Authoritarianism update; Failed messaging -- the Dem Party's fatal weakness

The NYT reports that at least some applicants for jobs in DJT's administration must pass a loyalty test to be hired. The test asks questions that show loyalty to DJT and rejection of inconvenient facts.

But before they leave [their job interview], some of them have been asked a final set of questions that seemed designed to assess their loyalty to President-elect Donald J. Trump.

The questions went further than just affirming allegiance to the incoming administration. The interviewers asked which candidate the applicants had supported in the three most recent elections, what they thought about the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and whether they believed the 2020 election was stolen.

Among those were applicants who said they gave what they intuited to be the wrong answer — either decrying the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 or saying that President Biden won in 2020. Their answers were met with silence and the taking of notes. They didn’t get the jobs.

Mr. Trump has told advisers that his biggest regret from his first term was appointing “traitors,” some of whom came to view him as a threat to democracy. .... He has singled out for especially harsh attacks his chief of staff, John F. Kelly, who has called Mr. Trump a fascist; .... and his attorneys general, Jeff Sessions and William P. Barr.  

Mr. Barr is a staunch conservative who satisfied Mr. Trump right up until the final weeks of his presidency, when he refused to use the Justice Department to help Mr. Trump overturn the 2020 election.  

Mr. Trump’s lawyers were quietly working on a plan, called Schedule F, that would make it much easier to fire career civil servants. Such employees have protections to keep a stable level of expertise from one administration to the next, regardless of whether the presidency switches from one political party to the other.

Mr. Trump’s allies have made clear that Schedule F will be brought back in his second term.

That speaks for itself.

One commentator "argues that even as Trump’s second-term plans are getting more overtly dangerous to the rule of law, Democrats need to do a lot more to alert the public to what’s coming—not just because it’s good politics but because the country needs it."  

At this point, I doubt that Democrats can warn anyone of much of anything. For now, Dem elites seem to be a spent force with low public credibility and not much fight left in them.

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Q: What do post election polls indicate about public approval and disapproval of the Democratic Party?

A: Post-election polls following the 2024 U.S. elections indicate a decline in public approval for the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party's favorability rating dropped to 38% after the election, a five-point decline from pre-election levels. This shift highlights a growing perception that Democrats are less aligned with voter priorities.  Among swing voters, the Democratic Party had a net favorability of -12 (42% favorable vs. 54% unfavorable), significantly worse than the Republican Party's net favorability of -4 (45% favorable vs. 49% unfavorable).

In my opinion, there is a huge issue here. Specifically voter perceptions are that the Repub Party aligns more with their priorities than the Dem Party. I think that is a mostly false perception. Non-trivial evidence supports that opinion.

Q2: To me, the Democratic Party is significantly more aligned with voter priorities than the Republican Party. In my opinion, the disconnect amounts to perceptions that do not align with reality. For example, the Republican Party in congress blocked its own border control bill so that Trump and Republican politicians could demagogue the issue in the election. Although Republican elites blamed Biden for inflation, other factors were more important than Biden's policies, e.g., the Ukraine war, COVID-linked supply chain disruptions, and old-fashioned corporate greed that boosted prices beyond inflationary pressures. Republicans also demagogued the issue of crime, grossly exaggerating the severity of overall crime. Is that a reasonable assessment of voter's "perception problem"?

A2: Your assessment of the "perception problem" regarding voter priorities and the Democratic and Republican parties is reasonable and supported by evidence. .... long response ....

Conclusion 
The perception that Republicans are more aligned with voter priorities often stems from effective messaging rather than substantive policy alignment. .... Meanwhile, Democrats face a challenge in bridging the gap between their policy achievements and public awareness of those achievements. (emphasis added)

I now think of the 2024 election as The Great Vaporware Election. Sophisticated dark free speech was front and center. Repub messaging was superb in creating false beliefs in the minds of millions of voters. Of course, aggressive Dem wokeness, was the Dems' own fault. However, even with that fault, the Repubs demagogued the wokeness issue to create unwarranted fear and anger, slandering the Dems as radical left lunatics, socialists, Marxists, anti-White racists and so forth. 

Q: Is it a reasonably defensible opinion to see the 2024 election as The Great Vaporware Election, or is that inaccurate and/or unwarranted? Or, have most recent elections been more vapor than substance, making this one not much different?

Authoritarianism watch; Regarding identity politics

As expected, the intent and threatening rhetoric from America's radical right continues to feel and sound solidly authoritarian. The rule of law and criminality, real and imagined, are irrelevant. They are held in open contempt. Inconvenient facts? They do not exist in MAGAlandia, usually called lies or simply ignored.

Trump Wants Jan. 6 Committee Members Imprisoned

Donald Trump, in addition to saying he wants to pardon those who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, said that members of the Jan. 6 committee “should go to jail” for investigating him.

“Everybody on that committee … for what they did, yeah, honestly, they should go to jail,” Trump said on Sunday’s Meet the Press.

He also claimed that former Rep. Liz Cheney and Rep. Bennie Thompson, who co-chaired the committee, were “behind” his federal prosecutions.

“Honestly, they should go to jail for what they did,” Trump said.

“So you think Liz Cheney should go to jail?” moderator Kristen Welker asked.

“I think everybody on the – anybody that voted in favor,” he said.  

Trump has previously threatened members of the committee, writing on Truth Social in March of last year that they “should be prosecuted for their lies and, quite frankly, TREASON!”

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

IDENTITY POLITICS

Current analyses of the election outcome indicate there are three main reasons that Harris lost. One is a mostly (~90% ?) false belief that Biden caused inflation in recent years, with food and housing prices being major points of discontent. Another is illegal immigration and the real and imagined fears and anger the issue created in the minds of many Americans. The third reason is feelings of alienation and anger among many people by aggressive wokeness, or identity politics, in the Dem party and Harris.[1]

By contrast, DJT managed to build a more diverse coalition than expected by focusing on economic and cultural issues rather than explicit appeals to identity. His campaign appealed to working-class voters across racial lines by addressing shared economic grievances and critiquing progressive policies associated with identity politics. Trump's ability to frame Democrats' focus on identity politics as out of touch with everyday concerns further solidified his support among these groups. His rhetoric positioned him as addressing practical issues like jobs and inflation rather than emphasizing divisive cultural debates. At the same time, Trump's campaign employed its own form of identity politics by appealing to non-college-educated voters as a distinct constituency.

An aspect of DJT's and MAGA's rhetoric is that it was very effective at deceit and direct appeals to identity politics (these Q&As are also in the link given above):

Q2: Although Trump's rhetoric seemed to many people to position him as addressing practical issues like jobs and inflation rather than emphasizing divisive cultural debates, my perception of his rhetoric was that it was intentionally vague to the point of being empty rhetoric about jobs and inflation, while subtly but consistently fomenting social division using identity politics that appealed to people with mindsets, consciously or not, at least sympathetic to authoritarianism, e.g., prosecuting political opponents. Is that a reasonable assessment?

A2: Your assessment that Donald Trump’s rhetoric was intentionally vague on practical issues like jobs and inflation while subtly fostering social division through identity politics and authoritarian appeals is a reasonable interpretation, supported by evidence from his campaign and broader political behavior.

Q3: In view of the two foregoing questions and your answers, is it even possible to win a presidential election without significant appeals to identity politics?

A3: Winning a presidential election without significant appeals to identity politics is theoretically possible but highly challenging in the current political climate, given the centrality of identity to modern political discourse. However, the 2024 election suggests that the nature and framing of identity politics can significantly influence electoral success.

Identity Politics as a Persistent Force

Identity politics—defined as political appeals based on shared characteristics such as race, gender, class, or religion—remains deeply embedded in U.S. elections. Both major parties leverage it, albeit in different ways: ....

Q4: In what ways has identity politics served society, democracy and groups involved in those identities?

A4: Identity politics has served society, democracy, and the groups involved in various ways, both positively and negatively. Its contributions are multifaceted, reflecting its ability to empower marginalized communities, foster solidarity, and challenge systemic injustices, while also raising concerns about division and exclusivity.

Positive Contributions

2. Broadening Democratic Participation

Identity politics has expanded democratic engagement by encouraging participation from groups that have historically been excluded from political processes.

4. Democratization of Power

Identity politics disrupts hegemonic power structures by challenging the dominance of privileged groups. It demands recognition not just as part of a universal human experience but as distinct identities deserving respect on their own terms. This process has been described as contributing to the "democratization of democracy" by making equality and freedom more tangible through specific struggles.

Challenges and Criticisms

1. Risk of Division

Critics argue that identity politics can exacerbate social fragmentation by emphasizing differences rather than commonalities. This focus on group-specific interests may:

(i) create tensions between different marginalized groups or between marginalized and dominant groups and (ii) lead to a sense of exclusion among those who feel their identities are not adequately represented or prioritized. 

2. Potential for Essentialism

Identity politics can sometimes reduce individuals to their group identities, ignoring the complexity of their experiences. This essentialism risks: (i) overlooking intersections between different identities (e.g., race, gender, class), and (ii) reinforcing stereotypes or limiting individuals' ability to define themselves outside group categories.

The point I want to make about identity politics is pretty simple: It is a two-edged sword. 

It can be good or bad. It can be good when used in good faith by people of good will to defend and strengthen democracy. But, it can be bad when used in bad faith by people of ill-will to attack and weaken democracy. 

Qs: Did Harris employ identity politics in good or bad faith? Did DJT?

Footnote:

1. One analysis I looked at about somewhat low Dem voter turnout indicated that this factor probably did not contribute much or anything to Harris' loss. Many of those Dem non-voters indicated that they too were feeling alienated and angry about politics and the Dem party. They seemed to be as likely to vote for a 3rd party candidate or DJT even if they had voted.

Heath care anger: Warranted or not?

I was going to ignore the murder of Brian Thompson, the chief executive of UnitedHealthcare, the country’s largest health insurer. However, that event has really hit a nerve with a lot of people. As usual, social media leads the way in expressing callous vulgarity and the underlying anger, e.g., one X user posted regarding feelings about the murdered CEO: Empathy: Denied! 

A lot of people are really angry at health care insurance companies and how they do business.

A NYT opinion by a doctor in a hospital seems to capture the basis for public anger about as well as it can be succinctly expressed. The doctor, Helen Ouyang is an emergency physician and an associate professor at Columbia University. Dr. Ouyang writes (not paywalled):

I rushed around the patient as he lay motionless with his eyes closed in the emergency room. He was pale and sweaty, his T-shirt stained with vomit. You didn’t have to be a health-care worker to know that he was in a dire state. The beeps on the monitor told me his heart rate was dangerously slow. I told the man that he was going to be admitted to the hospital overnight.

After a pause, he beckoned me closer. His forehead furrowed with concern. I thought he would ask if he was going to be OK or if he needed surgery — questions I’m comfortable fielding. But instead he asked, “Will my insurance cover my stay?”

This is a question I can’t answer with certainty. Patients often believe that since I’m part of the health-care system, I would know. But I don’t, not as a doctor — and not even when I’m a patient myself. In the United States, health insurance is so extraordinarily complicated, with different insurers offering different plans, covering certain things and denying others (sometimes in spite of what they say initially they cover). I could never guarantee anything.

I didn’t say all this to the man, though, because I needed him to stay in the hospital and accept inpatient treatment. So instead I hedged. “You’re very sick,” I told him. “You shouldn’t worry about your insurance right now.” I should have been able to give him a better answer, under a better system.

The killing of Brian Thompson, the chief executive of UnitedHealthcare, the country’s largest health insurer, has reignited people’s contempt for their health plans. It’s unknown if Mr. Thompson’s tragic death was related to health care, and the gleeful responses have been horrifying. But that reaction, even in its objectionable vitriol, matters for how it lays bare Americans’ deep-seated anger toward health care. Around the country, anecdotes were unleashed with furor.

Among these grievances is the great unknown of whether a treatment recommended by a doctor will be covered. It’s critical for me as a physician to build trust with my patients by giving them clear answers. But the conversations we’re seeing now about health care remind me that insurance unknowns don’t just compromise the care I can deliver to my patients — they also undermine the fragile doctor-patient trust. It’s an unsustainable dynamic. 

Unsurprisingly, despite my platitudes, my patient did worry. Instead of resting on the stretcher, he and his wife began calling his insurance company. To keep him from leaving, I tried to be more persuasive, even though I didn’t know what kind of health plan he had: “I’m sure your insurance will pay. I’ll document carefully how medically necessary this admission is.” .... I said what I could to get him to stay, but I understood why he wanted to be certain. The average cost of a three-day hospital stay is $30,000. He had heard the health-insurance horror stories. Maybe he had lived through one himself.

One of my first lessons as a new attending physician in a hospital serving a working-class community was in insurance. I saw my colleagues prescribing suboptimal drugs and thought they weren’t practicing evidence-based medicine. In reality, they were doing something better — practicing patient-based medicine. When people said they couldn’t afford a medication that their insurance didn’t cover, they would prescribe an alternative, even if it wasn’t the best available option.

As a young doctor, I struggled with this. Studies show this drug is the most effective treatment, I would say. Of course, the insurer will cover it. My more seasoned colleague gently chided me that if I practiced this way, then my patients wouldn’t fill their prescriptions at all. And he was right.  

In the end, my patient in the E.R. decided to go home that day. I reiterated how sick he was. .... But I’m not sure how much he trusted me after my overconfident assurances that his insurance would pay; when he finally got through to an agent, he was told coverage would depend on the specifics of his care.

He couldn’t risk a big hospital bill right now, he told me, matter-of-factly. He promised to come back if he felt worse.

For years, the idea of private insurance for health care never felt right to me. The profit motive is always there and it cannot be deterred. Humans will be human. The profit motive is a staggeringly powerful motivator of all kinds of behavior, good, bad, ambiguous, etc. 

Consider drug prices for patented drugs in the US compared to the same drugs in most other countries. The US government rarely negotiates drug prices because for as long as the idea of negotiating prices has existed, drug industry lobbyists and "campaign contributions" (free speech) has successfully blocked negotiated pricing to protect profits, always in the name of money needed for research for better new drugs. 

The Christian nationalist rationale for breaking the US Constiitution

CONTEXT

From the amicus brief the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops filed in the case United States v. Skrmetti in which the supreme court court considers the question: "Does a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?":

I. Catholic Teaching That Transgender Body Manipulation Is Morally Wrong Is Not Discriminatory. 

Catholic teaching about the human body and the application of that teaching to transgender body manipulation is not based on animus or prejudice, but on anthropological and metaphysical principles that are both divinely revealed and accessible to reason. ....

.... Transgender body manipulation treats the human body as an object that a person can use and dispose of at will; it views the human body as a mistake to be corrected; and it sacrifices healthy sexual functioning when it is not necessary to do so in service of the whole body. For these reasons, Catholic teaching deems transgender body manipulations immoral and contrary to God’s will, not out of animus or prejudice, but on the basis of principles grounded in reason and revelation, long-held and universally applied by the Catholic Church.

I think the bishops are fibbing. Their feelings are based on both animus and prejudice.

THE RADICAL RIGHT ARGUMENT 

FOR CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY

The authoritarian American CN (Christian nationalism) wealth & power movement aggressively uses federal courts to de-secularize and Christianize the law, government, public and higher education, commerce and anything else it can reach in court. Although most Christians are not supporters of CN, the movement already is frighteningly powerful. Starting next month, it will acquire a lot more power than it has now. 

Russell Vought, has been nominated for a powerful position in DJT's government. Trump named Vought to run the Office of Management and Budget, a federal office that holds vast power because it controls the purse strings for the entire federal government. Vought, a key author of Project 2025, is a Christian nationalist who believes the federal government's job is to impose a "biblical worldview" by fiat.

Here is Vought's rationale for a non-trivial degree of authoritarian Christian theocracy in what he calls America's "post-constitutional moment":

Q2: I wanted you to find sources outside of the linked-to article that describes Vought's rationale.

A2: Russell Vought's rationale for arguing that the US is in a "post-constitutional moment" is based on several key points:

1. Vought claims that over the past century, the United States has experienced "nothing short of a quiet revolution" that has abandoned the true meaning and force of the Constitution. He argues that the country has become a "post-constitutional regime" that no longer adheres to the separation of powers among the three branches of government as laid out by the framers.

2. He asserts that power now lies primarily with the executive branch, specifically with unelected bureaucrats and civil servants in various agencies, whom he sees as part of a "permanent ruling class" of leftist elites.

3. Vought believes that this leftist revolution has already succeeded, rendering conservative efforts to preserve the constitutional order futile. He argues that the "woke and weaponized" leftist regime is "now increasingly arrayed against the American people," treating patriotic parents as "domestic terrorists" and "putting political opponents in jail."

4. He contends that the conservative legal movement, including the Federalist Society and originalist judges, has become a "Praetorian Guard for this post-constitutional structure" rather than defending true constitutional principles.

5. Vought likens the current situation to critical moments in American history such as 1776 and 1860, suggesting that the country faces an existential threat requiring revolutionary action.

6. He argues that this "post-constitutional" state justifies taking extraordinary measures, including potentially using the military for domestic law enforcement and significantly altering the structure of government agencies.

Vought's conclusion from this rationale is that conservatives need to embrace what he calls "radical constitutionalism," which involves going beyond traditional legal and political constraints to enact their will and restore what he sees as the true constitutional order

Q3: How does Vought's view of the executive branch differ from traditional conservative perspectives?

A3: Vought's view of the executive branch differs significantly from traditional conservative perspectives in several key ways:

1. Rejection of constitutional constraints: Vought argues that the U.S. is in a "post-constitutional moment," claiming that the constitutional order has been destroyed by a leftist revolution. This contrasts with traditional conservative views that emphasize adherence to and preservation of the Constitution.

2. Expanded presidential power: Vought advocates for an "energetic president with the power to bend the executive branch to the will of the American people". This goes beyond traditional conservative views of limited government and separation of powers.

3. Dismantling the administrative state: While many conservatives criticize bureaucracy, Vought's approach is more radical. He aims to "gut the 'administrative state' from within" by removing federal employees perceived as obstacles to the president's agenda.

4. Etc.

Three points:

• Although Vought claims he wants the president exercise power to bend the executive branch to the will of the American people, a lot of what Vought and DJT want in terms of specific civil rights and other policies are opposed by majority public opinion, about 57%. A hallmark of American radical right authoritarianism is that, when circumstances permit, majority public opinion is ignored and policies most do not want are imposed if authoritarian leaders want it. That comes from the definition of authoritarianism.

• Although Vought claims that we are a "post-constitutional regime", allegedly by violating the separation of powers among the three branches of government the framers laid out, that is sheer blithering nonsense. The framers strongly disagreed about separation of powers. They never resolved their disagreements in their lifetimes. Reputable historians have made that very clear. Also clear is that fact that to prevent tyranny, the Framers implemented a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government. That was designed to keep one branch from becoming too powerful. Vought's disingenuous argument about a powerful executive flies directly in the face of separation of powers the Framers established.

• DJT lied to us when he said he knew nothing about and no one related to Project 2025. Vought is deeply related to it, being a key author. Nonetheless DJT also said he hated some of what was in it. He flat out lied on both points. That's no surprise because he's a chronic liar. MAGA elites lied about it too:

Project 2025 is actually "the agenda," a prominent MAGA figure has said, despite Donald Trump repeatedly denying any connection with it during the election campaign.

And ex-Trump adviser Steve Bannon has strongly endorsed the comment by conservative political commentator Matt Walsh, who said on X, formerly Twitter: "Now that the election is over I think we can finally say that yeah actually Project 2025 is the agenda." Walsh's post had 5.9 million views and 6,800 reposts. (emphasis added)

By now, the truly authoritarian intent of both DJT and CN are clear and not rationally deniable. The open questions are how fast will they go and how far will they get. 

The rise of an anti-democracy Christian nationalist deep state

Salon writes:

Trump ushers in a Christian "deep state": 

MAGA moves to gut the Constitution

Trump gave control of the budget to a Project 2025 henchman who calls this a "post-constitutional moment"

But that doesn't bother the Christian nationalist leaders who back Trump, because the plan was always to reduce Congress to a ceremonial body and concentrate all the power in the hands of the president. During the campaign, much attention was paid to the disparate policy ideas in Project 2025. Less discussed was the overarching theme of the plan, which was to turn the presidency into something very much like a dictatorship. Russell Vought, the architect of Project 2025, is a Christian nationalist who believes the federal government's job is to impose a "biblical worldview" by fiat, which means sidestepping the House, whose members face biennial accountability with voters.

Trump has now appointed Vought to run the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Don't be fooled by the boring name. The office holds unbelievable power because it's about controlling the purse strings for the whole government. As Thomas Zimmer explained at Democracy Americana, Vought argues that the law or separation of powers should not constrain him and the president, because this is a "post-constitutional moment." Vought has an elaborate and nonsensical rationale[1] blaming the left for this development, but what matters most is his conclusion: the right is now entitled to blow past legal constraints and enact their will however possible.

 
At the center of this scheme is an effort to replace the existing federal bureaucracy with "an army of people who have a biblical worldview" and a willingness to "lead with reckless abandon." Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk are toothlessly threatening the jobs of federal employees on Twitter. Vought, however, will have real power at the OMB to "put them in trauma," as he threatened in a recent speech at the Center for Renewing America. The goal, he said, was to make their work lives so miserable that they are "traumatically affected" and forced to quit. Unlike Musk and Ramaswamy, however, Vought doesn't pretend this is about saving money. He plans to refill those jobs with Christian nationalists. In sum, the conspiracy theory of the "deep state" was concocted so the right could justify creating a real "deep state," one that is geared towards remaking America in its Christian fundamentalist worldview.

[DJT's] current attorney general nominee, former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, isn't raising as many hackles, despite her threats to arrest prosecutors for enforcing the law against those who attempted to overturn the 2020 election. But new reports show Bondi isn't just an election denier, though that's bad enough. People for the American Way discovered she's extensively tied to Christian nationalist leaders.

Two of the people Bondi has worked with — Wallnau and Trump's favorite minister, Paula White — are part of the New Apostolic Reformation. Matthew Taylor, a religious studies scholar who follows this movement closely, told Salon in September that these folks believe they're "this vanguard that God had placed on Earth to bring about the Kingdom of God. They want a global revival and to take over whole societies and turn them into Christian nations." When she was Florida's attorney general, Bondi backed a constitutional amendment that would allow the state to fund religious groups with taxpayer money, but Florida voters shot it down.

Recently, far-right preacher Eric Metaxas gloated that Donald Trump will "go scorched Earth on the satanic bureaucracy that is the Deep State." This moralizing language conceals, however poorly, a deeply immoral agenda: to replace respectable civil servants with bug-eyed fascist ideologues who oppose the most basic values of our country, such as religious freedom, equal justice, and democracy.

Theocracy wrapped in faux secularism: Catholic bishops submitted a brief in this lawsuit. A Catholic writer for the National Catholic Reporter, described deceptive dark free speech that Christian nationalism (CN) routinely relies on to con people. The goal is to lead people to falsely believe Christian intrusion into modern law is grounded in "principles of reason." By "reason" the bishops apply theocratic reasoning, not secular. But even in this case, the theocrat bishops could not quite bring themselves to flat out lie about the role of "divine revelation" being there too:

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case United States v. Skrmetti in which the court is asked to answer the question: "Does a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?"

The Catholic Church has some compelling interests in this case, which will impact the legal parameters within which the culture wars are fought. The amicus curiae brief filed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, however, articulates a legal stance that undervalues the fact that ours is a pluralistic culture. In such a culture, the church's witness is best served when it overreaches in charity, not in legal grasping.

The brief does a reasonably good job explaining what the Catholic Church teaches about gender identity and why it opposes medical interventions of the kind the Tennessee law would prohibit. It repeatedly notes that the church's teachings do not rest exclusively on divine revelation but "on the basis of principles grounded in reason and revelation, long-held and universally applied by the Catholic Church."  

.... Boston College law and theology professor Cathleen Kaveny wrote, "In a pluralistic society, the religious freedom of one party needs to be balanced against the rights and the legitimate expectations of others." This is what the U.S. bishops' lawyers never grasp or admit. [Oh, they obviously grasp it alright, but will never admit it] (emphases added)

There we have it, right out in the open: 

Principles grounded in reason and revelation

That makes sense only if one injects CN God theocracy into the concept of "reason." My atheist, secular reasoning, sheds no light at all on what any God, Christian or not, would want the law about transgender medical treatments must be. Using "theological reasoning", anyone can argue that since God made transgendered people, he intended them to be treated respectfully just like everyone else and their wishes about their gender tolerated and accommodated.

But hell no! Absolutely not. Tolerance and accommodation is not in the CN God. The CN God[2] is full of hate, bigotry, intolerance and revenge lust. That is what the Catholic bishops are telling us our laws must reflect.

Footnotes:

1. I will do a separate post on Russell Vought's "reasoning" for why America is in an unconstitutional moment that necessitates authoritarian Christian theocracy. 

2. No, I am NOT saying all Christians are CN adherents. Most Christians are NOT CN adherents or complicit by silence. I am NOT criticizing or disrespecting regular Christians who are content to keep their God and divine revelations out of the law and government. 

I AM sharply criticizing the CN wealth and power (W&P) movement, its ghastly intolerance and its heavy reliance on theocratic irrationality and profoundly immoral lies, slanders and deceit. The CN W&P movement relies heavily on those tactics to try to push some American secular law related to civil liberties into bigoted Christian theocracy. And if CN elites get enough power, their arrogance and hubris could very well prompt them to move past merely crushing civil liberties. They could, probably would, choose to extend God's "righteous" iron fist into other areas of law, e.g., social spending laws, US military spending, tax laws, etc.

Breathtaking lying to the public about giving vast power to shockingly awful people

Yesterday, I heard a truly bizarre news segment that NPR aired. It was like being on a different planet populated by things that are not human. NPR reported that Pete Hegseth's mom (her son Pete is DJT's horrific pick for Secretary of Defense) was interviewed by Faux News and she was wonderful. She was reported to be strong and persistent in her defense of her son who is a truly goooood boy. NPR went on to speculate at how articulately she defended her good boy, musing that maybe she would be a good pick for a cabinet post.

My understanding is that Pete is a LGBQT-hater, a sex predator, and drunken alcoholic slob who likes to grab 'em by whatever naughty bits he can reach. In his world there are "party girls" and "not-party girls." Pete is the degenerate whack job and cruel woman-hater that DJT wants to run the US military.

I thought to myself, wait a minnit, didn't Pete's mom criticize Pete for being a cruel woman-hater? Yup, she sure did:

Text of the Email That Pete Hegseth’s Mother Sent Him

Penelope Hegseth sent the email to her son in 2018 as he was in the middle of a divorce from his wife, Samantha.

The following is the text of the email that Penelope Hegseth sent to her son, Pete Hegseth, on April 30, 2018. One sentence was redacted by The New York Times for privacy reasons.

Son,

I have tried to keep quiet about your character and behavior, but after listening to the way you made Samantha feel today, I cannot stay silent. And as a woman and your mother I feel I must speak out..

You are an abuser of women — that is the ugly truth and I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.

I am not a saint, far from it.. so don’t throw that in my face,. but your abuse over the years to women (dishonesty, sleeping around, betrayal, debasing, belittling) needs to be called out.

Sam is a good mother and a good person (under the circumstances that you created) and I know deep down you know that. For you to try to label her as “unstable” for your own advantage is despicable and abusive. Is there any sense of decency left in you? She did not ask for or deserve any of what has come to her by your hand. Neither did Meredith.

I know you think this is one big competition and that we have taken her side… bunk… we are on the side of good and that is not you. (Go ahead and call me self-righteous, I dont’ care)

Don’t you dare run to her and cry foul that we shared with us… that’s what babies do. It’s time for someone (I wish it was a strong man) to stand up to your abusive behavior and call it out, especially against women

We still love you, but we are broken by your behavior and lack of character. I don’t want to write emails like this and never thought I would. If it damages our relationship further, then so be it, but at least I have said my piece. [Redacted]

And yes, we are praying for you (and you don’t deserve to know how we are praying, so skip the snarky reply)

I don’t want an answer to this… I don’t want to debate with you. You twist and abuse everything I say anyway. But… On behalf of all the women (and I know it’s many) you have abused in some way, I say… get some help and take an honest look at yourself…

Mom

But now everyone is reporting that mom feels bad about her email and she has apologized to her good boy son for her bad, bad 2018 email. 

And now she lashes out at the NYT, saying the NYT threatened her:

To The New York Times, it was a standard journalistic practice done in the name of fairness — asking someone involved in a story for comment. To the mother of the nominee for secretary of defense, it constituted a threat.

On Wednesday, Pete Hegseth’s mother accused the Times of making “threats” by calling about its story on an email she had sent to her son six years earlier that criticized his treatment of women.

Penelope Hegseth sought and received an interview on Fox News Channel to support her son, whose confirmation chances are threatened by a series of damaging stories about his personal conduct. At one point, she said she wanted to directly tell President-elect Trump that her son “is not that man he was seven years ago.”

CBS News reported:

Penelope Hegseth, appearing on "Fox & Friends" Wednesday morning, said her son and his wife at the time were going through a "very difficult divorce" when she wrote the email in 2018, noting that she wrote it "in haste" and with "deep emotions."

"I wrote that out of love," she said. "And about two hours later, I retracted it with an apology email, but nobody's seen that." [Well then madam, why didn't you give it to Faux, who would have been overjoyed to splash it all over the screen?]

Hegseth's mother said she was appearing Wednesday on Fox to "tell the truth" to the American people, and to Republican senators on the hill — "especially our female senators."

Hegseth's mother encouraged the senators to "listen to Pete," noting that part of the reason she appeared on Fox was to "discredit the media." She added that she called Fox on Tuesday saying she wanted to speak out on the issue, noting that "I would do anything for my son."

  USA Today:

Penelope Hegseth said during the Fox News interview that Pete Hegseth, 44, is not the same man he was seven years ago.

“Pete is a new person. He's redeemed, forgiven, changed. I think we all are after seven years. I believe he's the man for the job,” she said.

For DJT, this horror show has just got to be a lot of fun to sit back, watch and savor. 

DJT watching the Pete H. show

Q: Who is at least partly discredited here, Pete, his mom, the MSM, NYT, NPR, Faux News, DJT, Republican senators, most of the American people, none, some or all of them?

Goofs indeed!