Is There Such a Thing as a Republican White Knight?

Posted on by
Reply

This past weekend, I opened the Saturday edition of the Austin American Statesman and did a double-take at seeing a photograph of Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex) featured over the headline, “Cornyn unveils bill to protect domestic violence housing.” Wow! I couldn’t recall a Republican pushing a “helping” initiative in years. The article is here.

The article depicts Cornyn as a white knight riding to the rescue of the Travis County domestic shelter program. In the past, the SafePlace received about $625,000 per year in HUD homeless grants. However, HUD recently made rule changes that tilts the table in such a way that these “transitional” grant programs will no longer qualify for any homeless grant funds. To remedy the problem, Cornyn is proposing legislation to require HUD to prioritize funding “transitional” housing grants for domestic violence survivors over all other homeless grants.

Sounds good, huh? I have counseled domestic violence victims, including some looking for a bed and protection for that night. They have typically been frightened and panicked. They needed help and compassion. The shelters I am aware of have provided that help admirably.

However, while money is needed for those programs, the story is a bit more complicated than the American Statesman revealed.

Recent budget cuts—brought about in significant part by Republicans like Sen. Cornyn—led to the rule changes.

In past years, “transitional” housing grants, including those for domestic violence shelters, were part of a $2.1 billion pot of money designated for all homeless grants. Along with domestic violence shelters, the money helped people who were chronically homeless, particularly veterans, families and those living in the street. Most of this big pot was designated for these people.

However, after recent budget cuts, HUD looked over what money it had left and decided that it was about half of that needed to fully address the homeless issue in the United States. HUD also concluded that grants for “chronic” homeless provided more bang for the buck than did grants for “transitional homeless”So (i.e., domestic violence shelters).

So, HUD rewrote to get more bang for the buck and by giving priority to grants for the chronically homeless over those for transitional programs. Cornyn’s bill would flip the deck and require HUD to put domestic violence transitional grants at the top of the priority pack and all other homeless programs beneath it.

This may be the right outcome. I tend to favor domestic violence victims because of my experience. However, would this result in, say, a veteran with PTSD being unserved? Or a family who has just lost their apartment and the bread-winner has been laid off? Yes, at least if HUD is correct.

Cornyn hasn’t made the white knight level yet. He would, however, by not only filing this bill but also by going to bat for full funding for the entire homeless program. After all, many families (and parents and children) are chronically homeless and may lose out if no more money is given. This is also true for veterans and those living in the street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evangelical Leaders Stand Against Fear and Bigotry

Posted on by
Reply

While innocent people lose hope and perhaps their lives, a majority of American Christians oppose refugee resettlement here. However, another hallelujah moment has come in the struggle for justice. One hundred evangelical leaders have signed a statement decrying 45’s refugee ban. CNN reports the statement will appear as an advertisement in tomorrow’s Washington Post. Congratulations to these leaders who recognize the consistent Biblical call to treat the foreigner and stranger with fairness and justice. And some if not all of them well remember Joseph, Mary and Jesus were refugees who fled to Egypt, something many Christians do not.

The specious argument 45 uses in support of the refugee ban is that our country receiving these refugees increases the threat of terrorist attacks on our soil. Nonsense. There is no evidence support his argument. In fact, the libertarian (and Koch-funded) Cato Institute issued a recent report concluding the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year. The same report concluded the chance of an American being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is even higher—10. 9 billion per year. World Relief also reported that over 3 million refugees have settled in the United States since 1980 and not one American life has been lost in any attack by those refugees.

Refugees are simply folks like you and me who flee their homes to save their lives. They need help and not bans. 45’s order flies in the face of Christian compassion and fact. Of course, we cannot accuse the man of being steeped in either.

Don’t Be Suckered by Trump’s Tweets

Posted on by
Reply

The New York Times had a recent article noting that our diplomats in Europe are warning governments wary of Trump not overreact to his tweets. America—and especially my fellow Democrats, progressives or liberals—needs to heed this warning. Today’s tweet by the Orange One about an arms race has yielded a bumper crop of overreactions.

The Washington Post editorial board already has posted an editorial warning about this threat. Meanwhile, Twitter chirps away with yet more hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing tweets about this latest storm and Facebook is rife with similar condemnatory posts. Even Trump’s advisors are playing their familiar role of walking back another burst of their boss’s regrettable statements. Predictably, progressive and liberal periodicals like Mother Jones, The Nation and The New Republic are also hurling thunderbolts at the POEUS.

Of course, there are many things we can object to about Trump. For example, we should be repelled about his appointment of a racist (Sessions); climate change deniers (several of them); Goldman Sachs alumni (again, several); and, climate change creators (in the person of Exxon’s Rex Tillerson). We can add to these his repugnant tilt to Putin; probable support of Assad; stirring of the Chinese pot; further inflammation of the Middle East; embrace of Israel; taxing and spending policies; intended repeal of Obamacare; possible action to reduce Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security; and, the list stretches on. Will it become infinite?

These are all substantive issues that we need to work on now. The tweet du jour which is just another in the round of tweets du jour is not a substantive issue. Yes, they do degrade our country. Yes, they will contribute to the deterioration of our role in the world. Yes, they do reflect the unstable mind at the helm and might scare the bejabbers out of us. If you are like me, you wake up early in the morning feeling that there is no way this ending will be good.

However, we need to put his tweets in their proper place as a blowhard doing what he does best. Instead of focusing on them, we need to focus on upcoming confirmations battles as well as subsequent fights over health care, taxes and the social safety net. So, instead of worrying about Trump’s early morning statements, we need to ask ourselves what steps we might take to counter his actions as opposed to his bloviations.

White Trash Looks at His Own

Posted on by
1

A sad and strange result of the 2016 election is the many progressives and Democrats surprised that large numbers of white males voted Republican. Who would have thought? In a related development, the same group is slack-jawed at the number of white blue collar workers in the Rust Belt who helped usher in the era of Trump. Didn’t see that coming!

These phenomena also caused the elite media (you know who you are New York Times, Washington Post and others) to wake to the truth that many whites in the hinterlands feel abandoned and ignored by government and estranged not only from mainstream media but also values and policies of the Democratic Party. These media, and more than a few progressives, seem to have decided that they need to find out something about these strange people from Middle America.

Something that will prepare them for the journey are several recently released books that shed light upon this widespread discontent (spoiler alert—it is not racism). The most widely read and reviewed are “Hillbilly Elegy” by J.D. Vance, “White Trash” by Nancy Isenberg and “Strangers in Their Own Land” by Arlie Russell Hochschild.

As a progressive born, raised and living in this strange and distant land, I want to offer my take on this. I’m the latest of generations of white trash, a/k/a “rednecks” and “trailer trash.” My father and generations of Hazlewoods before him were Southern tenant farmers. Daddy grew up in 1910’s and 1920’s on farm land not far from Waco, Texas where they still used mules and outhouses. I grew up in Houston, though, and worked most of my professional life in Austin. But, then came the call to ministry. Since then, I’ve lived and pastored exclusively in rural and small town churches in South Central Texas.

After the election, I realized that I knew more about “those” voters than about any of my fellow progressives who lived on either coast. And, I’ve read things about them being racist or bigoted or ignorant. Well, no.

My peeps are good folks. They are good friends to have, the type who will pull over on the road and help you change a tire or who will bring you some food when you mother dies. They go to church on Sunday and maybe sit on a committee or two or work in the food bank or deliver food for Meals on Wheels. They feel there is too much sex and violence in the media and are not too fond of all the cursing, either. No matter what your skin color, they will help you if you need it. They have guns—and use them. Even women hunt. I love them.

But, they have big problems with government and wonder about liberals and progressives, too. More specifically:

  • many feel they do not matter to government and that their voices will not be heard;
  • they find people on the coast condescending and arrogant. They feel that these people look down on them and consider them to be ignorant racists;
  • they perceive their values are quite different from “liberals” (they tend to be Christian, sexually modest and community-oriented);
  • they hate what they see as government giveaways (pretty much those things that are the safety net—welfare, food stamps and Medicaid);
  • they don’t like affirmation action and wonder how racism can be ended with such racial consciousness;
  • they are suspicious of big government, as well as Muslims and Islam;
  • they watch Fox News and listen to Rush, O’Reilly and Hannity; and,
  • they have guns and think liberals look down upon them for this.

When I read or hear these good folks belittled, I sometimes think that it is their critics who are the bigots.

 

 

Democrats! Relax, Breathe in– and Get Ready to Work

Posted on by
Reply

Talk about disappointed and angry white males, I’ve been out of sorts since late Tuesday night. I haven’t killed anybody, but have embarrassed myself with two seperate rants. Forgive me, Customer Service Department at Express Scripts!

Teeth-gnashing, second-guessing and fault-finding began after the first vote totals began. It continues today, as it will for some time. May we not circle the wagons and shoot in. Instead, let’s breathe in, relax and take some time reflecting and assessing. Along the way, there are a few things to consider.

  • Democrats didn’t turn out. As of this writing, Hillary has received 59,938,290 votes. Obama received 65,915,79 in 2012 and 69,498,516 in 2008.
  • Republican vote was also less than four years ago. Trump received 59,704,886,less than the 60,933,504 that Romney received AND less than McCain’s 59,948,323.
  • White, male working class voters did come out in greater numbers for Trump, especially in the heretofore “Blue Wall” states that Trump won.
  • However, if the Democrat vote had turned out in those states, Hillary would have won.
  • Don’t believe the pundits and their opinions right now. They were wrong last week and for months and even years before that.
  • We don’t need to address the discrete issue of jobs and opportunities for angry white males in the Rust Belt or elsewhere, but jobs and opportunities for both genders in all parts of the country. This especially includes inner cities and Greater Appalachia.
  • We are weaker in local and state offices than we are in presidential vote. Talk about your ground game! It turns out that there is one we have ignored.
  • Sexism, racism, nativism and xenophobia affected some voters, but we will never be able to figure out who or in what proportion. So, we don’t need to call anybody “deplorables,” but need to focus instead on our goals and tactics.

Meanwhile, let’s also remember that we our values to use in deciding upon those goals and tactics. In her concession speech, Hillary said:

“So, let’s do all we can to keep advancing the causes and values we all hold dear: making our economy work for everyone, not just those at the top; protecting our country and protecting our planet; and breaking down all the barriers that hold anyone back from achieving their dreams. We’ve spent a year and a half bringing together millions of people from every corner of our country to say with one voice that we believe that the American Dream is big enough for everyone — for people of all races and religions, for men and women, for immigrants, for LGBT people, and people with disabilities.”

You might say it a little bit differently, but those are values worth working and fighting for.

“Incivility” Happens– Sometimes for Good Reason

Posted on by
Reply

I may be a heretic. Like me, you probably are dismayed at the increasingly shameful and vicious language often used in social media and other public discourse.  Like our climate, it seems to get worse every year. However, while much of what we think is “uncivil” can only be condemned, a sweeping condemnation goes too far. There is a time and place for “incivility.” We might like to think of him as “Sweet Jesus,” but at times he acted uncivilly by the standards of the day.

hillary-shooting-target-nbcOn Thursday, the New York Times had an article quoting some Trump supporters promising a  “revolution” if Hillary wins. One went so far as predict they would do “whatever needs to be done to get her out of office.” It is likely that  some of our Christian brothers and sisters feel the same. On Wednesday, the Diane Rehm Show had a program on civility and public discourse. Most of the show’s panelists condemned “incivility.” One defined it as violating some vague standard of “politeness,” whatever that means. Another was more precise by defining it “as claiming and caring for one’s identity, needs and beliefs without degrading someone else in the process.” That is a more useful definition.

However, Jesus acted “uncivilly” at times under either definition. For example, in Matthew 23:27, he spewed venom on scribes and Pharisees, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth.” Whew! He wasn’t being Sweet Jesus, and those are only some of the insults he threw out that day.

In addition, he periodically described people in other disparaging ways: dog, pig, snake, fox (in those days, it connoted a “weasel”), fool and brood of vipers. Moreover, one day he cleansed the Temple of merchants and money changers, overturning tables and driving them away with a whip. Sounds uncivil to me! It offended more than a few that day (they wanted to kill him!) and would have gone viral today: “#sonofmangoesberserk!”

In addition to these words and actions of Jesus, Paul was no shrinking violet. He called the Galatians “foolish” and later added that he wished those wanting circumcision would go the whole way and castrate themselves! (Gal. 3:1, 5:12) He also lambasted Cretans, “Even one of their own prophets has said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true.” (Titus 1:12-13a)

True, both he and Paul say and do a lot of other things that urge peaceful and harmonious discourse. Here are a few teachings:

  1. 5:7-9, “Blessed are the merciful. . . Blessed are the pure in heart. . . Blessed are the peacemakers. . .”
  2. 5:22, “But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.”
  3. 5:44, “But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.”
  4. 3: 8, “But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.”
  5. 3:21, “Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.”
  6. James 1:9, “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.”

Just as we do, Jesus lived in a time of political, cultural and religious and unrest. At times, he spoke and acted in ways that violated “civil” norms of his day. There are times that Christians may be called to do the same in our times. What are some consideration for us to have in deciding our path? More on that next week.

Our Painful Election

Posted on by
Reply

Our presidential election faces voters with choosing between a knee to the groin or a right cross to the chin. Either are bad. (If you want to throw in the two major third party candidates, all are bad.) This morning’s news gives us the most recent examples about Trump and Hillary. as if we needed more.

The latest from WikiLeaks shows additional dishonesty, smarminess or questionable conduct (choose your preferred description or add one of your own) by the Clinton Foundation. The Washington Post story about is here. A report by Bloomberg News reveals, in addition to other questionable activities, an admission by the Trump campaign that they are actively trying to suppress voter turnout. That report is here. Both stories are based on the words of a staffer and not the candidate, but let’s not quibble over that. There is no way to avoid: the choices we have are bad and the worst since it least the 19th century.

Even if you disagree with that and love your candidate, whomever wins will have a difficult time governing because he or she will be considered illegitimate by about half of the country. Even worse, some Trump partisans hate Hillary and threaten violence if she wins.

hillary-nbc-1200-800The picture illustrates the hatred that hatred for Hillary that is within the hearts of some Trump supporters. It was taken at a Trump rally on October 27 and depicts Hillary being hung effigy. There are also Trump supporters who wear a t-shirt which features Hillary’s face as a target. And, of course, all Trump rallies include the infamous chant, “Lock her up!” All is over the top nasty.

For their part, although they neither have the hatred of Trump nor have promised violence if he wins, a good number of Hillary voters (maybe the clear majority) consider Trump to be a narcissistic, misogynistic, repugnant, bigoted, racist, sexist bully.  Full disclosure: I am one of these and will vote for Hillary– reluctantly.

The likeliest outcome of all of this is that irrespective of who wins our country is destined to suffer through additional turmoil and division for the foreseeable feature. What roles are Christian to play in this? More on that tomorrow.

 

Republicans Unite: #NeverTrump

Posted on by
Reply

Last night, the Donald again displayed the most important factor that disqualifies him from being president: given a choice between the best interests of the country and his self-interest, he will choose the latter every time.

His life has been devoted to himself. He has shown no ability or inclination to change that focus. A president needs to have the capacity to put the country first. He does not.

We most recently see this in his explicit threat to throw the country into turmoil over the election results (note that today, he did say he would not dispute the results, “if I win”). We have seen this in his lifelong pursuit of fame, fortune and celebrity. We even have seen in this election cycle in two new ways. First, in how easily his thin skin is pricked into absurd reactions, most notably his belaboring the “size of his hands” and vouching for the size of his penis. Second, last Spring during the Republican primaries, when he questioned the results of primaries that he lost.

Even good Republicans who quiver at the thought of another Clinton presidency need to wake up to this. They need to vote for Hillary. Do they want a self-centered egomaniac making decisions about war and peace when his foremost considerations as president will revolve around his ego?

Would he sell out allies if Putin stroked him around the ears? Would he use nukes if North Korea belittled him? Would he jail political opponents? Shut down press outlets? Deport American citizens?

We do not know how far his hubris might reach. We should not try and find out.

Handling Election Stress

Posted on by
Reply

Stressed about the presidential election? Here are a few tests:

  1. You wake up several times at night with thoughts like: “NO!!!!”, or “Wonder who he’s groping now?”
  2.  You check news reports every few minutes for the latest on Trump Twitter storms and WikiLeaks releases.
  3. You have invested your life savings in one of the campaigns.
  4. You receive instant notices about any changes in Nate Silver’s election predictions.
  5. You have moved to Canada.
  6. You hyperventilate at the sight or mention of anything orange.
  7. Your friends are suggesting counseling.
  8. Rudy Giuliani is starting to make sense.
  9. Rudy Giuliani looks increasingly simian.
  10. You fondly remember the good old days of 2008 when Sarah Palin was the loose screw.

If five or more of these apply to you, then you are among the 52 percent of American adults suffering from “election stress.” Last week, the American Psychological Association (“APA”) released a study finding that 52 percent of Americans 18+reported the election is a “very or somewhat significant source of stress.”

I thought that any stress primarily was people worrying about the Donald, but not so. According to an APA spokesperson, “We’re seeing that it doesn’t matter whether you’re registered as a Democrat or Republican . . .” Roughly equal numbers of those registered as Democrats (55 percent) or Republicans (59 percent) said the election is a “very or somewhat significant source of stress.” The worry also cuts across generational and gender lines.

The APA offered some suggestions to help sufferers manage stress:

  1. If the 24-hour news cycle of claims and counterclaims from the candidates is causing the stress, limit your media consumption.
  2. Avoid getting into discussions about the election if they have the potential to escalate to conflict.
  3. Stress and anxiety about what might happen is not productive. Channel your concerns to make a positive difference on issues you care about. Consider volunteering in your community, advocating for an issue you support or joining a local group.
  4. Know that whatever happens on Nov. 8, life will go on. Our political system and the three branches of government mean that we can expect a significant degree of stability immediately after a major transition of government. Avoid catastrophizing, and maintain a balanced perspective.
  5. Vote. In a democracy, a citizen’s voice does matter.

In addition to these, I have turned to television and movie comedies—and discovered “The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt,” and rediscovered the old Peter Sellers’ Pink Panther movies– and there are 22 more days to go for more laughs.

Good luck!

The APA study can be found here.

Posted on by
Reply

Change—and grace—show themselves in unexpected ways. The “Trump video” is well-known, and by now eight women have come forward to give the lie to Trump’s claim that “he never did anything wrong, it [the tape] was just locker room talk.” Some men acknowledged that they did, indeed, talk like that and many of Trump’s supporters said, in essence, that such talk was expected and to be accepted.

In other words, Trump and those who approve of “locker room” talk such as his agree that is acceptable: to objectify and minimize women; “rate” them on their “looks;” openly leer as they approach; and, discuss various methods of sexual assault and battery that they would like to commit upon them. Worse, most heterosexual men, including me, have been guilty of such sexism to one degree or another. That does not excuse it. That does not make it right.

It is something that we men need to struggle to end. That is where change and grace comes in. Perhaps the tape and subsequent allegations made against Trump will serve to bring about much needed change and raise the level of the familial, social and cultural relationships between men and women in our society.

An article in yesterday’s New York Times suggests that this week’s events might give women a new way of seeing their own experiences with sexual assault and male sexism going forward. You can find the article here.