thebulwark--2020-06-18--Why Evangelicals Support Trump—and Why They Shouldn’t

[ This article is adapted from an essay that appears in The Spiritual Danger of Donald Trump : 30 Evangelical Christians on Justice , Truth , and Moral Integrity , edited by Ronald J. Sider and just released by Cascade Books , an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers . ]
When Donald Trump came down that escalator in 2015 , I had nothing but contempt for the man .
I had heard him a couple of times delivering political commentary on Fox News and soon learned to go to CNN or MSNBC as soon as he came on ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
I had heard of his show The Apprentice , which also did not inspire much respect for him .
I figured that he , like many nonpolitician presidential candidates , would be the candidate of the week for the Republicans and then we would get to the more serious candidates .
As his lead persisted in the Republican party through the winter early spring of 2016 , I became more worried .
I wanted two viable candidates for president .
I used my Facebook page to deride Trump and tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support him .
When he won the nomination , it was disheartening to think that one of the major political parties would have such an incompetent candidate .
I assumed he would lose but discouraged my Christian friends from voting for him .
I even placed articles in The Stream , a conservative Christian online magazine largely favorable to Trump , to discourage Christian support .
I knew my effort would have little influence , but I wanted to be able to tell my kids years later that I did my part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On election night I settled in to watch Hillary Clinton become president .
That prospect did not make me happy , as her many flaws were quite apparent .
But at least she was not Trump and overall , I felt the country was better off having her as president .
As I watched the returns at around 8 p.m. it began to dawn on me that Trump could become president .
Ashen faced , I told that to my wife , who stared at me in disbelief .
Until that moment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
About an hour later the possibility became reality and I knew that Donald Trump would be the next president of the United States .
I had hopes that perhaps Trump was elected president without outsized support from Christians .
That hope was dashed when I learned that a higher percentage of white evangelicals supported Trump than supported previous Republican presidential candidates .
I expected more white evangelicals to vote for Trump than Clinton as they are Republicans .
But for evangelicals to support Trump more than other Republican presidential candidates blew my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just happened .
I still wonder how a crude , incompetent , race-baiting sexist could win the presidency of our country .
Ultimately what I think happened was that Trump had spoken to needs among evangelicals that were not being addressed by other political candidates .
One of the most important issues can be seen in my research on Christianophobia—the unreasonable hatred or fear of Christians .
Many evangelical Christians see Trump as someone who will save them from Christianophobia .
And while I understand and respect the nature of these Christians ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump is not only not a solution to these issues but in the long run he will make things worse .
When the topic of Christianophobia comes up there are those who argue that it is merely Christians who have lost their privilege .
Yet is it a privilege to be able to obtain a job in academia free of religious bias ?
Is it a privilege to have religious leaders in student organizations who believe in their religion ?
The development of all-comers policies and the way they have been used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat to freedom of association .
Outside of academia there are episodes of a lay-pastor being fired from his position as a district health director due to his sermon and a fire chief being fired due to a Christian book he wrote .
It is more reasonable to see these events as rights , rather than privileges , being denied to certain Christians .
My own research shows that those with anti-Christian hatred tend to be white , wealthy , educated , and male .
They also tend to be politically progressive and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite powerful in cultural centers of our society such as academia , media , and entertainment .
Many Christians , especially conservative Christians , see evidence of Christianophobia in their lives yet see no attempt in our cultural institutions to document it .
It is the frustration that comes from this disconnect from their experiences—and the way it is not portrayed in the larger culture—that led some to Trump .
Indeed , when I talked to many of my friends who voted for Trump , one common phrase I heard was , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least he does not hate me and will leave me alone .
Clinton hates me and will not leave me alone.
” I want to say to my Christian friends , especially the evangelical ones who most support Trump : I hear you .
Christianophobia is real .
I have studied it and debated with those who do not believe it exists .
Trump has promised to protect Christians .
The seeking of political control is one way to try to deal with Christianophobia .
But it is the wrong way .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not know exactly what has led to the rise of anti-Christian attitudes , but we do know the arguments used to support it .
Many of those with such attitudes envision Christians as bigoted , intolerant , racist , unthinking , and crude .
These are also qualities that are tied , with good reason , to President Trump .
To have Christians seen as supportive of Trump is to reinforce some of the Christianophobic stereotypes .
Support of Trump will ironically reinforce many of the cultural stereotypes working against Christians in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that in the short term there are protections gained by Trump .
But that is shortsighted .
In the long term any legal protection gained because of Trump will be overturned by a culture that is more anti-Christian because of current evangelical support of Trump .
Let me deal with a couple of replies that I have encountered when presenting this argument .
One argument is that we should look at what President Trump is doing to the courts .
If there is one area where he has shown some degree of competence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the ability of Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to get them appointed .
It is presumed that these judges , when facing cases that touch on political issues that conservative Christians care about , will rule in a way that conservative Christians would like .
That presumption may be wrong , but let ’ s stipulate that President Trump has been good for those issues in the short term—and that since federal judges are appointed for a lifetime , the effect might last in the long term , too .
But even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If our culture changes so much to widely accept Christianophobia then those cultural sentiments will outlast those judges .
Eventually they will be replaced by judges who are more in line with those hostile sentiments .
All the achievements can be overturned just like the state political victories against same-sex marriage .
With a culture deeply ingrained with Christianophobia , it is uncertain if the changes brought about by judges and justices with less sympathy to Christians will ever be remedied if religious bigotry is accepted .
Trump ’ s judges and justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But our children and grandchildren will have to suffer the brunt of the hostility the support of Trump has generated .
Working on cultural change is the proper long-term play .
The second major pushback I receive is that those who hate Christians will continue to hate us regardless of whether we support Trump or not .
True .
Some people have such hatred in their hearts that nothing we do short of capitulating to all their political and social causes will satisfy them .
But thankfully , they do not make up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of folks do not hate or love Christians .
They live their lives not thinking much about Christians .
But when they see Christians massively supporting a race-baiting , bombastic , sexist , and sexually immoral president , they can naturally begin to think of Christians as hypocrites .
They can also become more open to Christianophobic arguments when frustrated by having a president with those qualities and blame Christians for putting him into office .
Whether we support Trump or not will not matter to those who already have high levels of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that animosity in those who previously had a neutral attitude towards Christians but are turned off by the vices of Trump .
It is a mistake to think everyone ’ s mind is made up about what they think of evangelicals .
There are many people who will still be influenced by the support evangelicals have given to Trump .
To deal with Christianophobia , we must challenge the cultural values emerging from this type of intolerance .
But in a very practical manner , evangelical support of Trump is making our culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ utilitarian reasons alone , Christians should not throw their support behind our current president .
But my argument is not limited to utilitarian concerns .
The way Christians have come to support Trump does not fit with a proper understanding of the Scriptures .
I acknowledge that I am not a trained theologian and so people may rightly argue with my interpretations .
But I am confident that the evidence for Christians to be cautious about putting too much faith in their political issues is very strong .
Any fair assessment of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children of Israel consistently comes back to the theme of relying on political figures instead of God .
From the very beginning of the formation of Israel , Jews were warned about seeking a king to be the solution to their problems .
And what were the problems that the Jews needed to address ?
They were a nation in the middle of other nations that did not like them .
The idea was that a king could fight for them and they were jealous of the kings in other nations .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not limited to recruiting Saul as their first king .
The children of Israel not only sought to rely on other Jews for the projection and leadership they wanted .
They also looked to powerful foreign nations for protection .
In other words , they believed more in the protection they could obtain from individuals who did not accept their God-given values than a God who has said he would protect them .
Sound familiar ?
I am not arguing that Christians should not get involved in politics .
Christians should feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as much as anyone else .
And there is nothing sinful about advocating for issues of life , religious freedom , and justice—quite to the contrary .
But when we become so loyal to a political party that we are afraid to correct the leaders of the party , then we are not merely participating in politics .
We are looking to politics to save us .
This explains not only the hesitation of many Christians to condemn some of the ugliness that comes from President Trump ’ s mouth , his constant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their surprising willingness to change their attitudes about moral values .
After the 2016 election , surveys showed that conservative Christians went from being the people who were most supportive of requiring moral political leaders to being those who least required such morality .
Efforts by Christians to placate President Trump suggest an undeserved level of loyalty .
I can not help but think that this type of placating and loyalty is due to a sense of desperation among conservative Christians .
In a society where they feel the effects of Christianophobia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political leader for protection .
That sentiment is humanly understandable , but it is not in keeping with biblical commands to not live in fear and to not prioritize human resources over God ’ s resources .
If we claim to have a power beyond what those outside of our faith enjoy , then we have to live it out .
Looking for political muscle just like any other special interest group is the opposite of living out that faith .
Trump and the Split among Christians Beyond connecting Christians to some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the danger of Trump is also the danger of division within the Christian church .
Trump is especially unpopular among young people and people of color .
There is evidence that even among evangelicals , younger persons are less likely to support Trump .
At a time where it has become more important for Christians to hang together and deal with anti-Christian attitudes , President Trump has created even more division .
To be sure , the division is our fault more than it is Trump ’ s fault .
The way some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has created a divisive situation considering the way he freely dehumanizes others .
It would not be fair to place the entire responsibility upon those defending Trump .
But it should not surprise us that a political leader who traffics in divisive rhetoric would have followers who spread division .
I have heard again and again that some Christians not only fail to critique the dehumanizing comments of Trump , but they also like him because of that “ tough man ” approach .
They often say that there is a need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that Trump ’ s hostility towards those progressives is a welcome change over other , more civil political leaders .
Let us admit that there are progressives who will mistreat Christians the first chance they get .
Even in that situation , Trump ’ s attitude is the opposite of how we , as Christians , are called to approach those progressives .
We are not to treat them with the same type of dehumanization that we perceive them willing to direct against us .
That does not mean we have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big difference between standing up for our own rights and seeking to destroy our political opponents by maligning them .
I fear that many of Trump ’ s evangelical supporters have brought this “ we are in a war ” perspective into their interactions with other Christians .
They are impatient with those of us who are not willing to sign up for this battle .
We are seen as traitors .
I have been accused of acting out of fear due to my opposition to Trump .
Unfortunately , I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the part of those who support Trump .
They are reacting out of fear because of what may happen if progressives take over our government .
They fear a loss of their rights and the passage of laws of which they disapprove .
Trump is seen as the solution to their fears .
And out of those fears , they often lash out at those of us who will not support him .
As such , while there is no doubt that at times Christians who oppose Trump have acted in ways that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evangelical Trump supporters feel pressure to force those who will not support him to join in their pro-Trump agenda .
Only when we can detach ourselves from this unholy alliance with our contentious president will we be able to turn down the temperature in this heated conflict and concentrate on building the Christian community we will need in a post-Christian world .
What to Do ?
To some degree the damage has already been done .
No matter what happens in 2020 , the image of Christians putting Trump into power in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be possible to limit the damage if we refuse to continue supporting him .
Perhaps rejecting Trump now will resonate with some individuals .
In the Doug Jones/Roy Moore Alabama Senate race in 2017 , there was a fear that Christians would overlook the problems connected to Moore and send him to the Senate .
Instead they stayed home .
They could not support Jones , but neither were they willing to back Moore .
That removed the potential of Moore being yet another cultural noose around our neck .
Perhaps with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump loss , we can lose some of the cultural baggage of the linking of Christians to Trump .
But we should not be naïve about that possibility either .
The damage may have already been done .
But perhaps even more troubling than the vote for Trump is the unwillingness of Christians to challenge him .
It is one thing to argue that we must vote for Trump because of the alternative .
There is a rational argument of selecting the lesser evil .
But there is no rational argument for once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to allow that evil to go unchecked .
We have already seen that Christians have altered their stance on the morality of leaders to suit Trump .
Perhaps most notably is the public statement of Tony Perkins about giving Trump a sexual “ mulligan.
” How much will we be willing to sully our reputation to protect Trump ?
But it is not only his moral failings that Christians are too eager to defend .
Too often I have encountered Christians who twist themselves in all sorts of knots in their efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I had one encounter with a leading Christian supporter of Trump who insisted that Trump does not engage in race-baiting .
When I pointed out that Trump had clearly lied about not knowing “ anything about ” David Duke and that he did this to pacify white nationalists , his response was that all politicians lie .
I could not believe what he had just argued .
Do politicians lie to make racists feel better ?
The denial of this person to see any problems with many of Trump ’ s race-baiting statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter what he says or does .
This must stop .
If Christians do not push back on the disturbing attributes of Trump , then we will own those attributes .
For example , if enough Christians accept the perceptions of the leader in the previous paragraph , then our faith will become known for not caring about the race-baiting statements of our president .
This will translate into Christians not caring about racism and people of color .
The argument that we must vote for Trump as the less-bad option will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we do not challenge Trump ’ s race-baiting .
Or let me put it this way .
Many conservative Christians accuse Democratic Christians of endorsing abortion because they vote for pro-choice candidates .
If those Christians stay silent on that issue , then they have a point .
But if Democratic Christians vote for Democrats despite abortion and make it plain that they opposed that plank of their political party , then they do not own the pro-choice label .
It is fairer to say that their vote is due to the reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overall political beliefs and they had to make the best of a bad situation .
Likewise , if you can not find it in yourself to not vote for Trump—although I really hope that you won ’ t vote for him—I would urge you to hold him accountable by becoming vocal about his dehumanizing , race-baiting , and sexism .
Too many evangelicals have supported Trump without condemning his vile speech and actions .
That failure tars our faith with his actions .
We dare not allow him to continue to poison the @ @ @ @ @

[This article is adapted from an essay that appears in The Spiritual Danger of Donald Trump: 30 Evangelical Christians on Justice, Truth, and Moral Integrity, edited by Ronald J. Sider and just released by Cascade Books, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers.]
When Donald Trump came down that escalator in 2015, I had nothing but contempt for the man. I had heard him a couple of times delivering political commentary on Fox News and soon learned to go to CNN or MSNBC as soon as he came on (I watch news across the political spectrum). I had heard of his show The Apprentice, which also did not inspire much respect for him. I figured that he, like many nonpolitician presidential candidates, would be the candidate of the week for the Republicans and then we would get to the more serious candidates.
As his lead persisted in the Republican party through the winter early spring of 2016, I became more worried. I wanted two viable candidates for president. I used my Facebook page to deride Trump and tried to convince some of my conservative friends not to support him. When he won the nomination, it was disheartening to think that one of the major political parties would have such an incompetent candidate. I assumed he would lose but discouraged my Christian friends from voting for him. I even placed articles in The Stream, a conservative Christian online magazine largely favorable to Trump, to discourage Christian support. I knew my effort would have little influence, but I wanted to be able to tell my kids years later that I did my part in stopping Trump from becoming president.
On election night I settled in to watch Hillary Clinton become president. That prospect did not make me happy, as her many flaws were quite apparent. But at least she was not Trump and overall, I felt the country was better off having her as president. As I watched the returns at around 8 p.m. it began to dawn on me that Trump could become president. Ashen faced, I told that to my wife, who stared at me in disbelief. Until that moment, I did not think he could win. About an hour later the possibility became reality and I knew that Donald Trump would be the next president of the United States.
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 had hopes that perhaps Trump was elected president without outsized support from Christians. That hope was dashed when I learned that a higher percentage of white evangelicals supported Trump than supported previous Republican presidential candidates. I expected more white evangelicals to vote for Trump than Clinton as they are Republicans. But for evangelicals to support Trump more than other Republican presidential candidates blew my mind. I did not know what just happened. I still wonder how a crude, incompetent, race-baiting sexist could win the presidency of our country.
Ultimately what I think happened was that Trump had spoken to needs among evangelicals that were not being addressed by other political candidates. One of the most important issues can be seen in my research on Christianophobia—the unreasonable hatred or fear of Christians. Many evangelical Christians see Trump as someone who will save them from Christianophobia. And while I understand and respect the nature of these Christians’ fears—in fact, I share them—I believe that Trump is not only not a solution to these issues but in the long run he will make things worse.
Is Christianophobia a Problem?
When the topic of Christianophobia comes up there are those who argue that it is merely Christians who have lost their privilege. Yet is it a privilege to be able to obtain a job in academia free of religious bias?
Is it a privilege to have religious leaders in student organizations who believe in their religion? The development of all-comers policies and the way they have been used to target Christian groups has revealed this threat to freedom of association.
Outside of academia there are episodes of a lay-pastor being fired from his position as a district health director due to his sermon and a fire chief being fired due to a Christian book he wrote.
It is more reasonable to see these events as rights, rather than privileges, being denied to certain Christians.
My own research shows that those with anti-Christian hatred tend to be white, wealthy, educated, and male.
They also tend to be politically progressive and irreligious. I suspect that they are quite powerful in cultural centers of our society such as academia, media, and entertainment. Many Christians, especially conservative Christians, see evidence of Christianophobia in their lives yet see no attempt in our cultural institutions to document it. It is the frustration that comes from this disconnect from their experiences—and the way it is not portrayed in the larger culture—that led some to Trump. Indeed, when I talked to many of my friends who voted for Trump, one common phrase I heard was, “Well, he may be bad but at least he does not hate me and will leave me alone. Clinton hates me and will not leave me alone.”
I want to say to my Christian friends, especially the evangelical ones who most support Trump: I hear you. Christianophobia is real. I have studied it and debated with those who do not believe it exists. Trump has promised to protect Christians. The seeking of political control is one way to try to deal with Christianophobia. But it is the wrong way.
The Problem Is the Culture
We may not know exactly what has led to the rise of anti-Christian attitudes, but we do know the arguments used to support it. Many of those with such attitudes envision Christians as bigoted, intolerant, racist, unthinking, and crude. These are also qualities that are tied, with good reason, to President Trump. To have Christians seen as supportive of Trump is to reinforce some of the Christianophobic stereotypes. Support of Trump will ironically reinforce many of the cultural stereotypes working against Christians in the long run. I do not doubt that in the short term there are protections gained by Trump. But that is shortsighted. In the long term any legal protection gained because of Trump will be overturned by a culture that is more anti-Christian because of current evangelical support of Trump.
Let me deal with a couple of replies that I have encountered when presenting this argument. One argument is that we should look at what President Trump is doing to the courts. If there is one area where he has shown some degree of competence, it is his naming of judges and the ability of Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to get them appointed. It is presumed that these judges, when facing cases that touch on political issues that conservative Christians care about, will rule in a way that conservative Christians would like. That presumption may be wrong, but let’s stipulate that President Trump has been good for those issues in the short term—and that since federal judges are appointed for a lifetime, the effect might last in the long term, too.
But even lifetime appointments come to an end. If our culture changes so much to widely accept Christianophobia then those cultural sentiments will outlast those judges. Eventually they will be replaced by judges who are more in line with those hostile sentiments. All the achievements can be overturned just like the state political victories against same-sex marriage. With a culture deeply ingrained with Christianophobia, it is uncertain if the changes brought about by judges and justices with less sympathy to Christians will ever be remedied if religious bigotry is accepted. Trump’s judges and justices may protect today’s Christians. But our children and grandchildren will have to suffer the brunt of the hostility the support of Trump has generated. Working on cultural change is the proper long-term play.
The second major pushback I receive is that those who hate Christians will continue to hate us regardless of whether we support Trump or not. True. Some people have such hatred in their hearts that nothing we do short of capitulating to all their political and social causes will satisfy them.
But thankfully, they do not make up most of the country. A lot of folks do not hate or love Christians. They live their lives not thinking much about Christians. But when they see Christians massively supporting a race-baiting, bombastic, sexist, and sexually immoral president, they can naturally begin to think of Christians as hypocrites. They can also become more open to Christianophobic arguments when frustrated by having a president with those qualities and blame Christians for putting him into office. Whether we support Trump or not will not matter to those who already have high levels of anti-Christian animosity, but it can raise that animosity in those who previously had a neutral attitude towards Christians but are turned off by the vices of Trump. It is a mistake to think everyone’s mind is made up about what they think of evangelicals. There are many people who will still be influenced by the support evangelicals have given to Trump.
Political Leaders and Scripture
To deal with Christianophobia, we must challenge the cultural values emerging from this type of intolerance. But in a very practical manner, evangelical support of Trump is making our culture even more toxic for Christians. For utilitarian reasons alone, Christians should not throw their support behind our current president.
But my argument is not limited to utilitarian concerns. The way Christians have come to support Trump does not fit with a proper understanding of the Scriptures. I acknowledge that I am not a trained theologian and so people may rightly argue with my interpretations. But I am confident that the evidence for Christians to be cautious about putting too much faith in their political issues is very strong.
Any fair assessment of the Old Testament and the trials of the children of Israel consistently comes back to the theme of relying on political figures instead of God. From the very beginning of the formation of Israel, Jews were warned about seeking a king to be the solution to their problems.
And what were the problems that the Jews needed to address? They were a nation in the middle of other nations that did not like them. The idea was that a king could fight for them and they were jealous of the kings in other nations. And the problem of looking to political leaders was not limited to recruiting Saul as their first king. The children of Israel not only sought to rely on other Jews for the projection and leadership they wanted. They also looked to powerful foreign nations for protection.
In other words, they believed more in the protection they could obtain from individuals who did not accept their God-given values than a God who has said he would protect them. Sound familiar?
I am not arguing that Christians should not get involved in politics. Christians should feel the freedom to engage in politics just as much as anyone else. And there is nothing sinful about advocating for issues of life, religious freedom, and justice—quite to the contrary. But when we become so loyal to a political party that we are afraid to correct the leaders of the party, then we are not merely participating in politics. We are looking to politics to save us.
This explains not only the hesitation of many Christians to condemn some of the ugliness that comes from President Trump’s mouth, his constant tweets, and administration, but also their surprising willingness to change their attitudes about moral values. After the 2016 election, surveys showed that conservative Christians went from being the people who were most supportive of requiring moral political leaders to being those who least required such morality. Efforts by Christians to placate President Trump suggest an undeserved level of loyalty.
I cannot help but think that this type of placating and loyalty is due to a sense of desperation among conservative Christians. In a society where they feel the effects of Christianophobia, they want to turn to a powerful political leader for protection. That sentiment is humanly understandable, but it is not in keeping with biblical commands to not live in fear and to not prioritize human resources over God’s resources. If we claim to have a power beyond what those outside of our faith enjoy, then we have to live it out. Looking for political muscle just like any other special interest group is the opposite of living out that faith.
Trump and the Split among Christians
Beyond connecting Christians to some of the more unsavory parts of Trump, the danger of Trump is also the danger of division within the Christian church. Trump is especially unpopular among young people and people of color. There is evidence that even among evangelicals, younger persons are less likely to support Trump. At a time where it has become more important for Christians to hang together and deal with anti-Christian attitudes, President Trump has created even more division. To be sure, the division is our fault more than it is Trump’s fault. The way some Christians have placed Trump on a pedestal has created a divisive situation considering the way he freely dehumanizes others.
It would not be fair to place the entire responsibility upon those defending Trump. But it should not surprise us that a political leader who traffics in divisive rhetoric would have followers who spread division. I have heard again and again that some Christians not only fail to critique the dehumanizing comments of Trump, but they also like him because of that “tough man” approach. They often say that there is a need to go to “war” against progressives and that Trump’s hostility towards those progressives is a welcome change over other, more civil political leaders.
Let us admit that there are progressives who will mistreat Christians the first chance they get. Even in that situation, Trump’s attitude is the opposite of how we, as Christians, are called to approach those progressives. We are not to treat them with the same type of dehumanization that we perceive them willing to direct against us. That does not mean we have to be a doormat, but there is a big difference between standing up for our own rights and seeking to destroy our political opponents by maligning them.
I fear that many of Trump’s evangelical supporters have brought this “we are in a war” perspective into their interactions with other Christians. They are impatient with those of us who are not willing to sign up for this battle. We are seen as traitors. I have been accused of acting out of fear due to my opposition to Trump. Unfortunately, I have seen a good deal more fear on the part of those who support Trump. They are reacting out of fear because of what may happen if progressives take over our government. They fear a loss of their rights and the passage of laws of which they disapprove. Trump is seen as the solution to their fears. And out of those fears, they often lash out at those of us who will not support him. As such, while there is no doubt that at times Christians who oppose Trump have acted in ways that have made these divisions worse, many evangelical Trump supporters feel pressure to force those who will not support him to join in their pro-Trump agenda.
Only when we can detach ourselves from this unholy alliance with our contentious president will we be able to turn down the temperature in this heated conflict and concentrate on building the Christian community we will need in a post-Christian world.
What to Do?
To some degree the damage has already been done. No matter what happens in 2020, the image of Christians putting Trump into power in 2016 will remain. However, it may be possible to limit the damage if we refuse to continue supporting him. Perhaps rejecting Trump now will resonate with some individuals. In the Doug Jones/Roy Moore Alabama Senate race in 2017, there was a fear that Christians would overlook the problems connected to Moore and send him to the Senate. Instead they stayed home. They could not support Jones, but neither were they willing to back Moore. That removed the potential of Moore being yet another cultural noose around our neck. Perhaps with a noticeable drop of evangelical support and a Trump loss, we can lose some of the cultural baggage of the linking of Christians to Trump. But we should not be naïve about that possibility either. The damage may have already been done.
But perhaps even more troubling than the vote for Trump is the unwillingness of Christians to challenge him. It is one thing to argue that we must vote for Trump because of the alternative. There is a rational argument of selecting the lesser evil. But there is no rational argument for once having selected that evil, to go on to allow that evil to go unchecked. We have already seen that Christians have altered their stance on the morality of leaders to suit Trump. Perhaps most notably is the public statement of Tony Perkins about giving Trump a sexual “mulligan.” How much will we be willing to sully our reputation to protect Trump?
But it is not only his moral failings that Christians are too eager to defend. Too often I have encountered Christians who twist themselves in all sorts of knots in their efforts to defend Trump on his race-baiting. I had one encounter with a leading Christian supporter of Trump who insisted that Trump does not engage in race-baiting. When I pointed out that Trump had clearly lied about not knowing “anything about” David Duke and that he did this to pacify white nationalists, his response was that all politicians lie. I could not believe what he had just argued. Do politicians lie to make racists feel better? The denial of this person to see any problems with many of Trump’s race-baiting statements indicates a desire to defend Trump no matter what he says or does. This must stop.
If Christians do not push back on the disturbing attributes of Trump, then we will own those attributes. For example, if enough Christians accept the perceptions of the leader in the previous paragraph, then our faith will become known for not caring about the race-baiting statements of our president. This will translate into Christians not caring about racism and people of color. The argument that we must vote for Trump as the less-bad option will not save us from being labeled racist if we do not challenge Trump’s race-baiting.
Or let me put it this way. Many conservative Christians accuse Democratic Christians of endorsing abortion because they vote for pro-choice candidates. If those Christians stay silent on that issue, then they have a point. But if Democratic Christians vote for Democrats despite abortion and make it plain that they opposed that plank of their political party, then they do not own the pro-choice label. It is fairer to say that their vote is due to the reality that neither political party accurately reflects their overall political beliefs and they had to make the best of a bad situation. Likewise, if you cannot find it in yourself to not vote for Trump—although I really hope that you won’t vote for him—I would urge you to hold him accountable by becoming vocal about his dehumanizing, race-baiting, and sexism. Too many evangelicals have supported Trump without condemning his vile speech and actions. That failure tars our faith with his actions. We dare not allow him to continue to poison the good name of Christians.


thebulwark--2020-06-18--George Floyd Changed My Mind

George Floyd Changed My Mind

It ’ s an unaccustomed feeling for me to be in step with public opinion , but as the nation is undergoing a reconsideration of race and policing , I find myself in unfamiliar territory – in the majority .
For many years , I was skeptical about accusations of racism in the criminal justice system .
Yes , I knew that blacks comprised only about 12 percent of the population yet represented 33 percent of the prison population .
But those data alone did not prove that police are racists or that courts are tougher on blacks than others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percentage of the population , but the percentage of the criminal population , and when you consider the higher rates of offending among African Americans , the seemingly disproportionate rates of incarceration make sense .
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics , blacks committed 52 percent of all homicides between 1980 and 2008 .
Well , some countered , if you look at who winds up on death row , you can see the racism at work .
Less than half of murder victims in the U.S. are white , yet a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inmates on death row had killed white people .
I wasn ’ t convinced .
It might be evidence of racism , or it could be that when people kill others of their same race , they are more likely to know them .
These could be crimes of passion and therefore less likely to draw the death penalty .
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics , between 2001 and 2005 , nearly 78 percent of blacks were murdered by other blacks , and nearly 70 percent of whites were killed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracking victims and offenders , blacks were responsible for nearly 22 percent of violent offenses in 2018 , though they represented only 12 percent of the population .
I thought Michael Brown ’ s death at the hands of a cop in Ferguson was tragic ( and was offended by the crude language officer Darren Wilson used toward a civilian ) , but I believed then and continue to believe that the “ Hands Up , Don ’ t Shoot ” narrative that arose from that episode was inaccurate .
The Obama Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence supported the officer ’ s version of events .
My views have changed though , bit by bit , over the past half-decade .
I ’ ve begun to doubt my previous convictions .
Was it the sheer accumulation of cases ?
Eric Garner was choked to death .
Yes , he was resisting arrest , but for what ?
For selling “ loosies ” – untaxed cigarettes .
Freddy Gray , 25 , was taken into custody in Baltimore .
Handcuffed but not belted to his seat , police took him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ride.
” Somehow , he snapped his spine in the police van .
He lapsed into a coma and died a week later .
Walter Scott was stopped for a defective taillight .
After initial questioning and a quick scuffle , Scott fled the officer ( perhaps fearful because he owed back child support ) .
Officer Michael Slager shot Scott in the back , killing him .
He filed a police report saying that Scott had grabbed his Taser weapon , but a bystander video showed that after the shooting , Officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the initial scrap , picked something up and dropped it next to Scott ’ s body .
Botham Jean , an accountant for PriceWaterhouseCoopers , was eating ice cream in his own apartment when a Dallas cop entered and shot him in the heart .
She lived downstairs and had mistakenly entered the wrong apartment .
Philando Castile was pulled over for a traffic stop .
His girlfriend and her 4-year-old daughter were with him .
He told the officer that he had a gun ( for which he was licensed ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the gun and shot him .
Laquan McDonald was a 17-year-old with PCP in his system and a knife in his hand .
But contrary to the police report suggesting that McDonald was shot after lunging at police , the autopsy showed that he was hit 16 times , 9 of them in the back .
Like Botham Jean , 26-year-old Breonna Taylor was shot in her own home after police broke in during a “ no knock ” raid .
The emergency room technician was in bed with her boyfriend , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the home .
Having no idea who the intruders were , Walker pulled his gun and fired once , striking an officer in the leg .
The police shot Taylor eight times , killing her .
After the encounter , Walker phoned 911 , saying “ somebody kicked in the door and shot my girlfriend.
” Yes , “ somebody.
” Ahmaud Arbery was out jogging and was tracked and trapped by a two-car posse that included a former law enforcement officer .
The last words Arbery heard before he died were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drunk and passed out in his car at the Wendy ’ s drive through .
Police were called , and they seemed to be handling the situation professionally and courteously , until Brooks grabbed the officer ’ s taser , ran , and then turned to fire it at the police .
He ’ s dead .
And , of course , there ’ s the depraved murder of George Floyd , crushed to death under the knee of a pitiless cop while three others stood by .
I know there are videos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This footage of Daniel Shaver ’ s death is horrifying , as is this of Tony Timpa ’ s .
And as John McWhorter argues , it ’ s likely that we haven ’ t seen those videos because they don ’ t fit the narrative of racist white cops .
And yet , I think of the testimony of black men that they are routinely pulled over and hassled for “ driving while black.
” Is that their imagination ?
Are they exaggerating ?
Is former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how frequently he ’ s been pulled over ?
Can we dismiss Neil DeGrasse Tyson , who recalls a meeting at which one man after another recounted his experiences of being stopped by police , only to reveal that it was a conference of black physicists ?
What about Senator Tim Scott ?
He was stopped seven times in one year driving in his own neighborhood .
He was detained by a security guard on Capitol Hill though he was wearing his member ’ s pin .
When he gestured to it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know – you I don ’ t. ” There ’ s data about those traffic stops .
A study looked at 95 million traffic stops by 56 different police agencies between 2011 and 2018 .
They found that blacks were far more likely than whites to be pulled over – but the disparity declined at night , when it ’ s harder to detect the race of the driver .
A 2019 Los Angeles Times report found that 24 percent of black drivers were searched , compared with 16 percent of Latinos , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contraband was more commonly found among whites .
A study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in February , 2020 looked at responses to 2 million 911 calls in two cities .
It found that white officers were five times as likely to use force , including deadly force , in minority neighborhoods as African American officers .
There ’ s a lot more where that came from .
Some conservatives object that African American men are far more likely to die at the hands of other African American men than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know where the outrage is about deaths in Chicago .
But criminals are criminals .
The police , by contrast , are hired , trained , and armed by all of us .
They are sworn to protect and to serve .
There is no equivalence between the acts of Derek Chauvin and a Chicago gang member .
I ’ ve long believed that police have a difficult job and deal with the worst of the worst on a daily basis .
I ’ m grateful for their protection .
And there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the race business .
( See Smollett , Jussie . )
But I ’ ve come to believe that mistreatment of African Americans is not a myth and is not even uncommon .
I ’ m glad that so many white and other Americans , by marching with their black fellow citizens , and by what they tell pollsters , are signaling their dismay at these outcomes .
People ’ s minds can change .
Mine did .

It’s an unaccustomed feeling for me to be in step with public opinion, but as the nation is undergoing a reconsideration of race and policing, I find myself in unfamiliar territory—in the majority.
For many years, I was skeptical about accusations of racism in the criminal justice system. Yes, I knew that blacks comprised only about 12 percent of the population yet represented 33 percent of the prison population. But those data alone did not prove that police are racists or that courts are tougher on blacks than others. The relevant criterion is not the percentage of the population, but the percentage of the criminal population, and when you consider the higher rates of offending among African Americans, the seemingly disproportionate rates of incarceration make sense. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks committed 52 percent of all homicides between 1980 and 2008.
Well, some countered, if you look at who winds up on death row, you can see the racism at work. Less than half of murder victims in the United States are white, yet a 2003 study found that 80 percent of inmates on death row had killed white people. I wasn’t convinced. It might be evidence of racism, or it could be that when people kill others of their same race, they are more likely to know them. These could be crimes of passion and therefore less likely to draw the death penalty. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 2001 and 2005, nearly 78 percent of murdered blacks were killed by other blacks, and nearly 70 percent of murdered whites were killed by other whites. According to BJS data tracking victims and offenders, blacks were responsible for nearly 22 percent of violent offenses in 2018, though they represented only 12 percent of the population.
I thought Michael Brown’s death at the hands of a cop in Ferguson was tragic (and I was offended by the crude language officer Darren Wilson used toward a civilian), but I believed then and continue to believe that the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” narrative that arose from that episode was inaccurate. The Obama Department of Justice investigation found that the forensic evidence supported the officer’s version of events.
My views have changed though, bit by bit, over the past half-decade. I’ve begun to doubt my previous convictions. Was it the sheer accumulation of cases? Eric Garner was choked to death. Yes, he was resisting arrest, but for what? For selling “loosies”—untaxed cigarettes. Freddy Gray, 25, was taken into custody in Baltimore. Handcuffed but not belted to his seat, police took him for what they called a “rough ride.” Somehow, he snapped his spine in the police van. He lapsed into a coma and died a week later.
Walter Scott was stopped for a defective taillight. After initial questioning and a quick scuffle, Scott fled the officer (perhaps fearful because he owed back child support). Officer Michael Slager shot Scott in the back, killing him. He filed a police report saying that Scott had grabbed his Taser weapon, but a bystander video showed that after the shooting, Officer Slager ran back to the site of the initial scrap, picked something up and dropped it next to Scott’s body.
Botham Jean, an accountant for PriceWaterhouseCoopers, was eating ice cream in his own apartment when a Dallas cop entered and shot him in the heart. She lived downstairs and had mistakenly entered the wrong apartment. Philando Castile was pulled over for a traffic stop. His girlfriend and her 4-year-old daughter were with him. He told the officer that he had a gun (for which he was licensed). The cop thought he might be reaching for the gun and shot him.
Laquan McDonald was a 17-year-old with PCP in his system and a knife in his hand. But contrary to the police report suggesting that McDonald was shot after lunging at police, the autopsy showed that he was hit 16 times, 9 of them in the back.
Like Botham Jean, 26-year-old Breonna Taylor was shot in her own home after police broke in during a “no knock” raid. The emergency-room technician was in bed with her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, when the police burst into the home. Having no idea who the intruders were, Walker pulled his gun and fired once, striking an officer in the leg. The police shot Taylor eight times, killing her. After the encounter, Walker phoned 911, saying “somebody kicked in the door and shot my girlfriend.” Yes, “somebody.”
Ahmaud Arbery was out jogging and was tracked and trapped by a two-car posse that included a former law enforcement officer. The last words Arbery heard before he died were “f—— n—–.”
Rayshard Brooks was drunk and passed out in his car at the Wendy’s drive through. Police were called, and they seemed to be handling the situation professionally and courteously, until Brooks grabbed the officer’s taser, ran, and then turned to fire it at the police. He’s dead.
And, of course, there’s the depraved murder of George Floyd, crushed to death under the knee of a pitiless cop while three others stood by.
I know there are videos of whites being shot by police. This footage of Daniel Shaver’s death is horrifying, as is this of Tony Timpa’s. And, as John McWhorter argues, it’s likely that we haven’t seen those videos because they don’t fit the narrative of racist white cops.
And yet, I think of the testimony of black men that they are routinely pulled over and hassled for “driving while black.” Is that their imagination? Are they exaggerating? Is former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele not to be credited when he reports how frequently he’s been pulled over? Can we dismiss Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who recalls a meeting at which one man after another recounted his experiences of being stopped by police, only to reveal that it was a conference of black physicists? What about Senator Tim Scott? He was stopped seven times in one year driving in his own neighborhood. He was detained by a security guard on Capitol Hill though he was wearing his member’s pin. When he gestured to it, the officer said “The pin I know—you I don’t.”
There’s data about those traffic stops. A study looked at 95 million traffic stops by 56 different police agencies between 2011 and 2018. They found that blacks were far more likely than whites to be pulled over—but the disparity declined at night, when it’s harder to detect the race of the driver. A 2019 Los Angeles Times report found that 24 percent of black drivers were searched, compared with 16 percent of Latinos, and 5 percent of whites, yet contraband was more commonly found among whites.
A study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in February 2020 looked at responses to 2 million 911 calls in two cities. It found that white officers were five times as likely to use force, including deadly force, in minority neighborhoods as African-American officers.
There’s a lot more where that came from.
Some conservatives object that African-American men are far more likely to die at the hands of other African-American men than at the hands of police and demand to know where the outrage is about deaths in Chicago. But criminals are criminals. The police, by contrast, are hired, trained, and armed by all of us. They are sworn to protect and to serve. There is no equivalence between the acts of Derek Chauvin and a Chicago gang member.
I’ve long believed that police have a difficult job and deal with the worst of the worst on a daily basis. I’m grateful for their protection. And there’s a lot of crying wolf in the race business. (See Smollett, Jussie.) But I’ve come to believe that mistreatment of African Americans is not a myth and is not even uncommon. I’m glad that so many white and other Americans, by marching with their black fellow citizens, and by what they tell pollsters, are signaling their dismay at these outcomes. People’s minds can change. Mine did.


thebulwark--2020-06-18--Trump’s Ineptitude Saved DACA … for Now

Trump’s Ineptitude Saved DACA … for Now

The Trump administration ’ s manifest incompetence just may have provided the silver lining for nearly 700,000 undocumented young people who came to the United States as children .
In a 5-4 decision handed down Thursday , the Supreme Court narrowly rejected as “ arbitrary and capricious ” the administration ’ s efforts to end the program that protected DACA recipients .
Under the Obama-era program , applicants could apply for “ deferred action ” on their removal and permits to work legally for a renewable two-year period so long as they were employed , in school , or serving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and had not been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanor .
Thursday ’ s decision notably did not settle questions about the wisdom or legality of DACA but noted that the government had made no effort to consider options that would have preserved the interests of hundreds of thousands of young people who had relied on the protections the policy afforded , as required by the Administrative Procedures Act .
Instead , the Department of Homeland Security attempted to wind down the program in September 2017 at the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to end it on his first day in office ) without even considering “ the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients ” who had relied on it for a half decade .
The decision won ’ t guarantee long-term protections for DACA recipients , but it will allow breathing room until a new Congress and perhaps president take office in 2021 .
Americans overwhelmingly support DACA—some 85 percent in recent polls , including 73 percent of Republicans—but Congress has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solution to the problem .
Efforts to placate Trump with offers of $ 25 billion more for border enforcement were not enough to get a bill through Congress in 2018 , and Democrats have been reluctant to separate DACA from larger issues of immigration reform .
But a new administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress won ’ t automatically guarantee smart immigration reform .
Much will depend on whether the anti-immigrant sentiment that infects much of the GOP base outlasts Trump ’ s influence .
DACA may be popular , even among Republicans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the much larger issue of immigration reform .
There are still nearly 11 million people living and working in the United States who lack legal status .
Their fates also hang in the balance , and pursuing some equitable solution will likely be more difficult than many advocates imagine .
President Reagan was able to grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants in 1986 because at the time there were no laws prohibiting such persons from working .
Once the president issued his amnesty , undocumented immigrants were essentially home free and could even apply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But Reagan ’ s decision to legalize some 3 million immigrants ’ status entailed a compromise : He would support legislation , the Immigration Reform and Control Act , that made it illegal going forward for employers to hire immigrants who lacked work visas .
IRCA supporters claimed the legislation would serve as a deterrent for future illegal immigration because would-be border crossers would face difficulty finding a job .
Even Democrats supported the bill , largely because it punished employers , who Democrats believed exploited undocumented immigrants .
IRCA has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no decrease in illegal immigration and it spawned new illegal behavior .
Suddenly , Americans—citizens and immigrants alike—were required to prove their right to work under the law .
Those without the proper documents bought phony Social Security cards or used Social Security numbers belonging to others , which encouraged a burgeoning industry in identity theft .
Unless and until Congress changes IRCA or grants legal status to all currently undocumented people—including DACA recipients—those without permanent legal status or temporary work visas will still lead precarious and difficult lives .
Legal questions about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aside , the Supreme handed Congress yet another chance to enshrine a smart , broadly popular policy in law .
They should do so before the administration gets its act together , promulgates a rule , and begins deportations .

The Trump administration’s manifest incompetence just may have provided the silver lining for nearly 700,000 undocumented young people who came to the United States as children. In a 5-4 decision handed down Thursday, the Supreme Court narrowly rejected as “arbitrary and capricious” the administration’s efforts to end the program that protected DACA recipients. Under the Obama-era program, applicants could apply for “deferred action” on their removal and permits to work legally for a renewable two-year period so long as they were employed, in school, or serving in the military, paid their taxes, and had not been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanor.
Thursday’s decision notably did not settle questions about the wisdom or legality of DACA but noted that the government had made no effort to consider options that would have preserved the interests of hundreds of thousands of young people who had relied on the protections the policy afforded, as required by the Administrative Procedures Act. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security attempted to wind down the program in September 2017 at the president’s insistence (Trump made a campaign promise to end it on his first day in office) without even considering “the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients” who had relied on it for a half decade.
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 decision won’t guarantee long-term protections for DACA recipients, but it will allow breathing room until a new Congress and perhaps president take office in 2021. Americans overwhelmingly support DACA—some 85 percent in recent polls, including 73 percent of Republicans—but Congress has been unable to reach agreement on a permanent solution to the problem. Efforts to placate Trump with offers of $25 billion more for border enforcement were not enough to get a bill through Congress in 2018, and Democrats have been reluctant to separate DACA from larger issues of immigration reform. But a new administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress won’t automatically guarantee smart immigration reform. Much will depend on whether the anti-immigrant sentiment that infects much of the GOP base outlasts Trump’s influence.
DACA may be popular, even among Republicans, but it represents a tiny slice of the much larger issue of immigration reform. There are still nearly 11 million people living and working in the United States who lack legal status. Their fates also hang in the balance, and pursuing some equitable solution will likely be more difficult than many advocates imagine. President Reagan was able to grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants in 1986 because at the time there were no laws prohibiting such persons from working. Once the president issued his amnesty, undocumented immigrants were essentially home free and could even apply for U.S. citizenship after a waiting period. But Reagan’s decision to legalize some 3 million immigrants’ status entailed a compromise: He would support legislation, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, that made it illegal going forward for employers to hire immigrants who lacked work visas. IRCA supporters claimed the legislation would serve as a deterrent for future illegal immigration because would-be border crossers would face difficulty finding a job. Even Democrats supported the bill, largely because it punished employers, who Democrats believed exploited undocumented immigrants.
IRCA has been an abysmal failure; it resulted in no decrease in illegal immigration and it spawned new illegal behavior. Suddenly, Americans—citizens and immigrants alike—were required to prove their right to work under the law. Those without the proper documents bought phony Social Security cards or used Social Security numbers belonging to others, which encouraged a burgeoning industry in identity theft. Unless and until Congress changes IRCA or grants legal status to all currently undocumented people—including DACA recipients—those without permanent legal status or temporary work visas will still lead precarious and difficult lives.
Legal questions about the provenance of DACA and its rescission aside, the Supreme handed Congress yet another chance to enshrine a smart, broadly popular policy in law. They should do so before the administration gets its act together, promulgates a rule, and begins deportations.


thebulwark--2020-06-19--About that Trump Economy . . .

About that Trump Economy . . .

Before COVID-19 , President Trump intended to make his stewardship of the American economy the centerpiece of his reelection campaign .
Even with the pandemic , he will likely do so , claiming that he made the economy great before and will do so again .
But did Trump boost the U.S. economy before COVID-19 ?
The answer to this question isn ’ t as obvious as the president ’ s boosters would have you believe .
At the start of 2020 unemployment was nearing historically low levels , gross domestic product was at an all-time high , and equities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deserve credit for any of that ?
In the latest issue of the Cato Institute ’ s policy journal Regulation , economist Pierre Lemieux tries to answer that question by analyzing U.S. economic data under Trump and his predecessor , Barack Obama .
Here are some of his findings .
Consider the unemployment rate over the last decade .
As noted , it was nearing historic lows in 2019 , a remarkable change from the 10 percent it reached in October 2009 , four months after the end of the Great Recession .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the unemployment rate declined steadily , first under the final seven years of the Obama administration—falling to 4.7 percent in December 2016—and then falling to 3.5 percent under Trump in late 2019 .
This decline continued under Trump , but did not accelerate after Trump became president in January 2017 .
If anything , the rate of improvement slowed down .
Now that ’ s to be expected for the simple reason that there wasn ’ t much further for it to fall as it neared frictional levels .
This was all great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t suggest that President Trump performed any better on the economy than his predecessor .
Equity prices show a similar pattern .
The stock market reached new highs in 2019 : Those highs came after a decade of fairly steady growth under both Trump and Obama .
But notice , again : There ’ s no obvious change in the trend following Trump ’ s 2017 inauguration .
The average daily increase in the index was 0.0500 percent under Obama and 0.0502 percent under Trump ( until 2020 ) .
Once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing the same under Trump as it did under his predecessor .
The GDP offers somewhat better news for Trump .
When measured by real ( inflation-adjusted ) GDP per capita , the nation did better under Trump ( again , until 2020 ) .
Under Obama , the average annual growth in this measure ( starting in 2010 ) was 1.4 percent .
Under Trump it averaged 2.0 percent .
But growth slowed slightly in 2019 , falling to 1.8 percent .
And moreover , 2 percent is no great shakes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ slow recovery from the Great Recession under both presidents .
Wage data presents a similar picture .
According to the 2020 Annual Report of the President ’ s Council of Economic Advisers , real wages of workers at the bottom of the income distribution improved during the Trump presidency : You can see that here : But notice that the significant increases only started in mid-2018 , and all gains in 2019 were cancelled out by the last two months of the year .
Overall , the average annualized monthly rate of increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 ) , only slightly better than Obama ’ s 1.0 percent .
What about the federal government ’ s fiscal health , which could be an important factor in how the United States weathers the economic shock from COVID-19 ?
The country was burdened with heavy debt at the end of the Obama administration , as then-candidate Trump stressed to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa in the spring of 2016 .
“ We ’ ve got to get rid of the $ 19 trillion in debt , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt ( which actually was $ 18.1 trillion at the end of 2015 ) .
“ How long would that take ?
” the interviewers asked .
“ I would say over a period of eight years , ” he responded .
Over the first three years of his administration , Trump went in the opposite direction , increasing the annual budget deficit from $ 585 billion ( in Obama ’ s last year ) to $ 984 billion in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2019 .
This increase was due mainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 31 , 2019 , the gross federal debt had increased 14 percent since 2016 and reached $ 22.7 trillion—and all of that before COVID-19 hit .
President Trump ’ s attitude on debt and deficit seems to have changed somewhat since his interview with Woodward and Costa .
At a January 17 , 2020 Republican fundraiser , Trump declared “ Who the hell cares about the budget ?
We ’ re going to have a country.
” What do these and other data from Lemieux ’ s article tell us about President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the data show that the economy more-or-less followed the same course in the first three years of Trump ’ s administration that it did over the last seven years of the Obama administration .
Second , Trump ’ s administration rang up trillions of dollars in new government debt even before it began spending to fight the effects of COVID-19 .
That ’ s his actual record .
He should own it .

Before COVID-19, President Trump intended to make his stewardship of the American economy the centerpiece of his reelection campaign. Even with the pandemic, he will likely do so, claiming that he made the economy great before and will do so again.
But did Trump boost the U.S. economy before COVID-19?
The answer to this question isn’t as obvious as the president’s boosters would have you believe.
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…
At the start of 2020 unemployment was nearing historically low levels, gross domestic product was at an all-time high, and equities markets were surging. But does Trump deserve credit for any of that?
In the latest issue of the Cato Institute’s policy journal Regulation, economist Pierre Lemieux tries to answer that question by analyzing U.S. economic data under Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama. Here are some of his findings.
Consider the unemployment rate over the last decade.
As noted, it was nearing historic lows in 2019, a remarkable change from the 10 percent it reached in October 2009, four months after the end of the Great Recession. From that point in October 2009, the unemployment rate declined steadily, first under the final seven years of the Obama administration—falling to 4.7 percent in December 2016—and then falling to 3.5 percent under Trump in late 2019.
This decline continued under Trump, but did not accelerate after Trump became president in January 2017. If anything, the rate of improvement slowed down. Now that’s to be expected for the simple reason that there wasn’t much further for it to fall as it neared frictional levels.
This was all great news for American workers, but it doesn’t suggest that President Trump performed any better on the economy than his predecessor.
Equity prices show a similar pattern. The stock market reached new highs in 2019:
Those highs came after a decade of fairly steady growth under both Trump and Obama. But notice, again: There’s no obvious change in the trend following Trump’s 2017 inauguration. The average daily increase in the index was 0.0500 percent under Obama and 0.0502 percent under Trump (until 2020). Once more, the economy seemed to be doing the same under Trump as it did under his predecessor.
The GDP offers somewhat better news for Trump. When measured by real (inflation-adjusted) GDP per capita, the nation did better under Trump (again, until 2020). Under Obama, the average annual growth in this measure (starting in 2010) was 1.4 percent. Under Trump it averaged 2.0 percent. But growth slowed slightly in 2019, falling to 1.8 percent.
And moreover, 2 percent is no great shakes. If anything, these data show a slow recovery from the Great Recession under both presidents.
Wage data presents a similar picture. According to the 2020 Annual Report of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, real wages of workers at the bottom of the income distribution improved during the Trump presidency:
The real wages of private sector production and nonsupervisory workers increased by 1.9 percent during the year ended in November 2019.
You can see that here:
But notice that the significant increases only started in mid-2018, and all gains in 2019 were cancelled out by the last two months of the year. Overall, the average annualized monthly rate of increase under Trump was 1.2 percent (before 2020), only slightly better than Obama’s 1.0 percent.
What about the federal government’s fiscal health, which could be an important factor in how the United States weathers the economic shock from COVID-19?
The country was burdened with heavy debt at the end of the Obama administration, as then-candidate Trump stressed to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa in the spring of 2016.
“We’ve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt,” he said, referring to the gross federal debt (which actually was $18.1 trillion at the end of 2015). “How long would that take?” the interviewers asked. “I would say over a period of eight years,” he responded.
Over the first three years of his administration, Trump went in the opposite direction, increasing the annual budget deficit from $585 billion (in Obama’s last year) to $984 billion in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2019.
This increase was due mainly to higher government spending. By December 31, 2019, the gross federal debt had increased 14 percent since 2016 and reached $22.7 trillion—and all of that before COVID-19 hit.
President Trump’s attitude on debt and deficit seems to have changed somewhat since his interview with Woodward and Costa. At a January 17, 2020 Republican fundraiser, Trump declared “Who the hell cares about the budget? We’re going to have a country.”
What do these and other data from Lemieux’s article tell us about President Trump’s economic policies?
First, the data show that the economy more-or-less followed the same course in the first three years of Trump’s administration that it did over the last seven years of the Obama administration.
Second, Trump’s administration rang up trillions of dollars in new government debt even before it began spending to fight the effects of COVID-19.
That’s his actual record. He should own it.


thebulwark--2020-06-19--What Is John Bolton’s Legacy

What Is John Bolton’s Legacy

The powerful evidence of Donald Trump ’ s corruption and incompetence described by John Bolton in his forthcoming memoir may finally persuade some informed Republican voters and office holders to put country over party .
If Bolton ’ s book helps defeat Trump in November , it will be good for the nation .
Yet concerned citizens can not help but be disgusted by Bolton ’ s character .
How dare he chastise House Democrats for impeachment malpractice for not investigating offenses that were not then part of the public conversation—that were unknown to most citizens and office holders—and for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ main evidence !
Bolton sat on information vital to the fate of the United States , it seems , in order to enhance his own financial well-being .
It is hard to think of a case of a public official today more venal than John Bolton .
( Excepting , of course , the current president of the United States . )
It is baffling why a man so ambitious , so experienced , and so knowledgeable would be so greedy .
In the midst of this pandemic , why does he seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his generation who now can ’ t help but worry and think about the meaning of mortality .
Is John Bolton so unconcerned about his life ’ s work that money has become more important to him than how history will judge him ?
When I was in college years ago—in 1970—I spent my junior year abroad at Oxford where I attended spellbinding lectures on law and morality by a then-young professor of jurisprudence , Ronald Dworkin .
It is hard to remember the details of Dworkin ’ s brilliant critique of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I doubt anyone who attended those lectures could forget the central example around which he built his course and his argument .
Dworkin asked us think about the origin , meaning , and importance of the common law principle “ No man shall profit from his own wrong.
” Despite the efforts of the Trump administration to censor John Bolton , it is not likely that John Bolton has broken any law .
But he has done wrong .
He has not lived up to his oath of office .
He did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have .
He disrespected the Congress of the United States and continues to do so now .
He should not now profit from his wrongs .
If you were so inclined , you could conjure a more generous interpretation of Bolton ’ s actions : It was unlikely that any testimony , however dramatic and damaging , would have induced enough senators to convict the president during the impeachment trial .
And so you could argue that it was better for Bolton to save his “ testimony ” for the American people for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You could argue that his revelations can do more good now than they would have during the impeachment proceedings .
Bolton himself is not his own best advocate for this view—as he is the one currently charging Rep. Adam Schiff and his House colleagues with impeachment malpractice .
Bolton seems to think that impeachment was viable .
But let us be more generous to Bolton than he is to Democrats .
Let us assume that now is better than before .
If John Bolton is a patriot , if he is genuinely interested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rid the nation of Donald Trump , if he cares about his historical legacy , if he prefers fame to infamy , let him pledge to donate 80 percent of the income he receives from the sales of his book to the cause of defeating the man he says is unfit for the office of the presidency .

The powerful evidence of Donald Trump’s corruption and incompetence described by John Bolton in his forthcoming memoir may finally persuade some informed Republican voters and office holders to put country over party. If Bolton’s book helps defeat Trump in November, it will be good for the nation.
Yet concerned citizens cannot help but be disgusted by Bolton’s character.
How dare he chastise House Democrats for impeachment malpractice for not investigating offenses that were not then part of the public conversation—that were unknown to most citizens and office holders—and for which his own testimony would be the main evidence!
Bolton sat on information vital to the fate of the United States, it seems, in order to enhance his own financial well-being. It is hard to think of a case of a public official today more venal than John Bolton. (Excepting, of course, the current president of the United States.)
It is baffling why a man so ambitious, so experienced, and so knowledgeable would be so greedy. In the midst of this pandemic, why does he seem to be so unlike many accomplished people of his generation who now can’t help but worry and think about the meaning of mortality? Is John Bolton so unconcerned about his life’s work that money has become more important to him than how history will judge him?
When I was in college years ago—in 1970—I spent my junior year abroad at Oxford where I attended spellbinding lectures on law and morality by a then-young professor of jurisprudence, Ronald Dworkin. It is hard to remember the details of Dworkin’s brilliant critique of his predecessor H.L.A. Hart, but I doubt anyone who attended those lectures could forget the central example around which he built his course and his argument.
Dworkin asked us think about the origin, meaning, and importance of the common law principle “No man shall profit from his own wrong.”
Despite the efforts of the Trump administration to censor John Bolton, it is not likely that John Bolton has broken any law. But he has done wrong. He has not lived up to his oath of office. He did not act honorably and dutifully when he should have. He disrespected the Congress of the United States and continues to do so now.
He should not now profit from his wrongs.
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…
If you were so inclined, you could conjure a more generous interpretation of Bolton’s actions: It was unlikely that any testimony, however dramatic and damaging, would have induced enough senators to convict the president during the impeachment trial.
And so you could argue that it was better for Bolton to save his “testimony” for the American people for the run-up to the November election. You could argue that his revelations can do more good now than they would have during the impeachment proceedings.
Bolton himself is not his own best advocate for this view—as he is the one currently charging Rep. Adam Schiff and his House colleagues with impeachment malpractice. Bolton seems to think that impeachment was viable.
But let us be more generous to Bolton than he is to Democrats.
Let us assume that now is better than before. If John Bolton is a patriot, if he is genuinely interested in the most honorable and effective way to rid the nation of Donald Trump, if he cares about his historical legacy, if he prefers fame to infamy, let him pledge to donate 80 percent of the income he receives from the sales of his book to the cause of defeating the man he says is unfit for the office of the presidency.


thebulwark--2020-06-19--Trump Says Bin Laden Endorsed Biden

Trump Says Bin Laden Endorsed Biden

What do you get the president of the United States—the man who has everything—for Father ’ s Day ?
If you are Donald Trump Jr. the answer is actually kind of obvious : You smear Joe Biden .
On Thursday night , Don Jr. ’ s campaign YouTube show , TRIGGERED , aired a Very Special Episode about Father ’ s Day .
The intro rolled classy black and white still photos of the Don and his pops together in the White House over the orchestral sounds of violins , horns , and the gentle cadence of a drum .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-proclaimed “ General in the Meme Wars ” who recently compared Biden to a pedophile , we ’ re talking about .
While the chassis might look like The West Wing , under the hood it ’ s pure Reddit .
After dispensing with some small talk about how NFL star quarterback Drew Brees “ will regret ” apologizing for his comments about national anthem protests , Don Jr. told his father he had found “ documents that were taken in the Osama bin Laden raid ” that were recently declassified and showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flashed on the screen reading “ Bin Laden for Biden.
” There was no pause to reflect on the horrors of bin Laden ’ s terrorism or how terrible it is for an American president to be targeted for assassination .
And this isn ’ t actually a Don Jr. discovery—though the idea of a montage sequence where DJTJ is sitting alone in an archive room , surrounded by stacks of paper , diligently deciphering al Qaeda intelligence is definitely memeworthy .
The Washington Post reported all of this back in 2012 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his dad .
Staring firmly , unblinkingly , into his father ’ s eyes , Don Jr. intoned : To which the president of the United States replied , “ It says to me , I didn ’ t know that .
And , it says to me we are immediately going to make a commercial out of that if that ’ s true.
” “ It ’ s true , ” Don Jr. replied .
He began to stammer on , but his father cut him off .
“ By the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a great commercial , ” President Trump said .
And then , the interview cut straight to a Trump campaign-produced “ exclusive premiere ” for a commercial about—you guessed it—Osama bin Laden ’ s “ endorsement ” of Joe Biden .
The people at Conservative Treehouse are gon na need a cigarette .
In a way , you have to admire the Trump family for being so on-brand that even their Father ’ s Day “ special ” is an infomercial for a new attack ad .
Because , of course .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more questions : whether he approved of his beard and if information about alien life forms would ever be declassified .
Coronavirus deaths were not mentioned .
Former National Security Advisor John Bolton ’ s book never came up .
Not a word was uttered about the new Fox News poll showing Trump down 12 points to Biden .
President Trump landed some more talking points about how it would be “ bedlam ” if Biden won the election , certain to lead to a terrible economic crisis .
( Worse than , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one we ’ re already in ? )
And then , just like that , the show was over .
As the closing music swelled , President Trump said to someone off screen .
“ I think he did a good job.
” The two of them got up .
Don Jr. affectionately swatted his father with his notes .
“ Good to see you , ” the son said .
The smear was delivered ; the transaction was complete .
Both men were pleased .

What do you get the president of the United States—the man who has everything—for Father’s Day?
If you are Donald Trump Jr. the answer is actually kind of obvious: You smear Joe Biden.
On Thursday night, Don Jr.’s campaign YouTube show, TRIGGERED, aired a Very Special Episode about Father’s Day. The intro rolled classy black and white still photos of the Don and his pops together in the White House over the orchestral sounds of violins, horns, and the gentle cadence of a drum. But this is Don Jr., the self-proclaimed “General in the Meme Wars” who recently compared Biden to a pedophile, we’re talking about. While the chassis might look like The West Wing, under the hood it’s pure Reddit.
After dispensing with some small talk about how NFL star quarterback Drew Brees “will regret” apologizing for his comments about national anthem protests, Don Jr. told his father he had found “documents that were taken in the Osama bin Laden raid” that were recently declassified and showed
that he wanted to assassinate President Obama because it would put Joe Biden in charge, and essentially, he’s so grossly incompetent it would lead to the destruction of America.
As Don Jr. was speaking a chyron flashed on the screen reading “Bin Laden for Biden.”
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…
There was no pause to reflect on the horrors of bin Laden’s terrorism or how terrible it is for an American president to be targeted for assassination. And this isn’t actually a Don Jr. discovery—though the idea of a montage sequence where DJTJ is sitting alone in an archive room, surrounded by stacks of paper, diligently deciphering al Qaeda intelligence is definitely memeworthy. The Washington Post reported all of this back in 2012.
Don Jr. had the money shot for his dad. Staring firmly, unblinkingly, into his father’s eyes, Don Jr. intoned:
What does it say to you that, basically, the Democrat nominee for president of the United States got the posthumous Osama bin Laden endorsement?
To which the president of the United States replied, “It says to me, I didn’t know that. And, it says to me we are immediately going to make a commercial out of that if that’s true.”
“It’s true,” Don Jr. replied. He began to stammer on, but his father cut him off. “By the way, say no more, it’s a great commercial,” President Trump said.
“Well then, that’s your Father’s Day present, congratulations,” Don Jr. replied.
And then, the interview cut straight to a Trump campaign-produced “exclusive premiere” for a commercial about—you guessed it—Osama bin Laden’s “endorsement” of Joe Biden.
The people at Conservative Treehouse are gonna need a cigarette.
In a way, you have to admire the Trump family for being so on-brand that even their Father’s Day “special” is an infomercial for a new attack ad. Because, of course.
Don Jr. asked his dad a couple more questions: whether he approved of his beard and if information about alien life forms would ever be declassified. Coronavirus deaths were not mentioned. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s book never came up. Not a word was uttered about the new Fox News poll showing Trump down 12 points to Biden.
President Trump landed some more talking points about how it would be “bedlam” if Biden won the election, certain to lead to a terrible economic crisis. (Worse than, I don’t know, the one we’re already in?)
And then, just like that, the show was over. As the closing music swelled, President Trump said to someone off screen. “I think he did a good job.” The two of them got up. Don Jr. affectionately swatted his father with his notes. “Good to see you,” the son said.
The smear was delivered; the transaction was complete. Both men were pleased.
Like father, like son.