Analyzing Assassination Culture

The news media and the internet have been awash with news and opinions about the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk last week. I was amazed that his assassination garnered such wide coverage. Earlier this year, he talked about the current “assassination culture,” a topic worth analyzing.

There should be grief first and criticism later. On the day of Kirk’s killing, some spoke negatively of him. But on that afternoon of September 10, I posted words of Doug Pagitt on my Facebook page.*

Pagitt wrote, "I am outraged by the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk, and my heartfelt prayers are with him and his family. Political violence has no place in America.”

He went on to say, "Charlie Kirk and I disagreed on nearly everything when it came to politics, but disagreement belongs in the realm of ideas, debate, and voting, not in acts of harm.”

One of my good friends posted negative things about Kirk on Facebook not long after he was murdered, and I “scolded” him for doing that so soon after his assassination. As I said to my friend, I fully agreed with what Pagitt wrote that day.

I also disapproved of others on the political left who were quick to say harsh things about Kirk, even though they were true. I am surprised, though, that according to Copilot, Pagitt has not publicly mentioned Kirk since 9/10.

Perhaps he noted how many who spoke out against what Kirk had said through the years, and especially recently, were chastised and even fired from public positions for doing so.

Ironically, Kirk was a staunch advocate of free speech, but many who used that freedom to say negative things about him were punished for what they said/wrote—and apparently some even for publicizing what Kirk himself had said.

“Both sides” need to be analyzed accurately. Despite Kirk accusing the left of fostering an assassination culture, it seems clear that in recent decades, far more violent acts have been committed by right-wing advocates than by those on the left. I asked Copilot about this, and here is its response:

While figures like Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump have pointed fingers at the political left for fostering what they call “assassination culture,” there’s a substantial body of evidence showing that far-right rhetoric and behavior have significantly contributed to the escalation of political violence in the U.S.”

And here is what Claude, my AI “buddy” reports: “The data shows that while Charlie Kirk uses the term 'assassination culture' to criticize the left, the statistical evidence suggests that far-right extremists have been responsible for significantly more political violence and deaths since 2000.”

Claude goes on to say, “The disparity is quite stark - far-right extremists have committed over 6 times more deaths (520+ vs 78) and nearly 5.5 times more incidents (227 vs 42) than far-left extremists since 1990, with this trend continuing into recent years.”**

Take a look once again at the graph after the introductory paragraph at the top.

Beware of being misled by the Vice President or intimidated by the right-wing media. On Monday, filling in for Kirk on his regular program, VP Vance spoke about “festering violence on the far left.” He also reportedly said on Fox News that the accused assassin was “radicalized by the far left, by the social networks of the far left, by the ideas of the far left.”

Two days after her husband’s assassination, Erika Kirk said, “The evildoers responsible for my husband's assassination have no idea what they have done. They killed Charlie ….”

Gary Bauer, a well-known conservative evangelical, wrote on Thursday, Erika’s “use of the words ‘evildoers’ (plural) and ‘they’ was intentional. She was referring to the radical leftists who hated her husband, who smeared her husband, and who did everything they could to dehumanize him.”

But at this point, from what we know about Tyler Robinson, the alleged assassin of Kirk, he is not affiliated with any political party, and there is no evidence linking him to any organized leftist group or movement.

So, in analyzing the assassination culture that Kirk saw as defining the left, it seems much more likely to be a characteristic of the right, which was emphasized so much by Kirk and his organization, Turning Point USA.

_____

  * Doug Pagitt (b. 1966) launched Vote Common Good with a 31-city bus tour that began on October 2, 2018. On Oct. 14, I drove over to Overland Park, Kansas, to hear him speak and to chat with him briefly. Six days later, I posted a blog article about him and Vote Common Good (see here).  

** In the next paragraph, Claude went on to say, “This data comes from multiple credible sources, including the National Institute of Justice, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Anti-Defamation League, and academic research published in peer-reviewed journals.” 

    After receiving the above information, I saw this article with similar content on Time magazine’s website: “Trump Called for a Crackdown on the ‘Radical Left.’ But Right-Wing Extremists Are Responsible for More Political Violence.” The graph included in the article is what I posted above.

Faith, Politics, and the Common Good

Robb Ryerse is an interesting guy, and I am pleased to introduce him and his book that was published earlier this year under the title Running for Our Lives: A Story of Faith, Politics, and the Common Good.

Meet Robb Ryerse

Some of you may have heard of Ryerse: he has had two articles published in Time magazine this year. The first (dated 1/31/20) is titled “I'm a Pastor Who Ran for Congress as a Republican. Here's Why I'm Encouraging My Fellow Evangelicals Not to Vote for Donald Trump.”

Just two weeks later, Time published his next opinion piece, “I Questioned the Sincerity of Donald Trump’s Pro-Life Stance. The Response From My Fellow Evangelicals Was Troubling.”

Time introduced both articles with these words: “Robb Ryerse is a pastor at Vintage Fellowship in Fayetteville, AR and the political director of Vote Common Good.” And they give the title of his new book, which is about his 2018 congressional campaign.

Ryerse was born in Ohio in 1975. He graduated from a conservative seminary in Pennsylvania and he was the pastor of traditional, fundamentalist churches for ten years before having a crisis of faith and then starting the new “post-denominational” church in 2006.

(Here is the link to the introduction of Robb on Vintage Fellowship’s website.)

His first book, Fundamorphosis: How I Left Fundamentalism But Didn’t Lose My Faith (2012), tells the story of his theological transformation. His new book tells how he ran in, and decisively lost, the 2018 Republican primary seeking to unseat incumbent Steve Womack for the Third House District in northwest Arkansas. 

Hear Robb Ryerse

Ryerse’s book is fairly brief and not particularly profound. But it is the intriguing story of a Republican and a former evangelical Christian running for political office—and now actively campaigning against DJT.

I encourage you to read Robb’s book—or at least to click here and read my brief summary of and quotes from his book.

As one who has had a hard time finding much to agree with in most Republican politicians since Senators Mark Hatfield and John Danforth, I found it refreshing to listen to the honest reflections of one who continues to claim he is a Republican—although he is much different from most Republicans in Congress now.

While most of the book is basically about Ryerse’s experience of deciding about, training for, and actually making a spirited run for Congress—and then losing badly—the last four chapters look toward the future and are about seeking the common good in voting.

Please listen to Robb’s 40-second YouTube statement about seeking the common good.

Heed Robb Ryerse

Ryerse is not running for another political office at this point, but he is still actively working in politics. Since the fall of 2018 he has been employed by Vote Common Good, the organization I posted a blog article about in October 2018.

In his book, Robb asserts,

Letting the common good motivate our Election Day decisions means voting for the candidates who are advocating for policies that will do the most good and have the greatest positive impact. . . .
     The common good should especially be the motivation for Christian voters (p. 131).

These are good and important words that I sincerely hope all you readers will heed.

*****

I was sent a free copy of Ryerse’s book by Mike Morrell of Speakeasy on condition that I would post a review or blog article about it. I was happy to receive, to read, and now to post this article and to recommend the book, which was definitely a profitable read.

Moral Majority and Vote Common Good are not Moral Equivalents

[The following is a "letter to the editor," published (here) by Baptist News Global on Oc. 30 and is posted here as an "extra" blog article because of the significance of the Nov. 6 election.] 

In his opinion article published Oct. 26 on baptistnews.com, Jonathan Frank contends that “today’s Vote Common Good is much like yesterday’s Moral Majority.” Having attended a Vote Common Good “rally” and written a blog article about Vote Common Good, I must say, Sorry, Jonathan, but they’re not the same at all.

Further, having written a book on Christian fundamentalism, I have also spent considerable time seeking to understand the thinking and actions of the late Jerry Falwell, the primary power behind the formation of the Moral Majority. In reviewing Falwell’s activities and pronouncements in 1979 and the years following, again I must declare, Sorry, Jonathan, but the Moral Majority and the Vote Common Good movements are definitely not moral equivalents.

Vote Common Good is focused on one limited goal: flipping the control of Congress in the midterm elections on Nov. 6. This goal is rooted primarily in their strong opposition to the character and policies of President Trump and the almost unanimous support he has received from the Republican-controlled Senate and House.

At the rally I attended, Frank Schaffer declared that he is not trying to make Democrats out of Republicans and he is not saying how people ought to vote in future elections. He is merely emphasizing the critical nature of the current political situation in Washington and the need for there to be some check on the erratic and unchristian statements and policies of the President. That check depends on Congress being “flipped,” and that is what Vote Common Good is seeking to do. It is an ad hoc response to a current crisis in government.

Jonathan asserts that the “clear mission” of Vote Common Good is to “urge Christians to vote for Democratic candidates up and down the ballot.” No, Jonathan, that is not what their declared mission is: it is only to flip Congress – and by that they mean primarily the House of Representatives. The only political candidate mentioned in the Kansas rally I attended was the challenger to Rep. Kevin Yoder in the 3rd District of Kansas.

Jonathan says that Vote Common Good is urging voters to oppose the GOP. Well, yes and no. They are certainly urging voters to oppose the GOP candidates for the House because of the need to have some check on the President. But that is the only GOP opposition that I have heard or read from them.

Jonathan complains the Vote Common Good group is rejecting praiseworthy Representatives such as Kathy McMorris-Rogers of Washington and Ann Wagner of Missouri. Yes, no doubt Rep. McMorris-Rogers and Rep. Wagner have done many good things and are decent people. But they are also quite loyal to President Trump. Consider, for example, their questionable support of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Near the end of his article Jonathan avers that Vote Common Good attempts “to shoehorn faith into the mold of a political party, instead of letting our faith be the mold through which we reach our political decisions.” To the contrary, Vote Common Good speakers such as Schaffer (whom I heard), Tony Campolo, Shane Claiborne, and Brian McLaren are urging people to Vote Common Good because of their Christian faith and their firm commitment to the teachings of Jesus – not because they are Democrats.

These are just some of the reasons for this rebuttal to Jonathan Frank’s article. Today’s Vote Common Good is considerably unlike yesterday’s Moral Majority and it has a message Christians of all stripes need to consider seriously in these days before the midterm elections.

Vote Common Good

Last Sunday afternoon, I drove over to a church in Overland Park, Kansas, and attended a meeting of a group touring the country under the name Vote Common Good (VCG). It was a very small, but quite interesting, meeting.

Introduction of VCG

“Evangelical Christians against Trump are trying to 'flip Congress' with bus tour ahead of midterm elections.” That is the title of an October 9 article in Newsweek (see here) that describes the activities of the Vote Common Good (VCG) group. (Their website is here.)

Led primarily by Doug Pagitt, the founding pastor of Solomon’s Porch church in Minneapolis and a prominent emergent church leader, speakers at some of the VCG rallies also include such well-known Christian authors as Shane Claiborne, Brian McLaren, and Frank Schaeffer.

The latter was at the meeting I attended on October 14, and I enjoyed hearing him and chatting a bit with him again. (My blog articles of 9/25/11 and 8/20/14, see here and here, were mostly about Schaeffer.)  

Between October 2 and today (Oct. 20) VCG has held 17 rallies in ten different states. At least 12 more rallies, mostly in Texas and California, are scheduled between now and the midterm elections.

Appeal of VCG

In what seems to be a self-contradiction, VCG claims to be non-partisan while at the same time strenuously seeking to “flip” the control of Congress by electing Democratic candidates to the U.S. Congress.

As Schaeffer emphasized, they are not trying to make Democrats out of Republicans. Rather, they are just trying to get a Democratic Congress (or at least a Democratic House) to counter what they consider a President who is grossly acting in opposition to central Christian values.

They, most likely, agree with the October 12 Washington Post op-ed article by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.): “How a Democratic House would check this erratic president.” Here is Schiff’s opening sentence:

Our democracy is broken, and President Trump is only one reason. Congress is the other. It has failed to serve as an equal branch of government, failed to play its essential role as a check and balance and, most glaringly, completely abdicated its oversight responsibilities.

Suggestion to VCG

There are some who agree with the activities of VCG but think they are being too overtly political. I share some of those feelings. That is why at the meeting I recommended to them, and to the pastor of the church where we met, that attention be given to the “Reclaiming Jesus” document, which was drafted on Ash Wednesday this year.

That document, which was produced by people such as Walter Brueggemann, Tony Campolo, Richard Rohr, and Jim Wallis, is well worth reading and taken seriously. (Here is the link to it—and, yes, there were also women and people of color who were part of the group that drafted it.)

There are pastors and others, who wish to stay out of the political fray and who perhaps don’t want to be identified with VCG even though they may personally agree with what they are trying to do.

Use of the Reclaiming Jesus document is one good way to emphasize the values being promoted by VCG without overt political statements or identification. I am pleased with the way my pastor has done that over the past few weeks.

Since I am not an active pastor—or on anyone’s payroll—now, I am happy to identify with the work and the goals of Vote Common Good. Many knowledgeable people are saying that next month’s election is the most important midterm election of our lifetime—and they may well be right.

That is the reason to vote and to Vote Common Good!