OpEd

Putting Evangelical Support for Trump in the Crosshairs

Posted on September 5, 2019 by gbaldwin

by Gunnar Baldwin
Plymouth, NH

Since the presidential election in 2016, I have watched in amazement, anger, and disgust as evangelicals across this country have enthusiastically embraced a man whose behavior lacks even a shred of human decency and compassion. It is not that evangelicals have not been on the wrong side of history (and a broad range of ethical issues) all along, but the obvious moral failings Donald Trump would seem to be too hard even for them to swallow. A recent Washington Post article by opinion columnist Elizabeth Bruenig finally helped me pull together a workable explanation—one that is important to understand if we hope to counter evangelicals’ support of Trump in any meaningful way.

Bruenig and others who have written on the this topic explain that it is not that evangelicals are unaware of Trump’s unethical behavior or would condone the same behavior by one of their brethren. Instead, they see him as an instrument used by God to catalyze changes that serve their cause, such as court decisions that further their conservative social agenda and assert Israel’s right to disregard the rights of Palestinians. Trump is seen as necessary strongman, a vehicle for carving out space for fundamentalists to carry out their mission. He has been likened by some right wing evangelicals to King David, another ruler who led a famously adulterous life but who was regarded as a strong protector of the people of Israel.

Consistent with this view, one could point out that many biblical characters, even Judas Iscariot, were seen as instruments of God who were sent to accomplish a divine purpose (such as trigger a resurrection). Yet this viewpoint misses a glaring difference: the Israelites and Christians in the Bible did not seek out, appoint, or condone the acts of the unsavory characters that ultimately furthered “God’s plan” for them. In contrast, evangelical Trump voters actively chose him, and they personally own every hateful and egregious act our President has committed before and during his time in office. They cannot hermetically seal themselves off from personal responsibility for acts of bigotry and cruelty perpetrated or encouraged by him, while enjoying the benefit of conservative court appointees and a newfound freedom to gush homophobic rants. They hired the hitman and they are guilty of his crimes.

Many recent articles and op-ed pieces in mainstream media suggest Trump is pulling even farther ahead with these groups, improving the odds that he may clinch the election a second time and delivering a coup de grâce to democracy. Why? I would suggest that it is at least partly due to the fact that they are not hearing the right arguments from more progressive members of their fold. In fact, evangelical leaders, such as Jerry Falwell, Jr., have been steadily transforming the view of God’s character held by their constituency from favoring humility and compassion to being a power-God who wants believers to bring about change though brute force, assertiveness, and aggression. In addition, a Pew Research religion poll conducted in 2018 showed that evangelicals were the least likely group—by a wide margin—to believe that America has no responsibility for refugees.

I do not suggest that we can sway large numbers of deeply entrenched red state evangelicals with creative messaging, but right now they are reveling in the mantle of moral superiority virtually unopposed. More than ever, we need bunker buster-caliber challenges that shake the foundations of their cozy fantasy. Trump’s supporters are every bit as culpable for locking children in cages, bankrupting cancer victims, and questioning the patriotism of doule-amputee Mexican-American combat veterans as Trump himself and they need to understand this.

These messages will not be effective if they are merely perceived as a fresh round of patronizing by ivory tower liberals, a frequently expressed irritant to which they are hypersensitive. Similarly, it is important that they do not perceive that their core religious beliefs themselves are being challenged—just their approach to acting on them. Fortunately, there are a significant number of evangelicals (particularly younger members) who do not buy into the view that their creator wants his flock to consist of authoritarians and fascists, and they are best suited to deliver that message. This segment may be more susceptible to persuasive arguments from progressives, but they must be carefully nudged into vocally challenging the views of their less compassionate counterparts.

There are a variety of specific topics that should be addressed in Democratic campaign messages that might give more conscientious evangelicals a reason to take pause. Messaging should spotlight the innocent, vulnerable groups who are collateral damage of Trump’s uncompassionate tactics and unfiltered mouth. Examples abound, such as terrified children crowded into filthy detention centers, farmers facing bankruptcy due to trade war political stunts, rapes that are never prosecuted, and homeless people whose employer-provided insurance did not cover enough of the life-saving medical treatment they received. Does their God really want them to be on the hook for these acts of inhumanity as a price for more conservative judges and more stringent abortion laws?

I will end with an anecdote. A family member who once stayed at a Marriot hotel in Salt Lake City (a Mormon-owned chain) and was taken aback to find that he could not order an alcoholic drink to accompany his meal, since the hotel had a strict alcohol-free policy that was consistent with the owner’s religious beliefs. Years later, returning to the same hotel, he was equally surprised to see alcoholic drinks being served in the same dining room. He asked the waitress why the policy had been changed. Without skipping a beat, she informed him that the hotel’s owner had decided that the alcohol ban was unnecessary because serving alcohol was a business decision, not a religious decision. The same type of defense has also been used in court by defendants who carried out contract killings.

During this election, it is imperative to make clear to evangelical voters that their souls are inextricably chained to the heavy cinderblocks of Trump’s abominations and their vote is not an arm’s length “business decision” that can be conveniently abstracted away. However, it will likely not succeed if the message is delivered in a confrontational manner. Diplomatically getting through to—and weaponizing—the moderate ones with constructive messaging may stand the best chance of success.

A Plea for Adequate Education Funding

Posted on July 2, 2019 by gbaldwin

by Gunnar Baldwin
Plymouth, NH

It is high time to recognize the fundamental role that education plays in the security of our country. Just as a strong military protects frontal attacks on our sovereign territory, a strong public educational system is needed to defend our back door, preventing our country from weakening economically, culturally, democratically, and morally from within. Our security should not be defined solely by tanks and aircraft carriers, but also by all other ways in which we protect our way of life and maintain our status as the land of opportunity. Our back door has been breached because we have been willing to sit back and watch other developed countries out-compete us by providing robust education to their children from all income levels. True commitment to security should mean the same willingness to protect our back side where it is most vulnerable—as to defend against hostilities that are aimed at our front door.

In our country’s frontier days, it was reasonable to expect that every child would remain in the community where they were raised and often, that they would follow in the footsteps of their fathers in tending the family farm or the local logging, blacksmith, or carriage-making enterprise. It was up to communities to prepare their offspring for the local future they would have. Today, not so much. Our children will need to become highly-qualified, effective workers in a global economy, competing with their counterparts in Germany, Sweden, and Japan. Even if they pursue blue collar careers, it is still often the case that they will not stay in their home towns. It should say something that many US companies seek to procure work visas for highly qualified workers from abroad because they cannot find enough qualified applicants from the domestic talent pool.

Today, it seems that many conservatives view the fundamental right to an adequate education with disdain, as a necessary evil, like paying to truck garbage to a landfill, that should be fulfilled with the lowest-cost option. Of course, if a family wants to pay extra to send their children to a premium school, that should be their elective right—correct? I think of past local efforts to slash our school’s budgets and of those who championed that cause. The unspoken subtitle was clear: “the school is not good enough for my children, but it is good enough for the rest of you.” We are steadily marching backwards toward a feudal past, where the wealthiest and most powerful families controlled all of the country’s resources and were the gatekeepers—deciding which demographics got the chance to advance into prosperity.

It is imperative that we finally address the lack of political will to recognize what an adequate education (a common denominator for all citizens) consists of and be ready to fund that amount—whatever it is—through a fair tax system. Although conservatives plead poverty, our state government is only poor if it chooses to be, by obstinately ignoring the vital role education plays in a modern prosperous society. Failure to acknowledge New Hampshire’s responsibility to fund education is part of a broader set of factors on the national level that are slowly ratcheting our society back to a time of feudal lords and peasants. We must decide if our country’s future is just for the most affluent among us or should include everyone.

If our efforts to solve the education funding challenge are successful, we must also confront the fact that simply throwing more money at education will only confirm the most dire predictions of our conservative counterparts. Knowing how to apply improved school funding, if and when we get it, cannot be a Phase II issue that is addressed at a later date. We will not get a second chance to fix education if it is not implemented effectively from the outset. There are many ways to poorly manage an education system and far fewer ways to do it effectively.

Many of the problems that have plagued education systems around the country have resulted from the mindless application of funds to education systems, a myopic focus on aptitude test results, or dog-headed efforts by powerful people (like our country’s Secretary of Education) to do things in very specific, unproven ways that simply do not work for the vast majority of the students we need to educate. Effective teachers should receive a premium—enough to attract talented graduates who would otherwise shun teaching to pursue careers that pay a living wage. Many unpopular changes are needed that will affect the status quo and result in winners and losers. We need to ready to defend the right choices.

Taking Steps Towards Positive Impact

Posted on April 22, 2019April 23, 2019 by gbaldwin

by Steve Whitman
Plymouth, NH

Each April we turn our attention to sustainable practices as the spring weather arrives, our yards and community turn green, and Earth Day approaches. These events serve as a reminder of the beauty and fragile condition of the Earth. Reflecting on how to live lighter on the planet and reduce our ecological footprint during this time is admirable and worthwhile. For many of us, it continues throughout the year, and hopefully throughout our lives. However, the emphasis tends to be on how to reduce the negative aspects of our lives, striving to do less bad rather than working to increase the positive aspects of our environmental footprint.

I think we need to do both, and it can start with one small action that excites you and motivates you to change your behavior. After all, most of what we are talking about under the topic of sustainability is awareness and behavior change. There are many reasons to take action, for some it is an effort to reduce carbon emissions that gets them to walk or bike to work. For others, it is moving away from plastic that gets them to reconsider their current use of shopping bags or new opportunities for bulk purchasing. The beauty of taking these actions is that there is no playbook or required sequence, and all of these actions reduce our demand on the earth’s natural systems. Plus, there are rewards! Saving money, enjoying time outdoors, connecting with other people, and other benefits can be realized as we work to reduce our negative impacts on the planet.

The same can be true of efforts to make positive impacts on the planet. Converting a portion of your lawn to a habitat and food producing system, starting a sustainability initiative in your community, or assisting with outreach and education on important topics all leave a positive environmental footprint that we all benefit from.

As we take on these personal challenges it is important to start with small and simple solutions. In doing so many of us have found that this is an empowering and transformative process that encourages us to consider bigger and bolder changes over time. As an example, on our property, we started by constructing a four foot by eight foot raised bed for growing vegetables. Then we added a compost bin. Years later these steps were transformed to extensive garden areas and a greenhouse that provides year-round food production, habitat, pollination, carbon sequestration, air, and water filtering, and many other important ecosystem services. The end result for this small project is tremendous positive impact as we regenerate natural systems on our small residential lot while also reducing some of the negative aspects of our ecological footprint.

Looking to the future I know I still have more changes to adopt in my life, and I hope to do so alongside all of you as we support and inspire each other. As we do let’s be sure to enjoy the journey and avoid becoming martyrs to the cause. If we do others will take notice and want to join in on this adventure of sustainable living!

“Steve Whitman is the Founder and Principal of Resilience Planning & Design, a community planning and ecological design firm located in Plymouth, NH. Steve is also a certified permaculture designer and teacher, a part-time faculty member at Plymouth State University, and an alternate on the Town of Plymouth Planning Board.”

Looking Ahead – What’s Really at Stake in 2020

Posted on January 15, 2019January 15, 2019 by gbaldwin

by Gunnar Baldwin
Plymouth, NH

Now that the 2020 elections are on the horizon, one question is paramount: How can we keep the 2016 from happening again? It should be crystal clear that we are in for a difficult fight because of the powerful interests and almost limitless funding arrayed against us. These influential players will try to paint the election as a choice between a bright economic future with more jobs versus socialism and economic decline.

This election, however, will not be about boosting job growth through tax breaks for the very rich or about the free market versus socialism. After all, the scale of the subsidies and tax breaks for big oil and agribusiness giants looks downright socialist in comparison with welfare assistance for the poor. With respect to the economy, what is really at stake boils down to a number of fundamental issues:

Whether we have the right message and resolve to stop the greatest feeding frenzy in history, as corporations and wealthy individuals race to maximize the benefits of deregulation while the window of opportunity lasts. These powerful players know that in the long run, the reasons we have regulations (e.g., safe foods, truth in advertising, or the disclosure of predatory consumer lending provisions) and the reality of climate change will become painfully obvious to a critical mass of voters.
Whether the wealthiest individuals and corporations will get to carve up and consume the world’s remaining natural resources (our children’s and grandchildren’s heritage), realizing enormous short-term profits for a few at the expense of long-term prosperity for many. The urgent rush to convert public assets (such as protected public lands) to private wealth looks much like the asset grabs that occurred in Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union, but cloaked in a thin veneer of legitimacy.

One hypothetical question may force Republicans to reveal their bottom line: If the technology existed today to extract, harvest, or catch all of the world’s remaining oil, coal, ore, timber, and fish in a single year—to benefit a single generation—would that be an acceptable goal? If the answer is yes, then their darkest intentions have been exposed. If the answer is no, what measures would they suggest for avoiding that outcome and how are those measures different from the very constraints they are hell-bent on trying to repeal?

Whether we want to transition our economy toward sustainable, next-generation industries and services that support the livelihoods of many for years to come or whether Trump’s interventions will force continued reliance on dirty fuels and technologies at the expense of sustainable ones, in order to ensure the continued profits of incumbent industries (hardly the free market at work).

Finally, if we really want to have a chance at changing the views of right-leaning independent voters, we must first address the assumptions that underlie their political views—or give them a few to adopt. If we cannot agree on why we have a government or why we pay taxes, it will be difficult to win them over with respect to specific policy choices.

As I have stated previously, one argument for government and taxes is the following:

As American citizens, most of us are all born into a collective debt that we owe to those less fortunate because the benefits of living in the great country we enjoy are directly tied to—and arose in a million little ways—from the hardship and exploitation of others.

America’s strong economy and favorable business environment, which allows a hard-working entrepreneur to realize profits and create new jobs, got its head start and an early competitive edge through slavery and the enormous profits that free labor allowed. Slavery may have been abolished in the strictest sense at the end of the Civil War, but other legal ways of exploiting people with lesser bargaining power ensued in our industrial age. The vast disparities in economic advantage that these factors produced endure today in our current society.

Just as a restaurant must pay a generalized royalty in order to play songs from a vast pool of music whose rights are owned by many artists and recording studios—who cannot be individually compensated directly by that restaurant for practical reasons—we must pay a tax to help correct our share of the costs that our standard of living has inflicted on others. Our individual share of this debt is no less real because we cannot quantify it.

Similarly, we are all part of a shared risk pool. We do not know in advance which fellow citizens will be diagnosed with cancer or have their homes destroyed by a hurricane, so we pay taxes to cover our pro-rata share of government services designed to minimize the impacts of these risks and compensate those affected by these catastrophes.

Anyone who lives paycheck to paycheck, has been bankrupted by medical bills despite having insurance, or must continue to pay a mortgage for a home that was washed away may rightly ask how they are benefitting from the American dream and past suffering by others. My answer to this question is that most people who have been locked out of the America’s prosperity nevertheless aspire to it, and in so doing yearn to benefit from a standard of living that was made possible because of the unfair advantages used against those less fortunate over the course of our history.

The arguments above do not mean that our country is bad, only that we know we can do better in pursuing our country’s ideals. But how do we even begin to convey an important message that is long-winded because of its complexity? Is there a way to distill this message into a few sound bites? This is a task that must be addressed and debated in order to reach those voters who are most receptive to rational argument (there are a few).

Finally, we should heed the warnings by Democratic candidates that did not succeed in the recent elections. Making sweeping promises like “healthcare for all” does not play well with voters who are weary of hearing politicians promising changes that can never be delivered. Stating that a policy will “reduce your medical costs” may do better. We must learn from every past mistake if we want to succeed this time around.

Like Many Americans, I was Emotionally Devastated

Posted on August 10, 2018 by gbaldwin

by Gunnar Baldwin
Plymouth, NH

Like most Americans, I was emotionally devastated at the spectacle of thousands of innocent, crying and screaming children being separated from their parents as they crossed our border and were distributed to kennel-like holding pens—by our own government. I could only conjure up images of family separations at the hands of the NAZIs or slave auctions earlier in our own history. My grief quickly turned to rage as I grasped the complicity of fellow citizens who blindly follow the current occupant of the Oval Office and are willing to look the other way, making cheap excuses, spouting cherry-picked scriptures, or sticking their heads in sand. I cannot believe that so many Americans have utterly caved into this administration’s agenda. It seemed like Kristallnacht was not far behind.

Fortunately, my gut feeling is that the child separation atrocity was a low ebb—a bridge too far for even many Trump supporters. I hope I am right. If so, there is likely a segment of citizens who voted for Trump in the last election and are amenable to a rational dialogue about the direction our country should take, but only if we can present the right message. It is hard to have a discussion about complex issues of inequity and the ethical role of government when we are allowed only a sound bite.

One of the most profound challenges for Democrats is making inroads against the ideologies of those who advocate for a small government. If asked, many Republicans will explain that they are not against compassion, but will explain that helping those in need is a role for churches, NGOs, and the Rotary Club—but not the government. Here is why that is wrong: Throughout the history of our country, our government has played a central role in facilitating the current state of affairs—from laying the structural foundation for poverty and vastly wealth disparities to the tilted playing field that secures unfair advantages for deep-pocketed industries and the very rich. In a myriad of ways, our government has been the instrumentality of inequity, from sanctioning slavery, to supporting predatory health care prices, to implementing policies that provide unfair advantages to a privileged few—picking winners and losers in the process. Government had a central role in creating these problems and now must play a central role in fixing them.

Connecting the dots between past injustices and current affairs is inherently a multi-step process that defies sound bites and may seem diffused and attenuated. However, it is no less real. Many of us benefit from the standard of living we enjoy in America today, but we cannot opt out of our past (or our cancer risk pool). Just as we cannot opt out of the debt we owe our forebears in uniform who have defended our country from our enemies, we cannot opt out of the built-in debt we collectively owe to those who are today’s victims of yesterday’s slavery, corporate robber-barons, or ethnic discrimination.

In many ways, those who wish to come to America today from south of our border are no different than those who immigrated from Europe in past centuries to pursue a better life and escape crises, both political and economic. Yet there is an important difference: America has played an enormous role in creating the very conditions (e.g., poverty, gangs) that make so many people try to flee here from Central America and other areas in Latin America. During much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the US has interfered repeatedly in the governments and economies of the countries in our backyard to secure economic advantage and support dictators friendly to US corporations. They are not simply unlucky or poorly educated. We poisoned their well water and now we refuse to share ours.

Ignorance on the part of much of the population is not intentional, but it presents a hurdle for political persuasion. For example, US schools have done a poor job in providing a thorough and balanced view of our history. (The same can be said of schools in Russia, China, Myanmar, and Turkey). It will often be necessary that we share a little additional background to frame our conversation with voters, whether the topic is education, voting rights, healthcare, or immigration. Clearly, this is a challenge. Many of the voters that are cheering efforts to disenfranchise minority voters, turn immigrants into scapegoats, and disseminate absurd conspiracy theories are very comfortable in their bubbles. We need to be creative in developing messages that can burst through a few of them.