“Good” White Evangelical Politicians

There has been considerable criticism of white evangelicals—and I have posted critical remarks myself (such as in my 2/4 blog post). But putting labels on people and saying everyone with that label is the same is a problem—and I wrote about “evangeliphobia” in my 1/30/16 blog post.

In this article, I am thinking particularly of two white evangelical politicians: Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.). I am referring to them as “good” because of their taking politically unpopular stances partly or largely because of their Christian faith.

Applauding Rep. Kinzinger

Adam Daniel Kinzinger (b. 1978) has served as a U.S. Congressman from Illinois since 2011. Recently, he has been in the news largely because he was one of the ten Republicans in the House to vote for the impeachment of President Trump.

A Jan. 29 piece posted on Christianity Today’s website is entitled “Meet the Republican Congressman Who Says His Faith Led Him to Vote for Impeachment.” 

According to this Jan. 28 article in The Atlantic, Kinzinger was a kid who grew up in a Baptist Church, and now, they write,

As someone who identifies as a born-again Christian, he believes he has to tell the truth. What has been painful, though, is seeing how many people who share his faith have chosen to support Trump at all costs, fervently declaring that the election was stolen.

“The courage of Adam Kinzinger,” an article in the Feb. 6 issue of The Economist, reports on the “angry pushback” Kinzinger is getting and even how a “fellow evangelical Christian accused him of being possessed by the devil.”

Surely, though, many evangelical Christians—and most of those who are not—have to be impressed with not only the courage but also the integrity of Rep. Kinzinger.

Applauding Sen. Sasse

Benjamin Eric Sasse (b. 1972) is the junior U.S. Senator for Nebraska, having won his second term in the Nov. 2020 election.

Born in Nebraska as the son of a high school teacher and football coach, Sasse graduated from Harvard in 1994 and went on to earn a Ph.D. degree (in history) from Yale University. Currently, he is the only Republican Senator with a Ph.D. (There are three Democrats with that degree.)   

Sasse was baptized in the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. As a college student in the 1990s, he began to embrace the "reformed faith" (Calvinism). And during his college years, Sasse was active in Campus Crusade for Christ (now Cru). Later he became an elder in the United Reformed Churches.

Sen. Sasse has long been a critic of the 45^th POTUS, and on Tuesday (Feb. 8), Sasse was one of only six Republicans (out of 50) who voted that the second impeachment trial of Trump is constitutional. And (perhaps today) he is likely to vote for Trump’s conviction.

His opposition to the Republican President has led to him being censured by Republicans in Nebraska, but he has persisted in doing and saying what he thinks is right.

Like Rep. Kinzinger, Sasse’s faith has led him also to be a man of courage and integrity.

Criticizing Rep. Kinzinger and Sen. Sasse

Applauding the evangelical Christian faith which has led Rep. Kinzinger and Sen. Sasse to be men of courage and integrity—and, as such, outspoken in their opposition to DJT—does not mean general agreement with their political ideas.

It is possible to respect and to admire people of integrity who embody and express goodwill while still disagreeing with their ideas and their political position on important issues.

And it is unfair to allow dislike for some white conservative evangelical politicians, such as Sen. Josh Hawley and Sen. Ted Cruz, to lump all conservative evangelical politicians together and to castigate them all.

Thankfully, there are “good” white evangelical politicians, and even though I am critical of some or many of their political positions, I am thankful for Rep. Kinzinger and Sen. Sasse.

The Inaugurations of 1865 and 2021

It has been three weeks since the inspirational inauguration of President Joe Biden. There are some distinct differences and a significant similarity between that inauguration on January 20 and President Lincoln’s second inauguration on March 4, 1865.

The Inauguration of 1865

This Friday is 2.12 and the 212^th birthday anniversary of Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps the most often quoted POTUS in American history, his short Second Inaugural Address was one of his most powerful speeches.

Lincoln won the 1864 election, held during the Civil War, as the candidate of the National Union Party (made up of Republicans and “War Democrats”). He defeated Democratic candidate George McClellan with 55% of the popular vote and with a whopping 212-21 advantage in the Electoral College.

Lincoln’s inaugural address the following March ended with these impressive words:

With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

(Here is the link to that 3/4/1865 inaugural address, which was only a tad over 700 words long. At that link you can both read the speech and hear it read. And this is the link to my blog post in 2/2015, which was mostly about that remarkable address.) 

The Inauguration of 2021

President Biden’s inaugural address was a solid one, but perhaps there were not a lot of memorable statements. The following words spoken to the international community, though, are noteworthy:

America has been tested and we’ve come out stronger for it. We will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again, not to meet yesterday’s challenges but today’s and tomorrow’s challenges. And we’ll lead not merely by the example of our power, [but] by the power of our example. We’ll be a strong and trusted partner for peace, progress, and security.

The most memorable words at the inauguration were spoken by Amanda Gorman, the dynamic young inaugural poet. She ended her poem, “The Hill We Climb,” with these words articulated with her immaculate diction,

The new dawn blooms as we free it
For there is always light,
if only we're brave enough to see it
If only we're brave enough to be it.

(In case you want to hear/read Gorman’s poem again, here is a link to it.)

Differences and a Similarity

The Senate’s second impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump is set to begin today. As you know, the House of Representatives voted on January 13 to impeach the 45^th POTUS. The tally was 232-197 with ten Republicans and all the Democrats voting to impeach DJT for “incitement of insurrection.”

Before that vote, however, House Republican Whip Steve Scalise cited Lincoln’s words about having “malice toward none” in voicing his opposition to impeachment.

Scalise ended his appeal for acquittal of DJT: "Madam Speaker, in times like these, let’s not reach for our darkest demons but instead, like Lincoln, seek the higher ground.”

Then, in the week following Biden’s inauguration, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley portrayed Trump as a victim of ill will and exclaimed “Give the man a break! . . . move on.”

Seeking to convince lawbreakers—or high government officials inciting insurrection—is not done because of malice, though. It is done for the sake of justice and with the intent of keeping society—or democracy—safe.

Lincoln’s second inaugural address was near the end of a long civil war in which perhaps up to 750,000 soldiers had died—and he had won the election by a huge landslide.

By contrast, Biden’s inaugural address was after a disputed election, just two weeks after an attempted insurrection, and with extensive armed protection, for it was not known what the insurgents might do to disrupt the festive events of January 20.

One thing is clearly the same now as in 1865, though: we all want a “just and lasting peace.”

Unimpeachable Grounds for Impeachment?

Yes, the President has been impeached. On December 18, 2019, President Donald John Trump was impeached for the abuse of power and for the obstruction of Congress. But were there unimpeachable grounds for that historic action by the United States House of Representatives?

Two Different Worlds

Here is an online dictionary definition: 

­ Were the grounds for the impeachment of DJT of such a nature?

According to the congressional Democrats, they were. On December 13, all 23 of the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend impeachment. In the historic house vote on Dec. 18, over 98% of the Democrats voted Yes and the impeachment of the President became a reality.

In his opening statement, Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-MA) said,

The President of the United States endangered our national security. The President undermined our democracy. And the President . . .  betrayed his oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. These aren't opinions. These are uncontested facts.

Even The Economist, the British-based news magazine, stated in its lead story for the Dec. 14-20 issue, “The main facts are not in dispute.”

But there are two different worlds existing simultaneously in the U.S., the Democratic world and the Republican world—or, we might say, the world of Trump opponents and the world of Trump supporters.

As was aptly stated in an online 12/18 WaPo article on impeachment night, “The intensity and polarization of the debate on the House floor vividly illustrated the extent to which leaders of the two parties now believe entirely different accounts of what occurred and are motivated by different concerns. At times they sounded almost as if they were representing different countries.”

The votes, though, did not represent just two different opinions. They represented two different parties—or two different worlds. Of the votes on the two articles of impeachment, all the Yes votes were by Democrats and one Independent; all the No votes were by Republicans.

Almost unanimously the Democrats thought there were impeccable grounds for impeachment. But after about eight hours of debate in the closing argument for the Republicans, Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the House Minority Leader, declared, “There are no grounds for impeachment.”

For the Republicans, not only were the grounds for impeachment not unimpeachable, they were non-existent.

DJT’s supporters and his opponents seem, indeed, to live in two different worlds.

Where Do We Go from Here?

It is within the realm of possibility that DJT will be the first President to be impeached and then win re-election to another four years in the White House.

Don’t think that DJT’s re-election is inconceivable. I was one of a multitude who thought it was inconceivable that he would be nominated for the presidency by the Republicans. But he was.

An even larger multitude thought it inconceivable that he would be elected President. But he was.

After his impeachment in 1998/99, President Clinton’s approval greatly increased—to a whopping 73%. Yes, I think it is inconceivable that DJT’s rate will climb that high—but it might climb high enough for him to be reelected.

But now one of the biggest worries is that DJT’s almost certain acquittal in the Senate will allow other abuses of power and election tampering with no feasible way to counter those abuses.

As Dana Milbank wrote in a 12/19 op-ed for the WaPo:

It was all a triumph for alternative facts, for Russian dezinformatsiya, for Fox News and for social media toxicity. The losers aren’t the Democrats . . .  but democracy. Just as after the Mueller report, Trump will only grow more emboldened in breaking the legal constraints on his presidency.

So then, inconceivably, DJT might also become the first President to be impeached twice. If there is unimpeachable evidence that he profited from foreign influence in the 2020 election, as he most likely did in 2016, a second impeachment would again loom as a distinct possibility.

Impeachment of the President

It was 150 years ago tomorrow, on February 24, 1868, that Andrew Johnson became the first President of the United States to be impeached. The last President to be impeached was Bill Clinton, and that was less than 20 years ago, in December 1998. When will the next impeachment be? Perhaps in 2019?

The Rise of Andrew Johnson

As you know, Johnson became the 17^th POTUS following Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865.

Johnson was born in 1808, about six weeks before Lincoln, into an economically deprived home in Tennessee. The “upper crust” of his hometown of Raleigh probably considered the Johnson family “white trash,” especially after Andrew’s father died when he was three.

Although he had no formal schooling, Andrew was a gifted speaker, and through the years he kept rising to higher and higher political offices: from alderman to mayor, to state representative, to the U.S. House of Representatives, to governor, to U.S. Senator, and then to Vice-President (even though he was a Democrat and Lincoln was a Republican).

The Fall of Andrew Johnson

Becoming President shortly after the end of the Civil War, Johnson faced the unparalleled challenge of how to deal with the former Confederate states and how to reconstruct the South. He soon came into direct conflict with the Radical Republican faction in Congress, led by Rep. Thaddeus Stephens.

The ensuing struggle for power between the executive and legislative branches of the government resulted in Johnson’s fall. Congress wanted the freed slaves to be full citizens of the nation and thought freedmen should have the right to vote.

Johnson wanted the whites to remain dominant and the blacks to remain subservient.

The showdown came over the somewhat unrelated Tenure of Office Act legislated in March 1867. As a result of Johnson’s violation of that act, he was impeached by the House—but remained in office as the Senate fell one vote short of removing him.  

February 24, 1868

The Rise and Fall (?) of DJT

There are both stark differences and strong similarities between the 17^th and 45^th POTUS. Whereas Johnson was born into an economically poor home in Tennessee (the westernmost state at the time), DJT was the son of a rather affluent businessman in New York City.

And whereas DJT never held a political office before becoming President, Johnson served in various political offices for most of his adult life.

There seems, however, to be considerable similarity between the two presidents in their racist attitudes. In her book Andrew Johnson (2011), Annette Gordon-Reed avers that “to say that Andrew Johnson was a racist and sought to maintain and extend white supremacy in America is a statement of incontrovertible fact, not merely a judgment” (p. 11).

DJT’s racist and xenophobic attitudes may not be incontrovertible at this point, but his statements (and tweets) over the past couple of years give good grounds for labeling him as a racist.

And it goes without saying that DJT’s rise to his election as the 45^th POTUS was completely unexpected to most people in the U.S.—and probably even by Trump himself.

Given the likelihood of DJT’s people colluding with Russia and his attempting to obstruct that investigation as well as the likelihood of his having violated the “Emoluments Clause,” there is probably far more reason for DJT to be impeached than there was for Johnson.

What will happen depends on two things: the final findings of Mueller’s Special Counsel Investigation and the congressional election this November.

If the Republicans maintain control of the House, impeachment of DJT is unlikely—and removal from office by the Senate, regardless of the election (since a 2/3 vote would be necessary), seems quite unlikely even if the House does impeach him.

Watergate and "Russiagate"

The break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., occurred 45 years ago (in June 1972). As virtually everyone knows, repercussions of that single event led to President Nixon resigning in August 1974, prior to almost certain impeachment and removal from office.

THE WATERGATE COVER-UP

As is widely recognized, it was not the Watergate break-in itself that led to Nixon’s resignation. Rather, it was his attempt to cover-up that ultimately did him in. Barry Sassman was city news editor at The Washington Post during those years, and he called it “the great coverup”.

Sassman (b. 1934) authored The Great Coverup: Nixon and the Scandal of Watergate. It was named by the New York Times as one of the best books of 1974.

In that highly-regarded work, the author wrote, “It is sobering to realize just how reluctant Congress, including Democrats as well as Republicans, was to take action against the President. Congress acted only when an outraged public demanded it” (p. 298)

The impeachment process against Nixon wasn’t formally initiated until February 1974. On Feb. 6 the House passed a resolution giving its Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach the President primarily because of the Watergate scandal.

That investigation wasn't undertaken until a whole year after the Senate established a select committee to investigate the Watergate break-in and of the Nixon Administration’s attempted cover-up of its involvement.

Impeachment is a long, drawn-out process.

IS THERE A RUSSIA COVER-UP?

Are there parallels between the actions of the Pres. Nixon and the current POTUS? There certainly seem to be some parallels, but at this point we don’t know to what extent.

Ironically, Pres. Trump tried to make a parallel between his predecessor and Nixon. On March 4, DJT tweeted, “How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!”

There has been no evidence found to support Trump’s charges—but there has been growing suspicion that he may be trying to cover up his connections with Russia and Russia’s influence on the 2016 election.

During his May 10 monologue, late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel remarked, “When we said Trump should act more presidential, we probably should have specified–we didn’t mean Nixon.” This was the day following Trump’s sacking of FBI Director James Comey, who was overseeing the FBI probe into Russian election meddling. 

IS THERE A CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT?

The second chapter of Allan J. Lichtman’s book The Case for Impeachment (April 2017) is “The Resignation of Richard Nixon: A Warning to Donald Trump.”

Lichtman (b. 1947) is a Distinguished Professor of History at American University in Washington, D.C. He gained considerable notice last year when he predicted that Trump would win the presidential election—in spite of all the polls suggesting otherwise. What made that prediction noteworthy was the fact that he had correctly predicted every winner of the Oval Office since 1984.

In the second chapter of his book, Lichtman points out that “Donald Trump exhibits the same tendencies that led Nixon to violate the most basic standards of morality and threaten the foundations of our democracy” (p. 21).

On May 12 Lichtman talked to Newsweek about Trump’s sudden firing of Comey. “The only parallel is Watergate, and this is much more serious,” Lichtman said. “What Trump is involved in is more serious because it involves a foreign power and the national security of the country.”

Is it now time for an outraged public, Republicans as well as Democrats, to speak up again as they did in 1974?