A Responsible Senator Would Advocate Against Violence

The responsible, patriotic thing for United States Senators to do, instead of warning of "violence in the streets" resulting from indictments of former President 45, would be to point out that in this country, violence committed with the intention of overturning the rule of law is illegal, unpatriotic, seditious and makes those who advocate it the enemy of the people.  It is unfortunate that some states seem to have elected a few who have no sense of their responsibility as a Senator, and are more loyal to a former President than they are to the Constitution or to the democracy that it establishes and sustains.  

There was violence after the murder of George Floyd and the far right gleefully blamed it on the left, though there's absolutely no indication that anyone on the left, at least among those elected to office, ever did anything except condemn the violence and use their influence to stop it.  Those on the "left" who were elected to serve governments in areas directly affected by it took action to stop it.  And none of it was aimed at overthrowing the government and defying the constitution.  It was still wrong, and the politicians on the left said so.  

The threats that are being made now are being used as leverage, in defense of a corrupt politician avoiding criminal indictments for crimes for which there is substantiated evidence indicating he committed them.  Those who are making the threats and advocating the violence are subverting the rule of law, not supporting it. It's beyond irresponsible for an elected member of Congress to do anything except speak against it. 

I don't recall any threats of violence when Hillary Clinton was under investigation.  And the only conspiracy theories I heard about the possibility of thwarting the peaceful transfer of power after Trump was elected came from right wingers projecting all of that on the left, claiming that President Obama had some kind of secret plan to declare martial law, and keep Trump from getting the Presidency.  There were also right wing extremists claiming that Vice-President Biden had a secret plan to avoid certifying the electoral votes from several states to give the Presidency to Clinton instead.  But it never happened, because it was never planned.  

So what's happening among Republicans now is quite the contrast.  

It's become pretty clear, through all of the whole saga of Trump's failure to follow constitutional law, and attempts to overturn a legitimate election, that all of this was planned in advance.  It's also pretty clear that if the labels were different, and this was a Democrat who was doing this, the same Republicans now warning of potential violence would be up front and center demanding that the rule of law be followed and that the perpetrators of this gigantic fraud and sedition be prosecuted immediately to the full extent of the law.  Their silence is actually sending a loud and clear message about where their loyalty really lies, their selfish ambition and their lack of respect for the American people, representative democracy, and the whole foundation of values and principles on which this country was founded. 

I remember from the Vietnam War era, a bumper sticker that was a slap in the face to draft dodgers and those opposed to the war, which read, "America:  Love It or Leave It."  Any United States Senator, representative or elected official who is not willing to take a stand against political violence should not be in office and should resign immediately.  Otherwise, they are betraying their oath of office and the American people.  

Warning from a Republican State Attorney General: America is Two Votes Away From Federalized Elections

Wonderful!  Not a moment too soon!    

Thanks to Missouri's Republican Attorney General Eric Schmitt, Democrats now have two more reasons to motivate their base to turn out and cast ballots in the midterm elections, along with the gift of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision.  Schmitt made an appearance on some extremist right wing program acting like a snowflake, whining about the possibility that two more Democratic senators might mean that Congress will federalize elections and pack the Supreme Court.  

I'm checking my calendar now, to find additional time to help the DNC make calls to get voters to the polls in November in those states where we can pick up a senate seat.  The more, the better.  Two would be great, but four or five would be a lot better and increase the chances of getting even more reforms that have been necessary for a long time.  Thank you, Eric, for pointing this out.  I hereby pronounce you as an official, genuine, Trumpie, Republican snowflake!  

Federal elections should have been placed under control of the federal government when the Constitution was ratified.  The hodge-podge of ridiculous, pernicious, convoluted election systems in the states is an embarrassment to American democracy and makes us look like a third world country.  It's long, long past the time when a real federal election commission with authority to draw congressional district lines and run congressional elections was created by Congress, leaving state legislatures and elected officials powerless to affect the outcome of federal elections, especially the Presidential election.  

Pack the court?  When can we get started on that?  I'm all for it and I think the mood has shifted enough since this current court has demonstrated a lack of integrity and a strong, partisan spirit, to make this a genuine vote-getter for Democrats.

It's too bad the possibility really doesn't exist to get to two-thirds of the senate, so we could add abolishing the electoral college to the list, and impeaching six Supreme Court justices instead of having to pack the court, but I'll settle for giving Biden five more vacancies to fill.  Is it possible to confirm all five of them at one time, instead of having to go through all that hearing nonsense and listen to all the Republican whine?   

Until congressional and presidential elections are under control of the federal government, states will be able to manipulate everything from how ballots are cast to how they are counted.  I understand the history behind the decisions that were made at the time, but we are way past that time now, and every vote of every American needs to count equally.  I also understand why elections free and unhindered by government apparatus, and controlled by the federal government are feared by Republicans who have had major difficulty winning them at that level over the past decade.  

Packing the court has been something I've favored since the Clinton administration.  The current court, which has been far more involved in partisan politics than any other, needs a lesson in its original constitutional purpose.  

So, Eric, today I will make a contribution to the DNC's midterm election campaign fund in honor of you, and I will dedicate an extra four hours of making phone calls to Wisconsin voters on behalf of Mandela Barnes as a way of thanking you for this reminder.  

Doomed to Repeat the Mistakes of the Past, Republican Rhetoric Sounds Like it's 1930 Again

Bits and pieces of quotes from Republicans who are upset over the Inflation Reduction Act, and over the President's announcement that some refunds are forthcoming on student loans floating around the media today remind me of the same mindset and perspective they exhibited when Hoover couldn't wrap his mind around how to help people after the stock market crash of 1929.  The only thing that's missing from their rhetoric today that was there during the Depression is some misplaced sympathy and some sad faces for those hardest hit, though the same stone-walled unwillingness to actually do something to help, and the same protectionism for the riches of the super wealthy, made most of that look hypocritical. 

But there's no sympathy for those who endure economic hardship because some aspect of the economy, like exorbitant and unreasonable tuition costs for college, or ridiculously high medical and health care costs, get way out of proportion to the level of competition in the marketplace that is theoretically supposed to keep things balanced.  That's gone, and the racism that was there during the Depression is now more vicious and rabid than it was back then.  

During the Depression, Republican politicians, led by President Hoover, whose mantra has always been "small government is good government," were simply incapable of getting out of the economic box they were in, which was basically an early model of trickle down, without much trickle.  They argued vehemently that it was not the government's job, or responsibility, to interfere with the laws of economics, except, of course, to protect the profits of big business with tariffs.  But the Depression was too big for the prevailing economic practices to handle, and the unemployment it produced left millions homeless and starving.  Political pressure forced the Republicans to provide some kind of relief, though it was as limited as they could make it and still call it relief.  

And, of course, in their way of thinking, business could not be obligated, or forced, or taxed, to help because, after all, they had their own economic worries.  So, the prevailing reasoning was that the economy would eventually work things out, and the government should provide what little relief it could, but nothing that would interfere with the natural process of economic law.  

But, America is a democracy, a government of, by and for the people, and that last preposition can't be ignored.  The people can make their government assume any role they think it needs to take, including levelling the economic playing field when things get way out of proportion, and using its resources to benefit citizens while correcting problems that are overwhelming, create major hardships for its citizens and might not resolve on their own.  It is not bound by nebulous, artificial "economic laws."  And if it gets in those kinds of ruts because of long-term dominance by one way of thinking, the people can make whatever changes they need to make.  

It doesn't matter what it is, whether it is crushing student loan debt or crushing prescription drug costs due not to scarcity or supply, but to the greed of corporations who profiteer off of people's pain and suffering, Republicans don't want to do anything for anyone who isn't in their billionaires' club.  They've used veterans for their purposes for a long time, trying to claim that Democrats would rather send billions in foreign aid than spend it on veterans.  But it is Republicans who beat down every attempt to improve the Veteran's Administration, especially access to its health care.  Who led the opposition to the burn pit bill which was aimed at helping veterans?  In fact, who has voted down, ever single time it comes up, any legislation aimed at improving the financial condition of American veterans?  

Different Times, Similar Circumstances

We aren't in a depression, and contrary to the prognostications of the extreme right, we are not in a recession, either.  But there are some parts of the economy that have been skewed and distorted beyond reasonable ability of normal economic circumstances to handle for many people.  One of those things is the cost of college and the need for students to take out large loans to pay for this necessity.  The Republicans have been reluctant--er, ah, completely oppositional to making community college tuition free, mainly because anything that would cause consideration of taxing the corporate wealthy at similar rates to the working class is out.  They've been both hypocritical and ridiculous in their criticism of the President's actions this week.  

Clearly, the cost of a college education over four years has become disproportionately huge compared the resources available to finance it, which means that only those rich enough to afford it can go, or those who are willing to spread out debt load over decades.  In fact, most colleges and universities would cease to exist if student loans were not available because their endowments and available grant and scholarship money is no longer enough to cover expenses for most students, including those who play football.  Public universities are already partially underwritten by tax dollars.  

Health care and the profiteering that is one of the core values of the prescription drug industry has gone beyond the ability of those on fixed incomes to afford it without something being done.  You'd think this would be something Republicans would understand and be willing to work at fixing, since their party members get old, too and not all of them are wealthy enough to have much of a pension.  But the GOP has gone so long without a coherent policy platform of any kind, except cutting the taxes of the wealthy and letting them get away with bribery and buying government policy, that they don't recognize something that is genuinely populist in nature.  

"The Democrats are Just Playing Politics and Using This to Get Votes"

Of course we are.  And I sincerely hope that it gets us a lot of votes.  I remember reading What's the Matter With Kansas? by journalist historian Thomas Frank back when it came out around 2004.  That's exactly what the GOP did, aimed at getting people to vote against their own interests.  The governor of Kansas at the time was Katherine Sebelius, who, in a state where Republican party voter registration outnumbered Democrats by almost two to one, defied the prevailing political patterns and managed to win two terms, the second one overwhelmingly, by running on the belief that government should serve the people who empower it.  

If cutting to the chase, promising to use influence as an elected official to get government to work for its citizens, relieving suffering and oppressive exploitation, helps candidates win elections, why take a different approach?  The Republicans haven't offered a coherent plan to do anything except be obstructionists and help the white, wealthy corporate elite get rich enough to actually buy the government since Bush was elected in 2000.  If someone votes for a candidate because they promised to help them avoid having to choose between medicine and food, or rent, and helps a college graduate in a professional occupation pay off a staggering debt that is controlling their life, what's wrong with that?   

It's Been a Great Month for President Joe Biden

The Biden Presidency has never been "off the rails," at least, not from my perspective.  It has functioned as the Presidency should function, reacting, responding, negotiating with legislators, issuing executive orders and managing the business of the executive branch with competence.  It has responded to crisis, including the war in Ukraine, the temporary spike in inflation and the Afghanistan exit, exactly as it should have.  I continue to insist, in the face of pundits and prognosticators, that the Afghanistan withdrawal was one of the great logistical achievements of the U.S. military, under the orders of the Commander in Chief.  And it has achieved legislative accomplishments many pundits thought were impossible to achieve.  

But the criminal activity of the former, failed President dominates the news cycle.  

As negative as the news is about the failed former President, and as bad as his administration failed, fascination and attention now focused on his criminal behavior, and the guessing game as to whether he will ever be called to account for it eclipses the remarkable success of what has been one of the most effective Presidential administrations since the end of the Second World War.  That's a travesty which is blocking the full view to this Presidency and one of the more pervasive factors influencing and interfering with his job approval ratings.  

Oh, yeah, there was one report that made its way through the fog of Trumpian criminality to be reported about the Biden administration.  His job approval rating eked back up to 41%.  Of course, that's one of the lower figures in a two week period that had even the Rasmussen poll showing one survey as high as 45%.  But of course, if most of what we're seeing and hearing is Trump did this, Trump thinks that, Trump complained about this, it might be a little bit difficult to know what the real, current, legitimately elected President of the United States is doing.  I'm at the point now where I think that a lot of the Presidential job approval data is being skewed by the pollster's "factoring" and by data that is months old.  

We Could See This Coming, That's Why We Elected Joe Biden

The experiment involving electing a "populist" who came from "outside the beltway," not of the Washington political tribe, failed miserably.  Instead of the image that Trump projected, or attempted to project to those gullible enough to believe it was accurate, we got a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants incompetent egomaniac unable to function in government because it didn't work the way he wanted it to work, and much of it was beyond his ability to control.  By any historical standard honestly applied, Trump was the worst President in American history, in every way that he could be, including his ignorance of and disdain for the Constitution.  

Joe Biden, in stark contrast, is a seasoned, career politician.  That's not always a bad thing.  Knowing how government works, especially in a democracy with a huge marketplace of ideas, is a necessity for the presidency and I think it is accurate to say that the American people saw this and made their choice.  It's certainly been a good thing up to this point.  And with this fomenting extremism, the anti-patriotic, anti-democratic, anti-everything conspiracy theorists pushing it to its limits and testing principles that haven't been stretched like this since the Civil War, Joe Biden's experience and knowledge of government is especially valuable. I see the phrase, "Our democracy is teetering in the balance" appearing in the media with frequency and I think we have the best man in the White House to help push it back toward democracy. 

Things are Going Well

The price of gasoline is always a huge deal, though the President really has little control over it or power to really make a difference.  The right keeps whining and pushing its same narratives over and over again, but this Presidential administration has essentially opened the taps.  It's the companies themselves who have created the price increase, some of it because of transportation and employment issues, partly because they are never afraid to capitalize on the slightest little breeze in order to profiteer.  The pipeline and environmental protection is always a bugaboo for them, though the facts don't support their complaining.  

But it's been steadily dropping and getting close to exactly where it was when it started going up, which is good news for everyone, except Republicans who can't attract voters with good news.  Maybe if they had a legislative agenda other than being the party of "NO!", then they wouldn't be dependent on the price of gasoline to help get some voters. 

But there's no question about the legislative success of this administration.  No, it wasn't all of what the President wanted.  But that doesn't change the significance of what he has accomplished with the Inflation Reduction Act.  This bill was significant in two big ways.  One, no Republicans supported it, which identifies it completely with the Democrats and the Biden Administration.  Without having to say anything at all, the President has sent the very clear message that Democrats aren't just talking and clicking their tongues about inflation, they are doing something about.  And two, it will impact segments of the population that will drive turnout in the direction of the Democrats in November.

Today, the President cancelled student loan debt, up to $10,000 in some cases, recognizing that, as a nation, we have some obligation to provide at least some help to those whose lives and education will make this country a better place to live.  Perhaps, after the mid-terms, Democrats can consider proposals to provide up to two years of community college for anyone who wants to go.  Education is not the answer to all of the problems of the human race, but critical thinking skills are essential to the preservation of democracy.  It's the best way I can think of to put an end to Q-Anon and the ridiculous fantasy world of election deniers.  

I'd probably be completely satisfied, and very optimistic, if the justice department decided to pounce, hand down some indictments and let the chips fall where they may with regard to the failed former President.  I expect that this administration is well prepared for the possibilities of any kind of violence that might be stirred up as a result of his arrest and indictment. Frankly, most of those people are brainwashed followers and cowards, though some of them are dangerous thugs.  Deal with it, let him have a quick, speedy trial and put him out of sight, out of mind.  

I like government that works this way, even if no Republicans want to cast ballots to support it out of some sense of misplaced loyalty.  Another two years of this and they really will be irrelevant, and the President will have accomplished as much as he originally set out to do.  Let it be his choice to run again, he has earned it.  

 

Christianity is Not a Tool for Achieving Political Ends

But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.  Matthew 6:33, NRSV

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.  And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."  Matthew 28:18-20, NRSV

The Christian church experienced some of its greatest periods of persecution between the reigns of the Roman emperors Nero and Constantine.  Steadfast in their obedience to the instructions of both Paul and Peter, they did not rebel or turn violently against their persecutors, choosing death over denying their faith in Christ.  The emperors, who, from the time of Nero, demanded to be worshipped as if they were a god, saw the Christian refusal to do so as an act of disloyalty against the empire, and intended to wipe the Christian church out completely by murdering all of its adherents.  

But the persecution, which was as severe and cruel as anything the Roman Empire ever committed, had exactly the opposite effect.  Rather than wiping out the church and depleting its membership, the steadfastness and obedience of Christians to the instruction of the apostles, even in the face of martyrdom, had the effect of convincing their pagan neighbors of the veracity of their beliefs and of the existence of God as revealed by Christian practice.  And so, when Constantine came on the scene, after over 250 years of persecution of the church, Christianity had become the predominant religion in the empire, with literally thousands of churches scattered in virtually every province, including a large and very strong church in Rome itself.  

A Paradigm Shift

Constantine's conversion to Christianity is an enigma.  Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, records the vision Constantine claimed to have as he was struggling militarily to gain control of the Roman armies and the empire.  Clearly, he had been exposed to Christianity, and was influenced by the resilience of Christian faith against severe persecution.  Seeing this in terms of being some kind of power which he could appropriate to his military advantage, he claims to have had a mid-day vision, as he was reaching out to a God he didn't know, of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, bearing the inscription "By this symbol you will conquer."  

That's where the paradigm shift occurred.  Constantine's conversion brought about the sudden end to the persecution of Christians.  It also brought about the end of one of the greatest periods of evangelism in the history of Christianity.  Almost as quickly as the persecution ended, the infiltration of pagan influences began as the Christian church, heavily influenced by Constantine's power, entered into an alliance with the political state, and in short order, the gospel of Jesus Christ was overwhelmed by worldly power and pagan influence.  

Not only did the political authority surrounding Constantine overwhelm the church, but he poured personal wealth, and resources acquired by the empire, into the churches.  The combination of this new found wealth, and the power of the Emperor himself completely changed the character of the church.  Its theology and doctrine were changed to be compatible with things Constantine believed and practiced, large, ornate church structures were constructed, replacing the house churches where most Christians once worshipped, and large numbers of pagans were brought into church membership and leadership of the church who had never experienced genuine spiritual transformation and conversion, and the church became a tool for achieving the emperor's political and military ends.  

The sign that Constantine claimed to have seen in the heavens could not have come from the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Conquest by the sign of the cross is diametrically opposed to Christian theology.  Being a peacemaker is one of the primary virtues of the Christian faith. There are those who believe that his vision was a hallucination, the product of the emotional and physical state he was in at the time.  Or, as others speculate, a deception designed to gain the loyalty of the church's leaders and the power he perceived them to have in order to solidify his own emperorship.  

What Jesus and the Apostles preached and taught was a faith dependent on spiritual transformation and aimed at redeeming the virtues and value of human life.  What Constantine saw was an institution that could be used to achieve his own political ends.  He took control of it and turned it into what he wanted it to be.  And it didn't take very long for it to become something very different than what Jesus Christ planned, or imagined it could be.  For over a thousand years, Christians who practiced their faith separate from the dictates of the Roman emperor, Byzantium and what became an institutional, state church had to do so underground, to avoid continued persecution by the state and its allies in the church which it controlled.

American Religious Liberty was a "Second Chance"

There are a lot of parallels in those historical events to what has happened to the Christian church multiple times as it has struggled to free itself from political influence and use of its influence to achieve political goals.  Attempts to reform itself and return to what Christ intended for it to be rarely met with much success. Until the Protestant Reformation, there were very few opportunities or places for the church to escape the political control under which it had endured since Constantine.  The Reformation gave some Christians a taste of religious liberty, but provided few actual opportunities to experience it.  

"A free church in a free state" was the result of American constitutional religious liberty.  There was no state church, and churches were not dependent on the state for financial support or for filling their pews with people required to be there by law.  As a result, the church entered into another period of virtually unprecedented evangelistic activity.  But, as Christianity became the overwhelmingly predominant religious expression in the United States, it also became the recipient of favors, exceptions to the establishment clause and in some places, a dominant force that could not resist becoming engaged in politics.  And when Christians push their churches to side with partisan politics, it subverts its mission and purpose and waters down the content of the gospel to the point where principles of faith become indistinguishable from political agendas, or they get pushed aside altogether. 

The Evangelical branch of the Christian church in America has been undergoing a decline in participation, attendance and membership that is unprecedented in its history.  It's difficult not to notice that this decline, which is getting worse every year, coincides with the increased involvement of many of the members and leaders of churches and denominations in right wing politics.  And it's easy to see why.  The Christian gospel is politicized in sermons, books, conferences and rallies, distorted beyond recognition.  People are leaving because of this.  

Christianity is a Faith Experience, Not Something Which Can Be Mandated or Enforced by Law

Christian faith loses its essence and meaning if it becomes nothing more than obedience to a set of commands out of fear of punishment. It requires spiritual conviction in order to be brought to confessing Jesus as the Christ.  And it also requires spiritual conviction to exhibit the virtues of Christian faith as a lifestyle.  Those things can't be enforced either by threats of violence, military power or coercion.  They must be willingly accepted and genuinely practiced.  

There is no "faith" in a religion dependent on political power to enforce its tenets.  Jesus made it very clear that he was the promised Messiah, fulfilling Old Testament prophecy and law, and that meant that he was not going to somehow miraculously restore the military might of ancient Israel to overthrow Roman rule and set up another earthly, theocratic kingdom.  The "kingdom" he was establishing was the Christian church, a faith which transcended worldly, temporal politics and all of the prejudices and hatreds that were part of that way of life, and which would be based on God's love for his human creation and his plan for its redemption.  

What we are seeing, on the political right in America, is the development of another gospel, one which perverts the Christian gospel and by its actions and intentions, flatly denies everything that Jesus said and did.  The Christian gospel rests on virtues that are brought about by the presence of God's spirit, motivated by gratitude for the grace which brings about spiritual transformation.  Blessed are the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, those who are persecuted for righteousness sake and because they have chosen to follow Christ," said Jesus, at the beginning of a passage known as "The Sermon on the Mount."  Those are virtues of Christian faith.  And--this isn't judgment, it's observation--I see none of that in the far right politics of Trumpism and Christian Nationalism.  

"God is love," said the Apostle John in his epistle to the church, "and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them."

"There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love.  Those who say, 'I love God,' and hate their brothers or sisters are liars, for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen cannot love God whom they have not seen.  The commandment we have from him is this:  those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also."  (Selected passages from I John 4, NRSV)

White, Christian nationalism, at the intersection with Trumpism, is anti-Christian, denying the purpose that Jesus had for his church, denying the gospel, and promoting hate.  

"I write to you not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it and you know that no lie comes from the truth.  Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ?  This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son."  I John 2:21-22 NRSV 

Well I think that says enough.  Turning Christianity into a political faction to achieve the ends of right wing politics is a denial of Christ and a subversion of the Christian faith that he established.  

There's a Way for Democrats to Call Out and Rally Against White Christian Nationalism

Dean Obeidallah, MSNBC: Why Republican's "Christian Nationalism" is so Strong 

Christian nationalism "poses a very real threat to our freedoms and our democracy," says MSNBC Opinion Columnist Dean Obeidallah.  "Yet Democrats have still not found a way to call out and rally against this xenophobic radical, religious movement even though the answer is staring them in the face:  This is yet another example of the GOP's dangerous embrace of extremism." 

I believe there is a way for Democrats to call it out, rally against it and then put themselves in a position to defeat it.  

I've written about this threat before, partly in response to Marjorie Taylor Greene's suggestion that the Republican party become the party of Christian Nationalism, though she leaves out the racial reference even though that's exactly what she  means. White Christian Nationalism is pseudo-Christian in that it uses some of the symbolism and language of Christianity to define itself, and to convince white Christians in particular that they have been "chosen", in the same way that the Jewish race was chosen in the Old Testament, to reclaim worldly domains for God that have been taken over by Satan.  While it looks and sounds "Christian," it exhibits none of the virtues or characteristics that Jesus and the Apostles taught as the evidence of the presence of God and his indwelling Spirit in the lives of those who have experienced the spiritual transformation of the conversion experience.  It is anti-Christian because it is a counterfeit philosophy which subverts and distorts the gospel of Jesus Christ, turning faith into a tool for achieving political ends.  

The white, Christian nationalist movement is antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  You can find some of what I've written here:  A Pseudo-Christian Threat to Both Church and State.  

Not All Christians are Republicans

One of the reasons Democrats have difficulty calling this movement out, and finding a way to defeat it is that the approach that is taken excludes much of the direct evidence which undermines the basic premises and assertions made by Christian nationalists, and some of the most effective voices capable of arguing against it.  The main argument against it is that it isn't Christian.  That's the approach that Democrats need to take.  

"I'm not a Christian," said Medhi Hassan in a conversation with Ayman Mohyeldin during their program transition on MSNBC, "but I'm a fan of Jesus and I'm pretty sure that Jesus would want to have nothing to do with nationalism or AR-15's for that matter."  

He's absolutely correct.  I don't disagree with anything he said.  But, forgive the irony here, he's preaching to the choir.  If Democrats want to be successful in their efforts to create awareness of the genuine dangers of this movement and motivate voters to cast ballots against politicians who support it, they need to embrace the Christians within their ranks who have the theological expertise, and the credibility, to lay out the evidence against it from their own faith perspective.  

Both Hassan and Mohyeldin are Muslims, which doesn't prevent them from having an excellent understanding of how the actions and philosophy of Christian nationalists are at odds with the gospel of Jesus.  But the point that Taylor-Greene makes in her attempt to convince people that the Republican party should help America become a theocracy under Christian nationalist rule is that they will be criticized by non-Christians and "outsiders" who will accuse them of being terrorists.  But if the critics are Christians themselves, using their knowledge of the very scriptures that Christian nationalists claim to believe are without error and are their sole authority, Taylor-Greene's claim is, in effect, "called out." 

That is one of the primary reasons for the existence of The Signal Press.  Christianity's foundation is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and his recorded revelation of himself to humanity, found in the New Testament, is the interpretive filter for all of the rest of the Bible.  He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophets and law (Matthew 5:17).  There are several confessions of faith, written by American Evangelicals, which emphasize this fact.  

"The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ," says the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message.  "All scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation," was included in the 2000 version of the same confession of faith.  Neither "Christian Nationalism," nor the white supremacy that is included in its vision for America, can be supported by the Christian scriptures when they are correctly interpreted in the spiritual and historical context in which they were written, including the words and life example of Jesus as the criterion and focus of the interpretation. So there is plenty of common interest linking Christians who want to preserve the integrity and veracity of the Christian faith from the infiltration of a non-Christian cult, and Democrats who want to preserve the American democracy and the constitution, including its guarantee of religious liberty and free speech.  

By embracing Christians who believe that their political expression is best represented by the Democratic party, who understand and hold strong convictions about the constitutional separation of church and state protecting their religious freedom which enables the unhindered practice of their faith, the party has both the means and the evidence to call out white, Christian nationalists as pseudo-Christian and anti-Christian, and help the party save American democracy from destruction by their fascist, racist ambitions.  It gives Democrats the credibility to call out this aberration that is dangerous to democracy and religious liberty, as well as to the church itself, because it is an invasive heresy that is hijacking the mission and purpose of the church and using Christianity as a means to achieve political ends.

"This is How You Know..." 

Christianity is not a nebulous, abstract ideology.  It has a very clear identity, and it can be distinguished in those who sincerely practice it by the virtues and values it produces, and, as Jesus taught and illustrated by personal example, in the way those who claim to be Christians treat other people.  

The primary confession of the Christian faith was stated by Peter, after Jesus asked him, "Who do you say that I am?"  Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."  

The Apostle John affirms this confession as a belief prerequisite to the spiritual transformation of God.  In his first epistle to the church, he writes, "By this you know the Spirit of God:  Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.  And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world" (I John 4:2-3).  

There is a very real sense in which attempting to establish a theocratic nation with Christianity assuming the same role that Judaism did under the old covenant in the Old Testament is a denial of the confession that Jesus is the Christ.  In the Old Testament, it was the covenant relationship itself through which people were spiritually transformed, or were brought into the Kingdom of God.  Christian nationalists are replacing the spiritual kingdom of God, based on Jesus as Lord and Savior, with a claim that they are being called to establish a political kingdom of God.  

The virtues and practices of the Christian faith must be lived out, they cannot be enforced by law.  People can be made to comply in obedience to a law requiring obedience to a specific principle, but doing so does not produce joy, peace, mercy, or any other "fruit" which Jesus and the apostles taught was the resulting evidence of being Christian.  And there isn't anything anywhere, in any of the New Testament writings of the Apostles, church leaders and in the record of the teaching of Christ himself, that offers a covenant relationship with a nation or country to make it "Christian" by establishing some kind of theocratic government.  

Those who are best equipped to call out the errors of Christian nationalists are Christians.  And there are plenty of sincere Christians, who are Evangelical in their expression of the faith, within the ranks of the Democratic party, who can lay this argument out.  The motivation for doing this is to preserve the religious freedom we have under the constitution which allows for the free exercise of our faith, and to prevent the further infiltration of our churches and denominations with the ideology and philosophy of a pseudo-Christian, anti-Christian cult that subverts the gospel and destroys the church.

Newsweek Opinion Piece Advocates Letting Trump Get Away With Whatever Crimes He's Committed

Newsweek: President Biden Should Immediately Offer Trump an Unconditional Pardon

No, I'm not a regular reader of Newsweek.  Oh, I used to pick up a copy in the barber shop, or while I was waiting to get my oil changed, if there was nothing else on the table.  Now I have my cell phone for entertainment.  I'm actually surprised that a weekly news magazine is still around, though they seem to have made the transition to electronic media.  

But this opinion piece, by Nicholas Creel, a business law professor at Georgia College and State University, is, frankly, a bad attempt to get attention.  My first reaction was, "he's joking."  But that would be more like something you'd read in The Onion, not Newsweek.  The author calls himself a "jack of all trades because of my eclectic academic background," a description which I found on his Linkedin account, and that tells me all I need to know.  Newsweek is desperate for opinion writers.  

Creel suggests that President Biden should immediately offer Trump an unconditional pardon.  But here's how he worded that statement in the piece: 

"To head off the disaster of being criminally prosecuted by his political opponent, President Joe Biden should offer Trump an unconditional pardon immediately--and announce that he will not seek re-election,"  

 Are professors of business law not required to pass English, or be able to write coherently?  Is he saying that Biden runs the risk of being criminally prosecuted by his political opponent, or is that a reference to Trump?  And if that's the case, President Biden isn't going to prosecute his political opponent, the justice department will be doing that and it's a judicial matter, not an executive branch prosecution.  Or, is he suggesting that Trump will win re-election, and then turn around and criminally prosecute Biden?  I'll just tell you, there's no chance of that happening under any circumstance. 

First of all, it would not be a "disaster" for Trump to be criminally prosecuted by the Justice Department.  It would be justice under the rule of law.  If he committed crimes, and I'm pretty certain that he did, then he should be criminally prosecuted, regardless of who is in the White House, because both the Justice Department and the President represent the people, and we are the ones against whom the crimes were committed.  Why would President Biden use the power of the pardon to bypass the rule of law?  And I'll answer that question, too.  He wouldn't.  Not ever. 

"Most democrats would probably reject that idea out of hand," he says, while explaning that the reason for doing this would be to stave off the potential violence of a Trump indictment without putting Trump above the law.  

"After all," he continues, "Presidents pardon people all the time.  It doesn't erase the fact of their guilt." 

At this point, I would like to express how happy I am that I don't have a child at Georgia College majoring in business law.  If I did, and I saw this opinion piece, we'd withdraw and I would want my money back.  

Given what we saw on January 6th, and the way Trump and Steve Bannon are currently ratcheting up the rhetoric and attempting to use mob violence to escape accountability, there will be attempts by hard core Trump supporters to commit violence.  That should not deter the pursuit of justice, and it should be met head on with the full force of the law.  Threats of violence are a clear demonstration that these people who support Trump are anti-constitution, anti-democratic, anti-patriot and anti-American.  Giving in to the threats will just perpetuate more violence when extremists don't get their way.  

It is never, never, never in the best interests of this country to give in to threats of violence.  

Even More Ridiculous Claims and Ideas Ahead

Creel claims that an announcement from President Biden that he would not be seeking another term would be an expectation of Trump as well, in spite of the pardon being unconditional.  Trump has proven that he is a pathological liar.  And if he thought this would be to his benefit, he'd take the pardon, lie, and run again without even acknowledging his utter dishonesty.  That's because he is utterly dishonest.  

It's even more ridiculous to assert that Biden stepping down after his first term is something that "the vast majority of the public wants."  There's no evidence to suggest that at all, especially not from Democrats, whose support for the President, while it may have wavered, is still high.  I couldn't care less what the MAGAts think.  "Vast majority" implies something that no polling data which currently exists can support reasonably.  

Biden has Already Sealed His Legacy

The less the Biden administration interacts with or acknowledges Trump, the better.  Let the justice department and the courts handle this, which is how it works.  Who really cares that there's a group of extremists who are more loyal to Trump than they are to either the country or to God who threaten violence to get their way?  That's not what true patriots and real Americans do, so they are exposing themselves for who they are.  

If Trump committed even half of the crimes that the evidence in these investigations point to, then it would be morally and ethically wrong to pardon him.  And that's just a flat fact.  

I promise I will never read Newsweek, quote from it, refer to it or acknowledge it as a publication again.  

And if you have doubts about what Democrats feel regarding this terrible idea, take a look at an unofficial poll, on Democratic Underground.  Believing this is a bad idea wins the poll by 100%.  

DU poll on Newsweek Opinion Piece

A Warning to Churches Infiltrated by Right Wing Politics

But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.  Remember then from what you have fallen; repent and do the works you did at first.  If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.  Revelation 2:4-5 NRSV

I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot.  So because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot I am about to spit you out of my mouth.  For you say, "I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.  You do not recognize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind and naked."  Revelation 3:15-17, NRSV 

To those Christian leaders, churches, denominations and leaders who have sold out to Trumpism, I'll put this warning in terms you can understand.  Your lampstand is obviously being removed, and unless there is genuine repentance, you will continue to fall from grace. You have permitted, as the Apostle Jude warned in his epistle, "intruders who have stolen in among you, ungodly people who have perverted the grace of God into licentiousness,"[1] and whose demands for loyalty have caused you to abandon the love and loyalty you once had for Jesus Christ.  You are depending on politics for your salvation and you are causing confusion by watering down the prophetic voice of scripture with political rhetoric in your sermons and teaching. 

The evidence that your lampstand may be falling, and in fact, may already be removed is clear.  Conservative, Evangelical churches, denominations, megachurches and recognized leaders are increasingly involved in scandals involving the vast amounts of money they are collecting from Christians, many of whom give sacrificially, or in some kind of sexual abuse, including adulterous affairs of pastors and church leaders and attempts to cover up this licentious, abusive, sinful behavior.  Multitudes of sincere Christians, seeking the abiding presence of God, in "perfect love which casts out fear" [2] are leaving your churches and abandoning your leadership.  More will follow.  

Claiming that "God Sometimes Uses Evil Men to Accomplish His Purposes" is Bad Theology and Doesn't Absolve the Guilt of Those Who Make This False Claim

The fact that your loyalty has shifted, from Christ to an ungodly man is reflected in these scandals, as well as in your lack of ability to handle them and resolve them.  They are a mirror image of the politician to whom you have given your loyalty and support, an adulterer who cheated on all three of his wives, two of whom were "the other woman," along with his own admission, or bragging, that there had literally been hundreds of others.  A pathological liar whose rhetoric has led to death and destruction, incitement of violence and insurrection against the governing authorities, which is contrary to the words of two apostles in scripture, Paul in Romans 13:1-7 and Peter in I Peter 2:13-17.  

There is no doubt that God is sovereign over the course of history.  And while that sometimes means that the acts of rulers and politicians who are evil follow the course of history wind up achieving ends which are aligned with God's divine will and purpose, it does not mean that God endorses their behavior nor does he ever encourage his people to pledge their loyalty and support to them.  When Paul and Peter wrote those passages pointing out that the governing authorities were under God's sovereign direction, they advocated obedience to them as a testimony to the faith of God's people, not loyalty to them, because they were pagan.  During the most severe times of persecution, Christians remained obedient, in many cases to the point of a cruel death, not rebelling against their authority, but also not giving their loyalty to anyone but Christ.  

Loyalty to Christ cannot be divided with someone else, especially a politician who has openly demonstrated and expressed his own unwillingness to submit to the will of God, give loyalty to Christ or to permit his supporters to share loyalty with Christ.  

Believing a Lie is Lying

Merely believing that an assertion is true doesn't make it true.  God has given his human creation gifts of wisdom, discernment and knowledge, enabling them to gain an understanding of the world around them.  There is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that the election of 2020 was fraudulent, that there was massive voter fraud and that someone other than the declared and certified winner actually won.  It doesn't take divine discernment to come to that conclusion, common sense and acknowledgement of the facts should be plenty.  

Continuing to support anyone who continues to assert this lie is not a demonstration of repentance.  It is lying, whether it is to yourself, or implying to others that you believe it to be true.  How is there an expectation that members of a congregation can trust the word being preached to them by a pastor who is a liar, and who is not even willing to consider the truth?  There cannot be a spiritual presence of God abiding in the word of someone who cannot discern a lie from the truth and is willing to perpetuate a lie without discernment.  

Blinded to the Need for Repentance

The Apostle John relayed this message from the vision he received of Christ to the church at Laodicea,  "For you say, "I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.  You do not recognize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind and naked." [3] Insulated by accumulated wealth, gathered from Christians, many of whom give sacrificially, it has become impossible for many leaders and many Christians to see their need for repentance.  They have bought into the lie that has infiltrated the American church for centuries that financial prosperity is the equivalent of God's blessings.  Nowhere do the scriptures teach that.  The fact that most of the world's richest people did not acquire their abundance by honest means, and that few of them give any credit to God at all for what they have acquired, including our most recent past-president, who is a billion dollars in debt and who acquired most of his possessions and wealth by fraud, defaulting on debt and cheating "suckers," as he calls them, out of their money.  

Seeing pseudo-Christian leaders live "lifestyles of the rich and famous," rather than the simple, austere, sacrificial life modeled by Christ and his ministry as recorded in scripture gives us insights into the choices that have been made.  Private jets, yachts, elaborate vacations to exotic destinations under the guise of "mission trips," all on the dime of contributors, claimed as tax-free blessings from God are hard to give up.  Most of those who realize their phony faith has been outed simply fade into the background, but so far, I haven't seen anyone part with all of this wealth, or leave the lifestyle, as an act of repentance.  They keep the spoils, even while shedding a few crocodile tears as a demonstration of their repentance.  

Let Me Be Clear...

I grew up in a Christian home, and became a Christian myself as a result of the influence of my parents.  They lived out the virtues of the gospel of Christ, not out of some kind of obligation or ritual, but in a genuine way that was part of their character and who they were.  Those who aren't Christian might not understand this, but that's what makes the difference for me.  That's how it's supposed to work.  

So this is an observation from a Christian, not some angry criticism from a detractor.  I can break down and explain the whole conversion experience for you, including my own,  I reading, studying and teaching the scripture, prayer, and personal and corporate worship are regular spiritual disciplines for me.  So what you are reading here comes from observation, spiritual discernment and years of experience as a member of several churches.  I have watched this infiltration of conservative Christianity for decades.  The preaching and worship in a church are there to bring Christians into a spiritual encounter with the presence of God.  Bringing in anything that distracts from that, changes it, causes confusion and isn't an act of worship is apostasy.  

And that's exactly what I'm pointing out here.    

 [1] the Epistle of Jude, Verse 4

[2] I John 4:13-18

[3] Revelation 3:16-17    

All references are New Revised Standard Version

 

Preoccupied With Politics, Many Conservative Evangelicals are Dealing With Major Scandals

God is love and those who abide in love abide in God and God abides in them.  Love has been perfected among us in this that we may have boldness on the day of judgement because as he is, so are we in this world.  There is no fear in love but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love.  I John 4:16-18 NRSV

There's an almost desperate need for prophetic voices to rise within some branches of the Christian church in the United States these days, particularly among Conservative Evangelicals, where the preaching from the pulpit, watered-down for decades by the intrusion of secular, right wing politics is replacing the gospel message with something that isn't able to keep Christian faithful, and has led many of them, including high profile leaders, away from the virtues that are at the very core of Christ's gospel message. There's an ideology that has developed that is based on right wing, secular political perspectives, not on anything in the gospel or in the Bible, which conservative Christians claim is the only authority for Christian theology, doctrine and practice.  

One of the pastors invited to speak at Floyd's memorial service in Houston made reference to the passage I cited above in the Apostle John's first epistle to the church, noting that racism was rooted in "fear that casts out love."1  The Apostle says that "as he is, so are we in this world," and just prior to this passage, he says, "By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit (I John 4:13).  This is not painting with a broad brush, by any means, but looking around, observing what is happening in our culture among some branches of the Christian church, there's a lot of chaos, confusion, and evidence of an intrusion of ungodliness, and not much perfect love. 

While George Floyd's death helped to focus some attention on systemic racism, the Trump administration was igniting a controversy aimed at fanning the flames with a predictable tweet from the former failed President, attacking Critical Race Theory and calling it a "sickness that cannot be allowed to continue.  Please report any sightings so we can quickly extinguish!"  That was a dog whistle to hard line religious conservatives who promptly jumped up to demonize it and, in the process, undo any possible racial reconciliation or justice that might emerge as a result of George Floyd's murder by a racist cop.  

Is the timing here a coincidence?  Racism is a reality, embedded in Christian doctrine for centuries, particularly in America, where the Bible was used to justify the enslavement of Africans.  Bring up racism in a white, conservative, Evangelical church, and suggest that it is a real problem and that racial reconciliation is  a high priority ministry of the church and the result will be mostly silence, some of it hostile silence, some indifference with  some hostility and anger.  But you'll find volunteers ready to make phone calls and pay personal visits to school administrators at the mere suggestion that Critical Race Theory is being taught in your local school. 

I'm not suggesting that the points of CRT be applied to the church.  The Bible offers plenty of principles, practices and virtues which, if a Christian or a church determined to follow, would lead to racial reconciliation, the eradication of racism, a diverse church rather than a segregated one and unity of mission and purpose.  And to their credit, there are Christians and churches who do make this choice and who do make a difference.  But they're not the ones who have aligned themselves with a political party that is openly opposed to racial unity, promotes white supremacy and sends a racist message while attacking the free speech rights of CRT proponents.  CRT exists as a theory with regard to racism in the vacuum created by the absence of conservative, white Christians ignoring their own scripture by allowing fear to prevent them from making a difference.  

This is not the only example of the damage done to the church and its ministry because of the preoccupation of many conservative, Evangelical leaders, churches and denominations in their attempted use of conservative, right wing politics, and their selling out of loyalty that belongs to Christ to secular politicians who demand it as a condition of their bestowing political favors.  The Trump administration created a humanitarian crisis at the border, intentionally using fear against refugees fleeing their homes in Central and South America because their families and lives were in danger.  The inhumanity, deliberate fear created when children were taken from their parents as a border enforcement "tactic," and the refusal to consider these people as fellow human beings was one of the most un-American, and anti-Christian incidents in our history.  But it has not deterred white, conservative, Evangelical Christian support for Trump.  

They have exchanged their dependence on God's perfect love casting out fear, for political power that uses fear as a weapon.  

Politics and Wealth, Replacing the Presence of God's Spirit in Churches, Results in Lack of Discernment and Failure of Mission and Purpose

But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.  Remember then from what you have fallen; repent and do the works you did at first.  If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.  Revelation 2:4-5 NRSV

 I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot.  So because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot I am about to spit you out of my mouth.  For you say, "I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.  You do not recognize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind and naked."  Revelation 3:15-17, NRSV 

I'm using scripture passages from the Bible in making these points, because conservative, Evangelical Christians claim the Bible is the "sole authority for faith and practice" in the church, and because they claim it is without error, and infallible in its content.   

These two passages from Revelation are from a narrative at the beginning of the book which records a vision of Christ experienced by the Apostle John during his imprisonment on the isle of Patmos.  They are prophetic warnings of the intrusion of pagan practices and beliefs into each congregation, in advance of the first major persecution of Christianity under Nero.  Seven churches are addressed with warnings about specific problems that the leaders needed to address. 

In the first passage, the church at Ephesus had abandoned the love it had at first.  The leaders of the church had aligned themselves with the local political influences for their own benefit and were compromising their doctrine, turning their loyalty away from the gospel of Christ and toward the politics of pagan civic leaders.  In the second passage, the church at Laodicea had grown dependent on the wealth it had acquired, believing that monetary prosperity was equal to blessings from God.  In both cases, the prophetic message noted these failures and warned the church's leaders to repent, or their church would cease to exist.  

Bob Smeitana: Everything is Changing at the Same Time

Baptist News Global: DOJ Investigating Southern Baptist Sex Abuse Scandal

Churches and church leaders have become disengaged from the Spirit of God, and the "perfect love which casts out fear," and as the numbers of new converts drop dramatically, and church membership and attendance declines, they become more dependent on using their influence with right wing politicians to achieve what they are unable to do on their own.  If they aren't connected to the "abiding presence of God's Holy Spirit," then they are also prone to fail when it comes to the virtues Christ preached as produced by the abiding presence of God, and they lose their testimony, or, as the vision of Christ informed John in Revelation, "their lampstand is removed." 

The Catholic Church was rocked by a sexual abuse scandal among its clergy, revelations of the depth and breadth of it only now being revealed.  The Southern Baptist Convention, whose leaders had been told for decades that sexual abuse among its pastors and church leadership was rampant, and which they appeared to ignore, deflecting reports with their polity of local church autonomy, back to local congregations, was finally forced by newspaper investigations by the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express News, to acknowledge it and do something about it.  Pressure to conduct and investigation resulted in the discovery that denominational leaders had purposely attempted to cover up reports of abuse to avoid the bad publicity.  The scope of the scandal in the denomination is massive.  The cover-ups of what was reported to denominational leadership is now under criminal investigation by the DOJ.  

But the SBC is not the only place where sexual abuse scandals are coming to light, along with financial scandals by leaders of prominent, well-known megachurches.  It's happening all through the ranks of white, conservative, Evangelical Christian churches and denominations.  Some para-church institutions, including universities, seminaries and outreach ministries, have amassed billions of dollars in assets, controlled by boards with very few members, or in churches where the pastor has a hand-picked few members who hold the governing power.  The names are well known, and most of those caught up in scandals are also major players in right wing, Republican politics.  Few of the more well known megachurches, and multi-campus churches, whose pastors are authors and podcasters and televangelists, have escaped scandal.  

Adultery by pastors has been particularly pervasive.  Should that be a surprise, given the loyalty they've shown to a former President who brags about the number of women with whom he has committed adultery against his three wives, two of which were also "the other woman"?  

There are a few watchdogs, gathering facts, reporting them and trying to help those who have the desire to be sincere Christians hold leaders accountable. ( see Julie Roys: Reporting the Truth, Restoring the Church ) (Baptist News Global: Conversations that Matter). But in most cases, the tightly-wound control that these leaders have over the churches they pastor, and the ministries they lead means that the sincere Christians have no recourse but to leave.  Millions have done so and are continuing to do so.  Across the spectrum of churches, denominations and groups that can be identified as "Evangelical" by doctrine and practice, membership is down by almost 20% in a decade, as is attendance.  The Southern Baptist Convention alone has lost 2.9 million members since a peak in 2005, and lost more than 400,000 in just the past year.  That's not all due to COVID, though some have taken the opportunity of the pandemic to leave.  

Ichabod Written Over the Door

There's a reference in the Old Testament book of Samuel to the son of Phineas, and grandson of Eli, the priest of Shiloh and spiritual leader of Israel, whose name was "Ichabod", which means, "inglorious," or "there is no glory."  The child was named by his mother after hearing the news that his father and uncle, who were disobedient sons of the priest, Eli, had been killed in battle with the Philistines, who had captured the Ark of the Covenant.  Eli, upon hearing this news, collapsed backward and died, and Phineas' wife went into labor, giving birth to her son.  

According to the narrative in Samuel, God permitted this to occur because Eli's sons were disobedient, disrespectful to the priesthood, making themselves rich out of the offerings given by the people of Israel to support the priesthood, held by their father, and relying on belief in their own power as leaders in Israel, rather than following God's instructions for dealing with the surrounding pagan nations.  So God's spirit departed, leaving them to fend for themselves, and the Philistines took advantage and swept in.  

I believe there's a significant portion of the Christian church in America where God has spiritually written the word "Ichabod" over the door.  The dependence on right wing political support has led to preaching from pulpits that integrates political posturing with Christian doctrine, to the point where many Christians can't distinguish between the gospel of Christ, and Republican talking points.  They've bought into lies and deception, they overlook the immoral, unethical behavior of politicians, one in particular, who demands loyalty that they give to him, rather than to Christ.  As a result, they are plagued by scandals and are unable to purge self-serving leaders who are stuffing their own pockets with contributions made by those who believe implicitly in them and sacrifice their own resources to give.  

I believe that what we are seeing is the result of God having removed some lampstands.  Prophetic voices, calling for repentance, are ignored, or punished by losing their ministry career, or get tired of trying and quit.  Their house is desolate.  Repentance will require denouncing any loyalty to anyone but Christ, and depending on the abiding presence of God, not on politicians and a political party.  

1.  Dr. Steve Wells, Pastor, South Main Baptist Church, Houston, Texas at the George Floyd Funeral Service, Fountain of Praise Church, Houston Texas June 9, 2020

How Real is the Threat to American Democracy?

 "The Republican party is now clearly an authoritarian party.  It embraces, condones, accepts and promotes political violence, and does not accept electoral defeat.  Their glorification of January 6th proves that they're OK with a violent seizure of power.  If they can't win elections fairly, they'd rather end democracy."  Steven Levitzky, Professor of Political Science, Harvard University 

The election of 2000 was one of those moments that prompted thoughts about the stability and effectiveness of American democracy.  I was teaching high school civics, and in that setting, there are always "what if" questions and proposed extreme possibilities that come from the students curiosity.  When it comes to Presidential elections, the existence of the quirky aberration known as the Electoral College throws in some possibilities that the pure democratic will, expressed by the people at the ballot box, can be subverted.  

A typical high school question is, "How badly could a Presidential candidate lose the popular vote and still win enough states to be elected President?"  That's a good question, because it goes right to the heart of how undemocratic and, as has been proven over the years, how unnecessary the Electoral College is in preventing what the founders feared when they set it up.  

Congress should have learned its lesson after the 1824 election disaster.  There were four candidates, and the top vote getter, Andrew Jackson, was prevented from claiming the majority of electoral votes because the third and fourth place finishers, Henry Clay and William Crawford, who only got 24% of the popular vote between them, received a disproportionate number of electoral votes, 78 out of 261 by carrying five states between them.  The second place finisher, John Quincy Adams, only got 30% of the popular vote, but the 7 states he carried, most of them by very slim margins, had 84 electoral votes, leaving Jackson with 99 votes, though he carried 12 states. 

Clay detested Jackson, and had deep political differences with both he and Crawford.  He went against a Kentucky state legislative resolution supporting Jackson, influencing the state's congressional delegation to vote for Adams which they did, 8-4.  The contingent election is even less democratic than the Electoral College, each state has just 1 vote, regardless of how many members are in its delegation, which means that a candidate can win the election, but not get the majority of total votes among the members of Congress, which is exactly what happened with Adams.  With Clay out of the race at that point, Adams got 13 votes, while Jackson got 7 and Crawford 4, on the strength of the votes of 83 members of the House, a minority since 92 members did not vote for Adams, but split their vote between Crawford and Jackson

Just think about what would happen in this country today around a similar scenario of Electoral votes leading to a contingent House election like this one.  The divisiveness which existed, even in 1824, led up to a civil war that ignited just 32 years after Adams left office.  We've now experienced a President who refused to participate in a constitutional and peaceful transfer of power, incited a militant insurrection with the intention of overturning an election, the constitution and Congressional authority, and states making legislative attempts to control election results that thwart the will of the people.  

The threat is as real as it has ever been.  

The Electoral College plus Gerrymandering are Still the Biggest Threats to American Democracy

The 2020 Presidential Election would have been over as soon as the morning after election day, if there had not been an Electoral College.  The decision made by the will of the American people was clear even before midnight, and by morning, enough of the vote had been counted and recorded to make it very clear that Joe Biden had won.  All the court fights, attempts to strong-arm election officials and secretaries of state in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan and Wisconsin would have made no difference at all.  

Though the system's safeguards held, the weaknesses were exposed.  The biggest weakness is in the jurisdiction and control that state legislatures have over the election process in their state.  It's easy to see how an influential politician, just like Henry Clay in 1824, could convince a legislative body, or a governor or secretary of state for that matter, to refuse to certify legitimate ballot counts and pick their own electors.  And how electors are chosen is a process controlled by legislation, which can be changed by a state legislature controlled by one party.  

Two states, Nebraska and Maine, already have rules which choose electors by congressional district, a process that is totally subject to a legislature that could easily gerrymander the districts to favor one party.  Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin all have state legislatures dominated by the GOP, though all three states have Democrats in every state executive office, courtesy of the Democratic majority that elected them.  But their state legislative districts, and congressional districts are courtesy of Republican control following the 2010 and now the 2020 census.  Aligning electors based on those district boundaries would allow gerrymandering to determine the outcome of the Presidential election, if enough states resorted to this tactic.  

This problem would be solved by simply abolishing the Electoral College.  In addition to that, a federal commission, intentionally and intensely bi-partisan, should be in charge of drawing congressional districts in the states.  This would eliminate any authority of state legislatures over a federal election process, which is a logical, reasonable assertion of federal authority and would eliminate the partisan political interference of states which should not have that kind of authority.  

Logistics are one Thing; Eliminating the Power of Ignorance is Another

Woeful performance in science and math by American students, compared to the rest of the world, led to an overhaul of the educational objectives with the goal of improving the test scores and making American students competitive with the rest of the industrial world in these areas.  Frankly, our educational system still seems to be hit and miss in their attempts to achieve this goal, with scores not really showing a lot of improvement.  

But our educational system is falling apart and failing completely when it comes to practical education in history, geography, economics, constitution and government, political science and in English language communication skills.  We're now into a third generation that lacks adequate critical thinking skills, the ability to write a clear sentence or paragraph, or to coherently organize their thoughts, ideas and learning experiences.  There's a lack of understanding of how government operates, of the basic principles of constitutional, representative democracy and how it works, and the history behind where those ideas came from.  And I've had a front seat from which to observe this failure, along with the battle scars from fighting for the kind of educational requirements and objectives that are necessary for the preservation of our democracy and our constitution.  

Education is the primary method by which ignorance--and that's not intended as a derogatory term, but as an accurate description of the biggest threat to constitutional democracy that exists--is eliminated.  But most American students are not getting anywhere near what they need to be capable of the kind of critical thinking and understanding of exactly what is at stake, and why we must continuously defend it against individuals promoting ideology that would change it, tear it apart or destroy it for their own selfish interests. 

I consider myself fortunate to have received the balance of my elementary and high school education prior to the shift in objectives toward more technical subjects.  I understand the reason for the increased emphasis in math and science, but not at the sacrifice of social studies and language arts.  One of the reasons the Europeans do so much better than we do is that they don't send their kids home from school in the middle of the afternoon, done for the day, and their expectations for graduation don't have allowances for failure like ours do.  Pick up an eighth grade constitution exam and see what students must know in order to pass.  You'll be shocked and appalled.  

No one who participated in the Trump Insurrection of January 6th knew much about what was on that eighth grade exam, or they wouldn't have been duped into being there.  Listening to and reading some of the comments from those who have been arrested, tried and convicted, or who pled guilty to lesser charges because of their involvement, that fact is made crystal clear.  

I consider a successful education in civics, history and social studies one which leads a student who graduates from high school to register to vote on their eighteenth birthday, and then commits to cast a ballot in every election in which they have the right to vote.  That's a minimum standard.  Volunteering in ways that support representative democracy is a demonstration of belief in the value of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.  Any expected outcome from education that does less than that is a failure. 

Our Democracy is Teetering in the Balance

It was following that 2000 election that I got a very strong sense of a shift in the political atmosphere and the direction of the country.  I know that what I sensed had been an undercurrent for a long time, but during the Bush administration, I really felt that the corporate, billionaire class was given more control over the government and the economy than had ever been the case before.  The restraints on using money to buy the votes of members of Congress, state legislatures, and clearly, during that administration, the Presidency itself were gone.  

Money flows into politics and it is used to perpetuate ignorance which in turn produces an ill-informed electorate who vote for candidates who are anti-democratic and who support the continued ability of the corporate billionaire class to expand their power and influence, leading to their eventual destruction of democracy.  They will use democratic methods and principles up to the point where they don't need them anymore.  Then those who have supported them will suffer the same as everyone else. 

We are at a point where it will take assertive action on the part of sharp, alert politicians fighting to preserve democratic principles in order to avoid disaster in the form of either a civil war, or government collapse.  The only way to achieve this is for the rest of us to step up and make sure the right people get elected, and that their actions are supported.  There are those who have predicted this outcome, and the end of American democracy, by their own observation.  We have to take steps to make sure their predictions don't come true. 

 

The Snowflake Party

All the caterwauling, whining, protesting, hollering and shrieking, lip flapping rhetoric coming from the GOP over the FBI's execution of a court-ordered search warrant at Mar-a-Lago has made for some great entertainment.  I had to pull over, on my way to work this morning, when I heard Marco Rubio's comments being played on Stephanie Miller's show, I was laughing so hard.  He always sounds like a whiny-baby when he talks, making it difficult to take him seriously, and he says some of the most outlandish, ridiculous things.  But this morning, well, it was just too much.  

The response has been predictable, right down to the references to third-world Latin American countries and the culture of retaliation that exists there when an unpopular government topples.  It's been a jumble of nonsense.  You can certainly detect the whine, and imagine the tears.  

They certainly think their audience consists of the stupidest, most ignorant people found anywhere on this planet.  The attitude of "I'm going to say this and that will make it so" which is a Trump standard, is all over the place.  

The images of 12 Republican members of Congress scrambling to get to Mar-a-Lago to console the orange headed buffoon was what brought the thought of snowflakes to mind.  I can just see someone like Kevin McCarthy, who apparently has never been taught to stand up for himself, or think for himself, hearing the news of the raid, jumping up to go grab some toilet paper and tissues, to wipe Trump's rear and blow his nose, and try to catch the first flight to Palm Beach before some other self-serving GOP congressman got the same idea. 

Yep.  They're a bunch of snowflakes. There's enough cold air there to break the August heat wave and enough tears to break the drought at Lake Mead. Trump is in a whiny-baby category all by himself.  

What else are you going to do to help Democrats win a larger majority in the House and Senate in November?  This whining will go a long way toward that.  

Signs of "Bad Religion" Among the Conservative Political Right

 "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."  --Benjamin Franklin

 John Pavlovitz: Conservative Cringe-ianity

Pavlovitz makes a couple of statements based on his observation of the recent CPAC gathering that is an accurate description of what the intrusion, or invasion, of secular, right-wing politics has done to the churches and denominations in American Evangelicalism who have permitted it, embraced it, or out of fear of losing members and monetary contributions, have ignored its presence.  These quotes are my particular favorites. 

"While there [at CPAC], you'll also see an endless parade of self-flagellating white, Evangelical ministers advertising their defiance of non-existent oppression, a sea of Donald Trump-as-messiah airbrushed atrocities slapped on bellies and bumpers, and a small army of snarling and flexing "God and guns" supermarket soldiers who regularly pack heat at the Piggly-Wiggly, open carrying Bibles they've never read. 

"What you won't see there at CPAC are any actual followers of Jesus. At least, not one from the Bible.  

"You won't find his compassionate heart for the poor and vulnerable, his expansive embrace of disparate humanity, or his sacrificial love for those who are hurting at CPAC--nor will you find any of these things in this GOP, or at Trump rallies or in right-wing Evangelical churches.  The only thing decent people of faith will find in conservative religion is embarrassment."  

The Mission and Purpose of the Christian Gospel

I think it is important for those who are dismissive of all of Christianity out of frustration caused by this aberration of it, described in accurate terms by John Pavlovitz, to have a working understanding of the Christian gospel.  What you are dismissing, and what's been described here, is an intrusion that has stolen its way into the church and that has ideologically and philosophically corrupted it in order to use its influence to advance a cause that is contrary to its mission and purpose which rests on a foundation laid by Jesus Christ himself.  

In the closing words of Matthew's gospel, Jesus is quoted giving his followers, Christians, and the church that he had established, a commission to "Go, make disciples, baptize them, and teach them all I have commanded you."  The primary objective is conversion, leading people to a spiritual transformation that includes the conviction of sin and repentance, leading to forgiveness and restoration to fellowship with God.  Baptism is a symbol of this spiritual transformation, an allusion to the ceremonial use of water in the Jewish cleansing ceremony.  Those who were baptized were gathered into local congregations, the "ecclesia," or the church, for the purpose of being taught how to live out the gospel of Christ.  

That's it.  The church is based on the new covenant in Christ, which is the relationship between the individual believer and Jesus, brought about by what Christians believe is the indwelling Holy Spirit of God.  Though many of the Jewish people who lived in Palestine under Roman rule believed, or at least, hoped that the promised Messiah of their faith would throw off Roman rule in a miraculous sort of way, like some of the accounts of battles in the Old Testament when outnumbered Israelites defeated surrounding enemies, claim the throne of David as his heir and re-establish a theocratic empire, Jesus made it clear that the kingdom he established, the church, would be a spiritual domain transcending worldly limitations including race, ethnic origins, cultural, social and economic barriers.  

Politics Turns the Gospel Upside Down

The Sermon on the Mount is recorded in the 5th through 7th chapters of Matthew's gospel.  Many Bible scholars believe this is a compilation of Jesus' sermons, or teachings, to groups gathered to hear him at multiple locations and times during his ministry.  It lays out foundational, core principles of the Christian faith, directly from Jesus himself.  

The sermon begins with the Beatitudes, a list of virtues which depict the ideal spiritual condition of someone who has become a worshipper and follower of God by grace through their faith in Jesus as the Christ.  These inward qualities are the evidence of the spiritual transformation that occurs in the soul when all of the aspects of a conversion experience have happened.  Jesus was saying that those who possess these inward qualities as a result of the work of the Spirit in conversion are divinely happy and fortunate.  

Jesus uses the analogies of salt and light to illustrate how Christians, whose spiritual transformation blesses them with these virtues as gifts from God, are an influence in the world, in the same way that salt flavors food or light chases away the darkness.  They were to be a visible testimony to the transformation that occurs within the soul as human beings are restored to a relationship with their creator.  The illustrations are summed up in Matthew 5:26, "In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven."  

It's hard to figure out where being attached to an angry mob intending to disrupt the United States Congress, carrying weapons with the intention of doing physical harm to some of those whom they might encounter, urinating and defecating on the floor of the Capitol Building, beating up and terrorizing police officers and perpetrating violence shines the light of any of those virtues mentioned by Jesus and recorded in scripture and shows any good works leading to glorifying God.  Many of those in that insurrectionist mob were carrying symbols or wearing clothing intended to identify them with Christianity.  

They were not Christian.  They've adopted the rhetoric, symbolism and some of the outer trappings of Christian faith, but their actions demonstrate a rejection of the values Jesus said were a visible sign of spiritual transformation.  The term "pseudo-Christian" has been used to describe their political philosophy, in that it appears to be Christian without any sincere practice of its core values. 

Two New Testament writers address this issue: 

"You must understand this, that in the last days distressing times will come.  For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power.  Avoid them! "  The Apostle Paul's Second Epistle to Timothy, 3:1-5 (emphasis mine)  

"For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designed for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.  The Apostle Jude in his Epistle, Verse 4

So what are we talking about when we speak of this "intrusion" by secular, right wing politics into the conservative, Evangelical church?  

Insurrection, violence, calling for civil war and defending and giving loyalty to a politician whose personal values stand in complete opposition to everything Christ did or taught is not merely pseudo-Christian.  It is anti-Christian.  It is not possible to confess faith in Christ but fail to exhibit behavior that demonstrates any of his values or principles.  It is not possible to confess faith in Christ while giving allegiance or loyalty to those who are deliberately manipulating Christians and the church and attempting to conform it to their own selfish purposes. 

But Sometimes God Uses Evil Men to Accomplish His Purposes

That's a very simple statement for very complicated circumstances in the movement of human history.  Two of Christ's apostles in the early church, Peter and Paul, acknowledge that all governing authorities are allowed to be where they are because of the authority and power of God.  There are some events in which the actions of men who, by any measure, were evil.  While their actions may have brought about something that the writers of scripture acknowledge as God's purpose or intent, and in that context they may have been "used" by God, there is absolutely no endorsement of their evil character, nor of the means they may have used to achieve their purpose by God.  But under the New Covenant, in the Christian church and New Testament, there's no endorsement of or example of God using anyone evil to achieve his purpose. 

There's also absolutely no requirement at all that the people of God acknowledge, express their appreciation or give any kind of loyalty whatsoever to these evil men.  That argument in no way encourages or instructs Christians to give their personal loyalty to a narcissistic, adulterous, slanderous, lying, money-loving, arrogant, profligate lover of pleasure who is a politician seeking political office in the American representative democracy, including former Presidents. Anyone who senses those kinds of inclinations in their own thinking needs to go back and read II Timothy 3:1-5.  

"Yet you have still a few persons in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes; they will walk with me dressed in white, for they are worthy."  Revelation 3:4, NRSV

Boosting Radical Trumpists in Republican Primaries May be Risky, but it May Also be Effective in Getting Democrats Elected

Paul Waldman, The Washington Post: Why the Condemnation of Democrats Boosting Radical Trumpists is Wrong 

The Republican primary campaign for governor of Illinois this past spring was brutal. I had a front seat, watching television ads, listening to radio ads and viewing social media interaction in what was an absolutely incredible display that goes way beyond the old-fashioned descriptive term of "mud-slinging" that was once used for particularly hostile campaign rhetoric.  

I've never seen anything like this.  Republicans are a clear political minority in Illinois, statewide, more than ten percentage points below the Democratic majority and shrinking.  But the gubernatorial primary did nothing to unify those Republicans who still might want to vote in the general election.  From the start, they ganged up on the front-runner, Richard Irvin, the mayor of the city of Aurora, an African-American perceived as a moderate and the only one in the field who appeared to offer any possibility at all of defeating J. B. Pritzker.  The attack ads against Irvin from the other campaigns were brutal.  

The Democratic Governor's Association ran an "attack" ad against Republican candidate Darren Bailey, pointing out his "extremist" record and rhetoric as a state legislator, specifically his attacks on Governor Pritzker's COVID policy.  But it's purpose was to unite far-right voters, split between Bailey and Jesse Sullivan, behind Bailey, to help him get ahead of Irvin and win the GOP nomination.  Bailey was perceived by Democrats as easier to beat than Irvin would have been, and more likely than Sullivan to win the GOP nomination.  

It worked.  Bailey edged out Irvin and Sullivan, and won the GOP nomination.  And being a far-right, extremist Republican in Illinois is a decided disadvantage, as polling data is showing.  Predictably, Bailey has an edge with downstate Republicans who were upset with the governor's COVID measures, even though Illinois fared far better than any of the large, Republican-controlled states during the pandemic.  But Bailey's lead there is not as large as it should be, mainly because there are Republicans who were turned off by the attacks on Irvin, and by Bailey's extremism.  

Since his nomination, Bailey has, as anticipated, made several major gaffes and mistakes that have confirmed the opposition's characterization of him as an "extremist."  He has a past history of remarks which appear to minimize the Holocaust in a comparison to abortion in America that came off as anti-semitic.  That, coupled with remarks he made after the Highland Park shooting, when he said that people should "move on" and "celebrate Independence Day", have put him on the defensive against a governor who is Jewish.  And apparently, his social media accounts, which he uses for campaign purposes, have provided Democrats with a treasure trove of racially insensitive remarks and comments that support the characterization of him as an extremist.  

On top of that, Bailey has a prissy voice with a slight southern accent and he has a tendency to play to his audience's reactions, and he has a tendency to go off-script and make racially or socially insensitive remarks.  It appears that the Pritzker campaign did an excellent job of research in determining which candidate among the GOP field, between Bailey and Irvin, would provide political fodder that made him easier to defeat.  

Governor Pritzker is comfortably ahead by double digits, running strong where he should be.  Downstate Illinois only becomes a factor in statewide elections when a centrist Republican can get enough support from the five-county suburban area around Chicago to counter the vote from the city.  But the kind of support Bailey will require isn't materializing, while the governor's numbers in the city and the suburbs are right about where they were the first time he was elected. 

In Pennsylvania, where the state legislature is still heavily gerrymandered in the favor of the GOP, Republicans haven't won a statewide election for quite some time.  When the courts forced the congressional districts to be re-drawn, the Democrats doubled their representation in one election cycle in 2018.  Both Senator Bob Casey and Governor Tom Wolf coasted to re-election victories over opponents from the far right fringe of the GOP.  If the Democrats did the same kind of calculations there as they did in Illinois, then it was an excellent strategy.  It actually appears that Pennsylvania voters, including a clear majority of independents and even some Republicans, are running away from the Republican nominees for senator and governor this year.  

Traditional Politics No More:  We are in a New Era

Political campaigns have become tactical battles.  The country has become so polarized, and the extremes so radicalized, especially those on the right who get their politics from talk radio alarmists who have them convinced that the world as they know it will end if a Democrat gets elected to office, that a straight up campaign to convince voters that they're the right choice is no longer enough.  Fewer voters are willing to invest the time and energy in getting the facts, and become victims of ideology or a media personality's ego.  Isolation inside a political bubble convinces people that there is evidence of voter fraud by the other side because "no one I know voted for that guy."  Or because it appeared the attendance at his political rallies was bigger than the other guy's.  

We live in the age of Citizens United.  The billionaire class set out to buy this country's government and had to get rid of rules that made doing so difficult.  Tactics work both ways so there's nothing unfair about it and states make the rules for their political primaries.  So if a candidate thinks that his or her campaign funding will be better spent and more effective helping a candidate from the other party win their primary because of the perception that they are the weaker, easier to beat candidate, then go for it.  If voters aren't happy with that, and don't like it, then elect someone who will change the rules.  Otherwise, don't get upset when Democrats use the same tactics as the GOP to get their people elected to office.  

The Bottom Line is to Elect Politicians Committed to Representative, Constitutional Democracy

If it is possible to use some resources to help a weak, extremist candidate to a narrow win in a primary, in order to make it easier for the Democratic candidate to win the election, then that's all part of the process.  Unless a GOP nominee actually wins an election, then it's not a victory.  Trumpers who won GOP nominations for the senate in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona, are slowly losing support while their Democratic opponents are gaining.  The problem they are having, all of them, is that they have to make appearances and hold speaking engagements, and they expose their ineptitude or extremist views which are a turn off to a majority of voters.  

Another big clue that this is a tactic that has had a positive effect on the numbers for Democratic candidates is the whining and wailing Republicans are doing about it.  In Illinois, Bailey is very much on his heels, evidenced by the defensive posture of the ads he is able to run on a very tight budget and his campaign strategy.  I don't think the GOP in Pennsylvania has even been able to catch its breath as Doug Mastriano continues to put his foot in his mouth.  I have friends in Arizona who are jubilant over Kari Lake's nomination, not because they like her, but because her negative numbers among Arizona voters are so high.

Extremism's reliance on conspiracy theories, outright falsehoods and "alternative facts" is its demise.  It collapses in on itself, and it doesn't have the power to motivate the kind of voter base it needs to win consistently.  Apparently, some Democrats are able to see this and are taking advantage of what they see as a flaw in the GOP and an advantage for them.  If that means helping a weaker candidate get a nomination, then it's a good strategy when it works. 

There is a risk that an extremist who wins a Republican primary might get elected.  I've got news for you.  Some already have, mainly by hiding their extremism or by not having a well-funded Democratic opponent who could point out how extreme they really are.  There's also something to be said for raising money and making sure that there's a Democrat running for every seat, just to expose the extremism.  But in the long run, the Trump flag is rapidly waning, and the prospects for Democrats to pick up seats against Trumpie extremists are high, so this is proving to be a good strategy.