Major problems with Democratic Party emails

Update, 1st of July: Sara Benincasa has an interesting take on these emails that is worth reading.

Political emails are a strange animal. Over the years I have received a lot of them in support of US candidates or goals (as many other David Barretts routinely mistake my email address for theirs, this predates even my move here). These emails are almost universally bad.

As a bit of background, I’m one of the co-founders of [Intercom], which is often used for marketing purposes in companies. I left the company about three and a half years ago. I did not work in marketing myself, so am not an expert by any means, but some of these mistakes are so rudimentary they’re hard to miss.

The stakes

Given that…

  • Many in the Republican Party [are actively seeking to overturn the next presidential election] in the case where their candidate loses.
  • Several elected Republican officials [publicly espouse the racist, anti-semitic replacement theory].
  • The Republican Part is lapsing into [an embrace of authoritarianism].
  • Republican state legislators aim to deny reproductive rights across the country, including with new laws banning abortion that do not except cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is threatened ([including ectopic pregnancies,] which are the leading cause of death of mothers in the first trimester, cannot be re-implanted in the uterus, and in all but a handful of cases ever are non-viable).
  • Transgender people across America are being targeted for abuse, including two states banning transgender participation in school sports, where there is only one transgender athlete in each state. Ohio’s is particularly egregious, [where child athletes may have their genitals inspected by a physician if suspected of being transgender].
  • The chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Rick Scott, has advanced [an insane 11-point plan] that would raise taxes on the poor, swamp Congress with reviewing all laws five years after they’ve been passed, completely destroy the American economy… I could go on. It’s also racist on multiple levels. For example, the plan states on its summary page “We welcome those who want to join us in building the American dream, immigrants who want to be Americans, not change America.” In other words: “If you don’t like it here, why don’t you go back to where you came from?” Go fuck yourself, Senator Scott.

…and many more pressing issues, it is important that the Democratic Party (the only organization that has a chance of stopping them in the short term) steps up to the plate.

In many ways, they are not. Here, I will focus on one small part: emails I’ve received from them that show pretty fundamental mistakes and missed opportunities.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

I unsubscribed from these emails eight months ago (having never actually subscribed to them) so these problems may have been addressed by now. Still, a review of these emails is valuable in understanding, at the very least, the issues at the time.

These emails are primarily links to “surveys”. That word is in quotes for reasons that will soon become obvious. Let’s look at the example flow of one email:

Subject: They could dismantle Roe v. Wade FOREVER

This alerts the voter to an urgent matter, a technique used in most of their emails. One would hope that this dire news would lead to some sort of suggested action the voter could take!

The body of the email begins:

BREAKING via ABC News: “Justices to directly reconsider the landmark precedent in Roe v. Wade”

The conservative Supreme Court majority will hear a direct challenge to reproductive rights just weeks from now. There’s no time to waste, David -- we need to know where you stand:

Do you think the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade?

(Buttons for Yes and No are shown here)

The buttons link to a survey. It’s important to note that nowhere in this email is a reason given for why the DSCC needs to know where the voter stands on this issue, which is another theme common to their emails.

The email continues:

David, Roe v. Wade has never been in greater danger.

FIRST: Texas passed an extreme anti-choice law that places $10,000 bounties on almost anyone exercising their constitutional right to an abortion.

THEN: The right-wing majority on the Supreme Court refused to stop this devastating law from going into effect.

NOW: The Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments in a case that could officially wipe out Roe v. Wade -- forever.

David, fifty years of precedent are at stake -- we’ve got to stand up for our rights before it’s too late. This case is only a few weeks away, so please let us know NOW:

Do you think the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade?

(Buttons for Yes and No are shown here)

Thank you, Team DSCC

Instead of relying on the initial paragraph to sufficiently convey the importance and urgency of the issue, they break the issue down further into a first, then, now sequence. This is good copy, at least to do that job.

Still, absolutely nothing ties that yes or no question into this copy. Why are they asking for this information?

Clicking either “Yes” or “No” takes you to the survey. Here are the questions, which are presented one at a time:

  1. Do you agree that we can’t go back to the days before Roe v. Wade? Answers are Yes or No.
  2. How concerned are you by the Supreme Court’s decision not to block the six-week abortion ban in Texas? Answers are (Extremely/Very/Somewhat/Not at all) concerned.
  3. In a new case that’s about to be argued, more than 200 Republican senators and House members are asking the Supreme Court to explicitly overrule Roe v. Wade -- even though a huge majority of Americans want Roe to remain the law of the land. How worried are you that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court will do the GOP’s bidding and overturn Roe? Answers are (Extremely/Very/Somewhat/Not at all) concerned.
  4. One thing is crystal clear -- our reproductive rights are on the ballot in 2022. Holding our Democratic Senate majority will have a MONUMENTAL impact on Americans' freedom to make their own health care decisions. How important is it to you for Democrats to defend our majority next fall? Answers are (Extremely/Very/Somewhat/Not at all) important.
  5. Whether it's through passing new laws or confirming pro-choice justices, the Senate majority will be crucial to protecting reproductive freedoms. Will you make a donation of $5 or more now to ensure we defend our Democratic majority and uphold our reproductive rights? Well here we go.

The apparent intent of these emails is to convince the voter to donate money to the DSCC. However, it does so via trickery. In the email, you are not asked to donate money. For all but the last question of the survey, you are not asked to donate money. Only once the survey is complete are you asked to donate.

Revealing the purpose at this stage feels a little deflating. Surely, it must often lead to voters feeling misled, and like all of their answers up until now count for naught. To their credit, the survey does transmit each answer back to the DSCC, but I have no idea if they actually look at the results.

Even question four, which states that “our reproductive rights are on the ballot in 2022,” does not explain how Democrats intend to protect these rights. Not only is there trickery involved, but it’s not even a good sales pitch.

I’m sure that these emails do generate donations for the DSCC, but at what cost? The image the emails and surveys together convey is of an organization that will ask you for your opinions, but doesn’t care what they actually are, and then asks you for money.

I’ll go into this further in the roundup. But there is an organization that does an even worse job.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

Hoo boy, there’s a lot to dig into here. I’ve broken the tactics into a few different categories.

Asking for input, not money (and then asking for money)

Some emails present themselves as not asking for your money, but the linked survey then makes it clear that they are asking for your money.

This has all the problems of the surveys from the DSCC, where what seems to be the real purpose of the surveys is revealed at the last page, but with an extra twist to make it worse: they explicitly tell you that they’re not doing something, and then they do the thing they say there aren’t going to do! Why would lying seem like a good idea in a political email?

The worst of these was a survey asking if I approved of Newt Gingrich. Why would you need to know this? I think you can infer that any Democrat either disapproves of Newt Gingrich or doesn’t know much about him. The survey ends with, you guessed it, a request for money, which starts with “If you said yes [to the previous question]”—which shows they don’t care enough about what you answer to factor those answers in.

As an aside, it’s never quite clear why it’s important that you answer these surveys, other than to ask you for donations.

Deadlines

Many emails refer to “deadlines”. While candidate emails make it clear that fundraising deadlines are based on FEC reporting requirements (which isn’t a great reason for a voter, but whatever) the DCCC emails make no reference to any external reason for their deadlines. This is likely because there isn’t one.

These deadlines seem arbitrary, like “End of Week” or “End of Month”, and the specific asks (one of which worked out as three thousand dollars between one thousand donors, to come in within eleven hours) are very specific in amounts and time frames, but do not describe what will not be possible without this extra money.

These are internal metrics. Why would a voter care about a campaign committee’s end of month deadline?

Sign dumb “cards”

Here’s an email I received on February 13th of this year:

From: DAVID’S SIGNATURE MISSING (via DCCC)

Subject: you WON’T sign Michelle’s card??

CNN REPORT:

Michelle Obama launches campaign to register ONE MILLION new voters ahead of 2022 elections

David, we’re OVERJOYED!!

Michelle Obama has launched an INCREDIBLE effort to register ONE MILLION NEW VOTERS before the 2022 elections.

David, please understand: This is EXACTLY the kind of organizing and outreach our Democrats will need to HOLD the House and SAVE the Senate from the GOP’s grasp.

That’s why we’re JUMPING into action and calling on 25,000 of our strongest Democrats to let Michelle know just how grateful we are for the incredible work she’s doing.

Please, David: Will you sign Michelle’s card now to THANK her for working to defend our democracy and our Majorities? >>

(Links to “sign” the card, including a truly ugly Photoshopped card—step away from the blur filters mate, you blurred Michelle’s hair into the background—are shown below, with some text reading **)

Clicking through to “sign” the card, in June, brings you to a form where you can write a message “to Michelle” which requires your ZIP code for some reason. I can’t imagine that she reads these messages, but I can imagine that some voters spent time carefully composing something special for Michelle—something is almost certainly never going to get anywhere near her. This disrespects the voters who receive this email by showing a lack of due care for their time and effort.

After this, you are presented with a survey. This one is presented all on one page but, again, the last question is an ask for money. This has the same problems as the emails from the DSCC, where a voter may justifiably feel misled.

As to the email itself, it starts off terribly before you even get to the body text. The “from” and “subject” fields of the email are essentially accusing the voter of doing something wrong. There is no description of what Michelle Obama’s “campaign to register ONE MILLION new voters” actually is. Where can I find out about this campaign? How can I help it? These answers are never provided, and this vagueness permeates so many of these emails.

Nancy Pelosi and her feelings

Many of the emails from the DCCC purport to be from Nancy Pelosi. Although I am confident that she has authorized emails to be sent on her behalf, it’s hard to believe that she is actually reviewing the content of them.

Of these emails, quite a few open with “David, this is the most important email I have ever sent you” or some version thereof, which is a bit ridiculous for something that asks for three dollars. Admittedly, it is three dollars from some specific thousands of donors, but it never states why they need that particular amount of money, or what the DCCC might use it for.

All of these emails are about money. Even the ones that explicitly say they are not asking for money lead you to surveys that then ask you for money.

But the bigger problem with these emails is that they assume I’m going to particularly care about Nancy Pelosi’s feelings. Here are some snippets from February of 2021 to February 2022:

  • “I’ve had it, David”, multiple times.
  • “I’m sick to my stomach, David.”
  • “My heart is racing. I can’t believe this news.” (About Republicans raising money of all things).
  • “I’m in utter disbelief, David” or something very similar, multiple times.
  • “I’m completely stunned.” or something very similar, multiple times.
  • “David, I am completely speechless.”
  • “I’m shocked and appalled.”
  • “David, I’m concerned.” or something very similar, multiple times.
  • “I’m incredibly alarmed.”
  • Worst of all, one opens with the subject: “I’m done, David”, which reeks of her giving up on fighting for voters.

This fundraising tactic continues to this day. After the recent leak of a draft opinion from the Supreme Court that would, if implemented, do away with the protections of Roe v. Wade, several people I know (including my wife) received an email from Pelosi that opened with “I am absolutely sick to my stomach.”

Why the fuck would anyone, who is terrified that their ability to make decisions about their own body will be stolen from them, give a shit about how Nancy Pelosi feels? Why would that be even in their top twenty things to worry about? And how does it look, to anyone who cares about this issue, that your email reads “I don’t like this, give me money”?

For that is what the email asks for. There are no suggestions for action other than sitting back and handing over your credit card.

Again, I don’t think she’s writing these herself, but holy shit, how could anyone be surprised if Pelosi seems out of touch to people?

Straight up lies

I’m so thrilled to tell you: You’ve been personally selected to renew your 2022 Democratic Membership.

As this is a form email sent out to thousands of people, it’s pretty clear that I have not been personally selected (at least in the commonly understood meaning of that phrase), as no person made a decision to send this email to me in particular. But it gets worse.

Not only am I not a member of the Democratic Party, but the only way that I’m aware of to join the Democratic Party is to register as such with your board of electors.

There is no means of renewal by donating three dollars (the ask in this email). Even worse, it gives the impression that if you don’t donate three dollars or more, you will no longer be considered a Democrat.

The second biggest problem

These emails seem to prioritize fundraising at the exception of all else. Tricks, misleading copy, and barefaced lies are used, along with rather sickening opportunism (such as the email from Nancy Pelosi around the time that the Supreme Court draft opinion was leaked). But by doing so, the relationships that the voters have with the Democratic Party are constantly soured. They seem a remote entity operating out of reach, except via donations; they don’t seem to care much about the voter, aside from their money; instead of talking to the voter about problems in the voter’s life and what they might do about them, they tell them how Nancy Pelosi feels.

This remoteness is shown in more of both organizations’ postures. Both DSCC and DCCC make it difficult to contact someone without having their extension. You can leave a comment on their comment lines (which may or may not be monitored). On one (I can’t remember which) I tried the option to talk to an operator, to see if I could reach someone about their email problems. I instead was sent straight back to the main menu.

Fundraising is, of course, important. But it is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself, for the organization as a whole. This is obvious: why would anyone ever want to donate to an organization that does nothing but solicit donations? Yet this is what the emails portray the Democratic Party’s priorities as.

This absolutely ruins the public image of the Democratic Party, if party leadership weren’t doing that for themselves.

The biggest problem

Ultimately, these emails seem to be entirely about fundraising—but why would Democratic organizations only target people with fundraising emails?

A lot of things suck right now, and voters are hungry to do something about these problems. Yet right when things in American life are descending into chaos, the Democratic Party doesn’t seem to care, and certainly doesn’t let its supporters know what they can do about it.

Not once did I receive an email from the DSCC or DCCC on things I could do to make a difference. Even the requests for money were only linked to Democrats holding majorities, not what those majorities might actually do to achieve any particular goal. And it was only requests for money; not phone banking, not organizing, not voter registration, nothing at all where people could get involved.

These emails are a huge missed opportunity. The Democratic Party could leverage its email lists to help advance positive change in society, and to help voters feel like they actually give a shit about what they think. But instead, they don’t do the former, and do the opposite of the latter.

Some suggestions

I do have some advice on how the Democratic Party could improve their email communication:

  • Be personal.
  • Always be honest. Never intentionally mislead.
  • Respect the people you are communicating with, along with their time, energy, and resources.
  • Center your communication around what is valuable to the voter.
  • There are so many problems in society that people want to do something about. Give them some way of doing so, that goes beyond simply sending some money your way. Guide them towards a way to get involved to make the world better. I found precisely zero emails from the DCCC or DSCC that did this, even for indirect things like registering people to vote.
  • Your emails are one way people form an opinion of you, which affects your larger goals. Do not do anything with your emails (or linked surveys) that compromise larger goals for the sake of fundraising now.
  • If you need someone’s opinion, tell them why, and tell them how that information will be used.
  • If people provide you with information or money, follow up with them, so you at least thank them.
  • If you’re going to ask for money, ask for money and explain, with specifics, why you need it. No vague “protecting our majority” or “help Democrats” nonsense. This holds particular importance if you say you need a particular amount of money from a group of donors.
  • Conversely, If you say you’re not going to ask for money, do not ask for money.

Here are example campaigns they could run:

  • The DCCC could showcase the campaigns of the congressional candidates in their mails. They have a lot of people’s ZIP codes, so they could be able to find the candidate (or, in cases where the ZIP code spans more than one district, candidates) and run a series of emails highlighting what that candidate is doing for district and the country. The DSCC could do something similar here for senatorial candidates.
  • For races that the DCCC or DSCC want to focus on, they could let voters know where they can best send funds, and what that candidate has or will do about particular issues. The DCCC [already does some of this on their website], (scroll down) but not in their emails.
  • Another thing that the DCCC already does on their website, but not in their emails, is [alert people to volunteering opportunities]. This seems like a no-brainer.
  • When bad news breaks, such as the leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court, voters could be given practical steps on what they might do next. In the case of the opinion, the DCCC and DSCC could have called for protest (or at least provided people with information on protests that were being organized), could have described specifically what the Democratic Party is going to do about it, and perhaps leaders could have offered words that might have soothed instead of irritated. This need not be limited to areas traditionally seen as political. Imagine telling voters how they can support hurricane relief, for example, while letting them know what you are doing in Congress to help.

Helping Ukraine and Ukrainians

What’s going on in Ukraine right now is heartbreaking. The unprovoked and illegal invasion by Russia is shameful.

I hope you’ll feel called to help. It’s likely that most of us able to give have not given directly to Ukrainian organizations before. Given that, here are a list of organizations helping out in Ukraine, along with the notable people and organizations that have recommended them.

A lot of these involve sending wires. I’ve specially marked places that accept PayPal or credit card payments. I’ll also be updating this as more information comes in.

Additionally, you might take a look at Vox’s guide: How you can help Ukrainians.

Supporting Ukraine’s military

Send money directly to raise funds for Ukraine’s Armed Forces

This is a special account set up by the National Bank of Ukraine. Money accepted in a wide variety of currencies.

You might have issues sending wires here from the US as the “beneficiary” is the bank itself, but do call your bank if you have any issues (we had to work with Bank of America a bit to get it sorted).

Social proof: Ukraine’s verified Twitter account, mentioned in an article by New Eastern Europe that Andrea Chalupa called “a trusted source”. I’m hardly a notable person, but our family have given to this fund.

Come Back Alive (accepts credit card payments and Apple Pay)

A charity that buys body armor, drones, and other supplies for the Ukrainian army.

Social proof: Ukraine’s verified Twitter account again. Mentioned in a list at Ukraine Crisis Media Center that was shared by journalist Olga Tokariuk. Shared directly by journalist at The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum. Also featured on a list by author Timothy Snyder. Recommended by the Kyiv Independent in an article by their defense reporter Illia Ponomarenko.

Army SOS (accepts Western Union and MoneyGram transfers)

Uses donated funds to help purchase supplies for the Ukrainian military, including ammunition, shields and food.

Social proof: Appears in a list at the Independent, mentioned in an article by New Eastern Europe that Andrea Chalupa called “a trusted source”. Mentioned in a list at Ukraine Crisis Media Center that was shared by journalist Olga Tokariuk. Also featured on a list by author Timothy Snyder for ways to donate via credit card.

Hospitallers (accepts Western Union and MoneyGram transfers)

Medics that work on the front line.

Social proof: Mentioned in a list at Ukraine Crisis Media Center that was shared by journalist Olga Tokariuk. Also featured on a list by author Timothy Snyder. Mentioned in an article by New Eastern Europe that Andrea Chalupa called “a trusted source”.

Phoenix Wings

Phoenix Wings “provides the Ukrainian army with the necessary assistance in regards to the appropriate equipment & uniform, personal non-lethal protection (vests, helmets), required treatment of the wounded soldiers and acquisition the personal first aid kits, and repair of the buildings used by the army.”

Social proof: Mentioned in a list at Ukraine Crisis Media Center that was shared by journalist Olga Tokariuk. Mentioned in an article by New Eastern Europe that Andrea Chalupa called “a trusted source”.

Assisting Refugees and Emergency Response

United Help Ukraine (accepts PayPal)

United Help Ukraine, Inc. is a non-profit charitable organization receiving and distributing donations, food and medical supplies to Ukrainian IDPs (internally displaced people), people of Ukraine affected by Russia’s invasion into Eastern Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, families of wounded or killed for freedom and independence of Ukraine.

This is the US arm, so you can donate via donor-advised funds, etc.

Social proof: Has an 85% rating at Charity Navigator. Featured on a list by author Timothy Snyder. Appears in a list at the Independent shared by journalist at The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum.

Razom Emergency Response (accepts PayPal and credit card payments)

Razom for Ukraine’s emergency response will use donations to purchase and deliver essential goods, translate important documents and sources, share vital information, and put volunteers on the ground.

Social proof: Appears in a list at the Independent shared by journalist at The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum. The work of Razom also features in a list by author Timothy Snyder, though at the time of writing the link he shares is to a different project they run.

Sunflower of Peace (accepts PayPal and credit card payments via Facebook Pay)

The nonprofit organization is raising money to prepare first aid medical tactical backpacks for paramedics and doctors on the front lines.

Each backpack is designed for groups of 5 to ten people and includes an array of first aid supplies — such as bandages, anti-hemorrhagic medicine and medical instruments, according to the organization's Facebook page.

Social proof: Appears in a list posted by NPR (from which the blurb above is taken). Also appears in a list at the Independent shared by journalist at The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum.

Voices of Children (accepts credit card payments and Apple Pay)

This foundation “helps children affected by the war in eastern Ukraine. Thanks to you, we provide psychological and psychosocial support to children. It helps them overcome the consequences of armed conflict and develop.”

Social proof: Featured on a list by author Timothy Snyder. Appears in a list posted by NPR. Also appears in a list at the Independent shared by journalist at The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum. Mentioned in an article by New Eastern Europe that Andrea Chalupa called “a trusted source”.

Libereco Partnership for Human Rights (accepts credit card payments)

“Libereco – Partnership for Human Rights is an independent German-Swiss non-governmental organisation dedicated to the protection of human rights in Belarus and Ukraine.”

“Together with our Ukrainian partner organisation Vostok SOS, Libereco has launched an extensive aid operation for Ukraine. The aim is to address the most urgent needs of the people in the immediate danger zone, to bring them medicines and bandages, to help them evacuate and to find temporary housing.”

Social proof: Mentioned in an article by New Eastern Europe that Andrea Chalupa called “a trusted source”. Also featured on a list by author Timothy Snyder for ways to donate via credit card. Mentioned by Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez on her Instagram stories (screenshot to right).

World Central Kitchen (accepts PayPal and credit card payments)

World Central Kitchen is currently on the ground in Poland, feeding refugees fleeing Ukraine—and hope to be inside Ukraine soon.

This donation goes to their emergency fund, but is not explicitly limited to their work in Ukraine.

Social proof: Here's their founder, Chef José Andrés, on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. José was also named one of Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People of 2018. Here’s a video of Sam Bloch from WCK in Poland at the Ukrainian border, along with pictures of their work there taken February 25th. The charity also has a 100% rating from Charity Navigator. I’m hardly a notable person, but we’ve given here, if that helps to encourage you.

Save the Children

  • US branch (accepts PayPal and credit card payments)

  • UK branch (accepts PayPal, credit card payments, and Apple Pay)

“Save the Children has also launched an emergency fund that will go towards distributing essential humanitarian aid to children and their families, delivering winter and hygiene kits, providing cash grants to families and access to education, and giving psychological support to children.”

This donation goes to their emergency fund, but is not explicitly limited to their work in Ukraine.

Social proof: Appears in a list posted by NPR. Also appears in a list at the Independent shared by journalist at The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum. We have given here in the past, but not specifically during the crisis in Ukraine.

Help support getting kids from Tikva Odessa orphanage to safety (accepts credit card payments)

“Tikva Odessa orphanage (an incredible organization my family is involved with) is working to evacuate 300 children to safety. They need our support to get them out & have provisions.”

Social proof: Shared by journalist Shoshanna Keats Jaskoll. Has a 97% rating at Charity Navigator. We’ve given here.

Other International Charities Working in Ukraine

Know and speak the truth

Here’s a list based on advice from the Ukraine Crisis Media Center:

The inherent violence of election denialism

There is one question I feel is important to ask of anyone who feels a conspiracy has frustrated the will of the people and robbed former president Trump of his election victory: why is violence *not* an acceptable way of resolving the problem?

Hear me out.

I don’t mean this to encourage violence. Rather, I feel that the position is one that can easily *justify* violence. Particularly in America, a country often see by its citizens as founded in a romanticized, violent rebellion against a tyrannical government.

Right now, President Biden is working through various infrastructure bill compromises with Republicans. One take is that he is trying to show people like Joe Manchin that he has tried to solve the problem their way, and that a reconciliation bill is an unfortunate necessity.

Could not would-be insurrectionists see the failed court challenges, the failed January 6th insurrection, and the dubious audits that stand no chance of reversing the official certification of the election, in a similar light?

Moreover, why should they not? Imagine the reverse. Is any politician spreading election denialism really trying to tell people that sure, the government is illegitimate, and non-violent means have failed to fix the problem, but they should just sit there and take it?

I think a lot of these politicians are riding a tiger, and attempting to use the grievances they stoke as means of maintaining power. But the end result of this is to encourage violence against the (legitimate!) government of the the United States, whether they want to admit it or not.

As an aside, yes, it has been a long time since I posted on the blog. Yes, it has been quite an interesting fifteen months. I think we all wish it was a lot *less* interesting, don’t we?

Suggested reading, 22nd February

How Stephen Miller Manipulates Donald Trump to Further his Immigration Obsession

A disturbing profile of a disturbing figure. Miller talks about restricting immigration, and using DACA recipients as bargaining chips, with more excitement than a groom before his bride.

Don’t mince words. Trump is abetting an attack on our country.

When intelligence officials briefed House lawmakers on Russia’s attempts to influence the 2020 election on Trump’s behalf, he reportedly was angered that they were briefed as required by law. This piece goes over the implications of this, and they’re not good.

Why You May Never Learn the Truth About ICE

In 2017, a normally routine document released by the archives, a records retention schedule, revealed that archivists had agreed that officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement could delete or destroy documents detailing the sexual abuse and death of undocumented immigrants. Tens of thousands of people posted critical comments, and dozens of senators and representatives objected. The National Archives made some changes to the plan, but last month it announced that ICE could go ahead and start destroying records from Mr. Trump’s first year, including detainees’ complaints about civil rights violations and shoddy medical care.

What if?

There’s a lot of chaff being thrown as the trial of President Trump continues in the Senate. A frantic Gish gallop is engaged in across CSPAN at every recess—which certainly . But many of the arguments raised are at their core irrelevant.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that Joe Biden is as guilty of everything that is being alluded to. That every claim, every innuendo, resolves to a man wholly guilty—that he is the very embodiment of corruption.

Even if Biden is guilty, the President needs to be removed from office.

The investigation

The President has stated that Ukraine “is considered a corrupt country”, and his surrogates have claimed that he was concerned about corruption there. But if the President is truly concerned about Ukrainian corruption, he would have no reason to trust the results of a Ukrainian investigation into Joe Biden.

As of October 2019, Trump claimed that he had not asked the Department of Justice to investigate Biden’s son. If the President believed Joe Biden was guilty of something, why did he not ask the DOJ to open an investigation?

If it is improper for a President to ask the DOJ to open an investigation, why is it proper for him to request that a foreign government open an investigation?

The law

Let’s ignore, for now, whether or not the requested investigations, or announcement of investigations, broke campaign finance law.

According to the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, the Trump administration violated the Impoundment Control Act when it withheld funds from Ukraine for policy reasons. Aside from being a clear abuse of power, it is also illegal.

The evidence indicates that withholding these funds (along with a White House visit), were used to pressure Ukraine into initiating an investigation into Joe Biden.

Is it appropriate for the President to break the law to initiate any investigation?

US national security interests

Supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression is vital to the continuation of international norms related to the respect for borders and national sovereignty. It is in the national interest of the United States to support Ukraine for at least the following reasons:

If national borders can be violated at a whim, wars are vastly more likely. Russia will be emboldened to make more wars of choice, putting European security at great risk. China is likely to be similarly emboldened. Given the vast interdependence of national economies, the United States would suffer economically if war spreads.

This is somewhat wonky, I will admit. But it is undeniable. If Europe becomes embroiled in further war, the United States will suffer economically. And these wars might, in future, go beyond a tipping point and drag the United States into another world war.

The administration withheld congressionally mandated funds from an ally at war. The withholding of funds, even if all of it was provided (which it wasn’t), is a useful data point for Russia that indicates that the defence of Ukraine is not something that the US values.

Is it appropriate for the President to put the national security of the United States at risk for the sake of any investigation?

Additionally, as a matter of the character of the nation, the United States should have an interest in supporting fellow democracies against the actions of tyrants.

Conclusion

  • The President chose to use his powers to request that a foreign country, that he claims is considered to be corrupt, to investigate a US citizen.
  • The President broke the law by withholding aid to that country.
  • The President threatened US national security interests by prioritizing an investigation over those security interests.

Trump’s continued presidency represents a continued threat to the Republic, and he should be removed from office.

Determining the truth of things

How likely is it that everything you currently believe is true?

Imagine a person who is happy to believe whatever they currently believe, and who dismisses everything they disagree with as incorrect, without fair consideration. Who believes that their worldview is complete and does not require constant reevaluation.

I am not sure that a person exactly like this exists at all, but what I am certain about is that we’re all probably a little more like this person than we want to be, or think we are.

Seeking

If you care about the truth, you must seek it, and the measure of how much one values the truth is correlated with how much you seek it.

Now, as a parent of small children, I can attest that I value just getting through the day more than some nebulous idea of “the truth.” But I make some attempt. I go out and try to find contrary opinions, and interrogate the veracity of sources I trust—not all of the time, not even most of the time, but some of the time, because if I don’t, I’m far more likely to have an incorrect view of the world, or to be misled by people I often agree with.

Last year, Pod Save America's hosts stated that Sean Hannity had encouraged witnesses to destroy evidence requested by the Mueller probe. I like the show and have a positive view of the hosts—and a rather negative one of Sean Hannity—but they were dead wrong in this analysis. As should be obvious from watching the clip below, Hannity was using the Mueller probe requests as a launching-point for a clumsy tirade about Hillary Clinton, and not genuinely encouraging criminal behavior.

Uploaded by Contemptor on 2018-06-07.

Recently, the New York Times claimed that “President Trump will sign an executive order defining Judaism as a nationality”, which understandably freaked a lot of people out.

I was one of those people, and retweeted a thread where a Jewish man walked through the implications of such an order, as he saw them. As it turns out, our fears were misplaced:

The text of the order, which leaked on Wednesday, does not redefine Judaism as a race or nationality. It does not claim that Jews are a nation or a different race. The order’s interpretation of Title VI—insofar as the law applies to Jews—is entirely in line with the Obama administration’s approach. It only deviates from past practice by suggesting that harsh criticism of Israel—specifically, the notion that it is “a racist endeavor”—may be used as evidence to prove anti-Semitic intent.

The bubble and misinformation

Recently, JK Rowling came under fire for the following tweet:

Her complaint is the line “but force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?” It is either Rowling’s understanding that this is what Maya Forstater lost her job at the Centre for Global Development (CGD) over, or this is a bad faith misrepresentation of the facts.

Because this is not what the facts of the case show. From the Guardian:

But in a 26-page judgment released late on Wednesday, Tayler dismissed her claim. “I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that Forstater is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”

CGD’s solicitor expands upon this:

“A number of commentators have viewed this case as being about the claimant’s freedom of speech. Employment Judge Tayler acknowledged that there is nothing to stop the claimant campaigning against the proposed revisions to the Gender Recognition Act or, expressing her opinion that there should be some spaces that are restricted to women assigned female at birth. However, she can do so without insisting on calling transwomen men. It is the fact that her belief necessarily involves violating the dignity of others which means it is not protected under the Equality Act 2010.”

Rowling’s complaint benefits from one thing: to characterize the action against Forstater as she does is a crude approximation of a shape to fit the hole of reality. You can look at the shape and the hole and it seems like the one might fit the other, but unless you try it you won’t know whether it fits.

The two major groups at conflict here seem be those that might say that assigned sex at birth is one’s gender (mostly), and those that might say they are fighting against repressive TERFs. The nature of their conflict perpetuates the conflict itself, as with every flashpoint there seem to be opinion pieces on both sides characterizing the other as something truly dreadful, leading to further polarization of group members.

I've read several of these opinion pieces. Often, after I dug into the author’s reasoning, and the facts claimed, I found holes in their argument you could drive a bus through. This is not something unique to either group (or even to these groups), and I am not claiming that any of this was done in bad faith.

But how is a person to understand the truth of the matter? The same as always: look at the underlying facts, understand the biases of commentators, analyze the arguments put forth, etc. But who can do this for every piece of content that crosses their eyes? It’s hard work, and it’s time-consuming.

Easier to stick with what you already feel is right. But what happens then? A person becomes trapped, consuming content and experiences that confirm their existing positions, and dismissing those that do not—aided in this process by the errors made everyone eventually, but only noticed in your opponents. And if you do this, having your beliefs reinforced over and over again, is it not more likely that you will fall victim to the extremes?

At least he didn’t criticize Trump this time OH SHIT

Although groups often do this to some degree, the Trump and “conservative” media ecosystem has been relentless in its challenge of contrary viewpoints. The degree to which this composite organism does so is remarkable.

One might expect liberal viewpoints to be challenged by Fox News, but often it attacks parodies—bizarrely twisted caricatures of reality that fall apart under the withering lens of a single Google search.

Parker Molloy has a good thread on this fake outrage, and posted this insane example:

It’s worth reading the Media Matters article for more examples of this, but I would like to focus not on the particular examples or even the pattern of behavior, but on the effect of that behavior. For if you can convince your audience that your naysayers and doubters are truly like these parodies, then it’s more likely that the convinced will continue to adhere to your position.

Fox News has a long tradition of slurring the mainstream media, which it is continuing throughout this presidency. Errors in the mainstream press are frequently labelled not as errors but as lies. This presentation of course comes with a comparison—if they are lying, surely we are telling the truth?

Trump himself goes even further, claiming contrary views in the media are “fake news”, and frequently referring to the press as “the enemy of the people”. His attacks are not just on news stories, not just on individual institutions, but on the very idea of a free press.

In an almost Orwellian moment, he declared “Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. […] Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening.” It’s clear he’s talking about seeing and reading from the press, but holy shit.

Sometimes the press gets things wrong. There are very real problems with many media outlets, and they should be addressed. But they are the best means of communicating information and analysis to the wider public that we have available.

If one can gain a better understanding of the truth of things by considering opposing viewpoints, and questioning those sources you trust, what does it mean when other viewpoints are from “the enemy” and seriously questioning sources you trust takes more time and effort than most people have?

How could you tell if you’re being lied to?

Imagine Trump told a lie, and the steady diet of conservative media you are consuming parroted that lie. How could you tell? You would need something that contradicts the lie, at least to start. But what could do that?

Could the mainstream press help here? If you believe it to be “fake news”, if you hear over and over again the slurring of the press by your media outlets, why would you suddenly trust The Washington Post if it told you something that you did not like?

Perhaps underlying evidence might work. But look at climate change. With 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human-caused climate change is happening, most Republicans still do not believe that climate change is a major threat. Climate denial remains popular with conservative talking heads, who mislead by misrepresenting the evidence so, if you already dismiss climate change as a hoax, you don’t have to look at the evidence yourself.

Sponsored in part by CuriosityStream: https://www.curiositystream.com/hbomberguy Facts. What are they good for?

Even when Trump himself says you should “read the transcript” to see that he did nothing wrong, that phrase can be seen acting as something to protect existing beliefs, by people who have not read it.

And internally, if you have been pulled further to the extremes of your in-group, having your existing biases reaffirmed over and over again, seeing those that disagree being ritually ridiculed, having taken part in this ritual, how likely are you to have a contradictory thought?

Once you’ve bought into the idea that the mainstream press, the scientific community, liberals, etc. are all liars pushing hidden agendas, then how likely are you to be convinced by them of anything? How much more likely are you to oppose them?

This isn’t a class of problem unique to Trump, or to politics. But in this it has found a particularly hideous expression.

Do not trust those who would tell you to close your eyes and ears to things that contradict them for, if you do, you are begging to be fooled.

Relay and amplification

I haven’t written here in a while, primarily due to the impeachment hearings taking up huge chunks of my time, but also due to focusing my writing efforts on my fiction work.

So I thought I’d take an example from Fox News where they relay and amplify Trump campaign messages instead of behaving like actual journalists, even on their “news” shows—in this case, “Fox and Friends First”.

You can see the video on the Fox News site. I tried to embed their video, but their terrible video player autoplays with no apparent way to disable it.

The framing of the piece is the “significant concerns” around FISA process, and not how the IG report completely debunks the paranoid conspiracy theory that Trump and his surrogates have been pushing for years that the FBI was out to get him, because they wanted Hillary to win or because they wanted to remove Trump when he got into office.

The IG report found that there was no political bias in efforts to surveil the President’s 2016 campaign (which, to be fair, the Fox piece leads with). It literally includes a text message from one FBI supervisory special agent (SSA) saying he “was so elated by the election”, comparing election coverage to “watching a Superbowl [sic] comeback”. When asked to clarify (this is from a footnote on page 339 of the IG report):

The SSA explained this comment to the OIG by saying that he “fully expected Hillary Clinton to walk away with the election. But as the returns [came] in…it was just energizing to me to see…[because] I didn't want a criminal to be in the White House.”

Brought in to react to the report was not an independent legal adviser, not even someone from the Heritage Foundation or even bizarre flex-shot-posting conspiracy theorist Tom Fitton, but a Trump 2020 campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis, someone whose bias should be assumed for very obvious reasons.

Let’s pick through Ms Ellis’ words:

This is absolutely chilling, and this should shock the conscience of every American. The Democrats of course are going to try to minimize this in the main-stream media—

After making a brief characterization of the report, she does not explain or elaborate on her position, but instead immediately jumps to dismiss contrary positions and to continue the long trend of dismissing the main-stream media.

—but make no mistake Rob and Jillian, this is absolutely an abuse of authority, just as the Democrats are doing with the impeachment process, just like they did with the Mueller Report. This is yet another instance where we’re seeing that the Democrats and the Obama FBI have manipulated a power of the FISA court for a purpose that was completely unlawful. To spy on American citizens, and an opposition campaign.

She then conflates the FBI actions here with Democrats actions relating to impeachment, and goes even further in implying that “the Democrats” (a political party, rather than individual actors in the FBI who may or may not have particular political afficiliats) have been somehow involved in making FISA court applications.

The implications of this would be truly terrifying, but the report finds the exact opposite:

What worries me more are the effects of Ellis’ position (which mirrors that of the Republican Party as a whole) to continue to “other” political opponents of the President, and to dismiss actions against the President as wholly politically motivated.

So when you look at the intended purpose of the FISA court, this is not it, and so we have a report that absolutely says, with clarity, that the FISA court process was abused, and that there were substantial inaccuracies in order to obtain those warrants, and in order to spy on American citizens. That is absolutely intolerable, and should never happen in the United States of America.

I am in agreement with with Ellis here. The FISA process was abused. I would go further and say that FISA has always been open to abuse. However there was no sign of political bias here.

Rob Schmitt chimes in:

You know the report—and this is what Comey was talking about, feeling vindicated—said that there was no grand conspiracy against the president here, but here’s Attorney General Bill Barr, and then John Durham, who’s doing his own investigation—we’re going to put these both up. “The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.” And then John Durham comes out—and we haven’t really heard anything from him: “Based on the evidence collected to date […] we advised we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.” So, Durham read at least some part of this thing, and immediately came out with a statement. What’d you make of that?

Instead of any real interrogation of their guest, Schmitt instead provides additional context from other friendly sources. One of these sources, Barr, has demonstrated repeatedly that he is not an objective arbiter of fact.

In fact, Schmitt’s entire framing is to raise something his guest would likely disagree with, and then dismiss it himself, before asking her to comment.

Ellis again:

Absolutely, and I was really happy to see that both Durham and Barr came out very strongly with this. And we have to put this in context. The Horowitz report for the Inspector General basically reads like an HR report. There are certain protocols that he’s looking at that differ between what Durham and Attorney General Bill Barr can do. So, looking forward, there’s going to be an investigation of what other abuse of process has occurred, because we know now that at least in this instance the FISA court was abused, and that should beg the question of how many other times have we seen this abuse that we don’t yet know about. And so, as Durham is going to release his report, as the AG comes out, then that’s really the next question is ‘where does this go from here?’ This is absolutely not over at all.

Ellis here points to other ongoing investigations, seeming to expect more favorable revelations in future. Jillian Mele says:

Well right, and Jenna, you know, Democrats are likely going to say something along the lines of “Well, Republicans are now going to be hanging on what Durham has to say”, but, in fairness, Durham does have a scope that’s more broad, and has more investigative powers.

Mele here repeats Schmitt’s trick of raising a possibly contrary view—in this case one that describes exactly what Ellis was doing—and then dismissing that view herself.

Ellis closes with this:

Absolutely, and he also has the handcuffs, so let’s—let’s not forget that the IG is also—again—is a lot more Human Resources-related as far as the internal protocols of the FBI and the DOJ, and this isn’t—his purview is not as expansive, and it’s not as criminal related in terms of actually coming out with charges, and the other things that both Durham and the attorney general can do. So again, this is far from over, and I think that the Democrats are trying to just minimize it in the media, but really what the American people should be very concerned about, bottom-line, is that this was an abuse of process, and we definitely need justice.

This is a somewhat confused end statement, as it seems like it’s a mishmash of points without any real clarity to any of them. But it’s live TV, she was running out of time, and it was about a thousand percent clearer than anything her boss has said, so I think she should get a bit of a pass here.

The handcuffs line is a bit dark, though. One of the major ideas in the Trump sphere is that many people have committed and/or are continuing to commit treason, often as part of some convoluted conspiracy theory, but sometimes merely by virtue of not being a toady for Trump. There are fantasies about locking up these people. Trump himself shared an image of some people, including his own deputy attorney general, locked behind bars. The handcuffs line echoes this.

So that’s it. That is the extent of their conversation about the IG report. I expect very little of televised news, and less of Fox, but this took me aback. Even with my low expectations, I would have assumed the barest of interrogation. Literally the only question is a chummy “What do you think of that?”

The purpose of such clips can only be seen as relay and amplification of messages of the GOP. That some people cannot see this speaks to the effectiveness of propaganda, generally.

Sermon

I start this by saying that I am not a Christian, though I used to be. I became one at the age of nineteen. I was lucky enough to learn with a very thoughtful collection of Christian friends.

I’ve since left this faith behind, seeing too much of Man’s artifice there in the church to believe that the construct could be fairly called Godly—seeing, far too often, and sometimes first-hand, how the idea of God was used to justify or hand-wave behavior ranging from the somewhat destructive to the truly despicable.

I mention this to qualify what I say next. There is a pursuit of worldly power by the church in the US that seems to be based in a misunderstanding of the nature of the Mission; this pursuit has caused the church to rot; and this rot is so advanced that I am not sure it would recognize Jesus.

A misunderstanding of Jesus’ goal

The Jewish people in the Gospels appear to be expecting a military king who would free them from the Romans. The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate this in its War of the Messiah segments. Herod seemed terrified that the Messiah would supplant him. Isaiah 11 also points to this expectation, as does John 6:

After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

This isn’t what Jesus saw for himself. When he returns, he rejects his disciples worldly hopes of him, as told in Acts 1:

Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

In the writings of Paul, we see an opening-up of Christianity to non-Jews, including those in the Roman Empire. This opening up of Christianity seems very much at odds with a faith focused on the overthrow of the Roman Empire, or one concerned with the pursuit of political power.

The genesis of this present rot

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that a woman has the right to obtain an abortion without excessive government restriction. After this, evangelicals became more involved in politics to fight back against the scourge of legalized abortion. Or so the myth goes.

Jerry Falwell made this claim explicit:

In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.

In fact, evangelical involvement in American politics had an entirely different genesis, with both Falwell and Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich involved in a push to unite Christians against the perceived evil of—and I do wish I was making this up—forced school integration.

Jerry Falwell

Jerry Falwell had a long history of supporting segregation. In response to the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, Falwell delivered a sermon titled “Segregation or Integration: Which?”, quoted here from Agent of Intolerance by Max Blumenthal:

“If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God’s word and had desired to do the Lord’s will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never have been made,” Falwell boomed from above his congregation in Lynchburg. “The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line.”

Falwell’s jeremiad continued: “The true Negro does not want integration…. He realizes his potential is far better among his own race.” Falwell went on to announce that integration “will destroy our race eventually. In one northern city,” he warned, “a pastor friend of mine tells me that a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife.”

After Brown v. Board of Education ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, many in the south responded by opening private “segregation academies” that remained whites-only.

One of these schools was Bob Jones University, a tax-exempt private school that admitted any blacks only in 1971, non-married blacks only in 1975, and maintained a ban on interracial dating thereafter. Its tax-exempt status was revoked on January 19, 1976, retroactively to December 1, 1970, on the grounds that it practiced racial discrimination in its admission policies.

Again from Blumenthal’s piece:

For Falwell and his allies, the true impetus for political action came when the Supreme Court ruled in Green v. Connally to revoke the tax-exempt status of racially discriminatory private schools in 1971. At about the same time, the Internal Revenue Service moved to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University, which forbade interracial dating. (Blacks were denied entry until 1971.) Falwell was furious, complaining, “In some states it’s easier to open a massage parlor than to open a Christian school.”

Falwell had other reasons to support Bob Jones. Another segregation academy, Lynchburg Christian Academy, was founded by Falwell himself.

Falwell continued to support the segregation at Bob Jones University for years afterwards. In 1983 the Supreme Court upheld the Government’s right to deny tax-exempts status to the university. Falwell called this “a blow against religious liberty”.

It is plain from history that repellent ideas can be given justification as God’s desire for the world. Although Christian abolitionists are revered, many Christians supported slavery not just in principle but as a Christian institution.

Bishop Stephen Elliott of Georgia even made a case for the redemptive purpose of slavery when he said:

Around Sierra Leone, and in the neighborhood of Cape Palmas, a few natives have been made Christians, and some nations have been partially civilized; but what a small number in comparison with the thousands, nay, I may say millions, who have learned the way to Heaven and who have been made to know their Savior through the means of African slavery!

Furthermore, it is possible for the Christianity practiced by people to be corrupted into something clearly abhorrent. Frederick Douglass recognized the same in his time:

[…] between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference — so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked.

I hope the case of Falwell demonstrates that these days are not behind us. Moreover, those who have a positive view of Falwell likely have either forgotten or never known of his segregationist past. For the powerful, the past can be rewritten to best suit one’s agenda.

But what agenda is that?

Paul Weyrich

From Thy Kingdom Come by Randall Balmer:

Weyrich, whose conservative activism dates at least as far back as the Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964, had been trying for years to energize evangelical voters over school prayer, abortion, or the proposed equal rights amendment to the Constitution. "I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed," he recalled in an interview in the early 1990s. "What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter's intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation."

I want to point out something interesting here. Both the Green v. Connally ruling that revoked tax-exempt status for private schools that practiced segregation, and the IRS actions against Bob Jones University that Weyrich and Falwell fought against, occurred during the Nixon and Ford presidencies, respectively.

Though the IRS continued these policies throughout Carter’s presidency, it’s hard to see this as a good faith argument. Weyrich tries to mislead the listener into a partisan framing of history.

Weyrich tried to involve evangelicals in politics in a push for his own, conservative, goals. He and others succeeded in this, but it should be clear that what was important to evangelicals (again, segregation) was used to draw them into a larger conservative framework of policies.

But what about abortion?

Abortion

How was abortion viewed by evangelicals before Roe v. Wade? From Agent of Intolerance:

By 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled on Roe, the antiabortion movement was almost exclusively Catholic. While various Catholic cardinals condemned the Court’s ruling, W.A. Criswell, the fundamentalist former president of America’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, casually endorsed it. […] A year before Roe, the SBC had resolved to press for legislation allowing for abortion in limited cases.

While abortion clinics sprung up across the United States during the early 1970s, evangelicals did little.

From NPR’s Throughline:

KING: So opposition to abortion has become so associated with evangelical Christians that it seems like that's the way it was all along.

ABDELFATAH: No. In fact, the Southern Baptist Convention, they actually passed resolutions in 1971, 1974 and 1976 - after Roe v. Wade - affirming the idea that women should have access to abortion for a variety of reasons and that the government should play a limited role in that matter, which surprised us. The experts we talked to said white evangelicals at that time saw abortion as largely a Catholic issue.

Rather than being a foundational idea, anti-abortion activism was adopted to continue the political movement that started with the defense of segregation. From Thy Kingdom Come:

What about abortion? After mobilizing to defend Bob Jones University and its racially discriminatory policies, Weyrich said, these evangelical leaders held a conference call to discuss strategy. He recalled that someone suggested that they had the makings of a broader political movement—something that Weyrich had been pushing for all along—and asked what other issues they might address. Several callers made suggestions, and then, according to Weyrich, a voice on the end of one of the lines said, "How about abortion?" And that is how abortion was cobbled into the political agenda of the Religious Right.

Abortion was therefore used as vehicle for the continuation and growth of the Religious Right, not as the primary driving force that led to its creation.

This does not mean that those that believe that abortion is wrong and should be made illegal are insincere in their beliefs. But the genesis of the Religious Right as a bulwark against school integration, and the rather obvious scheming by Weyrich and crew to choose abortion as a second point to rally around after segregation seemed unpalatable, should at the very least give one pause to consider the motivation of those that operate within this sphere.

Secondly, it is important to note that the change in how the SBC and other evangelical organizations saw abortion correlates with the work of the Religious Right to drive evangelicals towards serving conservative political ends.

You have been misled.

An idol is raised

Consider your “allies”

The Religious Right movement has worked effectively to conflate Christianity with Republicanism. This association can be strong.

I remember discussing the then-upcoming 2016 election with some evangelical Republican voters. They insisted that Trump was “God’s candidate”, and that God would use him for His purposes.

Could God use Hillary Clinton, if she won? No, they insisted. Because she wasn’t “God’s candidate”. This seems to spit in the face of God’s capability.

In an egregiously partisan example, one of Trump’s top religious advisers, Dr. Robert Jeffress, said of Democrats “apparently the god they worship is the pagan god of the Old Testament Moloch, who allowed for child sacrifice”, implicitly dismissing that one could be both Christian and a Democrat.

And although it may be clear to some why the Republican Party is “God’s party”, it is hard to see where the connection between the priorities of the party and the priorities of Christ exists.

The headline Republican action of the last few years—the tax cut—helped cut the taxes of the richest 400 people in America so much that their overall tax rate became the lowest of any income group. It is unclear how the ultra-rich paying a smaller proportion of tax than anyone else maps onto the stated beliefs of evangelicals, and yet the support of evangelicals for the Republican Party was critical in getting this and other conservative goals passed.

Temporal power

The political involvement of the Religious Right has not primarily been about helping others, but instead on creating rules in society to benefit themselves, blocking others from doing things they want to do or giving themselves additional “rights”. In effect, it is an effort in gaining temporal power.

Focus on the Family

Focus on the Family has a history of pushing against gay rights. At an anti-gay-rights rally in 2004 called “Mayday for Marriage”, their chairman endorsed George W Bush for a second term and pushed for Republican control of the Senate:

Tens of thousands of conservative Christians gathered on the Mall here Friday for a demonstration against same-sex marriage that doubled as a rally to turn out conservative Christian voters on Election Day.

"I encourage you to remember in November," James C. Dobson, chairman of the evangelical self-help organization Focus on the Family, told the crowd, many of whom held Bush-Cheney placards and wore the campaign's buttons and T-shirts. […] "We can't reach the court," Dr. Dobson told the rally, denouncing the Supreme Court for rulings in favor of abortion and gay rights. "But we can reach the Senate. We can do that on Nov. 2."

Focus on the Family also worked with others to pass Proposition 8 in California, which was a constitutional amendment banning the recognition of marriages other than between a man and a woman.

Alliance Defending Freedom

The Alliance Defending Freedom is another conservative Christian group co-founded by James Dobson. It has litigated against gay rights, and has pushed to get pastors actively involved in politics:

In perhaps its most aggressive effort, the alliance organizes an annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday, enlisting pastors, who under federal rules may not endorse politicians or bills, to link “biblical principles” to politics in their sermons. In June, more than 1,000 pastors signed up to preach “the truth about marriage.”

The ADF want to repeal the Johnson Amendment, which prevents all 501(c)(3) non-profits from endorsing or opposing political candidates.

"The tax-collecting IRS shouldn't be playing speech cop and threatening a church's tax-exempt status simply because its pastor exercises his constitutionally protected freedom of speech," ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley, who heads the Pulpit Freedom Sunday event, said in a statement.

Of course, this is deliberately misleading. Churches and religious leaders are able to speak out on religious and social issues, and religious leaders are allowed to endorse or oppose political candidates as private citizens. It is only that they cannot use the tax-exempt (and therefore government-subsidized) resources of the church to do so.

The repeal of the Johnson Amendment would allow effectively persons or organizations to make tax-deductible political donations through churches. Already section 116 of House Resolution 3280 bars the IRS from investigating churches (and churches only) for breaching these rules unless the head of the IRS agrees.

How bad is it? Here’s the ACLU on section 116:

The goal of Section 116 is to make it very difficult for the IRS to investigate claims that churches—but only churches—have violated the law by engaging in partisan political activity by requiring consent from the IRS Commissioner for each investigation and notification to the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives and the Finance Committee in the Senate before such investigations can commence. The first requirement would significantly slow down, if not functionally halt, the pursuit of 501(c)(3) violations, while the second would only serve to further politicize these investigations.

Such drives aim to increase the political power of churches, and the Religious Right along with them.

Who does this serve?

The political actions of Christians on the Religious Right appear to be entirely self-serving, aiming to enhance the power of Christians, specifically conservative Christians, over other people.

When Christians agitate to remove gay marriage from civil society, they are looking to force their religious beliefs on others. When conservatives pass laws like Section 116, they seek to boost the power of churches.

Where is the service to others? This behavior seems very much against the example of Jesus. Where is the work to feed the hungry and help the poor?

As Jesus says in Mark 10:42-45:

So Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Trump

There appears to be some grotesque characterization of Trump as some sort of savior figure. Jon McNaughton has him in the stead of Washington crossing the Delaware. Michael Steele said that CPAC attendees viewed him as “the Golden Calf, he is the thing that they come and bow before.”

Franklin Graham prayed for him in a disturbing fashion:

Yet the Rev. Franklin Graham’s declaration last week for a “special day of prayer for the President, Donald J. Trump” on Sunday had a very different theological flavor. Graham made clear that the real purpose of the event was not to pray for the president, but to pray in his political favor. “President Trump’s enemies continue to try everything to destroy him, his family and the presidency,” Graham said. “In the history of our country, no president has been attacked as he has.” The American Family Association described the day of prayer as a type of “spiritual warfare,” necessary because Trump’s many accomplishments “make him very unpopular with the Devil and the kingdom of darkness.”

This mirrored the American Family Association’s bizarre earlier article:

The opposition to this president is very intense and much of it doesn’t even make a lot of sense – at least not in the natural. The media, the opposing political party, the political party that he is in, - it appears that opposition is coming against him from almost every side. It seems that there are those who don’t like him no matter what he does.

This is more than a prayer for the president to lead wisely. This is a prayer in political support for the president and his agenda, and implies that his political opponents are of “the kingdom of darkness”.

Much is made among the right about the unfairness of attacks upon the president. But perhaps a man with a history of lying, cheating, swindling, blatant racism, and grift might continue one or more of these practices?

Child separation and detention condition of migrants

The child separation policy of this administration, and the detention conditions of migrants, at the southern border should fill anyone with empathy with disgust and rage.

A report from DHS’s own acting inspector general to the acting head of the organization, sent in July of this year, was titled “DHS Needs to Address Dangerous Overcrowding and Prolonged Detention of Children and Adults in the Rio Grande Valley”. Photographs from the report (pages 4 and 5) show human beings in cages so tightly packed that there isn’t enough room for everyone to lie on the cold, concrete floor. Conditions have been decried by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

That adults are held in these conditions is itself a disgrace, but the policy of separating children from their parents is some new level of horror. I won’t write here of the details—there are plenty of places to find this information, and I wish to spare the sensitive reader—but if you read eye-witness reports and do not well up in tears and fill with rage against the injustice, I am not sure what sort of person you are.

A common refrain is “if we don’t have a border, we don’t have a country”, joined often by “we need to enforce the laws”. The former is laughable (did we not exist as a country before Trump?), but the latter does not correlate with the actions of the administration, which continues to break the law in disregarding the requirements of the Flores agreement. They have also argued in court that it is “safe and sanitary” to confine immigrant children in facilities without soap or toothbrushes and to make them sleep on concrete floors under bright lights.

Refugees in general

On September 26 2019, the administration cut the cap on the number of refugees to be admitted to the United States (in the subsequent year) to 18,000. This is the lowest level since the program began, and is the fourth time the Trump administration has cut this cap, after cutting it to 30,000 in September 2018, cutting it to 45,000 the year before, and that same year slashing the previously set cap for 2017 from 110,000 to 50,000.

With this new cap, the United States is no longer the world’s top country for refugee admissions, after leading the world in this regard since 1980. With the 70.8 million people refugees and displaced people around the world, representing the biggest refugee crisis in history, this seems particularly callous.

Sadly, the US has a history of turning away those in need. In 1939, the 937 passengers of the M.S. St. Louis, mostly Jews fleeing Nazi Germany, was denied entry first to Cuba, then to the United States, then to Canada. Of those passengers, 254 were murdered by the Nazis. There are real consequences to turning away those in need—it is not some abstract act.

How does this track with the Jesus you claim to follow?

Unrecognizable

I have demonstrated:

  • That Jesus rejected the characterization of the role of the Messiah as someone who would pursue political dominance;
  • That an institution defended by Christians, using Christian terminology and arguments based on an understanding of the Bible, does not make those institutions worthy of support (e.g. slavery, school segregation);
  • That Christians can be manipulated by outside actors to align themselves with a political movement;
  • That the view of abortion by the SBC has changed, and this change correlates with the work of the Religious Right to influence evangelicals towards conservative political ends;
  • That, once co-opted into a political movement, Christians can take up a wide variety of positions that don’t have any obvious connection to a theological backing, and associate that with their identity;
  • That this can become further twisted into a drive to put the needs of Christians first;
  • And that Christians can, and often do, support politicians that push policies that are stand in direct opposition to the explicit instruction of Christ.

What does that say of the present evangelical movement in politics? Specifically white evangelicals, 81% of whom voted for Trump? What does it matter if you attend church, pay your tithe, and study the Bible, if you have no heart?

Jesus himself says in Matthew 23:23-24:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

The hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed. Churches will often lament the large proportion of people leaving their congregations, but rarely have I seen those churches take a step back and consider that perhaps they are contributing to this. At the very least, evangelicals must watch out for that camel, lest they choke on it.

The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model

Since its 2008 incursion into Georgia (if not before), there has been a remarkable evolution in Russia's approach to propaganda. This new approach was on full display during the country's 2014 annexation of the Crimean peninsula. It continues to be demonstrated in support of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Syria and in pursuit of nefarious and long-term goals in Russia's “near abroad” and against NATO allies.

In some ways, the current Russian approach to propaganda builds on Soviet Cold War–era techniques, with an emphasis on obfuscation and on getting targets to act in the interests of the propagandist without realizing that they have done so. In other ways, it is completely new and driven by the characteristics of the contemporary information environment. Russia has taken advantage of technology and available media in ways that would have been inconceivable during the Cold War. Its tools and channels now include the Internet, social media, and the evolving landscape of professional and amateur journalism and media outlets.

From this paper from RAND. Also includes a quite interesting walk through how we are convinced of things, both where an argument has veracity and where it does not.

It's getting worse

The Turkish invasion of SDF-controlled Syria has lead to so many deaths that mass burials are now a daily occurrence. After reportedly okaying said invasion a week ago, Trump now publicly green-lights the ethnic cleansing of the region.

I am aghast.

Anger

A dull rage has been simmering in me for the last several days. With the impeachment drama in the background, the Kurds are betrayed by America.

With numbers of 50-100 US troops removed from the area, Turkey starts a military operation, ostensibly to remove terrorists in “Operation Peace Spring”:

Check out this euphemism-laden turn of.phrase from one of his aides:

He urged Kurdish fighters to lay down their guns and refuse to listen to their commanders' orders to resist Turkey’s advance. If they refuse to join Turkey “we will have no choice but to stop them from disrupting our counter-Islamic State efforts,” he said.

Source: Kurds abandon fight against Isil as Turkey attacks with air power and artillery deep into Syria

Of course, this is bullshit. Erdoğan has long distrusted the Kurds in general and Turkey has declared the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) and People’s Protection Units (YPG) terrorist groups. PKK is designated a terrorist group by the US, NATO, and the EU. YPG is generally considered linked to PKK.

While Erdoğan’s aide points to countering ISIS as the priority, Erdoğan’s own tweet calls them out as a target. And, if countering ISIS was the primary goal, it’s hard to see how attacking the gaolers of several thousand ISIS members, and those that have liberated large swathes of Northern Syria from ISIS, is the best way to achieve that.

Consider also that this attack started with air strikes and shelling. How the fuck are you supposed to tell a bomb or artillery shell you want to “join Turkey”?

It is clear that the primary target of this attack is PKK/YPG forces in the north of Syria.

You may ask “so Turkey is attacking terrorists, what’s the big deal?” This is a fair question, if you strip it from context. The US has been an ally of the YPG, and helped create a parent group, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), that incorporated YPG, the affiliated Women’s Protection Units (YPJ), and a variety of other Syrian rebel forces, including primarily Arab groups. With US material and special-forces support, the SDF is responsible for defeating ISIS in the region.

Essentially, any time you hear about the US defeating ISIS, you might as well say that a goalie won a soccer game. The US absolutely played a vital role, but it wasn’t the whole team.

That’s why the White House’s statement that essentially green-lit the Turkish operation is so contemptuous. The first paragraph claims that the US has “defeated the ISIS territorial ‘Caliphate’” (in Syria, it was primarily the SDF that did so), and the second paragraph is mealy-mouthed in the extreme:

The United States Government has pressed France, Germany, and other European nations, from which many captured ISIS fighters came, to take them back, but they did not want them and refused. The United States will not hold them for what could be many years and great cost to the United States taxpayer. Turkey will now be responsible for all ISIS fighters in the area captured over the past two years in the wake of the defeat of the territorial “Caliphate” by the United States.

The US was not holding most (and possibly any) ISIS fighters in Syria. Again, this was primarily the SDF, which makes the second sentence misleading in the extreme.

Trump has thrown a US ally to the wolves.

The United States withdrew 50 to 100 troops from the border area in advance of the operation, and American military officials said that the United States was not providing assistance to either side. However, the United States was providing intelligence to Turkey until Monday that may have helped it target Kurdish forces.

Source: Turkey Launches Offensive Against U.S.-Backed Syrian Militia

Already ISIS fighters are escaping SDF jails. So what does Trump say about this?

Are you fucking kidding me? And here’s Stephen Miller communicating on how this maps onto keeping America safe:

This policy is both as characteristically heartless, and just plain fucking dumb, as saying “it’s okay that the world is burning, because we’ve made our house out of brick”.

Also I’m getting a bit fucking sick of the argument brought out right at the end here:

We do not want to get involved in a conflict that dates back over two hundred years between the Turks and the Kurds

In the (obviously extremely unlikely) scenario of a post-Brexit Britain blockading Irish ports and “solving the Irish border problem” by invading and annexing the Republic, it would be a bit fucking rich to hear the US say “We do not want to get involved in a conflict that dates back over eight hundred years between the British and the Irish”.

This is an argument that frames people as belonging to stereotypical tribes, drawing upon the idea of historic conflict rather than an actual reckoning with history. It reeks of over-simplification at best and racism at worst.

And, if taken to its obvious conclusion, it would also rule out any US support of Israel.

But it’s of course not meant to be a serious argument. It’s meant to hand-wave away a whole bunch of problems with the US’s role here, and to help build a permission structure for others to back this utter farce.

A Partial List

Sometimes it’s worth stepping back to look at the full picture.

He has pressured a foreign leader to interfere in the 2020 American presidential election.

He urged a foreign country to intervene in the 2016 presidential election.

He divulged classified information to foreign officials.

He publicly undermined American intelligence agents while standing next to a hostile foreign autocrat.

He hired a national security adviser who he knew had secretly worked as a foreign lobbyist.

He encourages foreign leaders to enrich him and his family by staying at his hotels.

The list continues in David Leonhardt’s article Donald Trump vs. the United States.

Abaco Islands

Great story well told by Michael Harriort.

Positive

My view of America is an overall positive one. Why is that?

First of all, I live in America now. It would be pretty bad move for me to have made if I thought the place sucked.

For someone like me, where my family and I call home is a fine place to live on a day-to-day level. I have access to a wide variety of products and services, including solid medical care and excellent childcare facilities. We have good schools and healthy food available to us.

My area and my family’s ability to afford to live here is a big part of that equation. If we had less, we would not be able to afford our healthcare, our childcare, or our property taxes. We might have to live somewhere which has poorer quality schools or is less safe.

And I know that the color of my skin, and my wife’s skin, probably makes life easier for us (a thought that makes both of us physically ill).

Things like that pop up a lot when I think about America. It is a land of greatness and travesty. At its founding it held both that all men were created equal, and that some men could be enslaved. It is a land of contradictions.

The mistake is to run away from these failings, or whitewash them in the name of defending America’s greatness. The task is to learn from them, and to pursue greatness, healing the wounds as best we can. That is not something that can be left to someone else; it is incumbent on all of us here to strive towards this.

But what would this better America look like? Events of the past, and how they are viewed today, provide a guide.

At My Lai, helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson Junior intervened against the massacre:

Thompson and his crew continued flying over the scene and they saw a group of civilians running toward an earthen bunker with American soldiers following them. So, according to multiple accounts, Thompson did something that went against his military training and against the traditional concept of friend and enemy in war. It also took unthinkable courage. He landed the chopper directly between the advancing Americans and the bunker. He told the Americans that if they fired on the Vietnamese civilians--or on him--his crew would fire on them. He ordered Colburn and the helicopter's crew chief Glenn Andreotta to cover him with their weapons. Then he motioned for the civilians inside the bunker to come out and he arranged for their evacuation with other helicopter pilots who were his friends. The C Company soldiers looked on but thankfully held their fire.

Thompson is nowadays considered a hero. He received the Soldier’s Medal in 1998, and his actions began to be taught by the Army as a model of good soldiering.

What is not remembered is that, at the time, he was shunned and insulted. He received death threats over the phone, and mutilated animals on his porch. A senior congressman made a public statement of “if anybody goes to jail in this My Lai stuff, it will be the helicopter pilot.”

What is remembered is the myth. The helicopter pilot is lauded as an example of American greatness, and what is forgotten is the response to the heroism of him and his crew.

The second sentence of the Declaration of Independence reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These words are now widely seen to apply to all and women. But four of the five drafters of the declaration owned slaves, and a section of their original draft denouncing the slave trade was stricken by Congress before it was signed.

Additionally, one of the main components of participation in a representative democracy, suffrage, was heavily restricted even among white males in the states. Some states required property ownership as a condition of voting until 1856. Black people were prevented from registering and practicing their right to vote through a variety of overt segregationist tactics up until the mid 1960s, and suppression of voting rights through racial gerrymandering and targeted voter roll purges continues.

So it is clear that many of the freedoms considered quintessentially American were not part of the country until late in the 20th century, and there are widespread measures against these freedoms even today. But even the defense of these suppression tactics is rarely done in a way that opposes the American *concept* of liberty. The “quiet bit” is rarely said out loud (although I admit that it sometime is).

----

So what does it mean that America maintains a myth of its own greatness, one that is frequently contradicted by its own history? It’s easy to dismiss this as mass delusion, and there is some truth to this. To me, this seems correlated with the division between nationalism and patriotism. Orwell, in Notes on Nationalism, wrote that nationalism is

[…]the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

Like a someone incapable of introspection, a nationalist might argue that America is and always has been great, that where fact and history may show otherwise, then the truth is a lie. They stand before the mirror, dissolved into this idea of the nation, and cannot understand its wrinkles or pores, are blind to its scars, and attest against all evidence that it is without blemish—and that you’d better accept it, or face the consequences.

Whereas a patriot is not dissolved into the nation, and look upon it with love despite its scars or history. They will seek to help it realize its best self.

As Lincoln once said:

Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence; if you have listened to suggestions which would take away from its grandeur, and mutilate the fair symmetry of its proportions; if you have been inclined to believe that all men are not created equal in those inalienable rights enumerated by our chart of liberty, let me entreat you to come back. Return to the fountain whose waters spring close by the blood of the Revolution. Think nothing of me - take no thought for the political fate of any man whomsoever - but come back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence. You may do anything with me you choose, if you will but heed these sacred principles. You may not only defeat me for the Senate, but you may take me and put me to death. While pretending no indifference to earthly honors, I do claim to be actuated in this contest by something higher than an anxiety for office. I charge you to drop every paltry and insignificant thought for any man's success. It is nothing; I am nothing; Judge Douglas is nothing. But do not destroy that immortal emblem of Humanity - the Declaration of American Independence.

He exhorted a return to that ideas held in that declaration, even though these were not the lived experience of the nation. That appeal to greatness, the appeal to pursue it in earnest, is one borne out of love.

So what do I believe about America?

I believe that the founders of this country based it on ideals that burn bright, that these ideals exceeded their ability to comprehend, and that America is at its best when it advances towards a fuller realization of those ideals.

And I believe that a country incorporated (albeit unintentionally) around the realization of human rights, rather than a particular ethnic group, is worth a damn, and worth defending.

Expansion

I think it’s worth pulling at what I hinted in my last blog post.

The arguments of many Republicans in favor of Trump are on their face laughable. Let’s take a look at Representative Louie Gohmert’s questions at the recent hearing of the Judiciary Committee:

Gohmert: Well listen, regarding collusion or conspiracy, you didn’t find any evidence of any agreement—and I’m quoting you—among the Trump campaign officials and any Russia-linked individuals to ‘fere with our US election, correct?

Mueller: Correct.

Gohmert (his voice beginning to shake): So, you also note in the report that an element of any of those obstructions you referenced requires a corrupt state of mind, correct?

Mueller: Corrupt intent, correct.

Gohmert: Right. (Gohmert begins to shout passionately) And if somebody knows they did not conspire with anybody from Russia to effect the election, and they see the big Justice Department, with people that hate that person, coming after ‘em, and then a Special a-Counsel appointed who hires dozen or more people that hate that person, and he knows he’s innocent, he’s not corruptly acting in order to see that justice is done, what he’s doing is not obstructing justice, he is pursuing justice, and the fact that you ran it out two years means you perpetuate injustice.

What actions might this include? From [Representative Cedric Richmond’s questioning of Mueller]:

Richmond: So it's fair to say the President tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation?

Mueller: I would say that’s, ah, generally a summary.

Richmond: Would you say that, that action, the President tried to hamper the investigation by asking staff to falsify records relevant to your investigation?

Mueller: I am just going to have to refer you to the report if I could for, ah, ah, review of, ah, that episode.

Richmond: Thank you. Also the President's attempt to get McGahn to create a false written record were related to Mr. Trump's concerns about your obstruction of justice inquiry, correct?

Mueller: I believe that to be true.

In other words, Gohmert’s argument is that someone can ask their staff to falsify records, in effect lying to investigators, if they know they are innocent–and indeed, this is part of some noble effort “pursuing justice”.

This is obviously ridiculous. Given Trump’s high approval rates among Republicans, and (as shown in my previous post) his viciousness towards his in-party enemies, it’s easy to see why a Republican would want to be seen as supporting the President. But presenting an argument in defense of someone does not mean that the argument itself is sound, nor does it mean that the argument itself is the point.

Christian apologetics are often assumed to be means of defending the beliefs of Christians to external actors, but they have often been used by Christians to shore up their own beliefs—and it is not just in Christian circles that this occurs. There is nothing wrong with this if the arguments are sound. But statements like Gohmert’s are so intellectually brittle that, if you look at them seriously for but a moment, they crumble. When a weak argument is used as an apologetic, this is only of use for those looking for an excuse rather than a reason to continue believing what they already believe.

Arguments like those from many Republicans today are a simulacrum of reason. They are constructed not to illustrate the truth, or assist in the search for the truth, but instead both to provide this excuse to the “witch hunt!” crowd and, accompanied by the emotional outburst brought by Gohmert, an impassioned declaration of support for the party’s leader.

They might as well be chanting “Long live the party! Long live Saddam Hussein!”

Purge

With 1,000 top Baath Party leaders gathered at short notice in a Baghdad auditorium, Hussein told them somberly that a plot against the regime had been uncovered.

”We used to be able to sense a conspiracy with our hearts before we even gathered the evidence," he said. "Nevertheless we were patient, and some of our comrades blamed us for knowing this but doing nothing about it."

Then he called on stage a top party officer who had been arrested and tortured after daring to protest Hussein's seizure of power. Brought from prison, where he had been threatened with the rape and murder of his wife and daughters, Muhyi Abdul Hussein Mashadi confessed that he had plotted with Syria to overthrow the Iraqi regime - and that his co-conspirators were in the audience.

Then a security official read the names of 66 miscreants, who were led from the hall as relieved survivors began to outdo one another with chants denouncing the plotters and declaring, "Long live Saddam Hussein!" Hussein sat quietly, wiping away tears at one point, as if saddened at the perfidy of his former friends.

Twenty-two of those arrested were executed with shots fired by Baath leaders offered the chance to prove their fealty. Hussein made sure footage of these "democratic executions" was added to the tape before copies were distributed to Baath activists across Iraq.