Trump's legal memo a recipe for tyranny

The memo in question is really two separate memos:   one was written last June 2017;  the later one was in January 2018.   The lawyers signing the memo are Jay Sekulow and John Dowd -- so it doesn't involve his current two leading lawyers:    Emmett Flood and Rudy Giuliani, which raises the question of why release it now?   And does it still represent the team's legal thinking?

For what it's worth, though, here are some main points from the combined memos, which may or may not still be considered significant by the Trump team.   Conventional wisdom among journalists following this closely seems to be coming down in favor of it having been leaked by the Trump team itself because they want to put these issues out there in the "court of public opinion."

That fits with what seems to be Giuliani's role:   going on TV and spinning the news to sway public opinion to discredit the Mueller investigation and question any report that results from the investigation.

As one tv commentator said on Sunday:  the purpose seems to be to get this all out into the public arena;   get any anger about it out now, so that when something big happens later on, people will already be fed up with the controversy and won't care.

So what are the take-away points from the memo?    This is based on MSNBC news programs with various legal guests who gave opinions about legal questions.

1.    The document acknowledges that President Trump played a major part in crafting the press release put out as he was flying back from Europe just after the story had broken about the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower with the Russians promising "dirt on Hillary Clinton."   The PR release was put out in Don, Jr.'s name, and it said that the meeting was primarily about adoption of Russian children.
     Thus, we have an admission of an untruth being told by the president, although experts think there may be wiggle room, given that he was not in the room and was going on what others told him.    But then he throws them under the bus if they lied to him.

2.  The document, according to a range of legal expertsd, including Lawrence Tribe, is written in language and using such specious argument that it obviously was not written by top legal thinkers.   For example, it asserts outmoded interpretations of some issues that have since been overruled by the courts.
     My thought about that is that, yes, they many not be the top legal minds;  but it also may be true that, in this case, there just is not a good legal case to be made, so they fall back on half-baked, outmoded reasoning.

3.  The overall thrust of the argument is a very expansive presidential power that would essentially make the president a king.    This includes:
     a.  The assertion that a president cannot commit obstruction of justice because he has the power to put an end to any case, for any reason or for no reason, since he is in charge of the entire justice system.
     b.  The assertion that a president cannot be forced to testify under subpoena because he can just put an end to the case (see a).
     c.  Rudy Giuliani has added to these his own interpretation that asserts that the president "probably" could pardon himself.  He did acknowledge that it would probably lead to impeachment if he did;  and, by the way, he's not going to do that.
      So the sum and substance of the Trump team's interpretation is that he has no legal jeopardy, because essentially the president is above the law.   In fact, it's only a small stretch to say that he is the law.   If that's what the Founding Fathers intended, why did they bother to fight a war to become independent from King George III? 

*     *     *     *     *

Here's how Matthew Iglesias reported the matter for Vox.com:
     "Essentially all presidents sooner or later end up commissioning lawyers to put forward an expansive view of presidential power, but those lawyers take pains to argue that they are not making the case for a totally unchecked executive whose existence would pose a fundamental threat to American values.

"Donald Trump, however, is a different kind of president.

"In a 20-page memo written by Trump's legal team . . . they make an unusually frank case for a tyrannical interpretation of presidential power.

"The key passage in the memo is one in which Trump's lawyers argue that not only was there nothing shady going on when FBI Director James Comey got fired, there isn't even any potential shadiness to investigate because the president is allowed to be as shady as he wants to be when it comes to overseeing federal law enforcement.   He can fire whoever he wants.   Shut down any investigation or open up a new one. . . . 

"This is a particularly extreme version of the "unitary executive" doctrine that conservative legal scholars sometimes appeal to . . . drawing on the notion that the executive branch of government -- including the federal police agencies and federal prosecutors -- are a single entity personified by the president.

"But to push that logic into this terrain would not only give the president casrte blanche to persecute his enemies but essentially vitiate the idea that there are any enforceable laws at all.

"Consider that if the memo is correct, there would be nothing wrong with Trump setting up a booth somewhere in Washington, DC where wealthy individuals could hand checks to Trump, and in exchange, Trump would make whatever federal legal trouble they are in go away.   You could call it 'The Trump Hotel' or maybe bundle a room to stay in along with the legal impunity.

"Having cut your check, you'd then have carte blanche to commit bank fraud or dump toxic waste in violation of the Clean Water Act or whatever else you want to do.  Tony Soprano could get the feds off his case, and so could the perpetrators of the next Enron fraud or whatever else.

"Perhaps most egregiously, since Washington, DC isn't a state, all criminal law here is federal criminal law, so the president could have his staff murder opposition party senators and inconvenient judges and then block any investigation into what's happening.

"Of course, as the memo notes, to an extent this kind of power to undermine the rule of law already exists in the form of the essentially unlimited pardon power. . . .  Trump has started using the power abusively and capriciously early in his tenure in office in a disturbing way, but has not yet tried to pardon his way out of the Russia investigation in part because there is one important limit on the pardon power -- you have to do it in public.   The only check on pardons is political, but the political check is quite real . . .  and the new theory that Trump can simply make whole investigations vanish would eliminate it.

"Much of the argument about Trump and the rule of law has focused rather narrowly on the particular case of Comey's firing and the potential future dismissal of Robert Mueller.

"These are important questions, in the sense that an FBI Director is an important person and a special counsel investigation is an important matter;  but the memo is a reminder that they offer much too narrow a view of what the real extent of the problem is here.

"One of the main purposes of the government is to protect the weak from exploitation at the hands of the strong by making certain forms of misconduct illegal.  Trump's assertion that he can simply waive-away investigations into misconduct because he is worried that the investigation might end badly for his friends or family members is toxic to the entire scheme.   Trump, like most presidents, has plenty of rich and powerful friends and a much longer list of rich and powerful people who would like to be his friends.

"If he really does have the power to just make anyone's legal trouble go away because he happens to feel likt it, then we're all in a world of trouble."

*     *     *     *     *

All in all, the Trump lawyers' memo is a poorly reasoned, unlawyerly document.  But those aren't the lawyers in charge now.   It will probably become clear eventually why they leaked it now -- to get rid of it?   or to desensitize the public to its eventual use?    But that is really a more interesting question to me than the substance of the document, which seems patently unsupportable in a Supreme Court argument.

We don't know what position on any of this Trump's new lawyer Emmett Flood is taking, because he has made no public statements, either written or oral.   Giuliani's role has become clear;   he is the "tv lawyer" who goes on air daily to create chaos, give out mixed messages, and generally to keep people talking about it but without any clarity or closure.  If there is a strategy to this, they hope, by creating such confusion and doubt, that when Mueller's damning report comes out, people will not know whether to believe it and will just shrug it off.

Ralph

A few days break

ShrinkRap will be taking a few days break.    Let's say expect the next posting to be on Monday, although it's possible some Trumpism will compel me to break silence before then.

Ralph

Gowdy clears FBI -- says so on Fox News

When Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein placated Devin Nunes, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, by arranging a special meeting for him to view the documents related to the FBI "informant" -- whom Trump insists on referring to as an embedded spy -- Nunes brought along with him his legal mind,  Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) so he could understand what he was seeing.

Well, that meeting was held, and we haven't heard much from Nunes since then.   But now Gowdy has spoken out, telling an interviewer on Fox News that:   "I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got."   He was also careful to point out that the information had nothing to do with President Trump himself.

This makes Gowdy the first, and so far the only, Republican to refute the false claims Trump likes to expand on at his campaign rallies -- insisting that his campaign was "infiltrated" by "spies" by his opponents.   Trump has only racheted up his attacks on the whole Mueller investigation, the Justice Department, and the FBI.    His latest is a bold statement reiterating his wish that he had not appointed Jeff Sessions to be his Attorney General.

I do believe that Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chair of the House Government Operations and Oversight Committee, has  maintained some of the moral compass that his fellow Republicans, especially Devin Nunes and Paul Ryan, lack.   Gowdy remains the investigating attorney he was before he came to Congress -- and now he's retiring back to that life, saying that the courtroom suits him better than Congress.

He can be over-bearing and border on cruelty, as when he conducted the 11 hours hearing of Hillary Clinton's testimony about the Benghazi raid.   But all in all, he seems like one of the rare Republicans these days who has retained any ethical or moral core.   He's one I'm sorry to see go, because I think, in the end, he does put the law first.

Ralph

Democrats may be in for surprise in 2018

This op-ed was written by former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough who now co-hosts "Morning Joe" on MSNBC     It's a warning to Democrats not to get too complacent about prospects in the November midterm elections.   I think the editorial, published in the Washington Post, is worth reading in full.

*     *     *     *     *

"Democrats May Be In For a Surprise in 2018"

by Joe Scarborough

"The Republican Party's dance with President Trump has long been marked by fits and starts.   And for much of that troubled relationship, it has been hard to grasp why so many conservatives would sell their political souls to a man who wallows in racist stereotypes, questions federal judges' legitimacy, flogs the free press, undermines Madison's constitutional norms, declares war on America's intelligence community, and attacks Justice Department and FBI leaders he appointed for refusing to kill special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation.  With the GOP's midterm campaign pitch coming more clearly into focus, we may be starting to get our answer.

"Proving just how cynical swampland politics can be, most of the Republican politicians and lobbyists debasing themselves daily for Trump once treated the reality-TV star with open contempt. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) declared a Trump comment to be a “textbook” example of racism before quickly endorsing him. Mike Pence told friends and political allies that the New York billionaire was an unacceptable Republican nominee before eagerly accepting a spot on Trump’s ticket. And craven conservatives who once blasted 'Morning Joe' for giving presidential candidate Trump airtime now attack us for criticizing President Trump’s White House antics.

"Few things in politics are black and white, but for members of Lincoln’s party, opposing Trump should have been one of them. On Dec. 7, 2015, the former Democratic donor called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States . . . . ” For me, that was it. Who could, after all, vote for a politician who wanted to ban 1.5 billion souls from the United States because of their religious faith? Not me. The fact that Republicans such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Ryan still support Trump reveals more about their character than mine.

"Even after his calling for a Muslim ban in 2015, professing ignorance of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in 2016, defending white supremacists in 2017 and calling out Hispanic “breeding” in April, Trump still enjoys steadfast support among most Capitol Hill Republicans. Many GOP politicians are so affected by his corrupting influence that they forced the Justice Department and the FBI to expose a source  while desperately trying to derail the government’s investigation into Russian attacks on America’s democracy.

"Good luck explaining that to your grandkids, Speaker Ryan.

"For much of Trump’s reign over Republicans, party members got little more from their dance with The Donald than a Supreme Court appointment. But as Trump careens toward his first midterm test in November, Democrats should understand that they are in for a fight. The blundering billionaire has actually begun to fill his political trophy case with victories sure to inspire the conservative base.
Republican candidates justifying their support for a man who lies about payoffs to porn stars, lies about policies that rip infants from their mothers’ arms and lies about the existence of White House staffers speaking on his own behalf now have more than Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to justify their devotion to the 'carnage' president.

For starters, they can point to Trump’s conservative judicial nominees beyond Gorsuch as cause for celebration. But their talking points can also include massive tax cuts, a bigger military budget, regulatory reform and the gutting of the Environmental Protection Agency. Other wedge-issue winners include the planned withdrawal from the Paris climate accords, scrapping of the Iran nucletar deal, undermining Obamacare, moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, attacking federal employee unions and promoting extreme immigration policies. 

"Add to that the mocking of political correctness and identity politics, and you have a platform sure to inspire the activists who drive today’s Republican Party.
While many of these policies will drive up the federal debt and diminish U.S. power across the globe, and will likely be reversed by a stroke of his successor’s pen, Trump’s list of 'accomplishments' are scratching an ideological itch that establishment Republicans could never reach. This is, of course, because many of his moves will prove to be disastrous in short order. But Trump is not concerned with history’s judgment. He simply wants to stay out of jail and complete his first term.

"Keeping control of Congress after the midterms may allow the president to achieve those modest goals. But the question Democrats should be asking themselves today is whether Trump’s expanding populist checklist will energize the conservative base in November enough to keep his congressional handmaidens in charge. Unless Democrats find their voice and an alternative to Trump’s bleak agenda, his pathetic populist shtick just may do the trick this fall."

*     *     *     *     *

Yes, Democrats have lots of women running who've never been in politics before;  they have some very good, enthusiastic candidates, both men and women.  And Republicans are dropping out like flies in late Summer.   But they've still got the gerrymandering in many crucial states, and the Dems have more empty seats to fill.    So we cannot afford to become complacent -- especially given how much money the Reublicans plan to scatter all over the land.

Vote.   Get someone else to vote, too.

Ralph

Is Jesus really a Republican?

Friends, I did not expect to be writing a second -- and then certainly not a third -- post on evangelical religion and Republican politics.   I wrote the first one on Pew Research polling;   and then the second one, about an opposing group, fell into my lap.   Thinking I was through with the subject for now, I got up Monday morning and found the lead, front-page article in the New York Times proclaiming:   "An Evangelical Fights to Make California Red."

That "evangelical," deemed worthy of the Times #1 news spot, is none other than the Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of the long-time, non-partisan, unofficial "pastor to presidents," the Rev. Billy Graham.   But Franklin is cut from different evangelical cloth than his father Billy.    Founder and chairman of the international humanitarian "Samaritan's Purse," you might think that Franklin had absorbed the social gospel message of Jesus -- and that he would be on the other side, if he took a partisan position.

Not so.   He is a big supporter of Donald Trump, despite his lurid personal past and despite what many people consider his "un-Christian" positions on aid for the needy and suffering humanity.   Because of all the furor about the Russians hacking and its effect on the election, we don't hear much about the fact that Franklin Graham led rallies in all 50 state capitals;   and he did directly encourage people to vote for Donald Trump.

Graham claims not to tell people which party to vote for, but he unabashedly embraces taking political stands and advocating for particular candidates who support the issues he supports -- which all seem to be Republicans.  His immediate goal in tackling the blue state of California is to prevent Democrats from taking control of the U.S. House -- to "ensure that Republican Kevin McCarthy becomes Speaker of the House, not Democrat Nancy Pelosi" (both Californians).

While California is considered the "bluest of the blue" states, Graham points to pockets of red in areas like Orange County around Los Angeles.   He wants to strengthen those and encourage voters to go to the polls and not assume they can't win.   He wants them to begin by electing school boards and local office holders like mayors.  "'Can you imagine if your school boards were controlled by evangelical Christians?,' he asked a group of pastors . . . a not so subtle reference to . . . California's new sex education curriculum, which includes lessons on LGBT sexuality."

Meeting in the locker room of the Rose Bowl with a group of fellow evangelists, pastors, and big donors, Graham scoffed at the idea of California as the "blue wall" in politics.   "Progressive?   That's just another word for godless,"  he told the crowd.

Graham added that now is the time for churches to "suck it up" and vote.  I think what he's implying is that evangelicals should just ignore the lack of morality in Donald Trump's life and in his policies, because getting conservative judges confirmed, anti-abortion laws passed, and "religious liberty" rights enshrined in judicial code are more important.

Not all evangelical ministers agree with Graham's political pragmatism.   Daniel Balcombe, pastor of one California church, turned down an organizer's request to hold a rally at his church.   A registered Republican himself, Balcombe said, "No, he's too politically toxic."

And then Balcombe told the reporter about one of the members of his church who is a refugee from a Muslim-majority country that came under the Trump travel ban.   He told about the sitting in his office with the man, "and we are praying and weeping:  how can we get this guy's family here?    I feel so isolated, not by the political world, but even within my own evangelical world," he said.

Mr. Balcombe may not be as isolated as he feels.   The Times article also mentioned the evangelical powerhouse Rick Warren, who hosted a presidential election forum between Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008.    Today, he "largely avoids the political conversation, especially if it involves Mr. Trump."

It's going to be interesting to see how far these pro-Trump evangelicals can stretch their pragmatism.   What if Mueller finds that Trump really did conspire with the Russians to throw him the election?     What if they find that he is as corrupt financially as we're beginning to see evidence suggesting?    Money laundering also seems pretty likely, given the kind of people he dealt with.   What about bribery and extortion that allegedly are currently going on now with him in the Oval Office?    Is that going too far for pro-Trump evangelicals?

Are there any limits to how far you'd go to sell our your moral principles in order to gain the power to impose your will on others?

Ralph

Conflict among white evangelicals: Is it the Gospel of Jesus? Or Gospel of Trump?

This is the follow-up to yesterday's blog about the growing conflict among White Evangelical voters who support Trump, even as his policies move further and further away from Christian teachings, especially Jesus' values of:   love, compassion, caring for the sick and needy, taking in the homeless -- all embodied in the"social justice" and equal rights movement.

Even some of the most prominent leaders among White Evangelicals in the past have stuck with Trump, forging a strong bond and delivering their votes to Trump.   Jerry Falwell, Jr., son of Jerry Falwell who founded Liberty University, is one of the most prominent and strongest supporters of Trump.

An opposing group call themselves the Red Letter Christians, based on the practice in some editions of the Bible of printing words actually spoken by Jesus in red ink.

Laurie Goodstein published an article in the New York Times on 5/23/18 titled, "This Is Not God:   When Anti-Trump Evangelicals Confront Their Brethren."  She tells about a preacher of the Red Letter group, who "preaches the Gospel, lives among the poor and befriends prisoners on death row, modeling his ministry on the life of Jesus."

It seems that this same Rev. Shane Claiborne had made plans to bring a group of his national network of Red Letter Christians to Lynchberg, Virginia for a revival meeting.

The problem arose that Lynchberg is the home of Liberty University.  It's current president, the Rev. Jerry Fallwell, Jr. is recognized as having forged the bond between Donald Trump and the mainstream White Evangelicals, about 80% of whom voted for him.    Trump gave the commencement address at Liberty U. last year.   You might say that Liberty U. and Lynchberg are the capitol of the Evangelicals-for-Trump movement.

Liberty University is a predominant force in White Evangelical Christianity (WEC), which played perhaps the major role that cemented the tie between Trump and the WEC group as a political force.    Liberty University and its president Falwell, Jr. both also wield power in Lynchberg.  The night before the revival was to begin, Rev. Claiborne received a letter from the Chief of Police at Liberty University warning him that, if he set foot on the campus property, he would be arrested for trespassing and face up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

Needless to say, the Trump-Falwell group also holds tremendous power through its dominance of the conservative national television audience through Fox News, Fox and Friends, and Sean Hannity.

The Claibornes and the Red Letter Christians do not align neatly with either political party;  but, according to Laurie Goldstein and the Times, "they have fierce moral and theological objections to those evangelicals who have latched onto Mr. Trump and the Republican Party."    The idea of a preaching revival in their backyard was to wake them up to what the Red Letter Christians feel is "selling out the faith. . . .  A number of bereaved, eminent elders plan a procession to the White House soon to hand over their manifesto, "Reclaiming Jesus:  A Confession of Faith in a Time of Crisis."

The manifesto sounds even less effective than trying to take on Liberty University and its college town.    Goldstein concludes:   "The loudest voices and institutional power and money are with Mr. Trump;   the dissenters are fired-up, underfunded and scattered;  and the vast majority of pastors are silent for fear of dividing their congregations or risking their jobs."

There is another figure in the Red Letter Christian group, however, who seems more practical, its Executive Director Don Golden, who has both executive experience as well as having done refugee and missionary work in 70 countries for another evangelical organization.

He worked out a compromise in Lynchberg -- or, rather, he got his Red Letter group to just postpone any confrontation with the Liberty University/Trump crowd.   It just sounds to me like capitulation. 

Finding a few supporters of the Red Letter cause among faculty of Liberty University, they met privately and decided not to alienate the more powerful university and its supporters for the time being but to work to strengthen the bonds they do have.   "We need to break out of our silos." one supporter said;  but the crowds didn't materialize.   Rather than a confrontation, they decided to settle for a symbolic gesture.

Reasoning that the police would not dare arrest an elderly man, they chose the 83 year old Rev. Tony Campolo, co-founder of the Red Letter Christians, to enter the  campus church and deliver a red box to the bewildered receptionist.   Inside, the box, tied with a ribbon, was a stack of prayers, written on index cards, from the participants of the revival.

"Dear Liberty, I am praying for your campus," said one.  "The Jesus in the Bible speaks of love and acceptance.   I hope you learn to speak of this too."

*     *      *

If all the Red Letter Christians accomplished was this little gesture of prayer cards and reminding these power-mad politicians of what they very well know -- and have chosen to reject in favor of power and money and control -- then they're forgetting the real power of social activism.   Or at least they do not have the courage to become activists.

The Falwell faction seems to have abandoned what I consider the most powerful teachings of Jesus -- the morality of how you treat other people and how you live as part of a community.

I agree that the Falwell-Trump connection is all a little bewildering.  For Trump, I think it's purely exploitation for votes.   But what's in it for the Falwells?  My only explanation is one I've fallen back on before:  evidence is mounting by the week that anyone who becomes involved with Donald Trump winds up becoming corrupt, smeared, and incoherent.

It seems to be happening to White, Evangelical Christians too.

Ralph

Have white, protestant, evangelical Christians lost their religious values?

The Pew Research Center did a poll, asking whether the United States has an obligation to take in refugees.    Data was collected and sorted to compare results by age, race, education level, religious affiliation, etc.

Results, as reported by Hannah Hartig for the Pew Center showed that the deep division among Americans on this question has only grown wider.   While overall  51% of Americans say we do have a responsibility to take in refugees, 43% say we do not.

However, when broken down by political parties, the division is stark:    26% of Republicans say No;  74% of Democrats say Yes.    The 26% of Republicans who say No has dropped from 35% shortly after Trump took office.  It was likely an even bigger drop from before the 2016 campaign, where immigration was such an emphasis by Trump.

The more conservative the respondent, the less likely they are to feel a responsibility toward refugees;   the more liberal, the more likely to feel responsible.

The one finding that does not makes sense to me is what seems a reverse correlation to a certain religious group.    Of all the demographic subcategories measured (age, gender, race, education level, religion) the group with the lowest feeling of obligation to take in refugees is white, evangelical protestants, of whom 25% say Yes -- and 68% say No.

For comparison:

   YES      NO
    51%     43%      Total
     
    48%    46%      Men
    54%     40%     Women

    46%     48%     White
    67%     23%     Black
    59%     34%     Hispanic

    61%     33%      Age 18-29
    51%     44%      Age 30-49
    51%     46%      Age 50-64
    43%     48%     Age 65+

    71%     26%     Postgrad ed.
    63%    32%     College grad
    49%    45%     Some college
    43%    50%     HS or less

    25%    68%     White evangelical protestants
    43%    50%     White mainline protestants
    63%    28%     Black protestants
    50%    45%     Catholic
    65%     31%    Unaffilited

So we see that those who profess no affiliation with a religion have the highest obligation toward refugees in the religion category, while one subset -- who presumably follow the teachings of Jesus, white evangelical protestants, feel the lowest obligation.   On the other hand, black protestants, blacks in general, as well as those with higher educational levels, have roughly the same high sense of obligation to refugees as do those not affiliated with a religion.   Mainline white protestants (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, liberal Methodist groups) and catholics  are somewhere in between.

The only conclusions I can draw from all this are:   (1)  that political party politics trumps morality;   and (2) that nominal religious affiliation does not tell us much about a person's moral sense -- not as much as education level, race and ethnicity.

Perhaps another way of saying it is really a criticism of these demographic categories in polling:   Maybe it's a fallacy to simply ask for religious affiliation category, as though a devout believer and practitioner of a faith is the same as someone who once joined and "belongs" in name only.

But, on the other hand, the reason we talk about the "white evangelical protestants" is because of their fervid influence in politics, both from their pulpits and in their ability to mobilize voters on certain socially conservative issues.

This needs a lot more thought and discussion.    It reminds me of another question that has bugged me during this whole election cycle.   Back during the civil rights activist era, churches, synagogues, and interfaith groups were very active.   It was often this activism first bridged the racial divide in religious groups.  Ministers, priests, nuns, rabbis were leaders in the activism movements toward justice and civil rights.     Where are these groups now?

It seems that religion has divorced itself from social justice -- at least in the field where stuff is happening.    Has social-justice religion been co-opted by the far right conservatives, and so the liberal religious groups want to have nothing to do with it?    I think there may be something to that.

It's almost as if the politically conservative evangelicals have given religion a bad name -- and the Unitarians, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, social justice Catholics, and reformed rabbis have gone into hiding.

Having lived through both eras -- the 1960s and now Trumpism -- I'm struck by the absence of an important force for good that seems to have gone missing.

Ralph

Late last night, as I was about to post this, I ran across an article from the New York Times about the estrangement and conflict within the evangelical movement -- essentially between the pro-Trump and the anti-Trump factions -- including the refusal of Jerry Falwell, Jr. to allow a protest group of evangelical ministers to hold a revival on the campus of Liberty University.   I'll share some of this in another post later.