Trumping Christian Values Plus Déjà Vu Threeway

Though I keep few cookies around the house—I’m diabetic, you know—I’m thinking of ordering a box or two of the thin mints proffered by our local Girl Scout as a sign of solidarity with the organization after the Catholic archbishop of St. Louis questioned whether Girl Scouts are in sync with good Christian values. 

The Archdiocese of St. Louis is scaling back ties with the Scouts because of the organization’s support for transgender rights, homosexuality and other issues (http://nyti.ms/1Rq4Gcs).

Cookie protests are au courant these days, what with Donald Trump saying he has sworn off Oreos ever since Nabisco moved its bakeries to Mexico. But I digress. 

The hypocrisy of those professing to expound religious values can be seen from the accompanying link, courtesy of Francis X. Clines. You will note the archbishop is no angel when it comes to protecting children: http://nyti.ms/1Ljgmi7.

For another perspective on evangelical Christian values as they relate to support for Trump’s presidential candidacy, read Peter Wehner’s Op-Ed piece in The New York Times http://nyti.ms/1TNBU7P. If you have time and inclination, also read some of the thousand or so comments his column generated.

Trying to topple Trump has become a full-time job for Republican party apparatchiks and pundits. To no avail (at least until results of Super Tuesday are known). Comedian John Oliver spent 22 minutes of his TV show Sunday night defanging the Trump myth, including a segment on The Donald’s original family name—Drumpf. Again, if you have the time, it’s well worth the effort: https://youtu.be/DnpO_RTSNmQ.

If you can correctly state that a rotund figure like Chris Christie can angle for something, his endorsement of Trump means he is seeking the attorney general’s job in a Trump administration.

Christie and Trump share similar podium traits. They are bombastic bullies who enjoy shouting down protesters, with Trump going so far as to endorse Nazi-like tactics such as pummeling dissenters. How Christie, a former U.S. attorney, can support someone like Trump who has expressed unconstitutional thoughts, confirms the selfish vindictiveness he harbors and instills in his supporters whom we have already seen were willing to snarl traffic on the George Washington Bridge to punish the Fort Lee mayor for failing to endorse Christie’s re-election.

Déjà Vu Threeway: Reports circulated Monday that Republican Party establishment insiders are pondering the notion of backing a presidential run independent of the candidate chosen through the party’s primary system and ratified by the national convention if that candidate is named Donald Trump.

So let’s take this idea step by step to its logical conclusion:

1. Trump becomes the GOP candidate, enjoying second line status in polling stations across America.

2. GOP leaders engage in figurative hand-to-hand combat to choose an alternative slate acceptable to the Rubio-Cruz et al factions of the party.

3. Trump goes ballistic, raining down more fire on them than on the Democratic nominee.

4. Lets assume that nominee is Hillary Clinton.

5. Against a divided Republican field Hillary wins, thus becoming the second Clinton to win the presidency in a three-way race. For you young’uns, in 1992 Bill Clinton defeated incumbent president George H.W. Bush and independent Ross Perot.

6. I’ll repeat a previous forecast—assuming the Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, they will attempt to impeach Hillary on charges related to alleged misuse of her private email server while secretary of state. 

Just keep in mind—we’re considered the greatest democracy in the world.

Holy Wars: Why Evangelicals Like Trump; Which Is Supreme—God's Words vs. Man's

I think I figured out why evangelicals can support a candidate who is twice divorced, three times married, cheated on two of his wives, uses obscene language in public and rarely goes to church: Evangelicals see Donald Trump as the quickest road to Armageddon and the Second Coming.

Trump, and for that matter carpet-bomber Ted Cruz and bombs-away Marco Rubio, may be the surest vessel to ignite a war that would hasten the evangelical vision of an end to the world as we know it. 

Sure, I might be looney to think this a plausible explanation, but is it any more outrageous than the dribble pundits are giving as to why Mr. Bombast has been able to win two of the first three Republican Party presidential contests, including South Carolina’s primary Saturday where more Bible huggers embraced The Donald and not Cruz or Rubio without first requiring him to repent and be born again?  

“It’s also becoming clearer why people are voting for Trump,” the Associated Press reported. “Nearly half of Republican voters in South Carolina said Trump is the candidate they trust most to handle the economy, more than double the proportion who said so of any other candidate, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research.”

That explanation also falls under the banner of an “article of faith” as the truth behind Trump’s golden touch shows it to be rather tarnished. Admittedly, he is a fabulous brand marketer, the brand being himself. But article after article has uncovered a less than strong bottom line performance by companies he has led or been associated with. 

Puncturing his aura of business respectability will be the main challenge his Republican foes face if they have any hope of derailing his candidacy. The challenge would fall to the Democratic standard bearer should Trump secure the GOP nomination. 

Paradoxically, maybe evangelicals are hedging their bets by supporting Trump. If they truly believe he is best for the economy, maybe they really think they’ll be around for a long time and need to worry about their personal finances.  

Whose Words Should Be More Lasting? When did man’s words become more important than God’s (assuming, of course, you believe in a God, as all the candidates for president profess to do)? When did it become illegitimate to interpret man’s words but not God’s? 

“The Constitution is not a living and breathing document. It is to be interpreted as originally meant,” asserted Marco Rubio last week, one of many who pounced on the still warm body of the newly deceased Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia to expound a philosophy that would bind our nation to many of the the mores and values of the late 18th century. 

Scalia was the chief protagonist of “originalism,” a belief that all truths could be found in the words of The Framers of the Constitution and any amendments subsequently passed. He was a deeply religious Catholic, but apparently he did not find anything wrong with deviations from the Good Book, the Bible, interpretations that have transformed religions for more than 2,000 years. 

Christians and Jews, after all, don’t adhere to all the dictates God commanded. We don’t exact an eye for an eye, anymore. Nor do we stone people who violate the Sabbath. God seemed okay with polygyny. Some Mormons still do, but they are the exception to the rule in most Western cultures. 

According to Scalia, “The only good Constitution is a dead Constitution. The problem with a living Constitution, in a word, is that somebody has to decide how it grows and when it is that new rights are, you know, come forth. And that’s an enormous responsibility in a democracy to place upon nine lawyers, or even 30 lawyers.”

Yet, the history of religion is that sages have always interpreted God’s meaning and intent. Western societies are apoplectic about Sharia Law as practiced in religiously orthodox Islamic countries because devout Moslems do not accommodate their civil practices to modern times. If you’re into stoning adulterers, or perhaps you prefer cutting off the hand of a thief, catch a plane to Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan.

But here in the United States, we don’t administer Sharia Law-like punishments. We’ve evolved. Apparently with God’s blessings or at least understanding, as thunderbolts from above have not wiped out huge swaths of our population (let’s not consider, for the moment, why natural disasters—tornadoes, floods, hurricanes—seem to be more frequently visited upon regions with more evangelicals than other areas). 

Keeping our laws attuned with current values is recognition that times change (hopefully for the better). If religious leaders (not all, but many) can adapt some of God’s prohibitions, if they can refine their approach to homosexuality, for example, thus affirming that the Bible is a living document, then why should we not be able to interpret the Constitution for modern times. The right to privacy, for example, had a narrower scope back in the 1780s. 

Architects have found that flexible structures withstand earthquakes better than rigidly constructed buildings. So, too, our nation if we measure our laws against the science, technology and mores of the time we live in.  

On Selling the Sizzle, Not the Steak

Not sure how many of you watch the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley, but Thursday night the broadcast commemorated the 75th anniversary of CBS Radio’s World News Roundup. Begun the day after Nazi Germany annexed Austria in 1938, commonly referred to as the Anschluss, the World News Roundup is the longest running news broadcast. 

In keeping with the news of this week, Pelley featured none other than “legendary Vatican correspondent Winston Burdett in 1962 reporting” on Pope Paul VI’s coronation (sic—the ceremony actually took place June 30, 1963). 

Unlike my commentary on Wednesday about Burdett, Pelley did not mention his confession as a Soviet spy.

Sell the Sizzle, Not the Steak: It’s a common marketing theme—sell the customer on the hype, not the actual product. If a deal can’t be struck, there must be something wrong with your marketing, with how you project yourself to the public.

How would you feel if you were Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and you heard House Speaker John Boehner blame “candidates and personalities” rather than proposals on Medicare and spending cuts as the reason Republicans lost the election last November?

In the days, weeks and months since Barack Obama won a second term and Republican numbers in the House and Senate suffered dilution, GOP insiders have searched for a new path to victory. Their most right wing members met this week at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Committee conference in National Harbor, MD. With nary an exception, speakers picked up the failed banner of 2012, demanding an end to Obamacare and other benefit programs. They weren’t interested in developing a more humane Republican Party platform, just a more palatable face to their repressive (my word, not theirs) positions. Republicans want to sell the sizzle, not the steak.

Across the Atlantic, a new pope was chosen. The Catholic Church is under stress. Reform seems to be needed, and wanted, both in its administrative functions and its theological tenets. But like Republicans gathered outside Washington, the cardinals stuck to their conservative doctrines. They picked a new Holy Father who is singular only in that he comes from the Americas. His thinking is decidedly Old World.

Initial enthusiasm for the selection of Francis I may well give way to more sober reflection by rank and file and uncommitted Catholics who want women to be ordained as priests, who want an end to priestly celibacy, who want acceptance of alternative lifestyles, who want abortion and contraception to be tolerated.

The challenge both the pope and the GOP have is how to appeal to a wider audience than their respective true believers. The Church, on the surface, has opted to offer a sizzling, appealing new face. Humble, compassionate, a tireless worker against poverty. Someone eager to shake up an entrenched Vatican bureaucracy. Time will tell if he’s more than an attractive new look. Will he diversify? Will he expand power beyond old, mostly white, men?  

One of my Catholic friends suggested I refrain from commenting on the pope. I am, after all, not Catholic. But the pope is more than just a religious leader. Some consider him the most powerful man on earth, being the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, even if they are not all strict adherents to his doctrine. Even among non-Catholics, the pronouncements of the pontiff demand attention. And commentary. 

So I hope Pope Francis will become more tolerant, less restrictive. I’m emboldened by news today that Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), a one-time supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act, now endorses the right of gay couples to marry, to be entitled to federal marriage benefits. Yes, Portman changed his mind only after his son revealed he was gay. But it’s another example of a prominent Republican who has had personal experience with the LGBT lifestyle within their family. Portman, and Dick Cheney and Ted Olson, haven’t stopped loving their children. They’ve accepted them for who they are. They’ve accepted their equality and suitability to raise a family. Pope Francis, along with many conservative thinkers of all religions, may yet come to that same level of acceptance.