Foreign Affairs and Christian Charity

I feel like Michael Corleone in Godfather III: Every time I try to distance myself from Donald Trump and write about something or someone else, he does another unimaginable act that pulls me back in. (Dedicated readers might remember I used that analogy once before: http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2013/06/godfather-iii-and-supreme-court.html)

So, the soon-to-be 45th president has startled the foreign relations community by talking directly with the president of Taiwan, what international experts are saying will be interpreted by China as an affront.

I don’t know enough about Sino-American relations to comment beyond what I read. But I do recognize that unilateral surprise actions by our president-elect have the potential to unhinge diplomatic ties around the world. Remember how his casual comments during the campaign questioning support for NATO members caused tumult throughout the alliance? 

It has been reported that Trump has disdained receiving global security updates and has preferred having his daughter Ivanka sit in on meeting with foreign delegates rather than State Department experts. This is no way to run a country, at least not a nuclear power considered the bulwark of western civilization.

During the campaign wacky pronouncements from The Donald were commonplace, dismissed by his handlers as electioneering bravura. But now, even before he has nominated a secretary of state, Trump is upending decades of bipartisan United States foreign policy relations.

He was blindsided into talking with the president of Taiwan. He answered her congratulatory telephone call. Looks like his ego, the chance to have it stroked, got the better of him.

He compounded the diplomatic faux pas by tweeting—what else is new—about it. In his tweet Trump called Tsai Ing-wen the president of Taiwan, a title American presidents have resisted using for decades because of our tangled relationship balancing China and Taiwan as the true representative of more than 1.4 billion people.

Of course, this controversy is not the first set off by the next president. He has ruffled feathers in regard to India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Russia and Japan (http://nyti.ms/2gwOZX3). 

Well, he will be president and have the power and authority to set foreign policy, but I would feel a lot more comfortable if Trump discussed his moves with qualified experts before thrusting them on the public. Could he at least have the decency to maintain the status quo until after January 20 so President Obama doesn’t have to clean up any messes his successor creates? 

Christian Charity: Now that evangelicals can claim they helped elect Trump, I am wondering how much pressure they will exert to further Christian charity toward the needy?

Presumably, they will get their election reward in the form of an anti-abortion Supreme Court nominee. But once Roe v. Wade is overturned, or, at the very least, restrictive state measures are condoned and upheld, making more unwanted babies a reality, will evangelicals be willing to lobby for more social services for them and their mothers?

Evangelicals have been welcoming to refugees fleeing Mideast conflicts. But will they be able to soften Trump’s anti-immigration, anti-Muslim stances?

Trying to discern the thinking and values of the religious right is an exercise somewhat beyond my ken. Consider the case of Liberty University, a Christian university in Lynchburg, Va., and its quest to become a college football powerhouse.

It displayed a greater belief in football excellence than Christian values in selecting a new athletic director tainted by a failure to appropriately respond to charges of multiple gang rapes and sexual assault by members of the football squad at Baylor University, his last employer (http://nyti.ms/2gYinCd). 

It is easier to figure out Republican values in saying that after they repeal the Affordable Care Act a new health care plan to replace Obamacare would not be ready for three years. They clearly want to avoid having to answer for lost coverage by millions of Americans until after the mid-term elections of 2018. 

The GOP is simply abiding by the first and most important tenet of any politician—get re-elected.

Godfather III and the Supreme Court

I’ve tried to stay away from writing about politics, but I increasingly feel like Michael Corleone in Godfather III: “Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.”

Wednesday was a great day of victory for LGBT citizens. Nay, for all citizens, at least those who cherish equality. The dual U.S. Supreme Court decisions invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act and California Proposition 8 that withheld the opportunity for same-sex marriage in that state extended the privileges and rights enjoyed by the heterosexual community.

The LGBT community had reason to cheer. Those who opposed their equality did so mainly on a religious premise, that God did not sanction gay unions, according to their reading of the Bible. But the law is supposed to be blind toward religion. In deciding the two cases, a majority of justices rightly saw the issues in legal, not religious, terms.

But in the long run, the Roberts Court proved itself far more reactionary than progressive. Its decision Tuesday to strike down a portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was more far-reaching than its Wednesday rulings. It will condemn our country to years if not decades of regressive, repressive, racist legislators and the poison they will infuse into local, state and national legislation. 

Democrats as well as Republicans practice gerrymandering to secure majorities in legislatures. Section 4 of the Act protected minorities from many of the excesses sought, mostly by Republicans. By declaring that section unconstitutional, the Court opened the door to skullduggery, which began almost immediately. Texas said it would implement a previously stalled voter identification law and would alter districts without Federal review. The latter will have the immediate effect of putting Wendy Davis, the Texas state senator who filibustered against a repressive abortion bill Tuesday night, into a district with fewer Democratic voters, an action Federal review did not allow a few years ago. The voter ID law, opponents believe, will dampen turnout by minorities who generally vote Democratic.

To be sure, new laws and redistricting can be challenged in court, but the procedure is costly and time-consuming. The Court invited Congress to amend Section 4 by updating the voting data on which it was passed, on the surface an acceptable remedy. Except when one considers the inability of recent Congresses to reach consensus and the fact that the ruling will send to the House more representatives with extreme views unwilling to compromise. 

It’s common for those who disagree with the reactionary rulings by the Court to blame Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas (Kennedy, too, when he hangs around the evil foursome). But let’s not blame them. Let’s put the blame where it truly belongs—on the American people for voting into office Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2. Reagan appointed Scalia and Kennedy, Bush 1 appointed Thomas, Bush 2 appointed Roberts and Alito. 

Anyone who doesn’t realize that the choice of a president sets in motion the opportunity to impact our way of life for decades to come doesn’t comprehend the role the Supreme Court plays in our society. Tuesday and Wednesday’s rulings have, to paraphrase Michael Corleone, pulled us back into reality.