Reflections on the Midterm Elections

The all-important midterm elections of 2026 are (finally) over, and in keeping with the polls, the Democratic Party won decisively. The results, however, were much better than what the polls indicated might happen—and even better than what I had hoped for. The future of our nation looks much brighter today than it has for the last two years. 

The Significant Democratic Victories

From early on, I was quite sure the Democratic candidates would win a majority of the House seats. For a long time, the party of the POTUS has usually lost a decisive number of Congresspeople midterm.  Since the end of WWII, the president’s party lost House seats in 18 of the 20 midterm elections through 2022. (Exceptions were in 1998 and 2002.)

In seven of those 20 midterms, the House changed party control, including 2022, 2018, 2010, and 2006, four times in the last 20 years—and then a week ago today (on Nov. 3) it changed decisively. At noon on January 3, the 120^th Congress will begin its term, with Democrats clearly in control of both chambers.

Before the Nov. 3 election, the polls indicated the expectation that Democrats would control the Senate 52-48. Two races haven’t been decided yet, but the final tally is expected to be 56 to 44, a decisive win for the Democratic Party and their largest Senate majority since 1992. A remarkable victory, indeed!

There were seven highly competitive Senate races. The three candidates I was most interested in on election day were Dr. Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Rev. Adam Hamilton in Kansas, and Mr. James Talarico in Texas. If those three plus one of the other four were elected, the Democrats would control the Senate.

When I got up not long after 4:00 last Wednesday morning, I was overjoyed that not only the three I was pulling for the most, but all seven Democrats in those pivotal races had been elected! The final results show victories by Mr. Talarico (55% to 43%), Dr. El-Sayed (52.5% to 45.5%), and Rev. Hamilton (51% to 46%).

Even though several House races have not yet been decided, before the election a consensus of polls projected Democrats winning roughly 225 to 230 seats, with Republicans winning about 205 to 210. But now Democrats appear likely to finish with 258 or 259 House seats, far exceeding pre-election expectations.

The average midterm loss for the president's party since World War II has been about 26 House seats. By contrast, Republicans appear headed for a loss of 43 or 44 seats, a significantly larger setback than the postwar norm and one of the most severe midterm reversals in recent decades.

A Significant Republican Change

Three days after the election, the POTUS announced that Susan Wiles was resigning as the White House chief of staff and was being replaced by Stephen Miller. Ms. Wiles (b. 1957) assumed her key position in the Trump 2.0 administration on January 20 (inauguration day), 2025, having been appointed to that role in November 2024.

Ms. Wiles was the 32^nd White House chief of staff and the first woman to hold that position. After the election, Wiles formally resigned. Politically, however, her resignation appears to have been prompted by Mr. Trump’s desire for new leadership following the Republican Party’s midterm losses. The implication was that she bore at least some responsibility for the GOP’s defeat.

More important, and troublesome, than Ms. Wiles resignation, is the announcement that the POTUS was appointing Stephen Miller (b. 1985) as her successor. None of the new political appointments have troubled me as much as the selection of Mr. Miller as the new chief of staff. I have long disagreed with both his policy goals and his political style.

To me, his rise represents not merely a personnel change but a reaffirmation of some of the most exclusionary and confrontational impulses in contemporary American politics. A major New York Times post on November 7 was titled, “In Elevating Stephen Miller, Trump Doubles Down on Hard-Line Agenda.”

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries sharply criticized Miller’s appointment, arguing that he represents “a really toxic brand of political engagement, of politics and of governance,” noting that voters had just rejected that style of politics in the midterm election. I share that assessment.

A Significant Launch for 2028

November 4 can be seen as the real beginning of the 2028 presidential election cycle. Given the results of last week’s election, Democrats seem well positioned to regain the White House, provided they do not squander their advantage.

Who their nominee will be remains anyone’s guess, but I think it will likely be Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker. Of course, a lot will happen between now and November 2028, but I will stick my neck out and predict that Gov. Pritzker will be inaugurated as president on January 20, 2029.

What is your prediction?

Beware of “Big Brother”!

In 1949, George Orwell (1903~1950) published his book, 1984. In that notable work, “Big Brother” was a warning about where totalitarian power might lead. Today, many Americans point to China as proof that the warning came true. But I think the real picture is more expansive and is an unsettling one that needs to be taken seriously in the U.S.

The Situation in China

China has more than 1.4 billion people—about 17% of the world’s population—and that massive nation has long been governed by an authoritarian leader who subjects them to extensive surveillance.

Local governments there have developed facial recognition software that can be used with the hundreds of millions of surveillance cameras across the country. In northwestern China, the Uighur people, suffering under religious persecution as Muslims, have been under widespread surveillance. But journalists and dissidents have been targeted as well.

Surveillance in China is widespread because of four forces that reinforce each other: the totalitarian political structure; the huge population requiring automated control; urban, digital infrastructure that makes surveillance easy; and tech companies integrated with the state. The combination of those four forces makes China unique.

As my A.I. buddy Claude says, “A surveillance system doesn’t need to touch everyone equally to be effective. It needs only to be capable of finding anyone, at any time, and everyone knows it. The knowledge that you could be watched changes how people speak, gather, worship, and dissent.”

China’s totalitarian leaders built the surveillance system deliberately, by design. That sets it apart from what is happening, and what may increasingly happen, in the U.S. But the tools are the same. Cameras, databases, and software that can track a person’s movements don’t care what kind of government is using them.

The Situation in the U.S.

While there are certainly great differences between surveillance in the U.S. and China, “Big Brother” doesn’t have to be linked to a centralized state with a totalitarian leader. That surveillance can be done with the aid of private networks that the government can freely borrow.

Flock Safety, an Atlanta company founded in 2017, is the private company that produces Flock cameras. As of August 2026, it had alone had about 120,000 cameras in 49 states. Those cameras record roughly 20 billion images every month.

As an ardent Democrat, I rarely find myself agreeing with Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). Yet his warning during a Senate hearing on Flock Safety’s AI-powered surveillance deserves attention. That September 23, 2026, hearing was called, “Always Watching: Flock’s Nationwide AI Surveillance Network.”

Mr. Hawley stated that the current surveillance system in the U.S. is “unlike anything we've ever seen in this country before.” What troubled him was not simply the number of cameras, but the fact that they are linked together, searchable, and increasingly powered by artificial intelligence.  

The issue is no longer whether Flock cameras and A.I. technology work. Rather, it is a matter of whether a free society should accept constant surveillance—and whether such monitoring can and should be considered a violation of our basic human rights.

Supporters emphasize that the Flock camera systems can, and do, help recover stolen vehicles, locate missing persons, and solve serious crimes more quickly than could otherwise be done. And to an extent, that may well be true.

But civil-liberties groups such as the ACLU have argued that expansive surveillance systems can, among other things, chill free speech and political participation, deter attendance at protests or controversial meetings, and create risks of government abuse.

When a conservative Republican such as Mr. Hawley and civil liberties advocates across the political spectrum raise similar concerns, the issue transcends ordinary partisan politics.

Let’s Not Allow “Big Brother” to Impair Our Human Rights

So, while China’s “Big Brother” is centralized, one party watching through one system, USAmerica’s is emerging from the bottom up, thousands of small eyes watching and sharing what they see.

Since Orwell’s warning sounded in 1949 still rings true all these years later, we USAmericans need to take seriously the current surveillance threat in rather than only pointing our fingers at Beijing.

_____

Note: This blog article was drafted largely after (and because of) reading the excellent piece by Michael Chancellor at this website:

https://goodfaithmedia.org/hidden-eyes-why-flock-surveillance-cameras-must-come-with-oversight/

[I also appreciate the research and drafting assistance provided by Claude and Copilot.]

Be Sure to Vote! (from today to Nov. 3)

The extremely important mid-term election is on November 3, just two weeks from today (10/20). This is a far more important election than most nationwide elections that doesn’t include voting for a President. In 2024, the nation inexplicably elected a Republican POTUS with a majority of the Senate and House. Now is the time to turn the Senate and House back to normality.

The Precarious Senate Races

The Democrats need to flip only four seats to gain the majority in the Senate. That is certainly within the range of possibility. I have written before about two of the six Democrats most likely to flip a Senate seat: Adam Hamilton in neighboring Kansas and James Talarico in Texas. 

Sherrod Brown, who served as a Senator from Ohio from 2007 to 2025, has a good chance of being elected to that post again. He has a small lead in most of the polls at this point. In addition, Roy Cooper is running for the open Senate seat in North Carolina, and he has a sizeable lead in the polls, and Mary Peltola is leading in the polls for Alaska’s Senator.

While it is more doubtful, Josh Turek has a shot at being elected in the red state of neighboring Iowa. He was born with spina bifida, a congenital condition affecting the spine and mobility. He became a world‑class wheelchair basketball player and won a gold medal as a member of USA’s wheelchair basketball team in the 2016 Paralympics.

So, while these are all close races, it seems entirely feasible that voters might elect at least four (or more!) of these six candidates. That depends partly on Democrats voting in large numbers. Since there is such a strong possibility of their winning the House, many Democrats may think it is not necessary for them to vote.

But in the states just mentioned, it is extremely important for Democrats to vote—and I urge you Thinking Friends in Kansas, Texas, North Carolina, and Iowa to do so. (I can’t think of any TFs in Alaska or Ohio, and if I have forgotten someone in those states, I apologize and ask you to refresh my memory.)

What about the House Races?

In some states, such as Missouri, the election outcome is so predictable that there seems to be little use to vote. I am in the sixth district, which voted for Trump by 80% three times in a row. There is no possibility that a Democrat is going to be elected as the Representative from that district, and there is no senatorial election. So why vote?

Copilot tells me that in the upcoming election, 390–405 seats are effectively safe for one party or the other. That means that only 30–45 seats are meaningfully competitive. Voting doesn’t mean much for those of us who don’t live in that small number of competitive districts. But voting anyway may eventually lead to a more purple district.

Vote for the Candidate or the Party?

I have a good friend who has made it clear on Facebook posts that he votes for the best candidate, not for a political party. Similarly, another Facebook friend recently wrote, “I vote, quite faithfully actually. But don’t count on me to be faithful to any one political party! What I care about are policies, ethics, and relational practices.” And a person I don’t know posted, “I choose the side that feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless, educates the forgotten, and treats every person with dignity.”

That is quite different from my position, which is “vote Blue, no matter who.” So, let’s consider this matter a bit further. Why wouldn’t we want to vote for the best candidate rather than for one who and a D or a R after his name?

In the past I have been a supporter of some Republicans, especially of Mark Hatfield (Senator from Oregon from 1976~95) and John Danforth (Missouri Senator from 1976~95). I’ve also held positive opinions of Margaret Chase Smith (Maine Senator, 1949~73) and of Ben Sasse (Nebraska Senator, 2015~23).

But now, with maybe a couple of exceptions, Republicans seeking to become a U.S. Senator or Representative are so under the control of the POTUS, it is hard to see why anyone concerned about the good of the country, and especially about the underprivileged, would think voting for a GOP candidate is the right choice.

So, the midterm elections begin today, and I encourage all of you U.S. citizens to be sure to vote—and to vote conscientiously.

 

Encountering Truth

According to John’s Gospel, Jesus said, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (8:32, NIV). This article looks at the relevance of those words from these three vastly different perspectives: the 16th century Anabaptists, a 20th century German theologian, and a 21st century novel.  

Emil Brunner’s Emphasis on Truth as Encounter 

One of the most important theologians of the twentieth century was Emil Brunner. Born in Zürich and a lifelong resident of that Swiss city, Brunner (1889~1966) published a seminal book in 1938, and it was first released in English under the title The Divine-Human Encounter (1943).* 

One of the most important books I read in seminary and studied more deeply in graduate school was Brunner's Revelation and Reason, the 1946 translation of his original German book published in 1941 and titled Offenbarung und Vernunft.

In that significant book, Brunner emphasized that humans can know God only by means of revelation, not by discursive reason alone. What God reveals is not information to be grasped by the intellect. Rather, God's revelation is God's own self, who is known primarily by personal encounter. 

Chapter 24 of Revelation and Reason is titled “The Two Conceptions of Truth,” and the “Thou” truth as emphasized by S. Kierkegaard and M. Buber is the truth that comes from “personal encounter” (370-1). That is also the nature of truth which comes from “personal knowledge” as emphasized so strongly by Michael Polanyi in his 1958 book with that title.

When I first studied Brunner and Barth in seminary and graduate school, I found Brunner's theology more compelling because he affirmed truth as encounter and held that affirmation while leaving room for faith and reason to work together.   

Brunner and Barth agreed that God is known only through revelation. They differed on whether human beings have any capacity to seek and to find God’s revelation. Brunner said yes: there is a “point of contact.” Barth said no (“Nein!”), because that would make revelation depend partly on us humans. 

The Shack’s Emphasis on Encountering God 

Wm. Paul Young’s novel The Shack was originally written for his six children. It was first published in 2007, initially by the small, newly created Windblown Media after conventional publishers had declined it—and surprisingly, it became an international bestseller. I recently read it for the second time and was highly impressed with its theological depth. 

Mackenzie (Mack), the central character, is a nominally religious man with traditional theological/doctrinal beliefs. But the book is about his encountering the truth of God by meeting and conversing with “God the Father,” portrayed as a large Black woman, with the Holy Spirit as the fairy-like Sarayu, and with Jesus as a very human-like man who liked to do carpentry work.  

Of course, the bulk of the book must be interpreted as “myth” (in the theological sense), which means, of course, not a “false story” but rather the use of narrative to disclose truth that cannot be stated propositionally.

As Copilot, expresses it, “Mack’s weekend in the shack is not meant to be read as a historical event; it is a narrative vehicle for revelation, healing, and encounter—Brunner’s Wahrheit als Begegnung in fictional form.” (I thought that was a clever way to depict what The Shack was saying.)  

Mack’s spiritual growth and deep comprehension of truth came through the deep encounters with the triune God in the “shack” that he discovered in the woods. The truth he learned from those encounters was quite different from the doctrines he had accepted as a rather perfunctory Christian believer. 

The Sixteenth Century Anabaptists 

The Anabaptist movement began in Zürich, the same Swiss city where Brunner was born. From the start, that modest beginning in 1525 emphasized discipleship, following the Christ they encountered in the Bible and in their somewhat mystical experiences, rather than by studying theological doctrines.  

It has long been said that there is no "Anabaptist theology,” for their movement was about doing rather than writing about theological doctrines. Although I have a Ph.D. in theology, I am happy to be a progressive Anabaptist now, placing emphasis on encountering truth and on seeking to follow Christ faithfully.  

_____ 

* The German title was Wahrheit als Begegnung. A second German edition was published in 1963 under the same title, but the English translation, issued the following year, is titled Truth as Encounter: A Study in the Theology of Truth. 

What a Contrast! Trump and Guterres

Last week, two prominent world leaders gave speeches at the U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York City, in Turtle Bay no less,* but what a contrast there was between those two important addresses—and what an embarrassment to many of us U.S. citizens who are deeply interested in world affairs. 

The Speech by the U.N. General Secretary

António Guterres is the ninth Secretary-General of the United Nations, having occupied that office since January 2017. Born in Portugal just four years after the U.N. was established in 1945, he is a physicist-turned-politician who became the head of Portugal’s Socialist Party in 1992. His “socialism” is more social democracy than traditional socialism.

Mr. Guterres is also a devout, practicing Roman Catholic, and his political position is in harmony with the social teaching of the Catholic Church. He served as the Prime Minister of Portugal from 1995 to 2002, and then later became the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2005~2015).

In his powerful September 22 speech, Mr. Guterres declared that in the international world order, “cracks have become canyons,” so the countries of the world must work together to overcome the divisiveness that threatens peace and stability. He called for “networked multipolarity,” i.e., interdependence rather than there being a “great fracture” into rival blocs.

The Speech by the U.S. President

By contrast, the speech of Mr. Trump was exceedingly bad. With the Iran delegation present, he raised the possibility of annihilating the Islamic Republic—and upon hearing that, all the Iranian delegates (except for a low-ranking one), walked out in protest.

He also justified the military removal of Venezuela’s president in January of this year. That was clearly in violation of the United Nations Charter, which bars the use of force against another state’s territorial integrity or political independence.

And to make matters worse, in his speech Mr. Trump declared that “to the victors belong the spoils”—but that is not a USAmerican value. It is the logic of every empire that has taken what belonged to someone else. The Administration, though, says Venezuela's government signed the deal, that Venezuelans benefit, and that a criminal was removed.

But a contract signed in the shadow of an invasion, with a government installed by the invader, is not a deal between equals. And nobody, so far, will say where the oil money has actually gone. Power that seizes wealth and then won't account for it is not practicing diplomacy. It is, rather, an act of conquest.

My previous blog post was about the evil of empire(s), and what Mr. Trump did and said clearly seems to be an example of imperialism. A foreign country was invaded, and part of its wealth (vast oil reserves) was seized. Moreover, there is no clear evidence at this point of where the profits from the sale of that oil are going. Maybe some to the POTUS’s account?**

World Leaders Past and Present

Eight out of the nine Secretaries-General have served during my adult lifetime. I have known most about Dag Hammarskjöld from Sweden (1953~61). In addition, I remember how U Thant from Burma/Myanmar (1961~71), Kofi Annan from Ghana (1997~2006), and Ban Ki-moon from South Korea (2007~16) were also conscientious world leaders and statesmen.

Unfortunately, some of the U.S. Presidents who have served during these same years, from 1953 until the present, have been far less admirable. The current POTUS is clearly the worst of those, although there were serious deficiencies in the presidencies of Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, and (to a lesser degree) Ronald Reagan.

Looking forward to the 2028 election, I think there are people who could be elected President and serve well as a world leader like the U.S. General Secretary. As I have said before, my “top four” for that position are Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez, Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, and Mark Kelly. The latter is probably the one who is most likely to be inaugurated in January 2029.

_____

  * I had not known until last week that the U.N. Headquarters is in the Turtle Bay “neighborhood,” the “official” designation of that part of NYC known as Midtown East.

** Further, a couple of days ago, the Trump administration opened a route for Venezuelan gold to reach U.S. markets. Who will ultimately benefit from such a deal—the Venezuelan people, U.S. interests, or politically connected individuals? Trump’s talk of ‘spoils’ makes that question especially urgent.

 

The Complexity of Loving One’s Neighbor with No Exceptions

Last week I planted a new yard sign near the sidewalk in front of our house. Here is an image that accurately portrays it. What do you think? Is this a good, positive message for my neighbors to read and ponder as they walk up or down the sidewalk?

\

Where the Slogan Works

As a challenge to the scope of “neighbor”—refusing to exclude people by ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexuality, or politics—the slogan does real theological work. It echoes the lawyer’s question to Jesus in the Good Samaritan parable (“who is my neighbor?”) and doesn’t allow him to constrict his understanding of who a neighbor is.

In the current cultural moment when Christian nationalism narrows “neighbor” to those who embrace the same ethnic background, national identity, or even the same religion, a sign refusing that narrowing says something real and important, even from a sidewalk.

It is quite clear, surely, that the sign is talking about “neighbors” both near and far. Many of those who see my yard sign are literal neighbors who walk by, many of them going for a longer walk in Canterbury Park, which is just a three- or four-minute walk from where they see my yard sign.

And while there is not a lot of diversity in my neighborhood, it is likely that they will meet someone who is represented on one and maybe more of the strips of the yard sign. Thoughtful people will also comprehend that the sign encourages branching out to respect differences of people far from our local neighborhood. At least, that is my hope.

Where It Gets Harder

The slogan is challenged, though, not by the question of who counts as a neighbor, but far more by the question of what love requires when you consider multiple neighbors. For example, how do you love neighbor A if he/she is mistreating/harming neighbor B? Doesn’t that call into question the last line of the yard flag?

To make it more concrete—and please note I am not talking at all about my next-door neighbors—what should be done if my neighbor is apparently sexually abusing the teenage girl who is his next-door neighbor on the other side?

What does “love your neighbor, no exceptions” signify in cases like that? Doesn’t love of the vulnerable neighbor require action, even though such action would have serious negative effects on the other neighbor?

Love of the one doing harm doesn't mean protecting him from consequences. Silence to preserve the relationship, or treating exposure as unloving, gets this backwards. Real love for the offender includes wanting him stopped—for the victim's sake, of course, but also because continuing the abuse damages his own moral and spiritual condition.

The two loves are not actually in competition. Protecting the vulnerable neighbor is the loving act toward both parties—it is not a trade-off between loving A and loving B, but a recognition that stopping harm serves everyone's good, including the person doing it.

What a Yard Sign Can and Can't Carry

A yard sign is a public signal, not a treatise—its job is narrower than a full theology of love. It can answer the lawyer’s question (who is my neighbor?) but is not built to answer the harder question of what love does amid conflict and harm.

That’s not a defect unique to this sign; most bumper-sticker theology doesn't survive its hardest edge case, and that's not the standard it needs to meet. Silence on a question is different from a wrong answer to it.

Here is the real test for a sign like this: does the simplification it makes point roughly true, or does it point false? On the question it actually answers, this one points true.

One seam worth noting

"Vote like you" sits in a different category from the rest of the list. Looking, praying, speaking, and loving differently are matters of identity. Voting is a chosen act with public consequences. It is closer to a person who acts/does differently than merely one who is different.

The list quietly slides from identity categories into an action category, which is exactly the seam where the abuse scenario also lives. The flag’s implicit answer, “you still love them,” seeking what is best for them, holds for those who vote unwisely as well as for those who, like Neighbor A (mentioned above), abuses his neighbor.

But, again, loving is not condoning. So, sure, we should still love the neighbor who voted for the current POTUS as well as those who are still among his devoted MAGA supporters. But the latter need to be made aware of the harm that Mr. Trump has done to this nation and the world. And our love for them must be "tough love."

[My A.I. “buddy” Claude provided limited assistance researching and drafting this post.]

The Evils of Empire(s)

Soon after reading the striking words, “… every empire is evil,” in Ray Daniel’s book Grace Over Guns (my review of which some of you have seen here) I started working on this article. Rev. Daniel went on to assert that the U.S. is an empire. As such, it “shares the moral failings of all empires.” And now, the U.S. has a president who acts like an emperor (my words, not Daniel’s). 

When the U.S. Empire was Considered “Good”

There is a long history of the U.S. being considered an empire, and that was considered meritorious. In a 1785 letter, George Washington praised New York, calling it the “Seat of the Empire.”

According to my A.I. buddy Claude, this use of empire is “unambiguously positive—a term of pride tied to size, wealth, influence, and status as a center of commerce, culture, and innovation.” Consequently, after the U.S. defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War of 1898, Great Britain began to express pride that its former colonies had become a world empire.

After the U.S. acquired colonial possessions of its own, Britain no longer saw America as a resentful ex-colony but as a fellow imperial power with shared interests. That stance of the U.S. as an empire was justified by President McKinley and his supporters.

A little over three decades later, the Empire State Building was constructed, completed in a remarkable 13½ months in 1930-31. At that time, it was the world’s tallest building, and it was so named as a monument to the identity and global stature of the Empire State, New York.

But beginning in the 1960s, the word or concept of empire began to be called into question, and the glamor of empires became greatly tarnished.

When the U.S. Empire Became “Bad”

By the 1960s most of the 20^th century empires of the world had fallen. Empire had become morally discredited and anti-imperial movements were global. Thus, in the shadow of a global collapse of empires, to much of the world, the U.S. looked like the last Western empire trying to hold back Asian self‑determination (in Indochina).

Civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. linked racial injustice at home to imperial violence abroad. In “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence,” his April 1967 speech at Riverside Church in New York City, MLK charged that the U.S. was “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”

Recently, in addition to Daniel’s negative views of empire (mentioned in the first paragraph above), last year Herald Press also published Kat Armas’s book, Liturgies for Resisting Empire. Ms. Armas was born in Cuba, so she knows something about the evils of empire because of how it affected the country of her birth.

In her first chapter, “Resisting Empire, Embracing Joy,” Ms. Armas cites words from “Christ in the Rubble,” Munther Isaac’s Christmas 2023 sermon that went viral. Rev. Dr. Isaac is a Palestinian Lutheran pastor, and in that sermon, he spoke with prophetic urgency against what he calls “empire theology.”

Isaac insists that Christ is found not in the triumphs of empire but in its ruins, among the wounded, the displaced, and the silenced. His witness turns lament into resistance, calling the church to stand where God stands: with those crushed beneath the weight of empire.

That is Ms. Armas’s position: standing against the imperialism of the U.S. and Israel and for the Palestinians who have suffered so much, and who are continuing to suffer although the media spotlight has now shifted to other matters.

What about the U.S. Empire Now?

The current POTUS seems to embrace an imperial mindset with he himself being the most powerful emperor in the world. We have seen what he has done in Venezuela, and how he has profited by his imperial actions. And we have heard his imperial musings about Greenland, Panama Canal, Cuba—and even Canada (the possible 51^st U.S. state!).

But regardless of when or where it is, as Dr. Diana Butler Bass posted on her Substack account on August 22, whenever or wherever it is, the evil of empire “is always the denial of the dignity of human beings, demeaning them, and treating them with no grace, mercy, or empathy.”

_____

Note: Next month U.S. Empire: A Handbook, edited by Mischa Honeck and Mahshid Mayar, will be released. It synthesizes recent historical scholarship on the U.S. as an imperial power and probes fierce contestations over the place and meaning of empire in US history at this time when the U.S. is renegotiating its position as a leading actor on the world stage.