A Southern Baptist Seminary President Says He "Hopes" Jimmy Carter is "Born Again". I'm Wondering How He Would Even Know.

Baptist News Global: Al Mohler Says He Prays That Jimmy Carter is "Born Again"

Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.  For with the judgement you make you will be judged and the measure you give will be the measure you get.  Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?  Or how can you say to your neighbor, "Let me take the speck out of your eye", while the log is in your own?  You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye.  Matthew 7:1-5, NRSV 

Former President Jimmy Carter passed away today, December 29, 2024, at the age of 100.  He was a Georgia peanut farmer, genuinely a man of the people.  I say that, because his political career, which began as a supporter of the segregation that was part of the political background of his home state of Georgia, ended with Carter having completely changed his convictions, as the result of his own personal experiences.  He served as a state senator in the Georgia legislature, then as Governor of Georgia, and then, as the 39th President of the United States.  

It was during his inauguration speech as Governor that Carter declared, "the time for racial discrimination is over."  There was never any doubt, after he made that statement, about his commitment to racial justice.  A Southern Baptist who had a clear testimony of having made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ, and was baptized by immersion, he was one of the founders of the Maranatha Baptist Church in his hometown of Plains, which was established in 1977 opening church membership to all persons, regardless of race, something the surrounding Southern Baptists hadn't yet got around to doing.  

Jimmy Carter was a lieutenant in the United States Navy, and in the reserves as well.  He won several medals for his service to the country.  

The first time I ever cast a ballot in a Presidential election was in 1976.  I had registered to vote after turning 18 in October of that year, and I was anxious to cast my ballot for Carter.  Even after all of the difficulty he encountered in his term in office, there was no question in my mind that he had earned a second term, and was a considerably better choice than the "B" grade actor who wound up getting elected with the help of Iranian Islamic radicals.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing, as it turns out.  How much better off the United States would have been, economically and internationally, if Carter had been re-elected with a favorable Congress.  

There are few men who have served in the Presidency whose commitment to the Christian faith, being "saved," in Evangelical jargon, or, as Carter introduced to the American people, being "born again," a phrase drawn from the words of Christ recorded in the Gospel of John, was more visible in the manner in which they conducted themselves.  Carter was open about what he believed, and his Christian faith was the most influential aspect of his personal and public life.  But he handled his faith and his Presidency beautifully, fully recognizing the constitutional principle of religious liberty, freedom of conscience and separation of church and state.  

Carter, by his own testimony, spent time in prayer over decisions he made as President.  But I am not aware of any point during the four years he served in office where his Christian faith was imposed in a way that interfered with his responsibility to serve as President, or was offensive to American citizens who did not share his convictions.  His life after leaving the White House was one of continuing to serve the American people.  He worked for years with Habitat for Humanity, giving not only his leadership skills, but hours of physical labor, working on homes being built.  He taught a Sunday School class at Maranatha Baptist Church most Sundays, which packed the church with visitors from all over the United States who came to hear him.  His teaching days diminished as his health declined, but people continue to line up outside the church on any Sunday he planned to bring a lesson.  

His lifestyle matched his words.  His testimony was one of having made the personal decision, in Southern Baptist terms, to receive Christ as his savior, and the life he lived was a testimony to his conviction and his decision.  There is no doubt in my mind that James Earl Carter, 39th President of the United States, was a "born again" Christian, and in whatever manner eternity depends on faith, is now present with God.  

So What's Up With This Seminary President Who Casts Doubts About Carter's Faith? 

It's been over a week since I first read the linked article from Baptist News Global about Al Mohler's doubts as to whether Carter was really "born again" or not.  I was too angry and too disturbed to even think about writing about it.

Mohler is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, which is known as the "flagship" school of the six theological seminaries operated by the Southern Baptist Convention, for the purpose of training its ministers.  Southern is the oldest one, and the only one which has a Calvinist theological perspective, not unusual among Baptists, but not the majority view.  

And why would he take the risk of stepping away from the clear Biblical instruction, words given directly by Jesus Christ, not to judge others and risk being judged by the same standard?  

Well, Carter was one of the most visible Southern Baptists in the country at the time he became President.  He and Rosalyn helped start a church in Plains, Maranatha Baptist, that welcomed blacks as members, something their previous church, and in fact something most Southern Baptist churches in the 1970's, did not do.  Then, in 1979, a war between fundamentalists and more moderate theological elements erupted in the Southern Baptist Convention, as both sides sought to control the all-important trustee boards of the seminaries, to control the theology and doctrinal content taught in classrooms.  

Mohler, who was the editor of the Christian Index, which was the newspaper of the Southern Baptists in Georgia, seeing some advantage in this infighting for himself, aligned with the fundamentalists, and positioned himself to pick off the president's post at Southern when the fundamentalists succeeded in taking over their trustee board in the late 1980's.  Carter, and churches like Maranatha, which also ordained women to the ministry, in addition to breaking down segregationist barriers, went with the moderate group, known as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and while not all of the moderate churches left the denomination, Maranatha, and Carter, did.  

Mohler, like most Fundamentalists, believe their conservativism is a mark of their truthfulness.  They claim to be the true practitioners of Christian faith, because they get the doctrine right as far as they are concerned, and they generally consider any other Christians who do not agree with them as wrong, going so far as to question whether they are even sincere in their conversion experience.  And so, since Carter has aligned himself with the more moderate Baptist group that has integrated congregations and women in leadership, Mohler thinks that gives him the right to publicly question his faith.  

And when he questioned whether or not Carter was "born again," he didn't mention any Biblical standard or definition of the term.  The standard he used to judge Carter was the fact that he didn't support the "Conservative resurgence" in the Southern Baptist Convention, that war that I referred to earlier.  That's their bottom line for judging all other Christians, whether they agree with their "conservativism" or not.  

Mohler couldn't be more wrong.  And he couldn't be further away from Biblical truth.  

Here's the Clincher:  Mohler is a Trumpie

I'm not going to put myself in a position to question the sincerity of Mohler's conversion to Christianity.  That's between him and God.  

But I can certainly question his judgement.  

Initially, back in 2016, Mohler, along with the executive director of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Dr Russell Moore, made news by being two of the most prominent Evangelicals to state their opposition to Trump's candidacy for President.  Moore stuck to his convictions, unable to reconcile his Christian convictions with even an inkling of support for such a corrupt, worldly individual whose lifestyle defies every principle of Christian faith.  Mohler, typical of past behavior he has exhibited, stuck his finger up to see which way the wind was blowing, realized that if he continued to be publicly opposed to Trump it could cost him his job, and switched his position, embracing Trump and becoming one of his most prolific supporters.  

Moore did lose his job as a result of his opposition to Trump, but kept his integrity, and his reputation, and is now editor in chief of Christianity Today.  Mohler, a former religious news journalist, who had a daily radio broadcast on multiple Christian radio stations, and a podcast, along with an online blog, has seen his audience drift off in other directions, and is watching a financial crisis roll toward Southern Baptist Theological Seminary as the denomination continues to bleed members and financial resources, and is cutting budgets, requiring the seminaries to raise tuition. 

Personally, I find it impossible to support putting a candidate in a political leadership position over myself, and my country, someone who is as dishonest, corrupt, who exhibits no positive moral value or virtue, who lies so much he can't keep his lies consistent or straight, who demonstrates contempt for the faith practices that Mohler claims to value so highly, in his adulterous affairs, sleeping with a porn star, bribing law enforcement and the justice system to keep it quiet, and above all, rebelling directly against the authority of the United States government by inciting an insurrection with the intention to commit murder if necessary to get their way, and which did wind up murdering several law enforcement officers. 

No Christian leader who supports that can be trusted to say or do anything consistent with the Christian gospel of Jesus Christ.  They have opened the door to the intrusion of licentiousness, as the Apostle Jude says in his short epistle, verse four.  

The linked article does a good job of letting Mohler speak for himself, and indict himself in his heretical error.  

 

An Open Statement to the Democratic National Committee: About All Those Requests for Donations

It is certainly nice to see that someone at the DNC is good at getting out the current messaging, making sure that whenever I open my social media, I am confronted with a request to donate money.  At least, as a political party, we are consistent when it comes to getting that particular message out to the party's constituency.  It's a pity we couldn't manage to grab the narrative and control it like this prior to the election, isn't it?  

I'm a loyal Democrat.  I contribute regularly, and while I won't disclose in this public statement exactly how much money I have contributed, my gifts warranted the recognition from  you that I am among the top 10% of contributors to Democratic party causes, most recently the Harris-Walz Presidential campaign.  I believed in their message, and in their candidacy, and was more than willing to support them in a personally sacrificial way, with no regrets.  I also support Democratic party causes by participating in precinct caucus meetings, volunteering to canvas, make phone calls and help get out the vote, and by blogging here, an effort at amateur journalism that averages somewhere around 2,500 readers each month.  I hope that helps clarify our message for some and encourages others in their support. 

Being a loyal Democrat, I have not been able to resist continuing to chip in even after we wound up losing the White House in the last election.  But as the time has passed since the election, I have started to wonder what it is that I am supporting.  We were told, even through the last campaign, and all through this one that our party leadership believed that Trump was an "existential threat to Democracy."  Frankly, I didn't have to be told.  I pay attention, I read, I watch several news sources.  I could clearly see that he was a threat to the American constitutional democracy long before he ever descended the escalator in Trump tower to theatrically announce his run for President in 2016.  

Then I saw the disaster he perpetrated on this country for four years in the White House, and the manner in which he left it, including the incitement of an insurrection against the people of the United States, which more than convinced me he is not fit to serve in public office, or live outside the walls of a federal prison.  And I am absolutely confirmed in my belief that he is an existential threat to the constitution, the American Republic and every patriotic value we hold dear as Americans.  

But now, after a four year term of one of the most respected Democratic politicians of the post-WW2 era as President, one that was successful in so many ways, I feel that my convictions on this specific matter have been abandoned by the party leadership, and by most of its politicians who have disappeared after having been highly visible and relatively prominent up to this point.  I certainly expected more in the way of real resistance, a plan to protect our constitutional democracy, and an understanding of how to act in the face of approaching tyranny.  

Based on how strongly and emphatically this theme was communicated by Democrats up and down the ticket, I've been shocked by the radio silence that appears to be irresolute inaction as the days of this administration slip away, that is making me doubt whether our party leadership was serious about the existential threat to democracy that Trump actually poses, or whether they are now in a mode aimed at protecting the jobs and influence they have, and to hell with resistance.  Sending multiple fund raising social media messages, and almost nothing else, doesn't appear to be the kind of strong response I expected.

I recognize those efforts that are being made to get as much accomplished while our time of freedom dwindles and the country takes a hard right shift.  Making sure that as many judicial seats were filled as possible is a noteworthy achievement, though the negotiating away of appellate court seats baffles me.  If the GOP were in the same position, they would not have given that up.  And I am glad to see the President taking advantage of Congress' last boost of support for Ukraine, pushing out as much equipment as possible, as fast as possible in the event that the next administration simply refuses to follow Congress' instructions.  

But I expected more.  I expected, based on believing that the Democratic party's leadership and the Biden Administration were convinced Trump is an existential threat to Democracy, that more would have been done to protect that Democracy, instead of retreating inside offices and turning on radio silence after the election.  

Frankly, I expected that, under the Biden administration, our Department of Justice would have been far more effective and efficient in pursuing crimes committed by Trump that would disqualify him from serving in public office, and nullify his attempt at getting the GOP nomination.  If we really believed our own rhetoric, it seems that would have been a much bigger priority, and instead of the dithering and irresolute dawdling of the Attorney General, the trials for the crimes for which Trump was indicted would have moved quickly to trial, behind the power of the executive branch, a contention supported by dozens of expert attorneys testifying in front of network news cameras.  

Now, I'm not so sure their convictions about Trump are as strong as mine are.  It no longer appears that is the case.  

So, today, prompted by yet another social media request for my contribution, with nothing to offer to me to motivate me to give it this time, I didn't.  I've given once since the election, but today, when I saw the ad, I said "No!"  I'm committed enough, and I've done enough to have my voice heard and my support taken seriously.  I'm just not seeing anything to support right now, at least, not from the mainstream party leadership.  So I'm going to wait until it appears there is party leadership who is willing to listen to those of us who are major supporters and either provide the kind of leadership we are asking for, or get out of the way and let someone else with more passion, conviction, energy and conviction, take the lead. 

So, when David Hogg's organization popped up on my social media this morning, and I saw what they are trying to do, I decided that's where my donation will go this month, along with the grass roots Democratic organization forming, under the name "Indivisible," whose leadership appears to be as frustrated as many Democrats are with the lack of action in this post-election period.  

I'm looking at the Senate campaign of Jon Ossoff in Georgia, a Senator who will wind up facing a huge financial and political challenge from a right wing extremist, Marjorie Taylor-Greene.  Senator Ossoff is starting off on the offensive, and will be one of the Democratic party's more resolute defenders of democracy as he fights to hold his seat.  I will gladly help.  

We have some leaders who, at this critical moment, "get it," and are as frustrated as those of us outside the Capitol are with what's going on as time wastes away in these last days of the Biden Administration.  I want to acknowledge, for purposes of noting where my future support will go, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Jasmine Crockett, house members who are not afraid to speak up and challenge corruption and injustice, who are listening to their frustrated constituents and finding ways to act in opposition to an existential threat to democracy that they clearly believe is coming.  

May I point out that you work for us, "we, the people."  So holing up in your comfortable D.C office and enjoying some perks until the next election cycle rolls around doesn't cut it.  Some of us are intelligent, critical thinkers, aware of things going on in government and the world, not afraid to state our opinion.  So you want me to contribute?  Fine!  You need to listen to me, respect my opinion, value my contribution and either provide the kind of motivated opposition leadership we are looking for, or get out of the way and let those who are running ahead of the pack become the leadership we need.  At least they're moving ahead.  

I'll start contributing again when someone takes the lead, and isn't afraid to challenge this existential threat to democracy.  

The Flawed, Inconsistent Doctrine of America's Conservative Evangelicals is Behind Their Support of Trump's Right Wing Extremism

It's more than just ironic that the branch of American Christianity which touts itself as the "true church," criticizes mainline Protestants as "liberal," declares the Catholic church apostate by labelling the veneration of the saints as idolatry and claiming they "worship Mary," has more of its leaders and members than any other branch of Christianity bowing the knee to an unrepentant adulterous, womanizing, sexually assaulting, pathologically lying business fraud and cheat who openly denies their own version of Christian faith for himself, supporting him for President of the United States.  

The term "conservative Evangelical" covers a broad spectrum of the most diverse branch of American Protestantism that is set apart from mainline Protestants by its own definition of the term "liberal" when it comes to comparing and contrasting its doctrine and theology with the latter.  It is also set apart from those denominations and churches that are historically African-American, or predominantly Latino or Asian, by both the racial makeup of the congregations as well as the predominance of Democrats among the membership of the congregations of color.  So when I use the term "conservative Evangelical," or just "Evangelical," I'm referencing those who are mostly white, and who include right wing extremism as part of their doctrine and theology.  

They've come up with some really convoluted, and outlandish excuses to try and disassociate themselves from his open moral bankruptcy that only make their heretical twisting of the Christian gospel, and the text of the Bible they claim is "inerrant and infallible," even worse.  I've heard everything from, "I'm not voting for a pastor in chief, I'm voting for a commander in chief," to "Well, King David wasn't perfect either, and God still used him."  These are fallacies that can't be reconciled to any legitimate, historical interpretation of the Bible, or practice of the Christian gospel.  They look Christian, but there is no theological or doctrinal foundation to distinguish this intrusion of a licentious, ungodly intruder who perverts the word of God [see the book of Jude, verse 4]. 

I've dealt with these fallacies in multiple other places in The Signal Press and there are multiple articles in the archive which point this out.  

Flawed Theology and Doctrine Lead to Flawed Faith Practice and That Leads to Flawed Politics

The political "religious right" has grown out of the more theologically and doctrinally conservative, mostly white, segment of American Protestantism identified as "Evangelical."  They are separated from other Protestants by a specific set of theological and doctrinal beliefs, and also set apart racially from Black, Latino and Asian members with similar doctrine and theology by their cultural practices, which include the lack of distinction between conservative interpretations of church doctrine and right wing political extremism.  

Evangelicalism--I will stop short of using the term "Christian" as an identifier because their doctrine and practice identifies them more as a cult than anything traditionally, historically or theologically Christian, by a biblical definition--is broadly defined by a few specific doctrines and practices their churches hold in common: 

1.  In addition to their acceptance of the Doctrine of Biblical Authority, which states that the sixty-six books widely accepted by Protestants as the canon of scripture known as "The Bible" are authoritative in matters of theology, doctrine, faith and practice of the Christian church, that they are inerrant, or without any human error in either their transmission, or in their content, and they are thus infallible in their establishment of doctrinal and theological interpretation.  This also includes an insistence on a literal rendering of any interpretation of scripture, as opposed to considering the nuances and meanings of the original languages, the historical context in which it was written and the audience to which it was directed, and any other circumstances affecting the meaning it held for its original audience.  

2.  They do not accept any form of ecclesiastical authority over any local church.  Most of the conservative, predominantly white, Evangelical churches in the U.S. aligned with right wing political extremism are independent and either not affiliated with a denomination at all, or they are affiliated with groups like the Southern Baptist Convention or the Assemblies of God, in which each church is independent and autonomous in its governance and cooperation with the denomination is strictly voluntary.  This includes determining how the Christian gospel will be interpreted and practiced within each local church.  

3. They have a perspective of eschatology, the study of the "end times" that leads them to conclude their mission and purpose is to win as many converts to Christ as they can in order to prepare the world for the return of Christ, followed by its physical destruction as judgment for its sin.  This is where the various forms of Christian nationalism work their way into the doctrine and politics of most Evangelicals.  One group believes that winning more converts will make America more Christian, and will prepare the world for the second coming of Christ.  The other group believes that America's continuing secularization and decline into sinfulness [abortion rights, same sex marriage, transgender identity, etc.] will lead to God's judgement removing the blessings of our prosperity and our security and power in the world and the only way to save that, in preparation for the return of Christ, is to make it Christian again.  

4. They have an anti-education, anti-media, anti-information bias. The ability to observe, think critically, use reason and intellect to solve problems runs counter to the authority of the word of God, delivered by a pastor or preacher interpreting the text of the Bible literally.  Some Evangelicals,, mainly Pentecostals or Charismatics, rely on a phenomenon they call "speaking in an unknown tongue" for confirmation of preacher's messages.  

5.  Though they claim that the Christian conversion experience is not one of a series of works, the faith practice of most Evangelicals is heavily dependent on what they call "holiness," or following a set of behaviors they have determined are evidence of life transformation brought about by conversion.  Most of these behaviors involve their interpretation of living a life of purity, such as abstaining from sex before marriage, avoiding alcohol or addictive drugs, not using foul language, and avoiding entertainment that encourages or promotes this kind of worldliness.  

But it also goes into the realm of personal conviction and judgment. Disagreement with the consensus of a local church with regard to holiness behaviors can result in that person being judged for not being a true Christian.  I've felt relationships I had with a few church members grow cool when they found out that one of our favorite Mexican restaurants had a bar and served alcohol, even on Sunday.  I remember a group of women in one church where we attended briefly organizing a boycott of all Heinz food products because John Kerry was married to Theresa Heinz.  

Evangelicals Follow Flawed Doctrine Down the Path Toward Right Wing Extremism, Leading to Their Own Apostasy

Getting caught up in that, and the temptation that comes when the structure of the church permits a small oligarchy to control the lives of the congregation, over-rides the core principles of the Christian gospel which Jesus not only preached and taught, but to which he accorded the highest priority of faith practice.  The Evangelical interpretation of the Bible is completely flawed because of its failure to acknowledge and apply to its interpretation of scripture, the pre-eminent authority of God, placed on the life and teachings of Jesus, making his teaching and life example the primary criterion for Christian theology, doctrine and practice.  

The specific theological position that separates Christianity from is roots in Judaism is its "Christology," the belief that Jesus was the fulfillment of all of the Messianic prophecies, hundreds of them, in the Old Testament.  The claim he made is recorded in Matthew 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill."  So the core, foundational theological principle of Christianity is that Jesus was the Messiah, the fully divine, fully human Son of God, sent for the purpose of revealing God to humanity in order to redeem their eternal souls, created in his image.  

The words of Jesus, recorded in the gospels, form the criteria for interpreting all of the rest of the Bible.  They are the first context that must be considered, and some form of stating this principle is found in the theological and doctrinal statements of most Christian churches and denominations today, except among those identified as conservative Evangelicals.  Their doctrine of Biblical Authority, which proclaims the Bible as inerrant and infallible, considers the whole Bible subject to literal renderings of specific passages singled out by verse number.  And that's where they miss the point.  

Christianity lost the essence of its own gospel when it became an institution of the Roman government during the third century reigns of Emperors Constantine and Theodosius.  Since then, the institutional church has done just about everything contrary to the principles and values of the Christian gospel present in the teachings of Jesus, if his words are considered the interpretive standard for the rest of the scripture, including the Apostolic works and the Old Testament, which Jesus re-interpreted through a series of statements beginning, "You have heard that it was said," and concluding with "But I say unto you."  Christian theology does indeed become systematic when what Jesus taught is the criteria by which the rest of the Bible is interpreted.  

This Isn't the First Time the Christian Church Has Been Captured and Distorted by Secular Politics

Christian nationalism started in 380 CE, when Emperor Theodosius I made Nicene Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire.  At that point, the church went from being the "ecclesia," or the called-out body of Christians, to being an institution of the state.  The theology and doctrine of the Christian church were codified, influenced by Roman ideology and cultural practices while other sects of Christians who existed in various parts of the empire remained outlawed and persecuted, along with the destruction of pagan temples and the persecution of pagans.  

The martyrdom and suffering of Christians through almost three centuries of various levels of persecution by the Roman emperors that was "the seed of the church," producing literally tens of thousands of converts, leading to the establishment of thousands of local churches, meeting wherever they could escape detection, including in the catacombs of Rome itself, resting on the core values of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which included the admonition to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," disappeared as political power replaced spiritual power.  Christianity has struggled to restore its true essence ever since. 

The first amendment of the United States Constitution gave it one of the best chances it has had since 380 CE, with an establishment clause separating the church from the state, setting both free to pursue their conscience, with Christianity as a pervasive influence, but not an institution of the state.  

Evangelicals claim to be a "true" restoration of Christianity to its biblical roots.  Their local church autonomy and congregational polity are attempts at rejecting the institutional church.  But they've been unable to protect themselves from intruders who intend to use them as a political tipping point in their favor.  Many of their number once shunned involvement in secular politics, because they saw it as a worldly intrusion and interference with the ability to compromise their integrity and distort their doctrine.  

And now, here we are, distorted doctrine and all.  

I don't think it is very likely that any kind of "revival," will be coming soon, though under the current political circumstances, it is likely that some form of Christian nationalism will become the predominant influence in American politics.  The intrusion of Trump and his brand of right wing extremism, which has become part of the doctrine, theology and practice of most white Evangelicals, has turned it into a cult, and far away from any resemblance to the kind of Christianity that Jesus introduced to the world through his gospel.  They have discredited their beliefs by a wholesale departure from the holiness doctrine they have imposed on their members for decades, embracing Trump and his brand of worldly licentiousness bowing their knee to him as their leader.  

And while they are paying for this intrusion, in losses of massive numbers of members, financial stability and credibility, they seem oblivious to the damage, and willing to accept the benefits of having secular political power, rather than waiting for their pie in the sky by and by to materialize.  

Civics Education Must Be Improved in American Education

The results of the 2024 election are just one more in a long string of examples giving us reason to reconsider the place civics education has in the mandated elementary and high school curriculum in this country.  An educated electorate is one of the major keys to preserving the values of democracy and of the American Republic.  The deterioration of education has become obvious in the results of multiple elections and in the divisiveness and the agenda-driven politics that have delivered gridlock and partisan loyalty over patriotism.  

When I was in graduate school, one of the part-time jobs I held was as a placement director and student supervisor for an organization which brought foreign exchange students to the United States.  My job was to find families willing to host students for a school year, and then, to provide support for the students while they were attending school.  Even after finishing school and while working full time, I continued to work with the exchange students because of the insights it provided for my own work as an educator.  

Over more than a decade, I had the privilege of working with students from a variety of countries, primarily Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Spain, the Netherlands, Norway and Australia.  Their primary motivation for joining the program was to improve and solidify their ability to speak English, to take driver's education, which was much more expensive in their home countries, and to see parts of the United States away from the tourist areas.  

Political Awareness and Understanding of World Politics Went Way Beyond What America Students Knew or Understood 

What these students knew about American civics and government was way above the level of Americans at the same grade level.  As a history and government teacher myself, I was fascinated by how much these students, who ranged in age from 16 to 18 and who were in their third, fourth or fifth year of secondary school in their home country, knew about American History and government.  The first year I did this, I had two students from Switzerland and one from Spain.  All three reported that during the first few weeks of school, they'd had to pull back when it came to answering questions and participating in the discussions because most of their classmates didn't have the scope of knowledge of the objectives that they did.  

These students, in studying history at multiple levels, had done far more outside reading and research than their American classmates were required to do, they'd had to use their critical thinking skills to analyze historical events and political movements, and then explain why they held their particular opinion or perspective, something American students aren't required to do until they get to college.  And on top of it all, they had to know specific events, personalities, and dates, and they had to demonstrate an understanding of how all of that fit together to bring the culture, their country, and the world, to the place where it was at the moment.  

There's no reason why American students can't be taught how to develop those kinds of skills, and how to use them to formulate an opinion or position.  And the best teachers we have still do.  But that's far from the collective results we get from students in social studies classes in our educational system.  Maybe that's what we see at higher performing schools, or in academic oriented private or charter schools, but it's not typical.  These European students have a civics course and a history course every year they are in school, right up to the 13th and 14th levels some European schools require before students can go to college.  

Most American students have to pass a U.S. Constitution test in eighth grade, a state constitution test at the same time, and get a semester of American History in eighth grade and then the other half in eleventh grade,  They get a geography course in ninth grade, a world civilization class in 10th, the second half of American history in 11th, and a semester each of government and economics in 12th.  Most of the European students that I worked with had political science courses, classes covering various economic systems such as socialism, communism, capitalism, and analysis of the economics of their own country, and they had the classes in underlying philosophies of both government and economic systems.  They had studied the impact of religion on their own culture, including the impact of Catholicism, the Protestant Reformation and how that affected the development of their social, economic and political culture.  They could identify threats to peace and security for their own nation and what they saw as the same thing for the rest of the world.  

It would be a rare occurrence to have those kinds of conversations in American high schools, and in some cases, not even in a college unless it was a room full of poly sci or history majors.  And that lack of knowledge and critical thinking skills is increasingly showing up in elections.  And, in the huge number of Americans who are eligible to vote, but haven't bothered to register.  It may be too late for this to help, down the road, the crash that education should be preventing may have already occurred. 

Election Results Should Point Us Back to Increasing the Required Objectives for Social Studies Courses in American Schools

Across the full span of my career in education, I've seen the length of the school day shortened, class schedules made in favor of mathematics, science and technology courses with social studies and language arts classes shoved into the shorter periods and given less time during the course of a week.  The number, and type of social studies courses required has been reduced, most states give their federal and state constitution exams to eighth graders, along with half of the required objectives in American History, and they split the American Government objectives with Economics, each only required for one semester.  And our standard school day is less than 6 hours, with lunch included, when students are in school from 8:30 to 2:45.  

And in many schools, the schedule allocates longer class periods on alternate days to the math, science and technology classes, and puts the social studies and English classes in the shorter time slots.  

Contrast that with the schedule and course requirements in history, government, economics and political science, with European schools, who don't just lay out lists of dates and facts, but include objectives requiring students to form, and express, an opinion, based on the facts they learn.  

In most states now, students reach the peak of their social studies education in eighth grade, where they are required to pass a federal and state constitution test.  What I would propose is that they take a comprehensive federal and state constitution exam along with the achievement or objective tests they take in order to graduate from high school, in addition to the eighth grade test.  From sixth through twelfth grade, a full year of geography, history or civics should be a requirement, and when they get to high school, the written communication objectives for English courses should be paired with social studies courses so that written assignments involve learning how to read texts, filter information and draw conclusions.  

Modern world history should be a ninth grade requirement, economics for tenth grade, the full spectrum of America History taught in eleventh grade and American Civics/Government in twelfth.  Politics and political discussions should be held at every level when appropriate.  Even when I had students in a geography class, we always had a day, at least once a month, when students were required to find articles in the media about a specific election or political issue, at every level of government, and describe it and form an opinion about it.  Teachers are professionals, and should be able to conduct a reasonably fair discussion, but they should also be protected by law from consequences related to parent complaints or for voicing their own opinion.  

It May Be Too Late, But Saving Social Studies May Also Save American Education

For being as prosperous and influential in the world that we are, our education system doesn't match the responsibility that we have in the world.  Our education system isn't world class.  There are few places where students in this country have an opportunity, through the publicly funded education system, to get what their European counterparts get.  For the most part, that kind of academic rigor is available mostly in private schools, though they are also not prepared or capable of teaching social studies at a high level. 

And while there are social issues and community issues that are obstacles to education in many parts of the country, the biggest problem is that improving and funding education at a high level has become a progressive, left wing, Democratic party owned political issue.  Republicans don't care.  And when they're in charge of education, mainly at the state level, they generally underfund the whole system, and there's little in the way of any kind of educational initiatives included in the budget.  Their solution to solving the difficulties and problems of American education is to teach the Bible in public schools, and cut the budget to eliminate anything innovative or that works.  

The biggest hint we've been given, indicating where the GOP is headed as far as improving American education is concerned is that they're not going to improve it.  Trump wants to disband the Department of Education, which will move public schools in exactly the opposite direction from which they need to go.  Most Republicans see the public schools as the agent of progressive liberalism in society and their control of it involves doing anything to avoid that happening, including undermining the curriculum.  

Elections do indeed have consequences.  It's no accident that the states which have the highest achieving public schools are the ones who put the most money into them, and who are blessed with the best teachers.  They pay well.  They provide reasonable benefits.  They require a high level of continuing education, which they help pay for.  And they get good results, which set the example for those states who are struggling to provide quality education.    

  

How Many Democratic Voters Stayed Home Because of Merrick Garland's Failure to Prosecute Trump for Insurrection?

Was it enough to cost Kamala Harris the election?  

The slow-walking, almost deliberate and intentional failure to bring Trump to trial by Attorney General Merrick Garland and the United States Justice Department hasn't been the topic of discussion in any post-election coverage in the mainstream media.  I haven't even heard anyone on MSNBC put together the inconsistency between Democratic party rhetoric that Trump is "an existential threat to American Constitutional Democracy," and the complete and total failure of Garland and the justice department of the Biden administration to prosecute him for obvious crimes he committed that would have made him ineligible to run for President and neutralized the threat he posed.  

I don't expect the mainstream media to provide an honest assessment of the factors leading up to Harris' "razor thin" election loss.  They've done nothing but cover every move Trump has made every single day since he left the White House in 2021, giving him a much larger platform than they did to the sitting President of the United States.  We won't hear anything they don't want us to hear.  

Personally, the painfully and deliberately slow movement of the justice department under Garland's leadership in pursuing the incitement of the January 6th insurrection by Trump, was a huge frustration.  How is it that the House of Representatives can conduct an investigation, uncover mountains of irrefutable, obvious and direct evidence that Trump was directly responsible for all of the planning and organizing, including having right wing militants already at the Capitol when the crowd he incited arrived, and lay that out in a nationally televised series of hearings, which convinced over 60% of the American people that he was directly responsible for it, but the justice department doesn't actually get around to prosecuting it in a timely matter?  

That makes me damn angry.  

Apparently, this is not just a surface issue with other Democrats.  It has come up, multiple times since the election, on several talk shows that I listen to, brought up not just by callers, but by guests that have been featured on the programs.  It's been the subject of several social media discussions on at least two platforms that have drawn hundreds of responses from people who question how in the world it could have taken so long to get things moving on something so obvious, why the executive branch under Biden appeared weak and powerless in the face of an issue that was the centerpiece of his campaign for President, and why the one thing that would have ended Trump's existential threat to democracy was not pursued with the seriousness that the campaign rhetoric established.  

I haven't seen any exit polling or any research that has been done to indicate the effect the failure of the justice department to prosecute Trump and end his threat to American democracy on democratic voters staying home, or independent voters deciding that the Democrats weren't really serious.  But it would be an educated guess, considering how razor thin the margins were in enough swing states to change the election results, that Merrick Garland's failure to prosecute Trump for serious crimes against the American people was one of the major causes for Democrats staying home, and for Harris losing the election.    

Another Case of Democrats Failing When it Comes to Messaging

Is Trump an existential threat to American democracy?  

Then, when he committed a crime to carry out that threat, isn't the simplest and easiest solution to the problem legal prosecution for insurrection, a crime which the 14th amendment states the penalty is disqualification from serving in public office?  So, if the Democrats were serious about their claim of Trump's threat, why didn't they mobilize the justice department to get this case prosecuted before the mid-term elections even rolled around?  

Threatening the existence of the American Republic is as serious as it gets.  If we miss our guess about that, it means the end of America as we know it, which is exactly what we are facing now with a second Trump term in office.  And that makes the failure of an irresolute, dithering Attorney General an equal threat to democracy.  It also opens the door to question why the executive branch, under President Biden's leadership, didn't use the power of the office to move this forward immediately following the House's investigation and get this to trial before the mid-term elections, while Democrats still had majorities in both houses.  

The excuse that it would "look political" is weak, considering the very real consequences that we now face as a result of this failure to protect American democracy. We already saw the "political" effect of the failure of the justice department to prosecute the crimes committed by Trump, outlined brilliantly and clearly in the Mueller Report.  Failing to prosecute those crimes, with irrefutable evidence, was as blatantly political as it could get.  So I can't even begin to understand why that would even be a consideration of the Biden administration.  

The message was that Trump is an existential threat to American Democracy.  The solution to the problem was within the grasp of the administration, with a majority in both houses and a case that was a slam dunk as far as legal experts were concerned.  The means to permanently remove the threat was within their grasp.  But the subsequent actions that were taken did not convey the conviction of the message.  And that was bound to be the cause of a major loss in the confidence of voters.  

One of the Biggest Lost Opportunities in American Politics

Masses of legal experts, from Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-banks, and Lawrence Tribe have said that it would have been no problem for the justice department to expedite this case, cut through the legal wrangling and red tape, and get it to trial, especially after how crystal clear the crimes were linked to evidence turned up by the House's investigation.  Nor would finding an impartial jury, or getting it in the courtroom of a competent, unbiased federal judge have been a problem.  

I read through the written report of the House investigating committee, which included two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who had the integrity to put their political career on the line to protect American Constitutional Democracy.  How many Democrats have done the same, at this point?  The report is as thorough, and as detailed as what was presented publicly in the hearings.  They got him.  It is more damning than the Mueller Report was, if that's even possible.

They proved, beyond any shadow of doubt, that Trump initiated the idea of interrupting the electoral vote count as a means of staying in power, of submitting fake elector ballots from states he lost, and creating confusion and disorder in the hopes of delaying or stopping altogether the count of legitimate ballots.  The language of the communication and the actions that took place pointed to Trump as the single instigator of the whole idea, as did the testimony of multiple persons who were involved.  

It was a slam dunk case, as was the case involving his theft of classified documents.  But the opportunity slipped through their hands.  And we are now facing the consequences of that failure.  

Is There a New "Democratic Message" Coming Out? 

"Maybe Trump won't be that bad."  

"Surely, the constitutional guardrails that are in place will keep him in check, correct his worse abuses, and prevent the worst case scenarios we have imagined from taking place."  

Take a look at what's going on right now.  We already have an oligarchy of billionaires, one who invested enough money in helping Trump win that he thinks he can directly call the shots.  What guardrails are we talking about here?  Six bribed, corrupt, incompetent Supreme Court justices who are there to get their piece of the pie?  Republicans in Congress?  The courts whose rulings will ultimately be subject to the incompetent, bribed Supreme Court?  

The guardrails are gone.  We had control of it on January 20, 2021.  That's when steps to prevent anything like the first Trump term should have been taken.  He should have been tried for insurrection first, convicted, then tried for stealing classified documents, convicted, then sent to prison and banished from politics.  The state courts in New York and Georgia should have come after that, instead of being expected to show more courage than the justice department.  

I know it's controversial, but we should have broken the senate filibuster when we had a chance to do it, and then, amended the judiciary act and packed the Supreme Court with judges who would have established the principle that the President is not above the law, and is not immune from prosecution for any crime committed in office, whether it is an "official duty" or not.  There are ways, once all of that had been done, to make it difficult to reverse.  Yes, it would have been a risk, but if American Constitutional Democracy is threatened, aren't some actions worth the risk?  

Our only hope now is that popular resistance will make it impossible for Trump and the billionaire oligarchs to function.  I don't know that the ability exists, in a financial world where 1% of the population has control of 99% of the wealth, to use our power as consumers to make much of a difference, though not all of the "one percenters" are on board with Trump.  We have lost our free press.  We can hope that the razor thin margins produce enough pressure on the few politicians whose political career depends on them to keep the worst abuses from happening.  

I hope that there is an opportunity for the next generation of Democratic party leaders to exhibit the kind of resolute conviction and be bold enough to take the kind of risks necessary to protect those values and promises of American life that we once thought were so important to us, like our freedom.  Partisan protocol and tradition won't protect that, we must do it ourselves.  

  

Significant Decreases in Funds Resulting From Political Involvement with Trump Cult Threaten Southern Baptists' Venerable 'Cooperative Program'

 CP's 'Long Term Stability' Considered as State Conventions Rethink Allocations

Decreased Offerings Cause Baptist State Conventions to Cut Giving to National Causes

The Increasing Intrusion of Right Wing Extremism into Conservative Evangelical, Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches is the Major Cause of Severe Membership and Attendance Decline

It's been a little over nine years since Trump came down the escalator in his New York office building and announced he would be a candidate for President of the United States in 2016.  That same period of time happens to coincide with a staggering decline in the membership and attendance within the churches of the nation's largest Evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention.  Is there a correlation?  Of course there is.  And similar drops in membership and attendance are occurring in other segments of the broader spectrum of conservative Evangelicalism that are overwhelmingly white, and overwhelmingly influenced by right wing political extremism. 

Southern Baptist leadership has, until recently, been very tight lipped about the decline of their membership.  Membership plateaued at 16.2 million around 2000, and remained there, with tiny annual increases until 2008, when a drop of about 38,000 members was recorded.  The decline continued at about the same rate, just under 50,000 annually, until 2016, when a loss of just over 200,000 was reported.  The membership dropped by 240,000 in 2017, and 280,000 in 2018 before a sharp drop of 435,000 happened in 2019.  Then, from 2019 to 2022, the annual losses exceeded 450,000 until the decline slowed in 2023, with a reported loss of 241,000 brought the total down to under 13 million for the first time since the 1960's.  

Altogether, since 2006, the Southern Baptist Convention has lost 3,324,156 members, Average weekly attendance has dropped, over the same period of time, by more than 2.2 million.  That is a loss of 38% of its total average weekly attendance, and over 20% of its total membership, most of that occurring in the last decade, and the steepest declines occurring since 2016.  Only someone blind to reality would insist that the intrusion of the very worldly, immoral, corrupt style of right wing extremism into the churches of this denomination, in which over 75% of its members are self-identified Trump voters, didn't have anything to do with the decline. 

Of course it did.  

The author of this article is one of those 3.2 million members, and 2.2 million weekly attenders, who can be subtracted from the ranks of those who belonged to a Southern Baptist church at its peak in 2006.  In 1996, after some major, personal deconstruction of doctrine and theology resulting from the surge of conservative fundamentalism in the denomination that started in 1979, I joined a congregation that, while still affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, had distanced itself by joining a new group of more moderate, more historically Baptist, less fundamentalist churches that had formed out of years of battling over things like whether women could be ordained, and over the emphasis placed on the values in the practice and ministry of the church, with less emphasis on doctrinal conformity.  

In 2008, along with the more than 1,200 other members of this congregation, we voted virtually unanimously to sever our ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, subtracting 1,226 members and about 850 in weekly attendance average from their numbers, along with a substantial amount of money we gave each year in support of the denomination.  We were one of more than 100 such churches to do the same thing in 2008.  Political extremism intruding into conservative Evangelicalism was one of several factors causing membership losses even back then, along with fundamentalist doctrine that had turned churches into legalistic cults.  Being a Bush voter was one of their requirements for being a true Christian, in their perspective.  

Of course, when Trump came along, accepting his brand of right wing extremism meant having to deny core values of Christian practice.  Lying, adultery, fraud and financial and business corruption had to be normalized and as a consequence of that, people who still followed the Christian gospel, and saw the practice of Christianity as a lifestyle reflecting its values found congregations full of Trump supporters intolerable.  Many of them headed for the exits.  It was happening not only in the Southern Baptist Convention, but all across the spectrum of conservative American Evangelicalism, more than a dozen denominations have either reported membership and attendance losses in excess of 30%, or they stopped reporting membership figures.  

Non-denominational, independent churches are experiencing the same thing, including those whose doctrine identifies them as Pentecostal or Charismatic.  These are some of the more extremist, far to the far right groups, whose leaders come up with some of the most ridiculous, and dangerous, predictions and false prophecies.  There's a lot of brainwashing, and emotional imprisonment in many of these churches, but people are seeing how hypocritical it is to give political support to someone who openly denies what they consider valuable spirituality.   

The Financial Decline is Also Significant

Both of the linked articles have to do with the long term financial future of the Southern Baptist Convention.  It would take much more space than I have here to explain the layers of this denomination's organizational structure, but administration of the resources given for denominational ministry work by 45,000 churches is complicated.  The Southern Baptist Convention, at its national level, is a relatively tight organization.  It is supported by 41 "state conventions" who receive their contributions directly from the churches, and then allocate a percentage of that income to the national denominational body, led by an executive committee headquartered in Nashville.   

That money supports two mission boards and somewhere around 5,500 missionaries around the world, six theological seminaries that train most pastors and church staff, the executive committee, which meets four times a year, and a convention annual meeting once each June, the political arm of the denomination, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and the largest Christian publishing house in the United States, Lifeway Christian Resources.  Lifeway is self-supporting, from the sale of its books and literature.   

Up to this point, the state conventions have protected the national denomination from financial disaster by cutting their own budgets, as contributions from the churches decline, mainly to preserve funding for the two mission boards.  But most of the state bodies have cut to the bone.  Some are selling off property, including extravagant, under-used office buildings, or giving up their interest in, and control of the colleges and universities affiliated with them. The decline in actual attendance, which includes the majority of those who are financial contributors to their churches, has been about 30%, not including what they lost that hasn't returned from the pandemic.  So church offering plates are coming up short, and that means the amount of money they contribute to each state organization is less. 

Even Lifeway, which markets its products well beyond the parameters of the Southern Baptist Convention, has seen a significant drop in product sales and is in the process of a second downsizing that includes selling off its second business location in Nashville and relocating to leased space.   

These budget cuts, as can be seen from the reports, are significantly affecting the operation of Southern Baptists.  

Will They Ever Wake Up to Reality?

There's been a pattern to this whole looming disaster that is typical of the response of this particular denomination, and common to most Evangelicals.  It's called "denial."  

Southern Baptists get their membership and attendance data directly from churches which report them every year.  So when the numbers plateaued around 2000, it was attributed to churches that failed to send in their reports.  But the number of churches reporting their data each year has been very consistent. And when a church doesn't report in any specific year, the previous year's data is included in the total.  

Research on membership and attendance trends, and on what's going on within the denomination and churches is done in house, at Lifeway publishers, which provides analysis of the annual data.  Trust me when I say that a straight answer about what's causing this sudden, rapid decline in membership and attendance is not forthcoming.  The largest declines in membership have all taken place since 2015, directly correlating with the intrusion of the more invasive brand of extremist politics associated with Trumpism, which is completely incompatible with the Christian gospel, in every way.  

There may be some other underlying causes for a loss of some members, though nothing that corresponds directly with the intrusion of Trumpism into the churches.  A sexual abuse scandal, primarily involving pastors, church staff members and mission personnel, which is a reflection of the manner in which women are viewed in these fundamentalist churches, is likely one reason for some membership losses.  

The denomination's credentials committee has removed several churches for having women in positions designated as "pastor."  The most notable one of these was Saddleback Valley Community Church of Mission Viejo, California, the largest church by membership in the denomination, whose former pastor, Rick Warren, is author of The Purpose Driven Church and The Purpose Driven Life.  The church, and its 40,000 members on multiple campuses, were excluded from the denomination last year for having three women designated as "pastor."  They were followed by several other megachurches in short order, leaving on their own as a result of this action.  

Don't expect that they will ever acknowledge Trump politics or its intrusion as a cause for the staggering loss of membership and attendance, and the budget woes they are now experiencing.  They will disband as a denomination before they will blame the corrupt, immoral, anti-Christian politician for anything.  He's their declared savior now, they've thrown Jesus under the bus and they've bid him goodbye.  

Rahm Emanuel Outlines "The Road Back to Power for Democrats" in the Washington Post

Rahm Emanuel: The Road Back to Power for Democrats 

Don't worry.  I'm a lifelong Democrat, I am well educated, especially in the domain of social studies, American History and government, which I taught to high school students for a couple of decades, and I'm an active, observant, contributing volunteer.  I have an opinion about what Democrats need to do that is developed out of all of that, from the grass roots level of the party.  I'm not an "I told you so" kind of guy, but there are times when I'm on the record and I've been caught being right when the pundits and prognosticators got it wrong.  

I realize there are a lot of Democrats who don't like, and don't trust Rahm Emanuel.  But let's take this at face value.  This is a guy who has been immersed in the workings of Democratic party politics in what is a core Democratic party culture.  And the fact of the matter is that he didn't get where he is now by either being perfect, or without some knowledge, discernment and some expertise in how Democratic party politics operate.  He chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that led to flipping the House and Senate with more Democrats than have been elected during the 21st century.  He's an insider  from both the Obama and Clinton administrations.  And that gives his advice to Democrats a huge amount of credibility.  

From where I sit, his analysis, and his remedy, resonate with me because I have observed a lot of what he addresses.  His experience includes mistakes he's made and solutions he's found to problems that work.  Politicians like Emanuel are not always popular, because they see solutions and take action that, while it resolves the problem at hand, sometimes don't make a lot of people happy.  

"Democrats Have Been Blind to the Rising Sea of Disillusionment"

Tracing a disenchantment with establishment politics which dates back to the Iraq War, and the banking crisis, both during the Bush Administration, Emanuel points out that Trump seized on the disillusionment, a moment Democrats somehow missed.  Democrats, he says, abandoned their disestablishment credentials during the pandemic, and "enthusiastically morphed into the establishment."  

This isn't a warning unique to Emanuel.  There are plenty of others who have been warning about Democrats not seeming to be able to control the narrative, missing the message to the working class and losing working class and minority voters along the margins.  That's what the exit polling data is showing, too.  Democrats,  shuttering schools and the economy during the pandemic, got caught in a dialogue with ourselves over "pronouns, bathroom access, renaming schools and adopted terms such as care economy and Latinx, to win over voters."  

That did not work.  

"Democrats have been here before," he says.  "The road back out of the wilderness begins with messages and messengers that meet the moment."  

Wow, did he nail that!  Just prior to the election, in an interview with David Pakman, political scientist Rachel Bitecofer, answering the question as to whether the Harris-Walz ticket had a chance to eke out a narrow win when the polls were showing a razor thin race said much the same thing.  It was possible, but the biggest problem was, first of all, getting control of their messaging and focusing on the perceived issues that were causing voter discontent and anxiety, and the other problem, finding a way to saturate the electorate with that message effectively, in time to affect the outcome of the election. 

Here's the problem.  The price of gasoline and groceries was rising, due to the inflation that was essentially due to a lot of post-pandemic reasons, including the increased prosperity as the pandemic lifted, the supply chain issues, global market adjustments and increasing wages.  Democrats know that the solutions to these problems are long term economic policy, and that there's little a President can do that will cause a noticeable, immediate drop.  But the messaging doesn't connect their solutions, which were practical, workable, reasonable and effective in bringing down inflation, with how that will affect prices of gasoline and groceries in the long run.  And the sound bytes about this policy or that legislation doesn't get into the minds of voters.  

What Emanuel is saying is connecting with the voters in a simple, but effective way wins the election.  Then, after we're in, we can do anything we want to do with bathrooms, renaming things, a 'care economy' and anything else that needs attention.  And that puts a high level of importance on finding a way to saturate the electorate with the party's clear, simple message.  We just keep thinking that mainstream media is fairly representing our side when it is obviously not doing that at all. 

Peel Off Trump's Populist Veneer

It did not take long, after the 2016 election, for the majority of the electorate to realize that Trump was inept, incompetent and unable to serve as President of the United States.  He promised to drain the swamp, but all he did was dig it deeper. 

"Far from draining it," says Emanuel, "Trump and his administration will soon be bathing in it."  

Everything he is going to do will reveal him as a plutocrat, says Emanuel, and that needs to be the main point of Democratic party messaging, to make sure that enough voters along those same, narrow, close margins that won him the election this time see him for what he is, and vote that way when they have a chance. Look at his tax and tarriff proposals, and the plans to get rid of all kinds of regulations for the powerful billionaire class.  None of that will benefit the working class, in fact, it will cost the working class and Democrats need to make sure voters are aware of this.   

"With everyone from Big Oil and Big Pharma lining up for their share of the spoils," he says, "we will need to be strategic in how we strip away Trump's populist veneer.  By returning to our roots as the voice of the middle class, we can unite both moderates and progressives in a fight against the well-heeled and the well-connected."  

Address the Issues of Crime and Immigration, Even If We Can See There's Not a Problem

The fact of the matter is that whether or not it is accurate, voters have been led to believe that Democrats are soft on crime, and we want a completely open border.  Neither of those things are true, in fact, the crime rate is down considerably.  But Trump has succeeded in creating a much different perspective, and Democrats have not done anything to reverse that perspective.  The President, in fact, issued an executive order doing what a bipartisan border bill would have done when Republicans in Congress followed Trump's orders to make sure the border policy was left for him to run on as a political issue.  I knew it.  Reporters on MSNBC talked about it.  

What Emanuel is advocating here is more than just something that looks political.  It needs to be something people can see, and feel, and understand that it is a serious attempt to resolve a problem that is a major concern.  

"Trump was successful on these issues because his words tapped the public's frustration," said Emanuel.  "Ours communicated permissiveness."  

He is exactly right.  This is one of the reasons why Rahm Emanuel is controversial.  When he was mayor of Chicago, the public perception was that the city was spending money extravagantly, especially on its school district.  And the facts confirmed this to be the case.  It wasn't popular, but with declining enrollments, and in some cases, crumbling buildings requiring huge expenditures of capital to repair, the decision was made to start closing schools and merging student populations.  In spite of the criticism, especially from the teacher's union, the closed schools resolved the city's budget problems at the time, and did not result in the academic crash that was predicted.  

Note that Emanuel was Chicago's last mayor to be re-elected.  After he closed some declining, crumbling schools. 

Recruit and Run Candidates for the Mid-Terms Who Aren't Career Politicians

Well, he would know.  His efforts in 2006 and 2008, as the Democratic party's Congressional Campaign Chairman, produced results, including the biggest flip in Congress from red to blue this century.  He points to candidates during 2024, running for congressional seats from New York and California, who aren't conventional politicians, who flipped seats this time around, helping Democrats add one seat to their house delegation in spite of losing the White House.  

"In 2206, 2008 and 2018, we recruited and ran candidates whose biographies communicated authenticity.  They were war veterans, sheriffs, small business owners and former football players.  Crucially, they weren't career politicians," he says.  

And I'll add, that they won in all of those years. 

"If Democrats are to make the most of the next election, they must ready their message and messengers, abandon failed orthodoxies, and embrace strategies with a record of delivering seats, success and real prosperity," he concludes.  

Yeah, So What's the Point? 

Well, the point is that, 1.) He's right, and 2.)There are plenty of Democrats who see this and take this seriously who are saying almost exactly the same thing.  

I think the theme of "abandon failed orthodoxies" can be applied to every single point that has been made here.  We've lost the free press, it no longer exists in the world of corporate billionaire controlled media for profit.  We don't need "out own outlet, like Fox News is for the GOP," as is the solution that is often proposed, what we needed to do, when we had majorities in both houses and the White House, was to pass legislation that would have protected the free press, and broken up the gigantic billionaire corporations that own media networks.  That means getting rid of the damned filibuster in the Senate, packing the damned Supreme Court and passing legislation defining and defending constitutional free press, ruled on by a court that understands how essential it is to the preservation of Democracy. 

And I'll add this to the rest of it.  We cannot affort to be irresolute in the face of direct threats to American Constitutional Democracy, like Donald Trump's insurrection.  If that danger materializes into the dissolution of the American Republic, as many of our political scientists, experts, and many Americans, think that it very well could, then the failure of Merrick Garland to take hold of a Congressional investigation and turn it into guilty verdicts then history will blame President Biden for allowing it to happen, along with Trump being blamed for carrying it out.  

Rahm Emanuel has to be regarded, not only as one of the more successful Democrats in electoral politics in recent history, but also as an expert in the behind-the-scenes kind of organization, political knowledge and skill required to chair congressional party campaigns, and serve as one of the chief advisors to two of the more successful Democrats to serve as President of the United States.  And it's not possible to serve in those kind of positions, along with municipal government and Congress, without making a few enemies along the way.  

As I said up front, I'm a lifelong Democrat.  During a relatively short part of this election cycle, we experienced panic, and then confusion and disorder, following the first Presidential debate, the aftermath of which was having the President, and the party's nominee, step down just three months before an election.  The loss of the White House, and control of the Senate, while razor thin, as the polls predicted, has left the party in a bad spot, still trying to cope with the loss while at the same time preparing for an existential threat to democracy to materialize.  So what Rahm Emanuel has to say is important to consider, if we ever want to think about the possibility of a recovery.

A Month Away From a Presidential Transfer of Power: How Will Democrats Handle Themselves Moving Forward?

There is no shortage of speculation, in the aftermath of the most consequential election of our time, about what Democrats should do, or ought to do, or aren't doing, or won't do.  I've read plenty of speculation, but I think I'm capable of making my own observations without the assistance of a journalist pundit who is missing some critical thinking skills and analytical thinking ability.  

My first step, and it's one I highly recommend to anyone else in this country who understands exactly what we are about to face in a second Trump Presidency, is to read through Timothy Snyder's book, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century.  That's an important piece of information which will guarantee the ability to define exactly what is occurring in order to form reasonable, effective resistance.  

The Democratic Party Has No Choice But Full Unity and Commitment

We are not a party "in tatters", "in need of an overhaul", or "in disarray".  

Fixing blame for why we lost the White House will lead to the loss of time and valuable resources.  The political ignorance of the American electorate was underestimated.  The loss of a genuinely free press, and the amount of time the media spent giving face time and coverage to virtually everything Trump did or said, from the moment he left the White House was a critical factor.  I've challenged readers to do some research and find any 24 hour period in the past four years when there was not at least one Trump news item on any of the major networks, or on the cable news programs.  And I've challenged them to find research indicating how much more time Trump got during the Biden Administration than President Biden got.  

I'd bet that there wasn't one single day that went by without Trump getting some news coverage for something, and that he got more than four times as much as Biden did.  Trump waged a four year campaign for re-election, against an eventual Democratic nominee who waged a campaign for about 70 days.  Trump had full media saturation, Harris never did, even with over a billion dollars for the campaign.  And even with all of that, he still didn't get half the popular vote, and his electoral college victory is as narrow as Biden's was in 2020 and as his was in 2016, separated from defeat by a fraction of a percentage of votes in just three states.  Somehow, over 80 million Americans who registered to vote never made it to the polls.  

If we consider the causes that motivated the Democratic party in this election as priorities, then blame for the loss is a dead issue.  Gone are the days in American politics when the opposition party that lost an election shook hands, congratulated the winner and pledged bi-partisan support for whatever it was that could be supported.  We Democrats set up the parameters for this election, rightly so.  We called it "the most consequential election of our time," and we declared that Trump "was an existential threat to Democracy."  

Well, was it?  Was he?  

If we act like it wasn't either of those things, then we have no credibility.  We're liars, just like they are.  It was all a political game and it's back to business as usual and politics as usual and hope we can do better in 2026.  It will be very tempting for those Democrats who are now still in office as a minority party to try and protect what they have through self-interest, to try to hang on to their perks and privileges rather than take the kind of risks that are necessary to unify this party, fight Trump's real threat to this constitutional democracy, and find a way to defeat creeping facsism once and for all.  

Real leaders will step up and take risks, rather than try to hover and protect their piece of what's left.  Real leaders will take the risks that will bring genuine unity, and will motivate followers to get up off their rear ends, inform themselves about what is going on and fight for their constitutionally protected liberty.  

So we need leaders who are not afraid to act like this was the most consequential election of our time, and that Trump is an existential threat to constitutional democracy.  And we need to start acting like that now, before he ever takes a second oath of office that he will ignore.  

Leadership Among Democrats Can No Longer Be About "What's in it for Me?" 

The Democratic Party can no longer afford business as usual, pandering to the status quo and protecting an elitist group of "next in line" potential leaders, waiting their turn, paying their dues or whatever political catch phrases describe that futility these days.  Would our nominee have had a better chance at winning the White House if the party leadership around the President had gently, but firmly talked him out of running again, when many of them had already seen what the rest of us saw in his first debate performance?  And what does it say about leadership that saw the potential of a loss, with Biden on the ticket, and knew how consequential this election was, but wouldn't step out of the accepted protocol to be part of a necessary change that, had it happened a year before the election, might have provided a much different outcome?  

The single most effective house speaker of the post-World War 2 era was Nancy Pelosi.  The very mention of her name among conservatives drew their vitriolic, caustic criticism, because she was also highly effective.  She new how to manipulate that criticism to the advantage of whatever she wanted to get through the House of Representatives.  She was fearless.  I will never forget the image of her, sitting behind Trump during one of his State of the Union addresses, seeing her disgust and disapproval in her facial expressions, her remaining seated when the Vice-President stood to applaud, and then, when the speech was over, ripping it into shreds while the cameras were still on.  She violated every protocol of a house speaker at a State of the Union address, in order to send a message, and she rebuffed her critics.  

That took courage.  

We need Democratic party leadership, inside and outside of Congress, who have it.  

There are some real people out there that we need to consider.  Over the past six years, it's the kind of leadership we in Illinois have come to expect from our governor, J. D. Pritzker, who goes toe to toe with conservatives, willing to take chances even with the threats of lawsuits and retaliation.  His leadership in Illinois during the pandemic not only saved lives and spared one of the country's most populous states and cities from the kind of disaster that occurred elsewhere, he made decisions he knew would not be popular, but which turned out to be right in order to protect the people of the state.  

David Hogg has been one of the most courageous and effective gun control advocates we've seen, ever.  The gun lobby is one of the most intimidating, threatening, dangerous groups in the country, and he's faced them down and refused to buckle under their pressure. Here he is, running for a leadership position in the DNC.  As a high school student, when that young man went to a microphone to speak, it was obvious he had his facts together and he sure knew more about civics and the constitution than some of the members of Congress.  

There are a lot of others who are in this group of courageous, potential party leaders who have faced down opposition and continued to do the right thing--Pete Buttigieg, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Keith Ellison, and yes, I'll put Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in that group too.  The Democratic party needs to move forward, and it needs leaders who will push it that way, not spend time on protocol and traditional politics, both of which are dead and should have been buried thirty years ago. 

We tried to turn Joe Biden's decision to step down and endorse Kamala as the Democratic nominee into a courageous act of consideration for the American people, above his own desires.  We didn't really have the media coverage or the internal messaging to make that universally known.  But that's the example of the kind of selfless courage that the Democratic party must have in order to survive these next two years, and to put together a campaign that will win control of Congress back during the mid-term elections.  

Selfless courage.  

Do Not Obey in Advance

This is the first principle in Snyder's book, and it is foundational.  He calls it "anticipatory obedience."  Democrats claim that Trump is an existential threat to democracy.  That's a claim based on exactly what we saw from him during his first term in office.  He laid it out, though he is an inept bumbler who has difficulty getting ideas into actions.  He finally did leave the White House, but not before inciting an insurrection against the Capitol building and Congress, which, under the fourteenth amendment, should have made him ineligible to even run for the Presidency again.  And then, he took hundreds of classified documents illegally, risking the nation's security and defying its authority to take them back.  

The irresolute manner in which this was handled was anticipatory obedience.  Congress laid out an investigation and all of the evidence necessary to prove he incited an insurrection, but the Justice Department fumbled the handoff and was irresolute in taking it to the next level in a quick, effective manner.  We still have not been given a satisfactory answer for this monumental failure that completely undermines the Democratic party's belief that Trump really is an existential threat to the American constitutional democracy.  

If he is, then how is it that we could not get him prosecuted, even though we had the better part of four years to carry it out?  

We need leaders who not only won't stand for this kind of irresolute fumbling and bumbling, but will take the initiative to get the ball rolling and follow through to the finish.  

Do This First, and Then Ask Me For My Support

Over the years, I can't keep track of how much money I've given to Democratic party campaigns and Democratic candidates.  I've made hundreds of phone calls and knocked on hundreds of doors in six states.  I started this blog, originally to use as a means of putting into writing political thoughts to put in social media posts.  I'm willing to invest time and energy, my personal presence and labor, my ideas, whatever it takes to help Democratic candidates win elections and now, to resist what's coming down the road.  

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were willing to risk the loss of their congressional seats, and whatever went with that, to stand for a principle and protect American democracy.  I find little in their political perspective with which I can agree, but I also find them to be examples of the kind of courage Democratic party leadership needs to fight a battle that's already started.  The least I can do is to be supportive of the American Democracy.  

In a few months, I'll have plenty of time.  I'll be happy to give myself to the Democratic party, if the party is willing to demonstrate the kind of courage it needs to save the country from tyranny.  

Just ask.

 

A University's Football Coaching Hire and Some Right Wing Political Hypocrisy

West Virginia University just did something this week that is rare in college football.  They rehired a former successful coach who had left in 2007 for a head coaching job at Michigan.  

Usually, when a college coach leaves a school, it is for one of two reasons.  There's a bigger, better opportunity waiting that's been offered elsewhere, or the team he coaches isn't winning like the fans expect, and he gets let go.  Rich Rodriguez, who played at WVU, his alma mater, and coached there from 2001 to 2007, and whose coaching tenure there led the Mountaineers to most of the high points it experienced in football, including several Big East conference championships and a 2006 Sugar Bowl victory over the Georgia Bulldogs, and a 2007 2nd place ranking during the season, was just rehired by the university this week as their head coach, replacing Neal Brown, who was fired after six years of futility.  

Rodriguez made a lot of WVU supporters and fans angry by the manner in which he left in 2007, to accept a much more prestigious, and higher paying position as Michigan's head coach.  There were those who thought that he was distracted during the final game of the season with WVU's bitter rival, Pitt, and that distraction cost him the game.  He had also said, prior to the offer being made, that he wasn't considering a move, but accepted the Michigan position and left before WVU beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl that year.  

Things didn't work out for Rodriguez at Michigan, where the retirement of the former head coach had drained the talent pool of players, and left him nothing to start with.  His teams and his record improved each year, but not enough to please Michigan's fan base, which expects to be among the top teams in the country every year.  The players he recruited went 11-1 during the next regular season after he was let go, but that, of course, is water under the bridge.  

His next coaching job came three years later, at hard luck Arizona.  Rodriguez's tenure with the Wildcats is the only stretch in the last decade reflecting a consistent pattern of winning.  Rodriguez took Arizona to five bowl games, including one of the New Year's 6, the Fiesta Bowl, got into the only Pac-12 conference championship in which Arizona had ever played.  He's the only coach with a winning record at Arizona since 2000.  

He was fired from the job, in part because there were some critics of his loud and aggressive coaching style on the field, and because his administrative assistant filed a sexual harassment complaint against him, and sued the university, claiming he forced her to keep quiet about an alleged affair he was having.  Like the rumor mill at West Virginia, swirling around his departure there, a lot of facts never really reached the public.  In spite of the fact that the sexual harassment claim was discredited, and later dismissed, and so was the lawsuit, the University let him go and paid out his contract settlement.  

After coaching as an assistant at a couple of different places, Rodriguez landed at Jacksonville State University in Alabama, when it became a "group of 5" member of the Conference USA.  He won the CUSA title his second year there, this past season, and got the school into a bowl game.  And that's when West Virginia came looking.  

Well, why not?  He is a WVU alum and former player, and former coach.  It's been 17 years since he left, and the rumor mill never really got the facts right about his departure.  Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion and there have been some strong ones at WVU through the past three coaching tenures, about whether bringing Rodriguez back would also bring the kind of success he had while he was there, which was the program's football pinnacle.  His name surfaced in all three of the recent coaching departures since he left in 2007.  

Here's Where the Politics Come In 

Social media has been buzzing about Rodriguez since Neal Brown was fired after the last game of the season.  While a lot of those who were opposed to his return went back to the manner in which he left WVU for Michigan, there were a lot more who cited "moral concerns" about his alleged affair, and sexual harassment leading to his dismissal at Arizona as the reason they didn't want him back.  

And that's what I found interesting.  

In each of the last three elections, West Virginia has been one of the most supportive states, in terms of percentage of voters casting ballots for Trump.  It's been above 65% all three times.  And there were a few people, in the social media melee that surrounded the coaching discussion, who pointed out that it seemed a bit hypocritical for people who more than likely voted for Trump in past elections to consider rumors about an affair to be a disqualifier for hiring a head football coach.  

I mean, if people are all that concerned about the dishonesty, lack of integrity and immorality reflected in the character of someone who had an extra-marital affair, shouldn't that be a much bigger concern with regard to putting someone in the Presidency, where character matters and where that kind of dishonest lack of integrity and morality could endanger the entire country, than it would be in coaching a college football team?  

Trump had multiple extra-marital affairs, some surreptitiously, some he bragged about to boost his own brand.  In once case, he committed multiple felonies, 34 to be exact, to cover up an affair he had with a porn star.  But it doesn't appear that was enough to disqualify him, at least, not as far as the people of West Virginia were concerned.  So why should unsubstantiated rumors of an affair by a former football coach, and all charges dropped regarding the sexual harassment suit after an investigation, be a problem for West Virginia football fans, many of whom obviously voted to put the proven, three time adulterer in the White House?  

There were some posts on social media which pointed this out, and to their credit, there were some individuals who noted that they didn't support Rodriguez' return because of what had transpired at Arizona, and they also had not voted for Trump, because integrity, ethics and morality were high on their list.  But for the most part, in the same way it went by the wayside in the election, it was ignored in this particular issue as well.  Sad to say, but it is clear that a majority of Americans prefer winning over morality in sports, and corruption over integrity in politics. 

Somewhere in the midst of all of the rumors around Rodriguez are the facts.  He has exhibited a measure of repentance, admitted making mistakes, including in the way he left WVU for Michigan, and in what occurred at Arizona, and has apparently settled the issues with those who were directly involved and who are closest to him.  Trump, on the other hand, remains unrepentant, claiming there's nothing wrong with his lifestyle and exhibiting neither regret nor any desire to behave differently.   

I think West Virginia University made the right choice for their football program, extending the kind of forgiveness and a second chance to one of their own who has asked for both.  

I think the country is already starting to regret the choice they made at the ballot box in November.