Why Disillusionment Can Be a Good Thing

 Like many people, I have generally thought of disillusionment as being something "bad," but in a recent sermon, my pastor talked about how disillusionment can be a good thing. In that message, Pastor Nanette read an excerpt from Barbara Brown Taylor’s book The Preaching Life, and right away, I ordered a used copy of it. 

Barbara Brown Taylor is an American Episcopal priest, academic, and author. She was ordained in 1984, and The Preaching Life (1993) is the first of her many published books. It is largely autobiographical (Part One) and a collection of sermons (Part Two). Pastor Nanette quoted from the first chapter, “A Church in Ruins.”

In that chapter, Taylor (b. 1951) writes about how in the 1970s, when she was in college, many students and other young adults were becoming increasingly disillusioned with Christianity. In that connection, she then wrote about a young father who was grieving the loss of an infant daughter.

The devastated father said, “If God is going to let something like this happen, then what’s the use of believing at all?” To this, Taylor remarks: “His disillusionment is emblematic of the post-Christian era, when the perceived promises of Christendom lie broken and the existence of God—never mind the omnipotence of God—seems a fantasy.”*¹

In that context, Taylor surprisingly avers that perhaps disillusionment “is not so bad.” She explains:

Disillusionment is the loss of illusion—about ourselves, about the world, about God—and while it is almost always painful, it is not a bad thing to lose the lies we have mistaken for the truth. … Disillusioned, we find out what is not true and are set free to seek what is.

What an important insight!

So many people who have rejected Christianity or faith in God have done so because of having harbored some illusion, some lie they mistook for the truth. But many who became disillusioned were, indeed, liberated from some lie and set free to seek and to find the truth.

Sigmund Freud wrote/spoke much about religion/faith in God as being an illusion. One of his most famous books is The Future of an Illusion (1927; Eng. trans., 1928). In the sixth chapter, he states, “Religious doctrines are all illusions, they do not admit of proof, and no one can be compelled to consider them as true or to believe in them.”

In that same chapter, Freud wrote, “What is characteristic of illusions is that they are derived from human wishes. … The illusion of religion is fulfilled in the belief in a God who protects us and compensates us in a future life.”

Back in October 2014, I posted a blog article titled “Was Freud a Fraud?” My conclusion was that, indeed, in many ways, he could be considered so. And now (with the help of ChatGPT), I am more convinced that my criticism of Freud then was well-grounded.

Many of Freud’s main assertions were illusions, in the sense that they did not admit of proof (as they were neither empirically verifiable nor falsifiable) and no one could be “compelled to consider them as true or to believe in them.” Just like many religious beliefs, they may be true or false, but they can’t be scientifically proven to be one or the other.

Just as many religious people need to be disillusioned, that is, liberated from the lies they have mistaken for the truth so that they can seek and (ideally) find that which is true, it is the same for those who embrace “scientism,” people such as Freud and philosopher Daniel Dennett.*²

Dennett (1942~2024) is one of the "four horsemen" of what has often been called the “new atheism.”*³ Dennett is often quoted as saying, "There's simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion."

Well, since they are already dead, perhaps I don’t need to be polite, but it seems clear to me that Freud and Dennett did devote their lives to an illusion. They badly needed to be disillusioned, but never were, as far as we know.

Disillusionment is the best thing that could happen to present-day people whose worldview is similar to Freud’s, Dennett’s, and others who embrace scientism and complete secularism.

What, though, could be better than being liberated from lies and finding the truth that sets one free!

 _____

*¹ When I read those words, I wrote “Oord” in the margin, referring to theologian Thomas Jay Oord, the author of a seminal book on this issue about whom (in January of this year) I posted a blog article. Oord rejects the idea of God’s omnipotence (as it is usually conceived). If you want to (re)read that post, click here.

*² Scientism is the belief that science is the only valid path to knowledge and that scientific methods should be applied to all areas of inquiry, dismissing philosophy and/or religion as illegitimate or inferior.

*³ The other three are Christopher Hitchens (1949~2011), Richard Dawkins (b. 1941), and Sam Harris (b. 1967).  

What about Pastors Promoting Politicians?

Last month, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service stated that churches and/or pastors could endorse candidates running for political office, despite the Johnson Amendment of 1954.*¹ Should we now think it is acceptable for pastors to promote voting for politicians by name? 

Why was the Johnson Amendment passed and long uncontroversial? Lyndon B. Johnson was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1948 and successfully ran for re-election in 1954. During that re-election campaign, he was opposed by some tax-exempt organizations, including churches.

Johnson thought it was not fair for tax-exempt groups and their leaders to engage in direct support or opposition to candidates running for political office. His amendment was passed with little opposition and has long been widely recognized as upholding the principle of separation of church and state.

Even though the amendment was drafted by a prominent Democratic Senator, it was signed into law by President Eisenhower, a Republican. There was widespread agreement across the political spectrum that mixing tax-exempt status with partisan political endorsements was inappropriate.

From the beginning, though, there was some opposition to the enactment of that 1954 amendment.

What was the basis for disapproval of the Johnson Amendment? Even though they thought it was absolutely right for their churches to be exempt from paying taxes, some conservative Christians thought the Johnson Amendment was an infringement on their freedom of speech.

Since they saw the amendment as a freedom of speech violation, they thought it was unconstitutional and needed to be nullified or just ignored, as to a certain extent, it has been through the years.

Pastors, they claim, have the responsibility to speak out on moral issues, and doing so naturally includes mentioning the names of politicians who are aligned with what is deemed to be immoral. Such opposition has grown over the years among those affiliated with the Christian Right and now with MAGA.

With the growth of the latter groups over the past decades, conservative pastors have largely felt constrained to speak out, especially in opposition to abortion and LGBTQ rights and against politicians who are pro-choice and pro-gay.

In recent years, Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, has been one prominent pastor who has expressed strong disapproval of the Johnson Amendment. He has been one of Trump’s most ardent supporters, and in April, he voiced that disapproval at the Easter prayer service in the White House.

At the President’s request, soon afterward, he sent a letter to Trump, outlining what he called “wrongful weaponization of the law” and the “unlawful targeting” of his church. He has also said, “What a pastor says in a church service is none of the government’s … business.”*²

Jeffress and many other conservative pastors think they have the right to give moral instruction to their “flock,” including guidance in political matters. On the website of Jeffress’s church, however, they claim that their weekly telecasts are seen by hundreds of thousands of viewers.

Any pastors who have their sermons streamed on the internet have no basis for saying they are just giving moral instruction to their church members. To promote political candidates, as Jeffress is wont to do, is a clear violation of the Johnson Amendment.

Why is ignoring the Johnson Amendment now a bad policy? Since politically conservative church members overwhelmingly vote Republican, if pastors in such churches promote political candidates, that will make little difference. Most conservative evangelicals will vote for Republicans no matter what.

On the other hand, since members of progressive churches (such as the one I am a member of) overwhelmingly vote Democratic, pastors of such churches mentioning the name of a candidate will make little difference.

The problem is in churches where the adult members are politically “purple.” Pastors promoting candidates by name in such churches could and probably would influence many to vote for the candidate promoted by the pastor. This is why the Johnson Amendment needs to be heeded.

On July 30, over 1,000 charitable nonprofits launched a national sign-on letter to defend nonpartisanship and public trust (see here). The letter strongly objects to efforts by the Trump administration to weaken the Johnson Amendment, which protects nonprofits from partisan politics.

As Amanda Tyler says, this ignoring of the Johnson amendment “threatens to turn churches into PACs”—and that can’t be good for either the government or churches.*³

_____

*¹ According to Wikipedia, “The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code … that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization in the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to universities and churches. The amendment is named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas.” In July 1954, it was enacted into law.

*² This was reported in a July 30 article in the New York Times (see here). The title of that article is “How Conservative Christians Cracked a 70-Year-Old Law,” and if you are interested in reading more about this issue, I recommend that article. Also, I didn't quote from it, but here is a link to another good article, published yesterday, on the subject. 

*³ Tyler is the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee [BJC] for Religious Liberty. The BJC’s roots go back to 1936 when the Southern Baptist Convention [SBC] established an organization that grew into what became the BJC. The SBC ceased funding the BJC in 1991

Handle with Care

Carolyn Houts, the Seat cousin closest to me in age, was a Baptist missionary to Ghana from 1977 until her retirement in 2010. One year when she was on furlough (aka stateside assignment), she gave June and me a wood carving that we have displayed and enjoyed through the years. 

The Ghanaian wood carving is of a hand holding an egg. It is a deeply symbolic piece rooted in the Asante (or Ashanti) cultural tradition. During many of the years she was in Ghana, Cousin Carolyn (1942~2019) lived in Kumasi, the capital of the Asante region, and spoke Twi, the local language.**  

On his website (see here), a Ghanaian artist says he carves the hand holding an egg sculptures with a powerful African proverb in mind. That proverb is about the delicate nature of leadership and authority in Ghanaian culture. Here is the English translation of that proverb:

To be a ruler is like holding an egg in the hand; if it is pressed too hard it breaks; but if not held tightly enough it may slip and smash on the ground.

The metaphor shown in the hand-holding-egg carving stresses that authority is not absolute or unbreakable, that leadership must be firm enough to maintain control and effectiveness yet gentle enough not to destroy trust, and that true leadership requires restraint and careful judgment.

The symbolism of the wood carving is applicable to various relationships in addition to those of people in places of leadership and authority. For example, it reminds supervisors and mentors to manage their relationships with those “under” them in ways that inspire rather than intimidate.

The carving also speaks to the relationship between friends, speaking of how to offer support and when to step back as well as how to be present without being intrusive.

In romantic relationships, the image of a hand holding an egg portrays the delicate balance between intimacy and independence, between caring deeply and avoiding possessiveness.

The egg metaphor also depicts the challenge of parenting. As I have done previously, I asked Claude, my AI “friend,” if the egg-in-hand carving could be related to the challenge of being a good parent. Here is the first paragraph of the answer I received:

The egg metaphor captures the essential challenge of parenting: how to provide guidance, protection, and structure while allowing space for growth and independence. Parents who grip too tightly may crush their children's spirit, confidence, or natural development. Those who hold too loosely risk their children falling into harm or lacking the security they need.

I thought that was an excellent statement, and I soon began to think about my own parents and their parenting practices of 75 years ago, which I still remember with appreciation.

My parents never went to college, and I am quite sure they didn’t read any books about child psychology or self-help books about how to be good parents. But in thinking back to the summer in 1950 when I turned 12 until I started college in the fall of 1955, I think they were exceptionally good parents.

As we lived on a farm, probably already by 1950 my parents had given me baby livestock, which I raised and then sold their offspring. As I wrote in my book subtitled The Story My Life, my father “was wise in getting me started at a young age in making money on the farm.”

On the following page, I wrote that my parents “were skillful in helping me gain a sense of independence from a very early age—and I have always appreciated that.”

Long before they had seen the wood carving that my father’s niece gave June and me, to an exemplary degree they put into practice holding the “egg” with care, not too tightly or too loosely.

I think June and I also did that in rearing our four children, the youngest of whom is now 53—but I guess you’d have to ask them if they think we did, in fact, handle the egg with proper care.

_____

** Soon after Carolyn returned to the U.S. in 2010, I posted a blog article titled “In Praise of Cousin Carolyn” (you can access it here). She also lived for many years in Accra, the capital and largest city of Ghana. Kumasi is about 160 miles (by car) northwest of Accra.

In Admiration of Stanley Hauerwas

On May 10, I posted a blog article titled ”In Admiration of John Wesley and Methodism.” This post expresses my admiration for Stanley Hauerwas, a contemporary Methodist scholar who is celebrating his 85^th birthday next week. 

(Hauerwas in 2022)

Stanley Martin Hauerwas was born in Dallas on July 24, 1940. He grew up in a working-class household located in a suburban area of that Texas city. His father was a bricklayer, and Stanley worked summers with his father from the age of nine.

Upon finishing high school, Stanley enrolled in Southwestern University in Texas, the first in his family to attend college. Then he went to Yale, where he earned his B.D. (M.Div.) degree in 1965 and completed his Ph.D. in theology and ethics in 1968.*

Even though he became a theology and ethics scholar, he retained much of the blue-collar culture of his boyhood. His “salty” language was criticized by some people who thought a university professor shouldn’t use “unacceptable” language.

Hauerwas married in 1962, the year he finished college, and six years later, his only child, a boy, was born. His wife struggled with mental illness, though, and they divorced after 25 years of marriage. In 1989 he married Paula Gilbert, a theologian and an ordained United Methodist minister.

I first learned about Hauerwas by reading Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony (1989), a book co-written with William Willimon. That was a rich read for me, and it influenced how many Christians perceived their role in society.  

When I recently looked at the notes I took when I read Resident Aliens again back in 2008, I wrote, “Thirty-six years ago, the authors contended, ‘The times are too challenging to be wasting time pressing one another into boxes called liberal or conservative. The choice is between truth and lies’ (p. 160).”

And then in the concluding sub-section of the last chapter, they aver that

the challenge facing today’s Christians is not the necessity to translate Christian convictions into a modern idiom, but rather to form a community, a colony of resident aliens which is so shaped by our convictions that no one even has to ask what we mean by confessing belief in God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hauerwas’s newest book is Jesus Changes Everything, a small volume edited by Charles Moore and released by Plough Publishing House in March 2025.** Much in that book is a reaffirmation of what he and Willimon emphasized in Resident Aliens.  

In his ten-page introduction of the author, Moore says that “Hauerwas eludes categorization. He is neither conservative enough for the conservatives nor liberal enough for liberals” (p. xxiv).

In the concluding paragraph of that introduction, Moore states,

Stanley Hauerwas and his writings were a large reason why 30 years ago I left a professorship at a seminary and moved 2000 miles with my wife to join the Bruderhof, a Christian community that shares possessions in common in accordance with the Sermon on the Mount.

Then, in an article published by the Bruderhof in March 2025, Anglican priest Tish Harrison Warren writes that she “became a pacifist because of Hauerwas” and that she has “friends who went to seminary to study theology because of Hauerwas’s work. His words change people.”

Hauerwas is a Mennonite theologian/ethicist, as well as being a lifelong Methodist and active in an Episcopal church. Unlike Warren, I became a pacifist long before I knew about Stanley Hauerwas, but I was delighted when I learned that he became a devotee of Mennonite scholar John Howard Yoder.

Unfortunately, Yoder (1927~97), who was arguably the most significant Anabaptist scholar of the twentieth century, badly tarnished his reputation because of his “abusive behavior toward women,” which became public in the 2010s. But his influence on Hauerwas was long before that.

In The Politics of Jesus (1972), Yoder argued forcefully that the life, death, and resurrection of Christ necessitates a nonviolent discipleship as the definitive Christian ethic. Hauerwas adopted and extended that conviction: nonviolence is not optional but obligatory for loyal followers of Jesus.

Authentic Christians are “disciples” of Jesus rather than mere “admirers,” and the primary task of the church is to be the church, a faithful community of Jesus-followers, rather than an organization trying to do things for the benefit of society. Yes, indeed!

 _____

  * I feel considerable affinity with Hauerwas. Born just two years earlier, I am the son of a (working-class) farmer and the first male in the direct-line Seat family to attend college, finishing with a B.A. degree in 1959, graduating from seminary with a B.D. in 1962, and then finishing work for my Ph.D. in 1966. When it comes to nationwide influence, books written, and scholarly articles published, though, there is absolutely no comparison.

** Moore is a contributing editor and author for Plough, the publishing arm of the Bruderhof community, introduced in my 12/5/20 blog post. Moore is also the editor of Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Søren Kierkegaard (1999), a valuable, easy-to-read book, as well as the compiler and editor of Called to Community (2016; 2^nd ed., 2024). Hauerwas wrote the Foreword to the latter.  

The Importance of the Magna Carta Then and Now

What does, or should, an 800-year-old document have to do with the present civil rights of U.S. citizens, asylum seekers, and others seeking to live safely in this country? 

Painting of King John signing the Magna Carta

The Magna Carta was first signed in June 1215, although the final version was not issued until 1225, ten years after it was first granted, under pressure, by King John, who reigned as King of England from 1199 to 1216.

According to Britannica, “By declaring the sovereign to be subject to the rule of law and documenting the liberties held by ‘free men,’ the Magna Carta provided the foundation for individual rights in Anglo-American jurisprudence.”

I was surprised to learn, though, that the opening clause of the Magna Carta states that “the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unharmed.” I asked Claude (my AI “buddy”) if that is related to the principle of the separation of church and state.

Claude stated that “while the Magna Carta's church clause wasn't the ‘basis’ for American church-state separation, it was part of a long constitutional tradition about limiting government overreach that ultimately influenced American thinking about religious liberty.”

The Magna Carta was revolutionary in many ways, though, because it established the principle that even the king was subject to law. In addition, key provisions included protections against arbitrary imprisonment, limits on taxation without consent, and guarantees of due process.

Last week, the U.S. celebrated Independence Day, and it is noteworthy that the American colonists invoked the Magna Carta against British rule, and concepts embodied in the Magna Carta were included in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

Several years before July 4, 1776, there was strong opposition to the Stamp Act of 1765, an act of the British Parliament that imposed a direct tax on the British colonies in America. Remembering the Magna Carta, the colonists strongly rejected “taxation without representation.”*

The Boston Tea Party of 1773 was also based on the core idea of the Magna Carta, stating that the king could not impose taxes without the "general consent of the realm." The colonists viewed the Tea Act of 1773 as a violation of that ancient English right.**

While there may not have been explicit references to the Magna Carta by the British colonists who initiated the Revolutionary War, it is quite certain that their grievances against King George III and the British governance of the Thirteen Colonies were based on key ideas incorporated in the Magna Carta.

What about the current U.S. government and the Magna Carta? It seems quite clear to most top U.S. politicians (and their supporters) who are not MAGA adherents that the 47^th President is saying and doing things that stand in opposition to the Magna Carta—and the U.S. Constitution.

Once again, Claude came through with a list of “several areas where President Trump’s 2025 actions have raised concerns that relate to principles found in the Magna Carta,” a list that seems completely accurate to me. It includes:

 1) Due Process Violations. Legal experts say that the manner in which Trump is targeting some law firms runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process. These violations are even more evident in Trump’s aggressive deportation of immigrants.

  2) Arbitrary Executive Action. Directly related to the above is Trump’s executive order using a wartime authority for law enforcement purposes, targeting people for arrest based solely on their ethnicity/nationality. This is the sort of arbitrary action that the Magna Carta sought to prevent.

  3) Targeting of Legal Professionals: The actions against “enemy” law firms, restricting access to federal buildings, and terminating government contracts due to their association with former special counsel Robert Mueller resemble the kind of arbitrary punishment that the Magna Carta was designed to prevent.

  4) Immigration Enforcement Changes: Trump ended the policy from 2011, which prohibited immigration arrests in sensitive areas such as courthouses, schools, churches, and hospitals. Currently, my church is considering how to respond if ICE agents show up seeking “illegals” during a worship service.

In summary, Claude states, “The Magna Carta’s core principle was limiting arbitrary royal power and ensuring legal protections.” However, some of Trump's 2025 executive actions “echo the kind of unchecked executive power the Magna Carta was designed to constrain.” That, sadly, seems to be the case, indeed.

_____

  * If you need to review what the Stamp Act was, as I did, Wikipedia, as usual, provides a helpful explanation (click here).

** For additional information about the Boston Tea Party, see my December 15, 2013, blog post (here).

 

What about Deconstruction?

In recent years, much has been written about Christian deconstruction. That may be a new term/concept to many of you, but it is something worth thinking about, for ourselves and for the people around us who are struggling with their faith or lack thereof. 

What is deconstruction? Well, in the physical world, we are all familiar with construction as meaning “the act or process of building something.” Similarly, deconstruction means the selective dismantlement of building components as opposed to demolition. It is construction in reverse.

Then there is the related word reconstruction, that is, “the act or process of building again something that was damaged or destroyed.” (Of course, Reconstruction was the term used for the turbulent era from 1865 to 1877 as the Confederate states were reintegrated into the United States.)

For quite some time, though, deconstruction has been used as a philosophical or literary term. In philosophy, it refers to the endeavor to understand the relationship between a text and its meaning. Philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930~2004) introduced that concept of deconstruction.

Somewhat surprisingly, since Derrida described himself as Jewish “without being Jewish,” his ideas about deconstruction have been influential among evangelical Christians, and especially among those who have become “progressive.”

Consider the construction, deconstruction, reconstruction process. Everyone acquires a constructed worldview, which for most people is linked to religious beliefs. The worldview or basic beliefs of children are constructed primarily by their parents and/or teachers (such as Sunday School teachers).

Most people grow up accepting what they have been taught without question—until they don’t. Some never change or veer very much from their other-constructed worldview or religious faith. Those who remain rooted in family and community structures into which they were born often make little change.

However, because of life experiences, critical thinking, and/or contact with different worldviews, most people who leave their birth “cocoon” begin the often rather painful process of deconstruction. That is true now for most Christian believers, of course.

According to Claude, in such cases, deconstruction for Christians

refers to a critical examination and dismantling of traditional religious beliefs, practices, and interpretations of scripture. This process involves questioning long-held assumptions about faith, doctrine, and biblical interpretation to uncover underlying power structures, cultural biases, and historical influences that may have shaped Christian understanding.*¹

The final paragraph of Claude’s response to my question states, “The ultimate goal for many deconstructive theologians is not destruction but reconstruction—building a more authentic, inclusive, and contextually relevant understanding of Christian faith.” Touché!

Is deconstruction good or bad (beneficial or harmful)? In the past, I have written how “unexamined faith is not worth having,” and posted blog articles about “Growing in the Faith” (2/28/17) and about the importance of expanding one’s worldview (7/30/24).*²

From a Christian point of view, I think it is harmful when deconstruction ends up destroying one’s Christian faith, as it sometimes does. However, it is certainly beneficial when it leads to growth, an expanded worldview, and a faith strong enough to meet contemporary challenges to a Christian worldview.

The reconstructed faith may differ from the institutional Christianity to which one was formerly linked, but it may, in fact, be more closely linked to the real message of Jesus Christ.

Two examples of the latter are Martin Thielen and Jim Palmer, both former pastors and both now outside of organized Christianity as a religion but still Jesus-followers, it seems to me.

Thielen is a former Baptist and Methodist pastor. He elucidates the deconstruction and reconstruction of his Christian faith in “My Long Farewell to Traditional Religion (and What Remains),” posted on his Doubter’s Parish website.

Palmer is an M.Div. graduate of Trinity Divinity School and served many years as a Christian pastor before leaving the ministry in 2000. He started the online Center for Non-Religious Spirituality in 2021, creating a community for people to explore spirituality apart from the core beliefs of traditional religion.

Palmer, who writes extensively, also has a Substack newsletter titled “deconstructionology.” Some of you might like to read “What if …”, his June 27 post, which lists “17 ways to transform candidates for the hereafter into lovers of the world.”*³

Best wishes to all of you who are currently working on deconstruction and reconstruction—and I encourage any of you who may still need to begin deconstruction to start that process soon.

____

*¹ Claude is now my AI chatbot of choice, and it (he?) gave an excellent response to my inquiry, “What does deconstruction mean for Christian theologians?” The words cited above is the first of six paragraphs produced in just a few seconds. (You can find an introduction to Claude here.)

*² The former was the title of my June 20, 2018, blog post and also of the 17^th chapter in my book Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now (2019). Then, in connection with the latter blog article, in my 8/20/24 post I wrote about deconstruction for the first time.

*³ While Palmer now identifies as non-religious, much of what he posted in his June 27 newsletter is not much different from what Pastor Jarrett Banks posted in his June 25 Substack blog article.  

The Current Need for Senators Like Margaret Chase Smith

Seventy years ago, Senator Margaret Chase Smith delivered her “Declaration of Conscience” speech. I don’t usually praise Republican senators, but Smith was a courageous politician, and the country needs more like her today.*¹ 

Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) was a U.S. Senator from 1947 until his death at age 48 in 1957. He became widely known nationwide after giving a speech to the Republican Women's Club of Wheeling, W.V., in February 1950.

In that speech, McCarthy showed a piece of paper that he claimed contained a long list of known Communists working for the U.S. government. He declared, "The State Department is infested with Communists.” That was the beginning of the so-called “Red Scare” that soon spread across the U.S.*²

According to Wikipedia, “Barely a month after McCarthy’s Wheeling speech, the term ‘McCarthyism’ was coined by Washington Post cartoonist Herbert Block.” He and others “used the word as a synonym for demagoguery, baseless defamation, and mudslinging.” 

Margaret Chase Smith (R-Maine) was a U.S. Senator from 1949~73. She died 30 years ago (in May 1995) at the age of 97, the last living senator to have been born in the 19^th century. She became widely known nationwide after giving a speech on the Senate floor on June 1, 1950.

In that speech, Smith presented a “Declaration of Conscience,” which was endorsed by six other Republican senators. It embraced five statements, the first of which began, “We are Republicans. But we are Americans first.” And here is the fifth statement in full:

It is high time that we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom. It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques—techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life.

Sen. Smith called for the country, the Senate, and the Republican Party to re-examine the tactics used by the House Un-American Activities Committee, and (without naming him) Senator McCarthy.

Where are the senators like Margaret Chase Smith today? Despite all the malicious things done and said by the current POTUS, to this point there has been hardly any dissenting voice coming from the Republican senators (or House representatives). This is a real and present danger to the U.S.

Eminent lawyer and law professor Alan Dershowitz’s book War on Woke: Why the New McCarthyism Is More Dangerous Than the Old was published last year, and it merits our attention.

Dershowitz contends that the new McCarthyism challenges the basic tenets of the classic liberal (in the traditional sense) state: Freedom of expression; due process; presumption of innocence, right to counsel, equal application of the law; and tolerance and respect for differing viewpoints.*³

I disagree with the honorable law professor when in the Introduction he states that the “bedrock principles” just mentioned are “rejected by McCarthyite extremists on both the hard left and the hard right.” He seems to go out of his way to endorse “bothsidesism.”

All the “basic tenets” mentioned above are being primarily disregarded by the President and ignored by the top Republican politicians.

Now, five full months after the inauguration of Trump 2.0, is high time for conscientious Republican senators and House members to step up and speak out against the undemocratic policies of the POTUS and his tendency toward embracing fascism.

There is some limited Republican opposition to Pres. Trump, dating back to his first term. That is mainly seen in Sen. Susan Collins (from Maine, like Smith), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and also Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.) since 2024.

Currently, there is also some opposition by fiscal conservatives such as Sen. Rand Paul (also from Ky.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.).

In addition, there are also a few GOP senators opposing the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” passed by the House at the end of May. That opposition is seen mostly in statements made by Senators Josh Hawley (Mo.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Thom Tillis (N.C.), and John Curtis (Utah).

Still, most Republican senators vote in lockstep with the President. What the country badly needs, though, are politicians like Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who for the good of the nation will speak out against not only their own Party’s senators but especially the President.

_____

*¹ I am indebted to Heather Cox Richardson for prompting me to write this blog article. Her May 31 newsletter was a long, informative piece about Sen. Smith.

*² It is noteworthy that Clay Risen’s 460-page book Red Scare: Blacklists, McCarthyism, and the Making of Modern America was published earlier this year. He writes in the Preface that “Trumpism and the MAGA movement” is not the same “as McCarthyism and the John Birch Society. But there is a line linking them” (viii). It is also worth noting that McCarthy's primary lawyer, Roy Cohn (1927~86), was also Donald Trump's lawyer in 1973 when the Justice Department accused Trump of violating the Fair Housing Act.

*³ Dershowitz (born in 1938 and about two weeks younger than me) became Harvard Law School's youngest full professor and is now Emeritus Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law.