Bayesianism, Trump and Putin

Bayesianism, inductive reasoning and level of confidence

As discussed here before, being bayesian about reality and beliefs is a very good mental habit to have, especially for complicated and messy subjects like politics. Simply put, being bayesian means changing the degree of confidence a person has when they become aware of information they were not aware of before. That includes reasoning or logic. The new information can make the bayesian person’s confidence in a belief increase, decrease or even change if it is sufficient. In essence, the bayesian person is a more or less open minded person. That trait is usually accompanied by a mindset that tends toward rationality somewhat more compared to the person’s closed minded counterpart or doppelganger.

As all of us critical thinkers know, forming beliefs about most things involve inductive thinking and some degree of uncertainty in the belief. In politics, important but inconvenient facts, truths and reasoning are often hidden, distorted or denied as lies or nonsense. When that happens, as is usually the case, it is necessary to form beliefs with out important or necessary information. Sometimes we have to make guesses about what reality is using a some variable amount of circumstantial evidence or reasoning. That makes the belief uncertain to some extent.

I sometimes express some of my beliefs in terms of level of personal confidence as a percent, e.g., 60% confident the belief is true. Certainty in belief means 100% confidence in the belief. With politics, messy as it is, sometimes certain beliefs turn out to be false. That can happen if information is hidden, not known to the person and/or the person’s reasoning is flawed. Complicating this is the fact that beliefs often are based on subjective values and there is no single correct belief, e.g., abortion is morally acceptable or it is not.

Degrees of confidence: A person’s degree of confidence in a belief or opinion varies. It can range from ‘maybe’ to ‘more likely than not’ to ‘probably true’ to ‘certainly true’ or certainty. Certainty in belief means a person is 100% confident in the belief or opinion, while maybe tends to mean some range of likelihood or degree of confidence such as ~35-49%. More likely than not means a possibility or level of confidence of at least 50%. With politics, messy as it is, sometimes certain beliefs turn out to be or are false. Sometimes ‘probably not’ type beliefs turn out to be or are true.

Trump, Putin & treason

One of the things in the 2016 election that I found deeply concerning was the possibility that the president could be working with or maybe even for Putin. There was enough circumstantial evidence for me to form a belief that maybe the president was working with or for Putin and was thus a traitor (~35-49% possibility). After all, his campaign operatives had been caught trying to set up a secret line of communication with Putin or his operatives. Why do that?

There was other circumstantial evidence as well. For example, it was also known or suspected that the president (1) laundered money for Russian mobsters and kleptocrats, (2) was a serial business failure with six bankruptcies in his resume, (3) refused to show his tax returns, falsely claiming he could not because they were under audit, (4) was immoral in his personal life (e.g., Stormy Daniels) and broke campaign finance law to hide that fact, (5) the president’s businesses did a great deal of  business with Russian mobsters, and (6) was and still is a chronic liar. I also believed the president was a tax cheat (~90% confident), which explained why he hid his tax returns.

In the 2016 election (Politifact)

After the election, various things raised my level of confidence that the president was working with or for Putin to probably doing so (~60% likelihood). For example, (1) phone calls between him and Putin were not made public and no US officials were present to hear what was being discussed (this is unprecedented), (2) the president denied that Russians attacked the US election, taking Putin’s word for it that Russia had nothing to do with the 2016 election, (3) he publicly sided with Putin against US intelligence agency findings of major Russian interference in the election, (4) he fights tooth and claw in court to keep his tax returns hidden, (5) the Mueller report clearly showed that he obstructed justice at least four or five times to try to stop the investigation of Russian interference in the election, (6) the president solidified his track record as immoral and a chronic liar (100% confidence level) and a crook (99% confidence level), (7) he expresses publicly admiration for tyranny and tyrants including Putin, (8) constant authoritarian rhetoric and behaviors, e.g., attacking the press, and (9) secret phone calls with Putin that coincided with the president taking actions that Putin was wanted ever since he took power, e.g., withdrawing US troops from Germany. We only find out about the phone calls not from the president but from Putin. There could be more phone calls we will probably never know about and we will never know what was discussed in any of them (~95% likelihood).

The following 4 minute interview with Timothy Snyder, author of the book On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century (book review here) has raised my belief that the president is a traitor (~98% confidence level). If one looks at what the president is doing from Putin’s point of view, the president is an incredibly useful operative because of his power, deep immorality and other bad personal traits.

Why would the president betray the US and its domestic and international interests? Because he is a crook and a liar, extremely thin-skinned and vindictive, deeply immoral, deeply corrupt, a tyrant wannabe, controllable, and mentally unsound to the point of being completely unfit for office, e.g., he is a self-centered narcissist. Putin has powerful tools at his disposal. Putin can bribe, blackmail and manipulate the president because he is simply not very bright. If the president owes enough money to Russians and they can call in loans and/or show evidence of tax evasion, that could bankrupt him once more and/or subject him to criminal prosecution. If there is evidence of other bad behaviors, e.g., the pee pee tape, Putin can “leak” it just like he leaked damaging evidence against Clinton in the 2016 election.

It appears to me that Putin holds the power here. It is not clear that the president can refuse what he is told to do, and apparently what he is already inclined to do.

CDC School Reopening Guidelines are Being Subverted and the Public Deceived

In May, the AP reported that the CDC had released detailed guidelines on reopening the economy, but the Trump administration buried the report and wanted it to never be released. In a May 6 article,
Trump administration buries detailed CDC advice on reopening, the AP released a portion of the report that provided seven flow charts for reopening various parts of the economy, including schools, child care facilities, churches and restaurants and bars. The charts for school, workplaces, church and restaurant and bar reopenings are shown below.

From the charts, it is perfectly clear why the president did not want the public to see the CDC report or the flow charts. They are devastating. They make clear how poor the federal response has been compared to what real, non-political experts recommended back in May. In all seven areas of the economy, the very first guideline is the same: Is the (school, church, workplace, etc.) in a community no longer requiring significant mitigation? If the answer is no, then in all cases the recommended action is do not reopen. If the answer to the first guideline is yes, then for school reopenings, 13 more guidelines need to be met before a school or facility can be reopened and monitored.

At present, few or no schools are in a position to reopen. The president's recent push to force schools to reopen is not just sabotage of the US response to the pandemic. It is treason.

Apparently, due to AP reporting of the leaked flow charts, the president ordered the CDC to release the full report. To minimize public notice about the report, the release was not accompanied by a press release. The president felt a need to minimize the public's knowledge of the contents of the report.

On May 8, the AP reported this:

“White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany said Friday that the documents had not been approved by CDC Director Robert Redfield. The new emails, however, show that Redfield cleared the guidance. 

This new CDC guidance — a mix of advice already released along with newer information — had been approved and promoted by the highest levels of its leadership, including Redfield. Despite this, the administration shelved it on April 30. 

As early as April 10, Redfield, who is also a member of the White House coronavirus task force, shared via email the guidance and decision trees with President Donald Trump’s inner circle, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, top adviser Kellyanne Conway and Joseph Grogan, assistant to the president for domestic policy. Also included were Dr. Deborah Birx, Dr. Anthony Fauci and other task force members.” 

The president and McEnany were clearly lying about the status of the CDC report to provide a false excuse for why it was not made public. Remember Ms. McEnany’s first press briefing? She said “I will never lie to you.” That was a lie.

The president’s sabotage gets even worse

Within the last few days, multiple sources reported that new CDC guidance on school reopening that was radically different from the guidance that leaked to the public and was then released in May. The ensuing confusion was predictable. It turned out that the White House edited the guidance to water it down, but released it as a CDC document to make school reopenings seem at least plausible on advice from experts.

In this political document, the White House suggested that schools keep students in small groups, with one teacher staying with the same group all day. It also suggested using outdoor spaces and planning for what to do when someone in a school tests positive, e.g., contact tracing. A July 24 New York Times article, C.D.C. Calls on Schools to Reopen, Downplaying Health Risks, commented that “the agency’s statement followed earlier criticism from President Trump that its guidelines for reopening were too ‘tough.’”

Digression - personal rant: That NYT reporting was nonsense. The new guidelines were from our heartless, self-serving president and his political enabler goons, not the CDC public health experts. The title should have been explicit that the document was from the president, not the CDC, i.e., The President Calls on Schools to Reopen, Downplaying Health Risks. This exemplifies why I consider the professional mainstream media to generally be doing grade D or D- level work when it comes to dealing with our corrupt, treasonous, chronic liar president. The MSM keeps giving the president passes that he does not deserve. The MSM still has not learned its lesson from 2016.

A July 25 article by the Washington Post, more accurately titled, Confused by CDC’s changing guidance on school reopening? Here are recommendations from experts not pressured by the White House: “The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this week issued new guidance on how schools can reopen safely for the 2020-21 school year — and, as it turns out, some of it was edited in the White House. That could help explain why there is little discussion about the risks of returning to school buildings, which President Trump has been demanding for a few weeks.”

Clearly, that is sabotage by a president who has no concern for anything other than his re-election. Public health and needless sickness and deaths are of no concern to this president, except to the extent they are obstacles to re-election. The heartless cruelty of this extremely dangerous man is on full display to see for anyone willing to look.

A segment from Rachael Maddow on this matter is shown below.





Of interest in Maddow’s segment is the graph shown below. That data makes it clear that the US response has been and still is a failure. The president and the GOP leadership deserves all reasonable responsibility for the incompetence and failures, the thousands of needlessly lost lives and the needless economic losses that run in the trillions.

Why Trump will win a second term

by HARRY PHIBBS
https://www.thearticle.com/why-trump-will-win-a-second-term

Just because you are paranoid it doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you. Donald Trump is fond of making extravagant attacks on the media for peddling “fake news”. But while we have become familiar with Presidential hyperbole most of the TV networks in the US are unsympathetic towards him in their coverage. But does that mean the polls they commissioned are skewed? I think not. As Peter Kellner has written for this site: “A pollster would go bust if they fixed their results.”

As I write, most of the recent polls have shown Trump trailing his Democrat opponent Joe Biden by around ten points. There is a Rasmussen poll showing a gap of just three points. On the other hand, a Quinnipiac University Poll has Biden ahead by 15 points. It is true that due to the American electoral system last time round Trump won even though Hillary Clinton got a higher national vote share. But she was only ahead by a couple of points.

The Democrats are sure to win California (with 55 electoral college votes) and New York (with 29 electoral college votes) by huge margins. But then if they lose Texas (38 votes) and Florida (29 votes) much more narrowly they find they have millions of votes in the wrong places. It’s a winner takes all system.

This disparity may well be more marked than it was in 2016. Thousands of Americans have been leaving high tax states (such as New York, California and also Connecticut and New Jersey) to move to low tax states (such as Texas, Florida and Nevada.) People decide how to vote for for all sorts of reasons. But these new voters are people who have gone to the trouble of moving house and relocating hundreds of miles to pay less tax. They are more likely to plump for Trump than Biden.

That would only matter in a close result. It might mean that Biden could be ahead by three or four points in vote share — advancing on what Clinton achieved four years ago — yet still lose. But should Biden be ahead by around ten points then he would secure a landslide.

One difficulty for Trump has been the coronavirus pandemic. It’s not just about the confused messaging or the mistakes in the practical management. It’s more that he has found himself on a side of the argument that is unsuited to him. Trump is best suited to exploiting fears rather than appealing for hope. He is the antithesis of his Republican predecessor Ronald Reagan, who exuded sunny optimism and whose campaign commercial proclaimed: “It’s morning in America again.”

Trump was well suited as an insurgent. He message that weak leadership was leaving Americans vulnerable to crime, terrorism, illegal immigration and unfair trade deals resonated. But now he is seeking to downplay fears of coronavirus in order to keep the economy going. That is difficult while the death toll remains persistently high.

Another problem is that Trump’s tone suggests he has more power than he really does under the US federal system. That means that, when there is disorder on the streets, notably over the Black Lives Matters protests, some of his supporters are dismayed that under his Presidency it is allowed to continue.

So far as his personal qualities are concerned, Trump is the least “presidential” president we have ever seen. Some will find his brashness and boastfulness entertaining and candid. Others, including some who voted for him as a protest, might rub their eyes and conclude that for him to be in the White House is some sort of extraordinary accident.

Despite all these difficulties my bold prediction is that Trump will be reelected. Partly that is based on the US economy reviving in the coming months and the coronavirus plague receding — both those propositions are admittedly fraught with uncertainty.

As polling day nears, the focus will be less on whether voters are favourable or unfavourable to Trump and more on the choice between him and Biden. Trump is 74-years-old. Biden is 77. Will Americans feel it is time to make way for an older man? Also, while Biden comes across as a pleasant fellow, he conveys weakness and confusion. Keeping Biden low profile for the campaign surely would not work. Biden will probably lose the TV debates against Trump. But for Biden to refuse to take part would be even worse.

You might not like Trump, but at least he is not a pushover. The warning that the moderate Biden could be manipulated by more radical elements could gain traction. You might prefer Biden to Trump as your next door neighbour, but who could be relied upon to defend the national interest?

It follows that patriotism could well secure Trump victory. The Democrats will struggle if they are regarded as anti-American. Our own General Election last year should give them a warning. Many of the socialist policies that Labour adopted under Jeremy Corbyn were actually quite popular — more spending, renationalisation, tax the rich. The problem was that, under Corbyn, the Labour Party could plausibly be considered to be anti-British.

Trump stood by Mount Rushmore and declared: “Today, we pay tribute to the exceptional lives and extraordinary legacies of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt. I am here as your President to proclaim before the country and before the world: This monument will never be desecrated these heroes will never be defaced, their legacy will never, ever be destroyed, their achievements will never be forgotten, and Mount Rushmore will stand forever as an eternal tribute to our forefathers and to our freedom.”

In the past, that pride in US history would not have been felt controversial. It’s not that Biden would be considered to approve of pulling down statues of Washington or Lincoln. The question is how firmly he can repudiate those in his team with such sympathies. For Biden to staunchly proclaim his patriotism would risk alienating some of his activists. But any ambiguity on the matter surely disqualifies him. As the culture wars become ever more antagonistic, some on the American left appear to swing voters as anti-American. It would be hard for Biden to win in November if he is tarnished with that image, whatever the polls say.

Book Review: Critical Thinking

The 2020 book, Critical Thinking, is a short description (181 pages) about the origins of critical thinking, what it is and what values it has. The author, Johnathan Haber, is an educator and researcher in the field of critical thinking. The book is written for a general audience and easy to read.

The origins and status of critical thinking

The concept started with Socrates and Aristotle. Socrates questioned fixed beliefs and advocated leading a life of self-examination. His activities in this area “earned him the title of father of Western philosophy and well as a death sentence from his annoyed fellow Athenians.” The lesson there is don’t annoy Athenians. (oops, bad logic)

Aristotle went much farther. He gathered and systematized existing knowledge into what are now major fields of inquiry including botany, zoology, political science, rhetoric and logic. His work on rhetoric and logic established key areas of education for the ancient world that lasted until modern times.

A major contribution of Aristotle was to uncouple knowledge from the superstitious and plug it into the empirical. Haber writes that “Aristotle’s method of inferring truths from what the human senses could perceive, rather than explaining natural phenomena as the works of gods, was a tremendous intellectual breakthrough.”  Of course, since human senses can be wrong, manipulated, biased and self-deceived, this was just the first of many intellectual revolutions that flowed from what Aristotle had discovered about how to perceive reality.

The progress of critical thinking as a field of research and education unto itself was significantly derailed in 1892 when the “Committee of Ten” educators, led by Harvard’s president, created a new curriculum for K-12 schools. Reading, writing, math and science were included, but rhetoric and logic were not. After that, teaching of rhetoric and logic declined in public education. Critical thinking education began a significant comeback in 1983 when California state universities imposed a critical thinking requirement for graduation. Since then, critical thinking has gained in importance in K-12 education. The intellectual weaknesses of students unskilled in rhetoric and logic became both apparent and acute in the modern information age.

What critical thinking is

There is no universally accepted definition, but a some of a cluster of concepts tend to be included. The concepts themselves tend to be a bit fuzzy, but usually include structured thinking (roughly, logic), communication skill, argumentation skill, creativity, reasonable background knowledge, and IMO, very importantly, personal dispositions or traits. Haber prefers ‘structured thinking’ over logic to emphasize the importance of organized thinking over any particular form of formal logic. Humans tend not to apply formal logic and instead think in terms of informal logic (I call it reasoning or sound reasoning), which can be informed and shaped by things like the structure of arguments, the social situation, emotions, intuitions and personal morals and biases. Modern critical thinking education emphasizes informal logic over true logic, but true logic remains an important part.

Haber argues, reasonably, that you cannot do critical thinking if you do not know what you are talking about. Hence a necessary component is learning and applying sufficient background knowledge to support clear-headed, sound reasoning.

Two important concepts that underpin critical thinking are the difference and prevalence of deductive and inductive arguments, which are different. Deductive arguments are logic constructs where the conclusion of a valid argument must be true if you accept that the premises are true. If the premises are actually true, the conclusion is both valid and sound. This kind of reasoning is rare because it is rare to have premises that are not disputed.[1]

By contrast, inductive arguments are based on premises that make the conclusion or basis in evidence or logic possibly, probably true or very likely true. The conclusion’s strength can vary from weak to near certainty. The relevance and sufficiency of the premises dictate the strength of the conclusion. By definition, inductive arguments are invalid because it is possible to accept the premises but still reasonably reject the conclusion. Counter examples are possible to imagine and usually too numerous to test. Inductive reasoning dominates everyday life, politics and science.
Not understanding the uncertainty that is common in science allows science deniers to point to almost any level of uncertainty as a basis to deny things that are not reasonably deniable, including climate change and the effectiveness of vaccines.

The value of critical thinking

Haber frames the issue like this:

“Catastrophic decisions like those that lead to .... being ruled by men and women competent in nothing but playing to our weaknesses are just the most dramatic consequences of refusing to develop or use our reasoning ability ..... If we can increase our odds of success by locating and evaluating evidence, putting it into an informative structure, and analyzing the results, why not follow this critical thinking process rather than shooting first, aiming later?”  

He argues that there is now plenty of evidence, e.g., Russian attacks on critical thinking in the 2016 elections, that there are compelling reasons to up our game in terms of our ability to apply critical thinking to politics:

“Many of those ‘others’ [propagandists] are professional skilled at taking advantage of the flaws in our mental faculties, such as the many cognitive biases that prevent us from thinking critically or the ability of emotion and tribalism to overwhelm reason. .... As demonstrated in recent elections, candidates still spearhead this kind of manipulation, but now they are supported by armies of political consultants skilled in techniques for preventing people from thinking clearly. .... Yet, has the public appetite for bad premises (i.e., ‘fake news’), invalid logic, refusal to develop or apply background knowledge, and uncharitable behavior toward out political enemies diminished at all since we learned how vulnerable we make ourselves by basking in our biases?”

The fits with pragmatic rationalism

What Haber describes is a mindset that is applied in a process of organized thinking. The mindset requires personal traits including but not limited to sufficient open-mindedness to look at an issue form at least two points of view, willingness and discipline to do the necessary learning and mental work, and charity as envisioned by the Principle of Charity (discussed here). That sounds a lot like the mindset and process that I designed pragmatic rationalism to be based on and operate with. It also reflects some of the core personal or mental traits and tactics, e.g., viewing multiple points of view, that Philip Tetlock’s superforecasters had in common.

Unless I am misunderstanding something significant, Haber’s description of the critical thinking mindset and approach to reality sounds much like those of superforecasters and pragmatic rationalists. In other words, pragmatic rationalism appears to be rising naturally out of, or mostly overlapping with, separate lines of research. That sort of looks like some sort of consilience to me.

Or, are my biases and/or misunderstandings leading me down a wrong path?

Footnote:
1. When actually true premises are rejected by a person as false because the person does not like the conclusion the premises lead to, the person may reject both the premises and the conclusion. Sociologists call this implicatory denial (discussed here). It is arguably the most common form of logic fallacy in science denial.

GOP Voter Suppression Tactics

The local constabulary

Context

Like the president, the GOP is anti-democratic and authoritarian. Both are heavily reliant on dark free speech[1] to create false realities and to tear society apart. The GOP ultimate goal is a radical right libertarian movement (RRLM). The RRLM has a vision of a weak, ineffective[2] federal government and weakened civil liberties, with power flowing to state governments from the people and the central government. The RRLM is essentially demagogic, plutocratic and dictatorial with a heavy tinge of vengeful, greedy Christianity exercising its right to feed off a stream of tax dollars. The point of state governments is simple: They are easier to corrupt and subvert than a strong central government with institutions that stand for the rule of law.

The power transfer is falsely billed as return of proper constitutional authority to states. That is a deception. The wealthy plutocrat elites that created and control the RRLM intend to corrupt and control states governments. The elites want the power for themselves.

An important RRLM goal is subversion of voting and democratic participation. Voter suppression is a key tactic that has been underway for years. This OP is about how this is playing out in an obscure federal commission that was intended to help states conduct elections.

Neutering the federal Election Assistance Commission

A ProPublica article, How Voter-Fraud Hysteria and Partisan Bickering Ate American Election Oversight, describes the decline of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). Some congressional republicans want to get rid of the EAC, because it had completed its mission of fixing election problems in the wake of the 2000 voting disaster in Florida. Maybe that was true at one time, but these days, some states are desperately asking for assistance and guidance about how to deal with the upcoming Nov. 3 election. Despite claims to the contrary, the EAC is unable to act. ProPublica writes:

“Election Assistance Commission to plead for help. The EAC is the bipartisan federal agency established for the precise purpose of maintaining election integrity through emergencies, and this was by every account an emergency. In a matter of weeks, the coronavirus had grown from an abstract concern to a global horror, and vote by mail was the only way ballots could safely be cast in the states that had not yet held their primaries. But many officials didn’t know the basics: what machines they would need and where to get them; what to tell voters; how to make sure ballots reached voters and were returned to county offices promptly and securely. “I have a primary coming up, and I have no idea what to do,” Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske said on the call.

She and her colleagues didn’t get the help they were looking for. Of the EAC’s four commissioners, only chair Ben Hovland spoke, and his responses were too vague to satisfy his listeners. The lack of direction was “striking,” said one participant, Jennifer Morrell, an elections consultant and a contractor for The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). “It felt to me that there was no leadership. Nobody was saying, ‘Hey, let’s figure this out.’ Questions just went unanswered.”

Dogged by partisan infighting, the constant threat of elimination and a budget that bottomed out last year at less than half of what it once was, the EAC has long failed to be effective or even relevant. Current commissioners have dramatically decreased the number of votes taken on important issues. The EAC also hasn’t approved a full set of voting machine standards since 2005. In 2018, new machines pegged to the old standards malfunctioned in Indiana, and decades-old machines in Georgia failed to record a stunning 150,000 votes for lieutenant governor, spurring ongoing litigation.”

EAC chairman defended the agency: “[The EAC has] one of the smallest budgets in the federal government, and without a dime of the supplemental funding we requested from Congress [for pandemic response]. Now is not the time for keeping score. It’s time to focus on getting the job done. ... I am confident that when we look back at this year, and where the EAC was coming from, we will be proud of what we accomplished.” The chairman pointed out that distributed $825 million in grants to state election officials in 2020.

The EAC is hamstrung in party by partisan disputes. Two of the four commissioners are repeating the president’s unfounded fraud allegations about voting by mail. There is no evidence to show that voting by mail is significantly fraudulent. ProPublica comments: “Voter fraud is vanishingly rare. .... Voting methods once thought routine, like absentee ballots, became grist for partisan bickering. The escalating fight over voter fraud has crippled the EAC, often sabotaging its most dedicated commissioners while emboldening those who are less effective. .... In 2007, the EAC hired two respected researchers to study voter fraud. But after they found little evidence of a problem, the commission decided not to adopt their report, saying the extent of voter fraud was open to interpretation.”

It is reasonable to believe that GOP-backed voter suppression to advance the RRLM’s goal of undermining democracy is well underway right now. One question is how many voters will be disenfranchised on Nov. 3. For the RRLM, the ends justify all legal means and probably some illegal ones. This is about gaining power and wealth by subverting democracy, not serving the public interest.

Footnotes:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally or legally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, misinform, confuse, polarize and/or demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide inconvenient truths, facts and corruption (lies and deceit of omission), (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism, and (4) ideologically-driven motivated reasoning and other ideologically-driven biases that unreasonably distort reality and reason. (my label, my definition)

2. Based on their acquiescence to how the president has handled it, the ineffectiveness the GOP favors is seen in the failed federal response to the pandemic. The president has used executive power to undermine federal public health activities.

Evangelical Christianity and Its Failing Moral Core

This 18 minute video interview with Reverend Robert Schenck discusses the status of Evangelical Christianity and the influence of its involvement in American politics and culture wars. Schenck is blunt about the losing moral situation the church has put itself in.

Beginning at ~10:30 in the interview, Schenck points out that millions of people under the age of 45 are leaving the church because they see the moral hypocrisy and emotional manipulation the church foists on its flock. Church membership losses have been occurring for the last 13 years straight. At 11:42, Schenck flatly states that fund raisers directly told him that to get money flowing in, he needed to instill fear and anger in his congregation: “The madder they are, the more fearful they are, the more money they are going to send you. .... Well, young people are sick of that.”





Earlier in the interview beginning at ~4:40 Schenck is blunt about why Evangelicals supported the president. Specifically, they want the supreme court packed with a majority of religious Christian judges. They want a solid majority. They are willing to tolerate what they know and privately admitted early on is an immoral president to get the power in government they desperately want for Christianity. But apparently, the Evangelical moral mindset has changed. Beginning  at ~6:16 Schenck says that he does not hear such private admissions any more from other Evangelical leaders.

He interprets this to not mean that Evanelical leaders are drifting away from the president. Instead he sees the leadership as having internalized and accepted the president’s moral poison. Schenck calls this ‘a kind of final conversion’ that he fears puts the president’s Evangelical supporters in danger of losing their immortal souls and the church itself of becoming a relic “and not a good one at that.”

If Schenck is correct in his analysis, there is a potentially lethal moral failure in Evangelical leadership and its involvement in politics and culture wars. The failure flows directly from supporting a vulgar, immoral president. That moral failure is what is driving people away from the Evangelical church, and maybe for some, from all of Christianity.

One thing that merits comment here is the willingness of the Evangelical leadership and what is left of the church to impose their will and morals on a society that increasingly does not share those values. This plays directly into the rise of GOP authoritarianism. The president’s penchant for authoritarianism is clear. Schenck asserts that the political and social culture the president has fomented is extremely dangerous, especially Christians who endanger their souls.

Fortunately, some other Evangelicl leaders have concluded that the president is dangerous. Thirty leaders have written essays on the danger the president represents. The essays are published in the book, The Spiritual Danger of Donald Trump.