Therefore, What?

As 2019 came to a close, many in the Christian evangelical community were rattled by the publication of an editorial in Christianity Today in which the author argues that Donald Trump should be both impeached and removed from office and chastises evangelicals who continue to support him: "Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency," the author chides.

Fair-minded people could probably debate the Christianity Today article. What I have a problem with is how people—mostly unbelievers, many of them left-leaning or progressive, and some of them former Christians—are promoting the article as if suddenly there's truth to be found in a Christian magazine. It's not as if these people read the magazine for its spiritual or doctrinal content; it's also not as if any of them would love to meet for a glass of wine to discuss things having to do with the Christian faith in general, let alone the impact of the Christian message on their own lives. Rather, they share this piece prominently on (where else) social media for no other reason than to bludgeon evangelical Christians who have the gall to support Donald Trump despite his obvious moral and cognitive failings.

What bothers me is the implication of their tsk tsks. Setting aside whether the articles of impeachment are valid or were politically motivated by an opposition party that was determined to impeach Trump before he was even inaugurated (I happen to believe the latter); and setting aside whether or not previous presidents could have been impeached for greater or even similar offenses but weren't; and setting aside what amounts to gut-level disdain for Trump the man as opposed to Trump the president (and by Trump the man I'm referring to his coarseness and crudeness and moral failings and even his supposed "unfitness" for office); setting aside these things—all of which have been debated and discussed over the past three years and are still unresolved—I still have to ask those who are scolding evangelicals for continuing to support Donald Trump in spite of it all: Therefore, what? 

Yes, it's true: Trump is crude. Trump is boorish. Trump is impulsive. Trump is not presidential. Trump is impetuous. No argument here. I never liked Donald Trump. I never watched The Apprentice. I don't think I even gave Donald Trump a minute's thought until the moment he rode down that elevator. And during the months leading up to the 2016 election, I grew more and more depressed as one by one my preferred candidates fell away. I remember texting a friend one day and asking if it was wrong for me to wish Trump would choke on a piece of steak. But once he became the nominee, I had to face facts, and ultimately I came to the conclusion that disputes about morals and values or personal likes or dislikes have no place in a presidential election when faced with a binary choice. A binary choice is what we were faced with in 2016. "Pick your poison," I remember posting on Facebook as election day drew near. And a binary choice is what we're faced with in 2020.

So, to my leftist friends, to my ex-Christian friends, and even to my well-meaning fellow evangelical friends who tsk, tsk those of us who will either reluctantly or enthusiastically support Trump in 2020:  Therefore, what? I may agree that Trump is all that you say, but do you seriously expect me to vote for your guy or gal? Even the tamer Dems vying for the nomination have no place in the universe of core conservative objectives that I value. The Democratic party has veered so far left--both in terms of the economy and in terms of social issues--that frankly I'm surprised anyone who hews even remotely to the center would consider aligning themselves with it. 

So that's the dilemma I'm faced with as I listen to the smug self-righteousness of those who promote the Christianity Today editorial as if it were the equivalent of the gospel. As if they really think someone like me is either going to vote Democrat or withhold a vote for a Republican when the country has become so polarized. The time is long past when our country had a strong "center," politically speaking. I pray it returns, but meanwhile we're in the midst of a cultural war, and Trump, for all his obnoxious and revolting ways, is, at least for now, the person blocking the threshold to the progressive left's wave of cultural and economic transformation. If anything, I'm disappointed that influential Christians like those at Christianity Today can't unite against the left. Instead, I'm detecting the stench of "wokeness" emanating from the church, and the most "woke" Christians are those who hate Trump. This troubles me much more than any of the church's supposed blindness towards Trump's flaws. The way I see it, Trump is just a blip. He's here now for one term, maybe two, but eventually he'll be gone, both parties will survive, and our country will carry on. Societal change, cultural change, on the other hand, once it's permeated the culture, will remain long after he's gone. 

Which brings me back to the Christianity Today editorial. Christians are being called on the carpet for apparently abandoning their mission (I'm thinking about the era of the Moral Majority) as long as their "gladiator" is in the ring. Can we Christians re-evaluate that era? Can we perhaps concede that it was wrong to obsess about the moral character of leaders? Can we agree that politicians are not pastors? Talk radio host Dennis Prager describes how, back during the Clinton impeachment, he never mentioned even Monica Lewinsky's name on his radio show. The sex life of public officials was not his concern (he says). It's the job politicians do that matters, not their private morals. And Prager is an observant Jew. 

Do I agree? I think I do. I would add that Donald Trump is not the first boorish man ever to hold public office, nor will he be the last. Voters can look at what a leader does or advocates and analyze the effect of these actions or policies on the things they value. What else can we do? Again, we're not electing pastors.

*****

Further Reading 

Trump Should Be Removed From Office, by Mark Galli 

Trump Should  Not Be Removed From Office: A Response to Mark Galli and Christianity Today, by Wayne Grudem

The Moral Majority (Wikipedia)

Spirited Writing

I want to talk a bit about "real life" language.

I've uploaded three images below. All three are screenshots of a post from an Instagram account that belongs to Callen Hearne (@callenhearne). For what it's worth, he has 12.9K followers and his account is public, so hopefully it's OK that I'm sharing these images (if not, someone please let me know and I'll ask permission). I actually don't follow him, but I do follow his wife Abbi, who has an even larger following (50 thousand). They're in the wedding photography business but their niche is "adventure wedding and elopement." They're young, mid-twenties, married, living half the year on the road in their van, traveling with their dog Charlie. I preface my comments with this information just so you have context. 

The post I happened upon is a picture of the Yosemite sky, taken sometime in the wee hours of the morning. The image is stunning, but it was Callen's message that interested me, as well as one of the comments that followed.

Callen's writing style is slangy and original, filled with its own dialect and grammar. It's unfiltered and genuine, a Gen Y guy talking to the universe, to his followers, to anyone who wants to listen, including this 60-something community college English professor.  

Callen Hearne isn't writing for a grade. He's just writing. He's developed his own voice, which is authentic, unconventional, funny, honest. You don't grade this kind of writing. You enjoy it. Listen to it. Laugh with it. Cry with it.

I skimmed some of the comments and one in particular stood out. She writes, "I'm in college and sometimes my brain just needs to read something like this." Then she adds, "Thanks for helping my head stay creative and my language spirited."

"Sometimes my brain just needs to read something like this."

Sometimes English teachers' brains need to read something like this. 

Spirited language.

Authentic language.

Original language.

Language unencumbered by rules or red ink.

I love this kind of writing. 

I wish I could write this way. 

I wish I could teach this kind of writing.

English teachers assign papers and essays. We take note of missing commas and periods. Misspellings. Fragments. Slang. We comment and edit and correct. We try to encourage and inspire but aren't always successful.

It's becoming clear to me that some of my students this semester won't pass my class, though I'll do my best to help them succeed. But even if they don't, can't, or won't pass, I hope, at the very least, I can encourage them to write anyway. Encourage them to "talk to the universe" in their own voices. In their own Authentic. Original. Spirited. Voices.

LINKS

The Hearnes Adventure Wedding and Elopement Photography

The Hearnes Instagram

Analogy is to Racism as . . .

Recently, an animated discussion appeared on one of my Facebook friend’s feed that was based on what at first glance was a somewhat incendiary comment made by Ben Carson, who currently serves in Donald Trump’s cabinet as Housing and Urban Development Secretary. Mr. Carson, who in his former life was a distinguished neurosurgeon, decided to wade into a current controversy having to do with Donald Trump’s tweets criticizing Congressman Elijah Cummings and referring to Cummings’ Baltimore 7th congressional district as a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess” where “no human being would want to live.” Dr. Carson compared the problems plaguing Baltimore to a cancer patient “whose illness can have a devastating effect if ignored.”

Though the subsequent discussion on my friend’s Facebook feed focused on whether or not Trump’s (and therefore Carson’s) comments were racist, I was more interested in whether Carson’s analogy was accurate. And that’s the focus of this particular post. People whose eyes glaze over when English grammar is being discussed are hereby dismissed. 

By definition and application, analogies are not perfect, and using them in argument can be tricky, since it’s often the subtle differences in comparisons that cause trouble. People who rely on analogies as a significant element of their argument are often called out by their critics for using inexact analogies. This is probably what my friend was doing in reacting to Ben Carson’s comments, though the real focus of her anger had to do with the racist nature of Trump’s original tweets.

An analogy is defined as a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Another way to explain it: an analogy is a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.

Back in high school, we were asked to solve analogy problems (there were analogy questions on the SAT back then, though I think they’re no longer included). The task was to solve a problem that was set up like this:

Something is to Something as Something Else is to Something Else.

For instance:

Chair : Desk as Bench : Piano

We learned how to solve analogy problems by creating a simple sentence that showed the relationship between the first set of key words. Doing this would enable us to evaluate a second set of key words to see if there was a clear relationship with the first set.

For instance, in the above analogy, you might create the following sentence that reflects the relationship of the first set of key words:

You sit on a chair that is near a desk.

Assuming your solution sentence is accurate, your solution choices would have to come as close as possible to that framework. For instance, on a test, your choices for the second set might be:

rug : floor

pencil : lead

wise : foolish

bench : piano

Your next task would be to analyze the pairs to see how closely each came to your simple sentence. Your selection would have meet the criteria in every possible way (part of speech, logic, order of presentation, definitions, and so on). In the sample above, bench : piano makes the best sense grammatically, syntactically, and logically (you sit on a bench that is near a piano)

Back to Ben Carson. As I said earlier, it seems that the real issue in my friend’s post is whether Ben Carson’s analogy was apt and not whether and/or to what degree Donald Trump is a racist, though this is where the thread inevitably went. When it comes to whether Trump is a racist, I suspect there’s a lot of distance between those who are convinced that he is and those who, while conceding that he’s boorish or that he lacks social filters, and so on, don’t consider him to be racist. Each side can make its own case, but it’s doubtful either side will change its mind. Which means, we’re on safer ground if we stick with the real issue–Ben Carson’s analogy (that the analogy was made by an esteemed surgeon who actually practiced medicine in Baltimore for three decades and who also happens to be black doesn’t seem to matter. Racism is racism).

I resisted my first inclination to comment on my friend’s post because I know how futile it is to discuss anything on social media having to do with politics in general and Donald Trump in particular. But after reading the comments, I finally decided to wade in to the roiling waters (metaphor!) of this debate, focusing only and entirely on this question: Is Ben Carson’s analogy apt? I decided to put it to the test and set it up as an SAT-type problem:

(rat and rodent infested) mess : Baltimore as cancer : patient

For convenience and clarity, I decided to condense the entire string of adjective phrases (rat and rodent infested, dangerous and filthy) into a single noun in the first set (“mess”) in order to balance grammatically with the single noun in the second set (“cancer”), the assumption being that the word “mess” is fraught with emotional imagery and meaning, much the way “cancer” is fraught with meaning and imagery. Thus, with the implications of the word “mess” in mind, here’s my analogy problem to analyze:

mess : Baltimore as cancer : patient

Now, I have to solve the analogy problem by creating a simple sentence that hopefully shows the relationship between the first set of key words.

Rat and rodent infestation (“mess”) is ruinous to the life, health, vitality of Baltimore.

Assuming my sentence is accurate (and if it’s not, I welcome any corrections), I now have to use that same sentence as a framework for analysis and see if it works with the second half of the analogy:

Cancer cells are ruinous to the life, health, and vitality of a patient

Personally, I think Mr. Carson’s analogy works. Attempts to “heal” a hurting city by means of state and local and maybe federal intervention should be as welcome to that city as attempts by a qualified medical professional would be to a seriously ill patient. 

Ben Carson referred to something called an “Opportunity Zones” program, a Trump-administration program that incentivizes businesses to invest in low-income cities. This is a federal program. But I do think it’s fair to ask local officials—no matter what race, religion or creed—what they’re doing to address blight, unemployment, crime, and poverty, in their cities. 

In my view, Dr. Carson’s comments were neither racist nor incendiary. 

Trump’s, on the other hand…?

********* 

A few links (the WSJ article may be behind a paywall, sorry): 

Trump Administration Offers New Flexibility in Opportunity Zones (Wall Street Journal April 2019)

HUD Leader Ben Carson Compares Baltimore to a Cancer Patient (Washington Post July 2019)

Keep Speaking, Lady

Here is an open letter from a self-described "Latina Mama" named Ana Samuel to Mayor Pete Buttigieg, the openly gay, happily married mayor from South Bend, Indiana, who is running for president.

I agree with Dr. Samuel's statement and share her concerns about how the so-called tolerant left is in fact hostile to people of faith and/or to people who hold conservative, traditional, Judeo-Christian values.

To those who wish to castigate the author as an ignorant, narrow-minded bigot, here is her bio:

Ana Samuel, PhD, is the daughter of Mexican immigrants, the wife of an Argentine immigrant, and the mother of six awesome children. She completed her undergraduate studies at Princeton University and her doctoral degree from the University of Notre Dame before becoming a founding mother and the Academic Director of CanaVox.

Here's an excerpt:

Mothers tend to emphatically care about the welfare of all children, regardless of their family’s origin or current form. We also tend to emphatically care about every LGBT person—recognizing our common humanity even when we do not agree with their lifestyle choices. When we are polite to you, we are coming from a place of deep moral principle and authenticity. It’s not a superficial cover up for our true beliefs about you. You are rights-bearing individuals (like all of us) endowed with human dignity.  

Although our home countries have often been viciously anti-gay places, there is a deep understanding among Hispanic mothers that those who identify as LGBT have suffered a lot, and that many have lived a life of hurt, harm and pain. We feel great sympathy for your suffering. But the ideas you have developed from painful experiences are not always sound ones. And we can distinguish between the two: between affectionate concern for you as a person and disagreement with your ideas. So please stop shutting us out of the conversation by the intellectually dishonest rhetorical expedient of implying or saying that we are bigots. We are the opposite of bigots. 

We are prepared to co-exist peacefully and tolerate a great deal of what you propose, but not at the expense of losing our own ability to practice and preach our own values and freedoms. We are happy to work side-by-side with you, to have you as our coaches, neighbors and friends, but don’t cross the line and tell us what sexual values to cherish and uphold. 

A Message to Mayor Pete from a Latina Mama:Don't Force Your Sexual Ideology on Me and My Children