Meredith Maran had an interesting essay in The New York Times over the weekend: “I Got Gay Married. I Got Gay Divorced. I Regret Both.” In it, she describes her “marriage” to her lesbian partner in 2008 and the subsequent dissolution of their relationship in 2013. She regrets her gay marriage and divorce, but it is not because she is against gay marriage in principle. Rather she says this: Continue Reading →
Over the weekend, Mike Bird made a canny prediction on Twitter:
I predict with a Trump presidency that empire criticism is about to get jacked, ripped, and buffed in the coming 4 years.
— mbird (@mbird12) December 11, 2016
If you are not familiar with “empire criticism,” it is an approach to reading the Bible (especially the New Testament) that approaches Scripture as a “coded” critique of imperial regimes. According to this approach, those who are reading the biblical text carefully will notice parallels between gospel terminology and that of the first century Caesar cult. When read in that light, it is clear that the gospel is meant to oppose imperial regimes–especially the mighty American imperial regime that is afflicting the world. Continue Reading →
Albert Mohler has a really thoughtful commentary on “fake news” today. He is in large part responding to Sarah Pulliam Bailey’s piece at The Washington Post on the same subject. Bailey is lamenting the fact that too many evangelicals have too much credulity toward “fake news” and too much incredulity toward real news delivered according to real standards of journalism.
Mohler is sympathetic with Pulliam Bailey on this point. He agrees that there really is a qualitative difference between mainstream outlets and other “news” sources that have no editorial accountability. But Mohler also raises the very real problem that mainstream outlets have with detecting their own ideological bias, which sometimes distorts their reporting and which has led many conservative Americans to believe that “fake news” is the stock-in-trade of mainstream outlets.
I think Mohler is making a point here that newsrooms need to come to terms with. Liberal bias in mainstream outlets is real. And when it becomes the vehicle for the bullying false narratives of the far left, it has real life consequences for real people. It also has the effect of driving the bullied away from those outlets. Continue Reading →
I know that climate change policy is highly controversial with ideological interests driving both sides of the debate. It is extremely frustrating, therefore, when news reports depart from “straight” reporting and delve into advocacy for one side or the other. I think we’ve already seen some of that in some of the reporting on Scott Pruitt’s recent nomination to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).*
Earlier today, I heard the personalities on “Morning Joe” discussing Pruitt’s nomination and expressing fears that Pruitt denies the reality of global climate change—the implication being that conservatives are “science deniers,” etc. Their discussion seemed to be based on The New York Times’s coverage, which has this headline: “Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A.”
My issue here is not so much with the policy substance but with the reporting. The New York Times‘s headline says Pruitt is a climate change “denialist,” which I take to mean that Pruitt denies that there is such a thing as climate change. But is that headline accurate? When you actually read the reporting, the authors base this claim on a National Review article that Pruitt co-authored earlier this year. The New York Times quoted from this portion of Pruitt’s article: Continue Reading →
Is there a nicer, more winsome couple on television than Chip and Joanna Gaines? Probably not. But guess what. They go to an evangelical church that believes marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. Therefore, they must be stopped… or at least that seems to be the view of the Pharisees at BuzzFeed. Continue Reading →
Senator Ben Sasse recently delivered a stimulating lecture to The Federalist Society. It is his vision of America, and it is really well done. Watch and listen above.
“60 Minutes” aired an interview earlier this evening with President-elect Donald Trump. It was wide-ranging, but I want to focus attention on two items dealing with abortion, gay marriage, and the Supreme Court. Trump’s response to questions on these topics is not encouraging for those of us who believe in the transcendent nature of these particular issues. You can read the exchange about abortion in the following excerpt from a transcript:
Lesley Stahl: One of the things you’re going to obviously get an opportunity to do, is name someone to the Supreme Court. And I assume you’ll do that quickly?
Donald Trump: Yes. Very important.
Lesley Stahl: During the campaign, you said that you would appoint justices who were against abortion rights. Will you appoint– are you looking to appoint a justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Donald Trump: So look, here’s what’s going to happen– I’m going to– I’m pro-life. The judges will be pro-life. They’ll be very—
Lesley Stahl: But what about overturning this law–
Donald Trump: Well, there are a couple of things. They’ll be pro-life, they’ll be– in terms of the whole gun situation, we know the Second Amendment and everybody’s talking about the Second Amendment and they’re trying to dice it up and change it, they’re going to be very pro-Second Amendment. But having to do with abortion if it ever were overturned, it would go back to the states. So it would go back to the states and–
Lesley Stahl: Yeah, but then some women won’t be able to get an abortion?
Donald Trump: No, it’ll go back to the states.
Lesley Stahl: By state—no some —
Donald Trump: Yeah.
Donald Trump: Yeah, well, they’ll perhaps have to go, they’ll have to go to another state.
Lesley Stahl: And that’s OK?
Donald Trump: Well, we’ll see what happens. It’s got a long way to go, just so you understand. That has a long, long way to go.
Even though Trump clearly wants to appoint Justices to overturn Roe v. Wade, it appears that Trump can’t bring himself to state what is plainly the view of pro-lifers. We are in fact trying to end abortion-on-demand, and that does mean passing laws that will lead to some women not being able to access abortions. That is certainly a controversial view, but it is not a difficult one to understand. It is the pro-life view, and that Trump cannot find the words to say as much is telling.
Moreover, when asked if he’s okay for women to get abortions in states that make it legal, he punts. He doesn’t say whether he would support that or not. All of this adds up to one conclusion. Trump does not have a consistent and coherent pro-life point of view, and that is a huge problem for those of us who put the sanctity of human life as the most important concern.
Here is the exchange on gay marriage.
Lesley Stahl: One of the groups that’s expressing fear are the LGBTQ group. You–
Donald Trump: And yet I mentioned them at the Republican National Convention. And–
Lesley Stahl: You did.
Donald Trump: Everybody said, “That was so great.” I have been, you know, I’ve been-a supporter.
Lesley Stahl: Well, I guess the issue for them is marriage equality. Do you support marriage equality?
Donald Trump: It– it’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.
Lesley Stahl: So even if you appoint a judge that–
Donald Trump: It’s done. It– you have– these cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And, I’m fine with that.
Notice what Trump does here. He dodges the direct question about whether or not he supports gay marriage. Rather, he says that the Supreme Court has settled the issue and therefore his views on the matter are irrelevant. When Stahl points out that he will appoint judges that can overturn the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision, Trump says that Obergefell is “settled” law and that he’s “fine” with how the Supreme Court settled it.
Did you catch the difference between the abortion answer and the gay marriage answer? When it comes to abortion, Trump wants to appoint judges that will overturn Roe v. Wade. Even though Roe is “settled” law, Trump favors overturning it. Yet on marriage, Trump is unwilling to oppose this “settled” law. Why? Why would Trump be willing to appoint justices to overturn Roe but not to overturn Obergefell? The reason is really simple. These issues that drive social conservatives are not issues that he cares about.
Joe Scarborough warned social conservatives in July that Trump is not with them on gay marriage. Scarborough says,
It really speaks to Donald Trump’s worldview that he hasn’t really shown during the primary campaign… Social conservatives, if Trump is elected, duck because he’s not on your side on these issues. It’s not like this is the first time we’ve been saying that. He does not care. He has a more open view, and certainly he’s more in line at least with millennial voters and with an awful lot of voters. So that wasn’t a real surprise to any of us that know Donald. It may be a surprise, though, to Jerry Falwell Juniors that go out and say certain things…
Bottom Line: Donald Trump is not a social conservative, and he doesn’t behave like one. And he’s not going to govern like one either.
Michael Moore predicted five months ago that Donald Trump would win the 2016 presidential election. He knew then what the coastal elites just learned on Tuesday–that the Democratic Party is out of touch with its working-class voter base.
Moore appeared on “Morning Joe” this morning to discuss the election and its aftermath. It’s a fascinating conversation revealing how liberals are processing this election. It also reveals that the divide in our country is not going to abate now that the election is over. If Moore is right, it is only going to intensify. Liberals are not making their peace with Trump.
Dan McLaughlin is a #NeverTrump conservative at The National Review, and he asks and answers the following question: “Where Does Never Trump Go in a Trump Presidency?” He argues that there are three options for conservatives now that the party belongs to Donald Trump.
- Leave the Party
- Remain in the Party and Embrace Trump
- Remain in the Party to influence it
McLaughlin makes a solid case for number three. He argues that conservatives haven’t been evicted from the party and still have an opportunity for influence. He says that conservatives are now in the same situation they were in before the Reagan-era GOP.
This is a reminder that movement conservatives are rediscovering that we have a relationship with the Republican Party that is similar to the one our movement had between 1952 and 1976: the party is sometimes on our side, but it’s not consistently guided by our principles, and we have to work to turn it our way. Maybe in retrospect, that was truer in the past 20 years than some of us wanted to admit at the time.
So what is the role for conservatives who decide to stick it out with the party? He says that conservatives should not concede the GOP as the “party of Trump.” Rather, they should view it as the “party with Trump.”
We will and should view the incoming Trump Administration not as a natural friend but as a transactional ally to be kept at arms’ length, kept honest by criticism, done business with on an issue-by-issue basis, and fought forthrightly when it deserves to be. We can’t fool ourselves: those fights will sometimes be lonely and losing ones.
I think this is a thoughtful piece and worth your time to read the whole thing.
I have stayed up to the bitter end on election night. Secretary Clinton has just conceded the race, and President-elect Trump is delivering his victory speech as I type. There will be much to say in coming days about tonight’s result. Before turning-in for the night, I offer five quick thoughts on what we have just witnessed.
1. This is the American Brexit. It’s a populist realignment of the American two-party system. Donald Trump won 44% of the vote during the GOP primaries, and he has achieved a stunning victory tonight. The GOP is now the party of populism, not the party of conservatism. A similar populist strain runs right through the Democratic Party as well. That strain is reflected in the 47% who voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary, and that strain will endure for the foreseeable future. This populist divide runs right through both parties and has changed everything this cycle. Will it endure? I don’t know. But there’s no question about what just happened. The people spoke, and their voice astonishes the ruling class. This result leaves the nation’s media and political elites as the shocked victims of their own presumption.
2. I have been an outspoken opponent of both major party nominees. That means that no matter the result of this election, I was going to be disappointed. I thought both candidates to be uniquely unqualified for the presidency. But what now? I don’t regret opposing these candidates. I continue to believe both candidates to pose real challenges to the common good. I trusted neither of them on the issues I care about most—sanctity of life, marriage, and religious liberty. I also believe both of them to have character flaws undermining their fitness for office. In light of that, what is my duty now? If the Apostle Paul told Christians to honor Emperor Nero, then I know I certainly have an obligation to honor the president-elect (Rom. 13:1-7). I will be the loyal opposition when necessary. I will also be praying that I was wrong about him and that he will do better than what I have expected him to do (1 Tim. 2:1-2).
3. I hope that evangelicals who have been divided over this election can reconcile and come together again. To that end, I want to repeat something I wrote last week. I have many friends and loved ones who made the decision to cast a mournful vote for the GOP nominee. They care about the unborn and religious liberty just as much as I do. They have no illusions about what the GOP nominee is. They did not wish to endorse his character, and they weren’t making a public discrediting defense of the indefensible. They too were dismayed about the alternatives before them. But they made a prudential judgment about the best way to do damage control with their vote. As I have said, I disagree with their decision, but I understand and respect them. The last thing I want is to be divided from them now that the election is over. This has been the most divisive campaign I have ever seen. If this election somehow were to result in a lasting division among Christians who should otherwise be together, that would be lamentable. For my part, I want to do what I can to keep that from happening.
4. I have black and brown friends and loved ones who are deeply distressed by the result of this election. They and others are justifiably concerned about what the future holds given what president-elect Trump has said and done during his campaign. Our country is deeply divided, and many people are terrified by tonight’s election result. I have not and will not forget them. I am thinking about and praying for them tonight.
5. God is still running this show. “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?'” (Dan. 4:35). “Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases” (Ps. 115:3). Nations come and go at the sovereign ordination of God. For those of us who love our country and the good it has stood for, patriotism means celebrating a heritage handed down to us by a smiling providence. But we also know that this great experiment in ordered liberty can be a tenuous thing. That is why Benjamin Franklin defined our system of government as “A Republic, if you can keep it.” So I will be praying that we can keep it a little while longer. We don’t deserve it. But then we never did, did we?