to blame you for all the excesses of those who agreed with you in removing Trump from office.
As a thought experiment, try this on: BLM affiliated looters = .013% of Biden voters. Does that make the left’s problem with rioting and looting less serious?
I am not clear on your point here. Those who supported the BLM riots are wrong. Those who voted for Biden are not responsible for that. You are no more responsible for these riots because you preferred Biden to Trump than a Trump voter is for the capitol riots because they preferred Trump to Biden. Perhaps more significantly, people who supported Biden or acted in ways that helped to elect Biden knew of the connection between Biden supporters and BLM riots and helped to elect Biden anyway. At the time of the election, there was no credible reason to suspect that a few hundred or so people would invade the capitol over two months later. So if anything, we could argue there is a level of culpability on the one side that does not attach to the other simply because of what we knew.
Maybe so, but they never had a president tell them to gather at Washington to try to reverse an election.
I think the argument is that the election was reversed by the voting boards, canvassers, and electoral college voters. So “reverse” is a bit of a tricky argument here.
But many of those riots were specifically intended to overthrow the government or government entities like the police. In Seattle you had a direct overthrow of government by the establish of the CHOP or the CHAZ. You had sit ins at state capitols to disrupt and overthrow the operations of government.
The right has absolutely no leg to stand on in criticizing lawlessness on the left until it gets its own act together.
This is an argument that no true conservatism will tolerate. The idea that truth is somehow irrelevant unless everyone on “our side” is correct is simply false. It is destructive. First, the “left” and the “right” are too amorphous to have any real meaning. Donald Trump and David French are both on “the right.” Joe Manchin and Kamala Harris are both on “the left.”
Second, if something should be condemned or challenged, then it should be condemned or challenged. To hide behind the veil of hypocrisy is itself a dereliction of duty. I am generally situated on “the right.” But I should not be required to be silent about something simply because someone else on “the right” does something, especially if I don’t agree with what they do. I think this view tends to view conservatism as a movement rather than an idea. If conservatism is a movement, then perhaps silence until the movement is with me is good. If conservative is an ideal, then we have a duty to call out non-conservatism no matter who or where or when it shows up. To tell a conservative he or she has to be quiet until the rest of “conservatives” agree is to call for lies and toleration of evil.
That some conservatives didn’t call out Trump is a serious problem. That we should be quiet because some conservatives didn’t call out Trump is worse.
I think the election season brought the worst in many. As I pointed out, there were some so dedicated to seeing Trump reeelected that they would say anything and believe anything to make it happen. And there were some so dedicated to seeing Trump gone that they would say anything and do anything to make it happen. And both sides were wrong. So much bad thinking across the spectrum. In a sense, both sides sold their soul for a mess of pottage and in days to come, that pottage is going to taste really bad.
[Larry]… there were some so dedicated to seeing Trump reeelected that they would say anything and believe anything to make it happen. And there were some so dedicated to seeing Trump gone that they would say anything and do anything to make it happen. And both sides were wrong.
Those in the latter category like to think of themselves as better than those in the former, but they are blinded by their pride. Before the election, Mohler, Piper, Bauder, and others well argued their election choice. These are the kinds of thinkers we should all aspire to emulate. I am a long way from there myself, but the throwing off of social media mindlessness exhibited in Larry’s two examples, both of which are seen even on SI, is a good place to begin that journey.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
I watched the House manager montage of the riot at the Capitol and I kept asking myself, who are these people. Many sections show people saying “pig” or “f* the pig” to police. There were people obviously funneling the crowd in directions. There are people carrying ladders, wearing tactical gear, with hammers and such.
Not one Trump supporter I know thinks of the police as “pigs.” Period. They are “Back the Badge” people from my town. They are “Blue Lives Matter” supporters.
So what happened this day?
I suspect some militia involvement, but that’s just my suspicion.
On the “large numbers” fact.
- Why “relative to what” doesn’t matter: because my claim was not “there were large numbers relative to [something].” My point was simply that there not a few people there. And these were Trump supporters.
- Why “% of total Trump voters who showed up at this event” doesn’t matter: because my claim was not that a large % of Trump voters showed up. It was simply, again, that this was a gathering of Trump supporters.
- If you like, say .00000000000000001% of Trump supporters stormed the capitol. It remains a fact that the people who stormed the capitol were Trump supporters.
The point was to list some plain facts to frame what I wrote later in the piece. They remain plain facts. Comparisons and percentages don’t alter them at all.
About the references to police as “pigs,” etc. … Two things:
- I’m not sure it matters if some of these were antifa or not (so far, none identified). It would be weird for anti-fascist extremists to be Trump supporters, but not weird for extreme-anti-establishment types to be Trump supporters. Not really.
- This reason it seems to unbelievable that Trump supporters did this is that so many have not come to recognize what has changed on the right. It’s not 1990’s anymore…. and far, far from the 1980’s. Whether you go far right or far left, you end up in the same place if you go far enough: radicalism. Trump appealed to a few center-right, many traditional right, and just about all of the far/extreme right. This was his coalition. Many of the center-right and traditional right haven’t recognized this because they dismiss (rather than examine) all the indicators of Trump’s affinity for extremism as “mainstream media fake news,” “never Trumper” claims, etc. Still reality, though.
Trump’s nomination was the result of extreme right elements and superficial-no-principles right elements coming to dominate the GOP. (This is what populism gets you.) Large numbers of formerly sensible conservatives followed along because they had (have?) a bad case of ‘fog of war’ and oversimplified everything down to “Us” or “Them.” So they failed to recognize that both the right (mostly) and the left had become Them.
Now we have the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene in the House, and state GOP organizations and legislatures all over the country have the likes of Mike Shirkey in leadership. GOP has become the party of nuts and flakes.
Trumpism was both result and cause. The anti-establishment movement that got him nominated and elected was, in turn, fed by him with the eventual result of the Jan 6 attack and also a bunch of Senators who lack the courage to convict Trump and bar him from future office.
It is somewhat encouraging that the froot loops caucus wasn’t able to declaw Cheney. It’s discouraging that so many were more outraged toward Cheney than toward Greene.
I wrote to my own Wis. Assembly Rep. the other day that for the first time in my life, I’m without a party both nationally and locally. (Wis. appears to be dominated by the froot loops caucus now as well…. they thought it made sense to bundle COVID relief with a number of new limits on the governor’s authority, then acted all shocked and outraged that he vetoed it.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
in the last debate Trump made it crystal clear that the White Supremacists were part of his team. Remember Mark when asked to denounce White Supremacists Trump responded Proud Boys stand back and Stand By.
Joe, you are not telling the truth. Everyone who watched the debate or read the transcript knows that Trump denounced it. When asked to condemn them, he said “Sure” three times. Three times, Joe. When asked specifically to condemn Proud Boys, he told them to stand down and stand by, which clearly meant to get out. It is absolutely absurd to think that Trump was encouraging Proud Boys. No reasonable person who heard the exchange thinks that. It makes absolutely no sense.
Here’s an article detailing this: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacist… with quotes from Trump from multiple times and places and occasions:
we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America.
Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.
Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.
“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups,
and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally
“The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online consumed by racist hate. In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America.
Here is an article from the USA Today documenting this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/10/02/trump-and-white-supre…
Joe, Feel free to dislike Trump and disagree with him. But don’t say things that aren’t true. Lying is no better from us than it is from Trump.
I watched the video the House impeachment managers showed, along with some of the presentations. I also watch portions of the muddled presentation by one of Trump’s lawyers. I say impeach him again.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion