vox--2020-07-12--Is evangelical support for Trump a contradiction?

In early June , President Trump had federal officers use tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse a peaceful protest so he could stage a photo op outside St. John ’ s Church , which sits across from the White House .
The image , now infamous , shows Trump awkwardly holding up the Bible as though he ’ s never held a book in his life .
It ’ s a surreal shot that somehow captures the performative dimension of his entire presidency .
But why the Bible ?
And why go through all that trouble to do the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
It ’ s well-known that evangelicals are one of Trump ’ s most loyal constituencies , but it ’ s still not clear why .
Conventional wisdom says that evangelicals held their noses and voted for Trump purely for pragmatic purposes — the biggest reason being the Supreme Court .
They may not like him , the argument goes , but he ’ s a useful political vehicle .
( See , for example , the Court ’ s decision on Wednesday that allows the Trump administration to expand religious exemptions for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act ’ s contraceptive mandate . )
But what if Trump wasn ’ t a trade-off for evangelicals ?
What if an obsession with manhood and toughness made a figure like Trump the natural fulfillment of their political evolution ?
This is the argument Kristin Kobes Du Mez , a historian at Calvin University , makes in her new book Jesus and John Wayne .
According to Du Mez , evangelical leaders have spent decades using the tools of pop culture — films , music , television , and the internet — to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she says , is a Christianity that mirrors that culture .
Instead of modeling their lives on Christ , evangelicals have made heroes of people like John Wayne and Mel Gibson , people who project a more militant and more nationalist image .
In that sense , Trump ’ s strongman shtick is a near-perfect expression of their values .
To be candid , I wasn ’ t sure what to make of this thesis , but I ’ m also not an authority on American evangelicalism .
So I contacted Du Mez @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and has spent 15 years studying evangelicals , to talk about the direction of the movement and how it led to Trump and what she calls our “ fractured political moment.
” A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows .
The contrarian argument at the core of your book is that the relationship between Trump and ( mostly white ) evangelicals is more harmonious than most people suggest .
Can you sum up your thesis ?
Well , there are all these theories that evangelicals were holding their noses when they voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ betraying their values .
But I ’ ve studied evangelicals for a long time and I was watching them very closely during the election and in the aftermath , and I just didn ’ t see any regrets at all .
There was no angst or no sense that this was somehow a difficult trade-off .
In fact , what I saw was a bunch of enthusiasm .
There were some evangelical leaders who were expressing caution about Trump , but most of the rank and file had zero difficulty supporting Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ?
I ’ d say right around the time the Access Hollywood tapes were released — that ’ s when it crystallized for me .
So we had these tapes where Trump is talking about sexually assaulting women in such crass terms .
And the media really homed in on white evangelicals at that moment , asking if this was a bridge too far .
Although there was a little hesitation here and there from evangelicals , about a week later they were all back on board .
I know you teach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you grow up in the evangelical world ?
Do you know it from personal experience ?
I didn ’ t identify as an evangelical growing up , but most evangelicals don ’ t .
We tend to identify as Christians .
Looking back , though , I would probably define myself as evangelical-adjacent .
I grew up in a small town in Iowa , and this was very much a part of my world .
As I grew up , I was exposed to this evangelical popular culture through our local bookstore , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shelves were filled with these evangelical books , with Christian contemporary music and Christian movies .
I was in a Christian youth group .
And so my experience with evangelicalism was through the popular culture .
Help me understand why masculinity and nationalism are so foundational to the contemporary evangelical worldview .
What I look to as a historian is this critical period in the post-World War II era when these gender ideals fuse with anti-communist ideology and this overarching desire to defend Christian America .
The idea that takes root during this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men , are the only thing that can protect America from godless communism .
At the same time , you have the civil rights movement destabilizing white evangelicalism and conceptions of white masculinity .
Then you have feminism destabilizing traditional masculinity .
And all of this comes together for evangelicals , who see their place in the culture slipping away , and they see their political power starting to erode because of this cultural displacement .
That ’ s the moment when you see Christian nationalism linking together with a very militant conception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s up to the Christian man to defend his family against all sorts of domestic dangers in the culture wars , and also to defend Christian America against communists and against military threats .
So the idea is that Christian masculinity is the only thing that can preserve traditional American culture and that belief is what precipitates the turn toward a more muscular Christianity ?
That ’ s exactly right .
So when you think of evangelicals , a lot of people think of the term “ family values.
” But I actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ values evangelicalism and I was really surprised just how much it was placed in the context of foreign policy , how much it was in the service of defending the American nation .
If you go back and listen to James Dobson of Focus on the Family and read the books that emerged during this period , this is all very clear .
The phrase “ family values ” is typically hurled at evangelicals in order to call out their hypocrisy , but I think your book makes pretty clear that they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only appear hypocritical if you misunderstand what they actually value .
Exactly .
If you understand what family values evangelicalism has always entailed — and at the very heart of it is white patriarchy , and often a militant white patriarchy — then suddenly , all sorts of evangelical political positions and cultural positions fall into place .
So evangelicals are not acting against their deeply held values when they elect Trump ; they ’ re affirming them .
Their actual views on immigration policy , on torture , on gun control , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — they all line up pretty closely with Trump ’ s .
These are their values , and Trump represents them .
I ’ d like to steelman the evangelical perspective , so can you tell me what cultural forces they ’ re reacting against ?
Well , it changes over time .
In the ’ 40s and ’ 50s , it ’ s all about anti-communism .
But once the civil rights revolution takes hold , it becomes about defending the stability of the traditional social order against all the cultural revolutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really interesting moment for me is in the early ’ 90s when the Cold War comes to an end .
You would think there would be a kind of resetting after the great enemy had been vanquished , but that ’ s not what happened .
Instead , we get the modern culture wars over sex and gender identity and all the rest .
And then 9/11 happens and Islam becomes the new major threat .
So it ’ s always shifting , and at a certain point I started asking the question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here ?
Is it the fear of modern change , of whatever ’ s happening in the moment ?
Or were evangelical leaders actively seeking out those threats and stoking fear in order to maintain their militancy , to maintain their power ?
So this drift into a more militant and nationalist Christianity leads to this obsession with toughness and machismo .
The way you put it is that evangelicals are looking for “ spiritual badasses.
” They don ’ t want gentle Jesus , they want William Wallace or John Wayne .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Most white evangelical men that I knew during the height of this movement , which is really the early 2000s , were very militant .
They were buying these hypermasculine books and taking part in these men ’ s reading groups .
They weren ’ t living out this rugged , violent lifestyle , except maybe at weekend retreats where they role-played this stuff .
But in real life , they were still walking around in khakis and polo shirts , but these were the values that were really animating their worldview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where evangelical men are role-playing Braveheart ?
I don ’ t know about that in particular , but this is very much a thing .
The success of John Eldredge ’ s book Wild at Heart [ a huge bestseller that urged young Christian men to reclaim their masculinity ] was a big deal in the evangelical world , and it sold millions of copies just in the US .
Every college Christian men ’ s group was reading this .
It was everywhere in the early 2000s .
There were lots of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christianity .
It was big business , and there were lots of weekend retreats where men could go out into the wilderness and practice their masculinity .
Local churches invented their own versions of this .
One church I know in Washington had their own local Braveheart games that involves wrestling with pigs or something .
It was all weird and different , but the point was to prove and express your masculinity .
Is this fascination with manhood unique to evangelical culture in particular ?
Or is this something you find in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strict “ gender difference ” and perceived need to “ define ” Christian manhood is far greater in conservative white evangelicalism than in other Christian subcultures .
White evangelicals also stand out in terms of their emphasis on militancy and their conceptions of masculinity , and in how that militant masculinity is connected to Christian nationalism .
In Black Protestantism , for example , you may find an emphasis on Christian manhood , but you ’ re much more likely to encounter discussions of fatherhood rather than a militant warrior masculinity .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to encounter a kinder , gentler masculinity — more of the Mr. Rogers sort .
( Militant white evangelical masculinity explicitly denounces Mr. Rogers ’ s model of manhood . )
That said , evangelical constructions of masculinity have made inroads into mainline circles largely via popular culture ( many mainline churches use evangelical literature in their small-group Bible studies , for example ) , so the lines between white evangelical and mainline Christianity are not always all that clearly drawn .
There ’ s a lot going on there , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
Do most evangelicals consider him a spiritual badass ?
For many he ’ s not , but he is their great protector .
He ’ s their strongman that God has given them to protect them .
So , again , the ends justify the means here .
But I think it ’ s important to understand that the appeal of Trump to evangelicals isn ’ t surprising at all , because their own faith tradition has long embraced this idea of a ruthless masculine protector .
This is just the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that God has designed men .
He filled them with testosterone so that they can fight .
So there ’ s just much less of a conflict there .
The most common thing that I hear from white evangelicals defending Trump is that they just wish he would tweet less .
I don ’ t find a lot of concern about his actual policies or what ’ s in his heart .
I don ’ t understand how a draft-dodging , spray-tanned hypochondriac has become a hypermasculine protector for militant evangelicals — I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but you have to remember that their whole idea of militant masculinity was formed in reaction against feminism and more recently against so-called political correctness .
That has been just such a powerful enemy for white evangelicals who feel oppressed by these new standards of behavior .
And I think Trump really succeeds by not following any of those rules of civil discourse .
If most evangelicals are taking their moral and political cues from Trump or the Duck Dynasty clan or from Christian radio and television , haven ’ t we crossed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a lifestyle or a cultural pose ?
I think we have .
But I will say there is still diversity within evangelical churches , communities , and families .
There are so many evangelicals who read their Bible every morning , who hold to scriptural teachings as they understand them .
But for many of them , the Bible is a complicated book .
Which verses do you hold on to as formative for your life , and which do you dismiss ?
Many are reading through the filter of this ideology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lots of evangelicals who don ’ t want to speak out , who feel a lot of pressure within their own communities .
This is not what their faith means to them , this is not what Christianity is to them .
So when we talk about white evangelicals , we should acknowledge that there is disagreement within churches and communities and families , but it ’ s true that a solid majority of white evangelicals have bought into this ideology .
One of the most interesting threads in your book is this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to modernize the church by using pop culture to lure people in , but over time the pop culture has completely supplanted the theology and all that ’ s left is the vacuous political brand .
I teach at a Christian university , so the majority of my students would fit into this category of white evangelicals .
And just this past year , I was teaching a course where it involved reading the first three chapters of Genesis .
It was about biblical gender roles and taking a critical look .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one woman raised her hand and said , “ I have a confession to make .
I think this is the first time I ’ ve actually read the first three chapters of Genesis ...
I ’ ve been working with the VeggieTales stories and I assumed I knew this , so I didn ’ t bother with the Bible.
” [ VeggieTales is a Christian animated series for kids that uses pop culture to retell biblical stories . ]
She was so embarrassed to confess that , but then several other students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is the evangelical culture these kids have been raised in .
They listen to pop Christian music on the radio .
They read the pop Christian books .
They watch Focus on the Family children ’ s programming .
They watch VeggieTales cartoons .
And Christian parents are told to keep their kids away from the broader secular culture , so it ’ s also very insular .
They stick to the Christian version of it .
That ’ s the only theology they know .
This is really a story about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and consumerism and being bastardized as a result of the collision .
I think that ’ s right , and there ’ s a lot of money to be made through the book sales , the advertising , and the connections between the political strategists and some of the folks behind this consumer market .
What I really tried to do here is just understand the networks behind American evangelicalism .
Who is publishing what ?
What are the distribution networks ?
It ’ s critical to understand evangelicalism through this lens .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ book store or goes online and orders a Christian product , that feels like an authentic expression of their faith to them .
I hear people say all the time that Trump ’ s election was a tragedy for evangelicals , but after reading your book , I wonder if it isn ’ t their greatest victory .
It depends on your vantage point , right ?
I ’ ve been studying evangelical masculinity for almost 15 years , and seeing the veil ripped off in this way was almost cathartic for me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nature of the movement with even more clarity .
This is what “ family values ” evangelicalism looks like , and now it ’ s apparent to everyone .
But for evangelical dissenters , this is indeed a tragedy .
And yet I think even those who are resisting , or who are calling this out and who are struggling with the direction that evangelicalism has taken , still need to reckon with the ways in which they , too , as part of this tradition , have been complicit in this ideology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just happen .
We ’ ve been moving in this direction for a long time .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

In early June, President Donald Trump had federal officers use tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse a peaceful protest so he could stage a photo op outside St. John’s Church, which sits across from the White House.
The image, now infamous, shows Trump awkwardly holding up the Bible as though he’s never held a book in his life. It’s a surreal shot that somehow captures the performative dimension of his entire presidency.
But why the Bible? And why go through all that trouble to do the photo op in front of a church?
It’s well-known that evangelicals are one of Trump’s most loyal constituencies, but it’s still not clear why. Conventional wisdom says that evangelicals held their noses and voted for Trump purely for pragmatic purposes — the biggest reason being the Supreme Court. They may not like him, the argument goes, but he’s a useful political vehicle. (See, for example, the Court’s decision on Wednesday that allows the Trump administration to expand religious exemptions for employers who object to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate.)
But what if Trump wasn’t a trade-off for evangelicals? What if an obsession with manhood and toughness made a figure like Trump the natural fulfillment of their political evolution?
This is the argument Kristin Kobes Du Mez, a historian at Calvin University, makes in her new book Jesus and John Wayne. According to Du Mez, evangelical leaders have spent decades using the tools of pop culture — films, music, television, and the internet — to grow the movement. The result, she says, is a Christianity that mirrors that culture. Instead of modeling their lives on Christ, evangelicals have made heroes of people like John Wayne and Mel Gibson, people who project a more militant and more nationalist image. In that sense, Trump’s strongman shtick is a near-perfect expression of their values.
To be candid, I wasn’t sure what to make of this thesis, but I’m also not an authority on American evangelicalism. So I contacted Du Mez, who teaches at a Christian college and has spent 15 years studying evangelicals, to talk about the direction of the movement and how it led to Trump and what she calls our “fractured political moment.”
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Sean Illing
The contrarian argument at the core of your book is that the relationship between Trump and (mostly white) evangelicals is more harmonious than most people suggest. Can you sum up your thesis?
Kristin Kobes Du Mez
Well, there are all these theories that evangelicals were holding their noses when they voted for Trump, that they were somehow betraying their values. But I’ve studied evangelicals for a long time and I was watching them very closely during the election and in the aftermath, and I just didn’t see any regrets at all. There was no angst or no sense that this was somehow a difficult trade-off. In fact, what I saw was a bunch of enthusiasm. There were some evangelical leaders who were expressing caution about Trump, but most of the rank and file had zero difficulty supporting Trump.
Sean Illing
And when did that become clear to you?
Kristin Kobes Du Mez
I’d say right around the time the Access Hollywood tapes were released — that’s when it crystallized for me. So we had these tapes where Trump is talking about sexually assaulting women in such crass terms. And the media really homed in on white evangelicals at that moment, asking if this was a bridge too far. Although there was a little hesitation here and there from evangelicals, about a week later they were all back on board.
Sean Illing
I know you teach at a Christian university, but did you grow up in the evangelical world? Do you know it from personal experience?
Kristin Kobes Du Mez
I didn’t identify as an evangelical growing up, but most evangelicals don’t. We tend to identify as Christians. Looking back, though, I would probably define myself as evangelical-adjacent. I grew up in a small town in Iowa, and this was very much a part of my world.
As I grew up, I was exposed to this evangelical popular culture through our local bookstore, the only bookstore in town. The shelves were filled with these evangelical books, with Christian contemporary music and Christian movies. I was in a Christian youth group. And so my experience with evangelicalism was through the popular culture.
Sean Illing
Help me understand why masculinity and nationalism are so foundational to the contemporary evangelical worldview.
Kristin Kobes Du Mez
What I look to as a historian is this critical period in the post-World War II era when these gender ideals fuse with anti-communist ideology and this overarching desire to defend Christian America. The idea that takes root during this period is that Christian masculinity, Christian men, are the only thing that can protect America from godless communism.
At the same time, you have the civil rights movement destabilizing white evangelicalism and conceptions of white masculinity. Then you have feminism destabilizing traditional masculinity. And all of this comes together for evangelicals, who see their place in the culture slipping away, and they see their political power starting to erode because of this cultural displacement. That’s the moment when you see Christian nationalism linking together with a very militant conception of Christian manhood, because it’s up to the Christian man to defend his family against all sorts of domestic dangers in the culture wars, and also to defend Christian America against communists and against military threats.
Sean Illing
So the idea is that Christian masculinity is the only thing that can preserve traditional American culture, and that belief is what precipitates the turn toward a more muscular Christianity?
Kristin Kobes Du Mez
That’s exactly right. So when you think of evangelicals, a lot of people think of the term “family values.” But I actually went back to the origins of family values evangelicalism and I was really surprised just how much it was placed in the context of foreign policy, how much it was in the service of defending the American nation. If you go back and listen to James Dobson of Focus on the Family and read the books that emerged during this period, this is all very clear.
Sean Illing
The phrase “family values” is typically hurled at evangelicals in order to call out their hypocrisy, but I think your book makes pretty clear that they’re not hypocrites at all. They only appear hypocritical if you misunderstand what they actually value.
Kristin Kobes Du Mez
Exactly. If you understand what family values evangelicalism has always entailed — and at the very heart of it is white patriarchy, and often a militant white patriarchy — then suddenly, all sorts of evangelical political positions and cultural positions fall into place.
So evangelicals are not acting against their deeply held values when they elect Trump; they’re affirming them. Their actual views on immigration policy, on torture, on gun control, on Black Lives Matter and police brutality — they all line up pretty closely with Trump’s. These are their values, and Trump represents them.
Sean Illing
I’d like to steelman the evangelical perspective, so can you tell me what cultural forces they’re reacting against?
Kristin Kobes Du Mez
Well, it changes over time. In the ’40s and ’50s, it’s all about anti-communism. But once the civil rights revolution takes hold, it becomes about defending the stability of the traditional social order against all the cultural revolutions of the ’60s. But the really interesting moment for me is in the early ’90s when the Cold War comes to an end. You would think there would be a kind of resetting after the great enemy had been vanquished, but that’s not what happened.
Instead, we get the modern culture wars over sex and gender identity and all the rest. And then 9/11 happens and Islam becomes the new major threat. So it’s always shifting, and at a certain point I started asking the question, particularly post-9/11, what comes first here? Is it the fear of modern change, of whatever’s happening in the moment? Or were evangelical leaders actively seeking out those threats and stoking fear in order to maintain their militancy, to maintain their power?
Sean Illing
So this drift into a more militant and nationalist Christianity leads to this obsession with toughness and machismo. The way you put it is that evangelicals are looking for “spiritual badasses.” They don’t want gentle Jesus, they want William Wallace or John Wayne.
Kristin Kobes Du Mez
Yeah, these are their role models. Most white evangelical men that I knew during the height of this movement, which is really the early 2000s, were very militant. They were buying these hypermasculine books and taking part in these men’s reading groups. They weren’t living out this rugged, violent lifestyle, except maybe at weekend retreats where they role-played this stuff. But in real life, they were still walking around in khakis and polo shirts, but these were the values that were really animating their worldview.
Sean Illing
Wait, are there weekend retreats where evangelical men are role-playing Braveheart?
Kristin Kobes Du Mez
I don’t know about that in particular, but this is very much a thing. The success of John Eldredge’s book Wild at Heart [a huge bestseller that urged young Christian men to reclaim their masculinity] was a big deal in the evangelical world, and it sold millions of copies just in the US. Every college Christian men’s group was reading this. It was everywhere in the early 2000s.
There were lots of conferences celebrating this version of a rugged Christianity. It was big business, and there were lots of weekend retreats where men could go out into the wilderness and practice their masculinity. Local churches invented their own versions of this. One church I know in Washington had their own local Braveheart games that involves wrestling with pigs or something. It was all weird and different, but the point was to prove and express your masculinity.
Sean Illing
Is this fascination with manhood unique to evangelical culture in particular? Or is this something you find in other Christian subcultures?
Kristin Kobes Du Mez
The emphasis on strict “gender difference” and perceived need to “define” Christian manhood is far greater in conservative white evangelicalism than in other Christian subcultures. White evangelicals also stand out in terms of their emphasis on militancy and their conceptions of masculinity, and in how that militant masculinity is connected to Christian nationalism.
In Black Protestantism, for example, you may find an emphasis on Christian manhood, but you’re much more likely to encounter discussions of fatherhood rather than a militant warrior masculinity. In mainline Protestantism you’ll be more likely to encounter a kinder, gentler masculinity — more of the Mr. Rogers sort. (Militant white evangelical masculinity explicitly denounces Mr. Rogers’s model of manhood.)
That said, evangelical constructions of masculinity have made inroads into mainline circles largely via popular culture (many mainline churches use evangelical literature in their small-group Bible studies, for example), so the lines between white evangelical and mainline Christianity are not always all that clearly drawn.
Sean Illing
There’s a lot going on there, but I’ll bring this back to Trump. Do most evangelicals consider him a spiritual badass?
Kristin Kobes Du Mez
For many he’s not, but he is their great protector. He’s their strongman that God has given them to protect them. So, again, the ends justify the means here. But I think it’s important to understand that the appeal of Trump to evangelicals isn’t surprising at all, because their own faith tradition has long embraced this idea of a ruthless masculine protector.
This is just the way that God works and the way that God has designed men. He filled them with testosterone so that they can fight. So there’s just much less of a conflict there. The most common thing that I hear from white evangelicals defending Trump is that they just wish he would tweet less. I don’t find a lot of concern about his actual policies or what’s in his heart.
Sean Illing
I don’t understand how a draft-dodging, spray-tanned hypochondriac has become a hypermasculine protector for militant evangelicals —
Kristin Kobes Du Mez
I mean, that’s fair, but you have to remember that their whole idea of militant masculinity was formed in reaction against feminism and more recently against so-called political correctness. That has been just such a powerful enemy for white evangelicals who feel oppressed by these new standards of behavior. And I think Trump really succeeds by not following any of those rules of civil discourse.
Sean Illing
If most evangelicals are taking their moral and political cues from Trump or the Duck Dynasty clan or from Christian radio and television, haven’t we crossed over into something post-religious, something closer to a lifestyle or a cultural pose?
Kristin Kobes Du Mez
I think we have. But I will say there is still diversity within evangelical churches, communities, and families. There are so many evangelicals who read their Bible every morning, who hold to scriptural teachings as they understand them. But for many of them, the Bible is a complicated book. Which verses do you hold on to as formative for your life, and which do you dismiss? Many are reading through the filter of this ideology now.
But I’ve encountered lots of evangelicals who don’t want to speak out, who feel a lot of pressure within their own communities. This is not what their faith means to them, this is not what Christianity is to them. So when we talk about white evangelicals, we should acknowledge that there is disagreement within churches and communities and families, but it’s true that a solid majority of white evangelicals have bought into this ideology.
Sean Illing
One of the most interesting threads in your book is this story about how evangelical leaders have tried to modernize the church by using pop culture to lure people in, but over time the pop culture has completely supplanted the theology and all that’s left is the vacuous political brand.
Kristin Kobes Du Mez
I teach at a Christian university, so the majority of my students would fit into this category of white evangelicals. And just this past year, I was teaching a course where it involved reading the first three chapters of Genesis. It was about biblical gender roles and taking a critical look.
And at one point during our discussion, one woman raised her hand and said, “I have a confession to make. I think this is the first time I’ve actually read the first three chapters of Genesis ... I’ve been working with the VeggieTales stories and I assumed I knew this, so I didn’t bother with the Bible.” [VeggieTales is a Christian animated series for kids that uses pop culture to retell biblical stories.] She was so embarrassed to confess that, but then several other students confessed to the same thing.
So this is the evangelical culture these kids have been raised in. They listen to pop Christian music on the radio. They read the pop Christian books. They watch Focus on the Family children’s programming. They watch VeggieTales cartoons. And Christian parents are told to keep their kids away from the broader secular culture, so it’s also very insular. They stick to the Christian version of it. That’s the only theology they know.
Sean Illing
This is really a story about a religious movement getting entangled with politics and consumerism and being bastardized as a result of the collision.
Kristin Kobes Du Mez
I think that’s right, and there’s a lot of money to be made through the book sales, the advertising, and the connections between the political strategists and some of the folks behind this consumer market. What I really tried to do here is just understand the networks behind American evangelicalism. Who is publishing what? What are the distribution networks?
It’s critical to understand evangelicalism through this lens. Even when someone walks into a Christian book store or goes online and orders a Christian product, that feels like an authentic expression of their faith to them.
Sean Illing
I hear people say all the time that Trump’s election was a tragedy for evangelicals, but after reading your book, I wonder if it isn’t their greatest victory.
Kristin Kobes Du Mez
It depends on your vantage point, right? I’ve been studying evangelical masculinity for almost 15 years, and seeing the veil ripped off in this way was almost cathartic for me. I was able to see the nature of the movement with even more clarity. This is what “family values” evangelicalism looks like, and now it’s apparent to everyone.
But for evangelical dissenters, this is indeed a tragedy. And yet I think even those who are resisting, or who are calling this out and who are struggling with the direction that evangelicalism has taken, still need to reckon with the ways in which they, too, as part of this tradition, have been complicit in this ideology. The Trump era didn’t just happen. We’ve been moving in this direction for a long time.


vox--2020-07-12--Robert Mueller: Roger Stone “remains a convicted felon, and rightly so.”

Former special counsel Robert Mueller offered pointed criticism of President Donald Trump ’ s decision to commute the sentence of his longtime friend and campaign advisor Roger Stone in an op-ed in the Washington Post on Saturday , declaring that despite being granted clemency , Stone “ remains a convicted felon , and rightly so.
” Trump commuted Stone ’ s sentence on Friday — just days before he was set to begin serving a 40 month prison sentence after being convicted of lying to lawmakers who were investigating whether Russia influenced the 2016 elections .
That conviction stemmed from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in its investigation of the Trump campaign ’ s ties to Russia .
Stone was convicted of seven charges in total , which also included witness tampering and obstructing a congressional committee proceeding .
Mueller ’ s emphatic defense of his investigation ’ s findings about Stone marked a sharp departure from his history of either avoiding discussing his investigation or presenting its findings in understated terms , and has prompted Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) , the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee , to say he will allow Mueller to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on that committee have long pushed for .
On Saturday , Trump continued his defense of Stone , tweeting his friend had been “ targeted by an illegal Witch Hunt that never should have taken place.
” But in his op-ed , Mueller refuted the president ’ s aspersions , and systematically laid out Stone ’ s many violations of the law — including the way he lied to avoid revealing his links to the Russian government : Congress also investigated and sought information from Stone .
A jury later determined he lied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks .
He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary .
He lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks ’ releases .
He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks .
And he tampered with a witness , imploring him to stonewall Congress .
The jury ultimately convicted Stone of obstruction of a congressional investigation , five counts of making false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness .
Because his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not go to prison .
But his conviction stands .
Mueller also defended the women and men who conducted the investigations and prosecutions , writing that they acted “ with the highest integrity ” and operated based “ solely on the facts and the law.
” Mueller ’ s decision to intervene in the public debate that followed Trump ’ s commutation diverged from his general tendency to avoid defending his investigation , and his apparent preference to have the report his team produced speak for itself .
Vox ’ s Zack Beauchamp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circumscribed view of his own responsibilities that he didn ’ t want to answer questions beyond simple statements or citation of the full report ” when he testified before the House of Representatives last July : Mueller did not detail what informed his decision to write the op-ed , but it comes at a time when Democrats — as well as some Republicans — have expressed deep concern about the extraordinary precedent that Trump is setting by granting clemency to his friend and someone who , according to prosecutors , lied to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal analyst for CNN and the New Yorker , has argued that with the commutation of Stone , Trump has entered new , dangerous territory .
“ Trump had not , until now , used pardons and commutations to reward defendants who possessed incriminating information against him , ” he wrote in the New Yorker .
“ The Stone commutation isn ’ t just a gift to an old friend—it is a reward to Stone for keeping his mouth shut during the Mueller investigation .
It is , in other words , corruption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receiving pushback for what may be unprecedented corruption Trump ’ s move to pardon Stone was notable even amid his sustained trend of using his powers as president to reward those who are loyal to him ( and punish those who he believes aren ’ t ) .
Experts say that that the frequency with which Trump has granted clemency toward those he sees as allies — like when he pardoned or commuted the sentences of 11 people who had an inside connection to him or were promoted on Fox News in February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Modern presidents have sullied clemency through disuse ( both Bushes ) and occasional self-serving grants ( Clinton ) , ” Mark Osler , a law professor at the University of St. Thomas ’ School of Law , told NPR .
“ However , no president [ until Trump ] has ever used clemency primarily to reward friends and political allies.
” On Sunday , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi condemned Trump ’ s decision to scrap Stone ’ s sentence in strong terms .
“ It ’ s staggering corruption , but I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also to know it ’ s a threat to our national security , ” Pelosi said on CNN ’ s State of the Union .
“ The whole impeachment process was about our national security .
Why we are at the Supreme Court on these cases was to find out about the Russian connection , and we will continue to pursue that .
This case was about the Russian connection.
” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) told NBC News on Saturday that Trump ’ s commutation sends the clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the president , if you cover up for the president , if you withhold incriminating evidence for the president , you get a pass from Donald Trump.
” Schiff argued that the situation speaks to the urgency of passing a bill he introduced in 2019 — the Abuse of the Pardon Prevention Act , which requires the president to present evidence to Congress when granting clemency to someone in an investigation in which the president or a family member is a witness , subject , or target .
Sen. Mitt Romney ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willingness to break from his party in his criticism of the president , deemed Trump ’ s move ” unprecedented , historic corruption.
” He was joined in this criticism by Sen. Pat Toomey ( R-PA ) , who said in a statement , “ In my view , commuting Roger Stone ’ s sentence is a mistake , ” adding , “ Earlier this week Attorney General Bill Barr stated he thought Mr. Stone ’ s prosecution was ‘ righteous ’ and ‘ appropriate ’ and the sentence he received was ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s conviction and trial should be resolved through the appeals process.
” The critiques from the Republican senators caused Trump to lash out at them on Twitter Saturday , calling them Republicans in name only .
Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham followed that tweet with one of his own , indicating Mueller would be asked to testify before his committee .
“ Apparently Mr. Mueller is willing — and also capable — of defending the Mueller investigation through an oped in the Washington Post , ” Graham wrote on Twitter .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously requested Mr. Mueller appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify about his investigation .
That request will be granted.
” It ’ s unclear , however , whether Mueller will ultimately testify , or if the op-ed will be his final word on the issue .

Former special counsel Robert Mueller offered pointed criticism of President Donald Trump’s decision to commute the sentence of his longtime friend and campaign adviser Roger Stone in an op-ed in the Washington Post on Saturday. Mueller declared that despite being granted clemency, Stone “remains a convicted felon, and rightly so.”
Trump commuted Stone’s sentence on Friday — just days before he was set to begin serving a 40-month prison sentence after being convicted of lying to lawmakers who were investigating whether Russia influenced the 2016 elections. That conviction stemmed from work done by Mueller’s team in its investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Stone was convicted of seven charges in total, which included witness tampering and obstructing a congressional committee proceeding.
Mueller’s emphatic defense of his investigation’s findings about Stone marked a sharp departure from his history of either avoiding discussing his investigation or presenting its findings in understated terms. It has prompted Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to say he will allow Mueller to testify before the Senate, something Democrats on that committee have long pushed for.
On Saturday, Trump continued his defense of Stone, tweeting his friend had been “targeted by an illegal Witch Hunt that never should have taken place.”
But in his op-ed, Mueller refuted the president’s aspersions and systematically laid out Stone’s many violations of the law — including the way he lied to avoid revealing his links to the Russian government:
Congress also investigated and sought information from Stone. A jury later determined he lied repeatedly to members of Congress. He lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks. He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary. He lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks’ releases. He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks. And he tampered with a witness, imploring him to stonewall Congress. The jury ultimately convicted Stone of obstruction of a congressional investigation, five counts of making false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness. Because his sentence has been commuted, he will not go to prison. But his conviction stands.
Mueller also defended the women and men who conducted the investigations and prosecutions, writing that they acted “with the highest integrity” and operated based “solely on the facts and the law.”
Mueller’s decision to intervene in the public debate that followed Trump’s commutation diverged from his tendency to avoid defending his investigation, and his apparent preference to have the report his team produced speak for itself. Vox’s Zack Beauchamp described Mueller as having “such a circumscribed view of his own responsibilities that he didn’t want to answer questions beyond simple statements or citation of the full report” when he testified before the House of Representatives last July:
Mueller testified before both the House Judiciary Committee and the Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence, saying very little of substance beyond what was already contained in the text of his report. He responded to questions with monosyllables or requests for clarification. According to a count by NBC, Mueller “deflected or declined to answer questions 198 times” during the two three-hour hearings.
Mueller did not detail what informed his decision to write the op-ed, but it comes at a time when Democrats — as well as some Republicans — have expressed deep concern about the extraordinary precedent that Trump is setting by granting clemency to his friend and someone who, according to prosecutors, lied to protect the president.
Jeffrey Toobin, a legal analyst for CNN and the New Yorker, has argued that with the commutation of Stone, Trump has entered new, dangerous territory.
“Trump had not, until now, used pardons and commutations to reward defendants who possessed incriminating information against him,” he wrote in the New Yorker. “The Stone commutation isn’t just a gift to an old friend—it is a reward to Stone for keeping his mouth shut during the Mueller investigation. It is, in other words, corruption on top of cronyism.”
Trump is receiving pushback for what may be unprecedented corruption
Trump’s move to pardon Stone was notable even amid his sustained trend of using his powers as president to reward those who are loyal to him (and punish those who he believes aren’t). Experts say that the frequency with which Trump has granted clemency to those he sees as allies — like when he pardoned or commuted the sentences of 11 people who had an inside connection to him or were promoted on Fox News in February — appears to be historically unique.
“Modern presidents have sullied clemency through disuse (both Bushes) and occasional self-serving grants (Clinton),” Mark Osler, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, told NPR. “However, no president [until Trump] has ever used clemency primarily to reward friends and political allies.”
On Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi condemned Trump’s decision to scrap Stone’s sentence in strong terms.
“It’s staggering corruption, but I think it’s important for people also to know it’s a threat to our national security,” Pelosi said on CNN’s State of the Union. “The whole impeachment process was about our national security. Why we are at the Supreme Court on these cases was to find out about the Russian connection, and we will continue to pursue that. This case was about the Russian connection.”
House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) told NBC News on Saturday that Trump’s commutation sends the clear signal that, “If you lie for the president, if you cover up for the president, if you withhold incriminating evidence for the president, you get a pass from Donald Trump.”
Schiff argued that the situation speaks to the urgency of passing a bill he introduced in 2019 — the Abuse of the Pardon Prevention Act — which requires the president to present evidence to Congress when granting clemency to someone in an investigation in which the president or a family member is a witness, subject, or target.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), who has demonstrated a willingness to break from his party in his criticism of the president, deemed Trump’s move ”unprecedented, historic corruption.”
He was joined in this criticism by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), who said in a statement, “In my view, commuting Roger Stone’s sentence is a mistake,” adding, “Earlier this week Attorney General Bill Barr stated he thought Mr. Stone’s prosecution was ‘righteous’ and ‘appropriate’ and the sentence he received was ‘fair.’ Any objections to Mr. Stone’s conviction and trial should be resolved through the appeals process.”
The critiques from the Republican senators caused Trump to lash out at them on Twitter Saturday, calling them Republicans in name only.
Do RINO’S Pat Toomey & Mitt Romney have any problem with the fact that we caught Obama, Biden, & Company illegally spying on my campaign? Do they care if Comey, McCabe, Page & her lover, Peter S, the whole group, ran rampant, wild & unchecked - lying & leaking all the way? NO! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 12, 2020
Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham followed that tweet with one of his own, indicating that Mueller would be asked to testify before his committee.
“Apparently Mr. Mueller is willing — and also capable — of defending the Mueller investigation through an oped in the Washington Post,” Graham wrote on Twitter. “Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have previously requested Mr. Mueller appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify about his investigation. That request will be granted.”
It’s unclear, however, whether Mueller will ultimately testify, or if the op-ed will be his final word on the issue.


vox--2020-07-12--The Goya Foods free speech controversy, explained

Goya Foods CEO Robert Unanue said on Friday that a growing boycott of his company in response to his recent praise of President Donald Trump amounts to a “ suppression of speech , ” tapping into the president ’ s ongoing narrative that liberals are proponents of an oppressive “ cancel culture ” that punishes those who exercise their right to free speech .
Calls for a boycott emerged after Unanue said that Trump was an “ incredible builder ” and that the US was “ blessed ” to have him as president at a White House event on Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on creating economic opportunities for Latinx Americans .
The praise elicited criticism from progressives , and a boycott campaign of Goya Foods backed by prominent political and cultural leaders like Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Hamilton creator and star Lin-Manuel Miranda rapidly spread across social media .
In an interview on Fox & Friends , Unanue argued that the online campaign revealed a double standard , pointing to the fact that he attended a healthy eating initiative at the invitation of former President and First Lady Barack and Michelle Obama in 2012 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk good or to praise one president , but you ’ re not allowed , when I was called to be part of this commission to aid in economic and educational prosperity and you make a positive comment , all of a sudden that ’ s not acceptable , ” Unanue said .
“ So , you know , I ’ m not apologizing for saying — and especially if you ’ re called by the president of the United States , you ’ re going to say , ‘ No , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ busy .
No thank you.
’ I didn ’ t say that to the Obamas , and I didn ’ t say that to President Trump , ” he added .
Conservative politicians and pundits have leapt on the boycott , popularized online as the # Goyaway campaign , as another sign of the existence of an extremist left seeking to obliterate discourse — and to enact punitive measures against those they disagree with .
“ The Left is trying to cancel Hispanic culture and silence free speech .
# BuyGoya , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Friday .
Fox News contributor and former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee tweeted : “ Cancel-culture leftists don ’ t need beans .
Their speeches & whining already produce all the gas the planet can take.
” But while Unanue and his supporters on the right are decrying the boycott as an attack on his right to speech , in reality , it ’ s simply criticism of his political gestures .
“ ‘ Buycotting ’ is not suppressing speech .
In fact , it is the opposite , ” Jaime Settle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the College of William and Mary , told me .
“ Corporate leaders have a choice : if they choose to publicly disclose their political views , they should expect people to respond by expressing their own , even if the public channels that speech through consumer habit.
” Unanue ’ s right and capacity to express his ideas about the president — or any other matter — remain intact even if profit margins at Goya , a multibillion-dollar company , take a hit due to pushback from boycott campaigns .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the social consequences that accompany taking a political position in a highly polarized political climate .
Unanue , the head of the largest Hispanic-owned food company in the US , appeared at the White House on Thursday to announce that Goya Foods would be donating a million cans of chickpeas as well as a million pounds of food to food banks as part of the Hispanic Prosperity Initiative , a new advisory commission created by Trump which is tasked with increasing Hispanic access to economic and educational opportunities .
When Unanue spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ podium just feet away from Trump , he did not just announce his donation , but also offered praise of the president , likening him to his own grandfather , a Spanish immigrant who founded Goya in 1936 .
“ We ’ re all truly blessed at the same time to have a leader like President Trump , who is a builder , ” he said .
“ And so we have an incredible builder .
And we pray .
We pray for our leadership , our president , and we pray for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prosper and to grow.
” Unanue ‘ s decision to laud the president resulted in sharp blowback among Latinx progressives , who argued that Unanue ’ s celebration of the Trump presidency marked a betrayal of the Latinx community that buys his company ’ s products .
“ @ GoyaFoods has been a staple of so many Latino households for generations .
Now their CEO , Bob Unanue , is praising a president who villainizes and maliciously attacks Latinos for political gain , ” tweeted former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice before buying their products.
” Miranda , the creator of Hamilton , tweeted , “ We learned to bake bread in this pandemic , we can learn to make our own adobo con pimienta .
Bye.
” United We Dream , an immigrant youth-led organization , created a petition slamming Unanue for aligning with Trump and calling for a boycott of the company ; # Goyaway and # BoycottGoya trended on Twitter after the remarks .
Commentators on the right responded to the boycott campaign with their own hashtag : # BuyGoya @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boycott as an attack on Unanue ’ s freedom of speech , and advocated for pushing back by stocking up on Goya products .
Amid the blowback , Unanue decided to appear on Fox News and Fox Business on Friday .
On Fox & Friends — one of Trump ’ s favorite television shows and a bastion of far-right thinking — Unanue began the interview by saying , “ It ’ s good to be with some friends.
” During the interview , he said the boycott constituted a “ suppression of speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his remarks ; and that the reaction to his praise of Trump revealed a double standard since his appearance at the Obama White House in 2012 garnered no controversy .
Later on Fox Business — during an interview he began by telling the host that he was doing a “ great job ” — he said the boycott was “ a reflection , I believe , of the division that exists today in our country ... this great divide is killing our nation — we ’ re tearing down statues of Jesus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great quote , ‘ A house divided against itself can not stand.
’ And this can be the destruction of our nation , we are at that point , ” he said .
In adopting this language , Unanue and his supporters have framed the boycotts as the latest example of an overzealous left that seeks to suppress the expression of everything it doesn ’ t like .
Unanue ’ s comment about statues of Jesus being attacked evokes Trump ’ s talk of statue-toppling as a sign of a “ merciless campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our heroes , erase our values , and indoctrinate our children.
” Trump has , in recent months , portrayed efforts by antiracist protesters to pull down or criticize memorials commemorating historical figures who supported slavery , white supremacy , or colonialism as an attack on American values .
( There are no signs that statues of Jesus are generally being targeted by protests , but there has been criticism of Eurocentric depictions of his image . )
While protesters see these symbols as inappropriate celebrations of America ’ s history of white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in highly racialized and nativist language that efforts to remove them represent a “ totalitarian ” crackdown on expression of identity .
But this language obscures the issue at hand .
Antiracist protesters aren ’ t disputing the right of people to discuss Confederate leaders , they ’ re protesting their celebration .
And similarly , Unanue is not having his views suppressed — he ’ s receiving criticism for signaling support for policies that boycotters see as unjust .
The boycotts aren ’ t suppression .
They ’ re just more speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights refers to restrictions on state action ( specifically Congress ’ s ability to make laws ) on the freedom of the public and the press to express their views .
Boycotts led by consumers , experts say , fall under protected speech .
“ Calls for economic boycotts are clearly speech , not the suppression of speech .
Consumers have long tied politics to purchasing , and advocating business boycotts is undoubtedly protected speech , ” Timothy Zick , a professor of government and citizenship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Law School , told me .
“ Mr .
Unanue runs a large corporation , so it rings hollow to suggest that individual consumers are in any way suppressing his speech.
” One relevant precedent here is a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that an NAACP boycott of white merchants in Mississippi seeking to secure “ compliance by both civic and business leaders with a lengthy list of demands for equality and racial justice , ” was protected by the First Amendment .
Given that the boycott does not represent an infringement on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more substantive grievance might then appear to be that it ’ s unfair for his company to be penalized for his appearing at a presidential event , something he ’ s done before .
But this line of thinking is flawed for a number of reasons .
The political climate is vastly different than the last time Unanue appeared at a presidential event : Trump has successfully worked to dramatically polarize American politics for the entirety of his presidency — even turning a public health emergency into a partisan war — and thus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if ever , perceived as neutral .
That polarization has been accomplished in part through Trump ’ s denigration of the US ’ s Latinx community , from the moment he kicked off his first presidential campaign by calling Mexicans rapists and criminals to his recent inability to address record high Latinx unemployment .
And Trump ’ s immigration policy has targeted Latinx people in particular — featuring , for example , harsh detainment policies like child separation that violate international human rights standards .
“ This is only one small chapter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over a host of issues , ” Mugambi Jouet , a professor who specializes in polarization at McGill University , told me , noting that “ the fundamental issues at play here are the question of immigration and xenophobic discourse and agenda of the Trump administration.
” Unanue has chosen to jump into the political fray at every juncture of this episode .
Crucially , he chose not only to affiliate with Trump , but also praised the president in strong terms .
And then Unanue went on to do two distinctly chummy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people criticizing him were the real source of division in the country .
The speed and intensity at which the backlash came is a function of this polarization — after three years of the Trump administration , very few Americans have ambivalent feelings about the president — but the boycotts themselves are an outgrowth of anger at the policies and behavior Jouet outlined .
Gustavo Arellano , author of Taco USA : How Mexican Food Conquered America , told the New York Times Unanue ’ s comments were a “ betrayal ” for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see Trump as the antithesis of Latinos , in fact , as the enemy.
” For Unanue — the leader of a brand that “ represents nurture and community and family and most importantly the kitchen ” for Latinx Americans , according to Arellano — to endorse a president who has caused that community , and other communities of color , so much pain brings many a great deal of distress .
Not only because Unanue said Trump himself was “ incredible , ” but because with his praise , Unanue seemed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Also of concern to those boycotting Goya are Unanue ’ s actions — not just his willingness to seek the friendly confines of Fox News , but his financial contributions to lawmakers who have enacted right-wing policies .
Per CNN ’ s David Goldman : Unanue remains free to express his political opinions .
He took advantage of this freedom at the White House , and again on Fox News .
What he ’ s witnessing with a boycott is not an agenda to prevent him from speaking his mind , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow citizens of the ideas and endorsements he ’ s chosen to align himself with .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Goya Foods CEO Robert Unanue said on Friday that a growing boycott of his company in response to his recent praise of President Donald Trump amounts to a “suppression of speech,” tapping into the president’s ongoing narrative that liberals are proponents of an oppressive “cancel culture” that punishes those who exercise their right to free speech.
Calls for a boycott emerged after Unanue said that Trump was an “incredible builder” and that the US was “blessed” to have him as president at a White House event on Thursday meant to highlight a new advisory commission on creating economic opportunities for Latinx Americans. The praise elicited criticism from progressives, and a boycott campaign of Goya Foods backed by prominent political and cultural leaders like Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Hamilton creator and star Lin-Manuel Miranda rapidly spread across social media.
Oh look, it’s the sound of me Googling “how to make your own Adobo” https://t.co/YOScAcyAnC — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 10, 2020
Free speech works both ways. @GoyaFoods CEO is free to support a bigoted president who said an American judge can’t do his job because he’s “Mexican”, who treats Puerto Rico like trash, and who tries to deport Dreamers.
We’re free to leave his products on the shelves. #Goyaway https://t.co/4qRQ0u4R7V — Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) July 10, 2020
In an interview on Fox & Friends, Unanue argued that the online campaign revealed a double standard, pointing to the fact that he attended a healthy eating initiative at the invitation of former president Barack Obama and and first lady Michelle Obama in 2012.
“So you’re allowed to talk good or to praise one president, but you’re not allowed, when I was called to be part of this commission to aid in economic and educational prosperity and you make a positive comment, all of a sudden that’s not acceptable,” Unanue said.
“So, you know, I’m not apologizing for saying — and especially if you’re called by the president of the United States, you’re going to say, ‘No, I’m sorry, I’m busy. No thank you.’ I didn’t say that to the Obamas, and I didn’t say that to President Trump,” he added.
Conservative politicians and pundits have leaped on the boycott, popularized online as the #Goyaway campaign, as another sign of the existence of an extremist left seeking to obliterate discourse — and to enact punitive measures against those they disagree with.
“The Left is trying to cancel Hispanic culture and silence free speech. #BuyGoya,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) tweeted on Friday. Fox News contributor and former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee tweeted: “Cancel-culture leftists don’t need beans. Their speeches & whining already produce all the gas the planet can take.”
But while Unanue and his supporters on the right are decrying the boycott as an attack on his right to speech, in reality, it’s simply criticism of his political gestures.
“‘Buycotting’ is not suppressing speech. In fact, it is the opposite,” Jaime Settle, a scholar of American political behavior at the College of William and Mary, told me. “Corporate leaders have a choice: If they choose to publicly disclose their political views, they should expect people to respond by expressing their own, even if the public channels that speech through consumer habit.”
Unanue’s right and capacity to express his ideas about the president — or any other matter — remain intact even if profit margins at Goya, a multibillion-dollar company, take a hit due to pushback from boycott campaigns. Instead of free speech, the core issue is the social consequences that accompany taking a political position in a highly polarized political climate.
Unanue’s comments have turned Goya Foods into a left-right proxy war
Unanue, the head of the largest Hispanic-owned food company in the US, appeared at the White House on Thursday to announce that Goya Foods would be donating 1 million cans of chickpeas as well as 1 million pounds of food to food banks as part of the Hispanic Prosperity Initiative, a new advisory commission created by Trump tasked with increasing Hispanic access to economic and educational opportunities.
When Unanue spoke at the Rose Garden event at a podium just feet away from Trump, he did not just announce his donation but also offered praise of the president, likening him to his own grandfather, a Spanish immigrant who founded Goya in 1936.
“We’re all truly blessed at the same time to have a leader like President Trump, who is a builder,” he said. “And so we have an incredible builder. And we pray. We pray for our leadership, our president, and we pray for our country, that we will continue to prosper and to grow.”
Unanue‘s decision to laud the president resulted in sharp blowback among Latinx progressives, who argued that Unanue’s celebration of the Trump presidency marked a betrayal of the Latinx community that buys his company’s products.
“@GoyaFoods has been a staple of so many Latino households for generations. Now their CEO, Bob Unanue, is praising a president who villainizes and maliciously attacks Latinos for political gain,” tweeted former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro. “Americans should think twice before buying their products.”
Miranda, the creator of Hamilton, tweeted, “We learned to bake bread in this pandemic, we can learn to make our own adobo con pimienta. Bye.”
United We Dream, an immigrant youth-led organization, created a petition slamming Unanue for aligning with Trump and calling for a boycott of the company; #Goyaway and #BoycottGoya trended on Twitter after the remarks.
Commentators on the right responded to the boycott campaign with their own hashtag: #BuyGoya. Conservative pundits and politicians described the boycott as an attack on Unanue’s freedom of speech, and advocated for pushing back by stocking up on Goya products.
Goya Foods CEO won't apologize in face of boycott, backlash for pro-Trump remarks: 'Suppression of speech' // Bob Unanue sets a good example in the fight against liberal terrorism. Don’t let his voice be suppressed. Stand up against these thugs. #BuyGoya https://t.co/5TmFnsPmcP — James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) July 10, 2020
Amid the blowback, Unanue decided to appear on Fox News and Fox Business on Friday.
On Fox & Friends — one of Trump’s favorite television shows and a bastion of far-right thinking — Unanue began the interview by saying, “It’s good to be with some friends.” During the interview, he said the boycott constituted a “suppression of speech”; that he would not apologize for his remarks; and that the reaction to his praise of Trump revealed a double standard since his appearance at the Obama White House in 2012 garnered no controversy.
Later on Fox Business — during an interview he began by telling the host that he was doing a “great job” — he said the boycott was “a reflection, I believe, of the division that exists today in our country ... this great divide is killing our nation — we’re tearing down statues of Jesus Christ.”
“Abraham Lincoln had the great quote, ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ And this can be the destruction of our nation, we are at that point,” he said.
In adopting this language, Unanue and his supporters have framed the boycotts as the latest example of an overzealous left that seeks to suppress the expression of everything it doesn’t like. Unanue’s comment about statues of Jesus being attacked evokes Trump’s talk of statue-toppling as a sign of a “merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children.”
Trump has, in recent months, portrayed efforts by anti-racist protesters to pull down or criticize memorials commemorating historical figures who supported slavery, white supremacy, or colonialism as an attack on American values. (There are no signs that statues of Jesus are generally being targeted by protests, but there has been criticism of Eurocentric depictions of his image.) While protesters see these symbols as inappropriate celebrations of America’s history of white supremacy, Trump has tried to argue in highly racialized and nativist language that efforts to remove them represent a “totalitarian” crackdown on expression of identity.
But this language obscures the issue at hand. Anti-racist protesters aren’t disputing the right of people to discuss Confederate leaders; they’re protesting their celebration. And similarly, Unanue is not having his views suppressed — he’s receiving criticism for signaling support for policies that boycotters see as unjust.
The boycotts aren’t suppression. They’re just more speech.
Freedom of speech as defined by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights refers to restrictions on state action (specifically Congress’s ability to make laws) on the freedom of the public and the press to express their views. Boycotts led by consumers, experts say, fall under protected speech.
“Calls for economic boycotts are clearly speech, not the suppression of speech. Consumers have long tied politics to purchasing, and advocating business boycotts is undoubtedly protected speech,” Timothy Zick, a professor of government and citizenship at the College of William and Mary Law School, told me. “Mr. Unanue runs a large corporation, so it rings hollow to suggest that individual consumers are in any way suppressing his speech.”
One relevant precedent here is a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that an NAACP boycott of white merchants in Mississippi seeking to secure “compliance by both civic and business leaders with a lengthy list of demands for equality and racial justice,” was protected by the First Amendment.
Given that the boycott does not represent an infringement on his First Amendment rights, Unanue’s more substantive grievance might then appear to be that it’s unfair for his company to be penalized for his appearing at a presidential event, something he’s done before. But this line of thinking is flawed for a number of reasons.
The political climate is vastly different than the last time Unanue appeared at a presidential event: Trump has successfully worked to dramatically polarize American politics for the entirety of his presidency — even turning a public health emergency into a partisan war — and thus voluntary affiliation with his administration is rarely, if ever, perceived as neutral.
That polarization has been accomplished in part through Trump’s denigration of the US’s Latinx community, from the moment he kicked off his first presidential campaign by calling Mexicans rapists and criminals to his recent inability to address record-high Latinx unemployment. And Trump’s immigration policy has targeted Latinx people in particular — featuring, for example, harsh detainment policies like child separation that violate international human rights standards.
“This is only one small chapter in a much wider problem of polarization over a host of issues,” Mugambi Jouet, a professor who specializes in polarization at McGill University, told me, noting that “the fundamental issues at play here are the question of immigration and xenophobic discourse and agenda of the Trump administration.”
Unanue has chosen to jump into the political fray at every juncture of this episode. Crucially, he chose not only to affiliate with Trump, but also praised the president in strong terms. And then Unanue went on to do two distinctly chummy interviews on Fox News where he said people criticizing him were the real source of division in the country.
The speed and intensity at which the backlash came is a function of this polarization — after three years of the Trump administration, very few Americans have ambivalent feelings about the president — but the boycotts themselves are an outgrowth of anger at the policies and behavior Jouet outlined.
Gustavo Arellano, author of Taco USA: How Mexican Food Conquered America, told the New York Times that Unanue’s comments were a “betrayal” for many in the Latinx community who “see Trump as the antithesis of Latinos, in fact, as the enemy.”
For Unanue — the leader of a brand that “represents nurture and community and family and most importantly the kitchen” for Latinx Americans, according to Arellano — to endorse a president who has caused that community, and other communities of color, so much pain brings many a great deal of distress. Not only because Unanue said Trump himself was “incredible,” but because with his praise, Unanue seemed to endorse the president’s damaging policies.
Also of concern to those boycotting Goya are Unanue’s actions — not just his willingness to seek the friendly confines of Fox News, but his financial contributions to lawmakers who have enacted right-wing policies. Per CNN’s David Goldman:
Unanue has donated to Republicans in recent years, including $6,000 to the Republican National Committee and $1,000 to former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in 2017 when he was running for president, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Unanue also gave $2,300 to New Jersey’s Democratic Senator Robert Menendez in 2010. Robert’s brother Peter, who serves as Goya’s executive vice president, gave $100,000 to the anti-abortion National Right to Life Victory fund in 2012. And other Unanue family members who are shareholders of Goya have given thousands of dollars to other, mostly Republican candidates and politicians, including Trump.
Unanue remains free to express his political opinions. He took advantage of this freedom at the White House, and again on Fox News. What he’s witnessing with a boycott is not an agenda to prevent him from speaking his mind, but a rejection among a vocal set of fellow citizens of the ideas and endorsements he’s chosen to align himself with.


vox--2020-07-12--My patient caught Covid-19 twice. So long to herd immunity hopes.

“ Wait .
I can catch Covid twice ?
” my 50-year-old patient asked in disbelief .
It was the beginning of July , and he had just tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the virus that causes Covid-19 , for a second time — three months after a previous infection .
While there ’ s still much we don ’ t understand about immunity to this new illness , a small but growing number of cases like his suggest the answer is “ yes.
” Covid-19 may also be much worse the second time around .
During his first infection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sore throat .
His second infection , in contrast , was marked by a high fever , shortness of breath , and hypoxia , resulting in multiple trips to the hospital .
Recent reports and conversations with physician colleagues suggest my patient is not alone .
Two patients in New Jersey , for instance , appear to have contracted Covid-19 a second time almost two months after fully recovering from their first infection .
Daniel Griffin , a physician and researcher at Columbia in New York , recently described a case of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virology podcast .
It is possible , but unlikely , that my patient had a single infection that lasted three months .
Some Covid-19 patients ( now dubbed “ long haulers ” ) do appear to suffer persistent infections and symptoms .
My patient , however , cleared his infection — he had two negative PCR tests after his first infection — and felt healthy for nearly six weeks .
I believe it is far more likely that my patient fully recovered from his first infection , then caught Covid-19 a second time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family member with the virus .
He was unable to get an antibody test after his first infection , so we do not know whether his immune system mounted an effective antibody response or not .
Regardless , the limited research so far on recovered Covid-19 patients shows that not all patients develop antibodies after infection .
Some patients , and particularly those who never develop symptoms , mount an antibody response immediately after infection only to have it wane quickly afterward — an issue of increasing scientific concern .
What ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time period are a feature of many viruses , including other coronaviruses .
So if some Covid-19 patients are getting reinfected after a second exposure , it would not be particularly unusual .
In general , the unknowns of immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 currently outweigh the knowns .
We do not know how much immunity to expect once someone is infected with the virus , we do not know how long that immunity may last , and we do not know how many antibodies are needed to mount an effective response .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity ( including T-cell responses ) in the absence of a durable antibody response , the early evidence of reinfections puts the effectiveness of these immune responses in question as well .
Also troubling is that my patient ’ s case , and others like his , may dim the hope for natural herd immunity .
Herd immunity depends on the theory that our immune systems , once exposed to a pathogen , will collectively protect us as a community from reinfection and further spread .
There are several pathways out of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and available therapeutics and vaccines , as well as herd immunity ( or some combination thereof ) .
Experts generally consider natural herd immunity a worst-case scenario back-up plan .
It requires mass infection ( and , in the case of Covid-19 , massive loss of life because of the disease ’ s fatality rate ) before protection takes hold .
Herd immunity was promoted by experts in Sweden and ( early on in the pandemic ) in the UK , with devastating results .
Still , the dream of herd immunity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or a positive antibody test , promises to provide , have taken hold among the public .
As the collective reasoning has gone , the silver lining of surviving a Covid-19 infection ( without debilitating side effects ) is twofold : Survivors will not get infected again , nor will they pose a threat of passing the virus to their communities , workplaces , and loved ones .
While recent studies and reports have already questioned our ability to achieve herd immunity , our national discourse retains an implicit hope that herd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , leading medical experts have implied that the current surge in cases might lead to herd immunity by early 2021 , and a July 6 opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal was similarly optimistic .
This wishful thinking is harmful .
It risks incentivizing bad behavior .
The rare but concerning “ Covid parties , ” where people are gathering to deliberately get infected with the virus , and large gatherings without masks , are considered by some to be the fastest way out of the pandemic , personally and as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ourselves out of scientific realities , we must acknowledge the mounting evidence that challenges these ideas .
In my opinion , my patient ’ s experience serves as a warning sign on several fronts .
First , the trajectory of a moderate initial infection followed by a severe reinfection suggests that this novel coronavirus might share some tendencies of other viruses such as dengue fever , where you can suffer more severe illness each time you contract the disease .
Second , despite scientific hopes for either antibody-mediated or cellular immunity , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bout with Covid-19 suggests that such responses may not be as robust as we hope .
Third , many people may let their guard down after being infected , because they believe they are either immune or incapable of contributing to community spread .
As my patient ’ s case demonstrates , these assumptions risk both their own health and the health of those near them .
Last , if reinfection is possible on such a short timeline , there are implications for the efficacy and durability of vaccines developed to fight the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patient represents a sample size of one , but taken together with other emerging examples , outlier stories like his are a warning sign of a potential pattern .
If my patient is not , in fact , an exception , but instead proves the rule , then many people could catch Covid-19 more than once , and with unpredictable severity .
With no certainty of personal immunity nor relief through herd immunity , the hard work of beating this pandemic together continues .
Our efforts must go beyond simply waiting for effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued prevention through the use of medically proven face masks , face shields , hand-washing , and physical distancing , as well as wide-scale testing , tracing , and isolation of new cases .
This is a novel disease : Learning curves are steep , and we must pay attention to the inconvenient truths as they arise .
Natural herd immunity is almost certainly beyond our grasp .
We can not place our hopes on it .
D. Clay Ackerly , MD , MSc , is an internal medicine and primary care physician @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has served both as a faculty member of Harvard Medical School and as Assistant Chief Medical Officer at the Massachusetts General Hospital .
He has also held positions in the government and private sector , including the White House , the Food and Drug Administration , and , most recently , as Chief Medical Officer of Privia Health .
He can be reached at dclayackerly @ gmail.com .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution @ @ @ @

“Wait. I can catch Covid twice?” my 50-year-old patient asked in disbelief. It was the beginning of July, and he had just tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, for a second time — three months after a previous infection.
While there’s still much we don’t understand about immunity to this new illness, a small but growing number of cases like his suggest the answer is yes.
Covid-19 may also be much worse the second time around. During his first infection, my patient experienced a mild cough and sore throat. His second infection, in contrast, was marked by a high fever, shortness of breath, and hypoxia, resulting in multiple trips to the hospital.
Recent reports and conversations with physician colleagues suggest my patient is not alone. Two patients in New Jersey, for instance, appear to have contracted Covid-19 a second time almost two months after fully recovering from their first infection. Daniel Griffin, a physician and researcher at Columbia University in New York, recently described a case of presumed reinfection on the This Week in Virology podcast.
It is possible, but unlikely, that my patient had a single infection that lasted three months. Some Covid-19 patients (now dubbed “long haulers”) do appear to suffer persistent infections and symptoms.
My patient, however, cleared his infection — he had two negative PCR tests after his first infection — and felt healthy for nearly six weeks.
I believe it is far more likely that my patient fully recovered from his first infection, then caught Covid-19 a second time after being exposed to a young adult family member with the virus. He was unable to get an antibody test after his first infection, so we do not know whether his immune system mounted an effective antibody response or not.
Regardless, the limited research so far on recovered Covid-19 patients shows that not all patients develop antibodies after infection. Some patients, and particularly those who never develop symptoms, mount an antibody response immediately after infection only to have it wane quickly afterward — an issue of increasing scientific concern.
What’s more, repeat infections in a short period are a feature of many viruses, including other coronaviruses. So if some Covid-19 patients are getting reinfected after a second exposure, it would not be particularly unusual.
In general, the unknowns of immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 currently outweigh the knowns. We do not know how much immunity to expect once someone is infected with the virus, we do not know how long that immunity may last, and we do not know how many antibodies are needed to mount an effective response. And although there is some hope regarding cellular immunity (including T-cell responses) in the absence of a durable antibody response, the early evidence of reinfections puts the effectiveness of these immune responses in question as well.
Also troubling is that my patient’s case, and others like his, may dim the hope for natural herd immunity. Herd immunity depends on the theory that our immune systems, once exposed to a pathogen, will collectively protect us as a community from reinfection and further spread.
There are several pathways out of this pandemic, including safe, effective, and available therapeutics and vaccines, as well as herd immunity (or some combination thereof).
Experts generally consider natural herd immunity a worst-case-scenario backup plan. It requires mass infection (and, in the case of Covid-19, massive loss of life because of the disease’s fatality rate) before protection takes hold. Herd immunity was promoted by experts in Sweden and (early on in the pandemic) in the UK, with devastating results.
Related A vaccine may not be enough to end the pandemic
Still, the dream of herd immunity, and the protection that a Covid-19 infection or a positive antibody test promises to provide, has taken hold among the public. As the collective reasoning has gone, the silver lining of surviving a Covid-19 infection (without debilitating side effects) is twofold: Survivors will not get infected again, nor will they pose a threat of passing the virus to their communities, workplaces, and loved ones.
While recent studies and reports have already questioned our ability to achieve herd immunity, our national discourse retains an implicit hope that herd immunity is possible. In recent weeks, leading medical experts have implied that the current surge in cases might lead to herd immunity by early 2021, and a July 6 opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal was similarly optimistic.
This wishful thinking is harmful. It risks incentivizing bad behavior. The rare but concerning “Covid parties,” where people are gathering to deliberately get infected with the virus, and large gatherings without masks, are considered by some to be the fastest way out of the pandemic, personally and as a community. Rather than trying to wish ourselves out of scientific realities, we must acknowledge the mounting evidence that challenges these ideas.
In my opinion, my patient’s experience serves as a warning sign on several fronts.
First, the trajectory of a moderate initial infection followed by a severe reinfection suggests that this novel coronavirus might share some tendencies of other viruses such as dengue fever, where you can suffer more severe illness each time you contract the disease.
Second, despite scientific hopes for either antibody-mediated or cellular immunity, the severity of my patient’s second bout with Covid-19 suggests that such responses may not be as robust as we hope.
Third, many people may let their guard down after being infected because they believe they are either immune or incapable of contributing to community spread. As my patient’s case demonstrates, these assumptions risk both their own health and the health of those near them.
Last, if reinfection is possible on such a short timeline, there are implications for the efficacy and durability of vaccines developed to fight the disease.
I am aware that my patient represents a sample size of one, but taken together with other emerging examples, outlier stories like his are a warning sign of a potential pattern. If my patient is not, in fact, an exception but instead proves the rule, then many people could catch Covid-19 more than once, and with unpredictable severity.
With no certainty of personal immunity nor relief through herd immunity, the hard work of beating this pandemic together continues. Our efforts must go beyond simply waiting for effective treatments and vaccines. They must include continued prevention through the use of medically proven face masks, face shields, hand-washing, and physical distancing, as well as wide-scale testing, tracing, and isolation of new cases.
This is a novel disease: Learning curves are steep, and we must pay attention to the inconvenient truths as they arise. Natural herd immunity is almost certainly beyond our grasp. We cannot place our hopes on it.
D. Clay Ackerly, MD, MSc, is an internal medicine and primary care physician practicing in Washington, DC. He has served both as a faculty member of Harvard Medical School and as assistant chief medical officer at Massachusetts General Hospital. He has also held positions in the government and private sector, including the White House, the Food and Drug Administration, and, most recently, as chief medical officer of Privia Health. He can be reached at dclayackerly@gmail.com.