Christian Nationalism, Evangelicals, and the Role of Violence on the Political Left

 

            The charge by the political Left of a powerful, conservative Christian cabal, Christian nationalism, pulling the strings behind the scenes, a conspiracy working behind the scenes to forcibly convert the entire nation, is the theme of this little reflection on the divide between the political Left and Right in America. 

It is part of the accusation by those of the Left to raise the danger of a radical right-wing violent takeover of the country. For those who make the accusation, such a civil war inspired by the right-wing constitutes how “democracy dies in darkness.” Since no one wants that, it ought to raise concerns by those sympathetic to the conservative political cause. Does the accusation have any validity? Since I often work through puzzlement through writing, here is my effort. I invite comments.

            My instinct is that this description of Christian nationalism is a shibboleth. The accusation displays a profound misreading of what motivates the conservative vote of the Christian and is an egregious misunderstanding of Christian conservatism by scholars who ought to know better. It represents a demeaning view of some on the political Right, reducing them to anti-abortion, greedy, environment-destroying deplorables who cling to their guns and Bibles and are not comfortable with people who do not look like them. The instinct in such a tradition is the preservation of home that involves a covenant relationship with the living and the dead and future generations. Displacement of God in the minds of such persons by a political party, a political leader, or a political ideology is not in the cards. Such Christians love their country. The mission of the church in every nation needs to include a proper love of the country in which they find themselves, for people will rarely listen if they do not sense that you care.

            The accusation of Christian nationalism directed toward Christian political conservatives is not limited to evangelicals. It has included criticism of the use of the rosary by Roman Catholic conservatives. Depending on the day of the week, the rosary involves meditation on various events in the lives of Jesus Christ and his mother, Mary. Those events include a pregnant Mary’s decision to rush to help her pregnant cousin; Jesus’ own birth; Jesus’ decision to turn water into wine when a wedding runs out of it; and Jesus peacefully allowing himself to be beaten, crowned with thorns, and crucified. This is hardly the stuff of violent revolution.

            Thus, my instinct is that the accusation of Christian nationalism as described by the political Left is a shibboleth, announcing to other progressives that you are a loyal member of the progressive tribe. It also lets the politically conservative know that you are not to be taken seriously, since you have made no attempt to understand them. It is akin to the accusation of semi-fascism in that way. It has no connection with the real opponent the political Left face in conservatives of the secular or religious variety. The scholars (Sean Wilentz for one) who make the accusation against the Christian conservative that they are planning an authoritarian takeover of the United States are intensifying a genuine crisis of partisan polarization and eroding social trust.

America is not on the verge of a Christian nationalist theocracy. No one is arguing that we should throw out the Constitution and replace it with the Bible, or that we should make citizens, candidates for office, or government officials recite the Nicene Creed before they may enjoy legal rights.

As to why such writers would make the accusation, the political Left protects its violent sympathizers, such as antifa and BLM. Such protection has a history going back to the two Weatherman attacks upon the Capitol and includes the riots after the election of Donald Trump. The political Left became vulnerable to the accusation of circumventing the constitution if an election does not go their way. it has done so with the election of Donald Trump in weaponizing the FBI, CIA, DOJ, and IRS against Trump and political conservatives. Thus, part of the strategy becomes creating a shiny object to distract from actions they have taken. In that sense, the accusation is like the accusation of fascism and insurgency, as well as the motivation behind the Russia hoax related to Trump.

There is a form of Christian nationalism that concerns me. Mary Tooley of IRD has explored this in a helpful manner.

The Declaration of Independence grounds the ability to declare independence from Britain in “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” It explicitly roots the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” in an endowment from the “Creator.” It addresses its appeal “to the Supreme Judge of the world,” with “a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.” This suggests that human rights are prior rights, that is, human rights are not established by the state. The state is bound to acknowledge and respect those rights which have their source in the transcendent dignity of the human person created by God. Such language would qualify as “Christian nationalist” in the minds of some on the political Left.

            Christian nationalism does exist. It has an intellectual pedigree that I want to contrast with what the Pew Research Center refers to as the “Faith and Flag” conservative. It is not what some on the political Left fear and it is certainly no conspiracy, since those who adhere to this line of thinking are in the open.

Christian nationalists,[1] as represented by Stephen Wolfe, A Case for Christian Nationalism, are post-liberals who wants some level of explicit state established Christianity, a “Christian America” by statute. He presents a Protestant confessional state that suppresses the outward display of false religion while not trying to govern human hearts. He admits he wants a theocratic Caesar, a Christian prince who will lead America to a great renewal. He is a Calvinist, as are most Christian nationalists. For him, Christian nationalism is the idea that people in the same place and culture should live together and seek one another’s good. The grace of the gospel does not eliminate our geography, our people, and our neighbors. Instead, it restores us to pursue local needs and local leadership freely and without apology. Stephen Wolfe is not interested in American patriotism or very much in America in general. As a postliberal, he wants a premodern Christian society.

A hint of Christian nationalist themes is in National Conservatism’s 2022 Statement of Principles, declares that Christianity “should be honored by the state and other institutions both public and private,” with Jews and “other religious minorities…protected in the observance of their own traditions, in the free governance of their communal institutions,” and with all adults “protected from religious or ideological coercion in their private lives and in their homes,” but not evidently in their public lives.  

Thus, Christian nationalism is uncomfortable with the constitution, which has public neutrality about religion, with a state granting equal rights to all regardless of faith, is subversive to morality and social cohesion. Christian nationalists are some form of Protestant integralists. Catholic integralists want a society where the Catholic Church is paramount in society including in civil law. Both Protestant and Catholic integralists believe the state cannot be neutral. Either it will establish the “true” faith, or it will establish a false one, which is currently, as they define it, aggressive secularism. They both believe that a truly Christian society will have a government pointing to the highest good, and that magistrates are God’s shepherds for directing the people towards the truth. Coercion in religion is necessary to protect society and individual souls. Christian nationalists are isolationist and concerned about restricting immigration. They are not supporters of Israel, which is a sharp contrast with Faith and Flag conservatives as defined by the Pew Center. They are suspicious of limited government and believe in a regulatory state when it is in the right hands. Christian nationalists, as seen in Wolfe’s dream of a theocratic prince, are more open to the strong man view of history. As staunch Calvinists, they have a strong view of social hierarchy. Some quietly oppose voting rights for women. They have more trust in the “elect.” Rousas John Rushdoony represents a Christian Reconstruction persuasion, also called Dominion Theology or Theonomy, which would seek to replace the American constitutional order with a new conception of biblical law. Their brand of post-millennial eschatology guides their conviction that by the spreading of the gospel and the observance of biblical law, the faithful are preparing the world for the return of Christ, who is coming to complete the mission of the faithful in this world.^[2] The Coalition for Revival, with an Internet presence at www.reformation.net, presents its statements of fundamentalist worldviews and calls to action. They believe in separation from other Christians, wants to rescue the church, and want to make America a Christian nation.  Such persons want “biblical law” applied to today where possible. Christian nationalists do not want biblical law in terms of Old Testament punishments. But they do want establishment explicitly favoring Christianity against other religions. Christian nationalism is more intellectual and has far fewer adherents. But its intellectual prowess enables it to insinuate itself into postliberal wider circles.

            From an historical perspective, Christian nationalists prefer the First Great Awakening, led by Calvinists like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, and mostly still tied to established churches. But even more so, hardcore Christian nationalists revere earlier Christian commonwealths such as the seventeenth century Puritans, or Scotland under John Knox, or Geneva under Calvin, whose models they deem instructive if not binding. More moderate Christian nationalists will try to argue the U.S. Constitution, even while disavowing religious establishment and religious tests for public office by the federal government, did not preclude established religion for local government.

Such views are distinct from “Faith and Flag” of traditional Christian conservatism. A 1981 statement, Christianity and Democracy, was drafted by prominent Christian conservative intellectual Richard Neuhaus, backed by fellow Christian conservatives Michael Novak, who was Catholic, and Carl Henry, who was Baptist. It is a vigorous affirmation of democracy, human rights, religious freedom for all, limited government, and capitalism, which most Christian conservatives could still support. Religious freedom as paramount. They are American exceptionalists and enthusiasts for the country’s founding charters and for democracy. They value the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom, crafted by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They trace their heritage to the Second Great Awakening that followed the American Revolution, which was voluntarist, democratic, hostile to state churches, and launched a tradition of moral and social reform through political action. They advocate for an aggressive American role in the world rooted in foreign and defense policy. They championed U.S. victory in the Cold War. And they supported the Iraq War. They support the resistance of Ukraine to Russia. They are staunch supporters of Israel. They favor limited government and free markets. Christian conservatives are more suspicious of political strong men, which they would deem cultic. Christian conservatism has mostly been a populist movement mobilized by parachurch groups and leaders, all of which leads to a natural alliance with the populist Right. 

Noble ideals do not make their way into history except through persons and institutions. Such carriers inescapably fall short of the ideals to which they witness. This is most dramatically true of the Church as the bearer of the Gospel. To say that America has a singular responsibility in this historical moment does not mean that America is God’s chosen nation, as, for instance, God chose Israel. God has made no special covenant with America. God’s covenant is with creation, with Israel, and with the Church. However, because America is a large and influential part of creation, because America is the home of many Jewish people who are heirs of the divine promise to Israel (Rom 9-11), and because this is a land in which the Church is vibrantly free to live and proclaim the Gospel to the world, America has a peculiar place in God’s promises and purposes. This is not a statement of nationalistic hubris but an acknowledgment that America bears a particular and grave responsibility. Beyond this, Faith and Flag conservatives are also mindful that this is the nation for which citizens and the church of America are most immediately accountable.

Part of my point here is that there is no conspiracy to forcefully institute a theocracy. That is a chimera for those who want to believe the worst of their political opposition and who project onto their opponents the violence they themselves protect and the coercion through government agencies and through manipulating popular technology that they are willing to use, to impose their ideology upon the country.

I contrast these two movements within Christianity with what is happening on the political Left. Here is where violence is present.

            The revolutionary instinct of the progressive wants to take their agenda to the street in violence, such as BLM and Antifa. To be clear, I accept what many progressives will say when raising the shibboleth of right-wing inspired civil war: there really is no place for political violence in America, period, none, ever. However, I want to explore an example that calls the genuineness of their proposition into question.

            Conservatives have condemned the one-day act of buffoons on January 6. As one significant example, Ivanka Trump and press secretary Judd Deere gave depositions on tape for the Select Committee that they accepted the Electoral College vote as the end of legal avenues. 

            Unlike January 6, Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters were engaged in a systematically organized a series of destructive and deadly riots across the country for more than four months in the summer of 2020. The issue here is not “What-about-ism,” but about the equal application of the law. Violence done to government buildings is wrong, regardless of where it occurs or if it occurs on one day or over several months. The failure to apply the law equally suggests a biased application of the law, depending upon which ideology is behind in the illegal act. That is why the unequal application of the law is so significant here. The lethal toll of their work was more than 35 dead, $2 billion in property losses, and some 1,500 police officers injured, around 14,000 arrests. They often aimed such violence at iconic government buildings, from courthouses to police precincts. There were never any federal investigations to determine why state, local, and federal officials allowed the destruction to continue. Why were the vast majority of those arrested simply released by authorities? And how had Antifa and Black Lives Matter radicals orchestrated the violence using social media? What was the role of prominent elected officials in either condoning or encouraging the violence or communicating with the ring leaders? The 1619 Project architect Nikole Hannah-Jones boasted, “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence. Former CNN anchor Chris Cuomo pontificated, “And please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful.” I also wonder where the belief that violence is always wrong was when radical abortion activists violently attacked more than 80 churches and life-saving pregnancy centers and threatened to harm Republican-nominated justices following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision. The Left is silent on this violence. Of concern to me as a Christian is that the religious Left is silent. If ever there were a time from the religious Left to be prophetic regarding its own, it would have been in such circumstances.

            On May 31, 2020, for another example, violent demonstrators tried to rush the White House grounds. Such violent protesters torched the iconic St. John’s Episcopal Church and attempted to fight their way into the White House grounds. Their violent agenda prompted the Secret Service to evacuate the president of the United States to a secure bunker. The New York Times gleefully applauded the rioting near the White House grounds with the snarky headline “Trump Shrinks Back.” As a precaution, the Secret Service removed the president and first family to a safe underground bunker. Such riots near or at the White House continued for much of the fall, before mysteriously tapering off in the last weeks before the election. Less than three weeks after the violent Washington riot, Democratic vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris incited the continuing violent protests, “They’re not going to stop … This is a movement … they’re not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not.” Note that Harris’ cheerleading was joined by a host of prominent left-wing luminaries who contextualized the violence.

            As a further example, when those with such a revolutionary instinct are in power, they are willing to use the power of the federal bureaucracy to implement by force its agenda. Former United States Attorney General Bill Barr referred to the actions involved with the FISA warrant and its use by friends of Hillary in the FBI as a “seditious” conspiracy against former President Donald Trump. He thought the country was headed toward a constitutional crisis because Russia narrative was a grave injustice, a dirty political trick used to hobble Trump and drive him from office. It was a hoax. The use of impeachment twice, attempting to try him as a private citizen, barring minority congressional representatives from House committee memberships, and tearing up the State of the Union address on national television, were acts of insurrection consistent with the revolutionary instinct of the progressive today. The combination of social media empires, the entertainment industry, and many large corporations are doing what they can to silence any opposition to their agenda. Time essayist Molly Ball in early 2021 gushed about a brilliant “conspiracy” of wealthy tech lords, Democratic Party activists, and Joe Biden operators. Ball bragged how they had systematically poured hundreds of millions of dark monies into changing voting laws and absorbing the role of government registrars in key precincts. 

            I accept that one has no right to adopt the position that one loves the country only when your side wins. Such a proposition has the effect of setting the stage for civil war. As I understand it, some on the Left abandoned celebrating American independence because, according to them, celebrating America’s founding is racist and obsolete. Some on the religious Left have abandoned the celebration entirely because in their view any form of love of country conflicts with the love of God.

            This revolutionary instinct of the progressive is part of the heritage of the progressive that reaches back to the Jacobins of 18th century France, as well as Marx in the 19th and 20th centuries. The fact that so few progressives or others on the political Left today express little concern for this violence and undemocratic use of power places democratic institutions at risk. 

            The Lord’s Prayer includes the petition to deliver us from evil, which suggests that one of the major tests of a human life is to recognize such evil and resist its temptation. The presence of anger is often a sign of the test that confronts us.

            There is an idolatrous hope placed in politicians and political parties. The revolutions inspired by Marx, their attainment of political power, and the failure of Marxists states, reveal the emptiness of its romantic and utopian dream and its failure to deal with human communities as they are. The dream of a Christian prince who will be so faithful in implementing biblical law that it will prepare the world for the fulfillment of that mission in the return of Christ is just as empty. 

            It would be a gift if America could at this juncture in its history have a president who could act upon the humble and gracious sentiments Lincoln expressed in his Second Inaugural Address: “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

 

---

[1] https://juicyecumenism.com/2024/02/22/christian-conservatism-vs-christian-nationalism/

^[2] Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution, p. 213.

January 6, Insurrection, and the Corruption of Political Discourse

 

I am concerned with the way political conversation has degenerated. I am also concerned with how a Christian responds to that conversation. I begin with some background on the way I think our minds deepen and broaden our experience. I will then apply it to the danger is see for our public discourse. In a certain way, the soul of the nation is at risk, and in a democracy, the people need to be engaged in what is happening. I will use the event of January 6, 2020, to shed light upon the danger I am sensing. This reflection is from one minor participant. 

            One way to think of the process of intellectual development is as a continual movement between self and world. We are learning who we are and can be through our engagement with the world. As we mature, our experience of the world keeps broadening and deepening, so our experience of self keeps broadening and deepening as well. This movement between self and world involves heightening the difference between self and world, for we are engaging that which is not us, our opposite, to mature into the authentic self we hope to be. The encounter with that which is different from us generates creativity of thought and emotion. The pressure of the negative, the different from us, deepens and broadens our minds. The power of the negative is that it holds out the possibility of reconciling the opposition we experience between self and world. The tensions we experience because of the difference between us and world find some form of resolution in the healthy and mature person, even though the restlessness of the mind will perceive the pressure from new oppositions that will further the process of deepening and broadening the mind. Understanding the process of mind in this way assumes an underlying rationality in the way a set of assumptions encounters their opposite. 

            My exploration here focuses upon the encounter that occurs between persons. This understanding of the mind assumes well-intentioned opposition or difference in the other person whom we encounter, meaning here the respect for the self-worth and dignity of the opposition. It also assumes that the continuing presence of this opposition or difference is a good for society, regardless of how deep the difference. This difference could occur within various spheres of society. We see it in the variety provided by the economy, the variety of moral choices available, and the variety of religious options, all of which arise from the human desire for a flourishing or happy human life.

            My focus here is the encounter in the public square of political and ideological difference. At its best, the encounter with the negative, meaning that which is different from the ideological stance we have embraced, is a positive and optimistic encounter, as we engage in a respectful discourse and debate around the role of government in our lives at national, state, and local levels. As an ordered society, elections provide a temporary resolution of the difference, but the next election may shift that resolution into another direction. Governing often requires some reaching across the aisle to attain a result partially agreeable to both.

            Here is the question I am pondering. What if an historical moment arises in which you as one who opposes their ideas become a threat to democracy, a promoter of racism and bigotry, have a hidden hate of women, are fascists, and are therefore a threat democracy?

            To engage the negativity presented by the pluralism and even tribalism of this historical moment requires commitment to rational discourse. I believe that commitment can lead to a deepening and broadening of our intellectual capacity to handle different and maintain respect for the other. 

            Here is the problem I am seeing. When one side within this historical moment places itself in a pure power equation, rational discourse that arises from mutual respect of the other disappears. All that matters to that side is who has the power to impose its views upon the other in an attempt to obliterate the other. This side will not view itself as totalitarian, since it is not locking people in prison, but given the technology available, there are many ways to silence or render ineffective any opposition to one’s own perspective. In this sense, those who once embraced a form of classical liberalism grow tired of the rationality that democratic institutions require.

            My debatable suggestion is that the progressive opposition has become tired of rational discourse with the conservative. My suggestion is also that conservative opposition has not given up on rational discourse. The problem I am seeing is that progressives are placing the public political debate outside the normal reconciliation processes of the mind. 

            I want to test a thought that has been brewing in my mind. I guess I understand that in political discourse there is some satisfaction one receives, by ascribing superior intelligence to oneself, in declaring that half the voters, your political opponents, are crazy, fascist, racist, and a threat democracy. I refuse to be that devoted to my political ideology, however. I still think that those with whom I disagree deserve my respect.

            I want to use a test case in the charge of insurrection arising out of January 6, 2021. An insurrection is an organized attempt by a group of people to engage in a rebellion against their government, usually manifested in acts of violence designed to attain control of the government. I grant that America may need to go through its own post-modern version of insurrection from either the Left or the Right, not knowing what the result of that path will be. It may well mean that such a process of differentiation is necessary to rediscover a common desire for human flourishing and a respect for differing rational conclusions. However, at this point, to suggest that this is what Trump had in mind is a conspiracy theory of large proportions. I am not inclined toward conspiracy theories, so my mind goes toward the motivation behind those making the accusation. Why would they engage in such deceptive, lying rhetoric regarding the opposition? Why would they label Trump and those associated with him, such as Ben Carson, Nikki Haley, and many others, as engaged in such activities? This is a dangerous use of language that tends to hook the anger of those who believe it. Such anger naturally leads to acts of violence, as Jesus pointed out in Matthew 5:21-2. Why poison the public square with such explosive language?

In 1954, four Puerto Rican terrorists attacked the Capitol. Unlike those who got inside the Capitol building two years ago, the 1954 terrorists were armed with guns. The four opened fire from the House Gallery, wounding five lawmakers: Reps. Alvin Bentley, Ben Jensen, Clifford Davis, George Hyde Fallon, and Kenneth Roberts. In 1971, a domestic terrorist group, the Weather Underground, bombed the Capitol, causing $300,000 worth of damage. Luckily, no one was killed or injured. The so-called Weathermen returned in 1983 and set off another bomb that “tore through the second floor of the Capitol’s North Wing,” according to the Senate’s history website. There were no fatalities. As for January 6^th arrests, not was convicted of insurrection and some were charged with sedition.

The term “insurrection” has a specific legal definition under the U.S. Code (U.S.C. 2383), which says:

 

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

According to Biden’s own Justice Department, none of the 950 arrested in connection with the riot was charged with insurrection.

Prosecutors did charge 50 defendants with conspiracy, and four have been convicted of seditious conspiracy. The other conspiracy-related charges were conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder, or conspiracy to injure an officer. 

Seditious conspiracy (under U.S.C. 2384) is defined this way: 

 

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than [20] years, or both.

 

            The argument is that Jan 6 was legal “incitement” when Trump told rally-goers to walk to the Capitol and “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”  I assume this means that the words “peacefully and patriotically,” were a secret signal, meaning, “commit wanton acts of violence for no purpose whatsoever.” Thus, with these words, I am not convinced that he was trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power. He and most of the crowd were present to protest peacefully. He was not attempting to stay in power after he had lost. He was not trying to drive a stake through the heart of American democracy on that day. We did not almost lose our democracy on Jan 6 and saying so repeatedly just reminds those who are conservative that progressives will say anything, including using hateful speech, the arousal of anger, and deception, to let other progressives know they really hate Trump and really hate conservatives and are loyal soldiers in the progressive movement to transform the culture. It has also meant that they will not condemn any act of violence when directed against those they claim are part of an insurrection.

            The Washington Post, one of Trump’s most ferocious critics, completed a stunning investigative report back in January quoting distinguished prosecutors, defense lawyers, law professors, and judges on whether our country’s former chief executive could be criminally charged for any of his actions on Jan. 6, 2020—or even on days leading up to that event. The verdict: The Justice Department would find it difficult to get an indictment and even more difficult to get a conviction. The Post reported that the legal experts to whom reporters talked believe that much of what Trump’s critics have accused him of has traditionally been protected speech by the First Amendment. 

2000 Mules is a 2022 American political documentary from controversial political commentator Dinesh D'Souza. He is a passionate believer in the conservative cause and in the notion that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump. His passion and commitment skewed his vision of what happened. He wants to see the election as stolen so badly that he sees it there. He connects dots and sees patterns, but in this case, all this was in his mind. The film claims unnamed nonprofit organizations associated with the Democrat Party paid "mules" to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election. A Reuters article explains the gaps in evidence in the documentary. In addition, when any evidence has been presented before the courts, the evidence falls short of the legal standards for proof. I do think many practices of elections as conducted today open the door for fraud in close elections. There is some fraud in every election. If it were up to me, we would go back to elections occurring on one day. We have learned that Democrats through the money of Zuckerberg, AFL-CIO, and Chamber of Commerce, got out the Democrat vote in the swing states they needed, much as Trump did in a separate way four years before. 

            I want to be clear, and in doing so I will risk making conservatives who support Trump upset with me. Jan. 6, 2020, was the worst day of the president’s term. The rioters were some of his most devoted followers and had been stoked by the president’s unproven claims that voting machines had been rigged to give Biden the victory. And no matter how much Trump may proclaim that he won the election, neither the constitution nor the Congress empowered his vice president to unilaterally prevent Biden from becoming the 46th president. Trump’s behavior is often deplorable. Trump was reckless. In the early hours of the next day, Trump tweeted an invitation to a rally in his support set for Jan. 6, ending with the words: “Will be wild.” In one clip from his deposition, Cipollone said he believed that once the Electoral College voted on Dec. 14, 2020, all of Trump’s legal options were closed. But Trump was frustrated with the White House lawyers, Giuliani said. “You guys are not tough enough,” Giuliani recalled Trump saying.  “You’re a bunch of p—–s. Excuse the expression. But I’m almost certain that was the word that was used.” Cipollone also said during the deposition that he told Trump that seizing voting machines “is a terrible idea.” “I don’t even know why I need to tell you why that’s a bad idea,” Cipollone recalled saying. Trump seemed not to act quickly enough when the rioting at the capitol occurred. I would argue that he showed himself to be a man who does not have the moral qualities or moral judgment to lead this nation. He was wrong to tell those gathered on that day that he really won the election, and the Democrats rigged the election. Trump never conceded the election, to my knowledge, another example of his deplorable and reckless behavior.

            Despite all this, Alan Ryskind said that the Washington Post conducted a stunning investigative report quoting respected and impartial legal experts that Trump was not obviously guilty of any criminal act on Jan. 6. Not one. The Post took every major accusation tossed by Trump’s political enemies—including Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo.—and had an answer for each charge. 

            To be clear, what happened on January 6, 2020, was not a good thing for the country or for conservatives. 

            However, the use of that event to label conservatives as a danger to democracy is a greater danger to democracy than any action on that day. As Roger Kimball put it, the Jan 6 committee is a “model trial,” wherein the “aim isn’t to discover the truth—which was supposedly already known—but to stage a propagandist exhibition.” Progressives are showing the conservatives their intolerance and totalitarian nature through their words and actions in this regard. We need to have open ears and listen and open eyes to see what is before us. Of the more than 100 subpoenas issued by the Select Committee established to probe the Capitol riot, less than 10 percent, according to a Federalist analysis, have targeted individuals directly involved in the chaos. The rest has gone after Americans who committed the now-apparent crime of holding a peaceful demonstration at the White House and espoused unacceptable views in the eyes of the incumbent regime. 

            Yes, Trump is wrong for claiming the election was stolen. In this regard, the Democrats were wrong as well. Were they engaging in criminal behavior? 

            Beginning with George W. Bush’s victory in the 2000 presidential race, Democrats have contested three Republican victories in the 21st century, with two Democrat House members opposing Trump’s victory on the grounds that the Russians had illegally interfered in our elections. As Mollie Hemingway put it so well: If claiming elections were stolen were a crime, the entire Democrat Party and much of the media establishment would be in prison. The last time the Democrats completely accepted a presidential election they lost was 1988. 

Hillary Clinton repeatedly declared Trump an “illegitimate president,” and claimed that 2016 was “not on the level” and “stolen.” She is by the definition Democrats embrace an “election denier.” As are Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, John Kerry, Al Gore, the late John Lewis, the late Harry Reid, Paul Krugman, Jerrold Nadler, virtually the entire Washington Post editorial page, Time magazine, every other major media outlet, the White House Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, former DNC chairs, and scores of others. Democrat operative Jon Karl interviewed Liz Cheney, who promised to work against “election deniers,” people who do not “respect the outcome of the election.” Among the people Cheney will reject are Ron DeSantis and Ted Cruz—neither of whom, as far as I can tell, deny that Biden is the legitimate president of the United States. That is not enough anymore. Do Democrats believe Trump won 2016 squarely and fairly? Mere months after Biden said the 2022 midterms could “easily be illegitimate,” but later claimed, “We honor the will of the people. We do not deny it.” Biden’s current press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, along with many other Democrats, explicitly rejected the will of 63 million people in 2016 when they realized that will was for Trump to run the White House. Democrats in Congress not only tried to block the certification of Trump’s election and every GOP election this century, something they accuse Republicans of doing in 2020, but they campaigned on and continue to campaign on the delusion that Trump “stole” the election and was an “illegitimate” president. More Democrats denied that Trump won the 2016 election than people who claimed Biden was not legitimately elected in 2020. One in three House Democrats boycotted Trump’s inauguration celebrations in 2017. The Washington Post giddily bragged about various groups formed to impeach Trump in his first days in office, on the pretext he was illegitimately elected. Rosa Brooks, an Obama administration Pentagon lawyer, less than two weeks after Trump’s inauguration wrote a long denialist essay in Foreign Policy outlining a strategy to remove the illegitimate president. She discussed the options of impeachment, the 25th Amendment—and even a military coup. Time magazine’s Molly Ball in a triumphalist essay bragged that in 2020 a combination of Big Tech money from Silicon Valley—fueled by Mark Zuckerberg’s —absorbed the balloting collection and counting of several key voting precincts weighed to help Biden.

            Democrats, however, are trying to use the House select committee, whose sole purpose is to find out what happened on Jan. 6, to prosecute the former president and his advisers for a crime they have yet to discover. The damage to the country and even the world caused by that false and damaging stolen-election claim — which, again, was the result of a plot, secretly funded by the DNC and the Clinton campaign, with allies in the FBI and CIA — was far greater than the one-day riot at the Capitol, or even the months-long Democrat riots during 2020 that destroyed cities, businesses, homes, monuments, and peace. This is not “what-about-ism,” but a matter of equally applying the law.

            It seems that slurring half the voters of the country with the label of insurrection and of being a threat to democracy is okay for the progressive community, given that Biden can call those who remain loyal to Trump semi-fascist. 

 

•   Yet Biden is the one without constitutional authority to remove some $500 billion in student loan debts— the single largest executive action in American history.

•   He illegally tasked his Occupational Safety and Health Administration with forcing vaccines on some 80 million people because of a “public health emergency”. 

•   He used his Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to try to propagate an eviction moratorium on the same basis. 

•   He bragged in July that he will reshape the American economy on his own if Congress does not act to forestall a supposed “climate change emergency.”

•   He could refer to many in the Republican Party of being “a threat to the very soul of this country.”

•   He has illegally failed to secure the border.

•   He has failed to confront the violence plaguing American cities, most run by fellow Democrats.

•   He has adopted policies that have destroyed the wealth of many retired persons, led to inflation, and increased dependence upon authoritarian regimes for oil rather than expanding our production of oil to serve a questionable crisis related to the environment. 

         

            We may well need to be concerned with the soul of the nation. That soul has included the recognition of valid and rational opposition to those who temporarily through the electoral process have gained political power. 

            Here is the danger I see. The continuing accusation of semi-fascism and insurrection has become a way to dismiss millions of voters as an irrational threat to the nation. To dismiss the votes of millions of Americans in this way is to refuse to hear the genuine concerns behind them. Those concerns are not oriented to fascist and racist beliefs, but to a concern for liberty, for continuing respect for the founding of the nation, for respect for traditional and religious values, and for the sense that Washington DC has fallen out of touch and is corrupt. Many will vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot. Many are concerned with the effect of illegal immigration. Many want a smaller federal government with less regulatory influence upon their lives. Many have concerns for the cultural, economic, and political elites in that they have little concern for the average American. Many were disengaged because of the feeling of alienation from the institutional life of the country. Accusing such persons of semi-fascism and insurrection lifts the burden from the progressive from engaging the opposition with rational discourse as to the direction of the country, by seeing only their comprehensive world view as viable. The use of the human language to deceive, lie, and an anger that leads to violence is a threat to the soul of the nation. Thus, the nation may well be experiencing its own dark night of the soul, a period of ignorance and spiritual crisis. 

            Yet, I do have a hope for the nation. Political leaders could recover the insight that we broaden and deepen the soul of the nation through respectful difference with the opposition. My further hope is that out of suffering have emerged the strongest souls for, as Paul put it: "We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies (II Corinthians 4:8-10 [ESV]).”

A Thought Experiment on the Political Effectiveness of the Accusation of Fascism in America Today

            

             One performs thought experiments, or imaginary experiments, in the imagination. We set up some situation, we observe what happens, then we try to draw appropriate conclusions. In this way, thought experiments resemble real experiments, except that they are experiments in the mind. I want to state at the outset that it is debatable whether such an approach can provide helpful insights into what is going on the world. If you can join me in the experiment, and not get too defensive, we might open ourselves to a helpful insight. I might be making a too-subtle approach to what I want to say. If that is your experience reading, I apologize at the beginning.

            To carry out this thought experiment, I will need to refer to President Trump and his supporters. The reason is that progressives too often use the fascist label for him and his followers, which number in the millions. Personally, I would prefer that Trump enjoy the rest of his life and allow Republicans to explore a future without his direct involvement. I would like him to be quiet. I did not expect him to do that, and although I hoped for Nikki Haley, I am not surprised at the result of the Republican primaries of 2024. I feel like I do not have a political party.

            For this thought experiment, I am using Trump and his voters to explore whether such an accusation sheds light on the debate occurring in the public square of America today.

“Everyone seems to have become Hitler.” Historian Gavriel D. Rosenfeld wrote these words in his study of how the Nazi past has become a recurring theme in contemporary culture – to the point of almost becoming trivial. Its prevalent use in political conversation is part of the nasty character of political dialogue today. When people make facile comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis, they are trying, usually in good faith, to warn us about the dangers of ignoring history and its lessons. It attempts to deliver a knock-out blow that will end the argument. Thus, in political conversation, we may agree on nothing else, but we can agree that Hitler is a symbol of evil. Negotiating him was futile, so rational political discourse becomes futile if either side considers the other side as Hitler. False equivalencies not only risk trivializing Hitler and the horrors he unleashed. They also prevent people from engaging with the actual issues at hand – ones that urgently require our attention. The standard for inhumanity to other human beings is set high in referring to Hitler, who engaged in genocide. Dehumanizing the political opponent occurs far from genocide, and may include the comparison of the opponent with Hitler.

            The 1930s were the time of Nazi rise to power in Germany. They used the crisis of German defeat in WWI and the global depression as a path to power. The populace was desperate, and the slogan “bread and work” was effective to bring them to power. However, they also effectively used methods of public intimidation to strengthen their hold on the population. The history of fascism does not begin with a dictator simply marching into a nation’s capital and seizing total power. It more frequently begins with the destruction of the legislative branch at the hands of centralization of executive power. Adolf Hitler did not just declare himself dictator; dictatorial power preceded him in the chancellor’s office by several years, dating back to Heinrich Bruning invoking emergency powers under Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution in 1930. Benito Mussolini came to power under constitutional means in 1922 and did not consolidate his rule until 1925. Fascism, in other words, is a gradual process. And that process starts with executive branch actors accumulating authority they did not legally acquire.

            I want to begin the thought experiment by illustrating the accusation of fascism used by a progressive. A progressive I follow on Twitter kept waiting for Trump to attempt the beerhall putsch, the feeble attempt by Nazis to take Germany by force. Some Nazis were killed, and Hitler was himself almost killed. Hitler memorialized those who died when he became chancellor. The progressive I follow thought January 6 was that moment, but it never materialized. Two years after Trump was no longer president, he was still seeing signs of that putsch. Such comparisons tell me much about how Trump and his voters disgust him, how dear his progressive ideology is to him, and nothing about Trump, except that he never took over the government by force. The progressive raising this fear was wrong. His accusation did nothing to persuade. It was a signal to his progressive friends that he was a loyal member of that community, and that was about all. The fact that he is a theologian and has written some solid theology on Bultmann but has never admitted his wrong is troubling but expected.

            Thus, one way to read all this is that amid the collapse of the “public”-“private” distinction and the “other”-izing of half the citizenry by President Biden means that the stakes could not be higher. The vision for America promoted by progressives has grown increasingly dark. Its embrace of identity politics has morphed into an all-out drive for divisiveness, demonizing huge swaths of the American people for purely political purposes. Demonizing releases those who oppose demons from the responsibility of engaging the opposition rationally and respectfully. Thus, one could argue that if anyone is a danger to the soul of this nation and what America represents in the story of human history, it is President Biden and his allies. The idea that a sizable portion of the opposition to the party in power have replaced fascists, Soviets, and radical Islamists as the true enemies of America would seem to be a declaration of war on half of the country.

           I want to concede that an American version of fascism may be the path through which the nation may need to travel to discover itself anew. Such a post-modern differentiation may be the dangerous path down which America needs to travel for its citizens to discover anew their common desire for human flourishing and respect for rationally arriving at divergent political conclusions. Let us now engage in a bit of irony by exploring a few fascist methods and relate them to a reading of certain recent actions by progressives.

            A widely accepted element of “fascism” is the cooptation of the “private” sector by the “public” sector, especially in service of entrenching a one-party state. 

            One could argue that progressive ideology so permeates Big Tech and other large corporations so deeply that its alliance with a progressive power structure in Washington DC constitutes a move in the direction of a one-party state-private sector. Removing not just Trump but other conservatives, removing posts that are not consistent with the progressive view things, placing warnings on conservative views of climate change, are among the hints of such an alliance. 

            One method of fascism was the control of major information outlets. They told reporters what the theme was to be in their communication. They made sure their political views were the dominant concepts in the major newspapers and on the radio. Everywhere one turned, the only acceptable political views allowed were views consistent with the Nazi program. 

            One could argue that progressives are using this strategy effectively. It does not require a central organization dominated by a charismatic personality because it is a shared ideology. We see it in major media outlets (NYT, Washington Post, and the major papers of every major city, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC). We also see it in entertainment, as progressive ideology works their way into movies and television shows. The practice of shaming entertainers if they do not tow the progressive line has been effective, in part because if one moves against it, one is less likely to get a job. 

            Another method of fascism was physical intimidation. The brown-shirts were thugs that occasionally went through the streets to kill and physically intimidate opponents. They were the reason in the Night of Broken Glass they destroyed many Jewish businesses, and they killed 100 Jews, was what it was. 

            One could argue that for the progressives, Antifa and Black Lives Matter were organized to intimidate voters before the 2020 election. It made it appear that if Donald Trump were just not President, everything would quiet down in the streets. This has been true, as the organizations have become less vocal and less violent. One can be sure their violence will increase if the next President is GOP.

 

•   There were riots throughout the nation that shut down many cities. The use of violence through Antifa and BLM were designed to intimidate voters into electing whomever the Democrat Party nominated to assure peace. 

 

            Another method of fascism was political intimidation. The goal was to eliminate any legal political opposition for the sake of national security. 

            The progressive needed the Democrat Party for this, and some Never Trump persons, and it worked. 

 

•   Using many lies, notably the Russia narrative which some journalists like Margot Cleveland and others have exposed as the Russia hoax, and the Steele Dossier, making Trump Hitler and Trump supporters Nazis. 

•   They had a sustained effort at the nullification of the 2016 election, which Hillary Clinton still questions its legitimacy.

•   When rioting exploded in the streets of Washington, D.C., after the election results of 2016 became clear, Madonna infamously shouted to a mass crowd that she dreamed of blowing up the White House, with the Trump family in it.

•   Do they believe that Georgia or Texas run “fair and square” elections? Doubtful. Yet, the media asks only conservatives to treat every election law passed by Democrats as a sacrosanct pillar of “democracy” or risk Democrats and their many friends in the media smearing them being as traitors. 

•   As an aside, the election of Biden with a $419 million infusion from Zuckerberg and friends targeting Democrat strongholds in purple states to get out that vote was a significant victory, especially since Trump outpaced past GOP votes from among Hispanic and Black voters. 

•   The President accusing his political foes as “semi-fascist” is the same one who sent the federal law enforcement to execute a predawn raid on the private residence of his former, and perhaps future, ballot box opponent. 

           

            Another fascist practice was to discredit by fabrication and lies. They would turn on each other. The Nazi Storm Troopers came under suspicion by Hitler. In 1934, Hitler had many killed and Ernst Rohm imprisoned. Other Nazi leaders, such as Hess, Himmler, and Goehring, wanted Rohm killed, but Hitler resisted until they fabricated evidence of the disloyalty of Rohm. 

            This allows me to expand on the point above, reading the behavior of progressives in a certain way. 

 

•   Progressives used this method in the fabrication that was the Steele Dossier, the basis for the accusation that Trump colluded with Russia. 

•   This form of intimidation continues in the January 6 committee, in which the opposing political party did not have a representative. No one thinks what happened in the capitol of the nation was a good thing. However, it was not a good thing that riots occurred throughout the country, property destroyed, and lives lost because of it. The use of public show trials of political enemies is a favorite of authoritarian regimes in every time and place. 

           

            Another method was fear. Fascists wanted Germans to blame Jews for their financial woes and for their defeat in the war. This proved to be tricky. When they tried a national boycott against Jewish businesses and planting SS troops outside such businesses, many Germans walked past the troops and did their businesses anyway. They lied about the violence against Germans in neighboring Czechoslovakia, generating a fear in the German population and acceptance of the invasion of that country. 

            One way to read progressive methods is that they have effectively used lies about Trump, but they have also used lies about the effect of overturning Roe vs Wade and lies about the climate, to generate fear and justify calls for national emergency measures and increased restrictions on businesses and individuals that line-up with the lies. 

            My question is this: does such a comparison of fascism and progressive methods have any effectiveness? The comparison I am making between fascist and progressive methods in this thought experiment tells you as a reader that I really dislike these actions by progressives and that I hate fascism. However, does my concern about recent progressive methods and actions equate to fascism on the part of progressives? More importantly, does the comparison do anything to advance the conversation America needs to be having in the public square? 

            If a progressive were to read to this point, I can imagine the reader offering many objections. That is my point. While from my conservative political position I do not like what I see happening, the point of my thought experiment is to explore whether the accusation of fascism in the American context sheds light upon the issues facing the country today. I used a conservative reading of progressive behavior to show that as easily as the charge of fascism rolls off the tongue of a progressive when directed to President Trump and his supporters, a conservative has plenty of behavior by progressives in government and culture to make the same charge. However, do such accusations advance a discussion of the issues facing the country?

            To make my point directly and clearly, not only is history not repeating itself, but it is also not even rhyming, as it relates to the horrible experience of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s. All Americans agree that fascism as experienced in the middle part of the 20th century was a horrible part of the experience of the Western democracies and none of us want it repeated. I encourage you to watch documentaries related to the historical movement of fascism, especially the rise of Hitler to power and its effect of concentration camps and a war that resulted in the loss of 50 million lives. No one on either side of the political spectrum wants this. Thus, the accusation of fascism in that sense ought not to be part of honest discourse. However, an American version of post-modern fascism stemming from intense anger, which the progressive seems to nurture toward all who disagree with that ideology, is clearly a possibility. I have no idea what that path would like or the type of transformed nation it would create. I clearly would prefer not to find out.

            The question then arises as to why both sides use the accusation of fascism against their opponent. I will share my view.

            The accusation of fascism displays an anger that arises from a view of an opposition that considers the political opponent to be either evil or irrational. Such a view results in relieving oneself from the burden of respecting the other and engaging in honest debate with the other. It does not matter if the accusation comes from a conservative or a progressive, for in both cases, it absolves the accuser of engaging the political opponent rationally and respectfully. Instead of thinking of Trump supporters as monolithic haters, one might listen to their concerns for fiscal conservatives, traditional values, illegal immigration, smaller federal government, preserving what is best about America as represented in its founders and its constitution, the sense that cultural, economic, and political elites have isolated themselves from the concerns of the common person, and the alienation some of these voters from institutional life. They are men, women, black, Hispanic, young, old, and of varying economic status and educational level. 

            I suggested that this thought experiment might lead to a helpful insight. I stress that this is only an imaginary experiment. To repeat: the point is not that progressives are fascists. I have seen that accusation proposed concerning Trump and his supporters and find it disgusting. I would find such an accusation against the progressive equally wrong. To state it clearly, I do not think progressives are fascists. 

            Could such a thought experiment help the progressive see with greater clarity what might be happening to the progressive side of the political equation in America today? If I were a progressive, or a never-Trump conservative, I would be concerned with the methods used and with the direction such methods will lead it. 

            However, I think even that might be too optimistic for the use of a thought experiment as a method of argumentation. All this thought experiment has done is solidify the resolve of those who are concerned with the progressive ideology as practiced by its devotees today. If a progressive were to read this and receive an insight that would question these methods, even if not the ideology, I would be shocked but pleased. However, I suspect that all I have accomplished is tell the reader something about my beliefs. Obviously, I do not like the progressive ideology. By comparing certain practices to those of fascism, the thought experiment is expressing how intensely I dislike these practices. This thought experiment tells you I cannot imagine anything worse than the fascist, so comparing progressive methods in certain areas to them tells you how offensive I find them. Of course, I would like any potential reader to find them equally offensive. The thought experiment assumes that any potential reader would find fascist practices offensive.

            My thought experiment has a modest goal. These concluding words are for the conservative or the progressive engaged in the public square. It has to do with our use of language in the public square. It also has to do with Christians commenting on what is happening in the political world today. It can be difficult to resist the anger so prevalent in the cultural and political discourse of the country, but we need to find a way. 

            I want to share some good wisdom. Since the wisdom derives from the Bible, I want to be clear that my point here is not that the public square become Christian. Rather, I would like to encourage participants to become wiser. 

            For example, blessed are the merciful, said Jesus, for they will receive mercy. If we are merciful in the way we approach those of opposing political positions, we have a greater possibility of receiving mercy from them. It will move us toward the other rather than distancing ourselves from them. From this closer position, we might find common ground and learn from each other. Blessed are those who make peace, said Jesus, rather than allow oneself to be caught up in the war of words so prevalent in the public square today. 

            As another example, Paul in his vice lists refers to stirring up enmity, which involves hostilities between individuals and communities, on political, religious, or racial grounds. He urges that we avoid strife (quarrelsomeness, contention, and wrangling). We are to avoid anger, which is often vengeful. He wants us to avoid malice, which suggests ill will or a desire to injure the other, or to adopt a vicious disposition toward the other. Feuding and rivalry in this form lead to little more than division and disorder, even revolution and anarchy in the political and moral sphere. From the perspective of the virtues (Galatians 5:22-23) we are to develop, such language does not move us toward love, it does not nurture peace, it does not cultivate patience, kindness, or gentleness.

            All political perspectives could remove the accusation of fascism when describing their opponent. If they did, it would increase the fruitfulness of the debate occurring in the public square. Fascism, like all moments of history, was a unique happening that none of us want repeated. It had enough evil for its time, and we do not need to relive it in our language. However, I am confident that the removal I suggest will not happen, but one can always hope — and pray. Let it be so.

From Russia Collusion Narrative to Russia Hoax

            

          

            I want to explore the significance of the Russia collusion story. Here is a significant reason for many on the political Right to who believe the Democrat Party is weaponizing the federal bureaucracy against their political opponents and a significant reason the political Right does not trust major media outlets or the technology companies. 

The stimulation of this exploration is the acquittal of Sussman and Danchenko. I want to begin with what I consider the factual date, provided from several articles by Margot Cleveland and a recent article by Ben Weingarten of Newsweek. I will then get into the frame of mind that led otherwise intelligent persons to behave in these ways. 

            In a matter like this, I want to be clear as to the facts as I understand them. 

            The Clinton campaign and its attorneys hired technicians to attack the servers of Donald Trump to establish a narrative by gathering derogatory information about Trump. They were unsuccessful, so they developed a story about a Russian-based bank, which Jake Sullivan declared on October 21, 2016, that it unlocked ties between Russia and Trump, but Sullivan failed to disclose that Clinton financed the computer scientists on which he relied for his information. After her defeat, her team backed off and after the inauguration they continued. Mueller found no such actionable collusion. Clinton hired members of the Perkins Cole law firm to contract with tech experts with the purpose of finding any dirt that the failed Steele Dossier did not uncover, which led to the claim of Russian Alfa Bank collusion. They fed false information to the media and the FBI. Victor Davis Hanson referred to it as a slow-motion coup. Agent Scott Hellman told the court that he and another agent took less than a day to ascertain that the information did not support the allegations that Trump’s business and Russia’s Alfa Bank had a secret connection.

            The Federal Election Commission fined Hillary Clinton’s campaign for lying about the discredited Steele Dossier in campaign filings. As Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation revealed, Perkins Cole, the law firm hired by the Clinton campaign, paid Fusion GPS more than $1 million, $175,000 which they used to fund opposition research designed to undermine then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. They laundered money to pay Russian nationals like Danchenko for the intelligence that formed the Steele Dossier and was peddled on her behalf to the DOJ, FBI, and CIA. Fusion GPS, hired by Hillary Clinton, then hired Christopher Steele to compile negative and false secondhand accounts designed to tie Trump to the Kremlin that were subsequently fed to corporate media reporters and government officials. This coordinated effort by Clinton allies, Kevin Clinesmith pleading guilty, to lie about their political enemies sparked the Obama administration’s efforts to spy on Trump and his campaign under knowingly false pretenses. For lying about the purpose of campaign funds, the FEC ordered Clinton’s campaign to pay $8,000 to the commission in the next 30 days. The Democratic National Committee was also fined $105,000 for the same violation. Durham used his cases to reveal not only the information operation the Clinton campaign ran to present Trump as a Russian traitor, and how the campaign flooded the federal government from a million directions with its fake evidence, but also how the feds at every turn engaged in willful blindness to lawlessly, recklessly, and corruptly pursue Trump-Russia collusion despite knowing full well it 

            The FBI and the DOJ used the uncorroborated Steele memoranda, which had failed as a Clinton operation, misleading the FISA court as to its authenticity to obtain four FISA court orders to surveil Carter Page, and the judges responsible for authorizing the most intrusive court-ordered surveillance possible based upon hearsay for sources of unknown reliability. Individuals justified this behavior by having a view of President Trump that involved him as being so dangerous he had to be removed. The FBI paid Steele and others to verify the lies in the dossier. An FBI lawyer even altered a document as part of a government effort to disrupt a presidential transition and presidency. 

            The DOJ and FBI launched an investigation into the campaign of a president based on the pretext that a low-level volunteer adviser had made a passing comment over drinks to an Australian diplomat that the Russians might release information detrimental to Clinton, continuing the charade for years, knowing there was no “there” there.

            As FBI Deputy Assistant Director, Peter Strzok launched Crossfire Hurricane, plotted the removal of Michael Flynn, and making the most “impactful series of missteps” seen in some 20-plus years at the bureau that “called into question” and “thoroughly damaged the reputation” of the FBI,” according to an official report. 

            James Come provided a defensive briefing to provide CNN a hook to report the Steele dossier, took secret notes of his conversations with the president and used a lawyer friend to leak them to the media once he was fired to prompt the appointment of a special counsel, he failed to inform then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions of developments in the case prior to Session’s recusal, he oversaw the Crossfire Hurricane debacle, and he violated the constitutional rights of Page. 

            Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) lied to the American public since he knew the truth of the classified material.

            Confidential human sources Stefan Halper, Rodney, Joffe, Steele, and Danchenko peddled false intel to the FBI. Danchenko failed to polygraph the Russian or conduct the many recommended procedures necessary to ensure his loyalty and credibility. Those responsible for approving his service are equally culpable since they did so with regard for the prior espionage investigation that never reached conclusion.

            Then DOJ General Counsel James Baker shrugged off the peddling by Michael Sussman of the alfa Bank-Trump-Russia hoax. Computer scientists were also responsible for assisting in that how. Inspector General Michael Horowitz kept this information from Durham.

            The agents working the Crossfire Hurricane investigation or assisting Robert Mueller did not do their jobs and did not blow the whistle when others weaponized the criminal justice system. The agents operating under the Mueller special counsel investigation limited the scope of their inquiry into the Steele dossier, ensuring that damning information about the original investigation into the dossier would remain hidden. Mueller allowed his underlings to act in this fashion. Mueller claimed not to investigate the Dossier, but the Durham investigation has shown that not only did he do so but stopped the investigation from reaching a conclusion. The question became not whether the federal government was a mere party to the Russia hoax, but the extent to which it was an active co-conspirator—if not the primary culprit itself.

            Given the powerful people involved in all this, it is hardly surprising that two of three indictments ended in acquittal. This may well have been an investigation where the real targets were too big to bring down.

            Journalists used their skills to sell the Russia-collusion narrative and have since then failed to report the truth of the scandal.

            Sadly, too many Americans do not care that the DOJ and intelligence communities were weaponized to get Trump. In fact, too many Americans celebrate what these persons have done.

            Four years of national hysteria, a divided nation, and dangerous new tensions with Russia were some of the results of such behaviors. 

            My presumption is that neither the persons and groups mentioned here, nor Donald Trump, are any better or worse than the rest of us. They bear the image of God and therefore deserve respect; they bear the mark of the human tendency toward turning away from that which life-giving and becoming self-destructive, and therefore deserve caution as we consider their motives.

            A rational choice after her defeat might have been for Hillary Clinton to accept that she ran an ineffective campaign, lost to someone who focused upon the seven toss-up states effectively and beat her, and be gracious in defeat. Instead, she and Obama decided to cultivate a Russian collusion narrative that brought a tainted election victory to Donald Trump. 

            Given the data, I think we can move from discussing the Russian narrative to discussing the Russian hoax. The Russia hoax was an effort by progressives and never Trump conservatives to warp the results of the 2016 election. The Russia hoax reminds me of what the Clinton’s did surrounding the sexual wanderings of Bill and its coverup. There is a consistent pattern with them of destroying political opponents, which in that case were women abused by Bill Clinton, such as Juanita Broderick and many others. This hoax is consistent with the Clinton pattern of abusing people they believe to be their enemies. We also need to be clear. The Clintons were rewarded for their efforts with a second term for President Clinton. Those who perpetrated the hoax were also successful, for it was the soil out of which the victory of the Democrat Party in the mid-term elections and the defeat of Trump in the 2020 election. What intrigues me most is the form of thinking that leads persons to justify promulgating such a hoax upon the American people, and the fact that so many, whether progressive or never-Trump conservatives, were willing to embrace the hoax. 

            It might be enough that they were angry with the decision of the electorate, a decision with which Hillary took exception. Hillary Clinton repeatedly declared Trump an “illegitimate president,” and claimed that 2016 was “not on the level” and “stolen.” The reason these persons engaged in this behavior may be as simple as believing this to be true. If so, they were engaging in behavior arising from a belief they held, the anger it generated, leading to seeking revenge against Trump, who must have engineered the stealing of the election. One could also reason that they were responding in kind to Trump, who was encouraging crowds to chant, “Lock her up.” Trump had his version of stirring up anger in the crowd. However, most of us would not consider revenge a moral response to what they believed Trump did. Confucius memorably said that if you devote your life to seeking revenge, dig two graves.

            Many of us want to think that hatred is an emotion that we cannot help to have or a feeling we cannot overcome. If we hate someone, so we tend to think, we simply cannot help ourselves. We are human and thus have no choice but to hate. We believe this to excuse our hatred. We are not at fault when we hate. Our problem is that we can help it if we hate, and hatred is our fault. Hatred is a choice, even as love is a choice. Love and hate are matters of the will (Philip Gulley). Do you as a progressive or Never Trump conservative love Donald Trump and his voters or do you hate them? I do not think I can look upon charges of fascism toward President Trump and by implication his millions of voters coming from another place than the anger and hatred that has hooked your darkness. Of course, I could be wrong in that, but with what I see on Twitter and from informal conversations, I do not think so. In either case, you have chosen a path.

            My suspicion is that the justification of their behavior derives from another place in their thinking. 

            First, to think of Trump as one capable of engineering such a steal is to adopt a view of his character that would make him reprehensible when engineered at this level. The voters for Trump were deplorable. President Trump himself was a racist and a hater of women. He was a fascist. Therefore, he attracted voters like this. As an example, before the election and after, a young theologian I follow repeatedly expected something like a Nazi attempted violent takeover of the government at the inauguration of Trump. Such a fear was a common from progressives I saw on Twitter. Thus, President Trump was a danger to peace and democracy. Any action taken against him and that would undermine his presidency became morally justifiable.

            I recall Democrats accusing Ronald Reagan of being a danger to peace, warning that America would not want him anywhere near the nuclear button. This accusation had its precursor in the famous one-time advertisement by the Democrat Party against GOP candidate Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election, in which a girl is counting daises as a nuclear bomb exploded. The accusation of fascism was present in spades with George W. Bush, a man with whom I disagreed in his Iraq and Afghanistan policy. Mitt Romney was a hater of women and was ready to kill the elderly with his desire to reform Social Security. Regarding President Trump, I can only say that before he ran for president, he was friends with many Democrat leaders, donated to their campaigns, had a television show that I never watched for years with NBC, dated seriously an African American model, and had on staff as president people like Ben Carson and Nikki Haley. These are enough to convince me that the accusation of President Trump being such a danger was nothing more than the extreme political rhetoric to which the Democrat Party has resorted at least since the 1960s.

            Second, to think of Trump voters as monolithic haters is to not hear them respectfully and rationally. Polls show that progressives have an intensely negative view of the GOP. Some Trump voters were loyal GOP voters who will vote for the most politically conservative candidate on the ballot, were solid fiscal conservatives, have traditional values, and have concern for illegal immigration. In contrast, the progressive supports the fluidity of gender and believes the illegal immigrant has had a positive impact upon the communities in which they live. Some were believers in free markets and small government, while progressives want a larger federal government with more services and higher taxes on corporations and on people making over $400,000. Some have concerns about preserving what they believe to be the best about America, wanting to preserve respect for the founders. In contrast, the progressive thinks many countries are better than the USA is and think major institutions need to be rebuilt to get rid of the racial and sexual bias, and thus support groups like BLM. Some were anti-elite, thinking of the political system as rigged against them. Elites in the entertainment industry, technology companies, labor unions colleges, and universities, are having a negative influence upon the country. Some are skeptical of large corporations and financial institutions, a skepticism that some progressives share. Some were politically disengaged, do not follow politics, and feel alienation from the institutional life of the country. Given that there is little shared ground between the Trump voter and the progressive, I get the intensity of negative thoughts that exists between them. I also understand that some of those who share the concerns listed here are intensely loyal to Trump, while others have doubts about Trump, making what they believe to be the best choice given the options in a binary voting system. Many have high education and high income, but many also came from lower education levels and lower income.

            I would urge a reflection upon the harsh judgment made of Trump and his millions of voters. “Do not judge … do not condemn,” (Matthew 5:37) Jesus famously said. We have one judge, and it is not us, so we are to love our neighbor (James 4:12). On a personal note, I have had to be careful in my judgments of Trump. When he ran for President, he was at the bottom of the lengthy list of GOP candidates. I would still like for him to be quiet and let the GOP sort this out. He simply does not exhibit the personality and character I would like to see in a President. His behavior after he lost the election of 2020 solidified in my thinking that he has a reckless side to him. I was disappointed that Nikki Haley lost to him. I feel today like a person without a political party. My family and friends who remain loyal in their support of him I think are misguided in doing so, but I can appreciate the concerns that motivate them to do so. Washington DC can seem like a swamp that needs to be drained of its corruption and its greed for power that it seeks to gain by reducing the power of states, local communities, and the people. However, I imagine I have said enough to make those who support Trump be upset with me. I might be labeled a RINO, but I will accept that. Yet, none of what I have said would justify behavior on my part, if I were able to do so, to undermine his presidency with lies and deceit necessary to perpetrate a hoax upon the American people. Even with the deep difference the political Left has from the Trump and his voters, it did not justify the actions I have outlined here.

            The result of the actions of the people and groups named above was the weaponizing of the FBI and CIA by Hillary Clinton and President Obama. It was the use of deception and lies to advance a political agenda. Deceit, treachery, guile, (I Peter 2:1), craftiness, malignity, malevolence (Romans 1:29), insolence, violent and insulting words (Romans 1:30), are behaviors that arise out of our darkness and do not lead to the light we need to guide us as a nation. People engaged in these behaviors because a view arose about Trump and his followers. Yes, of course, they were fascists, hate women, and are racists. They had to be stopped. They were a threat to democracy. The justification of this dark behavior in their minds made them patriotic and protective of the future of America. It did not matter that many African American conservatives and many conservative women, including several close to me, were among his supporters.

            Given the resort to deception and lies, the division of the nation is not surprising. New Testament authors had to confront a similar spirit. Paul refers to enmities, referring to hostilities between individuals or communities, on political, religious, or racial grounds (Galatians 5:20).  Paul (II Corinthians 6:20) does not want to find certain vices among them when he visits, such as strife, referring to quarrelsomeness, contention, and wrangling (Romans 1:29 as well). Anger refers to outbursts of rage. Aristotle (Nichomachean Ethics, 7.1149a3) refers to the menace of uncontrolled rage that does not hear the voice of reason. He compares it to a pet dog who vigorously barks before discovering if the approaching person is friend or foe. Quarrels (James 3:14, II Corinthians 6:20) refers to a mercenary spirit and selfish ambition, the seeking of followers and adherents by means of gifts, the seeking of followers, hence ambition, rivalry, self-seeking; a feud, faction. In Romans 13:13, Paul refers to the dishonorable life of quarreling, variously translated as strife, dissension, wrangling and rivalry. Dissensions refers to divisions.  Factions refers to heresy. In II Corinthians 6:20, he refers to disorder, also translated as disturbance, upheaval, revolution, anarchy, first in the political, and thence in the moral sphere. Such behaviors arise out of our darkness, our attraction to self-destructive behaviors, and turning away from that which is life-giving.

            The anger in American culture is deep. That is the real danger to the soul of America and the health of our democracy. It has led to dangerous rhetoric, such as labeling masses of people as fascist or a danger to democracy, designed to draw parallels with the universally hated Hitler, drawing out anger toward the group so labeled, and forcing the accused into self-defense and distancing from the accuser. Such hostility has led to destruction of property and loss of life. It leads to subcultures that look upon adherence to the subculture as primary and looks upon opposing subcultures with hatred and moral superiority. None of these subcultures wants to remain a subculture, for they want their ideology and viewpoints to dominate the scene. That is why subcultures clash. They seek dominion. 

            Anger provides the soil out of which our murderous and violent actions come (Matthew 5:22). Jesus understood that the dehumanizing act of violence has its roots in the dehumanizing of another person through our anger. Moreover, not only does anger dehumanize the other, but it also dehumanizes us. Every time we decide to allow anger to smolder inside of us, we become less than fully human, less than the people God created us to be. Instead of merely avoiding murder and violence, we need to embrace reconciliation, which leads to community. 

            Among the seven deadly sins, anger may be the most fun. We get to lick our wounds, smack our lips over grievances long past, roll our tongues over the prospect of bitter confrontations still to come, savor to the last morsel the pain someone gave you and the pain you give back. We have a feast fit for a king. Of course, the chief drawback is that what you are wolfing down so joyfully is yourself. The skeleton at the feast is you (Frederick Buechner, Wishful Thinking Harper & Row, 1973, 2).

            I am not confident there is a path away from this anger and toward a spirit of community. If there is, it will need to affirm a rationality that is behind political movements today, instead of making the opponent so other than oneself that they become evil, immoral, and irrational, and instead affirms a rationality in the other that deserves respect, dialogue, and learning from each other. If such a path exists, it will not come from President Biden and those around him, and it will not come from President Trump. That is why I supported Nikki Haley. If such a path exists, it will need to arise from a separate set of political, cultural, and political leaders than have disclosed themselves at present.