You can read my coverage of Day 1 of the convention here. Day 2 here. Yesterday, we received the following feedback from a reader, and it so captures the reason why we do this work. We were very encouraged by this: Michael and Melissa, Thank you for your daily, thoughtful coverage of the political conventions. I know of nothing else quite like it: principled, but not insufferably partisan. It has been refreshing and valuable for me as a non-profit leader, Christian minister, and everyday citizen.
I have read and reread the discussions of the first three days of the Republican National Convention (RNC), and overall I found them some of the most disappointing work I’ve seen in the “Reclaiming Hope” project.
In April 2012, scholars Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann described the Republican party this way: “The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” Every one of these characteristics has been on display at the RNC – and yet the comments here have not reflected that comprehensively validated understanding.
The image of the RNC presented here is far more sober and thoughtful than the reality justifies. Two issues have been particular underplayed: the extent to which the presentations have relied on what analysts have called “a firehose of falsehoods,” and the degree to which the RNC has justified Michael Gerson’s description of Republican attitudes toward Donald Trump as “idolatrous.” Both of these elements are obviously central to a biblically-based understanding. That the former point was barely mentioned is especially surprising because I’ve mentioned it in well-received comments concerning Pastor Al Mohler’s political views – which gave reason to think that truthfulness would be of central importance here, as it clearly is in Scripture – far more important there, in fact, than abortion. So far, that has not been the case – and it makes a difference. The Democratic National Convention (DNC) was outstanding in its truthfulness, as fact-checkers have made clear; the RNC is equally disgraceful in its mendacity.
Similarly, the way Trump is being treated – to the extent that the RNC essentially replaced its platform with dedication to whatever Trump decrees – is also striking and unbiblical. The psalmist tells us, “Put not your trust in princes,” and Scripture abounds with examples of the truth of this teaching – from the unnamed rulers who organized the building of the Tower of Babel to Pilate the procurator who crucified Christ. That the person to whose whims Republicans would consign the country is the most mendacious and likely least fit President in American history makes this attitude especially unjustifiable and dangerous.
As well, these comments have not adequately reckoned with the extent to which RNC presenters have obviously been mobilizing hatred and fear in ways dangerous to civil peace and democratic governance, in the obvious interest of utilizing the way the American system advantages rural white people to win a narrow Electoral College victory. Nothing could be further from the truth than Johnnie Moore’s assertion – presented without comment – that Trump’s Republican party is a “big tent.” That was certainly the case at the DNC; minority window-dressing aside, it is clearly not true of the RNC – a fitting picture for a party whose House delegation is 90 percent composed of white men. Thoughtful journalist Thomas Edsall surveyed the ominous implications of this situation:
There is also a bit too much of the “Church of the Savvy,” as media analyst Jay Rosen termed it – which he has summarized as “Forget truthfulness. What works?” Rosen has mercilessly flayed that outlook as a matter of journalism; it makes even less sense here. How something will “play” electorally is not nearly as important, especially in this context, as whether it is “true” and “just” (as Paul puts it) and whether it will meet the actual needs of the country.
Finally, as a retired Foreign Service officer, while I appreciated the mention of the Hatch Act, I wish the discussion had been better focused. The flagrant contempt for the Act at the RNC was not just “norm-breaking”; it was lawlessness – just as much a misuse of national resources for partisan purposes as was Trump’s hijacking of military assistance to Ukraine in order to smear Joe Biden. The Act does, however, codify a great whopping norm: that the government belongs to all the people, all the time – not just to a political party, let alone to a single person. It has many essential effects that were ignored:
• Keeping the great power of the federal government from influencing election results.
• Protecting federal employees from being pressured by their politically-appointed supervisors into partisan displays that could violate their conscience (and invite retaliation if they refused).
• Ensuring that federal workplaces are free of the deep divisions that the intrusion of partisanship would inevitably create.
Contrary to the all-too-savvy idea that Americans “no longer respect or care about” such concerns (which unfortunately replicated the scorn for the Act expressed by Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows), their public importance would become immediately obvious if, for example, Postal Service workers wore Biden/Harris shirts and buttons on the job. Were that to occur, Meadows and his ilk – who had no evident problem conscripting federal workers to assist the Hatch Act violations at the RNC – would no doubt be among the loudest objectors.
I hope that any further analysis of the RNC, and of the ongoing election process, will reflect a deeper understanding of the range of concerns raised where religion and politics meet. That kind of analysis is especially important right now, and always in short supply.
To be clear: I enormously value your work, and there is indeed much of value in your comments on the first three days of the RNC. It's precisely because of the importance of that work, and the quality of what you are already doing, that I would like to see even greater analytical achievements, in part along the lines I suggested. The intersection of religion and politics is one of the most important concerns throughout American history, and never more than at this moment. Your work is so valuable precisely because it is dedicated to that truth.
I have read and reread the discussions of the first three days of the Republican National Convention (RNC), and overall I found them some of the most disappointing work I’ve seen in the “Reclaiming Hope” project.
In April 2012, scholars Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann described the Republican party this way: “The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” Every one of these characteristics has been on display at the RNC – and yet the comments here have not reflected that comprehensively validated understanding.
The image of the RNC presented here is far more sober and thoughtful than the reality justifies. Two issues have been particular underplayed: the extent to which the presentations have relied on what analysts have called “a firehose of falsehoods,” and the degree to which the RNC has justified Michael Gerson’s description of Republican attitudes toward Donald Trump as “idolatrous.” Both of these elements are obviously central to a biblically-based understanding. That the former point was barely mentioned is especially surprising because I’ve mentioned it in well-received comments concerning Pastor Al Mohler’s political views – which gave reason to think that truthfulness would be of central importance here, as it clearly is in Scripture – far more important there, in fact, than abortion. So far, that has not been the case – and it makes a difference. The Democratic National Convention (DNC) was outstanding in its truthfulness, as fact-checkers have made clear; the RNC is equally disgraceful in its mendacity.
Similarly, the way Trump is being treated – to the extent that the RNC essentially replaced its platform with dedication to whatever Trump decrees – is also striking and unbiblical. The psalmist tells us, “Put not your trust in princes,” and Scripture abounds with examples of the truth of this teaching – from the unnamed rulers who organized the building of the Tower of Babel to Pilate the procurator who crucified Christ. That the person to whose whims Republicans would consign the country is the most mendacious and likely least fit President in American history makes this attitude especially unjustifiable and dangerous.
As well, these comments have not adequately reckoned with the extent to which RNC presenters have obviously been mobilizing hatred and fear in ways dangerous to civil peace and democratic governance, in the obvious interest of utilizing the way the American system advantages rural white people to win a narrow Electoral College victory. Nothing could be further from the truth than Johnnie Moore’s assertion – presented without comment – that Trump’s Republican party is a “big tent.” That was certainly the case at the DNC; minority window-dressing aside, it is clearly not true of the RNC – a fitting picture for a party whose House delegation is 90 percent composed of white men. Thoughtful journalist Thomas Edsall surveyed the ominous implications of this situation:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/opinion/trump-republican-convention-racism.html
There is also a bit too much of the “Church of the Savvy,” as media analyst Jay Rosen termed it – which he has summarized as “Forget truthfulness. What works?” Rosen has mercilessly flayed that outlook as a matter of journalism; it makes even less sense here. How something will “play” electorally is not nearly as important, especially in this context, as whether it is “true” and “just” (as Paul puts it) and whether it will meet the actual needs of the country.
Finally, as a retired Foreign Service officer, while I appreciated the mention of the Hatch Act, I wish the discussion had been better focused. The flagrant contempt for the Act at the RNC was not just “norm-breaking”; it was lawlessness – just as much a misuse of national resources for partisan purposes as was Trump’s hijacking of military assistance to Ukraine in order to smear Joe Biden. The Act does, however, codify a great whopping norm: that the government belongs to all the people, all the time – not just to a political party, let alone to a single person. It has many essential effects that were ignored:
• Keeping the great power of the federal government from influencing election results.
• Protecting federal employees from being pressured by their politically-appointed supervisors into partisan displays that could violate their conscience (and invite retaliation if they refused).
• Ensuring that federal workplaces are free of the deep divisions that the intrusion of partisanship would inevitably create.
Contrary to the all-too-savvy idea that Americans “no longer respect or care about” such concerns (which unfortunately replicated the scorn for the Act expressed by Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows), their public importance would become immediately obvious if, for example, Postal Service workers wore Biden/Harris shirts and buttons on the job. Were that to occur, Meadows and his ilk – who had no evident problem conscripting federal workers to assist the Hatch Act violations at the RNC – would no doubt be among the loudest objectors.
I hope that any further analysis of the RNC, and of the ongoing election process, will reflect a deeper understanding of the range of concerns raised where religion and politics meet. That kind of analysis is especially important right now, and always in short supply.
Thanks for this feedback, George.
-Michael
To be clear: I enormously value your work, and there is indeed much of value in your comments on the first three days of the RNC. It's precisely because of the importance of that work, and the quality of what you are already doing, that I would like to see even greater analytical achievements, in part along the lines I suggested. The intersection of religion and politics is one of the most important concerns throughout American history, and never more than at this moment. Your work is so valuable precisely because it is dedicated to that truth.