Trump As Antichrist

An Antichrist is someone who is an antagonist of Christ, someone who is an adversary of Christ.  What does that mean?  It means someone who works against everything that Christ taught and valued.  It means someone who routinely does the opposite of what Jesus would do.

The core of any religion is its teaching on how to live life, on how to interact with yourself and those around you.  This is usually termed its ethical or moral code.  And in Christianity, “the moral standards for human beings flow from God’s moral character."  God/Christ “commands us to love, to be merciful, and to not bear false witness.” 

Let us examine President Trump by these moral standards.  

1.  Does Trump love his fellow man?  The only people Trump loves, and that is using the term very loosely. are those who do what he wants them to do.  Anyone who opposes him or displeases him are vilified in his tweets and other public pronouncements.  Trump loves no one but himself.  But he is not the garden-variety narcissist that we all know; he is instead someone with Narcissist Personality Disorder as defined by the American Psychiatric Association in the DSM Manual.  He is an evil person.

2.  Is Trump merciful?  No.  This is most evident in his actions and pronouncements regarding illegal immigrants from Mexico.  The issue is not that he regards their presence as being illegal - that’s the law - it is that he vilifies them and treats them as dirt.  Regarding those seeking asylum from the violence in their Central American homelands, he makes no distinction between their status and those of illegal immigrants.  Not only is he confused about the law, he is not merciful.  Regarding the LGBT community he has attempted to rollback protections afforded by Federal regulations causing much suffering.  The examples are endless.  And if you are a perceived enemy or antagonist of his, he certainly shows no mercy in his blistering attacks.

Unlike Christ, he has not opened his heart to those who are despised by our society, the contemporary equivalent of lepers and prostitutes in Christ’s time.  Instead, he has inflamed his bases’ intolerance towards them for one reason only - to manipulate them and be secure in their unwavering support of him.

3.  Does Trump lie?  Is the Pope Catholic?!  The answer is a resounding, yes.  All Presidents have lied to protect themselves on occasion.  Trump, however lies many times every day.  He is a pathological lier.  Ironically, what he calls “Fake News” is telling the truth and his version of the news is instead fake.  But by branding various media as Fake News, he has cleverly set himself up as being the truthful one.

Let’s look at this another way.  The seven deadly sins of Christianity are pride, greed. lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth.  Many if not most people are to some extent guilty of these sins.  But Trump is guilty of them in spades; indeed, these sins define him.  I don’t think it’s necessary to offer any proof that he is guilty every day of all seven deadly sins.

To me though the most disturbing aspect of Donald Trump's spiritual immorality is that he has no conscience, he has no concern for his fellow man, he certainly doesn’t “do unto others as he would have them do unto him.”  He uses everyone around him and his supporters shamelessly to advance his only goal … which is his own power and reputation.  He is a con man par excellence.  

As such, Donald Trump is in his everyday actions an Antichrist.  Not only is everything he stands for and does antagonistic to the human values that Christ put at the center of his moral code, but as President, the leader of this country, he inflames large segments of the population to follow his example, rather than adopting a Christian moral position regarding the problems we are facing and those less fortunate among us, who suffer from discrimination and bigotry.

Asylum v Illegal Immigration - The Truth Must Be Told

I read a fact recently that I have not seen reported anywhere before that would have a huge impact on the discussion of Trump’s actions regarding those trying to enter the U.S. from our southern border

In the past, virtually all those crossing the border illegally were single men from Mexico looking for jobs in the U.S.   That flow of illegal immigration has virtually ceased.  Whereas it accounted for 98% (1.6 million apprehensions) in 2000, it 2014 they accounted for only 186,000 arrests.  The drop has been largely the result of a more stable Mexican economy and a declining Mexican birthrate.

But since 2010, the number of women with children, or single children, from Central America who are seeking asylum in the U.S. from the violence in their home countries has been increasing and now account for the majority of those attempting to cross the border.  Typically, they present themselves for asylum at the border, rather than attempt to cross undetected illegally.

To Trump, there is no difference between the two groups.  They are all dangerous scabs to be kept out of the U.S.  Yet to any sane, reasonable person there is a huge difference.  Women and children, or complete families, seeking asylum from the terrible violence in the Central American countries fit into a traditional category of people seeking to immigrate to the U.S. without a visa.  And they should be treated accordingly.

Even the single men who crossed the border illegally from Mexico did not fit Trump’s xenophobic description of dangerous men.  They have since immigrating taken their place in the American workplace, taking low-paying, menial jobs that Americans have no interest in but are of vital importance to the functioning of our economy.  And mostly they are paying the appropriate taxes.

Immigrant supporters and Democrats in Congress need to clarify for the American public the nature of people coming into the country today from the south.  Americans are still primarily good-hearted people.  When they learn the truth, as was the case with the separation of children from their families, and most recently with the report of the deplorable conditions children were subjected to, their attitude towards these women and children will change and Trump will be force to change the government’s anti-immigrant policies.

The Inhumanity of the Pro-Life Movement

If the damage weren’t so devastating, one would say that it is ironic that the movement to protect human fetuses, that brands itself “pro-life” and sprang from the moral and religious reverence for human life of the Catholic Church and Evangelical branches of Christianity, is in fact an inhumane movement.

The reader may well ask, “How can I call the pro-life movement inhumane?”  The dictionary definition of inhumanity is lacking kindness, compassion; being cruel.

Let me count the ways in which the pro-life movement is inhumane.

First, it is an act of cruelty towards the very lives that the movement seeks to save.  The life of a child is a difficult one filled with anxiety, insecurity, and fear.  Even when raised in what can be described as a loving family, things typically happen within the family that cause a child to suffer from these emotions.  And these are children who are wanted.

How cruel it is to force a child to be born into a family that does not want him or her.  How much more will that child suffer than the average child?  And if the child is given up for adoption or placed in a foster home, how much more will the child suffer? 

That the fate of these children once they are born is of no concern to the pro-life movement is itself an act of cruelty.  What’s worse, many of the same conservative Evangelical forces that are pro-life are actually in favor of reducing government aid to needy families with children.  Making it more likely that some of these saved children will suffer from malnutrition, poor health, and inadequate housing.  That some now offer short-term housing for women and their newborns is not an answer to the problem they have created.  

Second, it is lacking compassion for the living person, the woman who is bearing the child.  Any woman who makes the decision to abort the life moving within her struggles with that decision, not because of the pressures of society or family, but because of the biological and psychic bond between the mother and her unborn child.

It shows a total lack of respect for another human being, one who is living, to not acknowledge this decision-making process.  Whether she is in a bad marriage.  Whether there just isn’t enough money for another baby.  Whether she is at her wits’ end.  Regardless the reasoning, abortion is never undertaken lightly.

“Ah,” the pro-life advocate will say, “then she should have practiced birth control.”  Of course, the Catholic Church does not sanction protective birth control of any sort.  But putting that aside, this retort points to the third way in which the movement is inhumane.  

As has most recently been shown in the passage of a restrictive abortion bill by the Alabama State legislature, pro-life activists will not even allow an exception from their crusade for women who have been raped or been the victim of incest.  Such women had no choice to practice birth control.  But nevertheless the movement would force these women to bring into life children who were formed either by their rapist or their father or other relative who abused their trust.  If this is not a lack of compassion, if this is not cruelty, I don’t know what is.

Another cruelty, is that most pro-life advocates will not allow an exception for cases where the mother’s life is at stake.  They are pro-life for the unborn fetus, but anti-life for the living mother, who more than likely has living children.  They show more compassion for the fetus than for those living children; how will they be harmed by the death of their mother?

The Religious Right, as well as the Republican Party, has for the past several decades been extremely clever at setting the terms of debate, ever since the days of Lee Atwater.  At branding themselves in a way which comments favorably on themselves and branding their opponents, typically Democrats, in way which comments unfavorably on them.

Thus the recent pro-life hashtag, #EndInfanticide.  How in the world do you fight against the image that by protecting a woman’s choice, you are promoting infanticide?

I suggest that you fight fire with fire.  It is not enough to counter “pro-life” with “pro-choice.”  The slogans just don’t carry the same moral weight.

There are four strategies I would suggest.  The first is that Democrats and other pro-choice activists must make very clear that they are anti-abortion.  No one is pro-abortion.  Everyone detests the idea.  It’s just that in certain situations, some feel it is the lesser of two evils.  Thus the first new hashtag for the pro-choice movement should be, #antiabortion.

The second is calling the pro-life movement on the inhumanity and the hypocrisy of their position.  Thus I propose a second hashtag, #prolifeisinhumane.

The third is to bring the Christian denominations that have official policy supporting Roe v Wade to the forefront.  It must be clear that this is not a fight of the religious against the secular.  One can be Christian, religious and have a moral and religious reverence for life and yet support the right to end a pregnancy in properly limited circumstances.  This is not a contradiction.  Indeed, as I argue above, it is the pro-life position that is a contradiction.  Of course other religions should be included, but this should not be allowed to appear as a Christianity v other religions issue.

The fourth is to come up with a new name or names to replace “pro-choice”  as it just doesn’t have the necessary moral heft.  This one I had trouble with.  It has to have the right image, be short, and resonate.  Possibly “Pro-Mother” or “Pro-Child” with the accompanying hashtags.

It is past time for the tables to be turned on the Religious Right and for Democrats and other pro-mother/pro-child people and religious institutions to set the terms of debate.

The Failure of Religion to Lead

I was reading a book the other day that happened to quote two verses from the Bible that just stopped me in my tracks, realizing what a failure not only we are as humans but what a failure religion has been in leading its flock.  The verses were:

“For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?”

“Who shall ascend onto the hill of the Lord?  He that hath clean hands and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.”

These are core principles of Christian teaching, together with “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Similar teaching with different words can be found in all the great religions.

According to a 2017 Gallup poll, 37% of Americans are classified as “highly religious” based on their self-reports of church attendance and the importance of religion in their lives.  Another 30% are classified as moderately religious.  

Yet the same poll found that 48% of highly religious Americans approve of Trump’s performance in office, 40% of the moderately religious.  Regarding party affiliation, 80% of Republicans are classed highly or moderately religious, but only 61% of Democrats.

How does one make sense of this data considering the teachings noted above?  It is obvious that there is a serious disconnect between what people feel being religious means regarding their own and others’ actions and the teachings of the Bible and other spiritual sources.  This is not only seen in the support of the religious for Trump but in their everyday actions, be it within their family or in the context of their work.  

We live in a culture that promotes the quest for power at all cost, vanity, and deceitfulness.  We live in a culture that is supremely irreligious.  But why do the religious, who rebel against some aspects of modern culture, not stand up against this ethical and moral cancer?

One could look at this situation and say that the failing is due to the weakness of man.  But that is only part of the answer.  The more damning (pardon the pun) answer is that our major religions, especially the more orthodox branches, have failed to pass on the most meaningful aspects of their religion … how one acts towards his fellow man.  Of course they give lip service to the moral and ethical responsibilities of man, but they do not press the point.

Instead the orthodox branches of religion are obsessed with gaining power, with having influence, and as a result stress the functional aspects of orthodox religious practice far more than the moral or ethical aspects.  The only moral aspects they promote are cherry-picked from the Bible and again are geared to their defeating what they see as enemies of their power.

And so, whether it’s their stand against a woman’s choice, which they label “pro-life” and “anti-abortion” (is anyone pro-abortion?), or whether it’s their stand against the LGBT community, that is the orthodox moral litmus test for being a good Christian or a good Jew.  To abstain from vanity, from deceitfulness, from the quest for power and wealth at all cost seems not to concern them.

And this is not just a criticism of Evangelical Christians (much has been written about the apparent hypocrisy of their support for Trump) or ultra-orthodox Jews.  The Catholic Church in general has fallen into this same trap.  Actually, the preeminence of survival is nothing new for the Church.  It has historically seen its most important role as preserving its power, its presence.  So for example, during WWII, Pope Pius said nothing about what was happening to the Jews in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy or the conquered countries.  He was more concerned that the church not be attacked.

And what about the ongoing scandal of the abuse of children, not just boys, by Catholic clergy?  Not just the abuse, but the deceitful, disingenuous actions of church leaders in keeping the truth of this monstrous moral failure from their own flock.  All in the name of preserving the power and strength of the Church.  

If one reads the Bible in its entirety, not just the favored sections intoned in the culture wars, they will know that they and their religion have failed.  That they are not leading a religious life in any truly meaningful way.  Evangelicals may be “born again,” and ultra-orthodox Jews may maintain all the rituals and study the Bible and pray for hours, but orthodox Christians are not doing what Jesus would do, and ultra-orthodox Jews are not doing what G-d would have them do in dealing with their fellow man.  And by the way, I should note that the eastern religions are not free of this problem.  Look at the violence that Buddhist monks have promoted against the Muslim Rohingya of Myanmar.

Religion should be at the forefront of a real culture war, which is to say against the prevailing culture’s promotion of power, vanity, and deceitfulness.  It should be our moral compass.  But that would take real courage because it would risk turning people off and thus “weakening” the church’s power and presence.  

It is ironic that it is the less-orthodox, less-conservative branches of the religions that do a better job at teaching the moral values of their religion, and those who are classified as “not religious” who do a better job at implementing those values.  Something has gone haywire.

Tariffs 101 - The Big Trump Lie

Trump is fond of saying, in support of his trade war tariffs, that as a result China is paying billions of dollars directly into the U.S. Treasury.  That is blatantly and categorically false.  Either Trump knows the truth and is lying, or he is just dumb about how tariffs work, which is certainly possible.

What really happens when tariffs are imposed is that the producing country, here China, does not pay a penny.  The tariffs are instead paid by the company importing the product into the U.S., typically an American company.  It is they who are paying the billions of dollars into the U.S. Treasury.

And guess what the importing company then does?  They pass the cost on to their consumer, whether it is a business or the American public.  

So at the end of the day, the billions of dollars in tariffs are in fact paid by the American consumer, not China.  China is only hurt by the tariffs in so far as the increase in the cost of their products to consumers because of the tariffs causes sales to decline.

And that, as Edith Ann (the Lily Tomlin character) would say, is the truth.

* Note:  Prior to publishing, this post was sent to the New York Times as a letter to the editor.  When a few days later they published an editorial making this very point, I was free to publish my post.

The Problem with a President Bernie Sanders

Senator Sanders is a good, intelligent, forthright man.  His heart is in the right place.  And he certainly believes strongly about what is right and what is wrong.

But there’s a problem with Sanders as President.  It lies in primarily two areas:  rhetoric and policy development.

When it comes to rhetorical style, Bernie Sanders and his fire-breathing progressive allies share much with Donald Trump.  It is confrontational in both tone and substance.  As Trump and many autocrats have shown, this is certainly the way to build a devoted, unwavering base.

But such a style and the unwavering … dare one say, unthinking … political support it engenders does not bode well for the future of our democracy.  If Sanders, or AOC (Ocasio-Cortez), or Trump say something, their followers take it as gospel truth and praise the speaker.  A healthy democracy depends on people thinking, sifting through competing ideas, not leaving it to leaders to think.

This style also exacerbates the us v them aspect of politics and social dynamic.  Before the recent extreme polarization of American politics, people were usually sorely disappointed when they lost an election, but the call by all was for unity, for forming a “loyal” opposition.  In Congress or elsewhere, there were political disagreements, people took their stands, but it was with the feeling that everyone had the country’s best interest at heart and so there was civility in the midst of disagreement.  People could agree to disagree.

Gone are those days.  While the problem started with Senator Dole's very negative relationship with President Clinton during his 2nd term, it became all -consuming when Obama was President and Republicans in Congress, led by Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, decided that they were just going to say, “no,” to anything floated by Obama; their only purpose in Congress was to defeat him.  It went so far as to not giving Obama’s 2016 Supreme Court nominee a hearing in order to keep the slot open should a Republican win the next election, even though that was almost 8 months away and the start of the new term 10 months away.

There is a danger in Sander’s campaign style as with the combative style of some of the newly-elected progressives in the House.  The danger is that you may win some battles, but you will ultimately lose the war. You will not change the culture/government in the ways you would like because you have alienated many rather than generated good will among your opponents.

The other problem with Sanders as President comes in the all-important area of policy development.  Let’s take as an example Sander’s Medicare-for-All.  A wonderful idea, but as I explained in my post, “Medicare for All or Some?” not the way to ultimately get to where he wants to be ... universal single-payer coverage.  But Sanders has no use for discussing all the problems, all the dislocation, inherent in implementing his health plan should it pass.  

I draw from this, in combination with his rhetorical style, that Sanders is not a reasonable man … meaning that one cannot reason with him and he can’t employ reason with those not on his team, convincing them to support him or finding a place for compromise where both sides win.  It’s like W saying, “Either you’re with us or against us.”  Like it’s impossible to imagine the reality of someone being on your side but having a difference of opinion on tactics.  What we very much need in a President is a reasonable man.

So I was not for Sanders in 2016 and I’m not for him now.  But not for the reasons of the Democratic Party establishment.  Not because he fights the larger ills of our culture and government.  Not because he sees the ills of capitalism.  Not because he thinks the super rich are richer than they need be.  I have no problem with any of those positions.

It is rather because his rhetorical style will leave us with a country which drifts even further apart.  Where the concept of an American social contract is even more distant.  Where the phrase “my fellow Americans” becomes an unimaginable anachronism.

What Trump Did and Didn’t Do - The Mueller Report and Beyond

There is no way to get around the fact that the Mueller Report makes very clear that there was no collusion or cooperation with Russia regarding its interference in the election for the purpose of insuring Trump’s election.  Therefore Trump and his campaign did not commit that crime, or at least the evidence was not sufficient to ensure successful prosecution of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the criminal standard Mueller was using.

With regard to the obstruction charge, I don’t know the fine points of law on this subject, but Mueller was not willing to say what he did regarding the Russia charge … there was no obstruction.  And so he said that the findings do not exonerate Trump.  He just laid out the facts for and against.

But in our system of justice, if you don’t have enough facts to prove a crime, even though it sure looks like it, the person should not be charged, and if he is he will be found not guilty.  Thus from this technical perspective, Barr was correct in his prosecutorial decision.

So Trump and his campaign either did not commit these crimes, or at least could not be successfully prosecuted for them, which we must take as legally the same thing.  Innocent until proven guilty is our system’s maxim.

One more point should be made about Trump not being guilty of a crime.  Many people point out how the report is loaded with examples of Trump lying and forcing others to lie.   But lying is not a crime, unless it’s under oath, and Trump did not lie under oath because Mueller never got to take live testimony from him.  Nor was there sufficient evidence to prove that he forced others to lie under oath, which would be what’s termed “suborning perjury.”

But there is one potential crime that the Mueller report does not seem to have addressed:  accessory after the fact, or aiding and abetting, Russia’s interference in the election.  Certainly Trump and his campaign knew that Russia was interfering in the election.  That was a crime and the Special Counsel has indicted numerous Russian operatives in that regard.

Now, failure to report a crime is generally not a crime itself.  However, if you take action to help conceal the crime, then you become an accessory after the fact which is a crime.  And so the question is, did Trump and/or campaign officials help or conspire to conceal information of Russia’s election interference.  Did they do something beyond not reporting?  That remains for Congress to investigate.

But beyond the Special Counsel’s narrow prosecutorial question, whether there was sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute a crime, that leaves the question whether Trump committed a "high crime or misdemeanor" which is an impeachable offense, or whether he acted in a manner not befitting the office of President.  These are both questions for Congress to assess.

With regards to cooperating with the Russians or obstructing justice, the Report lays out a multitude of facts, which may well meet the lesser standard of proof for an impeachable offense, which is closer to the preponderance of the evidence, was it more likely it happened or not.  Also there is the question of whether he was an accessory after the fact, or aided and abetted.   As for being unfit for office, unfortunately, one cannot impeach a President for being unfit for the office.  Only the public can remove him for that cause by voting him out of office. May the investigations begin.