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.

What Does Taking Up One’s Cross Mean?

Some of this blog’s readers were surprised that I quoted Jesus’ words in my July 20 post. What I was advocating with those words, though, is certainly relevant for people who are adherents of other religions—or of no religion—also. When carefully considered, many of the latter may well be implementing Jesus’ words more than most conservative evangelical Christians are. 

In this post I am thinking primarily of Jesus’ words in Luke 9:23.** Here is the NRSV translation of that verse: “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.”  

Traditionally, that important verse has been interpreted along the following lines, and here again I am using assistance from Claude, my A.I. “buddy.” (He/it told me in less than five seconds what I would have written in 15 minutes or more before chatbots became available.)

For many/most conservative evangelicals, taking up one’s cross means “personal sacrifice or suffering endured for one’s faith—enduring persecution, ridicule, or hardship for holding to Christian belief and behavior (often framed around culture-war flashpoints: refusing certain entertainment, standing firm on sexual ethics, facing mockery for evangelizing).”

This is the “quietist or status-quo-affirming” position. Since the cross is about internal spiritual struggle, it is not seen as having anything directly to do with the political world. If it does become a bit politicized, it is usually understood as bearing social stigma for “traditional values” positions.

However, the real meaning of Jesus’ words in about taking up one’s cross is quite different.

New Testament Christians were opposed by both religious and political powers. The Jewish leaders saw Jesus and his followers as a threat to their religious authority, and Caesar saw Jesus, who claimed to be Lord, and the Christians who called him Lord as a threat to his political power. Both powers first wanted to get rid of Jesus and then sought to eradicate his followers.

Crucifixion was one of the main forms of capital punishment used by Rome in New Testament times. It was specifically used for insurrectionists and rebels against Roman rule. That means of execution was designed to be maximally public and degrading. It was usually carried out along roadsides near cities, precisely as a deterrent against sedition.

“Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews’” (John 19:19).

That’s part of why the charge on Jesus’s cross ("King of the Jews") matters—it marks him as executed for the crime of insurrection/treason against Rome, not blasphemy.

So, what does taking up one’s cross mean in the present day for us USAmericans? Among other things, it means opposing the Trump “regime” and his efforts to demonize his political opponents by calling them Communists (see this YouTube video of his July 4 speech).

_____*

** Were these really the words of Jesus? My local Thinking Friend Phil says that he thinks the same words in the Sermon on the Mount were Matthew’s words and not necessarily something that Jesus said. I disagreed, saying to Phil that even though the writer of the Gospel of Matthew may not have literally heard and written down those words when he heard Jesus say them, I think they would have been accurately handed down by “oral tradition,” which was very reliable in New Testament times, long before there were printed documents to hand down.

 

Aspiring to Be a Voice of Reason and Guidance

Early on the morning of July 12, I had a very vivid dream about the world being in chaos. I then woke up thinking, “The world’s in chaos and needs voices of reason and guidance.” At that point, I decided that I need to spend less time doing rather meaningless activities and more time seeking to be an outspoken voice of reason and guidance. Please join me in that endeavor.

Is the world in chaos? Well, it is not as chaotic as I saw in my dream that morning. But, yes, in many ways I think there are ample reasons to assert that the world today is, indeed, in chaos.

The physical world is in chaos because of environmental problems that are bad now and only going to get worse. For example, the glaciers are melting, the seas are rising, droughts are increasing, and reservoir levels are falling. We are experiencing the effects of “overshoot,” about which some knowledgeable people have warned us about for a long time.**

The geopolitical world is also in chaos in many places because of wars (such as in Iran, Ukraine, Sudan) and widespread immigration (because of necessity or desire). Co-Pilot told me that the world is experiencing the highest levels of forced displacement ever recorded, driven by war, persecution, state collapse, climate disasters, and economic desperation

In the world of ordinary people, chaos is seen in what can be called social decadence. A large part of such moral decadence is due to the President, about whom Michael Steele recently called a “disgusting man … with no moral code. “(This was in March, said in reaction to Trump’s gloating over Robert Mueller’s death.)

The current social decadence in the U.S. under the present POTUS is evident to anyone willing to look objectively. That decadence was quite apparent in the primetime speech Trump delivered on July 16.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist (2008) and currently a Distinguished Professor of Law. He has also been an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times. Early on July 17, he posted on his Substack account “more or less every word he spoke was a lie, including ‘a,’ ‘and,’ and ‘the’.”

And this is what Jen Rubin asserted on her July 13 Substack post: “To pretend there is any moral equivalence between the parties when it comes to handling moral depravity is to become an apologist for the party that has eschewed every standard of decency in favor of ruthless pursuit of power and cultist loyalty to a depraved narcissist.”

Fairly recently, I have become a regular reader of David Rothkopf’s Substack posts. (He is a foreign‑policy analyst and author. Among his many books is Traitor: A History of American Betrayal from Benedict Arnold to Donald Trump, issued shortly before the 2020 presidential election.)

On the same day Rubin’s article was posted, Rothkopf (b. 1955) wrote how the USAmerican society

became so degraded, our values so diluted by our desire to be comfortable, that we allowed the most profoundly evil political leader in our history to become president and to echo the Nazis and authoritarians from centuries past as he compiled an administration, built a government, of people who were equally morally bereft, amoral, and immoral.

That is not to say that any democratically elected leader will be a saint or perfect. That is impossible. But we can value moral rectitude more than we do.

What can we do to be a voice of reason and guidance in this chaotic world? This is perhaps the question that most of us have, especially those of us who were adults (at least 18) when the U.S. celebrated its 200^th anniversary.

One of Jesus’ most challenging and most neglected admonition is “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23, NRSV). 

As you know, Jesus also said, “Come to me, all you who are struggling hard and carrying heavy loads, and I will give you rest. Put on my yoke, and learn from me. I’m gentle and humble. And you will find rest for yourselves.” (Matt. 11:28-29).

Most Christians, including most preachers/pastors, have emphasized the Matthew passage far more than the challenging words from Luke 9. But rest has meaning only after strenuous efforts for doing good and being a voice for reason and guidance.

_____

** Many of you will remember that I have written about this in the past, inspired to do so by Michael Dowd (1958~2023), the eco-theologian and “evolutionary evangelist.” Here is a link to a blog article in which I wrote about Dowd and his challenging ideas:

https://theviewfromthisseat.blogspot.com/2022/01/facing-grief-of-looking-up-looking.html

 

Advocating Democratic Socialism

Back in September 2019, I posted a blog article titled “Was Jesus a Socialist?” Soon after making that post, I became increasingly aware of democratic socialism. Even though I am not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA, the largest socialist organization in the U.S., founded in 1982), I now self-identify as a democratic socialist. 

Democratic socialism is often misunderstood and unfairly maligned. For example, on July 1, Gary Bauer’s daily “American Values” email began,

We will celebrate America’s 250th birthday this weekend. Whether America celebrates its 300th birthday 50 years from now is increasingly in doubt because our constitutional Republic is in danger! The danger to our freedom is not Donald Trump, who wants to make America great again. The danger is the radical Left that hates America and wants to “fundamentally transform” it.**

Bauer goes on to write, “Yesterday’s election results in Colorado prove that the communist / Marxist victories in New York City were not just a fluke isolated to New York City.” Then he laments, “An anti-American, pro-Hamas communist defeated a far-left, 30-year incumbent in the Democrat primary for the Denver-area House seat.”

Bauer is an educated man, and he no doubt knows the distinct difference between democratic socialism and communism. But he can conflate the two in order to increase donations from the MAGA supporters who don’t know the difference. (People seeking donations don’t necessarily tell the whole truth in order to profit from the ignorance of the general public.)

It is a push to say that Rep. DeGette is “far-left,” but it is almost libelous to say that Melat Kiros is anti-American, pro-Hamas, and/or a communist. In that June 30 Colorado primary election, 29-year-old candidate Kiros defeated the incumbent, who was seeking her 15^th term, first elected when Kiros was still an infant in her native Ethiopia.

Kiros is aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America, but that is far from communism. DSA’s platform centers on things like Medicare for all, workers’ rights, and curbing corporate/billionaire power through democratic and electoral means.

Kiros’s own reported platform—ending U.S. aid to Israel, Medicare for all, abolishing ICE—is directly linked to DSA’s standard policy agenda but certainly not to communist aspirations. DSA’s and Kiros’s platform are far different from the classic communist program of abolishing private property via revolution and one-party state control.

On July 3, President Trump delivered an anti-communist speech at Mount Rushmore National Memorial in Keystone, South Dakota. Unlike Bauer, it is quite likely that the POTUS doesn’t clearly understand the difference between communism and democratic socialism.

Three days later, Robert Reich posted “Why Is He Using the Communist Trump Card?” on his Substack account. Reich writes, “Trump has run out of cards to play in the midterm elections, which is why he’s now talking about the “communist menace.”

Reich continues accusing the POTUS of “resorting to the oldest of right-wing tropes—accusing Democrats (especially a rising generation of new, young, vigorous Democratic politicians) of being commies.”

In that July 3 speech, Trump asserted, “There is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success. You can be a communist, or you can be a patriot. You cannot be both.”

Unlike Bauer, perhaps Trump doesn’t know the difference between democratic socialism and communism. Unfortunately, many of his MAGA supporters continue to take what he says as true and trustworthy, so many of them have strong negative feelings toward democratic socialism.

A Facebook friend sent me a screenshot from Fox News showing what the Democratic Socialists of America advocate, and those were given as reasons for their opposition to the DSA. The image showed Medicare for all, college for all, housing for all, 32 hour workweek, tax the rich, Green New Deal, and free Palestine.

Except for the latter, which is widely (and wrongly) interpreted as being “anti-Semitic,” the other five are quite popular with most U.S. citizens except for the die-hard MAGA supporters.

I continue to advocate for democratic socialism, which aims to expand public ownership and workplace democracy while preserving political democracy. It’s about shifting more economic power to workers and the public. That also shifts the power from the control of billionaires to the workers in the 98% who are not wealthy.

That sounds good to me. What do you think?

_____

** Gary Bauer (b. 1946 in Kentucky) grew up as a Southern Baptist and graduated from Georgetown College (in Kentucky), a traditional SB school (similar to William Jewell College, my alma mater). He started an organization with the name “American Values” in 2007 and has been the president of it until the present. He sends out American Values emails almost daily. He has long been one of the prime leaders of conservative evangelicalism in the U.S.

Burned by Billionaires: Applauding Chuck Collins

Chuck Collins is not a household name, and I had not heard of him until recently.*¹ But his new (2025) book, Burned by Billionaires (BbB) is an excellent work that is especially pertinent now, as for the first time a billionaire occupies the White House and has surrounded himself with fellow billionaires and “centi-millionaires” (people whose net worth is over $100 million).

Collins was “born on third base,” as he says in an earlier book.*² He is the great‑grandson of Oscar F. Mayer, the meat‑packing magnate. In 1985 (when he was 26), Chuck inherited roughly $500,000 from his family’s Oscar Mayer fortune. That same year, he donated the entire amount to foundations and community organizations. He later left to live in a commune.

When his father, a libertarian conservative, learned of what Chuck had done, he said he was afraid his son had become a Marxist. Chuck responded by saying that he would rather be called a “Gandhian or Christian.”*³ He explained that he didn’t want to spend his life “managing inherited wealth” and that giving it away freed him to pursue community organizing and economic‑justice work.

Collins is now widely known for his work exposing how wealth is accumulated, hidden, and protected in the U.S. He says in the Introduction of BbB “The drive by billionaires to amass ever greater wealth is warping the nonprofit sector, dictating what’s on your dinner plate, and shaping the news you consume.”

How Concentrated Wealth and Power are Ruining Our Lives and Planet is the subtitle of BbB. Collins writes, “With their inordinate wealth and power, billionaires are hijacking our political system with their campaign contributions, paid lobbyists, communication firms, and dark money contributions."

I cannot even introduce here the important chapters in this book, but I strongly recommend reading it. It is a bit pricey to buy, but many public libraries likely have it. (There are several copies in the various Kansas City metro libraries.)

“An Agenda to Reduce Billionaire Power and Improve Our Lives” is the title of the final chapter before the Conclusion, and it includes four major topics with about two dozen subtopics. They are all good suggestions, but they are not very helpful regarding what we ordinary “peons” can do—other than vote for legislators who do have power to follow those suggestions.

At the end of the Conclusion, Collins offers this advice: “Get your information from sources that are not owned and controlled by billionaires.” That is one small thing I did before reading Collins’ book: I quit subscribing to and reading The Washington Post. In doing that, I was following the actions of Jen Rubin, who was the leading opinion article writer of the Post.

In protest to a Jeff Bezos directive in 2025, Rubin left her prominent position and became co-founder of an online publication called “The Contrarian,” which I now read daily. That Substack blog, which started with the tagline “Not owned by anybody,” now has nearly 500,000 subscribers. She allows “tightwads” like me read it for free, and here is a link if you would like to try it out: The Contrarian | Substack.

Ever since the One Big Beautiful (=Ugly) Bill was signed into law on July 4, 2025, I have been concerned about the growing control of billionaires and the extremely wealthy over American life—and incensed that financial resources continue to flow upward to those who need them least, while the poor suffer even more.

That bill delivered $1 trillion in tax cuts to the top 1% of taxpayers, while cutting roughly $1 trillion from Medicaid and SNAP—programs used by the poorest Americans. Nearly half of those tax cuts went to the top 0.1% of earners.

And consider who the POTUS took with him to China last week: 17 CEOs, several of whom were billionaires. Why were they in his entourage? Mainly because of the donations they had made to Trump. Several of them had previously donated $1 million or more to his inaugural fund. So, the president took them along so they could negotiate with China on behalf of their own business interests. The appearance of a quid pro quo is hard to miss.

It is also hard to miss the judgmental words of the prophet Amos, pronouncing woe on the wealthy who “trample on the needy and destroy the poor of the land” (8:4, CEB)—and it is easy to see that Chuck Collins is a present-day Amos.

_____

*1 The cover of the December issue of Sojourners magazine was emblazoned with the words “The Big Steal,” and the cover story was on “The Wealth Extractors: Billionaires are upending our lives and our economy.” It featured an interview of Collins by Julie Polter, the editor of Sojourners.

*2 Collins previously authored a book titled Born on Third Base: A One Percenter Makes the Case for Tackling Inequality, Bringing Wealth Home, and Committing to the Common Good (2016). The main title is said to be the words of Barry Switzer, the famous football coach, but they were not original with him.

*3 Collins has been a lifelong member of the Unitarian Universalist Church.

Note: Research and wording assistance was provided by Claude (Anthropic A.I.).

Three “Lunatics” Supporting the Lunatic-in-Chief

“Is Trump a Lunatic?” is the title of my previous blog post. Bruce Maples, founder of the “Forward Kentucky” website, recently referred to Trump as “the Lunatic-in-Chief.”* This post highlights the “lunacy” (used in the metaphorical sense) of three men closely associated with the POTUS. 

(Pete Hegseth as depicted by Rachel Bitecofer)

Trump delivered an “address to the nation” on December 17. That same day, Maples portrayed the speech as an unhinged, lie-filled, 20‑minute tirade marked by bragging, blame‑shifting toward Biden and the Democrats, and disjointed nonsense.

Andy Curtis is an applied linguist and former president of the TESOL International Association. Back in 2018, he labeled Trump the ‘Lunatic‑in‑Chief.’ Maples cast the December 17 address as yet another performance that fully merited that description. In a 2019 post, Curtis also called Trump the “most famous liar in the world today.”

There are, not surprisingly, many loyalists who support Trump’s prevarication, misleading statements, and gaslighting. This post is a brief look at three “lunatics” who are his main supporters.

Steve Bannon (his given name is Stephen, but he is called Steve in the media and public life), has been closely associated with Trump since 2016.

Bannon (b. 1953) was a close ally of Andrew Breitbart, founder of Breitbart News. After Breitbart’s death in 2012, Bannon became its executive chairman and shaped in into a nationalist, pro‑Trump website. Consequently, Breitbart News came to be known as “the platform for the alt‑right” and was widely seen as “Trump Central” during the 2016 campaign.

After breaking with Trump in early 2018, Bannon started his “War Room” podcasts early in 2019, releasing new episodes five or six times a week. His podcast on March 19, 2026, was labeled as #5227. Bannon’s War Room is often depicted as “ultra-conservative” or “hyper-partisan right,” and it is widely seen as “a hub for extreme MAGA rhetoric.”

Currently, Bannon is clearly one of the “lunatics” actively supporting the Lunatic-in-Chief.

Stephen Miller (although he has the same given name as Bannon, he goes by the full name, never by Steve) has also long been a Trump supporter. Miller (b. 1985) is said to have felt an intense personal connection upon Trump’s June 2015 candidacy announcement, viewing ‘it as aligning perfectly with his longstanding anti-immigration views. At Bannon’s and Jared Kushner’s urging, in 2016 Miller joined Trump’s campaign full-time as a senior policy advisor, writing Trump’s early speeches and embedding nationalist rhetoric like “radical Islam.” His loyalty proved unwavering through Trump’s first term and his 2024 campaign.

Since January 2025, Miller has served as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy in President Trump’s administration. That position gives him broad oversight of immigration enforcement, homeland security, and domestic policy execution, including mass deportations and executive orders.

Without question, Miller is one of the three main “lunatics” currently supporting the President.

Pete Hegseth (although his given name is Peter, he universally goes by Pete) assumed his first paid federal government role in Trump’s second term, when he nominated Hegseth for secretary of defense in November 2024. The Senate confirmed him after a tie-breaking vote by VP Vance, and he was sworn in on January 25, 2025.

Hegseth (b. 1980) is clearly one of the most important and most dangerous men in the U.S. today. As the Secretary of Defense/War, he is the official most responsible for launching/conducting the current “war” against Iran. As the oft-quoted anonymous saying puts it, “The most dangerous people are those who commit violence believing they are doing God’s will."

As is widely known, Hegseth is a conservative evangelical Christian who embraces a literal interpretation of what the Book of Revelation says about Armageddon and the Rapture. His current involvement in the war on Iran seems clearly to be based on his fundamentalistic Christian beliefs.**

Hegseth has said he will practice “no quarter” in Iran, which means he will refuse to spare enemy lives or take prisoners but will execute all who surrender or are captured. Supposedly, that is legitimate since, in his eyes, all Muslims are going to “fry when they die” (my words, not his) anyway.

Robert Reich’s March 16 Substack post was titled Trump’s Stupidest Cabinet Member, and he said Hegseth, this third of Trump’s “lunatic” enablers, is “a clear winner.”

With the rampant presence and power of these three “lunatics,” I repeat what I said at the end of my previous post: Heaven help us!

_____

  * Following his unsuccessful run for Louisville Metro Council in 2014 as a Democrat and frustrated by weak progressive voices in those elections, Maples founded Forward Kentucky in 2015.

** For those not familiar with the common conservative evangelical view of the end times, see the following articles: “Evangelicalism’s Twin Engines of Destruction: The Theological Innovation Sanctifying Trump’s War in Iran,” “Armageddon is not a strategy for peace in Iran,” and “The Pentagon’s Armageddon Problem,” Rachel Bitecofer’s March 12^th Substack post. (The image at the top of this post was taken from the latter.)

Is Trump a Lunatic?

“Not since Adolf Hitler blew his brains out in a bunker beneath the garden of the German Reich Chancellery on April 30, 1945, have the lives of so many people around the world been so buffeted by the psychosis of a single man.” Those striking words posted by David Rothkopf on March 7 led to the writing of this blog article. 

David Rothkopf

It was early on the morning of March 8 that I read Rothkopf’s words cited above, and I have been thinking about them ever since. Heather Cox Richardson included those words in her March 7 Substack post, and when she quotes and makes positive statements about someone, I pay attention.

I had never heard of David Rothkopf before reading his March 7 Substack post, which began with the words cited above. The title of his article is “Living in a Time of Lunatics and Monsters,” and he has good reason to call Hitler a lunatic/monster. Rothkopf is Jewish, and during the Holocaust, his father, Ernst, was able to escape from Europe and come to the United States.

However, more than three dozen of Ernst’s (and, thus, David’s) relatives were killed, as were most of his childhood friends. One aunt had the misfortune to live with her husband and children in Oswiecim, Poland—the town the Germans called Auschwitz.

Even though I had not heard of David Rothkopf (b. 1955), he has written ten books and more than 1,000 articles on international themes for many mainstream publications such as The New York Times and Foreign Affairs.

It is quite clear to me that what he posted in his March 7 “Need to Know” Substack article should be considered with resolute seriousness.

Rothkopf’s article is the sharpest criticism of a U.S. President that I have ever read—and for good reason. That is what makes his piece so important—and so alarming. In his second paragraph, he asserts that

at this moment in history, the fate of virtually everyone on the planet is being impacted by the toxic cocktail of character flaws, insecurities, and pathologies that are shaping the actions of the President of the United States.

Many of us are incensed that the POTUS has started a war against Iran, and Rothkopf’s criticism is strong, indeed. He says that Trump launched that war “on a whim.” Why? Not only because “he’s insane,” but also because “he’s a malignant narcissist,” “a sociopath,” and “has a fragile ego.”

Trump’s “lunacy,” referring to Rothkopf’s term, is seen in the following ways (among a multitude of others):

** The reason/purpose for his ordering the bombing of Iran is completely unclear. Trump has suggested various reasons, but it seems that even he doesn’t know why he decided to do that—or that he won’t admit what his motive was. (Epstein files? Increasing cost of living prices? Falling polling numbers? All of the above? Something else? Who knows!)

** His calling for an “unconditional surrender of Iran” and even suggesting that perhaps he should pick the new ayatollah—which certainly would not have been the son of the ayatollah who was chosen to rule just two or three days ago.

** And now, he has suggested the takeover of Cuba, perhaps in a manner similar to the U.S. intervention in Venezuela on January 3. Perhaps that would align well with his changing the name Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, a name nobody outside the U.S. uses.

In addition, there is the whole problem of Trump’s love for and use of tariffs, his current insistence on the passing of the SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act) ahead of the midterm elections, and the possibility that he will do whatever it takes to keep a “big Blue wave” from happening in the November elections.

In light of all I have mentioned above, it is appalling that Trump’s term of office doesn’t end until January 20, 2029, nearly three years from now! “Heaven help us!” as the old-timers used to say.

But don’t forget the No Kings! protests planned for March 28. The promoters explicitly expect it to be the largest political protest in U.S. history. Surely that will have significant ramifications for the November elections.

The Affordability Conundrum

According to a recent online post by CNBC, “Affordability is a buzzword right now.” That certainly seems to be the case, but what does affordable mean? Dictionaries define affordable as “able to be afforded” or “having a cost that is not too high”—but those definitions are so ambiguous they have little meaning. Despite its current popularity, affordability seems clearly to be a conundrum. 

Marked cost-of-living increases in the past year have sparked widespread discussion about affordability. In campaigning for the 2024 election, the current POTUS promised that “starting the day I take the oath of office, I will rapidly drive prices down and we will make America affordable again.”

In a September 2024 speech, Trump promised to get gasoline “below 2 dollars a gallon,” and said this would bring down “the price of everything from electricity rates to groceries, airfares, and housing costs.” Obviously, that hasn’t happened, so what the president says about affordability and what a majority of the voters perceive is a distinct part of the affordability conundrum.

In 2025, gas prices did go down by about 30 cents a gallon (from an average of $3.10 to about $2.80). That has made gasoline more affordable, but $2.80 is a long way from below $2.00—and that decrease is mostly due to lower crude oil prices and weaker global demand rather than due to something Trump did or didn’t do. No president has much influence on gas prices.

As you know, the Olympic Winter Games are now in progress, but the drawing for inexpensive tickets for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles went on sale last month. In fact, I decided to write this blog article when I saw an announcement saying, “Affordable tickets for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics start at $28.”

But, I thought, what about travel and lodging expenses? What is the use of buying an affordable ticket if you don’t have enough money for traveling to LA or staying in a hotel there? According to AI, it is estimated that round-trip flights from Kansas City (where I live) to LA will likely be $400 to $800, and a two-night stay in a LA hotel about the same—a minimum of $1,200 for one person!

So, the “affordable” ticket ends up not seeming so affordable after all.

What about “affordable housing”? There is much in the news media about that issue currently. What is termed affordable housing typically limits costs to 30% of household income to avoid burdening limited means. Obviously, what is “affordable” for middle- and top-income households is certainly not affordable for low-income families.

“Affordable groceries” also depends on one’s income. From what I have found, low-income households spend almost 33% of their after-tax income on food. According to 2023 USDA data, those in the lowest income quintile have an average after-tax income of $16,171, and the average spent annually for food was $5,278.

That percentage of income far exceeds the 10-15% typical for median earners and especially the slightly more than 8% for high earners. And my guess is that the median- and certainly the high-earners eat far better (more delicious and more nutritious) food than low-income people. So, affordability relates to far more than just how much something costs.

The most reasonable approach to affordability seems to be with those who advocate democratic socialism, such as Senator Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Mayor Zohran Mamdani in New York City (the same three I also mentioned at the end of my Nov. 10 blog post).

Mayor Mamdani has repeatedly said that affordability is the central crisis facing New Yorkers, and he frames most major policy proposals around lowering the cost of living for working‑class residents. His public statements emphasize rent relief, affordable housing construction, cheaper essentials, and investments that help families stay in the city.

Mamdani links affordability to daily essentials, proposing city‑owned grocery stores to reduce food prices; fast, fare‑free buses to cut transportation costs; no‑cost childcare and support for newborns. He argues these reduce the financial burden on families and help them remain in the city. This, he says, can and will be done by levying higher taxes on those who are wealthy.

So, as we think about the affordability conundrum, let’s consider what that means for all our fellow citizens and not just for us in the middle class. And let’s continue to oppose the present administration’s policies that have shifted so much money from the lower classes to the billionaires who are profiting “bigly” from their benefactor in the White House.   

What Does It Mean to Love One’s Enemies?

It is hard enough to love one’s friends and even harder to love others as we love ourselves. But how can we love our enemies? In both the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:43) and the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:27), Jesus plainly says, “love your enemies.” 

Why do we have enemies? Are enemies people we harbor enmity against? Probably not in most cases. Why would Jesus’ first followers have had an “enemies list” so that he would have felt the need to urge them to love those on that list?

The answer is clear: our “enemies” are not primarily those we have enmity toward; rather, they are those who have enmity toward us for whatever reason. Note Jesus’ full statement: “pray for those who persecute you.” Those early followers of Jesus were persecuted, but they certainly were not persecutors.

Consider some notable examples of people who loved their enemies. First, of course, is Jesus himself. As he was being executed by the extremely painful means of crucifixion, Jesus uttered this prayer: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).

Anabaptists (with whom I have long identified) have great respect for Dirk Willems, the Dutch Anabaptist martyr in 1569. He escaped from prison and was chased by a guard who fell through thin ice during the chase. But Willems turned back and rescued his pursuer—and then was recaptured, tortured, and killed.

Four hundred years later, Martin Luther King, Jr., steadfastly called upon Black people to show love for their enemies, the White people who had often lynched their ancestors for centuries and were still mistreating them in the present. His most well-known book is titled Strength to Love (1963).

I was certainly not a supporter of Charlie Kirk, although I grieved that he was killed. But I remain impressed by what Erika Kirk, Charlie’s wife, said at his memorial service. She forgave the shooter. Unlike the President, she expressed love and forgiveness toward him rather than hatred.

These are widely known examples of people who showed love for their enemies. Most of us, though, will likely never be in such dramatic situations. What does it mean for us to love our enemies?

“Love is more an attitude and action than a feeling.” That is the title of #25 in my book Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now (2018). In that chapter, I cite John Hick’s explanation regarding the type of love Jesus meant when he commanded us to love our enemies.

The British philosopher writes that love is “to value a person in such ways as actively to seek his or her deepest welfare and fulfillment” (Philosophy of Religion, 1963). Or, as we might say today, love actively seeks the flourishing of all people, including our enemies.

In my above-mentioned book, I also cite how MLK importantly distinguished between liking and loving. King noted in Strength to Love that Jesus did not say, “Like your enemies,” admitting that it is “almost impossible to like some people.” But Jesus’ command was for us to love people whom we don’t like.

So, love of enemies is not sentimental affection, but deliberate goodwill and moral commitment. That is the attitude Jesus calls us to have for those who say hurtful things to/about us or do harmful things to us.

Loving in that way certainly doesn’t mean condoning injurious things that are said or done, to us or to others. We can’t be neutral concerning right and wrong, good and evil. Often, we must “hate” what people do, but love them for who they are, persons created in the image of God.

We could make a long list of people who do things we strongly disapprove of. Many of us have deep dislike for the things the POTUS and his henchmen such as Steven Miller and Russell Vought say and do, and we have the right (and responsibility?) to speak out against them.

But if we are serious about following Jesus’ command that we love our “enemies,” whether they are government officials we dislike, cantankerous neighbors, or whoever, we still must seek their “deepest welfare” and their flourishing. That is both for the well-being of others as well as for ourselves.

Remember, "hate is more harmful to the vessel in which it is stored than to the people on whom it is poured."