What about the “Deplorables”?

Eleven days ago Hillary Clinton made a remark that her political opponents, and some in the media, thought was rather deplorable. As most of you know, she referred to half of Donald Trump’s supporters as being a “basket of deplorables.” (Click here for the video and NYTimes article about that.)

To review, Hillary said, "To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobia, you name it." 

HRC on Sept. 9

Two mistakes

From the outset, let me suggest that that Hillary made at least two mistakes in what she said: nouning an adjective and labeling some people as irredeemable.

It is generally not good to turn an adjective into a noun used to label people. I remember Dr. Wayne Oates, my pastoral counseling professor in seminary, talking about this. While I don’t remember his exact words, I remember his important point.

Dr. Oates emphasized the importance of remembering that we always relate to persons. Thus, for example, pastors don’t visit/care for the sick and the bereaved. Rather, they minister to sick and bereaved people.

With this sort of thing in mind, people shouldn’t be called deplorables. There are only some people who believe/say/do deplorable things. Deplorable may be a legitimate adjective describing some people’s attitudes or actions. It is not a legitimate noun to use in place of person.

Calling people deplorables is, perhaps, an example of “hating” the sinner, not just the sin—never a good thing to do.

In her remarks, Hillary also referred to those in the “basket of deplorables” as “irredeemable.” While it may be true that the social stance of most of those in said basket may not be redeemed, still, to call any person, or group of people, irredeemable is highly questionable.

Two baskets

A few days after Hillary’s infelicitous remarks, Franklin Graham posted this on Facebook: “I’m not ‘Deplorable’ to God, even if Hillary Clinton thinks so” (see this Christian Post article). He emphasized that “all sin is deplorable” to God but that because of Jesus “our deplorable sins” can be forgiven and we can have a “right standing” [pun intended?] before God.

Fair enough. But that statement misses the point. Hillary said that only half of Trump supporters were in the basket of deplorables. She wasn’t indicating that that is where Franklin is—unless that is the bunch with whom he self-identifies.

In a similar vein, a former missionary colleague of mine posted this on his Facebook page: “DEPLORABLE. A lot of white, male, traditional value holding, peace loving Christians are in this basket. Not ‘phobic’ and not haters.”

Why, though, would my friend and the peace loving Christians he refers to not consider themselves among the other half of Trump’s supporters? Even if half are in the basket of deplorables, that does not mean the other half are the same or that they are guilty of the same injurious attitudes.

Hillary talked about two baskets—and the legitimate concerns of those in one of those two.

Two attitudes

Whether as many as half or not, there does seem to be a sizeable percentage of Trump’s supporters whose attitudes and words do appear to be incontrovertibly racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and/or Islamophobic. Trump himself has also said plenty that can be properly described by those adjectives.

There are those who seem to fear/”hate”/denigrate people of color, women, LGBT persons, foreigners, or Muslims. Those attitudes often lead, unhappily, to deplorable words and actions.

Happily, though, there are “admirables” who exemplify an attitude of love, understanding, and acceptance of those who are “different.” 

A Praiseworthy Pioneer for Women’s Freedom

In stark contrast to my previous article about Mother Teresa, who was canonized just yesterday, this article is about a woman who throughout her lifetime opposed the Roman Catholic Church and was constantly opposed by the RCC as well as by many traditional Protestants.

Even though she died 50 years ago, this woman is still being severely criticized by some people, and Hillary Clinton’s approval of her is one of the reasons Hillary is currently being vilified, as I also wrote about recently.

Introducing Margaret Sanger

The person in question is Margaret Sanger, who was born in 1879 and died on September 6, 1966. Her lifelong passion was providing women with the knowledge about how to prevent pregnancies. In 1914 she coined the term “birth control,” and she was a fearless crusader for that cause, which culminated with the FDA’s approval of the use of “the pill” in 1960.

As a young nurse working in New York City, Margaret saw firsthand the misery of people living in poverty with more children than they could possibly care for adequately. And she saw the extreme suffering and even the death of some women who sought to have illegal and often unsafe abortions—or who tried to perform abortions on themselves.

Consistently an opponent of abortions, Sanger sought to help women gain the knowledge and the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

After several years of publishing and distributing literature that was deemed illegal according to the Comstock Act of 1873 and after spending in time in jail following her opening of a birth control clinic in Brooklyn in October 1916, Margaret started the American Birth Control League in 1921.

That group developed into the organization that since 1942 has been known as Planned Parenthood Federation of America, even though Margaret did not like the new name. 

Vindicating Margaret Sanger

In addition to charges that Sanger favored abortion, which she didn’t, she has also been charged with being a supporter of eugenics, which she was, as well as being a racist, which is patently false.

There was much interest in and support of eugenics in the first part of the twentieth century—and one of the main political supporters was the Republican President Theodore Roosevelt. Sanger probably said things that we now would find problematical, but her view on eugenics in the first third of last century was very similar to that of many respected academics and politicians.

The biggest lie being told about Sanger is that she targeted African-American families. Two of her early supporters, though, were Adam Clayton Powell, pastor of the largest African-American church in the U.S. and W.E.B. Du Bois, one of the founders of the NAACP—hardly people who would be on the side of a racist.

Sanger’s vocal critics also fail to note that in 1966 Martin Luther King, Jr., was one of the first recipients of the newly-established Margaret Sanger Award and that Mrs. King publically spoke in praise of Sanger and her activities. (Hillary Clinton received that award in 1999.)

There were questionable aspects to Sanger’s personal lifestyle, things that I would not condone, but her single-minded dedication to women’s freedom and the right to control their own bodies and the size of their families was a praiseworthy contribution to the well-being of our nation.

Resources consulted

Jean H. Baker, Margaret Sanger: A Life of Passion (2011) – A sympathetic biography 

Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography (1938, 1999) – In her own words 

“Choices of the Heart: The Margaret Sanger Story” (1995) – TV movie 

“Margaret Sanger,” Cobblestone Films (1998) – Available online at Mid-Continent Public Library

The Vilification of Hillary

At this point--and who knows what the national political situation will be by November 8--it looks quite certain that Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. In spite of her probable election, however, Hillary is the target of considerable condemnation by most conservative Republicans as well as by some liberal Democrats.

Unconscious Misogyny?

Deprecation of political opponents is nothing new in presidential elections, of course. But as a (male) psychoanalyst wrote back in May (see here), there seems to be “extreme intensity” in the vilification of Hillary.

Peter Wolson, the author of the Huffington Post article just referenced, claims that there is “deep-seated misogyny” that is “manifested in the cultural discrimination against women worldwide.” The stronger the woman, the stronger that misogynistic discrimination becomes.

That seems to be a major reason Hillary is being vilified so much, and the same would possibly be true for any other woman strong enough to be the nominee for President by one of the major political parties.

(For another article along in same vein, I recommend “The Era of ‘The Bitch’ is Coming: A Hillary Clinton presidential victory promises to usher in a new age of public misogyny”; that August 17 article in The Atlantic is well worth reading.)

Misogyny is probably real and significant; however, it doesn’t adequately explain the extent of Hillary’s vilification.

"Hillary’s America"

Earlier this month I went to a theater (which I seldom do) to see the movie titled “Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.” The vilification of Hillary is strongly evident in that full-length movie by Dinesh D’Souza, whose previous film, “2016: Obama’s America,” was the vilification of Barack Obama.

Both of D’Souza’s movies were based on books he had previously published. His book Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me about Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party was published In November 2015. It is highly acclaimed by conservative Republican: there are more than 525 “customer reviews” on Amazon.com, and 85% of those reviewers gave the book five stars, the maximum.

D’Souza’s book with the same title as his new movie was published the same week the movie debuted about a month ago. Already there are more than 400 customer reviews, and 81% of them are five-stars.

I have not read the book, but since it is basically the same as the movie, I heartily agree with the 10% who gave it only one star. I also agree with the review of the movie that appeared on RogerEbert.com. (Check that out here.) Even the conservative Christian Post has a rather negative article about D’Souza’s highly questionable film (see here). 

Guilt by Association

D’Souza’s attack on Hillary was partly through making her guilty by association. Much is made of her approval of Margaret Sanger’s activities and her being the recipient of the Sanger Award. (Early next month I plan to post a blog article about Sanger.)

There is also strong criticism of Hillary because of her association with Saul Alinsky. Just as the article “Hillary Haters’ Fixation on Saul Alinsky” says, “Forty-seven years after she graduated from Wellesley College, Hillary Clinton is still having to defend her senior thesis.”

If you think she should be criticized for her interest in and contact with Alinsky, please read the article linked above.

Hillary has been attacked on many matters that could be expected in a presidential campaign. But the persistent vilification of her seems unprecedented and extreme—and very unfair to the one who is most likely going to be the next POTUS.

Advocating "Lesser Evilism"

Either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States, barring some completely unforeseen and/or truly tragic event occurring between now and next January 20.

There are, however, historically large percentages of voters who dislike both Hillary and the Donald. Consequently, many people say they will vote for neither. Some won’t vote at all, and others will vote for a minor party candidate.

But choosing either of those options is highly questionable.

For those on the left, there may be much that is attractive and appealing in the positions of Jill Stein. But she will not be elected President this fall. Single-digit support at the end of July will not turn into 270 electoral votes in November. That just isn’t going to happen.

And what possible good would not voting do?

So this is where talk about voting for the “lesser evil” is pertinent. (I started thinking about this article months ago after reading “Lesser-Evilism We Can Believe In,” an article in The Nation, and I urge all of you anti-Hillary progressives to read it.)

There is, admittedly, a problem with the term. As some say, “evil is evil” and should be rejected. Long ago Charles Spurgeon, the famous British Baptist preacher, advised, “Of two evils, choose neither.”

But that is not necessarily good advice in a binary election.

I have mentioned to several people that I was going to post this article at some point. One of those people later asked about when I was going to write about voting for evil. But that sort of misses the point: voting for the lesser evil is, arguably, good – or at least it is sure a lot better than voting for, or not voting against, the greater evil. 

Actually, I am going to vote for the person whom I think will be a very good President. In doing so, I would like to think that I am voting for the greater good rather than for the lesser evil —although, honestly, I find little good in the candidate I am definitely not voting for.

But even for those who don’t like either candidate, surely they see one as better, or worse, than the other. Surely not many think, as someone said to me the other day, “Both candidates are rotten to the core.”

According to the late Joseph Fletcher, Professor of Social Ethics at Episcopal Theological School, “whatever is the most loving thing in the situation is the right and good thing. It is not excusable evil, it is positively good” (Situation Ethics, p. 65).

Even though the candidate I will be voting for has said things and done things I do not particularly like, voting for that candidate is, I believe, “the right and good thing,” and not an “excusable evil.” That is equally true for all who vote for the “lesser evil.”

But why not take the “high moral ground,” as some of my Facebook friends advocate, and vote for a candidate that is clearly better than either of the two major party candidates?

Voting for a candidate who doesn’t have a chance to win, or not voting at all, helps only the pride (self-righteousness) of the person who thinks they are not stooping to vote for someone not worthy of their vote. (See more about this in another article I highly recommend to progressive anti-Hillary people.)

So why do I advocate lesser evilism? Because any vote not cast for the lesser evil makes it more likely that the greater evil will be elected. Why would anyone want that?

Why Conservatives Christians Will Vote for Trump

The Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority 2016 gathering in Washington, D.C., was held last weekend. I attended that meeting on Friday, and among the speakers was a man you may have heard of: Donald Trump.

You may have even heard or read about that meeting and Trump’s speech there. Among other things, he was interrupted by some protesters, led by Medea Benjamin of Code Pink. (I mentioned her in a blog article back in Nov. 2012; see this link. Here is a link showing what happened on 6/10.) 

The Faith and Freedom (F&F) Coalition was founded by Ralph E. Reed, Jr., in 2009. Reed was also the founder executive director of the now defunct Christian Coalition of America in 1989.

This was the second F&F meeting I have attended, and I wrote about my 2011 visit here. This year’s seemed to be a smaller and less significant meeting than the one five years ago—and this one was co-sponsored by Concerned Women for America, the conservative Christian organization founded by Beverly LaHaye in 1979.

At the “gala dinner” on Saturday evening (which I did not attend for more reasons than one), Mrs. LaHaye, whom I imagine doesn’t want to be called Ms., was awarded the 2016 F&F’s Lifetime Achievement Award. Dr. Ben Carson delivered the after dinner keynote address.

The first principle F&F mentions on its website is “Respect for the sanctity and dignity of life, family, and marriage as the foundations of a free society.” The most common emphases at last week’s meeting was the need to oppose abortion and same-sex marriage—and the use of cross-gender bathrooms by transgender people.

(In his speech on Friday morning, Rep. Louis Gohmert of Texas spoke mostly about the transgender issue—repeatedly saying that transgenderism is a “mental disorder.”)

To his credit, near the beginning of his speech Reed said, “We are Christians first, Americans second, and members of a political party third.” But before he finished it was quite obvious that he thought for patriotic Americans being a Christian and being a Republican were pretty much the same thing.

Reed, who is an excellent speaker and a skillful executive, emphasized that this election is a fight between good and evil. Abortion was his first example of the latter. The second evil he railed against was gay marriage.

He urged support of Trump because of these two issues—and because of the upcoming SCOTUS justice appointment.  

Reed then praised “imperfect people who will work for God’s will to be done.” That idea is highlighted in an online article I recommend: “A Theological Case for Low Expectations.”

Another article, also worth reading, is “Conservative Christian Women Confront Their Doubts on Trump.”

The latter article explains why many conservative Christians are hesitant to vote for Trump. But I am quite confident in predicting that most of them, with perhaps the exception of those who are quite young, will end up voting for him.

Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that they will vote against Hillary and for Trump’s party. They may not like Trump or know if they can trust him, but they know they can trust Hillary—to do the wrong thing.

Hillary will clearly do the wrong thing in their eyes on abortion since she is clearly pro-choice. She will clearly do the wrong thing regarding same-sex marriage and LBGT rights. 

If those are two of the greatest evils in the country, as was repeatedly emphasized at the F&F meeting, how could conservative Christians not vote for Trump?

Thankful for This Passionate Advocate for Children

During this Thanksgiving week, I am thankful for many things and for many people—such Marian Wright Edelman, a passionate advocate for children over the last 40 years.

Marian Wright was born in South Carolina in 1939. Her father, a Baptist minister, died when she was 14. His last words were, “Don’t let anything get in the way of your education.” She didn’t.

Marian went on to earn a law degree at Yale and then in 1964 became the first African-American woman admitted to the Mississippi Bar. That year she was very active in civil rights activities in Mississippi, leading in what came to be known as Freedom Summer.

In 1968 Marian married Peter Edelman, a lawyer from Minnesota. They made an interesting couple: she a black Baptist, he a white Jew.

The Edelmans have three grown sons, including Jonah (b. 1970), their second son, who has a Ph.D. from Oxford and is the co-founder and CEO of Stand for Children, an education reform organization.

 Ms. Edelman started the Children’s Defense Fund in 1973, and it has become the nation’s strongest voice for children and families. Here is CDF’s mission statement:

The Children’s Defense Fund Leave No Child Behind mission is to ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start and a Moral Start in life and successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities.

Hillary Rodham was one of the first staff lawyers for CDF, and then after she married Bill Clinton in 1975 she was the Chair of its Board of Directors from 1986-92.

Ms. Edelman was one of the featured speakers at the 2008 New Baptist Covenant gathering in Atlanta. I heard that talk and was much impressed by her—and have been on CDF’s mailing list ever since.

I also enjoyed reading some of her latest book, The Sea Is So Wide and My Boat Is So Small: Charting a Course for the Next Generation (2008).

One of CDF’s ongoing activities has been sponsoring summertime Freedom Schools across the country. Since 1995, more than 100,000 K-12 children have had a CDF Freedom Schools experience. (Here is the link to CDF’s website.)

The church June and I are members of has sponsored a Freedom School for six weeks each summer for several years now. It is a considerable expense and takes a lot of work, but it is a wonderful ministry to the children in the church’s neighborhood, the majority of whom are Hispanic and African-American.

This year for the first time I read a story to the nearly 100 children enrolled in our Freedom School, and I was impressed by the children’s attention and to the way the leaders were teaching/leading them.

The first Freedom Schools were held in Mississippi as part of the 1964 Freedom Summer civil rights activities mentioned above. So this was the 50^th anniversary year—as you can see from the picture I took the morning I was at our church’s school in July.

This year a scholarly book honoring Ms. Edelman and the Children’s Defense Fund was published under the title “Improving the Odds for America’s Children.” On the back cover are these words by Hillary Clinton:

In the past forty years, the Children’s Defense Fund has tirelessly worked to improve the lives of children in America. There are dozens of laws on the books protecting children and supporting families that simply wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for the Children’s Defense Fund.

Please join me in giving thanks for Marian Wright Edelman and her indefatigable advocacy for the nation’s children.