thebulwark--2020-10-23--‘Right Stuff’ In Name Only

‘Right Stuff’ In Name Only

In 1979 , Tom Wolfe published The Right Stuff , his landmark book about the beginnings of the American space program .
It was distinct from Wolfe ’ s other books up to that point , which were mostly collections of his essays ( the only exception being 1975 ’ s The Painted Word , which in more ways than one is more booklet than book ) by being a long work of narrative nonfiction .
Literary , wildly stylish—at times to a fault—and huge in scope , The Right Stuff would remain arguably Wolfe ’ s most ambitious work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would dominate the second half of his career .
The book functions not merely as a history of the space race during the Cold War from the mid- ’ 50s and into the early ’ 60s ; it is also a psychological profile of astronauts and test pilots , a simultaneous satire and celebration of American ingenuity ( and , not to be too precious about it , a psychological profile of same ) .
It ’ s a mini-biography of the seven astronauts chosen for NASA ’ s Mercury program , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yeager , “ the ace of all aces .
.
.
among the true brothers of the right stuff.
” A war hero and test pilot who was the first man to break the sound barrier but who never went to space—who was not even considered to be part of the Mercury program—Yeager is the standard against which all pilots and astronauts must be measured .
The Right Stuff is also a uniquely death-haunted book , which is sort of curious when you consider that , apart from Gus Grissom , one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ed White and Roger Chaffee in a Command Module fire in 1967 during a test before the Apollo 1 launch , none of Wolfe ’ s major protagonists suffered the kind of tragic early death so common among test pilots at the time , and which Wolfe chronicles in almost excruciating detail early on .
Hell , at 97 years old , Chuck Yeager isn ’ t just still alive , he ’ s on Twitter .
But such early deaths were a weekly occurrence in this profession , and Wolfe uses this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his depiction of how such men think , but to highlight the extraordinary danger the seven astronauts—Alan Shepard , John Glenn , Scott Carpenter , Wally Schirra , Deke Slayton , Gordon Cooper , and Grissom—walked into not only knowingly , but gleefully .
They were preparing to have a rocket launch them into space , and as Wolfe tells us again and again throughout The Right Stuff , “ [ America ’ s ] rockets always blow up.
” It ’ s a marvelous book .
Wolfe may have leaned on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much ( such as the one about pilots ascending the ranks of achievement being like climbing a ziggurat ) , but it ’ s lively and enthralling and it all works .
The Right Stuff easily achieved the status of “ instant classic , ” and so a cinematic adaptation , or adaptations , of this extremely cinematic book were sure to follow .
As it happens , we ’ re currently in the middle of the second such adaptation .
On October 9 , the streaming site Disney+ premiered the first two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wolfe ’ s book .
A third aired on the 16th , and a new episode will arrive every Friday until the eight-episode run ends on November 20 .
Developed for TV by Mark Lafferty , who also worked on programs like Castle Rock and Halt and Catch Fire , this show , at roughly eight hours in length , should in theory have plenty of room to at least touch upon every facet of Wolfe ’ s story .
Which of course it is under no obligation to do , and so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my back up over Lafferty and his staff not doing that might seem unfair ( especially after only three episodes , though those three are revealing ) .
But Disney+ ’ s The Right Stuff is not merely not Tom Wolfe ’ s version—it ’ s not even its own version .
It doesn ’ t have a version .
Each episode begins with a card informing the viewer that , while based on true events , the story is a “ dramatization , ” it is “ fictionalized.
” The order of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ true events ” bit comes last and is therefore emphasized .
Still , this is beyond the terms of the standard “ Based on True Events ” card which is all you usually get , and I genuinely appreciate the honesty .
Of course , it could follow Wolfe to the letter and , being a dramatization , it would still be fiction , but this new The Right Stuff makes up so much that it had better say something .
And what it is , what it ’ s done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prestige TV .
However , it hasn ’ t done this by making the kind of show that this somewhat exhausting phrase is , at its most optimistic , referring to , shows like The Sopranos or Twin Peaks : The Return .
Instead , it has found , as have so many other TV shows , that “ prestige ” can be achieved , or at least sought , through formula and mimicry .
Chuck Yeager , for starters , is gone completely , presumably because he doesn ’ t “ serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the search for the seven men who will make up the Mercury Seven astronauts ( and not much time is spent even on that ) .
The focus throughout these episodes is on Shepard ( Jake McDorman ) and Glenn ( Patrick J. Adams ) , and how these two disparate personalities—Shepard the boozing , tortured ladies ’ man ; Glenn the honest , upright Boy Scout—are destined to clash .
But they ’ re both wildly ambitious pilots , and so they ’ re not so different .
It also gives Cooper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haunted past involving rampant alcoholism , which led to an injured hand , which in turn may have contributed to a crash that killed his friend and fellow pilot Cal Cunningham .
This is all completely invented , and ignores Wolfe ’ s profile of test pilots who , for one thing , always blamed their fellow pilots for their own deaths , and whose lives , for another thing , tended to be a cycle of carefree , egotistical “ Flying & Drinking and Drinking & Driving.
” According to Wolfe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Disney+ and National Geographic , which produces the series , sure everybody ( except Glenn ! )
drinks , but Shepard and Cooper have real problems .
And , in keeping with the Dark Night of the Soul Prestige TV template , these men hate themselves for it .
This is the kind of show where two characters ( Cooper and Grissom , in this case ) get into a shouting argument until one tackles the other into a motel pool .
The series also , at least so far , jettisons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yes , the Russians are around there somewhere , and lip service is paid ( by Glenn , of course ) to the idea of the Mercury program being an important moment in history .
Still : there are motel pools to be tackled into .
Gone , too , is Wolfe ’ s sense of the sardonic in which he wraps up all of this , including what he regards as the curious mentality behind the space race ( at one point , regarding the sense of urgency the American government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Wolfe simply writes “ What emergency ?
” ) .
In its place the series has added , well , nothing , really , beyond standard-issue marital drama ( including dialogue of a progressive nature more in tune with 2020 than 1960 ) , and a visual style focused entirely on lighting .
There ’ s one scene , set in an office in the daytime , lit entirely , at least within the reality of the scene , by sunlight coming through the windows .
In one shot , there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned off .
This version of The Right Stuff has about as little to do with Tom Wolfe ’ s book as it ’ s possible to be and still be about the Mercury program .
Yet it wants the received glory of being associated with a classic book .
For all it resembles what Wolfe wrote , the show could have been called anything—Mercury Seven or Motel Pool Fight , for example—and the producers could have saved themselves the cost of buying the rights .
And yet they went the route they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obvious by now ( episode three is titled “ Single Combat Warrior , ” named after one of Wolfe ’ s chapters and pet metaphors ; at no point does the episode deal with what that title means , either directly , or thematically , or subtextually ) .
At heart , this new The Right Stuff is a deeply cynical show , but it ’ s not the healthy cynicism of Wolfe .
It is entirely avaricious in nature .
For those frustrated by this , there ’ s good news : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of The Right Stuff , released in 1983 , exists .
Kaufman , a director whose career has always been unusual , had by then built a strange-but-not-undistinguished résumé , the highlights being The White Dawn , The Wanderers , his brilliant remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers from 1978 , and the screenplay for The Outlaw Josey Wales .
But The Right Stuff would obviously be the Big One .
And it flopped .
Kaufman had one more great film in him , 1988 ’ s The Unbearable Lightness of Being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and apparent retirement .
Nevertheless , his film of The Right Stuff is a masterpiece ( and not for nothing , it ’ s one of the greatest cinematic adaptations of a book I ’ ve ever seen ) , boasting a remarkable cast that includes Ed Harris as Glenn , Fred Ward as Grissom , Scott Glenn as Shepard , and a delightful Donald Moffat as Lyndon Johnson .
And Sam Shepard as Chuck Yeager , who functions for Kaufman as he did for Wolfe , as a historical marker , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a man who knows better than anyone what all of this is really about , but either won ’ t , or can ’ t quite , articulate it .
Kaufman ’ s film , like Wolfe ’ s book , begins with death , and the probability that a fiery doom is where this kind of human exploration will end for anyone who tries it .
“ There was a demon that lived in the air , ” says Levon Helm ( in a stroke of casting genius , the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both the narrator and Jack Ridley , Yeager ’ s trusted engineer and supplier of Beeman ’ s gum ) at the very beginning of the film .
This is Kaufman ’ s line , not Wolfe ’ s , but it is adapted from a Wolfe line .
The film is at once both Wolfe ’ s and Kaufman ’ s .
The film ’ s tone is unlike anything I can imagine the filmmakers behind the series ever even considering .
In addition to Yeager ’ s inclusion throwing off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Hollywood , and adding a tone of the past to the present as it is happening , there is the mingled cynicism and patriotism that , as traditional narrative cinema and TV goes these days , can not live beneath the same roof .
If you ’ re going to deal with this country as a subject at all , you ’ re either all in on the cynicism and want to burn the whole thing down , or you ’ re a flag-hugger .
But Kaufman ’ s film , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is both .
Lyndon Johnson is a figure of ridicule , as are most of the government scientists involved in the program ( “ Our Germans are better than their Germans ” ) , several of the astronauts are unapologetically unfaithful to their wives .
But John Glenn ’ s not a joke .
None of the astronauts are , nor are their wives .
The successful , unbelievable completion of these impossible tasks is not a joke .
Kaufman is able to look with wonder at these people and what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the arguably arbitrary reasons not behind the space program itself , but behind the need to do it now , at once ( “ What emergency ?
” ) .
Philip Kaufman ’ s The Right Stuff is an honest , thrillingly conflicted , ambitious , and beautiful film whose director cared about the book he was adapting .
He didn ’ t just buy the title .

(Bulwark+ members can listen to an exclusive discussion of this piece and the various iterations of The Right Stuff here. Sign up today!)
In 1979, Tom Wolfe published The Right Stuff, his landmark book about the beginnings of the American space program. It was distinct from Wolfe’s other books up to that point, which were mostly collections of his essays (the only exception being 1975’s The Painted Word, which in more ways than one is more booklet than book) by being a long work of narrative nonfiction. Literary, wildly stylish—at times to a fault—and huge in scope, The Right Stuff would remain arguably Wolfe’s most ambitious work until he began writing the long novels that would dominate the second half of his career.
The book functions not merely as a history of the space race during the Cold War from the mid-’50s and into the early ’60s; it is also a psychological profile of astronauts and test pilots, a simultaneous satire and celebration of American ingenuity (and, not to be too precious about it, a psychological profile of same). It’s a mini-biography of the seven astronauts chosen for NASA’s Mercury program, as well as a mini-biography of Chuck Yeager, “the ace of all aces . . . among the true brothers of the right stuff.” A war hero and test pilot who was the first man to break the sound barrier but who never went to space—who was not even considered to be part of the Mercury program—Yeager is the standard against which all pilots and astronauts must be measured.
The Right Stuff is also a uniquely death-haunted book, which is sort of curious when you consider that, apart from Gus Grissom, one of the Mercury Seven, who died with Ed White and Roger Chaffee in a Command Module fire in 1967 during a test before the Apollo 1 launch, none of Wolfe’s major protagonists suffered the kind of tragic early death so common among test pilots at the time, and which Wolfe chronicles in almost excruciating detail early on. Hell, at 97 years old, Chuck Yeager isn’t just still alive, he’s on Twitter. But such early deaths were a weekly occurrence in this profession, and Wolfe uses this fact not only to help flesh out his depiction of how such men think, but to highlight the extraordinary danger the seven astronauts—Alan Shepard, John Glenn, Scott Carpenter, Wally Schirra, Deke Slayton, Gordon Cooper, and Grissom—walked into not only knowingly, but gleefully. They were preparing to have a rocket launch them into space, and as Wolfe tells us again and again throughout The Right Stuff, “[America’s] rockets always blow up.”
It’s a marvelous book. Wolfe may have leaned on his pet phrases and metaphors a little too much (such as the one about pilots ascending the ranks of achievement being like climbing a ziggurat), but it’s lively and enthralling and it all works. The Right Stuff easily achieved the status of “instant classic,” and so a cinematic adaptation, or adaptations, of this extremely cinematic book were sure to follow.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
As it happens, we’re currently in the middle of the second such adaptation. On October 9, the streaming site Disney+ premiered the first two episodes of its new miniseries based on Wolfe’s book. A third aired on the 16th, and a new episode will arrive every Friday until the eight-episode run ends on November 20. Developed for TV by Mark Lafferty, who also worked on programs like Castle Rock and Halt and Catch Fire, this show, at roughly eight hours in length, should in theory have plenty of room to at least touch upon every facet of Wolfe’s story. Which of course it is under no obligation to do, and so the fact that I’ve got my back up over Lafferty and his staff not doing that might seem unfair (especially after only three episodes, though those three are revealing). But Disney+’s The Right Stuff is not merely not Tom Wolfe’s version—it’s not even its own version. It doesn’t have a version.
Each episode begins with a card informing the viewer that, while based on true events, the story is a “dramatization,” it is “fictionalized.” The order of this is actually reversed, so that the “true events” bit comes last and is therefore emphasized. Still, this is beyond the terms of the standard “Based on True Events” card which is all you usually get, and I genuinely appreciate the honesty. Of course, it could follow Wolfe to the letter and, being a dramatization, it would still be fiction, but this new The Right Stuff makes up so much that it had better say something. And what it is, what it’s done, is turn The Right Stuff into Prestige TV. However, it hasn’t done this by making the kind of show that this somewhat exhausting phrase is, at its most optimistic, referring to, shows like The Sopranos or Twin Peaks: The Return. Instead, it has found, as have so many other TV shows, that “prestige” can be achieved, or at least sought, through formula and mimicry.
Chuck Yeager, for starters, is gone completely, presumably because he doesn’t “serve the plot.” The show begins with the search for the seven men who will make up the Mercury Seven astronauts (and not much time is spent even on that). The focus throughout these episodes is on Shepard (Jake McDorman) and Glenn (Patrick J. Adams), and how these two disparate personalities—Shepard the boozing, tortured ladies’ man; Glenn the honest, upright Boy Scout—are destined to clash. But they’re both wildly ambitious pilots, and so they’re not so different. It also gives Cooper (Colin O’Donoghue) a haunted past involving rampant alcoholism, which led to an injured hand, which in turn may have contributed to a crash that killed his friend and fellow pilot Cal Cunningham. This is all completely invented, and ignores Wolfe’s profile of test pilots who, for one thing, always blamed their fellow pilots for their own deaths, and whose lives, for another thing, tended to be a cycle of carefree, egotistical “Flying & Drinking and Drinking & Driving.” According to Wolfe, this was all of them. According to Disney+ and National Geographic, which produces the series, sure everybody (except Glenn!) drinks, but Shepard and Cooper have real problems. And, in keeping with the Dark Night of the Soul Prestige TV template, these men hate themselves for it. This is the kind of show where two characters (Cooper and Grissom, in this case) get into a shouting argument until one tackles the other into a motel pool.
The series also, at least so far, jettisons the big picture, the historical context. Yes, the Russians are around there somewhere, and lip service is paid (by Glenn, of course) to the idea of the Mercury program being an important moment in history. Still: there are motel pools to be tackled into. Gone, too, is Wolfe’s sense of the sardonic in which he wraps up all of this, including what he regards as the curious mentality behind the space race (at one point, regarding the sense of urgency the American government felt about beating the Russians into space, Wolfe simply writes “What emergency?”). In its place the series has added, well, nothing, really, beyond standard-issue marital drama (including dialogue of a progressive nature more in tune with 2020 than 1960), and a visual style focused entirely on lighting. There’s one scene, set in an office in the daytime, lit entirely, at least within the reality of the scene, by sunlight coming through the windows. In one shot, there are at minimum three lamps visible, all turned off.
This version of The Right Stuff has about as little to do with Tom Wolfe’s book as it’s possible to be and still be about the Mercury program. Yet it wants the received glory of being associated with a classic book. For all it resembles what Wolfe wrote, the show could have been called anything—Mercury Seven or Motel Pool Fight, for example—and the producers could have saved themselves the cost of buying the rights. And yet they went the route they did, for reasons that should be obvious by now (episode three is titled “Single Combat Warrior,” named after one of Wolfe’s chapters and pet metaphors; at no point does the episode deal with what that title means, either directly, or thematically, or subtextually). At heart, this new The Right Stuff is a deeply cynical show, but it’s not the healthy cynicism of Wolfe. It is entirely avaricious in nature.
For those frustrated by this, there’s good news: Philip Kaufman’s 192-minute film version of The Right Stuff, released in 1983, exists. Kaufman, a director whose career has always been unusual, had by then built a strange-but-not-undistinguished résumé, the highlights being The White Dawn, The Wanderers, his brilliant remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers from 1978, and the screenplay for The Outlaw Josey Wales. But The Right Stuff would obviously be the Big One. And it flopped. Kaufman had one more great film in him, 1988’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being, followed by a lot of curiosities and apparent retirement. Nevertheless, his film of The Right Stuff is a masterpiece (and not for nothing, it’s one of the greatest cinematic adaptations of a book I’ve ever seen), boasting a remarkable cast that includes Ed Harris as Glenn, Fred Ward as Grissom, Scott Glenn as Shepard, and a delightful Donald Moffat as Lyndon Johnson. And Sam Shepard as Chuck Yeager, who functions for Kaufman as he did for Wolfe, as a historical marker, as a peak to be reached for, as a man who knows better than anyone what all of this is really about, but either won’t, or can’t quite, articulate it. Kaufman’s film, like Wolfe’s book, begins with death, and the probability that a fiery doom is where this kind of human exploration will end for anyone who tries it. “There was a demon that lived in the air,” says Levon Helm (in a stroke of casting genius, the former drummer and singer for The Band plays both the narrator and Jack Ridley, Yeager’s trusted engineer and supplier of Beeman’s gum) at the very beginning of the film. This is Kaufman’s line, not Wolfe’s, but it is adapted from a Wolfe line. The film is at once both Wolfe’s and Kaufman’s.
The film’s tone is unlike anything I can imagine the filmmakers behind the series ever even considering. In addition to Yeager’s inclusion throwing off the traditional three-act structure preferred by too many in Hollywood, and adding a tone of the past to the present as it is happening, there is the mingled cynicism and patriotism that, as traditional narrative cinema and TV goes these days, cannot live beneath the same roof. If you’re going to deal with this country as a subject at all, you’re either all in on the cynicism and want to burn the whole thing down, or you’re a flag-hugger. But Kaufman’s film, even more so than Wolfe’s book, is both. Lyndon Johnson is a figure of ridicule, as are most of the government scientists involved in the program (“Our Germans are better than their Germans”), several of the astronauts are unapologetically unfaithful to their wives. But John Glenn’s not a joke. None of the astronauts are, nor are their wives. The successful, unbelievable completion of these impossible tasks is not a joke. Kaufman is able to look with wonder at these people and what they accomplished, and shake his head at the arguably arbitrary reasons not behind the space program itself, but behind the need to do it now, at once (“What emergency?”).
Philip Kaufman’s The Right Stuff is an honest, thrillingly conflicted, ambitious, and beautiful film whose director cared about the book he was adapting. He didn’t just buy the title.


thebulwark--2020-10-23--Turkey Is Distancing Itself from NATO

Turkey Is Distancing Itself from NATO

Last Friday , in a provocative move , Turkey tested the S-400 anti-aircraft missile system that it purchased from Russia in 2017 and received last year .
Integration of this system risks the exposure of NATO secrets .
It also highlights Turkey ’ s departure from the liberal world .
The top spokesman for the U.S. Department of Defense , Jonathan Hoffman , issued a stern warning : The activation of the system will make Turkey eligible for sanctions under Countering America ’ s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act .
Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952 but has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over a decade .
Three different presidents with very different styles have failed to stop this drift because they mostly have maintained their predecessors ’ policies of caution towards Turkey .
The next administration should change the course .
The problem starts at the top .
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became the prime minister of Turkey in 2003 and retained that position until 2014 , when , in a Putin-like move , he became the country ’ s president .
Here ’ s a question : Who has the most power in Turkey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s a trick question : In a move that even Putin never tried , Erdoğan forced through a constitutional “ reform ” that abolished the position of prime minister and moved Turkey ’ s executive power away from the parliament to the presidency .
Erdoğan first came to power following years of economic and political turmoil .
The Turkish economy was facing major issues in the 1990s .
The annual inflation rate had peaked at a ruinous 120 percent in 1994 .
In 1997 , a coup had removed the Islamist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and anti-democratic actions , but Turkey ’ s coups were an exception : The Turkish military intervened every time it feared that an Islamist regime was straying too far from the inheritance of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk ’ s secularization .
As soon as a new government was elected , the military went back to its normal functions .
Erdoğan , who became mayor of Istanbul in 1994 , was briefly imprisoned in 1999 for having publicly recited a poem deemed a threat to Turkey ’ s secularism .
Erdoğan ’ s ascent to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democratic , as were the first few years of his premiership .
He solidified his reign as he undertook reforms , with the help of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund , that stabilized the country ’ s economy and led to rapid growth .
However , he began rolling back on democracy .
As he said back when he was Istanbul ’ s mayor , democracy is like a streetcar that you get off once you reached your destination .
But , before beginning his assault on liberal democracy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Turkish military , leading to en masse resignations in protests .
By expelling secularists and promoting Islamists to high ranks , he ended the secular regime in the military .
The military was no more a unified secular institution—and so could no longer serve as the bulwark of liberal democracy in Turkey .
There was an attempted coup in 2016 , but it failed .
Accounts vary , but it seems that the coup was a sincere attempt to oust Erdoğan ; he found out in advance and decided to let the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advantage of the crisis .
It gave him an excuse to crack down on the opposition .
His government arrested 80,000 people and purged 150,000 government workers .
It was this crisis that also allowed him to push through his radical remaking of the Turkish constitution .
The end of democracy in Turkey has led to problems for the United States—practical problems , not just moral objections to Erdoğan ’ s illiberalism .
Turkey is aligning itself more closely with Vladimir Putin ’ s Russia .
This is a problem of its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Turkey is a NATO member and has access to key NATO secrets and weapons .
The Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile system it tested last week illustrates the problem .
This system is not compatible with NATO weapons .
One suspicion is that Erdoğan purchased it precisely for this purpose : to have in place a military system that only his most trusted military officers can control .
Integrating it with the rest of Turkish military equipment—including NATO systems—risks the exposure of American and NATO secrets to Russia .
The problems don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large Kurdish population—about 19 percent of the country ’ s total population of 82 million , a percentage projected by demographers to rise—and much of that population is secessionist and hostile to the central government .
The Workers ’ Party ( PKK ) , a Kurdish group , has been conducting terror attacks against the Turkish government for decades and has been designated by many governments , including the U.S. government , as a terrorist organization .
However , PKK ’ s affiliate organization in Syria , the People ’ s Protection Units @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorist entity ; it has been an ally for the United States during the Syrian Civil War and the anti-Islamic State Operation Inherent Resolve in Syria .
The Turkish government has attacking the YPG anyway—because terrorism is not the real difference between Turkey and Kurds ; Kurdish nationalism is .
This was a major source of drama when , last year , President Trump gave a green light to Turkey to enter Syria and bulldoze the YPG and Kurdish civilians .
And Turkey really does not have an issue with terrorism per se @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States has not formally designed it as such , Turkey is a state sponsor of terrorism .
According to the Defense Intelligence Agency , Turkey , along with Qatar , has supported the Levant Victory Front ( aka Jabahat Fatah al-Sham , formerly al-Nusra Front ) , a jihadi Salafist terror group that is al-Qaeda ’ s branch in Syria .
Turkey has also provided support and care for Islamic State fighters in Syria .
And Turkey is a supporter of Hamas , the terrorist organization that occupies the Gaza Strip and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s support for Islamism in the region is partially strategic against common enemies , but it is also ideological .
Just like Putin , Erdoğan is revanchist .
Putin wants to resurrect the Soviet empire ; Erdoğan wants to revive the Ottoman Empire and make it the center of the Islamic world .
Erdoğan ’ s support for Islamists at home and in neighboring countries , of course , stands opposed to the U.S. objective of combating Islamism in the region .
Turkey ’ s relationship with Russia is complicated .
Historical grievances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have kept the two countries from becoming too close .
They are rather frenemies .
But they are increasingly allied in opposing the U.S.-led liberal international order .
Meanwhile , Turkey has been actively undermining U.S. efforts around the world .
It has been helping Iran to evade U.S. sanctions .
And it is tightening ties with China .
How can all of this be squared with Turkey ’ s formal relationship with the United States—as a treaty ally and a member of NATO ?
NATO , it must be noted up front @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and legal opinion as to whether expulsion is even possible is unsettled .
Even if there were an expulsion mechanism , simply expelling Turkey would create a headache over Turkey ’ s access to the NATO infrastructure in Turkey and American-built systems that Turkey has purchased , risking their exposure to Russia and China .
Any punitive action against Turkey could worsen that risk .
But whether or not expulsion from NATO makes sense , there needs to be some kind of course correction in U.S. relations with Turkey .
That course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First , the problem with Turkey is that it has turned to a regime with a fundamentally different vision than that of the United States .
Second , three administrations ’ diplomatic engagement with Turkey has not improved the problem—and if Bush , Obama , and Trump , with their very different styles , failed to find a resolution , it ’ s hard to see how a Biden administration that doesn ’ t try something new will see results any different .
Ultimately , the solution to the problem in Turkey is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s increasingly Islamist and autocratic rule .
With a good strategy , Turkish democracy can be revived if Erdoğan is removed , but the clock is ticking .
Once Erdoğan completes his domestic project and institutionalizes a regime that can survive independent from him , all bets will be off .

Last Friday, in a provocative move, Turkey tested the S-400 anti-aircraft missile system that it purchased from Russia in 2017 and received last year. Integration of this system risks the exposure of NATO secrets. It also highlights Turkey’s departure from the liberal world. The top spokesman for the U.S. Department of Defense, Jonathan Hoffman, issued a stern warning:
We object to Turkey’s purchase of the system, and are deeply concerned with reports that Turkey is bringing it into operation. . . . It should not be activated. Doing so risks serious consequences for our security relationship. Turkey has already been suspended from the F-35 program and the S-400 continues to be a barrier to progress elsewhere in the bilateral relationship.
The activation of the system will make Turkey eligible for sanctions under Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.
Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952 but has been distancing itself from the alliance for over a decade. Three different presidents with very different styles have failed to stop this drift because they mostly have maintained their predecessors’ policies of caution towards Turkey. The next administration should change the course.
The problem starts at the top. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became the prime minister of Turkey in 2003 and retained that position until 2014, when, in a Putin-like move, he became the country’s president. Here’s a question: Who has the most power in Turkey, the president or the prime minister? It’s a trick question: In a move that even Putin never tried, Erdoğan forced through a constitutional “reform” that abolished the position of prime minister and moved Turkey’s executive power away from the parliament to the presidency.
Erdoğan first came to power following years of economic and political turmoil. The Turkish economy was facing major issues in the 1990s. The annual inflation rate had peaked at a ruinous 120 percent in 1994. In 1997, a coup had removed the Islamist government. Coups are usually unacceptable illiberal and anti-democratic actions, but Turkey’s coups were an exception: The Turkish military intervened every time it feared that an Islamist regime was straying too far from the inheritance of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s secularization. As soon as a new government was elected, the military went back to its normal functions. Erdoğan, who became mayor of Istanbul in 1994, was briefly imprisoned in 1999 for having publicly recited a poem deemed a threat to Turkey’s secularism.
Erdoğan’s ascent to the highest office in the land was democratic, as were the first few years of his premiership. He solidified his reign as he undertook reforms, with the help of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, that stabilized the country’s economy and led to rapid growth. However, he began rolling back on democracy. As he said back when he was Istanbul’s mayor, democracy is like a streetcar that you get off once you reached your destination.
But, before beginning his assault on liberal democracy, Erdoğan started to purge secular leaders from the Turkish military, leading to en masse resignations in protests. By expelling secularists and promoting Islamists to high ranks, he ended the secular regime in the military. The military was no more a unified secular institution—and so could no longer serve as the bulwark of liberal democracy in Turkey.
There was an attempted coup in 2016, but it failed. Accounts vary, but it seems that the coup was a sincere attempt to oust Erdoğan; he found out in advance and decided to let the coup proceed so that he could take advantage of the crisis. It gave him an excuse to crack down on the opposition. His government arrested 80,000 people and purged 150,000 government workers. It was this crisis that also allowed him to push through his radical remaking of the Turkish constitution.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The end of democracy in Turkey has led to problems for the United States—practical problems, not just moral objections to Erdoğan’s illiberalism. Turkey is aligning itself more closely with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. This is a problem of its own, but what makes it worse is that Turkey is a NATO member and has access to key NATO secrets and weapons. The Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile system it tested last week illustrates the problem. This system is not compatible with NATO weapons. One suspicion is that Erdoğan purchased it precisely for this purpose: to have in place a military system that only his most trusted military officers can control. Integrating it with the rest of Turkish military equipment—including NATO systems—risks the exposure of American and NATO secrets to Russia.
The problems don’t stop here. Turkey has a large Kurdish population—about 19 percent of the country’s total population of 82 million, a percentage projected by demographers to rise—and much of that population is secessionist and hostile to the central government. The Workers’ Party (PKK), a Kurdish group, has been conducting terror attacks against the Turkish government for decades and has been designated by many governments, including the U.S. government, as a terrorist organization. However, PKK’s affiliate organization in Syria, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), is not a terrorist entity; it has been an ally for the United States during the Syrian Civil War and the anti-Islamic State Operation Inherent Resolve in Syria. The Turkish government has attacking the YPG anyway—because terrorism is not the real difference between Turkey and Kurds; Kurdish nationalism is. This was a major source of drama when, last year, President Trump gave a green light to Turkey to enter Syria and bulldoze the YPG and Kurdish civilians.
And Turkey really does not have an issue with terrorism per se. In fact, even though the United States has not formally designed it as such, Turkey is a state sponsor of terrorism. According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, Turkey, along with Qatar, has supported the Levant Victory Front (aka Jabahat Fatah al-Sham, formerly al-Nusra Front), a jihadi Salafist terror group that is al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria. Turkey has also provided support and care for Islamic State fighters in Syria. And Turkey is a supporter of Hamas, the terrorist organization that occupies the Gaza Strip and routinely targets Israeli civilians.
Turkey’s support for Islamism in the region is partially strategic against common enemies, but it is also ideological. Just like Putin, Erdoğan is revanchist. Putin wants to resurrect the Soviet empire; Erdoğan wants to revive the Ottoman Empire and make it the center of the Islamic world. Erdoğan’s support for Islamists at home and in neighboring countries, of course, stands opposed to the U.S. objective of combating Islamism in the region.
Turkey’s relationship with Russia is complicated. Historical grievances, back to the Ottoman-Tsarist era, have kept the two countries from becoming too close. They are rather frenemies. But they are increasingly allied in opposing the U.S.-led liberal international order.
Meanwhile, Turkey has been actively undermining U.S. efforts around the world. It has been helping Iran to evade U.S. sanctions. And it is tightening ties with China.
How can all of this be squared with Turkey’s formal relationship with the United States—as a treaty ally and a member of NATO?
NATO, it must be noted up front, does not have an expulsion mechanism, and legal opinion as to whether expulsion is even possible is unsettled. Even if there were an expulsion mechanism, simply expelling Turkey would create a headache over Turkey’s access to the NATO infrastructure in Turkey and American-built systems that Turkey has purchased, risking their exposure to Russia and China. Any punitive action against Turkey could worsen that risk.
But whether or not expulsion from NATO makes sense, there needs to be some kind of course correction in U.S. relations with Turkey. That course correction must begin with two admissions. First, the problem with Turkey is that it has turned to a regime with a fundamentally different vision than that of the United States. Second, three administrations’ diplomatic engagement with Turkey has not improved the problem—and if Bush, Obama, and Trump, with their very different styles, failed to find a resolution, it’s hard to see how a Biden administration that doesn’t try something new will see results any different.
Ultimately, the solution to the problem in Turkey is restoring Turkish democracy and ending Erdoğan’s increasingly Islamist and autocratic rule. With a good strategy, Turkish democracy can be revived if Erdoğan is removed, but the clock is ticking. Once Erdoğan completes his domestic project and institutionalizes a regime that can survive independent from him, all bets will be off.


thebulwark--2020-10-23--Trump Doesn’t Poop Pants; “Wins” Debate

Trump Doesn’t Poop Pants; “Wins” Debate

Watching the final presidential debate , I couldn ’ t get Jane Coaston ’ s latest piece out of my head : Donald Trump is extremely online and his campaign only makes sense if you , too , are extremely online .
Which is to say that if you read Breitbart every day , and have Conservative Treehouse bookmarked , and scroll through Facebook MAGA groups whenever you have a spare 30 seconds—then you probably thought that Trump ’ s performance in Nashville was brilliant .
He didn ’ t shout !
He didn ’ t interrupt !
It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the perspective of the extremely online—Trump was disciplined and focused .
He hit Joe Biden over and over about Burisma and the mayor of Moscow and China and millions of dollars for this guy and billions of dollars for that guy and was such a surgeon that he didn ’ t even say “ Hunter.
” Instead , he said “ your son ” to hammer home how corrupt the Biden family is .
And if you ’ re not extremely online ?
Then you spent the first 30 minutes of the debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guy talking about ?
I don ’ t know how you ’ re supposed to score this debate .
Donald Trump talked about all of the Hunter Biden conspiracy theory stuff .
He lied , constantly , about almost everything .
I just want to give you a flavor , because it started with literally his first sentence .
Trump claimed that the projections for COVID deaths in America were 2.2 million dead , so the 220,000 dead so far show how well he ’ s handled the pandemic .
Trump claimed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would just “ go away.
” Trump claimed Biden has houses all over the world .
Trump claimed that the bailout package for American farmers was paid for by China .
Trump claimed that Obama wanted to meet with Kim Jong-un , but that Kim refused to meet with him .
These are just a thimbleful of the lies—and I ’ m not even talking about the normal political lies , like Trump ’ s dubious insistence that Biden secretly , in his heart of hearts , wants to eliminate private health insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laugh-out-loud ridiculous .
I mean , honestly , which of these is funnier ?
Trump insisting that he never said that he takes no responsibility for what has happened with COVID : Or Trump saying—twice !
— “ I am the least racist person in this room.
” But on the other hand , here is a list of things Donald Trump didn ’ t do : By the standards of the Trump presidency , this is a win ?
I ’ m Ron Burgundy ?
As for Biden , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his performance , too .
Biden waged an actual political debate .
He held to the minimal standards of truth that are common to debates .
He tried to talk about issues that—if you believe the polls—voters say matter to them : health care and the coronavirus .
There were sections where Biden was crisp and sections where he was wobbly .
He was sluggish in the last 30 minutes .
So if you believe that a lot of undecided voters were making up their minds based on a discussion of climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final debate on October 22 , then maybe that was a problem .
So who won ?
Writing immediately after the first debate , I thought that it had basically been a Rorschach test : Trump lovers loved it and Trump haters hated it .
But I was wrong .
All of the polling showed that the debate was a disaster for Trump .
Looking at this debate in the first flush it strikes me the same way : a Rorschach test .
I have no doubt that Trump ’ s collaborators are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reed on which to hang their comeback story .
“ It was his big moment !
He was so disciplined !
He prosecuted the Hunter Biden case !
” Biden ’ s people will say , not unreasonably , that he was sharper tonight than he was in the first debate .
But if we ’ re headed to more than 144 million votes being cast , then none of it will matter .
Because the race is already over .

Watching the final presidential debate, I couldn’t get Jane Coaston’s latest piece out of my head: Donald Trump is extremely online and his campaign only makes sense if you, too, are extremely online.
Which is to say that if you read Breitbart every day, and have Conservative Treehouse bookmarked, and scroll through Facebook MAGA groups whenever you have a spare 30 seconds—then you probably thought that Trump’s performance in Nashville was brilliant.
He didn’t shout! He didn’t interrupt! It was a New ToneTM!
And most important—from the perspective of the extremely online—Trump was disciplined and focused. He hit Joe Biden over and over about Burisma and the mayor of Moscow and China and millions of dollars for this guy and billions of dollars for that guy and was such a surgeon that he didn’t even say “Hunter.” Instead, he said “your son” to hammer home how corrupt the Biden family is.
And if you’re not extremely online?
Then you spent the first 30 minutes of the debate thinking, What the fork is this guy talking about?
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
I don’t know how you’re supposed to score this debate.
Donald Trump talked about all of the Hunter Biden conspiracy theory stuff. He lied, constantly, about almost everything. I just want to give you a flavor, because it started with literally his first sentence.
Trump claimed that the projections for COVID deaths in America were 2.2 million dead, so the 220,000 dead so far show how well he’s handled the pandemic.
Trump's first sentence is false. 2.2 million people were not "expected to die." That was an estimate for *what would happen if no government or person in the US took any mitigation efforts at all.* An extreme-worst-case scenario. — Daniel Dale (@ddale8) October 23, 2020
Trump claimed that it was Anthony Fauci who said COVID would just “go away.”
Fauci did not say the virus would "go away soon." Fauci did say, for example in February, that people could keep going about their lives. But he always cautioned that conditions could change quickly and the virus was a threat. Trump has invented quotes from Fauci for months. — Daniel Dale (@ddale8) October 23, 2020
Trump claimed Biden has houses all over the world.
Biden has two houses: a Wilmington, Delaware house on a lot he bought for $350,000 in 1996, and a vacation house in Delaware he bought for $2.7 million in 2017, after he signed his lucrative post-VP book deal. — Daniel Dale (@ddale8) October 23, 2020
Trump claimed that the bailout package for American farmers was paid for by China.
China is not paying the billions in tariff money Trump has given to farmers. That money comes from American taxpayers, as Biden correctly responded. — Daniel Dale (@ddale8) October 23, 2020
Trump claimed that Obama wanted to meet with Kim Jong-un, but that Kim refused to meet with him.
Obama never actually sought to meet with Kim Jong Un. Trump has repeated this false claim over and over. https://t.co/SwiK1tentb — Daniel Dale (@ddale8) October 23, 2020
These are just a thimbleful of the lies—and I’m not even talking about the normal political lies, like Trump’s dubious insistence that Biden secretly, in his heart of hearts, wants to eliminate private health insurance.
And he said stuff that was laugh-out-loud ridiculous. I mean, honestly, which of these is funnier? Trump insisting that he never said that he takes no responsibility for what has happened with COVID:
President Trump says he doesn't take responsibility for coronavirus testing lag
Watch this video on YouTube
Or Trump saying—twice!—“I am the least racist person in this room.”
President Donald Trump On Charlottesville: You Had Very Fine People, On Both Sides | CNBC
Watch this video on YouTube
But on the other hand, here is a list of things Donald Trump didn’t do:
Praise the Proud Boys
Defend QAnon
Call scientists idiots
Interrupt Biden and the moderator 71 times
By the standards of the Trump presidency, this is a win? I’m Ron Burgundy?
As for Biden, it’s hard to know what to say about his performance, too.
Biden waged an actual political debate. He held to the minimal standards of truth that are common to debates. He tried to talk about issues that—if you believe the polls—voters say matter to them: health care and the coronavirus.
There were sections where Biden was crisp and sections where he was wobbly. He was sluggish in the last 30 minutes. So if you believe that a lot of undecided voters were making up their minds based on a discussion of climate change in the last 30 minutes of the final debate on October 22, then maybe that was a problem.
So who won? Writing immediately after the first debate, I thought that it had basically been a Rorschach test: Trump lovers loved it and Trump haters hated it. But I was wrong. All of the polling showed that the debate was a disaster for Trump.
Looking at this debate in the first flush it strikes me the same way: a Rorschach test.
I have no doubt that Trump’s collaborators are going to use this debate as the reed on which to hang their comeback story. “It was his big moment! He was so disciplined! He prosecuted the Hunter Biden case!”
Biden’s people will say, not unreasonably, that he was sharper tonight than he was in the first debate.
But if we’re headed to more than 144 million votes being cast, then none of it will matter. Because the race is already over.


thebulwark--2020-10-23--Trump’s “Unfair” Closing Argument

Trump’s “Unfair” Closing Argument

Under President Trump , more than 223,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus .
At least 545 children were forcibly orphaned at the border by Trump ’ s Department of Homeland Security .
Millions of Americans have lost their jobs , are unable to send their children to school or daycare , and are wondering when it will ever be safe to gather with friends and family again .
And , President Trump ’ s closing message in the final presidential debate was clear : “ It ’ s not my fault.
” He wants everyone to know how unfairly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No president should ever have to go through what I went through , ” he complained .
“ I was put through a phony witch hunt , ” he lamented .
“ I get treated very badly by the IRS , very unfairly , ” he whined .
The unfairness of his life as president was a constant refrain .
In fact , over the evening , the only sympathy he bothered to express was for himself .
He didn ’ t have a shred of concern for the migrant children his administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , he said their parents were “ bad people ” who “ used them to get into our country.
” “ They are so well taken care of , ” he said .
He clearly never bothered to listen to their screams .
If he was looking for anything in this debate , it was more family separation—this time between Joe Biden and his son .
The only thing Trump really wanted to talk about was his baseless smear campaign against the Bidens , accusing them of unethically profiting off government service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to disown his son as easily as Trump disowned any responsibility for the 545 children .
Meanwhile , it must be noted , Trump ’ s children , spouses , and an ex-Fox News girlfriend remain safely ensconced in their various White House positions and campaign roles .
They enjoy a life of utterly decadent nepotistic privilege never before flaunted in American political life .
Ivanka , Jared , Don Jr. , Kimberly , Eric , Lara , and Tiffany will never see the inside of a cage .
They ’ ll never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They ’ ll never know what it ’ s like never see their grandmother , or child , again because of President Trump ’ s heinous actions .
So , yes , maybe Donald Trump is right .
There is something about all this that ’ s grossly unfair .
And it is a family affair .

Under President Trump, more than 223,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus. At least 545 children were forcibly orphaned at the border by Trump’s Department of Homeland Security. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, are unable to send their children to school or daycare, and are wondering when it will ever be safe to gather with friends and family again.
And, President Trump’s closing message in the final presidential debate was clear: “It’s not my fault.” He wants everyone to know how unfairly he’s been treated.
“No president should ever have to go through what I went through,” he complained.
“I was put through a phony witch hunt,” he lamented.
“I get treated very badly by the IRS, very unfairly,” he whined.
The unfairness of his life as president was a constant refrain. In fact, over the evening, the only sympathy he bothered to express was for himself.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
He didn’t have a shred of concern for the migrant children his administration effectively kidnapped from their parents. In fact, he said their parents were “bad people” who “used them to get into our country.”
“They are so well taken care of,” he said.
He clearly never bothered to listen to their screams.
If he was looking for anything in this debate, it was more family separation—this time between Joe Biden and his son. The only thing Trump really wanted to talk about was his baseless smear campaign against the Bidens, accusing them of unethically profiting off government service. It was like he wanted Biden to disown his son as easily as Trump disowned any responsibility for the 545 children.
Meanwhile, it must be noted, Trump’s children, spouses, and an ex-Fox News girlfriend remain safely ensconced in their various White House positions and campaign roles.
They enjoy a life of utterly decadent nepotistic privilege never before flaunted in American political life.
Ivanka, Jared, Don Jr., Kimberly, Eric, Lara, and Tiffany will never see the inside of a cage. They’ll never lose a day’s work. They’ll never know what it’s like never see their grandmother, or child, again because of President Trump’s heinous actions.
So, yes, maybe Donald Trump is right.
There is something about all this that’s grossly unfair. And it is a family affair.


thebulwark--2020-10-25--Why Christians Should Dump Trump

Why Christians Should Dump Trump

It ’ s well known that conservative Christians are among Donald Trump ’ s strongest supporters .
If all you knew about me was where I ’ ve worked , you ’ d probably assume that I ’ m in the Trump camp too .
I spent nearly three decades with social-conservative organizations , the lion ’ s share at one of the most prominent evangelical groups—Focus on the Family , founded by James Dobson .
As a writer and sometime-editor , I worked for Focus for more than 20 years , first as a staffer ( 1997-2003 ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of what Focus does isn ’ t political , what I did was : I worked for the public-policy department , mainly for its magazine , Citizen ( canceled in late 2018 ) .
So yes , I ’ m a conservative Christian , albeit not an evangelical like most of my former colleagues .
( I ’ m a Missouri Synod Lutheran—different theology , but similar views on many social issues . )
Yes , I strongly support pro-life , pro-religious liberty causes .
Yes , the Trump administration has done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judges , taken some positions in court , enacted some executive-branch policies .
But no , I don ’ t support Donald Trump .
Never have , never will .
The price is far , far too high .
The reasons why—well , where to start ?
More than that , where to stop ?
Because with Trump , it never stops .
The torrential lying and gaslighting .
The pathological narcissism .
The pettiness , bullying , and cruelty .
The Twitter tantrums and schoolyard name-calling .
The corruption and abuse of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assaults on institutions and standards across government and culture .
The admiration and emulation of dictators .
The derogation of public servants , statesmen , and heroes .
The elevation of cranks , crooks , and clowns .
The bizarre rants and conspiracy-mongering .
The shameless appeals to the ugliest instincts .
The blatant racism .
The staggering ineptitude .
The sheer stupidity .
The .
.
.
okay , you get the point .
Any of Trump ’ s vices by itself could be disqualifying for office .
Trump has all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s just no universe where I can imagine getting behind someone like that .
I ’ ve got more company than you might think .
I know a fair number of Christians—many of them people I ’ ve worked with—who are appalled by Trump .
I find them without really searching .
Usually we discover one another in casual conversation : Something Trump said or did will come up , and one of us can ’ t contain his dismay or disgust ( even if it ’ s just a sigh or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up on it , and soon we ’ re bonding , each of us thankful to find another kindred spirit .
One reason our numbers remain somewhat hidden is that some of us have chosen to stay low-profile .
Another reason is that we don ’ t have high-visibility media platforms like those of the major Christian organizations .
Even those of us who work for such groups are ( in my experience ) more common at the middle and rank-and-file levels than at the top : We ’ re not the ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , magazines , and websites .
We ’ re here : We just can ’ t get a good idea how many of us are here .
However many there are , though , it ’ s safe to say we ’ re a minority in my circles .
I certainly know more Trump supporters than opponents .
I ’ ve had many conversations with them .
Or maybe I should say I ’ ve had the same conversation with many of them .
Okay , I exaggerate .
Not every Trump supporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enthusiasm for him : Some are rah-rah , others more reluctant .
The latter will concede some faults in him , even express exasperation with him .
( “ I wish he could just say something right , ” one friend said recently . )
But sooner or later , when I press my case against Trump , I always get the same answer : But the Democrats .
That ’ s their eternal bottom line .
No matter what this president does , no matter how indefensible , the greatest dangers they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How can I fail to back Trump , they wonder , with those threats looming ?
The closer Nov. 3 comes , the more urgently some of them want to know .
Well , I see dangers on the left too .
Just not only on the left .
We can ’ t afford ideological tunnel vision .
There also are dangers on the right , like a white-identity politics that ’ s heavy on grievance , resentment , and fear .
And there are dangers that don ’ t fit on our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is ( say ) an utterly amoral , unstable , incompetent , insecure egomaniac , then he ’ s just got to go .
Likewise if he acts like an autocrat , a thug or a criminal .
Or if he ’ s beholden to hostile foreign powers .
Or if he tramples the constitutional boundaries of his office , undermines basic norms and institutions , shreds the social fabric , poisons civil discourse , promotes tribalism and sets Americans at each other ’ s throats .
He ’ s .
Got .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to minimize my differences with Democrats .
Those are serious and often deep .
It ’ s a measure of Trump ’ s all-around awfulness that it overrides those differences for me , and does so overwhelmingly .
I ’ ve found that “ but the Democrats ” arguments don ’ t make me feel even a slight tug in Trump ’ s direction .
If anything , they make me feel the reverse .
The prospect of Democrats in power does make me feel a more urgent need for an alternative , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not—decent , honorable , uplifting , ennobling .
( Think Philippians 4:8 . )
It makes me feel a more urgent need to reject Trump and Trumpism—emphatically and publicly .
In part , this is simply a matter of moral integrity .
We ’ ve seen a lot of Christians making a lot of excuses for Trump over the past few years .
We ’ ve seen them twist themselves into knots to avoid facing who he clearly is .
We ’ ve seen them jettison one long-proclaimed standard after another to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve seen them resort to denial , downplaying , and deflection .
We ’ ve seen them deploy and distort Scripture in Trump ’ s defense as they ’ d never dream of doing for a Democrat .
( To cite the obvious example : If this had been Bill Clinton .
.
.
. )
This is just sad .
Christians who spent decades decrying America ’ s turn toward moral relativism are the last people who should go down this road .
We know better .
When we do it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of political convenience—that changes us .
It erodes our character , both individually and corporately .
Besides our own moral integrity , though , there ’ s another consideration that deserves more attention than it gets .
Rejecting Trump is also a matter of moral credibility .
This country badly needs credible conservative voices—but more than that , it badly needs credible Christian voices .
It will have neither to the extent that conservatives and Christians are broadly identified with support for Trump .
People won ’ t take us seriously .
Worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the same reasons they recoil against him .
Who can blame them ?
After all : How are they to believe we care about children and families when Trump intentionally rips children away from migrant and refugee families ?
How are they to believe we care about women when Trump brags about getting away with sexual assault and mocks the appearance of some of his accusers , claiming they ’ re not attractive enough for him to molest ?
How are they to believe we care about fighting racism when Trump panders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birtherism to Charlottesville to telling his nonwhite critics to “ go back where they came from ” ?
How are they to believe we care about the rule of law when Trump so aggressively flouts it—encouraging violent vigilantes and self-styled militias , usurping powers , blocking due process , desperately hiding his finances both from the public and from prosecutors ?
How are they to believe we care about national security when Trump regularly sides with Vladimir Putin over our national security professionals ?
How are they to believe we care about freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump acts like an aspiring autocrat at home and cozies up to established autocrats abroad—even as he shows open antipathy toward our democratic allies ?
How are they to believe we care about virtues of any sort—love , compassion , humility , service over self , basic decency , you name it—when Trump so persistently embodies the opposite ?
As one father ( a Republican ) put it in 2016 , “ Trump is everything I teach my sons not to be.
” Those words have stuck with me .
My Dad would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can just hear him now .
That ’ s the kind of comprehensive revulsion Trump provokes .
He repels across ideological and religious lines .
But this has ideological and religious consequences .
Trump ’ s toxicity inevitably spills over onto the people who back him and the things they believe .
Millions of other people—not hard leftists or angry atheists , just regular folk—have a visceral reaction : “ If that ’ s what it means to be a conservative , a ‘ pro-lifer , ’ a Christian , I want no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good time to think about the early church .
New Testament believers did what they could to protect their reputation , lest their behavior discredit their faith .
They faced persecution simply for being Christians—for professing and living by their convictions .
Jesus had warned them about this and blessed them for suffering on His account .
But they sought to avoid alienating people for other , less commendable reasons .
They were winsome to non-believers .
They held their leaders to high standards , including being “ well thought of by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disgrace.
” They did good works partly to attract others to their faith .
As they did , so should we .
By all means , hold to the convictions of our faith in a culture that ’ s loath to tolerate some of them .
By all means , defend ourselves when our motives are attacked ( as “ hate ” or various “ phobias ” ) or when we face harassment ( sometimes by our own government : Christian legal-defense groups seldom lack work ) .
It ’ s right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state seeks to force us to act against them .
But it ’ s folly for us to act in ways that lend credence to our accusers .
And in today ’ s context , that applies to more than just how we act in our personal lives .
It also applies to the public figures we choose to support , and how they act .
Which brings us back to you-know-who .
It ’ s not enough for us to behave well individually if we collectively support someone who behaves like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re not motivated by hate and fear if we tie ourselves to someone who traffics in both—someone who invites the worst elements of society to come out and play ?
How many will believe we are motivated by conscience if we rally behind someone who ’ s devoid of one ?
What kind of Christian witness is that to the world ?
In short , how much do our political allegiances damage the faith that we ’ re supposed to be spreading ?
In the end , this might be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
There ’ s no shortage of others .
Yes , he ’ s bad for our society in so many ways .
Yes , he ’ s bad for the very causes some of us see as reasons to support him .
Above all , though , he ’ s bad for the cause of Christ—in ways more destructive than an army of avowed enemies could ever be .
From a Christian ’ s perspective , nothing should matter more than that .
And if something does—like defeating Democrats at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re falling into the devil ’ s trap .
In The Screwtape Letters , C.S .
Lewis had some things to say about the spiritual perils of politicized Christianity—how factionalism and partisanship can skew our priorities .
See for yourself in chapter 7 : Like most things Lewis wrote , it ’ s worth the time .
I know the partisan temptation well : I ’ ve felt it often enough , particularly when I was a young man .
And in my line of work , I also know the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues that you lose sight of the big picture .
Breaking away from those mindsets is a long-term process that takes conscious effort .
But break away we must .
If the Donald Trump experience doesn ’ t motivate us to do it , I don ’ t know what will .

It’s well known that conservative Christians are among Donald Trump’s strongest supporters. If all you knew about me was where I’ve worked, you’d probably assume that I’m in the Trump camp too.
I spent nearly three decades with social-conservative organizations, the lion’s share at one of the most prominent evangelical groups—Focus on the Family, founded by James Dobson. As a writer and sometime-editor, I worked for Focus for more than 20 years, first as a staffer (1997-2003), then as a regular contractor. Although most of what Focus does isn’t political, what I did was: I worked for the public-policy department, mainly for its magazine, Citizen (canceled in late 2018).
So yes, I’m a conservative Christian, albeit not an evangelical like most of my former colleagues. (I’m a Missouri Synod Lutheran—different theology, but similar views on many social issues.) Yes, I strongly support pro-life, pro-religious liberty causes. Yes, the Trump administration has done some things to help those causes—appointed some judges, taken some positions in court, enacted some executive-branch policies.
But no, I don’t support Donald Trump. Never have, never will. The price is far, far too high.
The reasons why—well, where to start? More than that, where to stop? Because with Trump, it never stops. The torrential lying and gaslighting. The pathological narcissism. The pettiness, bullying, and cruelty. The Twitter tantrums and schoolyard name-calling. The corruption and abuse of public power for private interests. The assaults on institutions and standards across government and culture. The admiration and emulation of dictators. The derogation of public servants, statesmen, and heroes. The elevation of cranks, crooks, and clowns. The bizarre rants and conspiracy-mongering. The shameless appeals to the ugliest instincts. The blatant racism. The staggering ineptitude. The sheer stupidity. The . . . okay, you get the point.
Any of Trump’s vices by itself could be disqualifying for office. Trump has all of them, and on steroids. There’s just no universe where I can imagine getting behind someone like that.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
I’ve got more company than you might think. I know a fair number of Christians—many of them people I’ve worked with—who are appalled by Trump. I find them without really searching. Usually we discover one another in casual conversation: Something Trump said or did will come up, and one of us can’t contain his dismay or disgust (even if it’s just a sigh or a groan), the other picks up on it, and soon we’re bonding, each of us thankful to find another kindred spirit.
One reason our numbers remain somewhat hidden is that some of us have chosen to stay low-profile. Another reason is that we don’t have high-visibility media platforms like those of the major Christian organizations. Even those of us who work for such groups are (in my experience) more common at the middle and rank-and-file levels than at the top: We’re not the ones who choose the content of the broadcasts, magazines, and websites. We’re here: We just can’t get a good idea how many of us are here.
However many there are, though, it’s safe to say we’re a minority in my circles. I certainly know more Trump supporters than opponents. I’ve had many conversations with them. Or maybe I should say I’ve had the same conversation with many of them.
Okay, I exaggerate. Not every Trump supporter I know has the same level of enthusiasm for him: Some are rah-rah, others more reluctant. The latter will concede some faults in him, even express exasperation with him. (“I wish he could just say something right,” one friend said recently.) But sooner or later, when I press my case against Trump, I always get the same answer: But the Democrats.
That’s their eternal bottom line. No matter what this president does, no matter how indefensible, the greatest dangers they see always come from the left. How can I fail to back Trump, they wonder, with those threats looming? The closer Nov. 3 comes, the more urgently some of them want to know.
Well, I see dangers on the left too. Just not only on the left. We can’t afford ideological tunnel vision. There also are dangers on the right, like a white-identity politics that’s heavy on grievance, resentment, and fear. And there are dangers that don’t fit on our standard left-right spectrum. If a president is (say) an utterly amoral, unstable, incompetent, insecure egomaniac, then he’s just got to go. Likewise if he acts like an autocrat, a thug or a criminal. Or if he’s beholden to hostile foreign powers. Or if he tramples the constitutional boundaries of his office, undermines basic norms and institutions, shreds the social fabric, poisons civil discourse, promotes tribalism and sets Americans at each other’s throats. He’s. Got. To. Go.
This is not to minimize my differences with Democrats. Those are serious and often deep. It’s a measure of Trump’s all-around awfulness that it overrides those differences for me, and does so overwhelmingly. I’ve found that “but the Democrats” arguments don’t make me feel even a slight tug in Trump’s direction. If anything, they make me feel the reverse. The prospect of Democrats in power does make me feel a more urgent need for an alternative, but one that’s everything Trump is not—decent, honorable, uplifting, ennobling. (Think Philippians 4:8.) It makes me feel a more urgent need to reject Trump and Trumpism—emphatically and publicly.
In part, this is simply a matter of moral integrity. We’ve seen a lot of Christians making a lot of excuses for Trump over the past few years. We’ve seen them twist themselves into knots to avoid facing who he clearly is. We’ve seen them jettison one long-proclaimed standard after another to let him off the hook. We’ve seen them resort to denial, downplaying, and deflection. We’ve seen them deploy and distort Scripture in Trump’s defense as they’d never dream of doing for a Democrat. (To cite the obvious example: If this had been Bill Clinton. . . .)
This is just sad. Christians who spent decades decrying America’s turn toward moral relativism are the last people who should go down this road. We know better. When we do it anyway—sacrificing our professed principles on the altar of political convenience—that changes us. It erodes our character, both individually and corporately.
Besides our own moral integrity, though, there’s another consideration that deserves more attention than it gets. Rejecting Trump is also a matter of moral credibility. This country badly needs credible conservative voices—but more than that, it badly needs credible Christian voices. It will have neither to the extent that conservatives and Christians are broadly identified with support for Trump. People won’t take us seriously. Worse, they’ll recoil against us for the same reasons they recoil against him.
Who can blame them? After all:
How are they to believe we care about children and families when Trump intentionally rips children away from migrant and refugee families?
How are they to believe we care about women when Trump brags about getting away with sexual assault and mocks the appearance of some of his accusers, claiming they’re not attractive enough for him to molest?
How are they to believe we care about fighting racism when Trump panders to it so frequently, from pushing birtherism to Charlottesville to telling his nonwhite critics to “go back where they came from”?
How are they to believe we care about the rule of law when Trump so aggressively flouts it—encouraging violent vigilantes and self-styled militias, usurping powers, blocking due process, desperately hiding his finances both from the public and from prosecutors?
How are they to believe we care about national security when Trump regularly sides with Vladimir Putin over our national security professionals?
How are they to believe we care about freedom, democracy, and human rights when Trump acts like an aspiring autocrat at home and cozies up to established autocrats abroad—even as he shows open antipathy toward our democratic allies?
How are they to believe we care about virtues of any sort—love, compassion, humility, service over self, basic decency, you name it—when Trump so persistently embodies the opposite? As one father (a Republican) put it in 2016, “Trump is everything I teach my sons not to be.” Those words have stuck with me. My Dad would have said the same thing; I can just hear him now.
That’s the kind of comprehensive revulsion Trump provokes. He repels across ideological and religious lines. But this has ideological and religious consequences. Trump’s toxicity inevitably spills over onto the people who back him and the things they believe. Millions of other people—not hard leftists or angry atheists, just regular folk—have a visceral reaction: “If that’s what it means to be a conservative, a ‘pro-lifer,’ a Christian, I want no part of it.”
This would be a good time to think about the early church. New Testament believers did what they could to protect their reputation, lest their behavior discredit their faith. They faced persecution simply for being Christians—for professing and living by their convictions. Jesus had warned them about this and blessed them for suffering on His account. But they sought to avoid alienating people for other, less commendable reasons. They were winsome to non-believers. They held their leaders to high standards, including being “well thought of by outsiders” to avoid “falling into disgrace.” They did good works partly to attract others to their faith.
As they did, so should we. By all means, hold to the convictions of our faith in a culture that’s loath to tolerate some of them. By all means, defend ourselves when our motives are attacked (as “hate” or various “phobias”) or when we face harassment (sometimes by our own government: Christian legal-defense groups seldom lack work). It’s right to stand by our principles, especially when the state seeks to force us to act against them. But it’s folly for us to act in ways that lend credence to our accusers. And in today’s context, that applies to more than just how we act in our personal lives. It also applies to the public figures we choose to support, and how they act.
Which brings us back to you-know-who. It’s not enough for us to behave well individually if we collectively support someone who behaves like Trump. How many people will believe we’re not motivated by hate and fear if we tie ourselves to someone who traffics in both—someone who invites the worst elements of society to come out and play? How many will believe we are motivated by conscience if we rally behind someone who’s devoid of one? What kind of Christian witness is that to the world?
In short, how much do our political allegiances damage the faith that we’re supposed to be spreading?
In the end, this might be the most compelling reason for Christians to reject Trump. There’s no shortage of others. Yes, he’s bad for our society in so many ways. Yes, he’s bad for the very causes some of us see as reasons to support him. Above all, though, he’s bad for the cause of Christ—in ways more destructive than an army of avowed enemies could ever be.
From a Christian’s perspective, nothing should matter more than that. And if something does—like defeating Democrats at all times, at all costs—then I fear we’re falling into the devil’s trap. In The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis had some things to say about the spiritual perils of politicized Christianity—how factionalism and partisanship can skew our priorities. See for yourself in chapter 7: Like most things Lewis wrote, it’s worth the time.
I know the partisan temptation well: I’ve felt it often enough, particularly when I was a young man. And in my line of work, I also know the temptation to focus so heavily on certain issues that you lose sight of the big picture. Breaking away from those mindsets is a long-term process that takes conscious effort. But break away we must. If the Donald Trump experience doesn’t motivate us to do it, I don’t know what will.


thebulwark--2020-10-25--What We Can Learn from the Confusion About ‘Handmaids’

Amy Coney Barrett ’ s membership in the charismatic Catholic community People of Praise has received considerable attention since her Supreme Court nomination .
Some observers worry that it might have an “ inappropriate sway ” over her judicial decision-making .
In particular , many news outlets have noted that the group is known for what a Mother Jones article called “ the submissive role played by women , some of whom were called ‘ handmaids.
’ ” Though Margaret Atwood , the author of the 1985 novel The Handmaid ’ s Tale , has stated that her novel was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the narrative has stuck .
Here ’ s Marianne Williamson , the author and erstwhile Democratic gadfly candidate for the presidency : Meanwhile , on the right , people are defending Barrett ’ s faith .
A Federalist headline earlier this month read , “ How Strong Women Like Amy Coney Barrett Submit to Their Husbands With Joy.
” The article attempts to explain the verse in the Bible “ wives , submit to your husbands , ” as the male author addresses how men should be the head of the household .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ article , about which there is much that could be said , both its title and the optics of having a male writer explaining for a broader , secular readership the biblical teaching regarding wives submitting to their husbands are enough to make anybody—secular or Christian—shudder , as it perpetuates Christian stereotypes that women are oppressed and forced into submission but have been brainwashed to enjoy it .
What most of the dozens of articles about Amy Coney Barrett ’ s faith reveal is that secular and Christian Americans are speaking past one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ridiculous misunderstandings of one another .
Many Christians view verses such as Ephesians 5:22 as simply biblical and normal without taking the time to articulate to people who are not part of “ the club ” what they mean .
And from a secular perspective , there is little effort to truly understand what these words mean .
As New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet stated in a 2016 interview : “ We don ’ t get religion .
We don ’ t get the role of religion in people ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our society at least a little less fractious and polarized , non-Christians should take the time to understand what Christians mean , and Christians should take the time to understand how they sound to people of other faiths or no faith .
What , exactly , does it mean , then , for the man to be the head of the house in a Christian family ?
At least in the evangelical Christian family I grew up in , I can say it is a far cry from the stereotypes purported by Mother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a whiff of my mother being domineered and overruled by my father .
Nor was my dad sitting on the couch drinking beer and watching sports while my mom meekly served him in the kitchen .
Instead , I think of my parents treating each other with love and respect , co-captaining and leading the team that is our family .
My parents complement each other , each with their own strengths and weaknesses .
My family has a number of jokes regarding the biblical idea that “ the man should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dad often paraphrases a line from My Big Fat Greek Wedding : “ If the man is the head , then the woman is the neck , and she can turn the head whichever way she pleases.
” While it is indisputable that my dad has authority in our family , my mom does , too .
Indeed , with her master ’ s degree in public policy , she is not one to submit spinelessly or refuse to share her opinions—and she has plenty of opinions .
Many dinners she comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that day , poised to lead and debate with our family in discussion .
Though my mom does much of the cooking in my family , it is not because she is forced to by any Christian teachings or by my father .
She cooks because it ’ s her passion and her love language .
Besides , she loves her children and doesn ’ t want us to suffer from our dad ’ s cooking .
She consumes installments of Cook ’ s Illustrated and takes delight in whipping up everything from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and friends .
After dinner , especially during the summer and fall months , my mom is found sitting on the couch , sipping her wine , and watching her beloved Washington Nationals—while the rest of my family , led by my dad , washes the dishes .
This , at any rate , is how things worked in the family I was blessed to be raised in—and it ’ s what I hope for in a family of my own someday .
I understand , of course , that other families live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think differently about how to live out the Bible ’ s teachings .
But in a Christian marriage , submission calls first and foremost for a mutual obedience to Christ , where the husband and wife promise to submit to the Bible ’ s teachings together .
Each and every day , both my parents put the needs of the other before their own .
At times , submission entails my mom choosing not to overtly challenge my father , as she allows him to be the tiebreaker in an argument .
My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an equally difficult role , as he is commanded to love my mom to such an extent that he will lay down his life for his wife , “ as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.
” Christians and secular people sometimes miss something obvious : that they are using the same words to mean different things .
Understood in its original biblical context , the word “ submit ” is not a biblical mandate for spousal abuse , an excuse to rob women of their dignity or opinions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and subordinate their wives .
Instead , submission is to Christ first and foremost , and done out of genuine respect and love for one another .
And what of the term “ handmaid , ” which has been met with so much scorn as readers of Margaret Atwood ’ s novel or the recent Hulu adaptation of it have heard of its use by People of Praise ?
Again , there ’ s some basic confusion .
To Christians , the term “ handmaid ” doesn ’ t symbolize repressive servitude .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the annunciation of Jesus Christ when Mary promises to be a servant of the Lord .
Its use today gets at the idea that lots of people seek to further the work of the Kingdom of God .
Although People of Praise has stopped using the term—the group replaced “ handmaids ” with “ women leaders ” in 2017 , when the Hulu series premiered—during the four decades when the group did use the term , it referred to female leaders within the organization .
This is very different from the secular understanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person deprived of agency .
Non-Christians of course don ’ t have to like or agree with the teachings of Christianity—but as a bare minimum they should care to know enough to avoid wrongful caricatures .
Likewise , Christians should be careful about throwing around terms like “ submission ” or “ head of the family ” without a sensitivity toward how they may be misunderstood by non-Christians .
The garbled discussion arising from Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination should be a wake-up call for Americans : We too often speak past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficient effort to understand one another .

Amy Coney Barrett’s membership in the charismatic Catholic community People of Praise has received considerable attention since her Supreme Court nomination. Some observers worry that it might have an “inappropriate sway” over her judicial decision-making. In particular, many news outlets have noted that the group is known for what a Mother Jones article called “the submissive role played by women, some of whom were called ‘handmaids.’” Though Margaret Atwood, the author of the 1985 novel The Handmaid’s Tale, has stated that her novel was inspired by a different religious group, the narrative has stuck. Here’s Marianne Williamson, the author and erstwhile Democratic gadfly candidate for the presidency:
Amy Barrett being Catholic is a good thing; Joe Biden is a Catholic too. Republicans are trying to make it as though the Left is criticizing her Catholicism but it’s not true. It’s the repressive tenets of the “People of Praise” sect she belongs to that are genuinely concerning. — Marianne Williamson (@marwilliamson) September 27, 2020
Meanwhile, on the right, people are defending Barrett’s faith. A Federalist headline earlier this month read, “How Strong Women Like Amy Coney Barrett Submit to Their Husbands With Joy.” The article attempts to explain the verse in the Bible “wives, submit to your husbands,” as the male author addresses how men should be the head of the household. Even setting aside the substance of the article, about which there is much that could be said, both its title and the optics of having a male writer explaining for a broader, secular readership the biblical teaching regarding wives submitting to their husbands are enough to make anybody—secular or Christian—shudder, as it perpetuates Christian stereotypes that women are oppressed and forced into submission but have been brainwashed to enjoy it.
What most of the dozens of articles about Amy Coney Barrett’s faith reveal is that secular and Christian Americans are speaking past one another—indeed, at times they have borderline ridiculous misunderstandings of one another. Many Christians view verses such as Ephesians 5:22 as simply biblical and normal without taking the time to articulate to people who are not part of “the club” what they mean. And from a secular perspective, there is little effort to truly understand what these words mean. As New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet stated in a 2016 interview: “We don’t get religion. We don’t get the role of religion in people’s lives.” If we want to make our society at least a little less fractious and polarized, non-Christians should take the time to understand what Christians mean, and Christians should take the time to understand how they sound to people of other faiths or no faith.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
What, exactly, does it mean, then, for the man to be the head of the house in a Christian family? At least in the evangelical Christian family I grew up in, I can say it is a far cry from the stereotypes purported by Mother Jones and The Federalist. There was not a whiff of my mother being domineered and overruled by my father. Nor was my dad sitting on the couch drinking beer and watching sports while my mom meekly served him in the kitchen. Instead, I think of my parents treating each other with love and respect, co-captaining and leading the team that is our family. My parents complement each other, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.
My family has a number of jokes regarding the biblical idea that “the man should be the head of the family.” My dad often paraphrases a line from My Big Fat Greek Wedding: “If the man is the head, then the woman is the neck, and she can turn the head whichever way she pleases.” While it is indisputable that my dad has authority in our family, my mom does, too. Indeed, with her master’s degree in public policy, she is not one to submit spinelessly or refuse to share her opinions—and she has plenty of opinions. Many dinners she comes to the table with an article she read that day, poised to lead and debate with our family in discussion.
Though my mom does much of the cooking in my family, it is not because she is forced to by any Christian teachings or by my father. She cooks because it’s her passion and her love language. Besides, she loves her children and doesn’t want us to suffer from our dad’s cooking. She consumes installments of Cook’s Illustrated and takes delight in whipping up everything from chicken souvlaki to beignets for her family and friends. After dinner, especially during the summer and fall months, my mom is found sitting on the couch, sipping her wine, and watching her beloved Washington Nationals—while the rest of my family, led by my dad, washes the dishes.
This, at any rate, is how things worked in the family I was blessed to be raised in—and it’s what I hope for in a family of my own someday. I understand, of course, that other families live differently, and that some families may think differently about how to live out the Bible’s teachings. But in a Christian marriage, submission calls first and foremost for a mutual obedience to Christ, where the husband and wife promise to submit to the Bible’s teachings together. Each and every day, both my parents put the needs of the other before their own. At times, submission entails my mom choosing not to overtly challenge my father, as she allows him to be the tiebreaker in an argument. My dad, however, is tasked with an equally difficult role, as he is commanded to love my mom to such an extent that he will lay down his life for his wife, “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”
Christians and secular people sometimes miss something obvious: that they are using the same words to mean different things. Understood in its original biblical context, the word “submit” is not a biblical mandate for spousal abuse, an excuse to rob women of their dignity or opinions, or permission for men to dominate and subordinate their wives. Instead, submission is to Christ first and foremost, and done out of genuine respect and love for one another.
And what of the term “handmaid,” which has been met with so much scorn as readers of Margaret Atwood’s novel or the recent Hulu adaptation of it have heard of its use by People of Praise? Again, there’s some basic confusion. To Christians, the term “handmaid” doesn’t symbolize repressive servitude. Rather, it is a reference to the annunciation of Jesus Christ when Mary promises to be a servant of the Lord. Its use today gets at the idea that lots of people seek to further the work of the Kingdom of God. Although People of Praise has stopped using the term—the group replaced “handmaids” with “women leaders” in 2017, when the Hulu series premiered—during the four decades when the group did use the term, it referred to female leaders within the organization. This is very different from the secular understanding of the term, which suggests a person deprived of agency.
Non-Christians of course don’t have to like or agree with the teachings of Christianity—but as a bare minimum they should care to know enough to avoid wrongful caricatures. Likewise, Christians should be careful about throwing around terms like “submission” or “head of the family” without a sensitivity toward how they may be misunderstood by non-Christians. The garbled discussion arising from Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination should be a wake-up call for Americans: We too often speak past one another and do not make a sufficient effort to understand one another.