Corrupt

[TOC: all blog posts]

Like many African countries, Liberia has struggled with corruption and the resulting barriers to development. A long civil war only made it worse. But recently elected President Joseph Boakai has promised to do something about it: among other things, he is requiring government officials to be transparent about their finances.

He's not the first to attempt to address the problem. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf was also determined to fight corruption, but her attempts mostly failed. It is not an easy task getting rid of it. 

I once ignored the advice of a friend and planted bamboo by my house. A few years later it had taken over much of the yard. I ended up spending many hours removing it from flower beds and turning up the turf square by square and carefully separating bamboo roots from the grass. It was easy letting it start. If I had seen what was happening and addressed the problem early, I might have won my battle. As it was, I almost certainly ended up with as much risk as I'd had when I first planted it. But at least by then I knew better and knew I had to be vigilant.

I've heard there are only two solutions to a bamboo invasion: nuclear holocaust or selling the house. We sold (which almost feels corrupt, though I warned the buyers of the potential threat).

Corruption is like bamboo: easy to start, easy to ignore, difficult to root out.

The Republican Party has decided they like a big man who runs things his way, at least so long as they can promote themselves along with him. If that requires condoning corruption, so be it. They admire and wish to emulate Victor Orban of Hungary. Orban is quick to embrace traditional culture and heritage while blaming immigrants for the country's problems. Familiar.

Orban's government has slid into corruption. Or maybe it jumped. One result is that the economy has stagnated. An oligarchy of already rich opportunists has benefited immensely, but the rest of the population has had to tighten their belts. While in Liberia corruption has hindered growth, in Hungary it has caused a downward slide. Through it all, Orban continues to praise Hungary's Christian tradition, blame others for the problems, trample on a free press, eliminate dissension, and rake in what he can.

Here in the U.S., our Republican-majority government has said this is what we want. The richest men in the country are invited to help make it happen. The world's richest man eliminates help for the world's poorest children while promoting an outrageously expensive defense system for which he will be the major contractor. Those who dissent are publicly chastised, called names, and accused.

The most interesting accusation is "corrupt!" When Trump wanted to accept the personal gift of a luxury airplane, he called Democrats corrupt for resisting. It's a clever strategy, I suppose. If you accuse dissenters of the very thing they are dissenting about, it shifts attention. Regardless, the corruption is in accepting the bribe, not in trying to stop it. There is a definition for corruption. You can look it up.

Another interesting distraction is to say that all politicians are corrupt, so quit bellyaching. Not all politicians are corrupt, of course, but it's easier to say that than to figure out who is. But even if you want to assume that most are corrupt on some level, that they compromise their principles on occasion to stay in office, any corruption is not equal to massive corruption. A sandbag is not the Sahara desert.

"Well, at least this administration is honest about their corruption!" Now there's an odd statement. The corruption is blatant, to be sure. But calling the whistle-blower corrupt is simply a lie. That's the opposite of honesty.

While Republicans fawn over abuse of power by the Orban administration, Trump himself is more interested in ingratiating himself to those tyrants whose abuse extends beyond personal gain into cruelty and revenge, such as Putin and Kim Jong Un. Their behavior is that of ruthless war lords who, as in Liberia, emerge as a result of corruption and then live by it and for it.

I applaud President Boakai's attempt to rein in corruption in Liberia. I appreciate Democrats here calling foul on accepting bribes from foreign governments. I especially respect conservatives who call a spade a spade. One day, if the Republican Party survives, it too may attempt to stop or inhibit corruption rather than worship it. What are the odds?

No Balls

[TOC: all blog posts]

During World War II, Allied soldiers would sing a song to the tune of Colonel Bogey March to mock leaders of the Nazi regime. According to Wikipedia, the song has been cited as "morally correct disrespect." I rather like that label.

The lyrics go like this:

Hitler has only got one ball,
Göring has two but very small,
Himmler is rather sim'lar,
But poor old Goebbels has no balls at all.

Other verses were added, each concluding with poor old Goebbels.

I don't know if the song referred to courage, though apparently "no balls" was an accusation of cowardice already then. With the boot-licking and ass-kissing going on these days in U.S. politics, I think it may be a legitimate time to resurrect the ditty, with new words. I offer this version for public use and, in the spirit of the original, for modification and expansion:

Alito has only got one ball,
Thomas has two but very small,
Gorsuch, he's got some such,
But old Judge Roberts has no balls at all.

Another verse:

The Donald has only got one ball,
Steve Miller has two but very small,
At Vance, we look askance,
'Cause like Judge Roberts he's got no balls at all.

One more:

Murdoch has only got one ball,
Zuck'berg has two but very small,
Bezos, he won't amaze us,
'Cause like Judge Roberts he's got no balls at all.

One little rhyme set to music will not dethrone a tyrant or change our political landscape. But it may be an outlet for expressing disrespect at influential people who expect our respect. It could be a fitting memorial, after a minute of silence, to our fathers who fought and died as Allies attempting to rid the world of autocrats.

When I am arrested or detained, I shall whistle the tune.

Papal Bully

[TOC: all blog posts]

Trump's claim to want to be the next Pope certainly is a joke. A bad joke, but that's to be expected.

Trump doesn't want to be Pope; he wants to be God. The ancient Pharaohs got away with it, and Roman emperors claimed deity, so Mr Trump is just trying to catch up. (Those earlier examples of deification were in the context of polytheism, so they might not suit Trump.)

Trump's ambitions come as no surprise.

What is surprising, at least to me, is how many people have already bestowed godhood on him, already worship him. For him they give up their morals, and reject their former gods. Christians reject the teachings of Jesus. Supreme Court justices reject the Constitution. Senators and Representatives in Congress reject governance. All in obeisance to a bully.

If Trump somehow represents God to all these people, I guess it says something about their view of God. Perhaps they have always worshiped, and aspire to live like, some divine asshole.

Little wonder the church is in decline.

Kaos

[TOC: all blog posts]

Top members of the Trump administration included Jeff Goldberg in a group text about a military raid in the Middle East. But they are to be forgiven this screw-up, as for their frequent screw-ups.

Seventy times seven will soon be surpassed, if it hasn't already, but those numbers are only symbolic. We should continue to forgive this administration at least until Judgment Day (which may be just around the corner).

In this case in particular, it was a simple mistake. Mr Hegseth confused Jeff Goldberg with Jeff Goldblum. Jeff Goldblum is Zeus, after all, and Trump is close to Zeus, closer than anyone anywhere ever. So it was only normal that he be included in the chat.

Prometheus said, "A line appears, the order wanes, the family falls, and Kaos reigns." Let us assure you that Prometheus is just a corrupt reporter. Nothing affects the gods, and whatever the gods do is right and good. This was a very orderly mistake, if you can even call it a mistake.

Which you can't. It wasn't. Ask Zeus.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/signal-group-chat-attack-plans-hegseth-goldberg/682176/?gift=mKkQKbnRHt2F0afuTP2RoXwG2b0tcHl13XzAahqs258&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/signal-group-chat-attack-plans-hegseth-goldberg/682176/?gift=mKkQKbnRHt2F0afuTP2RoXwG2b0tcHl13XzAahqs258&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

Ogle Maps

[TOC: all blog posts]

In a surprise announcement, Alphabet Inc. informed the public that they would be renaming one of their corporate holdings. Ogle Maps replaces Google Maps as the official title for the popular mapping platform.

Under pressure from the Mump Regime, which insists that the primary purpose of the map app is to spy on people's movements and only secondarily to help them find their way, Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai said the company would comply. "Yes, your Eminence," he is reported to have replied to the regime. "Your superior intellect has convinced us that this is a fantastic decision."

Earlier reports indicated that the name change was controversial. "What the hell do they know about it?" one board member responded. "You'd think they have more important things to work on. I mean, one of my servants told me they paid $7.50 for a dozen eggs!"

Any dissension was quickly squelched, however. After threats from the Holy Oligarchy, Alphabet decided that Ogle Maps is a perfectly acceptable name for that division of the corporation. "In fact," Pichai commented, "we are considering changing the name of our search engine to Ogle. Our mission is to supply the Regime with as much personal information as we can. Our users need to be protected from themselves."

Formerly the stated mission of Alphabet was"Don't be evil." A spokesman (actually a woman who emphasized the need to dispel any hint of D. E. I. policy) said, "We believe that bowing to the demands of a demigod is the least evil thing we can possibly do."

Something New

[TOC: all blog posts]

Last night at the Democratic National Convention, a lot of revered Democrats were featured. A PBS commentator noted the contrast to the Republican convention, which featured none of the old guard and a singular focus on one man.

David Brooks, whose views I have often respected even when mine differed, noted that at least the Republicans were featuring something new and not the same old same old.

I guess he's right: the celebration of tyranny is new to America.

On the other hand, it's older than the nascent democracy of ancient Greece.

What's really refreshing is a president willing to sacrifice personal aspirations for the good of the country. It's not entirely new, mind you. Our first president, George Washington, did the same many years ago. But the decision was so unexpected that it caught the entire Republican Party off guard. It seems that such an act is beyond their imagination.

Little Big Men

[TOC: all blog posts]

Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela claims to have won an election that he didn't.

Venezuela was a reasonably stable democracy at a time when military dictatorships were common in South America. Now it lives under an autocrat. A fair percentage of the country, though not a majority, seems to appreciate the so-called strength of a dictator. Enough at least to keep one in power for now.

Maduro is sending the military to arrest opposition leaders and protesters. People who fail to fall in line signal to autocrats that they fail the test of true leadership—attracting followers. Coercion follows.

Coercion is the antithesis of freedom. It is a sure sign of authoritarianism. Sometimes it is brutal. Often it is more subtle. If you don't join the party, your job options are limited. If you don't support our candidate, your own candidacy is in jeopardy. If you don't tailor the news to fit a certain narrative, your news agency is shuttered.

At one time, I thought this sort of thing, common in poorer nations, would not happen here. Now I know better. A whole party (or what once was one) clamors for a big man.

In a wealthy democracy we are currently enduring a campaign based on the lie that our last one was stolen, while in a country beset by problems and poverty, a sitting president has graciously conceded a close election. 

When Nixon's demands for loyalty were exposed, as a nation we were disgusted. We haven't lost that disgust, but the forces that counteract it are stronger now. The Supreme Court, once a venerated institution, has decided that it alone can arbitrarily decide who can get away with what. Republican politicians fear for their families and their jobs if they voice an opinion based on conscience. Excessively wealthy people have publicly declared their allegiance to ending democracy in favor of the "freedom" to take advantage of the rest of us.

From a distance, we could always view tyrants with disdain. Look how they oppress! Look how they cheat! Look how they purge their own ranks! All because they can't get sufficient grassroots support for their policies. Without public support, which might actually make them great, they reduce themselves to schemers and thugs.

I spent time in Africa, where this substitute for leadership is common. But I don't recall any of those heads of state standing by and cheering as a mob tried to murder their own hand-picked vice president.

That is about as small as it gets.

Day One

You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?  No, no, no. Other than Day One.

It's a clever response.

"Day one" is a means of expressing one's highest priority. Politicians like to say: On day one, I'll do this. On day one, I'll do that. Same here: top priority.

And yet, grammatically, the sentence means only for one day. The first day, mind you, but just that one.

Actually, the first paragraph above is Trump's rephrasing of the question and answer. The original question was, "You are promising America tonight you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?"

"Except for Day One."

Trump is being evasive, a particular skill of his. It ensures that he can avoid responsibility. You can't pin blame when there are multiple interpretations. Mafia dons talk this way. 

So let's not try to interpret exactly what he meant or how he meant it. Consider instead what happened on Day One, inauguration day, January 20, 2017.

It began with a promise to listen to the people: "Everyone is listening to you now." It ended with a refusal to listen to the people.

It began with raging about a minority in charge and a promise to return power to the people: "January 20th 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again." It ended with insisting that a majority vote of those people did not count.

Immediately after the inaugural speech, the lies escalated. The new president forced his press secretary to claim the largest crowd ever. This was clearly not true, and vanity was not the point. It was an assertion that this president could disregard any semblance of truth. By the end of his term, the number of documented falsehoods stood at 30,573. Self-proclaimed defenders of Truth swooned.

Authoritarians will look you in the eye and tell you something you and they know is not true. You are not in a position to contradict, so the lie stands and you are put in your place. The rules are established: I am more important than you. What I say is more important than truth. If anyone disagrees, there will be consequences.

If the main character on Day One in 2025 is the same as for inauguration day 2017, a new lie will set the tone. A flood of lies will follow. Revenge against anyone who disagrees with those lies will begin.

"Great America" will be a whopper. Fail to swallow it, and expect abuse of power as retribution. No one abandons their first priority after Day One.

An Exemplary President

I remember thinking that the problem with Liberian politicians was that they weren't more like ones in America. Ours trusted our constitution, accepted free and fair elections, believed in the peaceful transition of power.

I was young and naive.

I am no longer young.

Perhaps my current enthusiasm and optimism for Liberia is evidence of lingering naivete. But I am overjoyed that President George Weah had the courage, patriotism, and good sense to concede a close election. It was not what many Liberians expected, given the history of their country and that of other African countries. 

Reuters reported President Weah's concession:

"A few moments ago, I spoke with president elect Joseph Boakai to congratulate him on his victory," Weah said on national radio. "I urge you to follow my example and accept the results of the elections."

His comments stood out in West and Central Africa where there have been eight military coups in three years, eroding faith in democratic elections.

Meanwhile, back in the US of A, a 77-year-old incumbent and would-be "big man" who lost an election 3 years ago by a considerably larger margin than Weah whines on about how he won all 50 states. He vows vicious revenge and calls those of us who voted against him "vermin."  I'm reminded of Hotel Rwanda; the label "cockroach" was a precursor to the brutal slaughter of Tutsis.

The worst of African politics seems to be finding a home here in America, while an African politician demonstrates maturity. Maybe the problem with American politicians is that they aren't more like one in Liberia.

 

The Great Deceiver

Young Earth Creationism is a belief that the world was made in six literal days and is less than 10,000 years old. Some versions of this belief apparently promote the notion that God created evidence of a universe that is 14 billion years old, of an Earth that is 4.5 billion years old, and of evolving life on this planet. But this was created purely for the reason of testing our ability to deny that evidence in favor of what this minority calls faith.

In The Language of God, Francis Collins addresses claims such as this patiently, though not without a hint of exasperation. He offers compelling evidence for the Big Bang, evolution, and God. He disputes this Creationist "image of God as a cosmic trickster." At least, he says, these Young Earth Creationists are now admitting the evidence. That's progress from a history of denying it. It is also, he says, perhaps "the ultimate admission of defeat for the Creationist perspective."*

This insistence that God must follow our own nostalgic perceptions of how a Creator behaves is somewhat baffling. I alternate between shrugging it off as another example of Christian nincompoopery and fuming over what it does to our collective witness. Presenting God as the prime deceiver seems blasphemous.

But this distorted view of God may help make sense of another source of bewilderment. I have lamented the church's penchant for lying. But if God deceives, then we, created in God's image, can (should?) embrace deceit. Endless deception can be viewed as evidence of godliness, not just a liability to be tolerated. If God deceives, so should we!

Does this explain how so many, in the name of truth, have embraced the lies? Might a Great Deceiver demand that we endorse "the country’s most accomplished trickster"** for the highest office in our land? 

Dirty

Russia is warning of a dirty bomb. It's the Ukrainians, Putin claims, who are planning this dastardly deed.

Putin's playbook includes accusing someone else of what you plan to do. Then when you do it, you have already set the stage to blame them.

Sound familiar? We don't know what our former president and Putin talked about, but they may have shared strategies. Remember the fake hullabaloo about a rigged election? Turns out the rigging was being done by the one whinging about how it was going to happen. As it turned out, the election was enough of a rout that they couldn't pull off their nonsense, so they interrupted certification of the election with a riot. 

And the lies continue…  Some who claim to worship truth are OK with that.

This time it could lead to nuclear disaster. Oh well, at least Putin won't have to admit he made a mistake or lost a war. Better to kill hundreds of thousands of people than that!

Dementia

Paranoia is a common symptom of dementia. Those with Alzheimer's disease may suspect you or others of stealing their watch, their wallet, their election...

How do we handle those with such delusions? "Allow the individual to express ideas. Acknowledge their opinions." Distract the person with something that will take their mind off their obsession. Share your thoughts but keep it simple.

Incidents of older relatives who worried about being robbed came to mind this morning when I listened to Steve Inskeep's high-profile interview on NPR.

A government site on Alzheimer's offers a caution: "There are people who take advantage of weak and elderly people. Find out if someone is trying to abuse or steal from the person." Maybe the wallet is missing. If it can't be found there may be a problem. If they are worried, it's OK to investigate.

It's easy to argue with the deluded, but the standard advice is don't confront. It's easy to get defensive; don't take offense.

It might be convenient to nod your head and go along if, say, Grandma is still considering you for her will. Or if Grandpa still has sway with influential friends who can steer your future.

But if you choose to believe the delusions without evidence and to chase down, berate, and punish those whom your would-be benefactor falsely suspects, then someone else's dementia is the least of your problems.

Hurting God

Joe Biden is a devout Catholic, but I suspect he might agree with the sentiments of the German Lutheran Passion hymn, Herzliebster Jesu. The translation I grew up with begins like this:

Ah, dearest Jesus, how hast thou offended,

That man to judge thee hath in hate pretended?

By foes derided, by thine own rejected,

O most afflicted.

Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon thee?

Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone thee.

'Twas I, Lord Jesus, I it was denied thee:
I crucified thee.

The tune, by Johan Crüger, is in a minor key and complements the words to make one of the saddest, loveliest songs in our church's hymnal. Confession and forgiveness are bedrocks of the faith I grew up with.

I can imagine Biden singing these words, admitting that he hurts God, as we all do. And I think he can identify with the sadness and injustice. Joe Biden is capable of confession and the humility it requires.

According to Trump, Joe Biden wants to "Take away your guns, destroy your second amendment, no religion, no anything. Hurt the Bible, hurt God. He's against God, he's against guns." It's hard to tell from the rambling, but a (false) accusation that Biden aims to abolish the 2nd amendment appears to be given as evidence that he wants to hurt God. Does this mean that guns are the foundation of his theology, such as it is? Proof of your faith is a faith in weapons? What kind of religion is that?

Can you imagine Trump singing a song of confession (or, for that matter, anything in a minor key)? He cannot, or refuses to, see his own faults. And many pander to this inflated view. Wealthy pastors of megachurches encourage his delusion by singing his praises, while they too whine about being criticized for no reason.

Many evangelicals these days accept sin to the extent that it allows them to vote for Trump. If nobody's perfect, it's OK to vote for a man who denies that morals apply to him. Is it OK to accept forgiveness while dispensing with confession? Meanwhile, the platform they endorse provides little besides condemnation and revenge.

It's true that nobody's perfect. We all hurt God, in that we have done it to the least of those among us.

Ah, dearest Jesus, how have we offended?

Unthinkable

In an interview, Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says he'll vote for Trump in 2020:

I intend to vote for Donald Trump in 2020, but my shift is from reluctantly not voting for him in 2016 to what you might call reluctantly voting for him in 2020, and hoping for his reëlection, because the alternative is increasingly unthinkable.

President Mohler comes across as measured and sensible, in part because he finds Trump pretty disgusting. He's convinced that other evangelicals will criticize him for criticizing Trump. He follows his reluctant endorsement with:

I will not become an apologist for the misbehavior of the President and for what I see as glaring deficiencies in his private and public character. There will be a good many evangelicals angry with me for stating what I just said to you.

Missing from the interview is any explanation of what Dr Mohler means by unthinkable. So I shall attempt to fill this gap:

• Health care: Can you imagine the horrors of health care for all Americans? Why, I may have to wait in line because the clinics are caring for poor people too. As the venerable Ben Carson has said, the ACA is comparable to slavery. Waiting in line for your children's vaccinations is like having them sold down the river. Think about it, which is worse? Hard to tell!
• Homosexual people: Everything they do is disgusting. Take my word for it. No matter that they aren't harming children like Catholic priests or abusing women like Southern Baptist preachers. I don't like them. They are horrible. We should do everything we can to put them down and lock them out (if not up) and forbid them to live their lives like normal people.
• Abortion: This, of course, is the key issue. Democrats want to kill babies! They may have come up with the idea of reducing abortion in the US by 95%, but we cannot support that notion because it isn't punitive enough—and because it came from Democrats. Abortion must be outlawed so that only rich people can afford to have it done safely, and poor people will die out of desperation, which is only right because they are the worst offenders and don't really count anyhow.
• Conservative judges: This is very important, because it ensures that this country will be cleansed of the previous evils! They also consistently favor rich people over poor people, which is how God ordained the world to be.
• Religious liberty: Can you imagine anyone from a religion other than my own being allowed to discriminate against me and my seminary? Only people of my religious persuasion should be able to discriminate against Muslims and homosexuals and liberals. That's why religious freedom is so important.
• Foreign policy: Some people think you should treat your neighbor as you want to be treated. This does not apply to countries. Our president is not afraid to insult and abandon our allies in favor of tyrants, such as Putin and Erdogan. They are like kings, and the Bible talks a lot about kingdoms, so this is only right. Also, many of the countries that our kingly president insults are led by women, and this is an abomination!
• Immigration: People from s***hole countries do not belong here. Their church leaders should come to my seminary and then leave, taking our enlightened views with them.
• Environment: I don't believe scientists who study climate. I only believe scientists who believe the earth is 6,000 years old. I don't know any of those, but they are the ones I believe. Also, while God demands dogmatic responses to other issues, if this one exists He will take care of it without any help from me.
• Other: There are many other reasons, too many to list. For example, rich people support my school, and they think it is important to vote for the party that favors them over all others. That is why we need to vote for a man who agrees and does a lot to help rich people. He is not selfish. He wants other rich people to be able to cheat and lie and face no consequences, just as he has done. It is my God-given duty to support him in maintaining this order. Any other order is unimaginable!

I'm being sarcastic. I doubt Dr Mohler sees things quite this way. But he owes us an explanation of the ways that the alternative to Trump is unthinkable. In what moral universe are more-caring policies less acceptable than:

• Putting children in cages
• Cheering white supremacy
• Pardoning a sheriff and a military commander convicted and imprisoned for extreme cruelty
• Taking no responsibility for subverting the US response to a pandemic
• Calling women lurid names
• Promoting increased carbon emissions
• Dishonoring military heroes
• Passing a tax law that overwhelmingly favors rich people while increasing the deficit
• Disparaging immigrants
• Watching porn
• Sleeping with a favorite porn star
• Paying porn stars to hush, after paying them for other favors
• Extorting an ally to lie about a political competitor
• Insisting that true stories are lies, while lying about true stories
• Nearly 20,000 lies (not counting ones that cannot be verified, such as claiming not to hear someone repeatedly shout "white power")
• The list is endless (I'm happy to accept suggestions for adding to it)

Sad to say, far fewer white evangelicals will be angry with Mr Mohler for supporting Trump than for not supporting him ardently enough.

To assert without evidence that a moderate Democrat is an "increasingly unthinkable" option is both ridiculous and irresponsible. It's a tactic from Trump's playbook: repeat it often enough, and many people will assume there must be something to it. Aversion to truth, repudiation of truth, once would have been considered heretical among evangelicals.

No doubt some reasonable theologians like Mohler have reasons for supporting Trump that I am not aware of. But they must be aware of how they look and sound.

It is not acceptable to throw out vague insults in defense of depravity. Have you no decency? Ante up. Give us a full justification, or convert and publicly announce that you cannot support this vile administration and all that it stands for. Anything else is unthinkable.

Scales of Economy

The world economy is suffering, and I wish I had more background in economics to understand what is going on.

I didn't take an economics course in college and have often regretted it. So I listen to Marketplace, and recently I bought a book, Economics: The User's Guide, by Ha-Joon Chang. It helps some. For one thing, it introduces a whole roomful of schools of economic thought. It also warns against thinking that any one school is superior.

I admit, though, there's much I don't understand. Why do many economists believe we will bounce back more quickly from this dip in the economy than from the last recession? Was the economy not strong before earlier crashes? Or is it that the government has done more this time to offset the dip? If that's true, then why didn't we do that last time?

I also don't understand why some economists don't worry about government debt. Most of us agree that debt can be a good thing if it is invested in things that improve a financial position. And with interest rates low, I suspect these are good times to invest. But eventually you have to pay up, right? What are the effects of incurring more and more debt?

There's something else I'm trying to understand: a recent analysis in the Washington Post cites a poll that gives Trump an edge over Biden on handling the economy. In the article, Aaron Blake suggests that Trump may weather our economic downturn.

Trump inherited a steadily growing economy that was recovering from the financial crisis that began during the last Republican administration. When the country was suffering from the mistakes of our banking industry, Republicans in Congress were reluctant to increase the deficit to help us get out of the slump. This was consistent with traditional Republican policy, so we gave them a pass (for better or worse) as they bailed out the bankers and then tightened their fists.

Then, in 2017, a tax cut provided a tax exemption primarily for the richest people in America. Argue about what's fair, but our annual deficit spiked under Trump even before this emergency. The growing debt was not only tolerated but cheered by so-called fiscal conservatives. Mitch McConnell pushed the cut, knowing we would need to borrow money, so that he and his richest supporters could collect financial benefits. He now races to install judges who support inevitable inequity by siding with the rich whenever they can get away with it. I imagine that some of the money from the tax cut (borrowed from our children and grandchildren) did flow into the economy, and it made Wall Street happy. But Republicans have come clean: they no longer make a pretense of concern over the deficit or the national debt.

Or do they? As more stimulus money in response to the corona virus goes to people of modest means, concern over the deficit begins to grow once again. If Biden is elected, I expect Republicans will continue to defend the tax cuts but shift back to being fiscal conservatives, except in the sectors that benefit their richest constituents, which include:

• The military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned against
• The prison industrial complex, in which for-profit prisons benefit from higher rates of incarceration
• The fossil fuel industry, which in the past century has been a key stimulant of our economy and way of life, but now seriously threatens both these and the planet.

It is an old economic principle, now out-of-fashion, that a robust economy provides an opportunity to prepare for hard times. But it seems we couldn't be bothered. While boasting about a fantastic economy, we went further in debt. We badgered the Fed to lower interest rates and whined about not going even farther out on a limb. Now our luck may have run out. Unemployment statistics for April jumped higher, faster than they have since being tracked. This would be a good time to tap into some savings. But the cupboard is bare, so we borrow.

Unlike in 2017, now is a time to borrow, given the low interest rates and dire need. But financially we sure were unprepared, so we'll have to borrow more than if we had behaved responsibly when we had the chance.

Never mind. In another puzzle, the stock market doesn't much seem to care. That is a scale important to Mitch Uncle Pennybags. McConnel begins to show concern over the deficit again, advocating to let pensioners languish so he and his gilded ilk can avoid contributing to pay the piper. He'll protect those with the most money from being tapped and maybe even argue for giving them more breaks. He takes his responsibility seriously to provide a crutch to the least crippled Americans.

As our economy flounders, like a lot of people I'm trying to figure out what is happening, what is likely to happen, what we should do. I also wonder what economic soap box our political leaders are going to jump onto next. I don't trust the Administration or the Senate Majority Leader to act in our best interest.

Since initially writing this, I read an article by Marilynne Robinson, in which she says this about the American economy:

As adapted for what was recently the present, this wealth is still a product of national policies—favorable taxation, imaginative banking regulations, and low production costs, including depressed wages and lowered safety and environmental standards. The cinch that tightens such slack as remains in the lives of the underpaid is called “austerity” or “fiscal discipline.” Austerity has not touched the beneficiaries of these arrangements, nor has fiscal discipline."

 It's a slow read, but worth the effort.

Novel

Corona viruses have been around for a while. What makes COVID-19* dangerous is that it's new.

A novel virus is so strange we don't know how to respond. It takes time for our bodies to build up immunity. And while our immune systems try to work it out, so do our health systems. We try many things, hoping that one or a combination of several will work. We make progress in some areas, while failing in others. Each failure is another lesson as we struggle to effectively address the problem.

Some of our efforts seem obviously reasonable, like ventilators for respiratory failure. But we don't even know how effective these measures are; few of those on ventilators survive. We experiment in search of a solution. Different drugs or combinations are tried, not, as one physician said, because we necessarily believe they will work but just to try something. There was anecdotal evidence that chloroquine, an old drug no longer very effective for malaria, might work. So many doctors tried it, only to find it not only ineffective but prone to dangerous side effects.

We even muse about ways that disinfectants, so effective outside our bodies, might somehow be able to kill the virus once it is in our bodies. We are that desperate for a cure.

We are also new to responding socially to this virus. I forget to keep my distance when chatting with neighbors walking past until they remind me to keep my distance. Different communities experiment with different levels of isolation, making their best judgments on balancing rights of personal freedom with community safety and welfare. Some organizations seem to think that health experts are incompetent and that the need to reduce interaction is nonsense; they seem to believe guns are the cure for this virus. Fortunately, these seem to be a small minority—but protesters can be concealed carriers of the virus, and their selfishness is beyond disturbing. Others admit the danger but believe money is more important than life and we should be willing to sacrifice lives to prevent the economy from tanking. As I understand it, this view holds that we are morally obligated to interact with each other pretty much as normal because our economy is what defines us.

Our inability to deal with novelty applies to social infections as well. We expect leaders to think before they speak, even if we disagree with their logic or point of view. When a president spouts whatever fool notion enters his head at the moment, we don't know how to respond. Some follow his musings as instructions.

After being accustomed to presidents who at least tried to seem honest and caring, we were unprepared for one who blatantly lies and then either brags about the veracity of his lies or denies that he said what he said the previous week. We had come to expect someone who would prioritize comfort and solace for those who have lost loved ones in a national tragedy. We were unprepared for one who shirks all accountability, who insults reporters for asking valid questions or calls them liars for telling obvious and demonstrable truths. We were caught off guard by someone who would direct all his influence toward propping up his own ego. We don't know how to deal with this audacious new form of irresponsibility.

News, at its name implies, is about novel events. And this novel contagion at our highest level of government has caught our attention; we are fascinated. Some of us are outraged and research every false statement or otherwise waste energy in reacting. Often we play into his muddled but time-tested strategy of sowing destruction and then picking up the pieces for himself.

But now a new competitor shows up and steals the show. Our president has made a valiant effort at discrediting the newcomer as he has every other challenger. But this one ignores him. The bluster, disinformation, and braggadocio have no effect. The virus goes about its business of serving itself. It has outdone him.

President Trump may manage to ally himself to this new devil, just as he has cozied up to human ones. He may find ways to turn this tragedy into a source of self aggrandizement. He may convince enough of us again that only he can fix it despite his bungled attempts so far.

Or maybe this new disaster will alter the perspectives of some who have embraced the one in the White House. Maybe we will have had enough of what's new and be ready to return to what is less newsworthy and more competent. We might decide that we need more than slogans and blame-shifting to fix the effects of this virus and, while we're at it, to begin to restore other ruins left by this administration.


* Technically, the name of the novel virus is SARS-CoV-2. The disease it causes is COVID-19.

Foreign

When we heard on Wednesday, March 11, that the president was consulting with Stephen Miller prior to his national address, I wondered why. We soon found out.

In the address he blamed foreigners for our problems. In the first sentence the president pointed out that the virus originated in China. He then referred to it as "a foreign virus." He then boasted about restricting travel to the US from China, which, despite his assertions to the contrary, was in keeping with the advice of his advisers (and, by the way, seems to have been a good move).

By the middle of the speech we learned that he was suspending travel from Europe. This action was taken without advice from his experts, other than Miller apparently, and without informing the affected countries, most of whom have been important allies. As with many of his policies, the primary purpose seems to capitalize on an innate fear of others and propose that, if it weren't for THOSE people, we would be safe.

This is nothing new. In 2014, Trump was sewing panic about Ebola. He proposed a travel ban then too, in spite of nearly all health experts advising against it. If he had gotten his way, many would not have been able to go to Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Guinea to help with the crisis. Or, to be more specific, we would have been banned from returning to our families. Fortunately, the administration at that time heeded expert advice.

Of course, in the current crisis, when experts were saying we need to take it very seriously, our president was saying that his China travel ban was a cure-all and there was nothing to worry about. "Do not panic!" is good advice. But the hypocrisy of such advice from someone who did everything in his ability to get people to panic a few years earlier is a hard pill to swallow.

Now, instead of apologizing for disbanding the epidemic teams in the NSC and DHS and for initially downplaying COVID-19, Trump has characteristically chosen to deflect blame to other countries. And of course he couldn't resist comparing our response to that of European countries, concluding that we are much better than they are. This is false, senseless, and divisive, but it is precisely what we have come to expect.

There is an exception to the European travel stoppage. Travelers from the UK are still welcome.* Why? Well, the only answer seems to be that, because Boris Johnson is almost as xenophobic as Trump and has withdrawn from that European Union, no harm can come from his country. Of course, people from the EU can travel to the UK and then to the US, just as travelers from China used connecting flights to get to the US. But the UK exception is in line with Miller's strategy: let's emphasize that this is not about safety from the virus; this is about safety from foreigners who don't share our prejudices.

As it turns out, Miller's ever-toxic advice may have backfired. On Thursday, the stock market stopped dropping only when it was automatically halted because it plunged too far too fast. One can only hope that Wormtongue will lose some of his influence. But I won't hold my breath.

_______________
*March 14: Today the UK and Ireland were added to the list of countries from which travel is restricted. This may in part be due to the UK's controversial strategy of encouraging infection among its lower-risk members of the population.

By Association

I had the notion that Trump's shadier associations would be one more reason for evangelicals to distance themselves from him. While this may be true for some white evangelicals, most, including some of the most prominent, have consistently increased their support.

Trump has a long history of chumming up with ne'er-do-wells and criminals. Never mind the mafia connections from years gone by, several of his closest associates were convicted as a result of an investigation into shady connections with Russian propagandists. But few on the white religious right have complained or found cause for concern.

Perhaps I have been blind to a darker reality: are evangelicals who choose to associate with Trump simply another group given to cheating? Is the attraction to him less a means to an end than a natural affinity? Is permission to be cruel what they long for? Do they revel in the lies, fear, and repression?

This wouldn't be new. Of all the people Jesus could have chosen to criticize, it was mainly the pious and principled religious leaders that he condemned. In retaliation, they allied themselves with a brutal political leader to silence the rebel.

People who intend to speak for God in justifying their privilege and excluding the down-and-out, or who, like Job's friends, blame victims for their afflictions do not make God smile. Leaders of such groups rally otherwise good people by appealing to their baser instincts (which we all have). The devout become villains. But so willingly?

It seems many evangelicals don't just tolerate Trump's bad behavior; they embrace and own it. They cheer him on and emulate his behavior. Exclusivity and bigotry appear to be essential to their political leanings. They are willing and enthusiastic associates. If even any of their own so much as argues that detained children should be allowed toothbrushes, the president of an evangelical university will publicly sneer at their credentials, forbidding any criticism of the perceived party line.

Perhaps we owe Trump thanks for this favor: he has shined a light on our dirtiness. He spread his BS on the evangelical fields, and a bumper crop of our weedy selves responded, choking out better impulses. Seeing ourselves for who we really are could be a first step toward redemption. If only we look in the mirror.

In 2020, the polls may prove that white evangelicals could stomach the lies and cruelty for only four years. I suspect, though, that a majority will fail the test and soil the church again. How many people will decide they have had enough of the stench and leave the church? How many already have? What does this church look like to those outside it?

People of the Lie

Moral relativism, it seems, is only sometimes a problem.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy observes that "Relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time." This, I think, many of us have been aware of. What we didn't know, and the article doesn't suggest, is that it is both reviled and popular by the same people.

I side with those who believe in absolutes. This perspective was born in my heritage, of white evangelical Protestantism. These absolutes can be difficult to pinpoint and quantify, but I do believe some absolute morals and truths cross all cultures and history.

Because this is my heritage, it is painful to watch white evangelicals leading the charge in favor of relativism. That they see their relativism as a crusade for absolute Truth is gag-worthy.

Our President's lying is denied, defended, or tolerated. His association with liars is accepted and promoted. Only when his cronies dare speak against him, do his supporters admit that his pals lie. When he spouts lies at his rallies, evangelicals cheer. Those who don't are labeled spineless morons.

One explanation is that, while his lying is bad, it is worth it because his policies and judge appointees might defend the unborn. This would seem a valid argument, despite Trump's personal record with abortions. After all, Rahab the harlot was "considered righteous" for lying to protect the spies she hosted. Why not defend the President's lies to protect himself as long as he also protects life? And yet, as I previously posted here and here, while condemning pro-choice political views, evangelicals resist policies that actually reduce abortion. Isn't this another form of dishonesty?

Another explanation is that they believe everything he says. OK, but then they are the ones guilty of lying—to themselves, for starters—because the evidence is irrefutable.

Denying evidence is another type of lie, and evangelicals are especially adept at it. We pretend to know more than climate scientists. We pretend to know more than biologists and paleontologists. We pretend to know more than historians. All, for a single reason: we don't want to believe them. We lie to ourselves, to our children, to our churches, to our country, because the evidence does not support a view of the world as we were taught. Worst of all, we lie in the name of the God of truth.

The would-be guardians of morality choose to associate themselves with an immoral liar to advance themselves and their own lies. Their choice will haunt the church for years to come.

I notice that I have referred to evangelicals as both "we" and "they." While it is a part of my story, I no longer call myself an evangelical. I am happy to be a messenger of good news, but the name is no longer true to the Jesus I read of in the gospels.

As people ask why Trump and his inner circle lie about nearly everything, it is conceivable that, rather than to hide some grim secret, they simply do it out of habit. Is this also the case for the church?

A Great Victory

Trump claimed the $25 million settlement on defrauding clients of his university was a great victory. It was. A more just settlement would have been $100 million.

Trump defrauded gullible would-be students out of more than $50 million. Some estimates are over $100 million. Trump himself admits, "I settled the Trump University lawsuit for a small fraction of the potential award."

At the very least he should have repaid every bit he scammed. Instead, he came out with a net gain of  at least $25 million (less lawyer costs). And, while those he scammed have to pay taxes on what they get back, Trump can write off most of his settlement.

Some of us old-fashioned folk would say restitution should be more down the lines of Old Testament principles: pay back double when you have cheated someone (Exodus 22:9).

Of course, the Falwells and Franklin Grahams of this world would never hold Mr Trump to such standards.