tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27079246889370694982024-03-18T15:02:15.040-04:00walk onJesse CurtisJesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.comBlogger194125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-23917504242039563612017-01-01T19:38:00.001-05:002017-01-01T19:38:53.745-05:00The End<a href="https://colorblindchristians.com/">I've moved!</a>Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com201tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-34162151109064541962016-12-12T19:12:00.000-05:002016-12-12T19:17:38.545-05:00The 2016 Polls Were OKBecause Donald Trump won the electoral college and because it takes weeks for the full popular vote totals to be counted, the perception has set in that the polls were wildly wrong this year. But they weren't! Here's my layperson's understanding of what happened. <br />
<br />
To get a rough sense of how the national polls performed in comparison to recent presidential elections, let's look at the Real Clear Politics national poll average for the last four elections. <br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="372">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Mention"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
table.MsoTable15Grid1Light
{mso-style-name:"Grid Table 1 Light";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:1;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:1;
mso-style-priority:46;
mso-style-unhide:no;
border:solid #999999 1.0pt;
mso-border-themecolor:text1;
mso-border-themetint:102;
mso-border-alt:solid #999999 .5pt;
mso-border-themecolor:text1;
mso-border-themetint:102;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid #999999;
mso-border-insideh-themecolor:text1;
mso-border-insideh-themetint:102;
mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid #999999;
mso-border-insidev-themecolor:text1;
mso-border-insidev-themetint:102;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
table.MsoTable15Grid1LightFirstRow
{mso-style-name:"Grid Table 1 Light";
mso-table-condition:first-row;
mso-style-priority:46;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom:1.5pt solid #666666;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom-themecolor:text1;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom-themetint:153;
mso-ansi-font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold;}
table.MsoTable15Grid1LightLastRow
{mso-style-name:"Grid Table 1 Light";
mso-table-condition:last-row;
mso-style-priority:46;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-tstyle-border-top:.75pt double #666666;
mso-tstyle-border-top-themecolor:text1;
mso-tstyle-border-top-themetint:153;
mso-ansi-font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold;}
table.MsoTable15Grid1LightFirstCol
{mso-style-name:"Grid Table 1 Light";
mso-table-condition:first-column;
mso-style-priority:46;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-ansi-font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold;}
table.MsoTable15Grid1LightLastCol
{mso-style-name:"Grid Table 1 Light";
mso-table-condition:last-column;
mso-style-priority:46;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-ansi-font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTable15Grid1Light" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: -1; mso-yfti-lastfirstrow: yes;">
<td style="border-bottom: solid #666666 1.5pt; border: solid #999999 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid #666666 1.5pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 153; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 153; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-yfti-cnfc: 5;">
<b>Election</b></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid #666666 1.5pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-top: solid #999999 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid #666666 1.5pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 153; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 153; mso-border-left-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-left-themecolor: text1; mso-border-left-themetint: 102; mso-border-right-themecolor: text1; mso-border-right-themetint: 102; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-yfti-cnfc: 1;">
<b>RCP Average</b></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid #666666 1.5pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-top: solid #999999 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid #666666 1.5pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 153; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 153; mso-border-left-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-left-themecolor: text1; mso-border-left-themetint: 102; mso-border-right-themecolor: text1; mso-border-right-themetint: 102; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-yfti-cnfc: 1;">
<b>Result</b></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid #666666 1.5pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-top: solid #999999 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid #666666 1.5pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 153; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 153; mso-border-left-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-left-themecolor: text1; mso-border-left-themetint: 102; mso-border-right-themecolor: text1; mso-border-right-themetint: 102; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-yfti-cnfc: 1;">
<b>Difference</b></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 0;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid #999999 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-yfti-cnfc: 4;">
<b>Kerry v Bush 2004</b></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 102; mso-border-left-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-left-themecolor: text1; mso-border-left-themetint: 102; mso-border-right-themecolor: text1; mso-border-right-themetint: 102; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Bush + 1.5</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 102; mso-border-left-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-left-themecolor: text1; mso-border-left-themetint: 102; mso-border-right-themecolor: text1; mso-border-right-themetint: 102; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Bush + 2.4</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 102; mso-border-left-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-left-themecolor: text1; mso-border-left-themetint: 102; mso-border-right-themecolor: text1; mso-border-right-themetint: 102; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
0.9</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid #999999 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-yfti-cnfc: 4;">
<b>Obama v McCain 2008</b></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 102; mso-border-left-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-left-themecolor: text1; mso-border-left-themetint: 102; mso-border-right-themecolor: text1; mso-border-right-themetint: 102; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Obama + 7.6</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 102; mso-border-left-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-left-themecolor: text1; mso-border-left-themetint: 102; mso-border-right-themecolor: text1; mso-border-right-themetint: 102; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Obama + 7.3</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 102; mso-border-left-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-left-themecolor: text1; mso-border-left-themetint: 102; mso-border-right-themecolor: text1; mso-border-right-themetint: 102; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
0.3</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid #999999 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-yfti-cnfc: 4;">
<b>Obama v Romney 2012</b></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 102; mso-border-left-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-left-themecolor: text1; mso-border-left-themetint: 102; mso-border-right-themecolor: text1; mso-border-right-themetint: 102; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Obama + 0.7</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 102; mso-border-left-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-left-themecolor: text1; mso-border-left-themetint: 102; mso-border-right-themecolor: text1; mso-border-right-themetint: 102; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Obama + 3.9</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 102; mso-border-left-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-left-themecolor: text1; mso-border-left-themetint: 102; mso-border-right-themecolor: text1; mso-border-right-themetint: 102; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
3.2</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid #999999 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-yfti-cnfc: 4;">
<b>Clinton v Trump 2016</b></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 102; mso-border-left-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-left-themecolor: text1; mso-border-left-themetint: 102; mso-border-right-themecolor: text1; mso-border-right-themetint: 102; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Clinton + 3.2</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 102; mso-border-left-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-left-themecolor: text1; mso-border-left-themetint: 102; mso-border-right-themecolor: text1; mso-border-right-themetint: 102; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19">Clinton +2.1</a></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid #999999 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: text1; mso-border-bottom-themetint: 102; mso-border-left-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-left-themecolor: text1; mso-border-left-themetint: 102; mso-border-right-themecolor: text1; mso-border-right-themetint: 102; mso-border-themecolor: text1; mso-border-themetint: 102; mso-border-top-alt: solid #999999 .5pt; mso-border-top-themecolor: text1; mso-border-top-themetint: 102; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
1.1</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
National polls were only slightly less accurate this year than in 2004 and 2008, and significantly more accurate than in 2012. Ok, but what about state polls? Sam Wang's <a href="http://election.princeton.edu/">Princeton Election Consortium</a> used only state polls and calculated that Clinton's margin was 2.2%. This was highly accurate. Wang missed Clinton's actual winning margin by only 0.1%.<br />
<br />
Ok, but if the polls were fairly accurate, why did so many data journalists miss what was coming? Part of the answer is that they didn't. We've had over 50 of these presidential elections, and it turns out winning the popular vote is a really good way to become president. Winning it by millions of votes is an even better way to become president. This is what Clinton did, but she lost the election. Every once in a while, the candidate most people vote against manages to thread the needle and win. <br />
<br />
This is what Trump did. He had very small margins in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, getting just the right amount of votes in just the right places. Given the size of Clinton's lead, the aggregators were probably right to believe she was the heavy favorite to win the election. Losing the popular vote by millions means you need everything else to fall perfectly into place. For Trump, the stars aligned. <br />
<br />
But that doesn't mean there weren't clues before election day that this could happen. Many of the aggregators seem to have missed signs that there was an unusually high chance of a popular vote/electoral college split. Polls showed Clinton outperforming in sunbelt red states that she was unlikely to win in any case, like Texas, and underperforming in important midwestern states like Ohio and Iowa. This opened up the possibility that Clinton would have an unusually high number of "wasted" votes. And that's exactly what happened. The possibility of Trump losing the popular vote while winning just the
right number of key swing states was the main reason Nate Silver's <a href="http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/">fivethirtyeight</a> gave Trump a significantly higher chance than the other aggregators. <br />
<br />
Even though aggregations of state and national polls ended up being fairly accurate, there were larger errors in a few swing states. Few observers anticipated that such a large gap would open up between swing states and the rest of the country. Ohio, a state Obama carried twice, ended up being 10 points more Republican than the national vote; Iowa, 11 points more Republican. Those are surprising numbers. But Trump's strength in those states was already apparent before election day, even if the magnitude of his victory there was unexpected. <br />
<br />
So the polling industry did not collapse. The polls have had better years, but they've done worse too. They were ok. And that means they continue to be useful instruments. But the aggregators were overconfident in the conclusions they drew from them, underestimating the range of uncertainty created by the interaction of polling, the popular vote, and the electoral college. The pundits failed more than the data failed. The shock many of us felt on November 9 was moral rather than empirical. It was less about what the data indicated was possible, and more about our own inability to imagine that such an indecent outcome could really occur. <br />
<br />
All of this might seem like a moot point, but it has implications for political strategy going forward. The more popular candidate lost, and Democrats should act accordingly. They should resist the urge to try to draw profound lessons from this election. They got unlucky, and yes, the electoral college is dumb. They don't need to become more Trumpian in their appeals or move toward his policy positions. He's an unusually unpopular president-elect. They need only resist him and they will reap political rewards while doing the right thing. Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-46154838421234302052016-11-19T08:50:00.001-05:002016-11-19T09:04:45.072-05:00What To Expect From A Trump Presidency<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--Fw-p0HYnnw/WDBQs4_pBII/AAAAAAAABP8/GUcqrJ9Y5DQKDtr8N-CZh73pRijwFZkagCLcB/s1600/trump.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="396" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--Fw-p0HYnnw/WDBQs4_pBII/AAAAAAAABP8/GUcqrJ9Y5DQKDtr8N-CZh73pRijwFZkagCLcB/s640/trump.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This is going to be bad. Really Bad.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I've noticed that fairly large numbers of people are trying to treat the coming Trump administration as a normal political moment. It's not. What is happening now transcends our normal partisan divides and ideological debates. If our response to this election is no different from how we responded to Romney v Obama or Bush v Kerry, we're seriously misreading the moment. <br />
<br />
It is possible that Trump's presidency will not be a disaster. But we should be honest that such a hope is a leap in the dark. It's blind optimism. It is possible that Trump's first 70 years on this earth were the opposite of the coming four years. It is possible that Trump's campaign was a wild ruse telling us nothing about his administration. If, on the other hand, you simply believe that Trump's past behavior and declared intentions are a rough guide to how he will govern, we are entering into the darkest and most dangerous time in modern American history. <br />
<br />
In contrast to every other modern American president, Trump's basic instincts are authoritarian. He does not believe in liberal democracy. He is a demagogue willing to stoke the most dangerous fault lines in our society in order to gain power for himself. We now must hope that his foolishness creates a presidency marked more by simple bungling than by a coherent plan of oppression.<br />
<br />
If you are a moderate and peaceful soul inclined to say, "Let's give him a chance," you have already been disappointed. After the election, when asked if his rhetoric had gone too far, Trump responded, "No, I won." Perhaps there is no clearer statement of the moral code of this unrepentant man. Strength and winning are good. Weakness and losing are bad. Innocent human beings are fodder for the whims of the strong.<br />
<br />
Trump's early appointments demonstrate his sincerity. He ran as an authoritarian white nationalist. Now he has appointed Steve Bannon as his chief strategist, a radical who proudly declared that his loathsome website was a platform for the racist alt-right crowd. He has brought on retired General Michael Flynn as his National Security Advisor, a man who is explicitly Islamaphobic. He named Jeff Sessions as his Attorney General, a man who supports mass incarceration and opposes voting rights.<br />
<br />
So what should we expect from a Trump presidency? Start by assuming that Trump has generally been sincere and will try to govern roughly as he campaigned. He will continue to lie with impunity, and will seek to silence and bully the press to make his lies seem normal. He will continue to create a climate of hostility against nearly everyone who isn't Christian, White, heterosexual, and male. Muslims and immigrants are likely to be targeted with special harshness.<br />
<br />
Expect some moments of calm. Expect the media to tell us about Trump's surprising moderation. But four years is a long time. If Trump doesn't launch a proactive campaign of oppression beginning January 20, it is likely to be only a matter of time. It's not that Trump will have a coherent plan to subdue the Republic. Indeed, probably his only clear plan so far is to arrange his affairs to allow maximum corruption and profiteering. This he has already begun to do. If nothing else, he and and his children intend to become very rich. But recall, again, that Trump's instincts are authoritarian and demagogic. There are going to be crises, both foreign and domestic, during the next four years. Trump will not respond well to any of them. Trump's mercurial and vindictive character will come through. And the thought of men like Bannon and Sessions whispering in Trump's ear is not comforting.<br />
<br />
It is possible things will somehow turn out more or less alright. But the more likely scenario is that we are entering a very dangerous time. Much of the media will continue to follow after the latest shiny object. We must discipline ourselves to pay attention to the big and important questions:<br />
<br />
How is Trump subverting democratic norms?<br />
<br />
How is he weakening constitutional protections?<br />
<br />
Who is he endangering?<br />
<br />
We must be aware of the stories that might occur quietly in the background of a Trump administration, from a Justice Department that will actively support white supremacy, to a Trump family that will enrich itself at the public's expense. Depending how much money Trump can persuade the Republican congress to spend, the economy may be booming. If that happens, most Americans will be satisfied and will let oppression and corruption spread. Will you be satisfied?<br />
<br />
How are you going to maintain your integrity?<br />
<br />
We must resist. Remember how you felt in the
summer of 2015 when Trump came down the escalator? It was an
entertainment story. Trump as president was too absurd to seriously
consider. Keep that feeling. You were right. It's still absurd. It's
still a disgrace. If we lose sight of that basic fact we've lost
something important, we've lost some of our own decency. <br />
<br />
We must be loving, militant, disciplined, and nonviolent in deed and in spirit. We must pray for Donald Trump. Pray that he will repent of his evil designs. During the next four years we are likely going to need to take to the streets in protest. We are going to need to be organized in our communities and ready to act in solidarity with any group Trump targets. We are going to have to put unprecedented pressure on a Republican congress that has few moral scruples but will respond to power. We must treat an attack on Muslims as an attack on us. We must be prepared to protect the DACA kids from deportation. <br />
<br />
The fake world Trump and his most ardent supporters are creating is only going to grow stronger. Just as millions of people have been portraying Trump as a decent man, millions of people will stand ready to explain and excuse any oppression during the Trump administration. If a terrorist attack takes place on U.S. soil and Trump begins putting Muslims in detention camps, millions of our fellow Americans will defend him. If Trump begins murdering Muslim Americans, millions of people stand ready to explain how it's really not as bad as the liberal media makes it seem. <br />
<br />
We must engage Trump supporters with undiminished love and decency. Love is resistance. We must be open-hearted, lacking bitterness or animosity. We cannot rely on the usual norms of respectability that help us be kind to each other. We must love not because Trumpism is reasonable, but because the people who have put their faith in it are human beings made by God, and are infinitely valuable. And so, too, are all the people Trumpism will hurt. In the dark era we are entering, affirming the sacred worth of every person we encounter is an act of resistance. Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-29729353504673317182016-11-10T15:13:00.000-05:002016-11-10T15:13:08.432-05:00What Now, White Evangelicals? I admire my neighbors so much. The morning after the election, as I walked John to school, I saw people going about their business, many as if nothing had happened. They were headed to work, or taking their kids to school. Some smiled and laughed. Others talked in whispered tones about the disastrous events of the day before. Many were silent.<br />
<br />
The quiet fortitude and love of people accustomed to oppression stood in marked contrast to the fear and selfishness that propelled white evangelicals toward their deathly embrace of a new king to rule over them. While my neighbors appeared unbowed by a man threatening violence and oppression against them, white evangelicals appeared to be scared of their own shadows. Behind every corner lurked another possible threat to their privileged position in American life. And so, on Tuesday, they were vigilant. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3jmHuh6Ztss/WCTTVbdGq3I/AAAAAAAABPk/3me3YdDHy7IPUoQTli2JPltxYICfhUltQCLcB/s1600/american-and-christian-flags1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3jmHuh6Ztss/WCTTVbdGq3I/AAAAAAAABPk/3me3YdDHy7IPUoQTli2JPltxYICfhUltQCLcB/s640/american-and-christian-flags1.jpg" width="620" /></a></div>
Let's talk about those white evangelicals. <br />
<br />
One of the worst mistakes white evangelical Trump supporters could make is to assume that the blowback they're receiving right now from their fellow Christians is political. It's not; at least, not primarily. For decades, Christians of color have been urging white evangelicals to repent of racism. That repentance--a broad and thorough phenomenon if it is real--is still nowhere in sight. For decades, Christians of color have been demanding that White evangelicals enact systemic reforms in their colleges and churches. Those reforms have usually been too little and too late. For decades, Christians of color have been warning white evangelicals to stop perverting the gospel. The perversion continues apace.<br />
<br />
In much of evangelicalism, whiteness has <i>spiritual </i>authority. In
these spaces, whiteness connotes theological maturity and
biblical literacy. Theology rooted in the specific cultural contexts of American white supremacy is rendered as the default and normative theology, its racial origins and implications made invisible. If a person of color toes the line, preaching the
same individualistic theology with its attenuated understanding of sin,
society, and redemption, he (and yes, it's usually a he) is eagerly
celebrated:<br />
<br />
"Look at our model minority."<br />
<br />
"Look at our exceptional
Negro."<br />
<br />
If that person of color seeks to dismantle the social, economic,
and spiritual authority of whiteness within the church or
institution, all manner of stonewalling and obfuscation ensue:<br />
<br />
"This was
never the plan. We wanted you on display. We didn't want <i>you</i> to change <i>us</i>."<br />
<br />
This broader context of theological error and systemic sin made this week's political events possible. White evangelicals turned out to be Trump's core constituency. Preliminary data indicate that 81% voted for Trump, a higher number than even George W. Bush received. We can debate until we're blue in the face just how much awareness they had of what they were doing. What is clear is that the general environment of racism and ignorance in the communities in which they live and worship prevented them from seeing their fellow Christians as equally valuable human beings. Even more, the humanity of immigrants and Muslims and many others appeared to be little more than collateral damage in white evangelicals' quest to protect themselves.<br />
<br />
As my former pastor in Chicago wrote this week, "most ethnic and religious minority American citizens feel that a Trump
election is a vote against their identity. It says to them that "America
doesn't want you here". It feels like a vote to go back to the way
things were (Make America Great Again), when they were treated even
worse then they are today."<br />
<br />
Some white evangelicals surely knew this and voted for Trump anyway. Others literally did not know. In either case, they have an enormous amount of listening, learning, and reflecting to do.<br />
<br />
But what of the nearly 1 in 5 white evangelicals who opposed Trump? We have our own problems: <br />
<br />
One of the worst mistakes white evangelical Trump opponents could make is to use this occasion to declare our divorce with evangelicalism. I've already seen people I respect take this route. But you know what? People of color don't need us to assert our innocence. When we look at white evangelicalism and say, "I'm not <i>that</i>!" I understand that we might mean it as a statement of solidarity with people of color, but I worry that we are really making this declaration for ourselves. We don't want to be associated with white nationalism. But if we huffily announce that we're not evangelicals, how does that help people of color? Seriously, what good does it do them? They don't need us to loudly signal to the world our virtue and enlightenment. They need us to be missionaries to our communities where white nationalist idolatry has overrun the church.<br />
<br />
We, as white evangelicals who claim to oppose racism, are the people best positioned to bring our white evangelical brothers and sisters to repentance. It's not anybody else's job to do it. This is all on us. This is <i>our </i>inheritance. Shouldn't we stay and try to make it right? When we bail out, loudly declare that we're done with evangelicalism, we become yet another set of critics lobbing stones from the outside. What good are we then?<br />
<br />
Look, I'll be the first to admit I don't know what this means for me or how exactly we should go about these things. When you fight racism as a white evangelical, you will be accused of being too harsh, of being too patient, of being too wishy-washy, of being too radical. You will be constantly misunderstood. The only certainty is that you won't have a comfortable home within white evangelicalism. But maybe we can stay within its fold anyway? I'm struggling through this. <br />
<br />
There's another mistake to which a third group of white evangelicals are vulnerable. These evangelicals have tried to keep their head down and bring peace to warring factions, desperately wanting both pro- and anti-Trump evangelicals to get along for the larger good of the church. The worst mistake these moderates could make is to think that there are two morally equal sides suffering from a temporary political disagreement. When the white evangelical church in its predominant expression is living in open and unrepentant sin, bowing down to the gods of whiteness and nationalism, what does it really mean to be a peacemaker? It must not mean giving equal comfort to the oppressor and the oppressed.<br />
<br />
This is an exciting time to be a follower of Jesus. More than ever before, I feel assured that the great work of God is proceeding far from the centers of white nationalist Christianity. As God has introduced himself to us as a defender of the needy and a warrior on behalf of the oppressed, let that also be our calling card.Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-10490844926649916562016-11-07T11:50:00.001-05:002016-11-07T13:17:43.823-05:00A Final AppealTomorrow we face perhaps the most consequential presidential
election since 1864. Two great questions were at stake in that contest over 150
years ago:<br />
<br />
Would the republic survive?<br />
<br />
Who would be included in it?<br />
<br />
Echoes
of those questions face us today. Voting for Trump—for authoritarian White
nationalism—aligns us with the most destructive political tradition in American
history.
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Though I’ve always been interested in politics, I’ve never
before spoken out about an election as I have this year. But never has someone
so completely unfit in every possible way been this close to the presidency.
His comprehensive ignorance and foolishness are disqualifying by themselves. Combine that with his cruelty and his publicly declared plans to oppress people, and we have a dangerous brew. His oppressive plans are not abstractions to me. I can't assume it's all talk. I
know the people he has maligned. They’re friends and neighbors. <br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rLv9CG8b99Y/WCCtwYyoQpI/AAAAAAAABPM/caenhe1w37IaR-TJTIJ59XP75-ybqip5gCLcB/s1600/IMG_20161106_131853892_HDR.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rLv9CG8b99Y/WCCtwYyoQpI/AAAAAAAABPM/caenhe1w37IaR-TJTIJ59XP75-ybqip5gCLcB/s640/IMG_20161106_131853892_HDR.jpg" width="552" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Our community is full of good people. It is not the hellhole of Donald Trump's racist imagination.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am shocked and grieved that so many American Christians are
willing to follow the oppressor because he might be on their team and appoint supreme court justices to their liking. This dream is so consuming that
Christians are willing to trample on their neighbors in their rush to see it brought to
reality. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<br />
A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for
new kinds of oppression, with no realistic prospect of reducing its existing forms. Tomorrow,
please care for others and protect your integrity by voting for anyone but him,
or abstaining.Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-49158532788142356102016-10-12T08:22:00.000-04:002016-10-12T11:57:31.583-04:00The Radicalism that Enables TrumpHuman beings are complicated creatures. Many<i> </i>Trump
voters are probably more upstanding in their personal character than I
am. Yet, as a collective political force, Trumpism represents the barbarian
horde at the gate. If they break through, it's not clear our civic institutions can withstand the damage.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U1Pxd6Qgyt0/V_4oYfgZHII/AAAAAAAABOg/owUdWygZDYo7LBd6ETpOsW0hzZqZuL6MQCLcB/s1600/Cole_Thomas_The_Course_of_Empire_Destruction_1836.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="395" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U1Pxd6Qgyt0/V_4oYfgZHII/AAAAAAAABOg/owUdWygZDYo7LBd6ETpOsW0hzZqZuL6MQCLcB/s640/Cole_Thomas_The_Course_of_Empire_Destruction_1836.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The Course of Empire -- Destruction. Thomas Cole. 1836</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Trump is the warlord leading this frenzy, but he did not start it.<br />
<br />
A growing sense of fragmentation in our society and declining trust in our institutions are broad-based, bipartisan, and long-term phenomena, as Daniel Rogers has shown in his book, <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674057449"><i>Age of Fracture</i></a>. <br />
<br />
But the radical conservative movement (a contradictory phrase) has deliberately catalyzed this disintegration. Stoking fear and paranoia, an alternative media apparatus has joined with radicals in congress to tell Americans that science is a hoax, that academia is a secular cesspool, that mainstream media is too biased to have any use, and that the Democratic Party is trying to destroy the country. Now, in the internecine conflict of the Republican Party, we see the radicals eating their own. There is no natural end point to this orgy of destruction.<br />
<br />
Last night on Twitter, Matthew Yglesias <a href="https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/786014344148553728">wrote</a>, "My guess is that in a Trump administration angry mobs will beat and murder Jews and people of color with impunity."<br />
<br />
If you're familiar with Yglesias, you know that he is frequently snarky and ironic. So in this case, I assumed he was joking. He wasn't.<br />
<br />
If you're not tuned in to political twitter, you might not be aware of what I'm about to tell you. Jewish journalists and journalists of color are being bombarded daily with genocidal racism from Trump supporters. I won't repeat the depravity here. But these journalists have never experienced anything like this before. It's unprecedented. And Trump's campaign knows full well exactly what is happening. Not only have they declined to discourage it, Trump and his son have retweeted some of these White supremacists.<br />
<br />
If you were confronted by thousands of people online saying they want you to die, and the Republican nominee <i>encouraged </i>their behavior, how would you feel about the prospect of him becoming president?<br />
<br />
It's easy enough to see how this sense of impunity would migrate from the online world to the real one. As President, Trump would have enormous power, the levers of federal law enforcement at his hands. We know that he is vindictive and cruel, a man ruled by his passions. This is an incredibly dangerous combination. At a time when there is broad understanding that police reform is needed, Trump has called for new oppression, more "tough" policing, and nationwide stop-and-frisk. Trump's language and demeanor is perfectly calibrated to create a culture of impunity, not only for police but for ordinary White citizens. And with his plans to oppress people of color publicly declared, Trump has won the support of law enforcement. So it's not just what Trump would do. It's about the permission structure he would create for thousands of police officers who chafe against current restraints. <br />
<br />
A Trump presidency is not an abstraction. It would mean new kinds of oppression, and no prospect of mitigating its existing forms. It would mean more death. But Trump supporters can't see this because their radicalism has produced an alternate reality.<br />
<br />
On the far right, the following claims are routinely thought to be true:<br />
<br />
Democrats are trying to destroy the country.<br />
<br />
Democrats who support a moderate kind of capitalism tempered by a social safety net are actually hard leftists or communists.<br />
<br />
Barack Obama has purposely stirred up racial tensions.<br />
<br />
Whites face more discrimination than people of color.<br />
<br />
Voter fraud is a big problem.<br />
<br />
There's a Christian twist on this radicalism too. It's a world where "liberal" is an antonym of "Christian" and you can be "pro-life" without actually supporting policies that would reduce abortions. <br />
<br />
This post-truth, post-Christian politics enables Trump. If the other side is trying to destroy the country, the logic goes, then we are justified in burning down their institutions in order to save the country. What about the harm to poor people and racial and religious minorities? For some Trump supporters it's just collateral damage. For others, hurting people of color is precisely the point. <br />
<br />
I have not given up hope that there are still people on the fence, and even Trump supporters, who will yet do the right thing and withdraw their support. For those who stay with him, have the courage of your convictions as the White supremacists do! Instead of voting for Trump while saying you take racism and sexism seriously, just admit that you aren't prioritizing these concerns. <br />
<br />
I know that abortion looms large for many Christians. But if that's the single issue on which you're voting, go ahead and make that honest case. I still haven't heard anyone make this argument. <br />
<br />
If people think that the dim prospect of reducing abortions under a
President Trump is more important than all other forms of injustice put
together--his racism, his misogyny, his gross ignorance, his intention to commit war crimes, his plans to
oppress immigrants and Muslims and promote tougher policing--they
should say so. What they must not do is wave all this away and create a
fantasy world in which Trump didn't run a racist campaign and revel in
his own ignorance and cruelty. If White evangelicals think we should elect a
biblical fool to the presidency, they should say so, and they should
explain why. What we're getting instead is a Maoist approach to truth,
where what is true is whatever lie the party has declared for the day.
Trump's campaign isn't racist like there was no famine in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/opinion/16iht-eddikotter16.html?_r=0">Chinese countryside in 1959</a>.<br />
<br />
The seriousness of pro-life voters
can be measured by the range of solutions we are willing to support.
If we can tolerate an ignorant demagogue to advance our anti-abortion
politics but cannot tolerate wealth redistribution and health care
policies that would reduce the demand for abortions, our politics is
not as pro-life as we imagine. Even if you're a single-issue abortion
voter, <a href="http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/pro-life-voting-for-hillary-clinton">I still think Trump is the wrong choice.</a><br />
<br />
Are you willing to look people of color in the eye and tell them you don't care about them? Because that's what it feels like if you vote for Trump. Are you willing to tell them that they're wrong to be concerned, that you know more about their lives than they do?<br />
<br />
There is still time to do the right thing.<br />
<br />
(My standard disclaimer: I'm not urging people to vote for Clinton. I'm
simply urging Christians not to vote for Trump, and to use our vote, or
<a href="http://jessecurtis.blogspot.com/2016/09/christians-and-politics-abstention.html">abstention</a>, to put the interests of others ahead of ourselves).Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-11987181878796978752016-09-27T13:08:00.000-04:002016-09-27T13:35:12.977-04:00Five Takeaways From The First Presidential Debate<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ol-wRIeAa-c/V-qkvRN8GLI/AAAAAAAABOA/kuENVKVfw8AlvlfxSCenOlEa_EGStFIfQCLcB/s1600/clinton-trump-debate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="350" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ol-wRIeAa-c/V-qkvRN8GLI/AAAAAAAABOA/kuENVKVfw8AlvlfxSCenOlEa_EGStFIfQCLcB/s640/clinton-trump-debate.jpg" width="620" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Calm before the storm. September 26, 2016.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>1) Hillary Clinton made an unprecedented accusation.</b><br />
<br />
Last night, one presidential candidate stood on the debate stage and said of her opponent, "he has a long record of engaging in racist behavior."<br />
<b> </b><br />
This has never happened before. Had this claim been made in any other presidential debate in American history, it would have been completely shocking. It would have dominated the headlines, and pundits of every persuasion would be scratching their heads about such an offensive breach of civility.<br />
<br />
But last night, America shrugged. Even Trump's supporters didn't seem too bothered about it. The reason: it's so undeniably true.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>2) "Racial divide" is considered objective; "Racial injustice" is considered opinionated</b><br />
<br />
Introducing the portion of the debate on race, moderator Lester Holt said, "Race has been a big issue in this campaign and one of you is going to
have to bridge a very wide and bitter gap. So how do you heal the
divide?"<br />
<br />
This is, of course, a less relevant question than how you would fix the causes of the divide. Holt could have simply asked, "What would your administration do to reduce racial discrimination?" but this question would have been a violation of racial norms. As long as we talk about the divide, we can each have our own fanciful notions of who and what is responsible for it.<br />
<br />
If you think about other issues, it may be more obvious why this rhetoric of division and healing is strange.<br />
<br />
"Americans bitterly disagree about climate change. How are you going to heal the divide?" <br />
<br />
"Immigration has been a big issue in this campaign and one of you is going to
have to bridge a very wide and bitter gap. So how do you heal the
divide?"<br />
<br />
Notice how these aren't actually questions about climate change or immigration. They're questions about the nation's civic fabric and our ability to get along with one another. And there's a place for those questions! But ordinarily, we ask questions about the issues themselves. Only when it comes to race do we consistently displace the actual issue and turn it into a civic fabric discussion. This is colorblind racial rhetoric in action.<br />
<br />
<b>3) We've never seen a liar like this. </b><br />
<br />
I get it; politicians lie. But we've never seen such brazen contempt for truth from a presidential candidate. Donald Trump is in a class by himself. We owe it to ourselves and our kids to retain the capacity to be shocked by it. We don't yet know the full consequences of this unprecedented behavior. But it is corrosive. I hope Trump supporters will give more thought to what it might mean for our political system to discard any sense of obligation to truth. <br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>4) I'm not sure Trump "lost."</b><br />
<br />
Of course Trump lost the debate by the usual measures of performance. But did he really "lose" in the minds of the people who matter? I don't know. Trump was obviously unfit from day one. What can a candidate who had already disqualified himself do that would cause him to "lose" at this late date? <br />
<br />
<b>5) No one will be able to say they didn't know. </b><br />
<br />
Donald Trump is an ignorant bully. This is a matter of public record. There have been lots of questions about how the race between a flawed but normal nominee and a con man could be this close. Has the media failed to educate the public? Is Hillary Clinton just a horrible candidate? Did the Republican establishment badly miscalculate? As interesting as these questions may be, we spend a lot of time talking about them because we don't want to face what we know deep down: millions of Americans know who Trump is, and they like him for it. Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-49024052629352549752016-09-25T07:59:00.000-04:002016-09-25T07:59:44.574-04:00You Probably Wouldn't Have Supported the Civil Rights MovementWhite Americans desperately want to be innocent of any racial wrongdoing. You notice this pretty quickly when you begin to talk about race. Once you look for it, you'll see how often White people are approaching the whole conversation with one goal: establishing their innocence. "My family didn't own slaves. My grandparents immigrated here in the twentieth century. I worked hard for everything I have. Black people have had the same opportunities." Etc. <br />
<br />
These kinds of statements tend to be beside the point, and often plainly false. But truth in a literal sense is not the goal of this kind of rhetoric. We use it to claim that we are good, and that we bear no responsibility for racial injustice. We use it to avoid negative feelings. We want to claim innocence not by doing something, but by creating our own reality with our words. <br />
<br />
Let's focus on one common trope in the construction of White innocence. It comes in a variety of forms, but the gist of it is this:<br />
<br />
<i>I don't support Black Lives Matter, but I would have supported the civil rights movement. </i><br />
<br />
People believe this with sincerity. But they're almost certainly wrong. Maybe you're one of these people. You praise the civil rights movement but find yourself opposed to the current movement. Let's treat your claim not as something that <i>needs</i> to be true for your emotional well-being, but as something that can be investigated historically. It might be uncomfortable at first. But the truth can set you free.<br />
<br />
First, if you're around 70 years of age or above, there isn't anything theoretical about this. You were an adult at the height of the civil rights movement. What did you do?<br />
<br />
But most of us are younger. So let's use our imaginations informed by what we know about the historical context of the time.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-19SnEW2Nau0/V-e4ZhfL-ZI/AAAAAAAABNk/RZ3y5oJNFUM-tcShIH78ahSb6dMp0mQUACLcB/s1600/bakersfield%2Bcalifornian-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="566" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-19SnEW2Nau0/V-e4ZhfL-ZI/AAAAAAAABNk/RZ3y5oJNFUM-tcShIH78ahSb6dMp0mQUACLcB/s640/bakersfield%2Bcalifornian-1.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A normal headlines from the 1960s. Would you have joined the "law and order" chorus?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Most White Americans opposed the civil rights movement. Why do you think you would have been willing to go against the grain and possibly lose relationships with friends or family members?<br />
<br />
Even more than they do today, White and Black Americans lived in separate worlds. What about your White small town, rural area, or segregated urban neighborhood would have given you a connection to African Americans or sympathy for their goals? Why do you think you would have been concerned about this issue at all?<br />
<br />
Dr. King was a radical traveling protestor. Violence ensued nearly everywhere he launched a campaign. Why would you have believed his statements instead of the statements of the police and other authorities?<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QkVI3RynlI0/V-e1uggWJJI/AAAAAAAABNQ/M9U6yugQzgM8vVNY_gbE6aQH1vzPfwAdgCLcB/s1600/crm.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="422" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QkVI3RynlI0/V-e1uggWJJI/AAAAAAAABNQ/M9U6yugQzgM8vVNY_gbE6aQH1vzPfwAdgCLcB/s640/crm.jpeg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Cleveland Sellers, Martin Luther King, Stokely Carmichael</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Most White Americans thought African Americans had all the opportunities they needed. Why would you have thought any differently? Why would you have thought protests were necessary? <br />
<br />
The riots of the 1960s were on a vast and deadly scale far beyond anything we've seen in this century. Why wouldn't you have blamed the riots on the movement? <br />
<br />
Dr. King laid the ultimate blame for the rioting at the feet of White America. Would you have agreed with him?<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VoqbGyASgN0/V-e2iTSc7-I/AAAAAAAABNU/U3quO7pgiBMMPJs9HT-uAKZJoAUKwcKjQCLcB/s1600/philly%2Blooting.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="515" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VoqbGyASgN0/V-e2iTSc7-I/AAAAAAAABNU/U3quO7pgiBMMPJs9HT-uAKZJoAUKwcKjQCLcB/s640/philly%2Blooting.jpeg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Looting in Philadelphia, 1964.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Wouldn't you have been concerned about the anti-White and anti-police rhetoric of the Nation of Islam?<br />
<br />
What about the Black Power movement would have appealed to you?<br />
<br />
Wouldn't you have been concerned about Dr. King's communist associations?<br />
<br />
The FBI said Dr. King was a dangerous agitator. Wouldn't you have considered the FBI a reliable source of information?<br />
<br />
Would you have been bothered by Dr. King's radical critique of capitalism?<br />
<br />
The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act dramatically expanded federal power and reduced the rights of the states. Would you have supported the expansion of federal government power the civil rights movement demanded?<br />
<br />
You might think that you would have been stirred to action by the videos of protestors being attacked with dogs and firehoses, or by the death of the four little girls in the church bombing. Perhaps. But I suppose it's fair to ask, how did Tamir's murder move you? You saw that on video too. How did the Charleston church shooting move you? <br />
<br />
We could go on for a long time. I think you get the point. There have always been reasons to stand on the side of White supremacy. What most White Americans saw and understood of the civil rights movement was disorder, violence, and unreasonable demands. It was not as simple or clear as you imagine it. The measure of our goodwill is not what we might have done in a movement that is safely in the past. The question is what we will do now in a society that is segregated and unequal. <br />
<br />
If you don't agree with the proposition that racial oppression in 2016 is real, you can continue on with your innocence-making project. But you won't be free. You'll be forced to believe lies. For your own protection you'll make up fantasies about your own country. You won't understand the world you live in. That's a miserable way to live.<br />
<br />
The truth shall set you free.<br />
<br />
See, Christians don't go looking for racial innocence. We believe that there is "none righteous, not one." So our connection to evil doesn't surprise us. We're not surprised that we've passively benefited from unjust systems, or that we have racist ideas. We don't need to approach racial controversies solving for our innocence; Jesus has taken care of that. We are freed to look for truth and stand with the oppressed. We are free to support Black Lives Matter, as everyone should. Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-73711090216304965112016-09-20T10:20:00.000-04:002016-09-20T16:07:06.437-04:00Why I'm Still An Evangelical In The Age Of TrumpPart of me thinks if you're a <i>real</i> evangelical you don't need to write about why you still are one. But my path has been winding. For the past decade, whether or not I was an evangelical might depend on the day you asked me, or what I had for dessert the night before. As I've grown older and begun to raise my children, I've
grown into my identity. When your children begin to ask you questions,
you find you have to answer them one way or another. It turns out that I
am still an evangelical. <br />
<br />
It is through evangelicalism that I encountered Jesus and cast what little faith I have into the proposition that he will rescue me from myself. For me, "sinner saved by grace" is not an old-fashioned Sunday school tale. It is the basic claim that shapes every day of my life. Without it, I would live somewhere else, do different work, and have a different kind of family. Without it, I wouldn't know what to do. <br />
<br />
There is something wonderful and hard to explain about the rootedness of believing in supernatural religion. I am a person of my time, of course, but I'm also of another time. I can read words written hundreds or thousands of years ago and feel an instant connection. They trusted in Jesus, too, I say to myself, and their experience seems so similar to mine because, after all, Jesus is alive. This foolishness rescues me from the soul-crushing materialism of this confused era. Evangelicalism is not the only place I might have discovered these things, it's just where I <i>did</i> discover them. And so I owe something to it. <br />
<br />
But when as a young adult I found out that my faith tradition was broken, I wanted to push it away, reject it. Easier said than done. <br />
<br />
Many of us have complicated but ultimately unbreakable bonds with the things that form us. Families, countries, religions, a landscape or a city. There are certain things that are a part of you and you love them with all the frustration and familiarity with which you love yourself. So when I tried to disown evangelicalism, it didn't take. I find that my very best and very worst qualities are tangled together in this evangelical inheritance.<br />
<br />
I've found in evangelicalism the harshest judgments and most unexpected acts of grace. I've seen the worst kinds of complacency and the most life-giving zeal. I've found guilt and shame, and soul-restoring peace. I've found infuriating anti-intellectualism and humble scholarship of the first order. I've even found racism and anti-racism.<br />
<br />
To many readers this may all sound vaguely strange, possibly even interesting, but disconnected from what they know of evangelicalism. The elephant in the room with us is the "Christian" Right. Many Americans know evangelicalism <i>primarily</i> as a political movement. So it may surprise some people to learn that evangelicals are spending far more time and
money working on things like poverty, racism, health care, and education
than they are in trying to elect Republicans. <a href="http://www.worldvision.org/">World Vision</a>,
for example, is an evangelical aid organization with a budget that by itself dwarfs all the activities of the "Christian"
Right in the United States. And don't forget the thousands of
organizations that are doing exceptional work in every city across the
country. They're <a href="http://bythehand.org/">helping kids</a>, <a href="http://www.ccda.org/">rebuilding communities</a>, <a href="http://www.breakthrough.org/">fighting poverty</a>, <a href="http://www.esperanzahealth.com/">providing health care</a>, and <a href="http://pursuescholars.org/">offering college scholarships</a> to students of color. <br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PMeGEmLR4pQ/V-FiwljG8DI/AAAAAAAABM0/xPJAYXK7REgonXYlezG3-DAnhKLXEUV4QCLcB/s1600/john%2Bperkins.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="305" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PMeGEmLR4pQ/V-FiwljG8DI/AAAAAAAABM0/xPJAYXK7REgonXYlezG3-DAnhKLXEUV4QCLcB/s640/john%2Bperkins.jpg" width="600" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">John Perkins, founder of the CCDA. A hero within evangelicalism, virtually unknown without</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
From the outside, evangelicalism has looked like a political juggernaut. From the inside, it has looked like a religious movement that treats partisan politics as a sideshow. I don't know quite how to reconcile these competing visions. But communities are always more complicated than they appear from the outside. <br />
<br />
An old friend and mentor of mine, himself an evangelical, recently told me that he believes many of the "evangelicals" showing up in polls supporting Donald Trump are cultural evangelicals in the South who are not actually committed Christians. There seemed to be an element of truth in this, especially in the primaries when the data showed regular church attendees were less likely to support Trump. And anecdotally, this seems right even now. It's hard to find Christians in my circles who support Trump. But I don't think that's the story the data is telling now. Though some of us are associated with evangelical communities in which voting for Trump is unthinkable, we have to face the fact that the large majority of church-going White evangelicals are going to vote for him.<br />
<br />
This is the culminating act of political self-destruction in a 40 year campaign of harmful politics. When I think of the "Christian" Right, I'm inclined to repurpose a line
from Frederick Douglass' first autobiography: "between the Christianity
of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest
possible difference..." Indeed. Despite all the good done by evangelicals in local communities, the dominant political expression of American evangelicalism is hateful and selfish, and unworthy to be called Christian.<br />
<br />
This politics is very public. It's what people see, and it's what they associate with evangelicalism. So to all the readers who don't have any particular connection to evangelicalism but know it through its politics: <b>you're right to be offended.</b> I hope, in some small way, it might matter to you to know that millions of evangelicals are offended too. <br />
<br />
And we're not just offended. We're bewildered. Evangelical support for Trump is a fascinating and confusing phenomenon because he is a living negation of the values we claim to hold. He embodies with eerie precision the opposite of the qualities we're taught to revere in our savior. Christ's servant's spirit, his humility, his boundary-crossing love, his wrath for oppressors--it's not just that Trump fails to live up to these qualities, as we all do. It's that he's unusually hostile to them. <br />
<br />
Evangelicals should not be under the illusion that they will have any credibility to speak to my generation after vocally supporting Trump. I can understand an evangelical quietly and sorrowfully pulling the lever for Donald Trump. I really can. But open advocacy is something else. To this day, I still haven't seen an honest evangelical case for Trump. I'd like to see the case made. <br />
<br />
I do not want to offend Trump supporters. But I do want them to be aware that their politics hurts real people, including my neighbors. These folks have names. They're flesh and blood. Supporting Trump hurts them, and I still can't see how it helps anybody else. It's all downside. <br />
<br />
So how does a candidate running on an anti-Christian platform win over Christian voters? By appealing to their idols. In the end, Trump's allure cannot be understood apart from White evangelicals' investments in race and patriotism. What I <a href="http://jessecurtis.blogspot.com/2016/06/recovering-gospel-from-white.html">wrote</a> at the beginning of the summer still holds true:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Many White evangelicals are prepared to vote for Trump because they're
heirs to a cultural and theological tradition that binds race and nation
to faith. Trump may not offer a clean-cut portrait of Christian
character, but he is surprisingly forthright in his White nationalism.
It is a mistake to assume that Trump's irreligious persona doesn't carry
a religious message. To make America great again, to restore America's
racial hierarchy--these are <i>religious</i> goals of an idolatrous people.</blockquote>
This, too, is part of my inheritance. Part of what it means for me to be a follower of Jesus is not to run away from my community of faith. It would have been easier in a way to leave evangelicalism and cast stones from the outside. It is harder to stay, confront my own racism, and seek reformation of my community from the inside. But I think that's what I'm supposed to do. Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-57643969847255616102016-09-15T15:06:00.000-04:002016-09-15T15:06:14.108-04:00The Stories We Tell Ourselves<div class="MsoNormal">
The classic civil rights narrative pits violent white
segregationists against dignified black protestors. It implicitly asks, are you
with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Connor">Bull Connor</a>, or are you with the good people? This self-serving question
teaches us to forget about the moderate majority that defeated the civil rights
movement. It tells us to forget the bipartisan nationwide consensus that
demanded the preservation of segregated neighborhoods and schools. It's a story that establishes our innocence. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-V0jkZDjSIVY/V9rsJnH7bCI/AAAAAAAABMY/RMHwQOB_zj4-WjenqhJkabzfH2JxLAcRQCEw/s1600/selma.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="380" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-V0jkZDjSIVY/V9rsJnH7bCI/AAAAAAAABMY/RMHwQOB_zj4-WjenqhJkabzfH2JxLAcRQCEw/s640/selma.jpg" width="580" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Selma, 1965. Quick! Can you guess who the good characters are?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It’s like the boy who asked his grandpa, “Which were you in,
the Klan or the FBI?” His grandfather replied, “I was just in Georgia.” This
little anecdote reminds us that the story of the civil rights movement’s defeat
is not one of Klan terrorism or rogue policeman. It is a story of ordinary
people invested in ordinary things. Good homes and schools for their children,
a future for their grandkids. Maybe they didn’t think too much about the civil
rights movement. Maybe they were just in Georgia. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Over time, it became easier to tell the story with sharp contrasts and careful embellishments. Of course you weren’t with Bull Connor. And
that meant you were one of the good folks.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now Hillary Clinton and many liberals would have us draw
again from this well. Her <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-basket-of-deplorables/">controversial comments</a> revealed over the
weekend invite us to take sides, in effect asking, “Are you with Donald Trump
and his deplorables, or are you with the good people?” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This question might win an election. But it won’t produce
justice and freedom for the people who need it most. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The problem with Clinton’s remarks is not so much that they
unfairly accused Trump’s supporters, but that they unfairly absolved the rest
of us. In Clinton’s world, half of Trump’s supporters are irredeemable, the
other half have succumbed to their economic frustrations, and those of us who
have not felt the allure of Trumpism are, presumably, free from the prejudices
and backwardness of a fading and reactionary White America. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In this unwarranted claim of innocence we can begin to see
why Donald Trump’s racism is so insidious. Trump doesn’t just embolden racists
and create a hostile climate for people of color. His racism dramatically
lowers the bar, confuses the issue, and misdirects attention on questions of
racial justice. It invites people who are invested in exclusionary lifestyles
to imagine that their opposition to a racist puts them on the side of justice. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“I may oppose the low-income housing development in my
neighborhood, but Donald Trump offends me.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I may not want poor school districts to get more state
funding than wealthy ones, but I’m not voting for Trump.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“I may not support Black Lives Matter but I’m voting for
Clinton.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“See how innocent I am?”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Clinton’s comments meet the bar of technical truth: the
polling does show higher levels of prejudice among Trump supporters. But her
dismissive contempt displayed none of the Christian conviction that being
deplorable is one of the few things we all have in common. More practically, her
words denied the messy realities of translation from personal lives to
political expressions. How many of the donors in the room to hear Clinton’s
remarks live in gated communities and send their children to private schools,
carefully insulating themselves from the poor? Voting for Clinton will not
redeem their selfish choices. Meanwhile, how many of Trump’s “deplorables”
support his racist campaign even as they stand ready to give the shirt off
their back to their poor neighbors? Life is complicated. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The way some liberal writers have rushed to defend Clinton,
you’d think she made some grand statement about social justice. No, she didn’t.
She’s just trying to win an election. And it’s important that she does so! But on
the other side of November 8<sup>th</sup> we’ll still face the deeper problem:
ordinary people invested in ordinary things, manning the ramparts of a
segregated and unequal society so that their children might have a better life. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It sounds to me like Hillary Clinton’s comments conjured a
much more comforting story. You don’t have to think about the hard stuff of
power—school district lines, zoning laws, tax rates, the criminal justice
system. You don’t have to think about how the laws and systems that need to
change implicate all of us and have bipartisan support. You don’t have to think
about how ordinary people like you might try to divest from the status quo. Indeed,
like her, you might want to grab all you can get while you have the chance. Temperance
is such an old-fashioned virtue. But make sure you display your general aura of
cosmopolitan tolerance now and then. Happily, you can perform it on the cheap
this year: just vote against Trump. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We must defeat Trump. He has revealed himself as a cruel and ignorant man who dreams of oppression. But when this dirty task is done and Trump has lost, those
who seek justice should not assume that we have an ally in the White House, or
that we need to look any further than ourselves to find something deplorable. </div>
Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-72294637719781228962016-09-06T07:44:00.000-04:002016-09-06T07:44:07.058-04:00Christians and Politics: The Abstention OptionAmid the arguments swirling around us in the year of Trump, what if Christians simply abstained from politics? What if we stopped arguing, stopped criticizing, stopped sharing social media memes? What if we simply didn't vote? What if we abstained from politics?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t4qHQv-xmDQ/V86rEUjF8HI/AAAAAAAABL8/5SO0ylHJJKQGyhKUXWv7_liAS3fSo89jACLcB/s1600/clinton-vs-trump-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="336" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t4qHQv-xmDQ/V86rEUjF8HI/AAAAAAAABL8/5SO0ylHJJKQGyhKUXWv7_liAS3fSo89jACLcB/s640/clinton-vs-trump-1.jpg" width="580" /></a></div>
Sound appealing?<br />
<br />
I'd like to suggest that perhaps there is a right way and a wrong way to go about this. <br />
<br />
First, a right way.<br />
<br />
I grew up with a deep familiarity and appreciation for a
Christian tradition that shunned the American political process entirely. On my mother’s side we come
from Amish roots. My great-great-grandfather left the Amish church and started
the conservative Mennonite church in which my mom grew up. I have fond memories
of the Bible school I attended there each summer as a kid. Cape dresses, head
coverings, and a capella singing were the order of the day. We boys could wear
jeans to Bible school, but never shorts. And during the breaks in the lessons, we’d all go out
to the back of the church and play freeze tag in the dimming light of evening.
It was delightful.<br />
<br />
When at Grandma and Grandpa’s house, someone might come to
the door and suddenly Grandma would be speaking in a language I didn’t
understand (it was Pennsylvania Dutch). It is impossible for me to convey the
dignity and reserve with which my grandparents carried themselves, especially
because they also seemed to be so joyful. Grandpa liked to laugh. Their house
was a place of peace. If we were there on a Sunday, we might ask to turn on the
computer, but we couldn’t expect that request to be granted. We could expect,
instead, good conversation, good food, and the inevitable nap on the couch.<br />
<br />
I now think the peace that Grandma and Grandpa radiated was a
direct consequence of their theological convictions. For Grandma and Grandpa,
running for political office, serving in the military or police force, voting, or employing
violence of any kind was just out of the question. They followed someone who
said “my kingdom is not of this world,” and “he who lives by the sword will die
by the sword.” Amid the rough-and-tumble of politics and power grabs, Grandma
and Grandpa were quiet witnesses to a different path: a way of being in the
world that did not reach for power, and did not fear those who possessed it,
for they too would fade like the grass, while the word of the Lord would endure
forever.<br />
<br />
I can’t say Grandma and Grandpa were wrong.<br />
<br />
Suffice it to say, were they alive today they would not be on
Facebook talking about how bad Donald Trump is. But their silence might obscure
how radically subversive their posture actually was. In their rejection of state
power they resisted
the heretical conflation of God and country that has dogged the church since
Constantine. Lest you think this is a minor point, try to imagine how the Nazi
state would have made war if its churches had been incubators of Christian conscientious
objectors instead of German patriots. And so, under different
circumstances, Grandma and Grandpa’s abstention from the institutions of the state would have been
deeply political.<br />
<br />
Maybe we need more of that kind of subversiveness. As millions of Americans thrill to the cry of Make America Great Again, I fear that our churches have created nearly as many patriots as Christians. <br />
<br />
One might assume that Grandma and Grandpa were
irresponsible for refraining from the political process. Think of all the good Christians could do by exercising their right to vote. Isn't it
wrong to discard that influence? Yet look at where we are.
Three-quarters of White evangelicals are getting ready to vote
for Trump. This is a self-inflicted mockery of Christian faith more thorough than any skeptic or critic ever imagined. The theory was that Christians would influence politics. The reality looks more like being captured by it. Grandma and Grandpa's abstention looks appealing in comparison.<br />
<br />
A theologically-rooted rejection of politics
involves the humble recognition that power corrupts the church and
prevents it from embodying Jesus Christ to the world. A power-seeking
church cannot possibly represent the God-man whose earthly life was
marked by poverty, sorrow, and homelessness. Instead of standing in
solidarity with the poor and needy, such a church becomes obsessed with
maintaining its prerogatives. It becomes a client of the state.<br />
<br />
In
a way, the abstention option is about self-preservation. But this is
not the self-preservation of defensive and power-seeking Christians
desperately searching for a president to take their side. This is
self-preservation with a specific purpose in mind: when the state seeks
to mobilize its citizens toward oppression, a mass Christian collective
will stand uncowed by the state's power and unmoved by its claims. The church creates spaces where the normal methods of power become inoperative. The weak are protected, the poor are empowered, and the rich humble themselves--or else. In these spaces, repentance and humility count for infinitely more than money, power, education, or class. In these spaces, the state is frustrated in its aims.<br />
<br />
Now, let's talk about a wrong way to go about it.<br />
<br />
A lot of people don't like politics. They find it confusing or irrelevant. Or the process seems dirty and corrupt. Others believe what's happening at the political level simply isn't very consequential. These attitudes make abstention easy, but not necessarily Christian. Principled, theologically-grounded abstention reckons with the reality that politicians are making life and death decisions that affect our lives. It does not pretend that politics is unimportant. It recognizes that withdrawing from politics does not bestow innocence or absolve responsibility. In the face of these realities, it still chooses to abstain. <br />
<br />
But too often, Christians withdraw from politics not because of a
well-considered theological ethic, but because of a narrow understanding of Christian
responsibilities. Certain strains of white evangelicalism have a long tradition of being
reluctant to think about systemic sin and systemic solutions. They hold
up individual conversion as a cure-all. They express concern for the individual but too often discount the social forces shaping the individual. Faith becomes personal rather than communal, and piety becomes the measure of obedience. The biblical demands of social justice recede to the background and matters of basic Christian duty are coded as merely political.<br />
<br />
As Dr. King said of white Christians during
the civil rights movement:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial
and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social
issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched
many churches commit themselves to a completely other-worldly religion which
makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the
sacred and the secular.</blockquote>
We must be careful not to fall into this trap. As we grapple with the disgraceful and dangerous candidacy of a racist strongman, assuming a posture of irenic detachment is not necessarily a Christian response. Is
our position embedded in a broader ethic of concern for others? Or is
it a
convenient screen for complacency? Is it counterfeit abstention? If we are going to be silent in this dangerous moment, it cannot be
because of our own desire to maintain an illusory sense of purity. It cannot be because we think the gospel doesn’t
have anything to say about oppression.<br />
<br />
We can talk
about God’s sovereignty. We can declare that the prospect of a Trump
presidency leaves us unimpressed and unafraid. We can reaffirm Christian
cliches about how Jesus will still be doing his work regardless of who
wins a presidential election. That's all fine. But we cannot be
indifferent to the rise of a man who promises to oppress
our brothers and sisters made in God’s image.<br />
<br />
When those of us who are
unlikely
to be targets of the demagogue adopt postures of calm neutrality, it
doesn't necessarily look like trusting God. It may look more like a lack
of love for our neighbors.<br />
<br />
As this year began, I was prepared to sit back and observe this election in a spirit of nonpartisan equanimity. See <a href="http://jessecurtis.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-few-things-for-christians-to-keep-in.html">here</a>, for example. But we haven't seen such a radically destructive and anti-christian candidacy before. Donald Trump is unprecedented. He is a threat to our neighbors. He is a threat to the world.<br />
<br />
So I choose to engage. <br />
<br />
I can't escape the idea that the same Bible that taught Grandma and Grandpa to
abstain from politics teaches me to jump in: “Speak up for those who cannot speak
for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge
fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” This kind of righteous action
has always been political. It always will be. When the Hebrew prophets brought
the word of God to the people, they spoke of politics: “Woe to those who make
unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of
their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making
widows their prey and robbing the fatherless.”<br />
<br />
Oppression is perpetrated through politics. Justice--at least the imperfect version of it we can reach for in this disordered world--is enacted
in part through politics. And this, too, is clear: Donald Trump seeks power so that he may oppress. <br />
<br />
In the face of this unusually evil candidacy, I want to either have the kind of radicalism my
grandparents had, or stand up and forthrightly join the political
process to defeat Trump, but I want to avoid the complacency and ambivalence of the moderate middle. <br />
<br />
Those of us who speak out cannot do so simply because we like politics and enjoy jumping into the partisan fray. It cannot be because we have been captured by the partisan process and are under the illusion that Hillary Clinton represents Christian ethics. It cannot be because we're in the habit of criticizing Republican candidates. Many of us have cried wolf too many times in past elections, and now that we really do face a historically dangerous candidacy, our words ring hollow because of past hyperbole. Mitt Romney, I'm sorry for every bad thing I ever said about you!<br />
<br />
Whatever we do, it must not be for our own interests. Beneath the apparent differences of engaging or disengaging from the political
process lies the deeper question of whether our posture is self-focused
or other-focused. Perhaps the most pernicious way to be captured by the political process is to vote for our own interests. Of course, this is what is expected of us in a democracy. People voting for their interests is precisely how this system is supposed to work. But why should Christians play by these rules? Why would we want to?Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-59151327725283402602016-08-12T21:00:00.001-04:002016-08-12T21:00:28.382-04:00American Policing Is Racist, Unconstitutional, and Absurdly Violent. If It's Not On Video, Do People Care?Perhaps it is inevitable that a movement needs a <span data-dobid="hdw">cause célèbre. We don't deal well with complexity. If an institution is rotten, we don't want to hear about its aggregate effects on a large population. We want to hear about how a mean person in that institution demeaned an angelic child. And it was all caught on tape, of course. </span><br />
<span data-dobid="hdw"><br /></span>
<span data-dobid="hdw">So it is for the Black Lives Matter movement. </span><br />
<br />
<span data-dobid="hdw">So it was for the civil rights movement. The White supremacist United States slowly ground the life out of people, but it was Emmet Till whose name became known worldwide. The oppression of the segregationist South was pervasive, but Americans fixated on a few fire hoses and dogs in Birmingham. And during Jim Crow, many African Americans stayed in their their seat on a bus, or raised a ruckus, or simply refused to ride the buses in the first place. But only Rosa Parks became an icon. </span><br />
<br />
This week the Justice Department released the report of its investigation of the Baltimore Police Department. See <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/08/10/the-justice-departments-stunning-report-on-the-baltimore-police-department/?utm_term=.f868acf59ee7">Radley Balko's review</a> of the report, or check out <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/8/10/12418428/baltimore-police-investigation-justice-department-report">German Lopez's summary</a>. Or <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3010223/BPD-Findings-Report.pdf">read the report for yourself</a>. It deserves more attention than it is getting. But it's not going to
get that attention because it's 164 pages of text written by government
lawyers. It's not bleeding. It's not on video. <br />
<br />
And that's a problem for us. We don't know how to deal with systemic failure. When institutions go to rot, responsibility is defused. When something goes wrong, who is to blame?<br />
<br />
When Michael Brown was shot, we were quickly arguing over the details of the incident. Were his hands up? Was he running toward Darren Wilson, or away? The movement wanted an icon and its opponents wanted a heroic police officer doing his job. In the end, the justice department could not find sufficient evidence to prosecute Darren Wilson under federal law. Many Americans cried vindication!<br />
<br />
They probably didn't read the other Justice Department report. You know the one? It's the one that showed the Ferguson police department was a predatory gang funding the city government off the backs of poor African Americans. But that wasn't on video. No one was bleeding out in the street. It was just diffuse failure, its costs borne by thousands of people instead of one body. <br />
<br />
Read the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf">Ferguson</a> Report. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-boBGHCBcBqM/V65vFRiG3vI/AAAAAAAABLY/OTLRly7a2SEuU6vt2lfMOMGZtBIv8p5sgCLcB/s1600/ferguson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="345" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-boBGHCBcBqM/V65vFRiG3vI/AAAAAAAABLY/OTLRly7a2SEuU6vt2lfMOMGZtBIv8p5sgCLcB/s400/ferguson.jpg" width="594" /></a></div>
<br />
And then there was Tamir Rice. There were fewer people willing to defend the police in Cleveland, but more than you might suppose. And among them was the man who really counted, the county prosecutor. He ensured that the murderer got off. But in the meantime, the Justice Department released a report. You heard about it? The one that showed the Cleveland Police Department is a racist and incompetent mess? It wasn't on video either. <br />
<br />
Read the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2014/12/04/cleveland_division_of_police_findings_letter.pdf">Cleveland</a> Report.<br />
<br />
And then there was Freddie Gray. He died in police custody. Somebody did something wrong. But how do you convict one person for systemic failure? All six officers charged got off. And then, just this week, the Justice Department released the results of its investigation of the Baltimore Police. In a familiar refrain, it reveals that the department routinely employs unconstitutional and racist practices. But that wasn't on video. The riot was though!<br />
<br />
Read the <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3010223/BPD-Findings-Report.pdf">Baltimore </a>Report.<br />
<br />
What's interesting about these three would-be icons of a movement is that in each case authorities found insufficient evidence to convict anyone of wrongdoing. At the same time, in each case authorities found that the jurisdictions in which these incidents occurred do not maintain the rule of law. Indeed, they often don't even pretend to do so. These departments are predatory. <br />
<br />
The combination of institutional failure and individual innocence is not contradictory. When the whole system is rotten, who takes the fall when something rotten happens? Nobody, I guess. And when there isn't an obvious individual villain to scapegoat, do people care? Not a lot, I guess. <br />
<br />
So next time you see that disturbing shooting video lighting up social media, remember that the important context isn't on the video. And decades from now when your grandkids ask you whether you supported Black aspirations for freedom in the oppressive America of the early twenty-first century, telling them you didn't know because it wasn't on video is going to sound like a lame excuse, even to you. Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-64594786264428125382016-07-30T17:48:00.002-04:002016-07-30T17:50:42.311-04:00Wayne Grudem is Wrong: Don't Vote for TrumpPolls show about 4 out of 5 White evangelicals are preparing to vote for Donald Trump. A recent article by the evangelical theologian <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564">Wayne Grudem</a> shows us why. It's long, but read it for yourself. Read it and weep.<br />
<br />
One hardly knows where to start with this article, but three overarching characteristics stand out.<br />
<br />
<b>1) It is intellectually dishonest.</b><br />
<br />
<i>"His many years of business conduct show that he is not racist or anti-(legal) immigrant or anti-Semitic or misogynistic..."</i><br />
<br />
Grudem presents Trump as a flawed but basically normal nominee. I honestly don't have the gumption to argue about this. I don't know if the first person Grudem deceived was himself, or if he is engaging in calculated deceit. In either case, anyone open to the idea that Grudem might be wrong can simply do a 5-minute google search and see that he is. So let me outsource this. On racism, check out <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-racist.html?_r=0">Nicholas Kristoff's recent column</a>. And for a blow by blow account of Trump's disgraceful and unprecedented behavior as he seeks the presidency, follow <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/07/trump-time-capsule-63-what-is-in-the-tax-returns/493544/?oldest=1">James Fallows' amazing "time capsule" series</a>. He's at #65 and counting. Read them all. Seriously.<br />
<br />
Donald Trump is a demagogue with authoritarian instincts. He
is a man governed by appetites, not thoughts. He does not give considered
judgments; he excretes passions. To say this is not to claim any special insight into his character. It's only to say that I'm a sentient being with an interest in the news. There are two groups of people who don't know that Donald Trump is unfit for the presidency. The first are ordinary people with better things to do than pay attention to politics. As they begin to tune in to the election this fall, they can be persuaded. The second are people who do pay attention to politics and choose not to know the truth. That's Grudem. And I'm not under the illusion there's anything that could be said to change his mind. But perhaps we can persuade those who are still persuadable.<br />
<br />
People have difficulty, I think, fully grasping how dangerous Donald Trump is. The logic of the demagogue, and what this
would mean for a Trump presidency, is still not well-understood. Demagogues
stoke fear and anger against marginal groups of people in order to gain power
and popularity. The process continues without end, because it is the lifeblood
of the demagogue’s power. Without a heightened sense of threat, the demagogue
is just a tick without a host. And so the threat must remain. The only thing
that’s certain about a Trump presidency is that he will scapegoat and persecute
whole groups of people. The only question is how far he’ll go. This is the
logic of the authoritarian demagogue.
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://static2.businessinsider.com/image/578d922888e4a725238b8c82-1190-625/donald-trump-had-the-most-fitting-entrance-possible-to-the-republican-national-convention.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" border="0" class="irc_mi iXD1lbDYtxJc-pQOPx8XEepE" height="300" src="https://static2.businessinsider.com/image/578d922888e4a725238b8c82-1190-625/donald-trump-had-the-most-fitting-entrance-possible-to-the-republican-national-convention.jpg" style="margin-top: 23px;" width="596" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Trump makes his appearance on stage at the Republican Convention, July 18, 2016.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Ordinarily, ideology is very important in a presidential election. You vote for the candidate you agree with on the issues. But ordinarily, both candidates have some measure of competence, display normal amounts of human decency, and appear capable of feelings such as shame and guilt. Ordinarily, both candidates believe in democracy and human rights. There's little evidence Trump possesses any of these qualities or beliefs. This has never happened before. In these circumstances, ideology recedes and our common humanity moves to the fore. <br />
<br />
We’ve never seen such a radically anti-Christian figure come
this close to the pinnacle of power in the United States. His most profound theological statement was when he declared he had never had reason to ask God for forgiveness. Trump is the negation of Christianity personified. He is a man who "breathes out violence," as Psalm 27 so evocatively puts it. His recklessness and contempt for human life is too obvious to take his "pro-life" claims seriously.<br />
<br />
I would like to see an intellectually honest defense of Donald Trump from an evangelical Christian. I imagine it would go something like this: "I'm voting for
the dangerous racist because he might appoint justices who might reduce
abortions." Or, "I'm risking war and global turmoil in hopes that Trump will make the abortion rate, which has trended down during Obama's presidency, go down faster." As much as I would disagree with that choice, it has a
coherent internal logic and accords with reality. It's a plausible scenario. And if that's where you're at, I haven't thought of a good argument to convince you otherwise. But I've yet to hear anyone make that argument. And I think that's telling. Grudem was either unwilling or unable to make an honest defense of voting for Trump. Why? <br />
<br />
Another intellectually honest case for Trump would be something like: "I'm voting for the incompetent demagogue because at least he'll be on our side." That brings us to point number two.<br />
<br />
<b>2) It is selfish.</b><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"a Trump-appointed Supreme Court, together with dozens of lower court
judges appointed by him, would probably result in significant advances
in many of the policy areas important to Christians. It would also open
the door to huge expansion of influence for the many Christian lobbying
groups..."</i><br />
<br />
Superficially, Grudem frames his case as a disinterested
defense of what is best for the country. He quotes the scripture about seeking the welfare of the city in which you are in exile. In the same way, he says, we should seek the welfare of the United States. Grudem poses this question to guide our decision: "Which vote is most likely to bring the best results for the nation?"<i> </i><br />
<br />
At a time when many Christians are invested in unchristian attachments to patriotism and American exceptionalism, this is a dangerous question to serve as our guide. It invites Christians to vote through the lens of nationalist hierarchy (my nation first) rather than cultivating equal concern for all human life.<br />
<br />
But leave that aside for now. Even on his own terms, Grudem fails dramatically. As the article goes on it becomes increasingly clear that for Grudem, the biggest reason to vote for Trump is that he will be on team <i>White evangelical</i>. He openly speculates that a Trump administration will lead to "huge expansion of influence for the many Christian lobbying groups." Does that sit well with you? Christians as just another interest group jockeying for position? <br />
<br />
After his introduction explaining that a) Christians should vote, and b)
Christians should vote for Trump, the meat of the article explores
"the results we could expect from a Clinton presidency with what we
could expect from a Trump presidency." Well over one-third of the ensuing analysis is devoted to the protection of so-called religious liberty for White evangelicals.<br />
<br />
Grudem is deeply concerned about protecting the traditional prerogatives of a certain kind of conservative White Christianity. He does not acknowledge that this might have trade-offs, that the same judges likely to support restrictions on abortion and special protections for evangelicalism are also likely to harm women and workers and erode the rights of LGBT people, African Americans, and immigrants. As long as a policy seems good for his own community, Grudem shows no apparent interest in its consequences for others.<br />
<br />
Grudem's Christianity appears insular, embattled, defensive. Preoccupied with lost power and declining cultural authority, it desperately reaches for an anti-Christian strong man to restore its fortunes. This is a Christianity so self-absorbed that its posture toward the broader polity is described by words such as <i>take</i> and <i>impose</i>, rather than <i>give</i> and <i>sacrifice</i>. <br />
<br />
Grudem's article has a short section on "minorities." Apparently all "minorities" are indistinguishable and have the same concerns. You have to read it to believe it. Almost all of this section either paraphrases or quotes directly Donald Trump's convention speech. Because if there's one thing we know, it's that we can take Donald Trump at his word. For the varied problems facing over one-third of the nation's population, Grudem has a grand total of two original sentences:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Two of the deepest causes of poverty among minority groups and racial
tensions in our country are failing public schools in our inner cities
and lack of available jobs...[quotes Trump]...By contrast, Clinton will bow to the teachers’ unions and oppose school
choice at every turn, and she will continue to strangle businesses with
high taxes and regulations, preventing job growth.</blockquote>
It's not a coincidence that these sentences read like every boilerplate Republican speech you've ever heard. That brings us to point number three. <br />
<br />
<b>3) It bows the knee to a political party. </b><br />
<br />
<i>"this election is not just about Hillary Clinton. It is about defeating
the far left liberal agenda that any Democratic nominee would champion..."</i><br />
<br />
It's hard to convey here how thoroughly Grudem outsources any sense of Christian conviction toward the end of the article. He runs through a litany of issues, offering a veritable cliffs notes version of the Republican Party platform. Grudem is a theologian. But here he trades in his theology card so that he can adopt the posture of a partisan hack. Behold! A miraculous congruence between the will of God and the GOP! <b> </b><br />
<br />
Why doesn't Grudem's cliffs notes list of policy areas mention issues of importance to other groups of people? What about voting rights, criminal justice reform, the war on drugs, Native land rights, deportations of families, police brutality, and so on? Is it because Christian theology has nothing to say to those who are affected by these issues? Or is it because the GOP has so little to say?<br />
<br />
This almost defies belief, but Grudem notes that his
largest disagreement with Trump is on trade policy. He found a way
to excuse Trump's racism, misogyny, and violence, but he couldn't get past Trump's heresy on trade. Hatred can be explained away, but God forbid that he should defy GOP orthodoxy on trade policy.<br />
<br />
This is not bold and prophetic Christianity. This is a co-opted Christ ready to be put into service for a political party.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
As 4 of 5 White evangelicals prepare to vote for Trump, Grudem's article almost perfectly captures why they are going to do so. It is dishonest, selfish, and partisan while claiming to be honest, selfless, and Christian. It is an exercise in selling one's soul and calling it conviction.<br />
<br />
I probably shouldn't write all this without going on the record myself. I can't write about co-opted Christianity without being at least dimly aware of how my own faith is bound by time and place, shaken by fear, corrupted by desire for approval. My own faith constantly stumbles toward something more comfortable, more palatable, more understandable to other people, than the kind of life Jesus invites us to discover. So is this a message from one co-opted Christian to another? <br />
<br />
For the record, because I am a Christian I cannot support many of
Hillary Clinton's positions, especially those pertaining to abortion, war, and
the death penalty. She is far too ready to take life, and far too
complacent about protecting it. Nor can I support her brand of
nationalism and her insufficient concern for the poorest and most
vulnerable people.<br />
<br />
Don't vote for Hillary Clinton if such a vote violates your conscience. There is ample reason to withhold your vote from her. But in the same spirit, do not vote for the most dangerous and unchristian nominee of our lifetimes, a man who literally makes our fellow citizens and people around the world fear for their lives. People say this is a lesser-of-two evils election. For the
Christian voter, that’s the only kind of election there is. If you think you’ve
ever participated in another kind, you left your Christianity behind somewhere. Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-87700919117798432122016-07-24T07:49:00.000-04:002016-07-27T21:40:25.974-04:00Tim Kaine Appears to be an Extremely Unusual White GuyRegardless of what you think of the Clinton-Kaine ticket, let's acknowledge this much: Tim Kaine seems to have an unusually impressive record of pursuing racial justice and reconciliation. Before he entered politics, Kaine was a lawyer specializing in defending victims of housing discrimination. A longtime resident of Richmond, Virginia, Kaine attends a predominantly Black church. Ok, you say, he's an ambitious guy coming up in a majority-Black city. Showing his face in a Black church is an easy political win. But he's been a member there for decades. It's where his children were baptized.<br />
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4k6LUP5HckM/V5SoSvK3I4I/AAAAAAAABLA/xJlRWcK9wZoCHX3o1uiYmLcWfnr3xhjWwCLcB/s1600/kaine.jpe" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="345" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4k6LUP5HckM/V5SoSvK3I4I/AAAAAAAABLA/xJlRWcK9wZoCHX3o1uiYmLcWfnr3xhjWwCLcB/s640/kaine.jpe" width="590" /></a><br />
And speaking of the children. Kaine's three kids went to predominantly Black Richmond Public Schools. It's hard to overstate how unusual this is for a White parent of means. It's just not done. As is typical of American cities, Richmond's public schools are much less White than the city. While 40% of the city is White, only 9% of Richmond Public Schools students are White. Kaine is an outlier in his city and in the nation.<br />
<br />
In his work, his worship, and in the education of his own children, Kaine appears to have consistently demonstrated a commitment to racial justice. The point here is not to parrot Clinton campaign talking points. But the unusual ways Kaine has structured his life should be pointed out. This is not normal behavior for White Americans with options, much less for someone on a presidential ticket. Have we ever had such a major national political figure who has done so much in both their professional and personal lives to walk the talk?<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong; this is not heroic behavior, and I don't mean to play into a White savior complex. Middle-class people of color deliberately stay in poor communities all the time and people don't often notice. So this isn't heroism, but it is decency. Indeed, it's the kind of behavior one would expect to be commonplace if White Americans actually believed what they say about race. And it's the kind of profile that would be normal for White liberal politicians if they actually believed their self-righteous declarations.<br />
<br />
In this period of violence and racial strife, there's been a lot of talk about the need to come together. Coming together for real involves fewer pleasant platitudes and more hard-edged changes in the structures of our lives. If the demands of racial justice don't affect White Americans housing and schooling choices, then we're still investing in the advantages of Whiteness rather than sharing. I'm sure there are skeletons in Kaine's closet; in particular, there are some <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/7/23/12260394/tim-kaine-scandal-gifts">unsavory details </a>related to gifts he accepted while governor of Virginia. But with respect to racial reconciliation at least, Kaine seems to offer an unusual and positive example to White Americans. Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-66881220094050141512016-07-16T10:09:00.000-04:002016-07-16T10:19:36.387-04:00Breaking News: Black People Are Ordinary PeopleA few days ago, I described a centuries-long crisis facing African American communities, a crisis that must be resolved if Americans are truly going to come together. This is a crisis of White supremacy, and dismantling it is the only sure foundation for peace.<br />
<br />
This is all true, but I'm uncomfortable with what I wrote--or rather, what I <i>didn't</i> write. This crisis does not define African American communities. Amid oppression, the banality and beauty of daily life goes on. <br />
<br />
I honestly think that many White Americans would be surprised to discover that African Americans are ordinary people. Partly because of the vast social distance separating most White Americans from Black Americans, we often talk about each other in terms of abstractions and media narratives. All too often, there is no human connection available to provide accountability in these conversations. In the White American imagination, at the end of the day, whether or not Black people are simply people is an open question.<br />
<br />
When well-meaning Whites, seeking to dramatize injustice, describe Black neighborhoods as "war zones" or refer to a "crisis", we can reinforce stereotypes and negative assumptions that White Americans already harbor. Our words might awaken some people to a righteous cause. For others, our words provide more ammunition for the ongoing suspicion of Black humanity. As <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Contempt-Pity-Social-Damaged-1880-1996/dp/080784635X">Daryl Michael Scott</a> observed, there is a long history of sympathetic people portraying African Americans as fundamentally damaged (by White racism). While this may provoke pity in some, its corollary is contempt.<br />
<br />
Housing and school segregation leave many White Americans in a state of extraordinary ignorance about their fellow citizens. They see discussions of crime on tv and hear about protests in Ferguson and Baltimore and Baton Rouge. So it's easy to lose sight of the fact that most African Americans do not live in inner cities and are not poor. Even worse, lack of meaningful social contact means that many Whites don't see, and can't even imagine, the ordinary rhythms of everyday life.<br />
<br />
They don't see the strong bonds of community in many Black neighborhoods, neighbor caring for neighbor. They don't see the communities where everyone on the block knows the kids on that block and takes responsibility for their well-being. They don't see the parents working themselves to the bone so that their kids can have a better life. They don't see the people volunteering in the schools. They don't see the dozens of ordinary actions that build community between people--here, let me shovel the snow in front of your house, there, let me get those groceries for you.<br />
<br />
And they don't see the hard work of overcoming obstacles and discrimination. The persistence of the mom who gets up early to take that long bus ride to work. The creativity of the dad who manages to earn money doing odd jobs even though nobody will hire him full time. The desperation of trying to find decent housing or a safe school for your kids. They don't see the psychological resources that resistance to centuries of oppression has produced.<br />
<br />
Because we don't see this, because we're so disconnected, we get instead absurd discussions about how Black people supposedly don't care about and protest crime in their own communities. We get offensive advice about how Black people need to take responsibility for America's failures. Beneath this lecturing from the sidelines lurks that persistent doubtful question of the White American imagination: are Black people really just ordinary people with the same aspirations and hopes as me?<br />
<br />
Most White Americans have probably never thought to ask a different set of questions. What if Black people are doing everything right, and the results are what we see today? In other words, what if the problem resides not in Black communities but in American institutions?<br />
<br />
Some of the quickest people to take issue with the the simplicity of this hypothesis would be
many African Americans themselves, for whom narratives of self-criticism
and self-help are pervasive. If you think Black people aren't taking responsibility, it's a pretty sure sign you don't actually know Black people. <br />
<br />
It is perverse for me to posture as an interpreter of Black communities to a White audience. That's not my intention. Rather, I invite White people to take it upon ourselves to break out of our self-imposed isolation. Some of us who are White are aware of how segregation harms people of color. But we are often unaware of the damage it does to ourselves. Be brave enough to ask yourself how often you actually have <i>meaningful</i> conversations with people of color. Be brave enough to read a little history and let the evidence guide you. Be brave enough to be honest about what you know and don't know. And be brave enough to be a nonconformist in your White community. I wish more White people would stop and ask themselves why they have so many strong opinions about people they don't even know.<br />
<br />
For those of us who want to change White minds, it is not enough to speak of the problems African Americans face. The broader message is the extraordinary resilience and perseverance of a people trying to build freedom and community even as the country around them tried to tear it down. Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-55941492343403131292016-07-14T14:13:00.000-04:002016-07-14T14:13:45.028-04:00Amid Racial Tensions, Can Americans Come Together?After the murder of five Dallas police officers last week, there is a palpable turn in the national climate toward rhetoric of reconciliation. The President asks us to seek empathy and mutual understanding and citizens share social media memes of police officers and citizens being nice to each other. The media frames its stories around the need to "come together" and find "common ground."<br />
<br />
These rhetorical efforts are necessary and good. They represent a nation stepping back from what feels like the brink. (It's not, but it can easily feel like it is). In moments like these it is the responsibility of leaders to call for calm and emphasize what we have in common. As the President did Tuesday, leaders should also remind us that we've seen much worse, and have come through it. In a tense environment, responsible leaders offer perspective and breathing space. They do not add fuel to the fire. Instead, they mourn lost life and carefully try to balance the competing claims of all Americans. The essential task at hand is to avoid a deepening spiral of violence. This task the President performed admirably this week.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MPfzbTuxHD0/V4fUGw129jI/AAAAAAAABKo/eETtViK_FhE3t3spMvUihkeVyNELaoYBgCLcB/s1600/obama%2Bdallas.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="340" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MPfzbTuxHD0/V4fUGw129jI/AAAAAAAABKo/eETtViK_FhE3t3spMvUihkeVyNELaoYBgCLcB/s640/obama%2Bdallas.jpg" width="600" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">President Obama in Dallas</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Now it is our job to be more honest than a President can afford to be. Reading his speech carefully, it seems clear the President is under no illusion that trying harder to understand each other will in itself produce the change we need. I wish all Americans had the same clarity.<br />
<br />
Talk of coming together is often little more than cheap sentiment signifying nothing. Like anyone who isn't a sociopath, I fully support peace, empathy, finding common ground, and coming together. But if our goal is clarity of thought rather than delusion, if our goal is to actually solve problems and save lives--that's what's at stake!--then we must boldly speak against sentimentality masquerading as problem solving.<br />
<br />
The problem is <a href="http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2014/12/violence-racialized-failure-american-state-guest-post-lisa-m-miller">state failure</a>. As we speak right now, Black Americans face crisis-levels of economic distress, educational neglect, violence, poor health, poverty, and discrimination. This crisis is immediately obvious to anyone who simply takes White expectations of state services and general well-being and applies them more broadly. This crisis <a href="https://www.amazon.com/American-Slavery-Freedom-Edmund-Morgan/dp/039332494X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468513224&sr=1-1&keywords=american+slavery+american+freedom">congealed</a> hundreds of years ago, and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Urban-Crisis-International-Perspectives/dp/0691121869?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0">has continued</a> uninterrupted <a href="https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468513281&sr=1-1&keywords=the+new+jim+crow+mass+incarceration+in+the+age+of+colorblindness">ever since</a>. It is not of Black Americans' own making. They did not start any of this. It is a crisis of White supremacy. <br />
<br />
The appropriate question is not and has never been why African American communities often suffer from higher levels of poverty and crime. The more honest query is how a people has accomplished so much in the face of centuries of systemic racism and neglect. The American state's failure to protect life and liberty for certain classes of its citizens continues to the present day. The great question at hand, then, is how to excavate this system and tear it out by the roots. <br />
<br />
The intractable problem is that many--probably most--Americans refuse to admit this. And in this thick haze of self-delusion and irresponsibility, they venture forth to praise the police and the way of life they defend.<br />
<br />
Please read me carefully. It is <i>right</i> and peace-producing to praise police officers who do their
work with integrity and care for human life. It is <i>wrong</i> to defend the
broader systems in which police are forced to operate. The police are themselves caught up in forces bigger than themselves. The American system produces racialized poverty and violence, and then <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Ghettoside-True-Story-Murder-America/dp/0385529988/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=">polices it capriciously</a>, offering neither the presumption of innocence to the upstanding, nor the likelihood of punishment to the guilty.<br />
<br />
Americans who defend this system seem universally to think of themselves as people who oppose racism and violence and stand for justice. That may be how they see themselves, but we are under no obligation to join them in their delusions. <br />
<br />
So we must be clear-eyed about what reconciliation rhetoric is doing in the contexts in which it is deployed. Often the rhetoric is so empty of any tangible content, so slathered in sentiment, that supporters of systemic racism are its most eager users! But memes about friendly police officers won't change the way DA offices
work. Calls to respect authority won't abolish private prisons. Trying
harder to understand each other won't reform use of force standards. Thanking police officers for their service won't end the war on drugs. And asking young Black men to never make a mistake--never a wrong move or word--won't remove the suspicion from an American public that is more interested in containing than empowering them.<br />
<br />
We do need to come together, that's true. But you need only look around your neighborhood, I'd wager, to see that most White Americans might not really want to come together. Coming together would mean trying to level the playing field. It would mean desegregating the schools. It would mean making residential zoning work for the poor instead of incumbent homeowners. Guaranteeing the vote. Providing quality and accountable policing in poor neighborhoods. It would mean treating the condition African Americans face as the crisis that it is, for as long as it takes. It would mean getting serious about reparations. Coming together would mean all these things and more.<br />
<br />
I feel compelled to be honest. I'm not sure most White Americans want to come together. I don't think most White Americans want to deal with the crises affecting their fellow citizens. They want to make sure the crisis doesn't spill over its borders. They want to see it contained. That brings us back to the police, doesn't it?<br />
<br />
I say all this not because I'm a morbid pessimist but because history is a hard teacher. Looking to our past, we might say there were two epoch-making moments when Americans came together and resolved their differences when chaos threatened. The first was the Constitutional Convention. The hard-won compromise provided the framework for an enduring political union and national prosperity. The second was the end of Reconstruction. After 700,000 deaths in the Civil War and years of aftershocks, it is astonishing how quickly Americans got back to the normal arts of political compromise, paving the way for the United States to emerge as a global superpower.<br />
<br />
Both of these compromises were at once essential to national prosperity and devastating to African Americans. The Constitutional framework set up a functionally pro-slavery federal government that enabled three generations of newly created southern states to spin out a cotton kingdom across the continent on the strength of an internal slave trade of extraordinary brutality. The compromised end to Reconstruction signaled the end of state-sponsored efforts to ensure equal rights for Black Americans. The South could have its mob rule, and White Americans would pretend they lived in a Republic.<br />
<br />
There is a more recent example. We might speak of the period after the turmoil of the 1960s and early 1970s as a coming together moment. Nixon's "silent majority" was as much rhetorical device as reality, but there was a distinct turn away from the crisis of White supremacy. As Americans turned toward conservatism, they defeated the civil rights movement and left old problems to fester.<br />
<br />
We could come together now, as we have in the past, only in order to contain a crisis rather than solve it. The same people always end up bearing the brunt of these false periods of peace. This is why Black Americans and everyone who cares cannot stop protesting. We don't want oppressed people to sit down and be quiet. We want to remove the oppression. We don't want peace without justice, because in the end that leaves us with neither.Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-8540777288085839832016-07-12T22:29:00.000-04:002016-07-12T22:29:41.477-04:00Introducing the All Lives Matter™ BibleChristians believe that God loves everyone. And we believe that in some mysterious way we all bear his image, giving each human being an irreducible dignity and worth. We believe human beings have a basic unity in that we are all loved by God, and all in need of him. These beliefs describe only the starting point for Christian social ethics, not their application. Indeed, precisely because we believe human beings are undifferentiated in dignity and worth, we take special offense and are moved to action when we see that worth trampled on in specific times and places. Our general concern for all is the basic context in which our special concern for oppressed groups is expressed. <br />
<br />
Ordinary Bible translations are full of examples of God's particular concern for groups that are oppressed, marginalized, and lacking in social power. God loves us all, but his calling card is his work on behalf of the most vulnerable. As a result, the Bible often makes distinctions between groups of people occupying different social positions, with God casting himself as the defender of those with less power. Here in the United States, some Christians are uncomfortable with these passages and are reluctant to apply them to our social context.<br />
<br />
So I'm thinking, what would the Bible look like without its consistent message of God's special concern for the oppressed and judgment for oppressors? What would the scriptures look like if we read them in the same way many Christians are "reading" their own society?<br />
<br />
Let the satire begin.<br />
<br />
I'm proud to introduce an all-new Bible translation that will assure modern American readers that God loves everyone and never takes sides. It's called, <i>The All Lives Matter™ Bible</i>. In its pages, old scriptures will burst forth with new life to comfort a new generation of privileged Christians.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CtHY4hrGrZI/V4RRcAdJ5dI/AAAAAAAABKQ/wIGdn610xZwxyM6UbRptgnWrv1YItUFlQCLcB/s1600/Thumbs%2BUp%2BGuy.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="304" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CtHY4hrGrZI/V4RRcAdJ5dI/AAAAAAAABKQ/wIGdn610xZwxyM6UbRptgnWrv1YItUFlQCLcB/s320/Thumbs%2BUp%2BGuy.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A Satisfied Reader of the <i>All Lives Matter™ Bible</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Hear the words of the Apostle James as he asks us, "<span class="text Jas-2-5" id="en-NIV-30299">Has not God chosen [<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%202%3A5&version=NIV">some random people</a>] to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? Later on, James appears to warn the reader about something, but the </span><span class="text Jas-2-5" id="en-NIV-30299"><i>All Lives Matter™ </i>text resolves the passage with pleasing ambiguity:</span><span class="text Jas-5-1"> "Now listen, [<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james+5%3A1&version=NIV">everyone</a>], weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you." </span><br />
<span class="text Jas-5-1"><br /></span>
<span class="text Jas-5-1">Be inspired by the words of the Apostle Paul as he set out on his missionary journey: "</span><span class="text Gal-2-10" id="en-NIV-29092">All they asked was that we should continue to remember [<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+2:10&version=NIV">everyone equally</a>], the very thing I had been eager to do all along." Paul's perspective on the Christian life comes through clearer than ever as we read about how he had no social privilege to give up and so described following Christ as [<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+3%3A1-8&version=NIV">"a piece of cake."</a>]</span><br />
<br />
Of course, among the highlights of any Bible are the profound parables of Jesus. And here the <i>All Lives Matter</i>™ Bible does not disappoint. Be encouraged as you read the Parable of the Good [<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10%3A25-37&version=NIV">Man of No Particular Ethnicity</a>]. And be shocked all over again as you read about Jesus's subversive behavior, as when he talked to the [<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+4&version=NIV">Genderless Person of No Particular Ethnicity</a>] at the well.<br />
<br />
And who can forget Jesus's challenging words when he declared, "[<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23:27&version=NIV">I'm sure there are some people out there, from no group in particular, who are</a>]
hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the
outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and
everything unclean."<br />
<br />
In this Bible you will read about how Jesus offered table fellowship to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+2%3A15-17&version=NIV">everyone equally</a>, and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A1-2&version=NIV">no one in particular</a> was scandalized by it. What the translation lacks in theological specificity it more than makes up for in comforting spiritual bromides. Anyone tempted to apply their faith to specific social problems will be reassured that vague expressions of goodwill are enough. <br />
<br />
The <i>All Lives Matter</i>™ Bible also offers readers strikingly original translations of beloved Old Testament passages.<br />
<br />
Timeless Hebrew proverbs come alive for the modern American reader, vaguely reminding us to be nice to each other: "Whoever oppresses [<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+14:31&version=NIV">anyone</a>] shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to [anyone] honors God." And the Psalms of David give privileged readers the affirmation they need that God is on their team no matter what! "A father to [<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+68:5&version=NIV">everyone</a>], a defender of [everyone], is God in his holy dwelling."<br />
<br />
Even the Torah appears here as you've never seen it before. Feel the grandeur of God's commands to the people of Israel: "<span class="text Exod-23-9" id="en-NIV-2154">Do not oppress [<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+23:9&version=NIV">anybody</a>]; you yourselves know how it feels to be [nobody in particular], because you were [something or other] in Egypt."</span><br />
<br />
<span class="text Exod-23-9" id="en-NIV-2154">Because the Hebrew prophetic tradition is considered especially offensive to many American Christians, the translators have made the difficult choice to excise a few chapters, such as <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+10&version=NIV">Isaiah 10</a> and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2058">Isaiah 58</a>. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="text Exod-23-9" id="en-NIV-2154">In the 2,000 year history of the Christian Church, we've never had a Bible like this before. But with so many American Christians feeling uncomfortable, and with so much loose talk that could encourage introspection and social engagement, it's time Christians had a place to turn where they can be assured, All Lives Matter. </span>Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-66666925071672004682016-07-06T11:00:00.000-04:002016-07-06T11:13:18.278-04:00Revisiting the Gospel and White EvangelicalismI'd like to revisit <a href="http://jessecurtis.blogspot.com/2016/06/recovering-gospel-from-white.html">my last post</a>. In particular, I received some helpful pushback from a current professor at Moody Bible Institute for what he saw as my unfairness toward Dwight L. Moody. He had some good points to make. And, it must be said, he knows much more about Moody than I do. He noted that Moody associated himself with a variety of progressive causes, founded an integrated school in Massachusetts, privately expressed displeasure with segregation, and was supported by some Black southerners. Including all of this in my last post, I think, would have strengthened the argument I was trying to make.<br />
<br />
If people read what I wrote about Moody and Edwards and Whitefield and concluded, "Wow, I didn't realize these guys were so monstrous; let's disown them," my post had the opposite of its intended effect. Rather, for White evangelical readers in particular, there is an urgent need to <i>embrace</i> the totality of our history and inheritance. The point is not that Moody was horrible. The takeaway ought to be that I have little reason to assume I'm any less blind than he was. It's probably just blindness about different things. <br />
<br />
When we pay attention to what Black Christians were saying in Moody's time and others, we can begin to see that our inheritance is a distinct brand of White Christianity, with its own foibles, idioms, and blind spots. This is less a shocking indictment than an obvious reality of any human community of faith. We are culturally located. We are not the normative group by which other Christians can be measured. There is no fault in having never heard the sordid details I shared in my last post. But we can know the outlines of our own tradition. We can become students of our own community, knowing some of its errors and biases, including, especially, its idolization of Whiteness and American nationalism. <br />
<br />
Some Christians seem to be concerned that we might focus on the negative side of past heroes to the exclusion of the good they did. I understand this concern. But the much greater danger is that in ignoring their sins, we will repeat them. When we build up people of the past to mythical status, we encourage a culture of arrogance and unwarranted self-satisfaction. Scripture doesn't do this. The so-called heroes of the faith in the biblical narrative are usually presented as scoundrels and cowards, the better to emphasize the grace of God. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GV-5PuSRZEU/V30bxf-rTQI/AAAAAAAABJ4/8szhwaMVghUaHtrbV19hKV8SzAyhXkplACLcB/s1600/Ida-B.-Wells.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GV-5PuSRZEU/V30bxf-rTQI/AAAAAAAABJ4/8szhwaMVghUaHtrbV19hKV8SzAyhXkplACLcB/s400/Ida-B.-Wells.jpg" width="300" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ida B. Wells, 1862-1931</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Let's return to Moody. How are we to interpret his disapproval of segregation? Does that make his segregated meetings better? Or, indeed, does it make them worse? That Moody did what he did in service of the Gospel, as he understood it, is precisely the point. His belief that individual conversion would ultimately undermine segregation was not just naive; it was a view his privileged position made easy, and a luxury that many Black Christians facing questions of life and death felt they couldn't afford. Moody's understanding of the gospel was narrow, culturally specific, and White. In refusing to speak and act publicly against the anti-Christian society of the American South and the greatest social evil of his time, Moody compromised the Gospel.<br />
<br />
Consider the contrasting fortunes of Moody and Ida B. Wells. Moody toured the South to widespread acclaim, preaching to many thousands of White southerners. Just a few years later, Wells had to flee the South for her life because she had spoken out against lynching. Moody's public silence won him praise, but what did it cost him? What was the cost to the integrity of the Gospel and the church? What are we to make of a message that was more readily accepted by the oppressors than by the oppressed? How can such a message be anything other than a perversion of the teachings of Christ?<br />
<br />
While Moody's Gospel allowed White southerners to believe they could love Christ while remaining indifferent to their brother, Wells did the much harder work of clinging to faith while grappling with the world as it actually was. "The heart almost loses faith in Christianity," she wrote, "when one thinks of...the countless massacres of defenseless Negroes...O God, when will these massacres stop?"<br />
<br />
Was this a cry of despair? Perhaps, yes. It was also a cry of faith in which the key word was "almost." We would do well to come closer to Ida B. Wells, to meditate on evil committed in the name of Christ, to question and struggle to the point of "almost." If this means lost certainty and self-assurance, it may also lead to unexpected compensations. Not least, the discovery that "God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-14876094612427315582016-06-17T10:16:00.000-04:002016-06-17T10:16:59.251-04:00Recovering the Gospel from White EvangelicalismI received my undergraduate degree from Moody Bible Institute. A small evangelical college in Chicago, MBI was founded by the evangelist Dwight L. Moody in the late nineteenth century and became a major player in the fundamentalist movement of the early twentieth century. Though the college no longer enjoys the outsize influence of its earlier years, it remains a well-regarded institution in evangelical Christian circles.<br />
<br />
As a kid, I learned about the career of the great Dwight L. Moody, perhaps the most famous evangelist of the late nineteenth century. I suppose any self-respecting evangelical has at least heard of Moody. While at MBI, I learned more about the school's founder. He traveled around the country and across the Atlantic preaching to huge crowds. His commitment to the Gospel and passion for sharing his faith were legendary.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wrXi_65ssCc/V2QBve0UEHI/AAAAAAAABJM/CFzSGHkUbMsKTh27O_ADXGzuUICzsyKSACLcB/s1600/moody.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="395" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wrXi_65ssCc/V2QBve0UEHI/AAAAAAAABJM/CFzSGHkUbMsKTh27O_ADXGzuUICzsyKSACLcB/s640/moody.jpg" width="600" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dwight L. Moody, 1837-1899</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But what I<i> didn't </i>learn about Moody is crucial to understanding White evangelicalism in our own time. I didn't learn that as Moody preached across the South in the 1880s there were Black churches boycotting his crusades. Moody held segregated meetings, emphasized reconciliation among Whites
after the civil war, and told folksy stories associating African
Americans with dirt and poverty to illustrate his sermons. He emphasized his respect for White southern ideals and did not discuss Black aspirations for freedom.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FJHjfRc1SPU/V2QCb8WiAJI/AAAAAAAABJY/ZEh0sLxQ6z0dhOU-BcLaP1A5tr6OdCPQACLcB/s1600/moody%2Bgalveston.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FJHjfRc1SPU/V2QCb8WiAJI/AAAAAAAABJY/ZEh0sLxQ6z0dhOU-BcLaP1A5tr6OdCPQACLcB/s640/moody%2Bgalveston.jpg" width="292" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Black clergy protest segregated revival, Galveston, 1886.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
One member of the African Methodist Episcopal Church wrote of Moody, "His conduct toward the Negroes during his southern tour has been shameless, and I would not have him preach in a bathroom, let alone a church." As southern Whites lynched African Americans and kept their body parts as souvenirs, Moody ventured South preaching that they could have their Christ and White supremacy too. The anti-lynching crusader Ida B. Wells said Moody had "encouraged the drawing of the color line in the churches," the very last place it ought to exist. Frederick Douglass agreed. "Of all the forms of negro hate in this world," he declared in disgust, "save me from that one which clothes itself with the name of loving Jesus." <br />
<br />
Moody prioritized national unity and racial hierarchy over Christian doctrine, perverting the good news he claimed to preach. Moody could not have been unaware of basic Christian teaching found in the Bible he loved. Christ had declared in no uncertain terms that he would enact eternal judgment on the basis of how his followers treated the most vulnerable and despised people in their society (Matthew 25). And his disciple John had bluntly warned that people who claimed to love God while hating human beings were liars (1 John 4). But Moody refused to apply the Gospel to his own country.<br />
<br />
At the very end of his life, after his influence had waned, Moody finally stopped holding segregated revival meetings. But by then the damage had been done. And Moody had been overtaken in popularity by other preachers who were more overt in their commitment to White supremacy.<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[1]</span> <br />
<br />
We can trace a similar theme both forward and backward in time from Moody's position in the late nineteenth century. White evangelicals revere the profound theological reflections of the eighteenth-century minister and theologian Jonathan Edwards. We know much less about the people he enslaved.<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[2]</span> White evangelicals have drawn inspiration from the astonishing zeal and oratory of the eighteenth-century evangelist George Whitefield. We know little about his lobbying efforts to institute slavery in the colony of Georgia.<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[3]</span><br />
<br />
Moving forward in time, White evangelicals laud the most famous evangelist of the twentieth century, Billy Graham. If we know anything about his stance on racism, it is likely a triumphant narrative about how he desegregated his crusades (leaving aside the question of why they were segregated to begin with). Despite desegregating his crusades, Graham did not aid the civil rights movement. Worried that the movement threatened national unity and provided an opening for communism, Graham called for a more moderate course. When Martin Luther King wrote to Graham seeking his help in the battle against Jim Crow, Graham did not even respond. The task of brushing King's plea aside was left to one of Graham's lieutenants.<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[4]</span><br />
<br />
White evangelicals do not generally know these stories. In this forgetting there is more than institutional protection and group bias at work. In the dominant White evangelical imagination, all these stories, if they are recalled at all, do not touch upon the essence of these men or their ministries. As long as these giants of the faith preached repentance and salvation through Christ alone, they can be heroes. This unchristian narrowing of theological vision allows the bonds of Whiteness and nationalism to go unexamined in many evangelical circles. <br />
<br />
While White evangelicals venerate Moody and Whitefield and others, they erase from the story Christians who clung more faithfully to the Gospel. During these men's lifetimes fellow Christians were rebuking them for perverting the good news! These Christians believed, alike with Moody, that human beings are sinners in need of God's grace through Jesus Christ. But they also insisted on applying scripture to American society. We don't know the stories of those Christians or respect their theological insights because they were Black.<br />
<br />
During my years at Moody, I'm not aware of having been assigned to read any theologian of color. Though my theological training was distinctly White in its cultural orientation and value system, and the campus culture strongly nationalistic, I was taught that what I was learning was simply biblical Christianity. This is perhaps the central conceit of my evangelical heritage: that a faith so bound up in modern categories of race and nationalism is somehow an unmediated expression of "true" Christianity rooted in the early church of 2,000 years ago. <br />
<br />
This is the context in which we ought to read polls showing strong White evangelical support for Donald Trump. A new <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-maintains-lead-after-claiming-nomination-cbs-news-poll/">CBS poll</a> has Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 43% to 37% among all registered voters, while Trump leads among White evangelicals 62% to 17%.<br />
<br />
Trump is running the most aggressively anti-Christian campaign of our lifetimes, with execrable displays of racism, contempt for women, and disregard for refugees. He shows no concern for the poor. He directs his venom against the very groups God, according to the Christian scriptures, chooses to identify with. And when it comes to protecting the lives of unborn children, Trump seems even less sincere than the usual degree of insincerity from GOP politicians. <br />
<br />
Many White evangelicals are prepared to vote for Trump because they're heirs to a cultural and theological tradition that binds race and nation to faith. Trump may not offer a clean-cut portrait of Christian character, but he is surprisingly forthright in his White nationalism. It is a mistake to assume that Trump's irreligious persona doesn't carry a religious message. To make America great again, to restore America's racial hierarchy--these are <i>religious</i> goals of an idolatrous people.<br />
<br />
Many White evangelicals are still under the impression that America is a new chosen nation, like the Israelites of old. They still don't know that the biblical narrative of the Exodus offers America a closer parallel: the blasphemous enslavers, the Egyptians. Many White evangelicals still haven't discovered that scripture is <i>filled </i>with God's constant claims that he identifies with those society despises. They still haven't realized that God's compassion for the oppressed and wrath for the oppressor is not a message of comfort to White, Christian America, but of judgment.<br />
<br />
I know many White evangelicals who are too busy experiencing the grace
of God in their daily lives to be enthralled by White nationalism. They are building health clinics, adopting children,
running summer camps for poor children, raising scholarship funds to
send students of color to college, working against gun violence, and
living in poor communities as neighbors rather than gentrifiers. I know
well all the good evangelicalism can do.<br />
<br />
But we've seen, as well, the evil it can do when fused with political power and drained of the good news Jesus declared. In this extraordinary political season, I feel it is important to lay down a marker. The political "Christian right" is likely to follow Trump into the abyss. But many millions of Christians refuse to go there, and we insist that this so-called Christian political mobilization does not speak for us.<br />
<br />
We claim that White nationalist Christianity is a perversion of the Gospel, and we invite everyone to receive the message of our savior, who came preaching liberation rather than hatred:<br />
<br />
<span class="text Luke-4-18" id="en-NIV-25082"><span class="woj">“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,</span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Luke-4-18"><span class="woj">because he has anointed me</span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Luke-4-18"><span class="woj">to proclaim good news to the poor.</span></span></span><br />
<span class="text Luke-4-18"><span class="woj">He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners</span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Luke-4-18"><span class="woj">and recovery of sight for the blind,</span></span></span><br />
<span class="text Luke-4-18"><span class="woj">to set the oppressed free,</span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Luke-4-19" id="en-NIV-25083"><span class="woj"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span>to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Luke-4-19" id="en-NIV-25083"><span class="woj">_____________________</span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="text Luke-4-19" id="en-NIV-25083"><span class="woj">[1] My account of Moody relies on Edward J. Blum's excellent book, <i>Reforging the White Republic: Race, Religion, and American Nationalism, 1865-1898</i> (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press). See especially chapter 4. </span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="text Luke-4-19" id="en-NIV-25083"><span class="woj"><br /></span></span></span>
<span class="indent-1" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="text Luke-4-19" id="en-NIV-25083"><span class="woj">[2] See for example Richard A. Bailey, <i>Race and Redemption in Puritan New England </i>(New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). </span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="text Luke-4-19" id="en-NIV-25083"><span class="woj"><br /></span></span></span>
<span class="indent-1" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="text Luke-4-19" id="en-NIV-25083"><span class="woj">[3] Jessica M. Parr, <i>Inventing George Whitefield: Race, Revivalism, and the Making of a Religious Icon </i>(Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2015). </span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="text Luke-4-19" id="en-NIV-25083"><span class="woj"><br /></span></span></span>
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Luke-4-19" id="en-NIV-25083"><span class="woj"><span style="font-size: x-small;">[4] Curtis J. Evans, "White Evangelical Responses to the Civil Rights Movement," <i>The Harvard Theological Review</i> 102 (2009): 245-273. </span></span></span></span>Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-69362468594182736642016-06-03T21:10:00.001-04:002016-06-04T07:19:41.737-04:00Can Americans Dare to be Honest about Trump? In the spring of 1900, the populist demagogue Ben Tillman of South Carolina took to the floor of the United States Senate to glory in his state's recent violent return to White supremacist rule. Along the way, he prodded his northern colleagues for their hypocrisy. He claimed that they, alike with White southerners, would do whatever was necessary to maintain White supremacy:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We took the government away. We stuffed the ballot boxes. We shot them. We are not ashamed of it. The Senator from Wisconsin would have done the same thing. I see it in his eye right now. He would have done it...The brotherhood of man exists no longer, because you shoot negroes [<i>sic</i>] in Illinois, when they come in competition with your labor, as we shoot them in South Carolina when they come in competition with us in the matter of elections. You do not love them any better than we do."</blockquote>
As the United States rang in the twentieth century waging a brutal war of conquest against Filipino freedom fighters, a sitting U.S. senator could stand in the center of national power and boast of the murders that secured his political power.<br />
<br />
Nearly half a century later, much had changed. It was 1947, and the Senate was refusing to seat one of its recently reelected members. Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, a racist populist beloved by many Whites in his home state, was accused of obliquely urging his supporters to employ violence to ensure Blacks did not vote in the election. While the Senate dithered, Bilbo went home to Mississippi to die of cancer later that year.<br />
<br />
The racist violence that Tillman could boast of with impunity in the halls of national power at the beginning of the century had become, by mid-century, grounds to refuse a Senator his seat. Bilbo was disciplined for whispering in Mississippi what Tillman had shouted in Washington. In the aftermath of World War Two and the Holocaust, explicit racism was fast going out of style.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fJeVjT6dOwU/V1IrNUauU0I/AAAAAAAABI0/pdwE8DBvwiMd1rymiJ749yrdmur0XZRPACLcB/s1600/wallace.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fJeVjT6dOwU/V1IrNUauU0I/AAAAAAAABI0/pdwE8DBvwiMd1rymiJ749yrdmur0XZRPACLcB/s640/wallace.jpg" width="590" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">George Wallace: The face of the so-called "white backlash"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
By the height of the civil rights movement, southern senators were much more likely to resist civil rights legislation with defenses of a colorblind constitution than with claims of Black inferiority. They hastened to say that they desired opportunity for all, deplored violence, and merely wanted to uphold the American tradition of limited government. Even George Wallace, the man who is remembered as the embodiment of "white backlash" in the mid-to-late 1960s, often used rhetoric that was more temperate than we might assume. When he ventured north in 1964 and shocked the political establishment with his appeal to Democratic primary voters, he did so with tried and true conservative rhetoric. He warned, for example, of the "unnatural and unhealthy accumulation of power in the hands of an all-powerful central bureaucracy." Wallace certainly appealed to White racism, but he did so in terms that are familiar to us today.<br />
<br />
Why does all this matter now?<br />
<br />
There was a dramatic amount of racial change during the twentieth century, as the shifting rhetoric from Tillman to Bilbo to Wallace indicates. Much of this change was for the good, and the fortunes of people of color in the United States today are vastly different than a century ago.<br />
<br />
The problem is that a certain narrative about that change has become foundational to the story we tell ourselves about the nation. To mess with that narrative is to pick a fight with American exceptionalism. The narrative, in brief, is this: a church-based civil rights movement awakened America's moral conscience and the nation rose to fulfill its highest ideals. Racism as a potent political force was defeated, and Martin Luther King's dream is in reach if we focus on our common identity as Americans rather than emphasizing color. We now live in a society of broadly shared opportunity and racism is repudiated by the vast majority of Americans. <br />
<br />
What would happen if some sort of new political development occurred to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that this narrative is fundamentally flawed? What if something happened to demonstrate that racism still has enormous popular appeal? What if new developments strongly suggested that racism is politically potent? Would Americans reexamine the exculpatory story we've been telling ourselves for decades? Or would we choose the path of self-imposed confusion and denial? For many years I've guessed the latter path would be more likely. Now I know. <br />
<br />
With the emergence of Donald Trump as a political figure far more powerful than George Wallace ever was, we are witnessing a degree of explicit racism at the very center of national power that we have not seen in many decades. Trump's racist attacks this week against the judge in the Trump
University case are just the latest in his long line of racist activity
stretching back to the 1970s. To find an adequate precedent for Trump's racist appeals, we arguably need to go back prior to the civil rights era.<br />
<br />
What's remarkable about this is that whole swaths of the nation's institutions cannot even describe it. They are compelled to resort to euphemism and obfuscation. Politicians and pundits avoid using hard-edged words like racism not because they are inadequate descriptors of the matter at hand, but because, <i>a priori</i>, one simply doesn't describe contemporary America in this vein. To admit that Trump is running a racist campaign is to admit that America is not what we thought it was. It is to admit that progress has not been as easy, facile, or comprehensive as our national myths tell us. <br />
<br />
The reaction of America's media and political institutions to Trump shows just how powerful are narratives of racial progress. We've come to believe that a vast gulf separates contemporary White politics from the segregationist politics of the 1960s. Never-mind that the rhetoric and policy goals of these two movements separated by half a century are often almost indistinguishable. We simply declare this separation to be so rather than enacting it through the hard work of moral reflection and policy change. To engage in serious thought about the meaning of Trump's rise to power would call into question not only
these cherished racial progress narratives but the very meaning of the
nation, because that progress has been so woven into our sense of what
America means in the twenty-first century.<br />
<br />
Can Americans bring ourselves to be honest about Donald Trump? Can we recognize in his emergence another chapter in a long tradition of diseased White politics? This is the America we're living in. Trump is a disgrace, but he's our disgrace. Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-52806069655499911322016-05-24T11:31:00.001-04:002016-05-24T13:35:02.272-04:00What Trump's Rise Means for the Future of the CountrySeveral months ago, there was a lot of discussion about whether Trump's campaign was edging toward fascism. Trump's incitement of the crowd to violence at some of his rallies and his ethnocentric nationalism contributed to the sense that he represented something new and dangerous in American politics.<br />
<br />
But is it really <i>fascism</i>?<br />
<br />
Throwing the word around so easily is a reflection of how unfamiliar we are with the horror of organized political violence and ethnic nationalism. Read a book about Europe between the world wars. Or better, reflect on our own history.<br />
<br />
The practice of defining Americanness as Whiteness runs deep in American law and culture. And Whites often resorted to political violence to sustain this arrangement. During the Reconstruction era, whole states succumbed to paramilitary forces seeking the restoration of White rule. Call this fascism or something else; it was not a free country as you and I would ordinarily define it. During World War Two, African Americans launched a "Double V Campaign," seeking victory over what they saw as fascism at home and abroad. The civil rights movement achieved remarkable success in discrediting political violence and opening the way to multi-racial democracy. Unfortunately, there's now very little national memory of how White terrorism functioned politically in American history. So our unfamiliarity with fascist-like political movements is an indication both of how much has changed and of how much we have forgotten. <br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="" class="irc_mi iuUUk5tvW24o-pQOPx8XEepE" height="540" src="https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/naacp/worldwarii/Assets/24948u_enlarge.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0px;" width="505" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The NAACP compared the Jim Crow South to America's fascist enemies during World War Two</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Remembering our history compels us to move from the theoretical, "It could happen here," to the quite concrete, "It <i>has</i> happened here and could happen again."<br />
<br />
To be clear, Trump is not, at this stage, leading a fascist movement. Nor, in my judgment, is he ever likely to. But what is genuinely terrifying about Trump's emergence is that it shows the safeguards we thought our political system had built up are not there at all. Trump is so far beyond the pale, so manifestly unfit to exercise power, that the level of support he garners can be used to measure the health of our political system. The patient is more sick than we realized.<br />
<br />
It's not that Trump is a fascist; it's that if people can support Trump they can support anybody. We must bear in mind that all this is happening at a moment of relative
peace and prosperity. The economy is growing, unemployment is low, and
Americans benefit from governance that is more efficient, responsive,
and effective than in most of the world. Yet we're seeing the rise of a
dangerous nihilism, a pervasive sense that we need an "outsider" to come
in to Washington to blow things up. If Trump
is empowered now, how much worse will it be in a moment of genuine
economic crisis?<br />
<br />
Perhaps the key question is whether Trump will act as a vaccine for our political system, inoculating it against future demagogues, or as an accelerant, paving the way for a strongman ten or twenty years down the road to seize power. Much depends on whether or not Trump wins the election. The Republican Party's cowardly falling in line has made a close election likely, and a Trump win a possibility. <br />
<br />
My guess is that Trump will lose and that the worst possibilities inherent in his rise to power will be avoided. But the damage is nonetheless likely to be extensive and long-lasting. Trump will be both symptom and cause of a long-term degradation of our political institutions and civic fabric. In November, tens of millions of people will vote for him, a man who makes whole groups of Americans fear for their physical safety. In November, tens of millions of people will say to their fellow Americans, "we don't want you here." <br />
<br />
Americans are not natural lovers of liberty in a way that other people aren't. We don't magically correct our course toward our constitutional foundations. We simply have a set of institutions that have worked well and have proven remarkably durable. Donald Trump is an obvious threat to those institutions. And millions of people don't seem to care, because at least he'll "shake up the system."<br />
<br />
This is a dangerous state of mind. We must discard the assumption--at once complacent and utopian--that radical change will necessarily be for the better. Steering a course between the horrors of fascism and communism is not an
inevitable condition of American life but a hard-won achievement that
must be constantly maintained. Trump threatens that achievement. In staking out this ground, I find myself a truer conservative than many
of the self-styled "conservatives" of the Republican Party.<br />
<br />
Polling shows that White Americans have become deeply pessimistic about the future of the country. Whiteness does not deliver the wages it used to. The opening up of more opportunity for all is perceived by many Whites as an unfair reduction of their own position. Their resulting pessimism threatens to harden into an extremism that could power a figure worse than Trump to the presidency in the future. We must not accept the lazy belief that White pessimism is merely a function of economic hardship. Wage stagnation is real enough, but the most oppressed and economically desperate Americans have rejected Trump decisively. Most of them aren't feeling the Bern either. Instead, they're voting for the ultimate conventional politician: Hillary Clinton.<br />
<br />
They're not doing so because they're naive. They know better than many of us how oppressive the United States can be. But they also have cultural and institutional memory of how much worse it was, and how hard-fought and precarious are their gains. In this dangerous moment, preservation is as important as transformation. <br />
<br />
In this year when so many Americans seem to want radical change and a shattering of the "establishment," we would do well to remember that if we get our wish, picking up the pieces may not be as easy as we think. Conventional politics, with its moral compromises and frustrating incrementalism, can be infuriating. But it might be just what we need right now. Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-14146607310086416752016-05-15T08:01:00.000-04:002016-05-15T08:01:59.341-04:00The Inevitability of MemoryThe journalist David Rieff has a new book called<i> In Praise of Forgetting: Historical Memory and Its Ironie</i>s. In an intriguing <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2016/05/david_rieff_on_his_provocative_new_book_in_praise_of_forgetting.html#lf_comment=508514180">interview</a> about the book, Rieff says historical memory can be dangerous and a certain amount of forgetting is often more socially responsible. Here's the crux of his argument:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Today, and for quite some time, probably since the end of the Second
World War, the dominant view among decent people, good people, nice
people, has basically reflected the words of the American philosopher
George Santayana, who has said, “<a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/santayan/" target="_blank">Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”</a>
The view is that it’s moral to remember the past, and if we don’t
remember the past, as Santayana said, we’re going to repeat all its
horrors. And by extension, or by implication, it’s immoral to forget.
You have a kind of sacralization—a kind of memory of past horrors made
sacred. On two grounds: one moral, that to forget is to do the most profound
kind of injustice to those who suffered and those who died. And on the
other hand an empirical claim, which is that if people remember, they’re
less likely to either fall into the trap of these crimes, or be the
victim of them....<br />
<br />
What I’m saying is, there are examples—not a few, but quite a number of
examples—where remembering, far from leading to truth, justice, and
reconciliation, has led to more war. Three obvious examples of that are
the Balkans in the 1990s, where I was a correspondent; Northern Ireland,
for 30 years and, some people would say, for 800 years; and the Middle
East. And in all three of those cases it seems to me that invoking
history, invoking the wounds of the past, the crimes of the past, the
conflict of the past, has led to more bloodshed.</blockquote>
There are two claims here. First, Rieff is simply saying that we don't actually learn from history. Given humanity's capacity for death and destruction that's a plausible case to make, though I disagree with it. But what about his second claim? Would it really be better to forget troubled pasts?<br />
<br />
It seems to me that Rieff is making a philosophical point that has little application to the real world. It may well be true that it would be better if certain things could simply be forgotten. But how is this collective forgetting supposed to happen in the real world? Forgetting is not passive or natural. As
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Frames-Remembrance-Dynamics-Collective-Memory/dp/1412806836">Iwona Irwin-Zarecka</a> has written, “The absence of memory is just as socially
constructed as memory itself...when we speak of forgetting, we are speaking of
displacement (or replacement) of one version of the past by another." The call to forget is not a call to let nature take its course. It's a call to replace one kind of memory project with another. <br />
<br />
Remembering is not moral or immoral as much as it is inevitable. Societies are going to remember the past whether it is advisable to do so or not. As Rieff himself emphasizes, the past is fertile terrain for demagogues who seek to stir up animosities in the present. We can't contain such destructive forces by insisting on forgetfulness. Instead, we need to find usable pasts that can counter destructive memories. <br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="" class="irc_mi ioMhUeewWH8s-pQOPx8XEepE" height="393" src="http://bobleesays.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/08/gone-with-the-wind.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0px;" width="561" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">White supremacist memory at work: the <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm">highest-grossing film</a> of all time.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Rieff uses American memory of the Civil War as an example of the negative effects of remembering. He says,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I would
submit that the collective memory that existed in this country until
well into the 1960s of the war was actually a terrible version...So that it’s not as if we
have any guarantee that a society’s version of events, version of the
past, that is commemorated is going to be either accurate or moral.
Which again isn’t a reason to scrap memory, but is a reason to be more
skeptical and be less sure that it’s always “better to remember.” </blockquote>
This is obviously true, but it seems to cut against the point he's trying to make. The solution to White supremacist memory is not forgetting. It's better memory.<br />
<br />
Indeed, if American society somehow forgot slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction, the consequences could be dire. The material conditions and social relations resulting from those histories would still be with us, but we would be left without any understanding of what produced them. In such a vacuum racism might actually increase.<br />
<br />
This raises the deeper problem that forgetting poses. The most contentious issues of memory often involve pasts in which one group really did wrong another group, and the material results of those wrongs are often concrete, active, and ongoing. These are not abstractions. Telling indigenous people in the United States to forget genocide will not restore their sovereignty.<br />
<br />
So when we speak of remembering and forgetting, we cannot ignore present-day power relations. It is no coincidence that the descendants of perpetrators are often the most ardent advocates of forgetting. Rieff is certainly correct that memory can be used irresponsibly in the service of hate and grievance. It would be wrong, for example, if Armenians used the memory of genocide to promote political violence against Turks in the present. But the onus should be on the Turks to remember their crime, not on their victims to forget it. To say, as Reiff seems to edge close to saying, that this is all a kind of fiction, that no one living actually "remembers" these events and we should therefore focus instead on the present, raises the question of whether political and social collectivities across time actually even exist, or should exist.<br />
<br />
No one "remembers" the founding of the United States, yet we think of ourselves as Americans, and imagine that George Washington was an American too. Humans seem hard-wired to make group identities based on imagined shared pasts. Faced with this inevitability, the challenge is to remember what we have done to each other in the name of these identities, so that we might somehow transcend them in the recognition of our common creation in the image of God. Memory is inevitable. Peace-producing memory is a choice and must be continually constructed. It may be true that we will never learn, that we will go on killing each other. But if we don't remember well, it's a certainty.Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-92047037640462005282016-05-14T13:30:00.002-04:002016-05-14T13:39:10.717-04:00In Defense of Uncertainty"Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions."<br />
Proverbs 18:2 <br />
<br />
I read a lot of books this semester. That's what comprehensive exams are all about. So, what does all that reading do to you?<br />
<br />
I honestly think I feel less knowledgeable than ever before. Really, I feel profoundly ignorant.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oJqU3RFcXQY/VzdilJ2HNpI/AAAAAAAABH8/6aYR5FN5CGAEE7yPKRlfOmZWtu6YiCKpQCLcB/s1600/scott%2Bgif.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oJqU3RFcXQY/VzdilJ2HNpI/AAAAAAAABH8/6aYR5FN5CGAEE7yPKRlfOmZWtu6YiCKpQCLcB/s320/scott%2Bgif.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
In our most self-serving moments, we subconsciously assume that expertise in one field is infinitely transferable. We know a little about something and suddenly we think we know everything about everything. In our more realistic moments, trying to learn a lot about something mainly just reminds us of how little we know. <br />
<br />
This process is surprisingly unsettling. I used to have lots of opinions about lots of things, and I casually assumed those opinions were right. Well, ok, I still have lots of opinions. But now they're accompanied by all sorts of annoying questions. Questions like,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Wait a minute, why am I so sure about this?<br />
<br />
What are the opinions of people who have spent their lives studying this? <br />
<br />
How would my view of this change if I read 10 books about it? 100?<br />
<br />
What complexities am I missing because I haven't experienced the thing I'm opining about? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
How would I feel differently if the issue touched my closest friends or family members? </blockquote>
People often have strong opinions that are based on ignorance. That's not exactly news. But what's interesting is that ignorance hides itself. In the end, there's a sense in which we don't know what we don't know. People often have unfounded ideas about racism or American history, for example, but you won't hear them say, "I know my ideas go against the vast majority of people with experience or expertise on this subject, but I am sticking to my opinion." On the contrary, precisely because they are ignorant they don't know that their views contradict the evidence.<br />
<br />
Before I get up on my high horse, I would do well to remember that this is basically the same thing I try to do all the time. Now those annoying questions keep getting in the way and make me question what I think I know.<br />
<br />
I have opinions about climate change, pacifism, transgender rights, immigration law, ISIS, and even the Boxer Rebellion. They're all ignorant opinions. If this seems hard to admit, perhaps it's because we've become accustomed to thinking of ignorance as an insult to be lobbed against an opponent rather than a routine condition that affects us all. <br />
<br />
This is not a call for radical skepticism about our ability to know things that are true. Nor is it a call for self-imposed silence until we attain some imagined threshold of competence. Rather, it is a call to dialogue, to listen to each other with the expectation--rather than the fear--that in listening we will be changed.<br />
<br />
Indeed, the basic assumption that there is additional knowledge or experience that would change our thinking if we had access to it is a prerequisite for constructive conversation. We need to cultivate the capacity to be uncertain.<br />
<br />
It might seem strange to think of uncertainty as a skill to be cultivated, but it is precisely that. Abiding in uncertainty is uncomfortable. It strips us of our easy assumptions and continually confronts us with the possibility that we may be wrong. It is much easier to be certain. <br />
<br />
Social media rewards certainty. Strong and uncompromising opinions, baldly stated, are the currency of Twitter and Facebook. I've offered more than my fair share. And many of us have learned not to even try to have such conversations face to face. After all, if you and I are both so sure of ourselves, what is there to talk about? In the end, we'd rather change someone's mind than learn something new ourselves.<br />
<br />
So yeah, I'm done with comps. I feel pretty ignorant. I feel uncertain. Maybe trying to make myself at home here wouldn't be such a bad idea. Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-67040774747358773452016-05-05T09:13:00.001-04:002016-05-05T11:55:51.988-04:00The First Black President and the Self-Destruction of A Great American Political PartyIn the day to day news cycle it's easy to lose sight of the big picture. As much as we talk about race in the era of the first Black president, we're often talking about the trees while failing to see the forest. Historians are likely to put race at the center of the story of Obama's presidency in a way that we haven't. Though we invoke race constantly in the current political environment, the broader contours of change and significance are obscured by our inability to think beyond the week's headlines. Historians will take a longer view, and a different story will emerge:<br />
<br />
<b>In response to the election of the nation's first Black president, one of America's two great political parties nearly destroyed itself. </b><br />
<br />
Right now, in the rush and confusion of events, it is hard to sort out what caused what, and what is truly important as opposed to what is merely interesting. What might seem like coincidence to us will, with the passage of time, begin to look like a clear causal chain of events:<br />
<br />
<b>After eight years of the nation's first Black administration, the opposing party nominated the first explicitly racist candidate in modern American history. </b><br />
<br />
We might like to think of this as a coincidence, but the early evidence indicates that Trump's racism is a decisive factor in his popularity.* This is a big, big story. Indeed, it's so big and so explosive and so incriminating of millions of Americans that we're not even willing to be honest about it right now. But it's the story our grandkids are likely to know.<br />
<br />
Now, historians are not fond of single-cause explanations. Big changes come about through literally thousands of variables that are all but impossible to untangle. History is complex. But as we try to make sense of the past and as we create the stories we tell each other about our national history, we do pick out a few factors that seem more decisive than others. Historians will have plenty of space for the Iraq War, the financial crisis, and broader trends in media and culture. But race is going to be at the center of this story in ways we haven't really begun to fathom.<br />
<br />
Think about how this story will go.<br />
<br />
The election of the nation's first Black president was accompanied by a widespread sense of hope and possibility. There was much talk about the arrival of a post-racial moment. Millions of Whites appeared to feel that they were exorcising racial guilt in the act of voting for a Black president. Amid the heady days of hope and change, others watched and wondered if there would be a backlash, and what form it might take.<br />
<br />
The backlash arrived along two tracks. <br />
<br />
First, the enormously popular right-wing subculture of talk radio, bolstered by the internet and Fox News, began to coalesce around a conspiratorial and racist narrative about Obama. The impression of Americans caught in this echo chamber was that President Obama was a foreign, dangerous, radical figure. "Let's face it, Obama's black," Rush Limbaugh memorably commiserated with his audience. Because of his Blackness, Obama had "a chip on his shoulder" and was intent on destroying the foundations of the country. Dinesh D'Souza's popular documentary, <i>2016: Obama's America</i>, aptly expressed this sensibility. The film's tone of evidence-free accusation captured in stark form the growing force of a racist subculture so given to conspiracy that it was unable to reason about the world that actually existed. Though Obama was a technocratic liberal positioned comfortably in the American political tradition, in the right-wing echo chamber he had become known as the destroyer of White, Christian America.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="" class="irc_mi iIZQITyQU_Xg-pQOPx8XEepE" src="http://dcclothesline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/tea_party_tax_day_protest_2010.jpg" height="393" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0px;" width="524" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Tea Party protest often mixed economic concerns with racial panic.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The birther movement distilled and supercharged all this paranoia. Conspiracies about Obama's background took in a range of people--from partisans who didn't <i>really</i> believe it, to ordinary people who simply didn't know any better. But at its core, the movement was driven forward by the racist notion that the nation's first Black president was fundamentally un-American. It's difficult to remember now, but the movement was embraced by a <i>majority</i> of Republicans, and few Republican politicians were willing to condemn it. Faced with an upsurge of racism from their base, the most powerful Republican politicians categorically refused to tell their voters the truth about the nation's first Black president.<br />
<br />
At the center of the birther movement stood its most famous provocateur: Donald Trump. When President Obama finally released his long-form birth certificate in the summer of 2011, it was in direct response to the continued provocations and accusations of Donald Trump. After Obama released the birth certificate, Trump held a press conference to claim victory. "I feel I've accomplished something very very important," he declared. Through the birther movement, Trump transitioned from a cultural celebrity to a political figure. As a result of Trump's newfound stature, Mitt Romney sought and received his endorsement in 2012.<br />
<br />
When Donald Trump leveraged his birther-infused political stature into a run for the Republican nomination last year, most observers thought it was a joke. But they had failed to grapple with the extent to which racism had consumed whole swaths of the right-wing. And political scientists didn't realize how hollowed-out the party power structure was. Racists like Rush Limbaugh had been praised by party leaders for decades. Leading Republicans greeted the absurd birther movement with the equivalent of an indulging pat on the head rather than the swift and sure condemnation it deserved. And so Trump took over a party that had unwittingly prepared itself for him.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TPMeYNLobUg/VytFqQ-FGWI/AAAAAAAABHo/xXTZ1JUuY4M84N3o90gBVpBNgM7S8NQjwCLcB/s1600/prri%2Bsurvey.jpe" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TPMeYNLobUg/VytFqQ-FGWI/AAAAAAAABHo/xXTZ1JUuY4M84N3o90gBVpBNgM7S8NQjwCLcB/s640/prri%2Bsurvey.jpe" width="600" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">By 2015, fantastical beliefs and racial resentment were routine among Republicans.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
At the same time, the backlash to the nation's first Black president had proceeded along a less visible but perhaps more consequential line. The elections of 2008 and 2012 were historic not only because of who they elected, but because of who had voted. For the first time, Black voter participation matched, and then exceeded, White voter participation. As a result, a Republican discourse about voter fraud that had been growing since the close 2000 election suddenly exploded in a new onslaught of anti-democratic (small d) sentiment. Faced with unprecedented participation from Democratic constituencies, leading Republican intellectuals and politicians invented new concerns about voter fraud and spread lies about its existence. Republican-led state governments all over the country began to pass new laws designed to make it harder for Democrats to vote.<br />
<br />
In 2013 this racist backlash reached the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority struck down a major part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the crowning legislative achievement of the civil rights movement. In the years after that decision, states passed even more restrictive laws. It could not be emphasized enough that the new discourse about voter fraud was an invention designed to put a thin veneer of justification on the GOP's partisan vote-suppression. During these years, a sprinkling of Republican politicians kept going off message and admitting publicly the purpose of the new laws. But the vast majority of the party's leaders continued to lie with a straight face in support of their turn to institutional racism. The most overlooked story of the Obama years was the Republican Party's attempt to make the nation's electoral system a little more like Jim Crow and a little less like democracy. <br />
<br />
By the spring of 2016, the Republican Party's nomination of an explicitly racist man had stirred much controversy, but the Party's quieter turn to institutional racism met with almost no internal resistance. Eight years after the election of the nation's first Black president, one of the nation's great political parties had been captured by the very worst parts of the American political tradition. In just eight years, a great American Party with a long and proud tradition of accomplishment had come to the doorstep of self-destruction. <br />
<br />
_______________________________<br />
*There will continue to be much debate about the nature of Trump's appeal to his voters. The more comprehensive perspective that the passage of time allows will solve much of this, but for now I'll just point out that the evidence is strong that racism is at the core of Trump's appeal. He is running as a White nationalist. His explicitly racist statements, refusal to disavow the Klan, and his retweeting of White supremacists have not been sidebars to his campaign. On the contrary, this racism has functioned as a decisive signal of group affinity. In a way no other political action could, Trump's racist rhetoric and actions established a cement-like bond to his voters, assuring them that he is on their side. This is not conjecture. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/03/how-political-science-helps-explain-the-rise-of-trump-the-role-of-white-identity-and-grievances/">The data are pretty clear</a>. And lest we think this is all about economics in the end, it turns out that Trump's core voters are <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/"><i>wealthier</i></a> than most Americans.Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707924688937069498.post-35023052119760646172016-05-03T21:04:00.002-04:002016-05-04T07:13:16.307-04:00The Coming Rehabilitation of Donald TrumpDonald Trump is the Republican nominee for President.<br />
<br />
Cue the even-handed media coverage, the trappings of party power, and the coalescing of most of the Republican Party around its nominee. Cue the rehabilitation of Donald Trump. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2pQdjbk1kGU/VylLtZCZ7qI/AAAAAAAABHU/Kfznj0wWe_sqvw-cwsB_v3oL_2dTUEwfQCLcB/s1600/trump.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2pQdjbk1kGU/VylLtZCZ7qI/AAAAAAAABHU/Kfznj0wWe_sqvw-cwsB_v3oL_2dTUEwfQCLcB/s640/trump.png" width="600" /></a></div>
The major responsibility of decent people now is to not become accustomed to this. It is shocking. It is disgraceful. It will still be shocking and disgraceful after most of the Republican Party endorses him and votes for him in November. When a Republican figure you respect endorses Trump, it doesn't mean Trump is more respectable than you thought. It means that ordinary Republican leaders are not the decent people you thought they were.<br />
<br />
Trump is not going to win the presidency, because the same qualities that made him so appealing to some Republicans will cause most Americans to reject him. <br />
<br />
Trump is a misogynistic brute.<br />
<br />
Trump is a racist.<br />
<br />
Trump is a religious bigot.<br />
<br />
Trump is a liar.<br />
<br />
Trump is a fool.<br />
<br />
He won because of these qualities. The GOP couldn't stop Trump because the other candidates wanted to reach the same bigoted and ignorant voters Trump is reaching. The Party has gotten the nominee it deserves.<br />
<br />
The Democrats are a flawed but functioning party. And because they're a party that has room for women, for Muslims, for black and brown people, the Democrats will save the country. It is disgraceful and shocking and demeaning to all of us that this contest even has to take place.<br />
<br />
This is not just an interesting campaign season. This is a "Grandpa did you speak out when--" moment. So, here I am, for the record. Jesse Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06180727194238153944noreply@blogger.com0