Tarnishing the Name of Jesus

It was a week ago tonight that Pres. Biden delivered the annual State of the Union (SOTU) message. His address was widely applauded by Democrats and by the mainstream media—and, not surprisingly, panned by Republicans and by right-wing news outlets who castigate the “lamestream” media.

This post, though, is about the Republican rebuttal speech given by Alabama Senator Katie Britt. 

Katie Boyd Britt (b. 1982) was elected the junior Senator from Alabama in 2022, defeating Democrat Will Boyd, a Black Baptist pastor. She received nearly 67% of the vote.

I didn’t remember hearing the name of Sen. Britt before I saw that she would give the rebuttal after the SOTU address, so I looked her up on Wikipedia and elsewhere.

In a July 2021 interview, Britt stated, “Jesus Christ is the most important thing in life, and that should be the foundation that everything else comes around.” I certainly would not disagree with that, but surely such a statement should include telling the truth and not bearing false witness.

Earlier this week, the Los Angeles Times candidly stated that “the woman sitting in the kitchen with the cross glittering on her neck lied.” After listening (on Friday) to her Thursday night rebuttal speech, that clearly seems to be the case.

And given what she has said about Jesus Christ and the sparkling (diamond-studded?) cross around her neck as she gave her speech, it seemed to me that she was tarnishing the name of Jesus.

No wonder more and more people in the U.S. are leaving the Christian faith and joining the “nones.”

Sen. Boyd’s rebuttal speech was criticized and critiqued by a wide variety of voices. For example, here is part of what historian Heather Cox Richardson (HCR) wrote about Katie’s talk in her March 8 newsletter:

Sitting in a kitchen rather than in a setting that reflected her position in one of the nation’s highest elected offices, Britt conspicuously wore a necklace with a cross and spoke in a breathy, childlike voice as she wavered between smiles and the suggestion she was on the verge of tears. 

At the close of HRC’s letter, I first learned about Jess Piper and her Substack posts under the name “The View from Rural Missouri.” Her March 8 “view” was titled “The Fundie Baby Voice.”*

But it wasn’t the voice that most disturbed me. It was the lies that Sen. Britt told in that problematic voice.

In his remarks at the Academy Awards ceremony on Sunday evening, Jimmy Kimmel made these remarks about Emma Stone, who had just been awarded the Best Actress Oscar: “Emma, you are so unbelievably great in Poor Things. Emma played an adult woman with the brain of a child, like the lady who gave the rebuttal to the State of the Union on Thursday night.”**

Sen. Boyd did her best to harm Pres. Biden and to lessen his chances of winning a second term as POTUS. She may have done the Republicans more harm than good, however.

I was saddened by the touching story she told of talking last year with the girl who had been a victim of sex trafficking—and then off-put by her blaming the President for that tragic event. And then I was incensed when it turned out the incident in question took place when George W. Bush was President!

On Monday, Washington Post associate editor and columnist Karen Tumulty wrote that the “horrific story” Katie told, “at least by implication, turned out to be a big fat lie.”

Tumulty went on to note that the “Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler awarded Britt four Pinocchios for the way she twisted this tragic story to make a cravenly partisan point.”

Despite her later efforts to walk back what she had said, there was no way her listeners could have known she was talking about an incident that took place more than a decade ago. Even if it wasn’t a blatant lie, it was highly deceitful and told with the intent of harming the President.

It is quite clear, though, that in spite of her prominent display of a cross on a necklace and pious talk, she tarnished the name of Jesus and did the cause of Christ far more harm than good.

_____

  * Jess Piper lives in (or near) Maryville, Missouri, which is about 35 miles from my hometown. In 2022 she ran as a progressive Democrat to become a Representative in the Missouri legislature, but she was soundly defeated in the district that twice voted for Trump by 80% or so. I am now receiving her Substack posts and have had email exchanges with her this week.

** This was a powerful putdown of Sen. Britt’s rebuttal speech to those who had seen Emma Stone's Oscar-winning performance in Poor Things, but I do not recommend that movie except to insightful, mature adults.

The Good and the Bad in the U.S. Constitution

Saturday, September 17, is Constitution Day, a yearly “federal observance.” And posters in the local library announce: Constitution Week September 17~23. Across the country, many school children will be taught good things about the Constitution. But most won’t hear about its bad aspects.  

“Our original Constitution was both brilliant and highly flawed.” So spoke Harvard law professor Alan Jenkins in a Sept. 15, 2021, interview with Harvard Law Today. He continued,

It beautifully articulated the notion that government’s power flows from the people, and that government serves the people. But it was fundamentally flawed in preserving and propping up slavery, that ultimate form of inequality.

Jenkins also averred that the Constitution was faulty “for excluding women, non-white people, indigenous people, non-property owners, from the definition of ‘the people.’’’ But especially from “a racial justice standpoint it was highly flawed.”

That was the basic self-contradiction of the original Constitution, which to a significant degree was based on the ideas/philosophy of John Locke, as I pointed out in my 8/30 blog post.

Most conservative Americans see and emphasize only the “brilliant” facets of the Constitution. In 1955, the highly patriotic Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) petitioned Congress to set aside September 17~23 annually to be dedicated for the observance of Constitution Week.

That resolution was adopted by the US Congress and signed into law in August 1956 by President Eisenhower. Then, Constitution Day was established in 2004, and this year marks the 235^th anniversary of the ratification of the Constitution on Sept. 17, 1787.

In a wide-ranging interview, Dr. Richard Land, a conservative Southern Baptist who is now the executive editor of The Christian Post, urged American Christians, regardless of their political persuasion, not to allow the Left to define how they see the United States.

“According to Land, the Left-leaning American media invented the hot-button phrase ‘Christian nationalism’ as a pejorative term that serves to undermine the fundamental relationship between Christians and this nation as defined in the U.S. Constitution.”

Yes, patriotic organizations such as the DAR and conservative evangelicals such as Land tend to see only the good aspects of the U.S. Constitution—and there certainly are such aspects that need to be seen and appreciated. But that is only one side of the picture.

Most “Left-leaning” USAmericans also see the “highly flawed” facets of the Constitution. That includes history professor and highly popular blogger Heather Cox Richardson.

“Right-leaning” people doubtlessly see her as Left-leaning, but she is a competent historian who deals with facts not ideological opinions. In my 8/30 blog post, I criticized her for calling the position of Locke and the drafters of the Constitution paradoxical rather than self-contradictory.

But to Richardson’s credit, she also uses the word contradiction in writing about the drafting of the first Constitution. For example, she begins the second chapter of her book How the South Won the Civil War with this assertion:

At the time of the Constitution’s [drafting] in 1787 it was not yet obvious that a contradiction lay at the heart of the nation's founding principles.

Richardson also concurs with Jenkins’s recognition of the “highly flawed” Constitution. She writes, “Without irony, Virginian James Madison crafted the constitution to guarantee that wealthy slaveholders would control the new government” (p. 21).

Although she does not mention maverick historian Howard Zinn, he wrote pointedly about that contradiction in his best-known book, A People’s History of the United States (1980). (Zinn, who died in 2010, was born in August 1922, and last month his centennial birthday was notably celebrated.)**

Zinn’s chapter on the Constitution is based partly on An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, an influential and controversial 1913 book by the noted historian Charles Beard (1874~1948).

According to this website, Beard interpreted the Constitution “as a conservative bulwark against the encroaches of liberal democracy.” That is a “bad” aspect of the original Constitution that is not widely recognized.

But unfortunately, that aspect of the 1787 Constitution may be what the “originalists” on the SCOTUS want to restore now.

_____

** Zinn’s seminal 1980 book was revised and published for younger readers in 2007 under the title A Young People’s History of the United States. That book cannot be used in many U.S. public schools now, for it is too closely connected to the Right-wing’s opposition to Critical Race Theory and related matters. 
     See here for “Howard Zinn Centennial Week Events” and here for “Howard Zinn at 100: Remembering ‘the People’s Historian,’” an informative article posted by The Nation on August 24.

Do Hope and History Rhyme? Assessing Biden’s First Year

It’s been a hard year since January 20, 2021, the day Joe Biden was inaugurated as the 46^th POTUS—and it has been a harder year for him than for most of us. What can be said, fairly and honestly, in assessment of Biden’s first year in the White House? 

1/7/22 image by Mandel Ngan

Biden’s Quote from Seamus Heaney

The President is said to be five-eighths Irish and has spoken frequently of his family ties to Ireland. He also likes Irish poets, especially Seamus Heaney (1939~2013), who was awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Literature.

In his inaugural speech a year ago today, the new President cited these words from Heaney’s poem “The Cure of Troy”:

History says, Don’t hope
On this side of the grave…
But then, once in a lifetime
The longed-for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up,
And hope and history rhyme.

These are memorable words, and Biden quoted them with great sincerity (and you can hear him read those words here), but one year later it seems as though the hopes of the President are far from rhyming with history now.

Biden’s Hard Year

As is true of each new President, except perhaps for #45, they start their term in office with high hopes for what they want to accomplish for the good of the nation. But those hopes are seldom realized (thus, history says, Don’t hope).

Perhaps the last President to have come close to realizing his inaugural hopes was FDR. Especially during the first two terms of his presidency (1933~1941), hope and history did rhyme to a large extent.

Roosevelt’s third inaugural address, though, delivered 80 years to the day before Biden’s address last year, was a lifetime ago. Few remember those remarks stressing America’s obligation to take action during the international crisis. Those next 4+ years were especially hard for FDR.

But for Biden, the first year has been a hard one:

* The covid-19 pandemic, with its new variants and the widespread refusal of being vaccinated, worsened instead of dissipating.

* Largely related to disruptions caused by covid-19, inflation grew rapidly and consumer prices increased perceptibly.

* Because of the intransigence of all 50 Republican and of two Democratic Senators, a democracy-protecting voting rights bill and an expansive infrastructure bill both failed to gain the support necessary for enactment.

* The events surrounding the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan were widely criticized as Biden’s debacle.

* The Jan. 15 issue of The Economist states that Biden is “almost the most unpopular president since records began” (only Trump “rated worse” at the same point in his term). Accordingly, “a mid-terms shellacking for his party looks highly probable.”

Biden’s Hope in the Year(s) Ahead

One year doesn’t make or break a presidency. In spite of the setbacks and disappointments, there are first-year accomplishments that the President and his party can legitimately accentuate in the year ahead.

* The early rollout of vaccines was highly successful. (It was certainly not Biden’s fault that so many people, mostly Republicans, refused to get vaccinated—or that new variants, delta and then omicron, developed.)

* Early in his tenure Biden also won passage for a roughly $2 trillion stimulus package and followed that with enactment of a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill with bipartisan support.

* Also, as Heather Cox Richardson points out, last February the jobless rate was 6.2%; today it has dropped to 4.2%. This means the Biden administration has created 4.1 million jobs, more than were created in the 12 years of the Trump and George W. Bush administrations combined.**

* Further, according to a 12/20/21 Bloomberg News article, “America’s economy improved more in Joe Biden's first 12 months than any president during the past 50 years . . . “ The S&P 500 gained 26.9% and Dow Jones gained 18.7% in 2021.

Perhaps if the President stays the course and “soldiers on,” as James Carville admonished him to do this week on Meet the Press, the longed-for tidal wave of justice will yet rise up, and hope and history will begin to rhyme more and more.

_____

** This, and much more about Biden’s first year accomplishments, is found in Richardson’s 12/22/21 “letter” (see here).

Thankful for Social Security

You probably have never heard of a fellow named Ernest Ackerman, but he was the first person in the U.S. to receive Social Security benefits. That was in January 1937—and he received 17 cents! But that was a good return: he had been a member for just one day and had contributed only five cents. 

Creation of Social Security

The Social Security Administration has an online 40-page document titled “Historical Background And Development Of Social Security.” For those who want (and have the time to read!) detailed information, that is the place to go. Here I will just write briefly about the years from 1933 to 1940.

There had long been a dire need in this country for financial help for the elderly. One of the most popular plans before 1935 was the Townsend Plan as proposed by Francis Townsend (b. 1/13/1867).

In 1933, Townsend launched his career as an old-age activist, proposing that every retired person over 60 be paid $200 per month—with the stipulation that they had to spend the money within 30 days (to stimulate the economy).

Within two years, there were over 3,400 Townsend Plan Clubs in the U.S. Their popularity prompted FDR to propose Social Security and then spurred Congress to pass the Social Security Act (SSA), which President Roosevelt signed into law in August 1935.**

Taxes were collected for the first time 85 years ago this month, in January 1937, including Ackerman’s nickel. However, the first monthly retirement check was not issued until January 31, 1940. That check was sent to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont, and was for $22.54.

Opposition to Social Security

As you might well guess, there was considerable opposition to the SSA of 1935 as there was to most of FDR’s New Deal proposals. From the very beginning, one of the main arguments against Social Security was that it was a form of socialism. 

But by 1936 economic conditions in the U.S. had improved considerably and Roosevelt was widely popular. So, in spite of the opposition to the New Deal by Republicans and criticism of Social Security as being socialist, Roosevelt was re-elected by a landslide.

In July 1965, under the leadership of President Johnson, Congress enacted Medicare under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide health insurance to people aged 65 and older, regardless of income or medical history. 

Opposition to the federal government passing legislation for the benefit of the general public increased after 1981, with President Reagan declaring in his inaugural address “. . . government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” 

Conservative Republicans ever since have consistently used Reagan’s words and their opposition to socialism to oppose greater levels of healthcare, such as their unified opposition to “Obamacare” in 2010, and some even wanting to alter or dismantle Social Security.

Gratitude for Social Security

Millions and millions of USAmericans (including me), though, are deeply grateful for Social Security and Medicare. And for the benefit of a wider public, many (again, including me) are in full support of expanding Medicare and “Obamacare,” which has steadily gained in popularity.

A 2019 Gallup poll indicated that “Social Security is a mainstay of older Americans’ financial wherewithal, and . . . a system Americans greatly value.”

The same article reports that some 57% of retirees indicated that Social Security is a major source of income in their retirement, eclipsing by far the second and third sources—retirement accounts such as 401(k)s and IRAs, and work-sponsored pension plans.

Similarly, Medicare/Medicaid also has widespread public support, and a strong majority now believe that those benefits should be expanded.

And then according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll in Oct. 2021, nearly 60% of all U.S. adults approved of “Obamacare,” the highest percentage of approval since its beginning. It was opposed, though, by 72% of the Republicans polled.

But yes, along with so many others I have great gratitude for Social Security (and Medicare) which has provided so much financial help through the years since June and I turned 65.

_____

** Here is the link to Heather Cox Richardson’s informative four-page “letter” posted on Aug. 14, 2021, the anniversary of Roosevelt’s signing the SSA into law. It is partly about Francis Townsend, but has more about Frances Perkins, FDR’s Secretary of Labor.

From the C.S.A. to the R.S.A.?

As you know, C.S.A. stands for the Confederate States of America, which was formed 160 years ago. Here I am raising the question of whether now in the 2020s the U.S.A. may be headed toward becoming the R.S.A., the Republican States of America.

The Forming of the C.S.A.

In February 1861, seven U.S. states formed a new “nation,” calling it the Confederate States of America. Those states were Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas. Four more states (Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia) joined the C.S.A. later.

Back in 2004, Kansas University professor Kevin Willmott was the director and writer of the movie C.S.A. It was a “mockumentary” that portrayed an alternate history wherein the Confederacy won the Civil War and the Union became the Confederate States of America. 

Although it is certainly not depicted in the same way as in Willmott’s movie, American historian Heather Cox Richardson has authored a book titled How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy, and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of America (2020).

I have been on the waiting list for a library copy of Richardson’s book, so I have not read any of it yet—but I read her daily “Letters from an American,” which can be accessed here, and have learned much about U.S. history from her. (I highly recommend her daily “letter.”)

As depicted both in the creative movie and the historical book mentioned above, it is clear that the influence of the C.S.A. certainly did not end with its defeat at the end of the Civil War.

The Forming of the R.S.A.?

The influence of the C.S.A. seems to be “alive and well” in much of the Republican Party today. All the C.S.A. states of the 1860s voted for Trump in 2016 and all except Georgia did the same in 2020—although to this day Trump and a majority of Republicans believe the election there was “stolen.”

This article is not a condemnation of the Republican Party as such. The country needs a strong two-party system, with moderate Republicans who are willing to work with Democrats for the good of all who live in the nation—as well as for the good of the people of the world.

Oligarchy is “a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes” (Merriam-Webster). Sadly, this seems to be the direction the Republican Party has been moving, especially since 2016.

Thus, I am writing this in opposition to the Republican politicians who seem to be greedy for power and willing to do anything necessary to achieve or maintain political power, even if it means largely destroying democracy.

Even though I think they are mistaken, we have to acknowledge that on the other side there are many supporters of the Republican Party who sincerely believe that the Democrats are “enemies,” and that drastic means may be necessary to save the country from tyranny and/or from “socialism.”

The power-hungry Republicans, beginning with Donald J. Trump and Mitch McConnell, seem to have done a good job in selling their skewed views to the Republican base, with the considerable help they have received from Fox News and their “opinion-makers” such as Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson.

Through voter suppression, gerrymandering, and voting results controlled by state legislatures, Republicans may well gain the majority in Congress in 2022 and the presidency in 2024. Those victories may be semi-permanent, leading to the forming of a de facto R.S.A., even if that name is not used.**

So, What Can Be Done?

If we want the USA to survive and not become the RSA, what can we do? Here are three succinct suggestions:

1) Keep advocating truth-telling, civilly opposing falsehoods and misleading statements, always championing peace and justice.

2) Keep voting for political leaders most concerned for the welfare of the populace, especially of those most oppressed by social or economic discrimination.

3) Keep being hopeful, firm in your belief that, in time, “The Wrong shall fail, / The Right prevail,” as expressed in Longfellow’s Christmas carol.

_____

** I hadn’t seen Republican States of America used anywhere until after I had finished writing this article, but here is what I then found in a 5/7/21 Washington Post piece: “Trump has emerged from his West Palm Beach hibernation — refashioning himself as the president of the Republican States of America.”