Daily Archives: July 9, 2020

Scott Jennings, Opinion contributor Published 10:26 a.m. ET July 8, 2020

Protesters tore down a statue of Christopher Columbus Wednesday outside the State Capitol in St. Paul, Minnesota. (June 10) AP Domestic

Two forces are colliding in 2020. One has no idea what it wants. The other is crystal clear.

Lets start with Donald Trump, running for reelection as president of the United States. His answer on why he wants a second term has been, charitably, non-existent.

Here was Trumps first swing at it, with Fox News host Sean Hannity:

Well one of the things that will be really great: You know, the word experience is still good. I always say talent is more important than experience, Ive always said that. But the word experience is a very important word. Its a very important meaning. I never did this before, I never slept over in Washington. I was in Washington, I think, 17 times, all of a sudden Im president of the United States, you know the story. Im riding down Pennsylvania Avenue with our first lady and I say, This is great. But I didnt know very many people in Washington, it wasnt my thing. I was from Manhattan, from New York. Now I know everybody.

Given a mulligan by Sinclair TV host Eric Bolling a few days later, Trump whiffed again in a rambling response that lacked a cogent argument like I fixed the economy once, and Ill save it again.

Trump ran on real things in 2016, namely how the political elite had left American workers behind on immigration and trade. He promised lower taxes, conservative judgesand pro-life policies. He railed against political correctness run amuck, appealing to Republicans and blue-collar Democrats alike.

Unfortunately, the president has yet to formulate a similarly insightful argument for a second term as he struggles to manage the twin crises of coronavirus and social unrest. His speech at Mt. Rushmore hammering the leftists attempting to erase Americas history (and its future) before our very eyes was an improvement, despite what you heard from the homogeneous national political press that is dedicated to Trumps destruction.

More from Scott Jennings: Riots give Trump a chance to rally his supporters and go after racism

But Trump behind in his reelection and threatening to take the Republican Senate down with him must now carry his argument forward by characterizing todays rope-pullers as tomorrows policymakers in a Joe Biden administration. If you are worried about economic upheaval today, wait until the mob oversees Bidens policy shop.

Vandalism at the statue of Christopher Columbus in Garfield(Photo: Courtesy of the city of Garfield)

Anarchists, radical leftists, Democratic Party leaders, and their cheerleaders and apologists in the press cannot control or hide what is happening.Its just the Confederate statues, they tell us, as Christopher Columbus sinks in a Baltimore harbor. It isnt about disrespecting America, just ending police brutality, they claim.

Except that the spiritual leader of the other colliding force Colin Kaepernick released a video over the weekend calling the Fourth of July a celebration of white supremacy. Theres no other way to interpret his argument the American experiment is built on an evil foundation and must be erased.

Apparently, top Democrats were listening. Illinois Sen.Tammy Duckworth a leading contender to become Bidens running mate said on Sunday we ought to consider removing statues of George Washington and raised the specter of doing away with Mt. Rushmore altogether. She said Trump spent all his time talking about dead traitors this weekend, despite the fact that his speech was entirely about the Founding Fathers and other American heroes.

The guru says jump! and his followers shout how high!

Prominent Democratic operatives started this nonsense last summer by pushing to label all Trump voters as racist. Now, they bless an all-out assault on a core tenet of American political discourse that we are all in this together by arguing that not only are Trump and his supporters racist but that celebrating Americas founding means you endorse white supremacy.

Kaepernicks cult knows exactly what it wants: to cancel its political opposition and then delegitimize the American story as we have always known it. They seek radical policy changes that can only be accomplished by removing the democratic guardrails of separation of powers and the protection of minority party rights in the legislative branch.

Read: 100+ youth march 'for freedom' in downtown Louisville on Independence Day

Senate Democrats are signaling they will end the legislative filibuster if they gain control, effectively surrendering to the most extreme elements of the American left (they already run the House under Nancy Pelosi). Combine this change with a newfound taste for emergency powers exercised in the name of the coronavirus, and you can see how the lefts wildest and most radical dreams could come true in short order.

What does America look like when Republicans no longer have the procedural tools to save the country from extremism? Turn on your television. The people destroying American cities and public property and the petrified, enabling Democrats too weak to stop them will have your future in their hands.

Scott Jennings is a Republican adviser, CNN political contributor, and partner at RunSwitch Public Relations. He can be reached atScott@RunSwitchPR.comor on Twitter@ScottJenningsKY.

Read or Share this story: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2020/07/08/joe-biden-protesters-destroying-cities-control-your-future/5383434002/

Go here to read the rest:

Opinion: If Democrats take control, 'the mob' will have your future in their hands - Courier Journal

We endorse the sentiment articulated recently in a joint statement by 150 authors, academics and journalists that restriction of free speech, whether by a repressive government or by a counterculture demanding uncompromising fealty and conformity, erodes democracy and harms the subaltern. Thesignatories include author Salman Rushdie, linguist Noam Chomsky and Harry Potter creator J K Rowling.

In the era of social media, where arguments are short and emphatic, nuance is displaced by arbitrary certainty and intolerance of dissent. The result is to coarsen the public discourse and polarise, rather than inform, opinion. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other, says the statement. Political correctness is not merely a cringeworthy fashion but also an instrument of censorship. To attribute to some value or sentiment a quality of unquestioning inviolability and then to damn anyone who dares to disagree even tangentially is an attack on the freedom of expression. Whether the tactic is deployed by those on the political right or those on the left, the result is to curtail reasoned debate and shrink the realm of public clarity. Womens rights, race and skin colour, nationalism, religion, leader worship the number of subjects, differences on which at the level of ideas can swiftly transform into violent confrontation, keeps growing.

A statement issued by some individuals, however accomplished and however respected, will not, by itself, bring about a diametrical shift in the temper of the public discourse. But the discourse is richer for incorporating this caution and appeal to reason. May reason prevail.

This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Economic Times.

Originally posted here:

Where the mind is without fear - Economic Times

American sports are changing, and the Kansas City Chiefs are on the clock.

Last week, the NFLs Washington Redskins announced plans to reconsider the teams name, a decision that will almost certainly lead to a new name by the start of the football season. A few days later, the Cleveland Indians of Major League Baseball said they would think about a new name too.

"We recognize our unique place in the community," the baseball team said in a statement, "and are committed to listening, learning and acting in the manner that can best unite and inspire our city."

If both franchises pick new names, the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the NHLs Chicago Blackhawks would be the only remaining major sport franchises using Native American symbols in their promotions and game-day activities.

Each of those teams including the Kansas City Chiefs must begin a thorough reappraisal of their use of those images and traditions.

Changing the defending Super Bowl champs name would be an enormous, controversial undertaking. But the Chiefs and other community leaders who happily bask in the clubs success must at least publicly explain in this current moment why keeping the name and associated rituals are so essential to the teams success.

The concerns of the Native American community, and a much broader audience, cant be ignored. As other teams take a hard look at ethnic stereotypes and racist caricatures, the Chiefs cant simply sweep this issue under the rug or hope that a well-timed meeting will calm everyone down. Its time for a real examination of all of it: the tomahawk chop, the drum, Arrowhead Stadium, Warpaint and the costumes worn by fans at the game.

The National Congress of American Indians calls such iconography intolerant. "Rather than honoring Native peoples, these caricatures and stereotypes are harmful, perpetuate negative stereotypes of Americas first peoples, and contribute to a disregard for the personhood of Native peoples," the group says.

The question isnt whether all Native Americans find these symbols objectionable. The point is that some Native Americans do. That should be enough for the team and the city to reconsider their fondness for a chant and a costume that have no relation to the game.

How can the NFL pressure the Washington team to change its name while endorsing the chop or the war drum here in Kansas City? The contrast will be too obvious and will be noticed by everyone in America if the Chiefs success continues. (Quarterback Patrick Mahomes newly inked 10-year contract extension gives us hope that it will.)

There will be enormous resistance to even talking about this. As in Washington, D.C., and in Cleveland, fans will insist the names are meant to honor Native Americans or arent related to that community at all.

If Kansas City were picking a name today for a sports franchise, would it pick one based on ethnicity? Of course not. Times have changed. What made sense in the 1960s would never even be considered now.

Others will claim political correctness run amok, or another example of so-called "cancel culture." In a Monday tweet, President Donald Trump criticized name changes in Washington, D.C., and Cleveland: "They name teams out of STRENGTH, not weakness," he wrote.

Hes wrong. Real strength is understanding the power of words and images and the importance of using them to promote unity, not division. Real strength is reexamining old traditions in the light of new circumstances.

The Kansas City Star (Kansas City, Mo.)

Continued here:

Other Viewpoints: Is it time for more team names to change? - The Columbus Dispatch

Professor Engels said: "This campaign is indisputably not only the result of the usual differences of opinion in politics because, after all, a lively discourse between opposing positions is the basis of democracy, but it is the very conscious result of a desire to influence German (and also Polish) public opinion." Leszek Szymaski/PAP A Belgian professor has claimed that German media is trying to influence the presidential run offs in Poland with negative reports about Andrzej Duda and positive reports about Rafal Trzaskowski.

According to historian Professor David Engels, the mainstream media in Germany has been bombarding Poles with divergent views in order to 'help' them make the 'right' decision.

According to the professor, Warsaw mayor Rafa Trzaskowski is portrayed positively as progressive liberal.Lech Muszyski/PAP

He told PAP: "I don't want to over-generalize and suggest that all journalists and media are alike, because there are still some significant exceptions, but it is clear how unilaterally the German media usually speak about Poland."

He added that almost every day major German magazines and TV stations are devoting themselves topublishing blatantly one-sided materials in which left-liberal politicians are portrayed as cosmopolitan heroes in shining armour, trying to save their country from economic ruin, from clerical-pedophiles, from intolerant homophobes and Islamophobes, as well as from vile and dictatorial ministers, while their task is being hampered by stubborn, insensitive and dim-witted peasants from Eastern Europe."

The historian who now lives in Poland said that in his opinion the'right direction'for Poland, suggested by the German media, is "accepting mass immigration, introducing sexual'diversity'at the school level, subjecting all manifestations of national democracy to Brussels technocracy, replacing the Christian character of the Polish nation with multicultural relativism, the censorship of all media that do not subordinate to political correctness, distancing themselves from the United States (US President Donald Trump) and, of course, subjecting the vital interests of the state to the needs of'European neighbours,'that is, of course, the German economy."

Current president, Andrzej Duda, is portrayed negatively in German media.Przemysaw Pitkowski/PAP

"This campaign is indisputably not only the result of the usual differences of opinion in politics because, after all, a lively discourse between opposing positions is the basis of democracy, but it is the very conscious result of a desire to influence German (and also Polish) public opinion."

The reason for"this continuous interference,"he says, is the fact that "Poland is the only major European country which is not (yet) completely dominated by the notion of multiculturalism, relativism and technocracy, and it finds itself in the very heart of the Visegrad Group, which is the last independent European centre of power beyond the direct control of Brussels."

"As today's Germany is undoubtedly an advocate of the new ideology of political correctness, they perceive the Polish refusal to submit to their wishes as slander, a slander that is all the more irritating, since many (though fortunately not all) Germans maintain a peculiar, somewhat'condescending'approach to their eastern neighbours.

Professor David Engels says German media is trying to influence the forthcoming presidential election run off.Elekes Andor

He continued: "I think that it is more important now than ever to clearly separate the obvious propaganda carried out by the current German political and media elite on the one hand, from normal Germans on the other, who are often a helpless victim of the content they are fed," says the historian. "And this applies not only to Germany, but also to most Western European countries."

He added that the only correct response should not be "falling into the trap set for Poland and withdrawing into isolationism or even nationalism but, rather,thestartofa counteroffensive.

"Poland could be an ideal gathering place for European conservatives, the heart of the reconstruction of a Christian Europe and the centre of a truly objective media market, which informs the inhabitants of Western Europe about what is truly happening with their countries, and this possibility is just what the current German media fears."

Go here to read the rest:

German media is trying to 'help' Poles make the 'right' election decision, says Belgium academic - The First News

In early June, President Trump had federal officers use tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse a peaceful protest so he could stage a photo op outside St. Johns Church, which sits across from the White House.

The image, now infamous, shows Trump awkwardly holding up the Bible as though hes never held a book in his life. Its a surreal shot that somehow captures the performative dimension of his entire presidency.

But why the Bible? And why go through all that trouble to do the photo op in front of a church?

Its well-known that evangelicals are one of Trumps most loyal constituencies, but its still not clear why. Conventional wisdom says that evangelicals held their noses and voted for Trump purely for pragmatic purposes the biggest reason being the Supreme Court. They may not like him, the argument goes, but hes a useful political vehicle. (See, for example, the Courts decision on Wednesday that allows the Trump administration to expand religious exemptions for employers who object to the Affordable Care Acts contraceptive mandate.)

But what if Trump wasnt a trade-off for evangelicals? What if an obsession with manhood and toughness made a figure like Trump the natural fulfillment of their political evolution?

This is the argument Kristin Kobes Du Mez, a historian at Calvin University, makes in her new book Jesus and John Wayne. According to Du Mez, evangelical leaders have spent decades using the tools of pop culture films, music, television, and the internet to grow the movement. The result, she says, is a Christianity that mirrors that culture. Instead of modeling their lives on Christ, evangelicals have made heroes of people like John Wayne and Mel Gibson, people who project a more militant and more nationalist image. In that sense, Trumps strongman shtick is a near-perfect expression of their values.

To be candid, I wasnt sure what to make of this thesis, but Im also not an authority on American evangelicalism. So I contacted Du Mez, who teaches at a Christian college and has spent 15 years studying evangelicals, to talk about the direction of the movement and how it led to Trump and what she calls our fractured political moment.

A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.

The contrarian argument at the core of your book is that the relationship between Trump and (mostly white) evangelicals is more harmonious than most people suggest. Can you sum up your thesis?

Well, there are all these theories that evangelicals were holding their noses when they voted for Trump, that they were somehow betraying their values. But Ive studied evangelicals for a long time and I was watching them very closely during the election and in the aftermath, and I just didnt see any regrets at all. There was no angst or no sense that this was somehow a difficult trade-off. In fact, what I saw was a bunch of enthusiasm. There were some evangelical leaders who were expressing caution about Trump, but most of the rank and file had zero difficulty supporting Trump.

And when did that become clear to you?

Id say right around the time the Access Hollywood tapes were released thats when it crystallized for me. So we had these tapes where Trump is talking about sexually assaulting women in such crass terms. And the media really homed in on white evangelicals at that moment, asking if this was a bridge too far. Although there was a little hesitation here and there from evangelicals, about a week later they were all back on board.

I know you teach at a Christian university, but did you grow up in the evangelical world? Do you know it from personal experience?

I didnt identify as an evangelical growing up, but most evangelicals dont. We tend to identify as Christians. Looking back, though, I would probably define myself as evangelical-adjacent. I grew up in a small town in Iowa, and this was very much a part of my world.

As I grew up, I was exposed to this evangelical popular culture through our local bookstore, the only bookstore in town. The shelves were filled with these evangelical books, with Christian contemporary music and Christian movies. I was in a Christian youth group. And so my experience with evangelicalism was through the popular culture.

Help me understand why masculinity and nationalism are so foundational to the contemporary evangelical worldview.

What I look to as a historian is this critical period in the post-World War II era when these gender ideals fuse with anti-communist ideology and this overarching desire to defend Christian America. The idea that takes root during this period is that Christian masculinity, Christian men, are the only thing that can protect America from godless communism.

At the same time, you have the civil rights movement destabilizing white evangelicalism and conceptions of white masculinity. Then you have feminism destabilizing traditional masculinity. And all of this comes together for evangelicals, who see their place in the culture slipping away, and they see their political power starting to erode because of this cultural displacement. Thats the moment when you see Christian nationalism linking together with a very militant conception of Christian manhood, because its up to the Christian man to defend his family against all sorts of domestic dangers in the culture wars, and also to defend Christian America against communists and against military threats.

So the idea is that Christian masculinity is the only thing that can preserve traditional American culture and that belief is what precipitates the turn toward a more muscular Christianity?

Thats exactly right. So when you think of evangelicals, a lot of people think of the term family values. But I actually went back to the origins of family values evangelicalism and I was really surprised just how much it was placed in the context of foreign policy, how much it was in the service of defending the American nation. If you go back and listen to James Dobson of Focus on the Family and read the books that emerged during this period, this is all very clear.

The phrase family values is typically hurled at evangelicals in order to call out their hypocrisy, but I think your book makes pretty clear that theyre not hypocrites at all. They only appear hypocritical if you misunderstand what they actually value.

Exactly. If you understand what family values evangelicalism has always entailed and at the very heart of it is white patriarchy, and often a militant white patriarchy then suddenly, all sorts of evangelical political positions and cultural positions fall into place.

So evangelicals are not acting against their deeply held values when they elect Trump; theyre affirming them. Their actual views on immigration policy, on torture, on gun control, on Black Lives Matter and police brutality they all line up pretty closely with Trumps. These are their values, and Trump represents them.

Id like to steelman the evangelical perspective, so can you tell me what cultural forces theyre reacting against?

Well, it changes over time. In the 40s and 50s, its all about anti-communism. But once the civil rights revolution takes hold, it becomes about defending the stability of the traditional social order against all the cultural revolutions of the 60s. But the really interesting moment for me is in the early 90s when the Cold War comes to an end. You would think there would be a kind of resetting after the great enemy had been vanquished, but thats not what happened.

Instead, we get the modern culture wars over sex and gender identity and all the rest. And then 9/11 happens and Islam becomes the new major threat. So its always shifting, and at a certain point I started asking the question, particularly post-9/11, what comes first here? Is it the fear of modern change, of whatevers happening in the moment? Or were evangelical leaders actively seeking out those threats and stoking fear in order to maintain their militancy, to maintain their power?

So this drift into a more militant and nationalist Christianity leads to this obsession with toughness and machismo. The way you put it is that evangelicals are looking for spiritual badasses. They dont want gentle Jesus, they want William Wallace or John Wayne.

Yeah, these are their role models. Most white evangelical men that I knew during the height of this movement, which is really the early 2000s, were very militant. They were buying these hypermasculine books and taking part in these mens reading groups. They werent living out this rugged, violent lifestyle, except maybe at weekend retreats where they role-played this stuff. But in real life, they were still walking around in khakis and polo shirts, but these were the values that were really animating their worldview.

Wait, are there weekend retreats where evangelical men are role-playing Braveheart?

I dont know about that in particular, but this is very much a thing. The success of John Eldredges book Wild at Heart [a huge bestseller that urged young Christian men to reclaim their masculinity] was a big deal in the evangelical world, and it sold millions of copies just in the US. Every college Christian mens group was reading this. It was everywhere in the early 2000s.

There were lots of conferences celebrating this version of a rugged Christianity. It was big business, and there were lots of weekend retreats where men could go out into the wilderness and practice their masculinity. Local churches invented their own versions of this. One church I know in Washington had their own local Braveheart games that involves wrestling with pigs or something. It was all weird and different, but the point was to prove and express your masculinity.

Is this fascination with manhood unique to evangelical culture in particular? Or is this something you find in other Christian subcultures?

The emphasis on strict gender difference and perceived need to define Christian manhood is far greater in conservative white evangelicalism than in other Christian subcultures. White evangelicals also stand out in terms of their emphasis on militancy and their conceptions of masculinity, and in how that militant masculinity is connected to Christian nationalism.

In Black Protestantism, for example, you may find an emphasis on Christian manhood, but youre much more likely to encounter discussions of fatherhood rather than a militant warrior masculinity. In mainline Protestantism youll be more likely to encounter a kinder, gentler masculinity more of the Mr. Rogers sort. (Militant white evangelical masculinity explicitly denounces Mr. Rogerss model of manhood.)

That said, evangelical constructions of masculinity have made inroads into mainline circles largely via popular culture (many mainline churches use evangelical literature in their small-group Bible studies, for example), so the lines between white evangelical and mainline Christianity are not always all that clearly drawn.

Theres a lot going on there, but Ill bring this back to Trump. Do most evangelicals consider him a spiritual badass?

For many hes not, but he is their great protector. Hes their strongman that God has given them to protect them. So, again, the ends justify the means here. But I think its important to understand that the appeal of Trump to evangelicals isnt surprising at all, because their own faith tradition has long embraced this idea of a ruthless masculine protector.

This is just the way that God works and the way that God has designed men. He filled them with testosterone so that they can fight. So theres just much less of a conflict there. The most common thing that I hear from white evangelicals defending Trump is that they just wish he would tweet less. I dont find a lot of concern about his actual policies or whats in his heart.

I dont understand how a draft-dodging, spray-tanned hypochondriac has become a hypermasculine protector for militant evangelicals

I mean, thats fair, but you have to remember that their whole idea of militant masculinity was formed in reaction against feminism and more recently against so-called political correctness. That has been just such a powerful enemy for white evangelicals who feel oppressed by these new standards of behavior. And I think Trump really succeeds by not following any of those rules of civil discourse.

If most evangelicals are taking their moral and political cues from Trump or the Duck Dynasty clan or from Christian radio and television, havent we crossed over into something post-religious, something closer to a lifestyle or a cultural pose?

I think we have. But I will say there is still diversity within evangelical churches, communities, and families. There are so many evangelicals who read their Bible every morning, who hold to scriptural teachings as they understand them. But for many of them, the Bible is a complicated book. Which verses do you hold on to as formative for your life, and which do you dismiss? Many are reading through the filter of this ideology now.

But Ive encountered lots of evangelicals who dont want to speak out, who feel a lot of pressure within their own communities. This is not what their faith means to them, this is not what Christianity is to them. So when we talk about white evangelicals, we should acknowledge that there is disagreement within churches and communities and families, but its true that a solid majority of white evangelicals have bought into this ideology.

One of the most interesting threads in your book is this story about how evangelical leaders have tried to modernize the church by using pop culture to lure people in, but over time the pop culture has completely supplanted the theology and all thats left is the vacuous political brand.

I teach at a Christian university, so the majority of my students would fit into this category of white evangelicals. And just this past year, I was teaching a course where it involved reading the first three chapters of Genesis. It was about biblical gender roles and taking a critical look.

And at one point during our discussion, one woman raised her hand and said, I have a confession to make. I think this is the first time Ive actually read the first three chapters of Genesis ... Ive been working with the VeggieTales stories and I assumed I knew this, so I didnt bother with the Bible. [VeggieTales is a Christian animated series for kids that uses pop culture to retell biblical stories.] She was so embarrassed to confess that, but then several other students confessed to the same thing.

So this is the evangelical culture these kids have been raised in. They listen to pop Christian music on the radio. They read the pop Christian books. They watch Focus on the Family childrens programming. They watch VeggieTales cartoons. And Christian parents are told to keep their kids away from the broader secular culture, so its also very insular. They stick to the Christian version of it. Thats the only theology they know.

This is really a story about a religious movement getting entangled with politics and consumerism and being bastardized as a result of the collision.

I think thats right, and theres a lot of money to be made through the book sales, the advertising, and the connections between the political strategists and some of the folks behind this consumer market. What I really tried to do here is just understand the networks behind American evangelicalism. Who is publishing what? What are the distribution networks?

Its critical to understand evangelicalism through this lens. Even when someone walks into a Christian book store or goes online and orders a Christian product, that feels like an authentic expression of their faith to them.

I hear people say all the time that Trumps election was a tragedy for evangelicals, but after reading your book, I wonder if it isnt their greatest victory.

It depends on your vantage point, right? Ive been studying evangelical masculinity for almost 15 years, and seeing the veil ripped off in this way was almost cathartic for me. I was able to see the nature of the movement with even more clarity. This is what family values evangelicalism looks like, and now its apparent to everyone.

But for evangelical dissenters, this is indeed a tragedy. And yet I think even those who are resisting, or who are calling this out and who are struggling with the direction that evangelicalism has taken, still need to reckon with the ways in which they, too, as part of this tradition, have been complicit in this ideology. The Trump era didnt just happen. Weve been moving in this direction for a long time.

Support Voxs explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Voxs work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

More here:

Evangelical Christians and Trump: Is the partnership a surprise? - Vox.com