History to Ponder Today

Since I first read and studied the Theological Declaration of Barmen in graduate school fifty-plus years ago, I have repeatedly encouraged Christians and churches in our timed should revisit and pay close attention to it. I am convinced we need the reminder that the threat to authentic Christian faith and discipleship in the 30s was not being tortured into denying Christ by atheistic forces but by the fellow church members and respected church leaders who were linking church with nationalism. The Theological Declaration of Barmen (sacred-texts.com)

 I also believe we would all benefit from understanding the Beer Hall Putsch of November 8-9, 1923 when about 2,000 Nazis marched on the Feldherrnhalle in a failed attempt to overthrow the Weimar Republic government. Fourteen Nazis were killed, and four police officers were killed. Hitler and others were imprisoned. Hitler’s highly publicized trial lasted 24 days and gave him a platform to articulate his nationalist agenda which launched his crusade (Mein Kampf  which he dictated while in prison) that propelled the popular Nazi takeover of the government. In our time “Nazi” has a distinctly negative even evil connotation (some on the political right even attempt to label others on the political left as “Nazis”), but at the time many in Germany saw it as a movement to restore national pride and dignity after the embarrassment of losing World War I (The Great War/War to End All Wars) and the weak Weimar Republic.

 I also believe we would do well to revisit and refresh our understanding of Kristallnacht, November 9-10, 1938 when a Nazi pogrom broke windows of Jewish businesses, synagogues, and homes. Though not an official government action, the government did nothing to restrain the effort that came to symbolize antisemitism. Again, Kristallnacht is remembered as evil, but at the time it was regarded as patriotic.

 I am all too aware that hurling historic labels at present day activities and expressions that we don’t like is a dubious enterprise. Details and dynamics differ enough that drawing too close parallels is dangerous and misleading. Nevertheless, I do think these sorts of pieces of history do caution us about how easily popular ideas that sound noble are mobilized for untoward even evil purposes.

 

Witch Hunt

What if a supposed witch hunt is actually dealing with a witch? But the presumed subject is not the witch. Rather, like the weird sisters who lure Macbeth to his doom, the witches are metaphorical personifications of human vulnerabilities.

The Law of the Medes and the Persians

The Law of the Medes and the Persians

“The Law of the Medes and the Persians” has come to imply a rigid rule applied without flexibility for circumstances. It is mentioned in Daniel 6:8, 12, 15. Without getting sidetracked into historical scholarship, I have thought it a step forward in the understanding of law in the era of autocratic despots. Yes, the king/emperor issued binding decrees, but they were binding on him as well. To me this validates the principle we depend on in our time that no one is above the law, no matter how much status or authority they have.

As a Sunday school story, the emphasis was how God rewarded Daniel for his faithfulness by rescuing him from the lions. Perhaps less obvious but very important through the millennia since the time of Daniel, is the danger of ego driven leaders. Daniel’s jealous enemies appealed to Darius’ ego to entice him to promulgate a law unjustly targeting Daniel and compelling him to enforce it against his better judgment.

Who Is the Real RINO?

Political identities are always in flux and being reshaped. As I was coming of age the Republican Party was known for it “big tent.” It included the likes of Nelson Rockefeller, John Anderson, and Mark Hatfield. After the Civil War/War Between the States reactions to the then new Republican party’s role in the war and in ending slavery, the Democratic Party had pretty much of a lock on the Southern States, even as it moved in a more liberal direction with FDR. These were (sometimes derisively) known as Dixiecrats. This profile began to shift considerably with Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and Reagan’s “Revolution.” After that came efforts to bring pure conservatism to the Republican Party.  In the 1990s the label “Republicans in name only” began to be used to exclude those left from the “big tent” days. A cursory check suggested that RINO was first used in print in 1992 to identify those who were deemed not sufficiently conservative. In the post-Trump era, RINO seems to have been redefined as those who are not sufficiently loyal to Donald Trump rather than adherence to conservative political philosophy. That Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger have been labeled as RINOs is evidence of this, as their political philosophy and records are impeccably conservative. In my mind, as something of an outsider to the Republican Party (I am also an outsider to the Democratic Party), Donald Trump seems more of a RINO as he clearly puts his own ego ahead to the good of the party, the nation, or any sort of consistent political or ethical principles.

Added September 5, 2022

As the midterm elections approach in the midst of the turmoil about the documents Donald Trump took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, it is clear that he does not care about the Republican Party much less the country, but only about being the center of attention which his ego seems to crave whether the attention is positive or not.

My opinion is that complaining about the timing of the FBI retrieving the purloined documents is bunk! It would not be an issue if they had never been taken but turned over to the National Archives as long tradition and the 1978 Presidential Records Act. Failing that, they could all have been turned over when they were first missed and requested. Failing that they could have been all turned over with the first visit to Mar-a-Lago that retrieved some of them (while even more were "hidden"). Failing that they could all have been turned over when the subpoena for their return was issued. Any one of those would not only have eliminated the growing stain on Trump's integrity (if he has any), it would have entirely prevented the timing from being associated with the midterm elections. My opinion, again, is that Trump (and those who seem to me to be mindlessly defending him) has only himself to blame for this debacle. 

It would seem that the Republican Party would be well served by severing relationship with Trump, and by triggering his vicious vengeance, expose his true character. I think after enduring his bluster and wrath, they'd be better off.

Why Is Anyone Surprised?

 This may be a bit premature, but I wanted to get it posted with a date before outcomes were public. My thought is prompted by making public the recording (attr to) Steve Bannon that Trump had planned before election day to declare himself winner early, regardless of the outcome and use that as leverage to derail the counting of mail in ballots, etc. With what has been coming out in the TV interviews/reports from the January 6 committee, Trump's standing in the GOP seems to be weakening, at least some. Not exact words, but I am getting the sense of some of the "never-Trump" conservatives and Republicans are thinking if not saying, "We told you so." With my observation of Trump's whole career, and specifically his responses on election night, I think the real question is: Why is anyone surprised?!"

Reservations about Fireworks

 Before articulating my reservations, I want to be clear that I understand that since their invention in Asia, fireworks have been instruments of celebration and joy for centuries. Spectacular aerial color displays evoke oohs and ahs and loud bangs and bottle rockets in back yards thrill amateurs. Warnings about dangerous eye and hand injuries begin to appear right after Christmas and Flag Day. Yet, every year emergency rooms are crowed with accidents. Having had dogs who hid in the bathtub at the first bangs of New Year’s and Fourth of July, I sympathetic to the suggestions to be sensitive to animals in fireworks seasons.

 I am sure I heard The Star Spangled Banner at things like sporting events when I was younger, but my first memory is learning it in junior high orchestra to play at the opening of concerts. As a percussionist, I enjoyed getting the cymbals for the big crashes between phrases. That seemed to express “the bombs bursting in air.” At about thirteen years old, I began to associate the line about rockets’ red glare and bombs bursting with Fourth of July fireworks. Through my adolescence this association grew into some misgivings about what we were celebrating. Was it the joy of independence from Britain or was it bragging on US military power? As my peace ethic formed as a young adult, I became increasingly uncomfortable with fireworks as a celebration of war, but I have no interest in debating my thirteen year old observation about fireworks.

 Though a few freelance fireworks were set off in our neighborhood this year, several of the local official fireworks displays in our area were canceled this year due to wet weather. The dogs, my wife, and I noticed and appreciated a quieter Fourth of July. Which got me thinking again about the significance of the way we celebrate a number of historical events.

 This year I noticed something else for the first time that took my Fourth of July pondering in a parallel but different direction. On social media a number of people posted a variety of messages with the theme of: “Your holiday weekend was brought to you by citizens with guns.” These were clearly positioned as pro-gun rights messages. Though my values do not share that perspective, I believe they are right. Guns, war, and violent force as means of achieving goals and resolving problems have been intrinsic to US history from the founding of the country.

 What made me particularly uncomfortable is the connection between the proliferation of all sorts of firearms in our time (that would have been unimaginable in 1776) with the celebration of US independence from Britain. I cringe at the increasing rhetoric that suggests and even seems to welcome and promote armed resistance toward those whose perspectives and behaviors feel threatening. While I don’t want to debate a compare and contrast between Black Lives Matter and the events of January 6, 2021, violent force figures in those and other current movements.

 As a society we seem to be moving past violence on the margins to advocating violence in the mainstream calling for an armed revolution. As a US citizen, such attitudes and rhetoric cause me to question the future of our country. As one who aspires to follow Jesus on the path of peace and even love for enemies, I am compelled to distinguish myself from the advocacy of violent force. I am not objecting to fireworks or guns per se, but I believe I am discerning a deep moral disease eating away at not only the US but the witness of those of us who bear the name of Jesus.

Remembering the 2016 Republican presidential debates and primaries, nothing in the wake of the 2020 election and everything surrounding January 6, 2021 surprises me at all.

 Remembering the 2016 Republican presidential debates and primaries, nothing in the wake of the 2020 election and everything surrounding January 6, 2021 surprises me at all.

Compare and Contrast the Legal and Political Dynamics of Nixon and Trump

 

I don’t know if I want to put this out in social media, yet or ever. I am not looking to pick fights about either Nixon or Trump, but as more and more emerges about Trump, I can’t help but speculate on the power of politics on crime and justice.

 

When Nixon knew that Watergate meant that he would be impeached and probably convicted, he resigned. He never acknowledged his culpability, but said he was forced to resign when his political support collapsed. Gerald Ford gave him a Presidential Pardon to spare the country from a very ugly and destructive legal situation. Many Democrats even thanked him, not for letting Nixon off the hook, but for letting the country off the hook. So we don’t have an historical precedent for handling legal proceeding against a former US President.

 

As more and more problematic information about Trump’s political and business practices surfaces, I am seeing many observers predicting that he cannot escape legal consequences. Yet at the same time, his supporters not only dismiss all of this as politically motivated theater, but affirm their allegiance to him. Trump’s loyal base does not seem to be wavering much, even as jockeying for position seems to undermine the unity of those seeking to hold him accountable.

 

Nixon considered the collapse of his presidency to have been a loss of political support. At this point, Trump and his supporters seem to think politics can protect him from legal consequences. Almost halfway through the public phase of the January 6 Committee’s hearings, I will be interested to see how all of this shakes out. If Trump is truly legally vulnerable, will that ever be discerned if his political base collapses? If his political base remains strong, will we ever know if he should have been charged? If two competing political power blocks come to an impasse, will that further the division and fragmentation of the country, regardless of the legal outcomes?

 

 

My Urgent Plea to Heed the Call of the Theological Declaration of Barmen

For over 40 years I have been saying all Christians and churches of all traditions in the US would be well served by a serious revisiting of the Theological Declaration of Barmen. Perhaps because I was raised and educated and served in the broad evangelical tradition, I have been aware of their particular vulnerability to the lure of a pseudo-Christian identification with the country. Recently these undercurrents seem to be taking the form of an organized movement with a name that is openly used by both its proponents and critics: (white) Christian Nationalism.  It even seems to have made its way into mainstream US politics.

 

The Theological Declaration of Barmen is brief enough to read at a sitting and deep enough to ponder for a lifetime. It sets for a clear foundation for why the Gospel of Christ cannot be identified with any country or nationalism. It was the solid basis for the Confessing Church’s break with the “German Christians” in Nazi Germany. I believe all of us who trust, love, and follow Jesus must reject every manifestation of “Christian Nationalism.”

 

The Confessing Church struggled mightily with how to be faithful Christians and good citizens. I sense that Christians and churches in the US are struggling similarly. I am not suggesting a pat formula and certainly not a painless way forward. I have no voice in any particular group, and with my present calling and vocation wrapped up in caring for my wife on her Alzheimer’s journey, I am in no position to become an activist. But I cannot ignore the aching in my spirit that has persisted for over four decades and is growing into a crescendo.

 

The full text of the Theological Declaration of Barmen is available from a number of sources. In keeping with its Lutheran and Reformed roots, it is cast in the classic form of a Church Confession. On the surface, its declarations seem obvious expressions of Christian faith and discipleship, but it rocked the German government and the churches of that time.

 

Find it at this link. The Theological Declaration of Barmen (sacred-texts.com)

 

What Do Guns Mean?

In the wake of the shootings in Buffalo, NY, Uvalde, TX, and several other places just ahead of the NRA Convention in Houston, the debates over the place of firearms in US society are raging again with two mutually exclusive “never-give-up!” positions. One side pleading for legal action for controls to limit such recent tragic events. The other side counters with various versions of “guns-are-not-the-problem: people-are” or “we don’t have a gun problem, we have a heart problem.” An assortment of explanations are suggested as to what caused so many people to be problems or have heart problems: mental illness, lack of parental discipline, liberal or “woke” public educators (or politicians or courts), violent video games, absence of prayer in public school, lenient police and judges, disrespect for authority, not enough “good guys with guns” to take out the “bad guys with guns” (reverting to the wild west that whoever has the fastest draw is the law), and even dismissing the significance of guns by asserting that other means can also be fatal. Not only are people looking for ways to control firearms feeling a frustration of an attitude that nothing can be done, but I am even seeing gun rights advocated promoting that and suggesting that deaths by firearms are inevitable and trying to reduce them is futile and foolish.

My impression is that everyone is shouting and no one is listening. We are not witnessing a dialog seeking solutions together, or even a debate. To be up front, I am one who favors taking legal action, but I have no illusions that laws or even consistent enforcement will prevent all future firearms tragedies (not just mass shootings, but street crime, arguments and crimes of passion, suicides, and accidents). But I do believe we can do better than we have been doing. Would better mental health services be helpful? Probably, but that only addresses a portion of the problem.

For some time I have been suggesting that a radical change in the social consensus on this and other issues (such as sexual assult and harassment). But I have no illusion that is likely, and I certainly have no leverage to begin a movement in that direction. Nevertheless, I feel a certain compulsion to express what I mean for my own peace of mind. If this sort of thinking began to be explored, I think meaningful dialog and progress might actually be possible. 

What I am suggesting is that firearms per se are not actually the problem. Rather, the problem seems to me to be the meaning we attach to firearms. At the very top of the list is recognizing that firearms represent virile masculinity, power, and dominance. (In that sense they share a lot of common roots with sexual assualt and harassment, so in my mind they are related.) 

Firearms are also expressions of fear of ambiguous threats: anonymous strangers who evoke discomfort, crime in the form of bodily harm or theft, oppressive government interference. For many years in a variety of settings I have taught that the opposite of fear is not courage but love. As 1 John 4:18 says “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.” Determining how to face our fears with love is challenging indeed. Perhaps one of Jesus’ toughest teachings was, “Love your enemies.” (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27,35). I believe this is consistent with Romans 14:23, “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” Yes, this sort of thinking is not understood or accepted by those outside of Christ, but I believe that we who are in Christ have both opportunity and responsibility to demonstrate and call for a different way to live.

Firearms also are a false sense of security. In my circle of family and friends I have known people who were shot by accident: by a friend, neighbor, or family member: who committed suicide (much higher “success” rate than other methods). But I know of no one who shot an intruder or attacker. I won’t try to dig out the statistics (which get configured in confusing and even deceptive ways), but I am aware that there is considerable evidence that a handgun in the home is more likely to be discharged on a family member, friend or neighbor than on an intruder. To me, when firearms are signs of security, it signals a misplaced faith, as Psalm 146:3 warns. “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help.”

I do not regard all firearms as evil and have no specific problem with sport shooting or hunting or even ethical, authorized use in law enforcement (I do have other concerns about the military, but exploring that would be a distraction from this thinking). I would even allow that a rancher controlling feral hogs might well use something like an AR-15, but I have a hard time imagining a legitimate use by an ordinary citizen. I mention these things to be clear that I am not advocating confiscation of firearms or maligning the reputations of all, most, or even many gun owners. 

What I long for is an honest dialog about what guns mean to us and how to shape those understandings in healthy ways. I am not accusing any one person of attaching these meanings to firearms, but suggest they are embedded in our social consensus. How can we work together to reduce the tragedies that seem to be on the increase? To put it in a single illustrative seed for thought: how can we help men (especially) who feel alone, threatened, weak, and angry find better ways to affirm their identities and confidence than through firearms - whether the thrill of a blast at a shooting range or massacring people as targets of his sense of inadequacy? This is just a starter question.

Just My Early Thoughts on the Leaked Supreme Court Pending Decision on Roe v. Wade

With so many jumping in with assorted perspectives on the leak of the draft of the Supreme Court’s impending decision overturning Roe v. Wade, my voice is inconsequential. It changes nothing; it contributes nothing unique, it is less eloquent and less informed than so many other voices. Yet I feel some compulsion to get my very early inner rumblings out, not so much for any who might read but for my own inner peace.

What I am writing is neither a polemic nor a position statement. Rather, I am writing a personal witness to a giant sea change in the United States that is much more than the abortion debate on the past half century and more. This may be the highest profile of stunning cross currents, but I find it hard to imagine being higher profile than the events surrounding January 6, 2021, US public officials defending Putin and Russia invading Ukraine, refusal to address the epidemic of mass killings and violent street crime, or the deep divisions responding to the public health crisis of Covid-19. Yes, in markedly different ways, my perception is that each of these are signs of seismic shifting in the US cultural consensus.

Of course, observers have speculated about the direction of a pending Supreme Court decision based on the questions asked by the justices. To be sure, hints of what happens behind those closed doors have drifted about. However, the actual leaking, which seems to have been intentional, of a draft majority opinion before it is finalized and announced by the court is unprecedented. Perhaps even more than what becomes of Roe v. Wade, this has the potential of shaking the integrity of the court. I am interested to see if a leaker is identifies and what perspective and intent may have been behind the leak. The worst case would be one of the justices themselves, or a staffer with knowledge and direction of the justice. Was this someone trying to insure or prevent the overturning of Roe v. Wade? Even a carelessly left out copy is a profound failing.

One of the implications of the leak is that it has inflamed the already divisive atmosphere in the country. Since the decision is not officially final, it sets in motion efforts to influence, in conflicting directions, what will finally be announced. That casts a dark shadow over the independence and integrity of the court as above politics. We know that has never been pure, but now all illusion has vanished.

While I have no prophetic gift or special insight, I think a few observations are apparent to anyone who considers such things. First is that overturning Roe v. Wade will not end abortions in the US. I think it is safe to say that we can look forward to at least another half-century of fighting as states maneuver to position themselves as pure pro-life or as safe refuge for abortions. Court fights are bound to increase. I think this is an almost classic case of “be careful what you ask for; the results will not be what you expect or want.” I doubt it will be a clear victory for the pro-life movement nor the unmitigated horror the pro-choice movement fears. For one thing, the leaked draft is 98 pages long. We have yet to see what all is said in those pages.

Expecting that this time might be coming, on December 4, 2021 I wrote about the prospects of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Reading it today seemed a little eerie. In it is a link to a piece I wrote on August 15, 2015 about my pastoral experience surrounding abortion.

Writing Workshop: Overturning Roe v. Wade Will Not End Abortion in the US (nstolpewriting.blogspot.com)

 

adrift in a storm without rudder or sail or engine or map or compass

Another thing I am recording here just to get it out of my head, without posting it more publicly, as I have no interest in arguing about my gut feelings. As the mid-term elections of 2022 approach with the looming shadow of the 2024 presidential election, I have this sense that the country is adrift in a storm without rudder or sail or engine or map or compass, and maybe without a crew. It is not a question of competing visions of the two parties, but that neither seems to have any sort of vision, more like cat fights in a small cage, without even a real candidate to the top cat (despite increasingly dubious claims to be the real top cat). 

The Democratic Party seems mired in ineptitude and insignificance, while the Republican Party seems to be torn between self-immolation and cannibalism. 

Seems Significantly Ironic to Me

I really am not interested in discussing or debating opinions about what I am about to observe, even though I expect some sometimes strong reactions. Rather, I am fascinated by ironic juxtapositions of seemingly unrelated things.

Perhaps because they both involve commercial air travel, the group of people singing Christian hymns on a flight and the lifting of the mask mandates for interstate flights seem oddly connected. In both cases, groups of people are in close proximity for an extended time in an enclosed environment. Once in the air, no one has any where to escape, whether they don’t want to listen to group singing (whether or not Christian hymns) or don’t want to risk catching a virus from someone else on the flight (especially since we know that wearing a mask protects those around you more than it protects you). My own gut reaction is that group singing (or any other noisy activity) and going on an airline flight without wearing a mask seem insensitive to the other people on the flight, whose preferences and health are not known.

As this rumbled around in my head today, I couldn’t help pondering the meme I have seen recently comparing democracy and republic forms of government by suggesting that in a democracy the majority could impose its will on the minority and confiscate their property, while a republic builds in protections for minorities from being oppressed by the majority. Though this seems a grotesque oversimplification to me, it suggested to me that commercial air flights with group singing and flying maskless qualify for the caricature of democracy in the meme. Having lived in urban areas where growth of auto traffic pushed building freeways and rail lines, thousands of homes were taken by eminent domain (with often protested “fair” compensation), perhaps more like a democracy than a republic as cast in the meme.

Again, I am interested in the ironies of popular opinions as they intersect with messy realities, and not in arguing about singing or masks or eminent domain, nor about a democracy and a republic.

Personal Perception of FOX News

 I do not perceive FOX News as conservative news and opinion but as a sensationalist tabloid profiteering off the fears of a vulnerable audience.

Political Identities

I actually wrote this in February 2021,

 I don’t think I am making some sort of grand discovery by observing the mush of political identities that have surfaced in the last several years. A number of commentators have suggested that the Trump years, climaxing with his Senate acquittal for the insurrection of January 6, 2021, have left the Republican Party in disarray and may assure the Democratic Party some dominance in a divisive and hostile political climate. There is probably good reason for that expectation, and I am in no position to refute it. Rather, for my own clarity of thought, I want to outline my perception of what each party faces.

 The Republican Party seems to me to be a sort of home base for several mutually exclusive, but slightly overlapping  subgroups, none of which is substantial enough to be a viable party by itself but, especially during the Trump years, have found themselves either manipulated to marginalized.

1.      Classic Republicans along the lines of Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, G. Ford

2.      Libertarians (who may or may not identify with the splinter party of that name) who take a cue from Jefferson’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” whose champion is Reagan in the pursuit of minimizing government and taxation

3.      Authentic, principled conservatives such as David Brooks and George Will who were not taken in by Trump but espouse personal and public responsibility, market capitalism that works for the common good, and respectful dialog. George W. Bush seemed to try to move in this direction with “compassionate conservatism,” but it didn’t gain traction.

4.      Nostalgia seekers whose longing for a return to the 1950s, as though they were the pinnacle of American normalcy and greatness. Feeling left behind by the turmoils and trends since the 60s, the Make American Great Again (MAGA) mentality awakened them and gave them a voice that will not silenced.

5.      Trump personal loyalists are closely akin to the MAGA group but are empowered by his brash demeanor and angry rhetoric, having felt disenfranchised for decades they have rallied to his voice.

6.      Fringe groups, generally characterized as “white supremacist” or “conspiracy theory advocates” have worked, with some measure of success, and positioning themselves in the mainstream of the party.

 Of course, the Democratic Party is hardly monolithic. Obama and Biden may represent a quasi-moderate (though they get branded as radically leftist and even socialist/communist by some Republican voices, inaccurately I believe) who work smoothly with the established patterns of power and profit. To the left of them are figures such as Bernie Sanders (self-identified independent democratic socialist) and some of the younger, insurgent voices in the party, perhaps most often identified with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Hillary Clinton, though receding, does represent those who have articulated the voice of the party. In my mind, at least, I don’t recognize quite the same distinct sub-groups that I do for the Republicans, so their internal jockeying is more nuanced and obscure, but nevertheless real and potentially debilitating.

 My sense of the challenge for the Democratic Party going forward in the post-Trump era, is to present a cohesive, compelling vision for the US that leaves behind being anti-Trump and even anti-Republican, but something positive and hopeful. It needs substance in which all in the country benefit from practical realities of a future that promotes the common good while celebrating great diversity. It needs to demonstrate justice and compassion benefit all, not just those who have been oppressed and marginalized. Somehow, gratitude for the past doesn’t gloss over serious flaws but embraces a future of continual development. A vision in which economic and technological advances find their purpose in human fulfillment.

 I have to say that I do not really expect to see such a vision emerge from the Democratic Party in the current political climate. Nor do I think the Republicans have any interest in such a vision for the country. Each would shoot down the other should it emerge. On the one hand, this could be an opportunity for a true visionary to rally people around realistic hope for all people in the country that would transcend party loyalties. That probably means getting enough distance from the Trump years for the anger to subside. On the other hand, drifting without rudder opens the country to the danger of a demagogue. I think the dynamics of the last several years does indicate the country is susceptible to that.

Is Donald Trump Pushing the Envelope?

 With the discovery of up to 15 boxes of White House files taken to Mar-A-Lago, on top of the NY investigations into Trump business practices, on top of what is emerging in the January 6 investigation, my mind went back to what he said in the 2016 campaign about being able to shoot someone in public and not lose votes. I have wondered if he is intentionally pushing the envelope either to see how far he can go before alienating his loyalists or if he truly sees himself in invulnerable. Just to be sure I checked several sources from January 23, 2016. They all reported the same thing as shown in this from Time Magazine.

I am posting this in my writing workshop but not to Facebook or Twitter, as a kind of reality marker as what unfolds between now and the 2022 and 2024 elections. To me the collapse of the house of Trump seems inevitable, and I wonder how his loyalists will respond when it happens. But I fear that he might have been right about his shooting comment, that their loyalty will persist with denial and evasion, perhaps even claiming he didn't say what he said in January 2016 and January 2022, and many other outrageous times.

Time

BY KATIE REILLY 

 

JANUARY 23, 2016 3:34 PM EST

At a campaign stop in Iowa on Saturday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he could shoot someone in public and still not lose any voters.

“They say I have the most loyal people — did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”

 

Getting Another Thing Off My Mind

 My personal opinion is that Matt Gaetz and Donald Trump have led the GOP to abandon any pretense of long claimed high moral ground with regard to predatory sex, oppressive money, abuse of power, and flagrant disregard of truth (not to mention evading accountability). 

For Matt Gaetz to argue that not being a monk, married, or aware of the age of his very young sex victim is way beyond disingenuous. I would not be at all surprised if he believes he's covered by Trump's "leadership" in these areas. To be sure, they are not alone (and liberals are not exempt), but their public roles are much more than a social barometer of moral climate, they are more like pollution changing the climate negatively. 

I don't actually think Trump et al have any right to call themselves "conservative." My sense is that he is a shrewd conartist usurping "conservative" slogans to hide that he has no principles except his ego.