I am the son of a Civil War enthusiast. My father was born in Vicksburg, Mississippi on November 27th in the year of the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927. He died in 1995 but I have a recollection of him proudly saying that he was born in a building with a cannonball lodged in the wall, a remnant of the great siege of 1863 for which the town is renowned. The year of his birth and formative years during the ensuing economic depression framed my father’s outlook and his hobby, throughout a life plagued by tragedy and poor health, was history. I have carted some 40 boxes of books with me from Jackson, MS to Houston, Texas and then to Oxford, Mississippi as proof.

Three eras interested my father the most: The Civil War, Medieval Europe and World War II. Obviously, the former interest is rooted in the place of his birth, a river city where his Scotch-Canadian grandfather, Malcolm Sawers, worked on a riverboat. My father tried to enlist for the Pacific theatre at age 17 but by November 1944 the war was winding down and at 5’7”, 115 pounds, the enlistment officer, who also knew my widowed grandmother and understood that she needed my father at home and alive, told the small teenager to go home and take care of his mother and younger brother. 

That is the history as I dimly recall my father’s telling of it. Told to me by a man who lost his father at age 11 and was of meager financial means until his middle aged years. 

Known to his family as “Jimmy”, my father was one of these southern gentlemen who framed the Civil War in romantic terms. Gone with the Wind was a favorite movie. His admiration for General Lee was immense and the valiantry and successful tactics of the far less numerous Confederate forces, facing insurmountable odds, was frequently lauded. Aged 46 and already in bad health when I was born, throwing the ball or doing anything most boys would find fun were not options for my father. Instead, trips to the Vicksburg National Battlefield were a favorite pastime. He was an intelligent man and he instilled in me an appreciation for long, detail-rich conversation. 

James Roland is buried, with his father of the same name, his grandfather Malcolm, his mother and two brothers who died in childhood, at Cedar Hill Cemetery that abuts the national park.

I adored my father, what little time I had with him. I realize, nonetheless, that his attitudes were racist. He did not have a silver spoon in his mouth at birth but I know he never fully acknowledged that a black boy born on the same day and with similar circumstances would have had a far harder time digging himself out of poverty and realizing his full potential. I doubt he ever realized that a man born on the same day, living in the same place and possibly having the same attributes would have been subject to immense cruelty simply on the basis of his black skin. I never heard of and cannot imagine him actively engaging in any violent or even unjust actions against black people but he did not embrace them as equals and his passive racism, like so many others of his generation, is a sin he took to his grave.

***

The October 2019 edition of the New York Times Magazine commemorates the 400th anniversary of the arrival of African slaves to North America in 1619. Its introductory article, written by Nikole Hannah-Jones, provides a pointed chronology of the cruelty experienced by black Americans from oppressive, racist whites. As the key writer, Ms. Jones earned a Pulitzer for this work and spearheads the “1619 Project” as an effort to infuse public education in the US with the stark history of racism.

Ms. Jones directly sets the theme in her title: “Our founding ideals of liberty and equality were false when they were written. Black Americans fought to make them true. Without this struggle, America would have no democracy at all.” 

Ms. Jones’ begins her article by describing how black Americans had been systematically denied opportunities to better themselves despite their skill sets and despite their patriotic contributions in the military. Seeing this discrimination, a younger Jones questioned why her father was so proud to fly the Stars and Stripes outside their house. She then provides her father’s answer: “He knew that our people’s contributions to building the richest and most powerful nation in the world were indelible, that the United States simply would not exist without us.” 

Ms. Jones then states that the cotton industry, requiring enslaved men and women from Africa, put this country on the map as a global economic power. Past the end of the Civil War, Jones shows where hope emerged in the aftermath of each historical hurdle only to be dashed by the reemergence of racist laws and violent backlashes from the white population. In the interim between the Emancipation Proclamation and the civil rights era, much of white America embraced Jim Crow and even the US Federal government turned a blind eye until brave women and men, mostly of black skin, turned the tide in the 1950s and 60s.

If reminding us about the facts of racism and slavery were the goal, then there could be no objection. 

Unfortunately, Ms. Jones goes far beyond historical summary. Her thesis is that the United States of America has an irrevocably evil foundation, a nation she and her colleagues believe to have begun with the arrival of African slaves in 1619 rather than the date we celebrate, July 4th, 1776. She argues that our forebears were guilty of the worst human depravity ever to have transpired at that time: “one fifth of the population within the 13 colonies struggled under a brutal system of slavery unlike anything that had existed in the world before.” Following this, Ms. Jones claims that these beliefs persist to this day and that our nation continues to cast its black citizens in a negative light: “Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country, as does the belief, so well articulated by Lincoln, that black people are the obstacle to national unity.” 

Ms. Jones leaves no part of our history unscathed: “We like to call those who lived during World War II the Greatest Generation, but that allows us to ignore the fact that many of this generation fought for democracy abroad while brutally suppressing democracy for millions of American citizens.” 

In his editor’s notes, Jake Silverstein states the intentions of the NYT even more plainly: ““The goal of The 1619 Project, a major initiative from The New York Times that this issue of the magazine inaugurates, is to reframe American history.” He and his colleagues feel that everything about our nation is tainted by racism and makes it clear that they believe this problem is still the prime directive of an actively racist system: “Out of slavery — and the anti-black racism it required — grew nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional: its economic might, its industrial power, its electoral system, diet and popular music, the inequities of its public health and education, its astonishing penchant for violence, its income inequality, the example it sets for the world as a land of freedom and equality, its slang, its legal system and the endemic racial fears and hatreds that continue to plague it to this day.” 

This is no effort by the NYT to heal the wounds of racism: They want to rip the stitches out and throw in some acid. With Christianity as his guiding light, Dr. King taught us that the body politic of the US suffered from deep but ultimately healable injuries. These were self-inflicted by the moral failings of our founders and perpetuated by subsequent generations of white Americans. But these failings are not unique to white skin. Rather, as a Christian, Dr. King understood that these failings are inherent to the human species as a whole. 

In contrast to these teachings, Ms. Jones and the NYT likens racism in the US to an incurable, genetic defect. When he states that racial “hatred” is “endemic” in the US and continues to “plague it to this day”, Silverstein reinforces the “in the very DNA of this country” claim at the heart of the The 1619 Project. The net result of how Silverstein and Jones write is a predicate for concluding the worst about America, past and present, and Jones posits that Americans with black skin, uniformly, should be recognized as the “most American.” In the NYT economy of “Americanism”, individual facts and circumstances do not matter. Skin color is the prime currency and whites are racially inferior. 

***

 A hopeful reading of Ms. Jones could find a ray of light in her concluding statements: “I wish, now, that I could go back to the younger me and tell her that her people’s ancestry started here, on these lands, and to boldly, proudly, draw the stars and those stripes of the American flag. We were told once, by virtue of our bondage, that we could never be American. But it was by virtue of our bondage that we became the most American of all.” 

Perhaps instead of arguing for black supremacy in place of white, one could hope that Ms. Jones is suggesting that those of African lineage can now see their heritage as quintessentially American, as a story of overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles, and embrace the founding principles of this nation even while remaining mindful of the moral failures of so many white Americans during the first centuries of our history.  

***

To be clear, the history of racism is crucial to understand but the editorialization of these facts by The New York Times negatively distorts the definition of what it is to be an American. The postmodern critique of objective truth and morality has infiltrated every corner of academia, of which the The 1619 Project is a downstream manifestation. Given how negatively these people view our country, and indeed the entirety of Western Civilization, why would Ms. Jones want black people to be “the most American of all?” What is going to be left of the US when the NYT finishes “reframing” our history?

It is not clear how Ms. Jones or Mr. Silverstein would answer these questions and that ambiguity should be a huge concern for any parent with children who may eventually see the NYT agenda materialize in their school curriculum. The The 1619 Project, with its broader connections to critical race theory and intersectionality, appears to propose an entirely new foundational narrative that overshoots the mark with its excessive criticism, editing the facts of history to suit woke ideology and produce similar effects on the left that white-washed notions of Uncle Sam and apple pie have on the right.

 So where do we take this conversation at this point? In the current environment of illiberal “wokism”, any counterpoint to Ms. Jones is considered by definition an example of “white supremacy”, a term so loosely applied that it has basically lost its meaning. Yet, in defense of this nation’s moral foundations, one need not adopt a starry-eyed, naïve view that ignores facts of history. We can acknowledge where our forebears were in grave, horrible error without damning every strand of our nation’s mortal coil. Abject meanness, greed and the lust for power are intrinsic features of human nature and understanding how these flaws have shaped history is indispensable to counterbalancing their damaging effects. We should reject ideological narratives that distort history regardless of their place on the political spectrum. In the current informational environment, these corrosive modes of thought are emerging exponentially and should be clearly identified and confronted.

Love of country need not be blind but it is required in large measure if the citizens of the US are to once again embrace shared aspirations. We should all open our eyes to what the NYT and the far left is selling. OurMortalCoil disagrees with Ms. Jones and Mr. Silverstein: Redemption is possible and we should not forget the strides that have been made this past 50-60 years. We need to help the NYT and those like minded see this more clearly and the nation as a whole should aim to make race and skin color the least relevant components of our identity.

We must fully acknowledge but ultimately forgive the sins of the past. Our fathers were all flawed, just as they are now and always will be. To be certain, when it comes to race in this country, some of our fathers have sinned more than others. Yet even as we acknowledge this, unloading the burden of history redeems us, giving us the insight and strength required to face the substantial challenges of the present. 

The most luminous figures in our history, particularly the one most Americans celebrate this holiday season, embodied this spiritual understanding. All Americans should remember this, independent of religious disposition or lack thereof. The guiding principles have never been wrong. We simply haven’t followed them well. 

Posted 12/10/20- Malcolm Roland

So, the cataclysm has past and the sun still rose in the east every morning since the election and, is reality sets in, I feel confident the sun will continue to dip below the western horizon at the end of the day. 

As none of the viable choices was going to be pain-free, there was only one truly bad scenario in this election: Questions of election fraud where the count is very slow and there is reason to suspect malfeasance.

Ah, yes. 2020: The gift that keeps on giving.

Some may think a post mortem analysis of the election is premature given the faint pulse left to the age of Trump as they press their case in the judicial system but I would like to cut into this rotten mess and dissect out the silver linings for both sides to see. 

Let’s grab a knife shall we? Or an axe?

Despite the likely loss of the White House, it seems clear that conservatives and Republicans are the bigger winners. The “huuuge” voter turnout suggests at first glance that a new level of citizen engagement has been achieved, which is a positive for democracy in general. However, an intense hatred of Trump motivated the deciding margin and this source of energy will not be available to the left going forward. Will the legacy media continue to keep anti-Trump sentiment stoked to inspire their base? Sure but it won’t be the same as covering every word and Tweet by Trump as breaking news. Will legacy media outlets continue to characterize all conservatives and any liberals who disagree with the identitarian madness occurring on the left as racists? Sure but by definition, “Never Trumpers” who voted blue no longer exist and if the GOP learns valuable lessons, namely that their policies actually appeal to the electorate and they simply need a better salesman, then the tide will shift decidedly in their favor. There is a small indication that Hispanics and African-Americans were more favorable to Trump in 2020 compared to 2016. More importantly, Republicans will likely keep the Senate and they narrowed the gap in the House. They are well positioned to regain the House in 2022 and we all saw how effective the parliamentarian McConnell was at thwarting Obama’s agenda. A few years ago I may have said that the level of gridlock during the Obama years was harmful to the country but this time I see it as a blessing. 

The silver lining is much dimmer for the Democrats. Liberals have their woman in place. The former senator from the left coast checks all the diversity boxes and she is smart and formidable. Yet, the notion that they have positioned Harris as a mid-term replacement to Biden is a shameful undercurrent to the enthusiasm for the incoming administration. Remember, VP-elect Harris did not win the party nomination. Biden had a centrist appeal that she lacks and while California has a lot to be proud of as a state, the country as a whole does not want to follow their direction. Kamala Harris would not have pulled the thin margin of victory in swing states to get the Democrats their win in 2020. 

It’s not that she could not win because of her minority background or the fact that she is a woman. Harris has some of that same viper-mentality of Trump and is clearly motivated by personal ambition. I invite everyone to go review her questioning of then SCOTUS nominee Bret Kavanaugh and some of the other committee inquiries. Perhaps then Senator Harris is simply doing the partisan-job expected of her but her role in a very regrettable period of SCOTUS history sticks with many of us as does the disrespect she showed her running mate during the Democratic nomination process.  

There is nothing wrong with being tough, smart and ambitious but a uniter she is not. 

The lesser of two evils was again the deciding factor in our presidential election. There was never going to be any clear winners in 2020. Our two party system and the backroom oligarchy of technocrats that run it still rule the day. Trump was never going to be a leader for all Americans and made it pretty clear he had no desire to be so. 

But many feel that Trump, as crude and distracted as he was, may have loosened the grip the unelected ascendant has on the reigns of power. Trump sympathizers see him as a rough instrument to break the status quo. The fact that he did so primarily for his own benefit is debatable and there can be no doubt that he alienated a lot of voters who would otherwise mostly support the issues on the conservative side of the ledger. He came to duke it out but threw too many haymakers in too many directions to be effective. 

Regardless, the short term future appears brighter for conservatives and Republicans, especially if lessons can be learned and they take from Trump’s example a renewed ability to communicate their views confidently and clearly while leaving out the demagoguery and bombastic rhetoric we have seen this past 4 years.

***

There are many voices out there with a similar analysis. One that comes to mind is Matt Taibbi. His alienation from both parties is similar to this writer’s. You can hear him discuss some of this with Megyn Kelly on her podcast of the same name, released Wednesday November 11th. 

Written by: Malcolm Roland

Republished from The Conversation

For a growing number of evangelical Christians, Trump is no longer the lesser of two evils

Stewart Clem, Aquinas Institute of Theology

It has long been taken for granted that the majority of evangelical Christians in the United States will vote for Donald Trump.

That may well be the case. But there are recent signs that fewer evangelicals will support Trump this time around than in 2016.

In an August 2020 poll for Fox News, Trump registered a 38-point advantage over Joe Biden among among white evangelical voters. That is impressive, but it pales in comparison with his 61-point advantage over Hillary Clinton among evangelicals in the 2016 election.

Meanwhile, a Pew survey on Oct. 13 found that white evangelical support for Trump had slipped since August, from 83% to 78%.

Moral motivation

Among those who plan to vote to reelect the current president, “a majority are excited to get behind Trump, rather than being primarily motivated by a distaste for his opponent,” according to a write-up of the Pew survey in the prominent evangelical publication Christianity Today.

To me, this suggests not so much a softening among evangelical voters an intensification of their feelings about Trump. I believe we are witnessing a growing divide between those who love him and those who increasingly question whether he is fit for office. Unlike in 2016, evangelical voters who cannot get excited about Trump are seemingly finding it more difficult to vote for him.

There hasn’t been a lot of research into what is behind this trend. But as a moral theologian, I’m interested in the moral reasoning that some prominent evangelical Christians have put forward in recent months explaining why they won’t be voting for Trump. It seems that at least some are reconsidering the relationship between leadership and character.

Why the change of heart?

When Trump was campaigning in 2016, many Christians conceded that while they didn’t approve of his crude personality or his “immoral” lifestyle, they believed his policies – such as his promises to protect religious freedom and his commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade – were more in line with their religious beliefs than those of Hillary Clinton.

“We’re electing a president, not a pastor,” was a common refrain.

Evangelical Christians in the U.S. are not a monolithic voting bloc that supports conservative candidates. There has always been a politically progressive contingent among evangelicalism. Jim Wallis, founder of the left-leaning evangelical magazine Sojourners, for example, served as a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Community Partnerships. Unsurprisingly, progressive evangelical voters have been critical of the president’s character as well as his policies.

But what appears to have changed of late is that some politically conservative evangelicals – those who prioritize abortion restrictions, opposition to same-sex marriage and religious freedom – agree less than they did in 2016 that Trump deserves their vote.

While President Trump may not be “pastor-in-chief,” many evangelical leaders are reminding their fellow Christians that they should not view the office of president as somehow exempt from what they perceive as biblical standards of leadership. As Christian business leader Sid Jansma Jr. explained in a recent article: “The Bible routinely associates good leadership anywhere with character, including such traits as justice, patience, compassion, humility, integrity, honesty, wisdom, courage and discipline.” Citing the Apostle Paul’s second letter to Timothy in the Bible, Jansma concludes, “On every Biblical count of leadership, all of the above, Trump fails.”

Prominent evangelical pastor and author John Piper has likewise drawn on several biblical texts when writing about the choice facing voters: “There is a character connection between rulers and subjects. When the Bible describes a king by saying, ‘He sinned and made Israel to sin’ … it does not mean he twisted their arm. It means his influence shaped the people. That’s the calling of a leader. Take the lead in giving shape to the character of your people. So it happens. For good or for ill.”

In this reading, the Bible does not have a category for a good leader with bad personal character. Nor does it seem to imagine that a nation can remain untainted by the perceived moral failures of its leaders.

The lesser of two evils?

In 2016, a considerable number of evangelicals strongly disapproved of Trump’s behavior but could not imagine voting for a Democrat. For these voters, the Democratic Party platform and its positions on abortion and LGBTQ rights was sufficient to render Trump the lesser of two evils.

Explaining this position in 2016, Wayne Grudem, a popular evangelical author and seminary professor, conceded in The Christian Post that the candidate was “egotistical, bombastic, and brash” but that he represented an “unusual opportunity” to defeat the “pro-abortion, pro-gender-confusion, anti-religious liberty, tax-and-spend, big government liberalism” that he associated with Hillary Clinton.

More recently, concern over Trump’s perceived exploitation of Christianity has been enough to change the minds of some voters. Some theologians have argued that he appropriates Christianity for purposes that are contrary to its teachings. Southern Methodist University’s D. Stephen Long went as far as to ponder in one article: “Should we call Donald Trump ‘antichrist’?”

So even for Christian voters who rely on a lesser-of-two-evils calculus, it’s not obvious that Trump deserves their backing. As Piper writes, “I find it bewildering that Christians can be so sure that greater damage will be done by bad judges, bad laws and bad policies than is being done by the culture-infecting spread of the gangrene of sinful self-exaltation, and boasting and strife-stirring.”

Even from a conservative evangelical perspective, the gains of a Trump presidency are increasingly being weighed against the losses. As the editor in chief of Christianity Today put it in an article calling for Trump to be removed from office: “If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come?”

Despite reportedly mocking Christians and their beliefs behind closed doors, Trump is seen by many evangelicals as God’s chosen candidate. The data, however, suggest a growing divide among evangelicals, with reluctant Trump voters becoming a thing of the past.

Most conservative evangelicals will vote for Trump and will do so enthusiastically. But a significant minority have seemingly concluded that he is in fact the worse of two evils, and they will either not vote or vote for a candidate who is not a Republican – perhaps for the first time in their lives.

Aquinas Institute of Theology is a member of the Association of Theological Schools.

Stewart Clem, Assistant Professor of Moral Theology, Aquinas Institute of Theology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.