Human civilization: Is war unavoidable?

DISCLAIMER: Comments below that criticize this program and my interpretation of it have are convincing. I non longer stand by this blog post. I will not delete it so that what I wrote and the criticisms stay available online. I apologize. I want the combination ignorance and errors (on my part) and irresponsible reporting by PBS to stand intact so people can see for themselves how mistakes and misunderstandings can so easily arise.  

PBS is airing an excellent four-part series called First Civilizations. The first episode is War. The other three are Religion, Cities and Trade. They are behind a paywall, so I can't link to anything one can play online without a PBS membership. I've listened to War and Religion so far.

The history of war is relevant to modern civilization and politics. The experts argue that all of the evidence, technology and analysis available so far point to the following narrative as (i) a likely path to modern civilization, and (ii) a basis to predict future events:

Before civilizations started, groups of nomadic humans competed with each other. They were hunter-gatherers. They sometimes fought and killed each other for food and other resources. Civilization started when agriculture started about 12,000 years ago. People settled down and stay put as long as the land and climate could support agriculture. 

Evidence from early settlements that grew to significant size indicates that the most powerful tribes or clans took control of increasing areas of land. Those mini-civilizations (mini-civs) had their own customs and beliefs that tied them together. Sometimes terrain constrained a mini-civ, while others kept getting bigger. Eventually the bigger mini-civs attacked and either obliterated the smaller ones or subjugated them. These wars were to pro-actively protect what the mini-civ had and/or to expand the attacker's power and land mass.

Sometimes the winning mini-civ would adopt one or more of the customs, beliefs or technology of a defeated mini-civ. The War episode referred to this process of assimilating things from others as creative destruction on the path to modernity. The creative destruction was usually (always?) bloody and cruel. Assimilation was a necessary step. The experts then step back and look at archaeology and history from the time of mini-civs to today. They see the same pattern over and over. War leads to creative destruction and civilization often takes another step forward, or at least sideways. 

In this context civilization refers to both advances in technology, including (i) advances in weapons and tactics of war, and (ii) changes in cultural customs and norms. The changes in customs and norms included creation of and advances in social institutions, governance and religion. In essence, the customs and norms were the social glue necessary for civilization to advance. The Religion episode argues that religion was a necessary component for social glue and thus for civilization to advance.

Why bring this up?

Multiple reasons. One is that human history is riddled with war. War is now seen by at least some experts as possibly unavoidable for civilization to advance. The problem with that is that humans can now obliterate modern civilization with nuclear weapons and maybe also with unrestrained climate change and/or overpopulation. If nothing else, complacency about the possibility of humans obliterating modernity and having to do a restart should not be taken as a remote possibility if past human history is a guide.

Another is that some comments here in the last week or two strenuously argued that the founding of America and its history was a tale of an evil, blood soaked death machine that inflicted vast death and misery on far too much of humanity. There is enough evidence to reasonably argue that. From that point of view, the Funding Fathers actually were Founding Genocidists or Founding Terrorists, none of whom should be venerated or respected. According to that line of reasoning, all US presidents were murdering war mongers or, at least in the case of indigenous American Indians, all were argued to literally be genocidists. In the context of the advance of civilization, it is arguable that whatever American was and did, it was an inevitable aspect of humans and just what they do. 

In a post here yesterday, I mentioned Thomas Paine's argument for a democratic Republic in his 1776 Common Sense essay. There, he advocated for war against England to throw off the tyranny of monarchy and the British Crown. To a significant extent, his writings were seminal in the vision and articulation of what American eventually turned out to be. But once again, war led to an advance in governance and society, but this time there seemed to be less assimilation by a winning, less powerful civ and more spontaneous creation. Regardless, war probably was a necessary component. But in some ways America arguably was an anomaly.

A question all this raises is whether humans can progress without war. After listening to the War and Religion episodes, it just isn't clear. Are we destined to self-annihilate and restart if we don't go extinct, or can we do it without most or all of the blood and misery? Are what we seeing in increasingly bitter US politics two mini-civs, left and right, at an intractable impasse that will lead to either civil war or the dissolution of the Union as increasing numbers of conservatives say they want? 

Signs that the media is awakening to the authoritarian threat

It feels like the dam has broken. Expressions of deep concern for the fate of democracy and the rule of law seem to be flooding out now. The Washington Post reports on calls for the media to give the radical right Republican Party threat more focus and urgency. The WaPo writes: 

Much of this work [on reporting the threat] has been impressive. And yet, something crucial is missing. For the most part, news organizations are not making democracy-under-siege a central focus of the work they present to the public.

“We are losing our democracy day by day, and journalists are individually aware of this, but media outlets are not centering this as the story it should be,” said Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a scholar of autocracy and the author of “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present.”

That American democracy is teetering is unquestionable. Jan. 6 is every day now, in the words of a recent New York Times editorial that noted the growing evidence: election officials harassed by conspiracy theory addicts, death threats issued to politicians who vote their conscience, GOP lawmakers pushing measures to make it harder for citizens to vote and easier for partisans to overturn legitimate voting results.

“The reactionary counter-mobilization against democracy has accelerated,” wrote historian Thomas Zimmer, a visiting professor at Georgetown. “It’s happening on so many fronts simultaneously that it’s easy to lose sight of how things are connected.”  

To be sure, even some of the most studiously neutral of news organizations are doing important journalism on this subject.

“ ‘Slow-motion insurrection’: How GOP seizes election power,” read the headline of an Associated Press news story last week. It detailed the ways in which Republicans aligned with former president Donald Trump, after the near-miss of last year’s coup attempt, “have worked to clear the path for next time.”  

Similarly, NPR recently ran a seven-minute segment on what it called “the clear and present danger of Trump’s enduring ‘Big Lie.’ ” As NYU’s Jay Rosen noted, the piece was admirably direct in its language: “No dilution via 'both sides,” no ‘critics say,’ Just a straight-up warning.” And on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this weekend, moderator Chuck Todd — who has deservedly drawn criticism in recent months for too often allowing GOP talking points to go unchallenged — stepped up in a significant way to detail the “big lie” spread by Trump allies this past year to evoke the specter of a supposedly stolen presidential election.  

But, in general, this pro-democracy coverage is not being “centered” by the media writ large. It’s occasional, not regular; it doesn’t appear to be part of an overall editorial plan that fully recognizes just how much trouble we’re in.

That must change. It’s not merely that there needs to be more of this work. It also needs to be different. For example, it should include a new emphasis on those who are fighting to preserve voting rights and defend democratic norms.

That is some solid good news for a change. It is unfortunate that this is prompted by something sinister and immoral, evil IMO. We will see how the Republican Party assault on democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties will play out. The 2022 and 2024 elections are likely to shed some light on whether the US will go from the anocracy it is now to a fascist autocracy or whether it will move toward democracy.

The stunning power of propaganda

A new poll indicates that a majority of Americans now believe that American democracy is in serious danger of falling. But as the poll indicates, the two sides see each other as the threat. NPR writes:

One year after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Americans are deeply pessimistic about the future of democracy. 

A new NPR/Ipsos poll finds that 64% of Americans believe U.S. democracy is "in crisis and at risk of failing." That sentiment is felt most acutely by Republicans: Two-thirds of GOP respondents agree with the verifiably false claim that "voter fraud helped Joe Biden win the 2020 election" — a key pillar of the "Big Lie" that the election was stolen from former President Donald Trump.

Fewer than half of Republicans say they are willing to accept the results of the 2020 election — a number that has remained virtually unchanged since we asked the same question last January.

"There is really a sort of dual reality through which partisans are approaching not only what happened a year ago on Jan. 6, but also generally with our presidential election and our democracy," said Mallory Newall, a vice president at Ipsos, which conducted the poll.

"It is Republicans that are driving this belief that there was major fraudulent voting and it changed the results in the election," Newall said.

Nearly two-thirds of poll respondents agree that U.S. democracy is "more at risk" now than it was a year ago. Among Republicans, that number climbs to 4 in 5.

Overall, 70% of poll respondents agree that the country is in crisis and at risk of failing.

The country can't even decide what to call the assault on the Capitol. Only 6% of poll respondents say it was "a reasonable protest" — but there is little agreement on a better description. More than half of Democrats say the Jan. 6 assault was an "attempted coup or insurrection," while Republicans are more likely to describe it as a "riot that got out of control."

Americans are bitterly divided over the events that led to Jan. 6, as well.

"I think the Democrats rigged the election," said Stephen Weber, a Republican from Woonsocket, R.I. "And who the hell would vote for Biden?"

More than 81 million people voted for Biden, compared with more than 74 million for Trump. Biden won with 306 electoral votes to 232 for Trump.

But Weber is skeptical. In a follow-up interview, Weber said he doesn't trust mail-in voting and doesn't believe that Democratic lawmakers have the country's best interests at heart.

"They want to change it to something else. We don't want it changed," he said.

Democrats also expressed dismay about the state of democracy — but for very different reasons. In follow-up interviews, they voiced concern about voting restrictions passed by Republican-controlled state legislatures in the wake of the 2020 election. And they struggled to make sense of the persistent belief in the fiction that Trump won.

"When Trump first came out with his 'big lie,' it just never occurred to me that so many Republicans would jump on board," said Susan Leonard of Lyme, N.H.

"It's like a group mental illness has hit these people," said Leonard. "I cannot believe this is happening in our country. I'm scared, I really am."  

The poll found that support for false claims about election fraud and the Jan. 6 attack have been remarkably stable over time.

For example, one-third of Trump voters say the attack on the Capitol was actually carried out by "opponents of Donald Trump, including antifa and government agents" — a baseless conspiracy theory that has been promoted by conservative media since the attack, even though it has been debunked.

If that isn't evidence of how powerful and persuasive even debunked, crackpot propaganda and lies can be and is, then what is it evidence of? 

For Republicans, it is compelling evidence that the Democrats rigged the election so they can change the country. Changing it from what to what is never made very clear. Neither is the Republican vision of what it is. Some republicans say they don't want what American is now and want something from the past, but how that past would differ from what there is now isn't specified. 

One reassuring point is that a majority of Republicans and Democrats still reject political violence according to the poll. At least we still have that.

Question: On a scale of 1-7, 1 = no danger, 7 = grave danger, how much danger is the US in regarding losing democracy and civil liberties to (i) the Republicans and their supporters, and (ii) the Democrats and their supporters?

Thomas Paine: A historian's oral biography

C-Span broadcast an excellent oral biography of Thomas Paine (born in England and migrated to the US) and some Q&A after the talk. The broadcast time is 1 hour 24 minutes. 

One example of Paine’s radical influence was published in the ~46 page pamphlet Common Sense (1776). The historian, Richard Bell, argues that Common Sense was necessary for the American revolution. American colonist’s grievances were serious but not focused on revolution until Paine published the pamphlet. That alone was a history-changing event. 

Common Sense was a masterpiece of propaganda that fomented a necessary American desire for revolution based on crackpot reasoning, but supported by a brilliant sleight of hand. The key rhetorical trick, among a few others, was to not provide a rationale for American revolution. Instead, Paine shifted the burden of proof for the English to justify their rule over the colonies. Paine make crackpottery seem logical and incontrovertibly self-evident. 

In addition, Paine published other works and essays including the highly influential The Rights of Man (1791) and The Age of Reason (1795). He also wrote the now-obscure work Agrarian Justice (1797), which is the first modern articulation of what is now called the welfare state and how to pay for it.

Paine was brutally blunt in his writings, and it cost him dearly. He was no diplomat. By the end of his life had offended most or nearly all major politicians in America, England and France. He viciously attacked George Washington in a letter, which went a long way to making him hated among most Americans. He went from patriotic hero to a hated outcast in the US. Since he had already fled to France, the English Crown tried him in absentia for treason and exiled him for life for writing and publishing The Rights of Man while he was in London. Eventually the French arrested him and put him in jail for the crime of suggesting that the French king’s life be spared after the French Revolution. Before the French executed him, the US Ambassador to France got Paine released to US custody.

Incredible propaganda

What is remarkably striking about Paine was the power of his political propaganda. The enemies that Paine made as he dropped his bombs onto the status quo responded with outrageous lies and viciousness that makes modern American radical right propaganda seem almost civil and rational. Almost. This guy knew how to make powerful people very angry. The subtle power of Paine’s prose arguably at least matched the most sophisticated propaganda any time after his death in 1809. That is remarkable, especially since he was self-taught. He was not an elite and became known only after he came into his own based on his political writings.

If you have the time and don't know much about Paine, this is well worth it. It sheds light on the psychological and propaganda origins of the Revolutionary War. It also helps reveal and put the tactics of political propaganda in a different context and time.

A post-Democratic Party national scenario

It looks like the seriousness of our political and social situation and the fragility of democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties is really sinking in with more and more observers. This is the first article I've seen that articulates how I see the end of democracy playing out if the Republicans gain full control in 2024. This vision of an unrestrained authoritarian Republican onslaught includes (i) legislation to outlaw all abortions in all states, (ii) elimination of the filibuster in the Senate, and (iii) bans on state and local efforts to combat climate change. The New York Magazine (high credibility, high fact accuracy, left bias) writes in an opinion-analysis piece entitled, The Rights Blue States May Lose If the GOP Returns to Power:

Fetal personhood protections that restrict abortion nationwide

Overturning Roe v. Wade and returning abortion policy to the states has long been a primary goal for an anti-abortion movement that has formed a strong partnership with the Republican Party. But the ultimate objective — enshrined in the GOP platform since 1980 — is a federally established “fetal personhood” right that bans any state from allowing abortion. And there are abundant signs that this perspective could become dominant in conservative circles once the great white whale of Roe has been harpooned. One important indicator is the recent omission of rape and incest exceptions from many state abortion bans (including the Texas and Mississippi laws now before the Supreme Court). These exceptions were once considered politically obligatory, and forcing pregnancies caused by rape or incest to be carried to term remains very unpopular.

Then prospect of raising fetal personhood to a federal constitutional right is still remote, given the extreme difficulty of enacting even popular constitutional amendments and the ground even a conservative Supreme Court would have to cover before considering it. But a federal statute imposing personhood rights on the states is entirely feasible if there is a Republican trifecta in Washington that first disposes of the obstacle imposed by the Senate filibuster.

 

“Election integrity” laws that keep states from expanding voting rights

Beginning in 2013, after a conservative Supreme Court majority gutted the key enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Republicans rapidly abandoned the commitment to federal voting rights that most of them (outside the Deep South) had embraced all the way back to the Eisenhower administration. This became most evident in 2021, when only one Senate Republican — Lisa Murkowski — was willing to support the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, aimed at restoring the voting-rights provisions that Republicans once supported all but universally (e.g., in 2006, when Senate Republicans all voted for, and George W. Bush then signed, a VRA extension).

But what appears to be gaining steam, thanks to encouragement from Donald Trump and some conservative ideologues, is the idea that America needs federal legislation to shore up “election integrity.” This could include banning state laws expanding access to the ballot via liberalized early voting (particularly by mail), ex-felon re-enfranchisement, and simplified or automatic voter registration. Similarly, Republicans are showing signs of favoring standardized election-administration rules to prevent a repeat of what MAGA folk regard as the theft of the 2020 presidential election by Democratic state and local election officials. It’s no accident that two of Trump’s closest allies in Congress, Senator Josh Hawley and Congressman Mike Kelly, introduced the Protect Election Integrity Act of 2020 right after the last election to address both of these alleged problems.

That horse ain't dead yet

Parental rights laws that undermine national education standards

One of the most important but underdiscussed policy developments of the 21st century has been the steady abandonment by Republicans of their once-strong support for objective standards for public schools. George W. Bush’s signature No Child Left Behind legislation was one of the initiatives that produced the strong conservative backlash that in turn created the Trump-era Republican Party. And by the time the Common Core education standards initiative, originally spearheaded by Republican governors, reached fruition in the 2010s, it had already become anathema to most conservatives.

Part of this trend undoubtedly stemmed from growing Republican support for publicly funded private education (including the homeschooling option conservative Christians have increasingly embraced). But most recently, even those rank-and-file Republicans still utilizing public schools have become so hostile to teachers unions and “the education bureaucracy” that a partywide “parental rights” movement has mobilized both those who want public funds to go directly to parents to use for private and home schools and those who want to control what (and how) public schools teach.

Because the parental-rights movement treats state and local education authorities as inherently untrustworthy, there’s no particular reason its Republican allies should value states’ rights or local autonomy in education. Inevitably, if they are in a position to do so, it is very likely that Republicans in Congress and a future conservative administration will take parental rights national with legislation to keep states and localities from monopolizing public funds or from teaching material conservatives find objectionable (most obviously, on the subject of racism, but also on such conservative religious targets as sex education and evolution). GOP administrations for years have promoted federal school-voucher programs as a way to undermine public school funding; a broader attack on teachers unions and “bureaucrats” is inevitable. 

Bans on state and local efforts to stop climate change

Perhaps the area where right-wing federal activism is most firmly established is via efforts to preempt state and local policies viewed as hostile by the GOP’s business constituencies, who invariably lobby their friends in Washington to protect them from blue-state regulators.

Federal anti-climate-change activism was on full display during the Trump administration, particularly in its wide-ranging war in the federal courts on California’s anti-pollution policies. Given the emergence of climate change as both an existential crisis for much of the GOP’s business base and a cultural issue for MAGA activists, you can count on future wars on blue-state climate initiatives from Washington when Republicans are fully in control.

Filibuster reform that further empowers the GOP

The feasibility of right-wing federal activism, of course, faces one of the same key obstacles Democrats are facing right now: the Senate filibuster.

Mitch McConnell has been adamant in his defense of the filibuster, which currently gives him the power to veto any Democratic initiatives that aren’t packed into a workaround like reconciliation. That may seem a guarantee against filibuster reform once the shoe is on the other foot, but I wouldn’t bet on it. It has been largely forgotten that Donald Trump’s original beef with McConnell was the Kentuckian’s refusal to kill the legislative filibuster in 2017 when Republicans were trying to enact an Obamacare repeal, among other Trump-backed conservative policies. Trump ranted about this McConnell decision endlessly, until the loss of the House by Republicans in the 2018 midterms made the issue largely moot.

Who knows if Mitch McConnell, who is 79 years old, will survive as Senate Republican leader until a hypothetical GOP trifecta in 2025. In any event, there is zero doubt that Trump’s sway over his party is continuing to grow, and given McConnell’s highly transactional (and cynical) approach to doing his job, he could easily flip-flop on the filibuster if Trump demanded it (much as he flipped-flopped on the permissibility of presidential-election-year Supreme Court confirmations when Trump needed one in 2020). Indeed, looking at the list of issues on which Republicans, and particularly Trump, may soon want sweeping federal action, the odds of the traditional filibuster surviving the next Republican trifecta are next to none. (emphasis added)

This analysis shows the influence of the two main sources of power and dark free speech in the Republican Party that I have been harping on for months, Christian nationalism (abortion, parental rights in education) and radical right neoliberals or vehement anti-government laissez faire capitalists (opposition to climate change efforts). For subverting elections and eliminating the filibuster, both the Christian nationalists and the neoliberal radicals are on board.   

It could be much, much worse than just these things. 

An analysis like this can reasonably postulate if the voters put the GOP in full control in 2024. Think about what would happen to consumer protections, e.g., against fraud and predatory and discriminatory lending. They would evaporate. Think about the EPA and federal efforts to deal with climate change. Gone. Gun regulations. Gone.  A right to a same-sex marriage. Gone. Church-state separation. Smashed to smithereens with Christianity openly plundering tax revenues and going full bore into Christian political advocacy, e.g., something along the lines of preachers warning in their sermons every week “if you vote for a Democrat, you will burn in hell forever, and you will not be welcome here any more so get out now,” etc. Business regulations that protect consumers. Obliterated. The Constitution and rule of law. Gutted and significantly replaced by either by Biblical law, i.e., Christian sharia, and/or pro-business, anti-consumer laws and regulations. The free press. Attacked and subverted until it is too weak to significantly defend truth or democracy any more, assuming it isn’t already too weak. 

The list is long. Think about it. Think about liberties and behaviors you like or at least accept. Do any of them fit in Republican Party crosshairs?

Questions: 

1. Is most or all of what the article hypothesizes reasonably plausible or not?

2. Is most of what I hypothesize reasonably plausible or not? What parts aren’t plausible?

Crossing a dark threshold: Jesus’ teachings aren’t good enough

Who and what is the wicked?

The Atlantic writes about what appears to be a dark new threshold in Republican Party propaganda. Attacking the teachings of Jesus. If this had been going before, I was unaware of it. The Atlantic’s article, The Gospel of Donald Trump Jr., is ominous in its tone and content. We are witnessing the birth of something viciously hateful and divisive. The Atlantic writes:

The former president’s son told a crowd that the teachings of Jesus have “gotten us nothing.”

Donald Trump Jr. is both intensely unappealing and uninteresting. He combines in his person corruption, ineptitude, and banality. He is perpetually aggrieved; obsessed with trolling the left; a crude, one-dimensional figure who has done a remarkably good job of keeping from public view any redeeming qualities he might have.

There’s a case to be made that he’s worth ignoring, except for this: Don Jr. has been his father’s chief emissary to MAGA world; he’s one of the most popular figures in the Republican Party; and he’s influential with Republicans in positions of power. He’s also attuned to what appeals to the base of the GOP. So, from time to time, it is worth paying attention to what he has to say.

Trump spoke at a Turning Point USA gathering on December 19. He displayed seething, nearly pathological resentments; playground insults (he led the crowd in “Let’s Go, Brandon” chants); tough guy/average Joe shtick; and a pulsating sense of aggrieved victimhood and persecution, all of it coming from the elitist, extravagantly rich son of a former president.

But there was one short section of Trump’s speech that I thought was particularly revealing. Relatively early in the speech, he said, “If we get together, they cannot cancel us all. Okay? They won’t. And this will be contrary to a lot of our beliefs because—I’d love not to have to participate in cancel culture. I’d love that it didn’t exist. But as long as it does, folks, we better be playing the same game. Okay? We’ve been playing T-ball for half a century while they’re playing hardball and cheating. Right? We’ve turned the other cheek, and I understand, sort of, the biblical reference—I understand the mentality—but it’s gotten us nothing. Okay? It’s gotten us nothing while we’ve ceded ground in every major institution in our country.”

Throughout his speech, Don Jr. painted a scenario in which Trump supporters—Americans living in red America—are under relentless attack from a wicked and brutal enemy. He portrayed it as an existential battle between good and evil. One side must prevail; the other must be crushed. This in turn justifies any necessary means to win. And the former president’s son has a message for the tens of millions of evangelicals who form the energized base of the GOP: the scriptures are essentially a manual for suckers. The teachings of Jesus have “gotten us nothing.” It’s worse than that, really; the ethic of Jesus has gotten in the way of successfully prosecuting the culture wars against the left. If the ethic of Jesus encourages sensibilities that might cause people in politics to act a little less brutally, a bit more civilly, with a touch more grace? Then it needs to go.

Decency is for suckers.

He believes, as his father does, that politics should be practiced ruthlessly, mercilessly, and vengefully. The ends justify the means. Norms and guardrails need to be smashed. Morality and lawfulness must always be subordinated to the pursuit of power and self-interest. That is the Trumpian ethic.  

Liz Cheney voted with President Trump more than 90 percent of the time but is now persona non grata in the GOP because she is willing to defend the Constitution and the rule of law and stand against a violent assault on the Capitol and an effort to overturn a free and fair election. When Liz Cheney is more despised in the party than the crazed Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Lauren Boebert, Jim Jordan, Madison Cawthorn, or Donald Trump Jr., you know that the GOP has lost its moral bearings.

The article goes on to note that the crowd generally enthusiastically received this toxic propaganda. But it also asserts that this kind of talk is common among of at least some Republicans in positions of power, arguably making Donald Trump and Don Jr. a some kind toxic authoritarian evangelist. 

The article also points out that not all Republicans embrace this tactic, asserting that some GOP governors and other Republicans adhere to a less toxic ethic. That said, the author argues it would be “naïve and irresponsible to pretend that what we have seen since Donald Trump left office is the revivification of ethical standards and demands for moral excellence within the Republican Party.”

That assessment feels right.

The unstated, mostly non-existent grievances and persecutions that Don Jr. claims to be suffering from are dogma straight out of Christian nationalist ideology and propaganda. They are myths based on crackpottery, e.g., the left cannot cancel the right. American Christianity is intolerant, aggressive, greedy and heavily protected by the constitution and dozens or hundreds of laws and institutions. Federal, state, county and local governments, the military, police, schools, prisons, most businesses and courts are all dominated by Christians. Exactly what the hell is Don Jr. complaining about? Not enough tax breaks for Christians? Maybe the goal is to make non-Christians pay taxes and let Christians off the hook. 

The main cancel culture here is radical right neoliberal conservatism and fundamentalist Christian nationalism. Republican elites want wealthy White males to control government, education, society and commerce. They demand imposition of their version of history and morality on all of the rest of us. They want to legalize discrimination against women, non-Republican opposition, racial and ethnic minorities and the especially hatred LGBQT community. That is the real cancel culture at play here. 

Questions: 

1. Is this article just an over the top partisan screed[1], or is this a new Republican propaganda effort to negate whatever restraining and democratic teachings the Bible might still exert?

2. Are conservatives really persecuted victims on the verge of being canceled as Don Jr. claims? What does cancellation mean, e.g., mass murdered, re-educated into socialist atheists or subjugated to socialist and minority tyranny?

Footnote: 

1. The author is Peter Wehner, a contributing writer at The Atlantic. He is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and writes about political, cultural, religious, and national-security issues. He wrote the 2021 book, The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump.