Solid Support for Trump Policies

A few Trump supporting friends have begun to acknowledge that his rhetoric may be out of line (a bit), but they still like his policies, which are working well for the good of the nation.
What policies would those be?  The usual suspects are economic.  For a while the stock market was the shining beacon of how well they were working, but I haven’t heard much about that lately.  Still the economy, as a whole, looks strong, and his supporters believe Trump gets the credit.  While not exactly fact checking, I’ve been poking around in FRED resources looking at durable goods orders, consumer purchasing and debt, retail sales, and such, and they do show a health economy more or less on the path established for them early in the previous administration.  There’s no indication of a Trump bump of any lasting duration.  What they do indicate is that the tax package stimulated surge in corporate investment and wage growth have not materialized as promised.
That leaves his policies on tariffs as weapons to get better bilateral trade deals, while turning away from multilateral agreements.  It appears they’re popular among some Trump supporters not because they work, but because they exhibit a strong America facing down overseas bad guys.  They like that.  It goes well with their distaste of namby-pamby liberals who let other nations steal jobs and rob us blind, stealing our technology and jacking up trade deficits.  It doesn’t seem to matter that tariffs may not be working to our advantage as well as we were told they would, or that new trade deals turn out to be tweaks of old trade deals more easily had without all the blustery Sturm und Drang.  It’s the posturing and strutting that counts.  
So what else do they like about Trump’s policies.  A big one is the two for one regulation directive that requires two existing regulations be flushed down the drain for each new one promulgated.  It makes no practical sense, but somehow it fits with decades long complaints about over regulation, although few individual Trump supporters can point to a regulation that’s given them problems.  Public relations campaigns by corporate interests upset over being prevented from doing business any old way they wanted, regardless of affects on the environment and public safety, have been very effective.  To be fair, many businesses large and small have been swamped by meaningless paper work and bureaucratic regulatory staffs who have no concept of customer service.  Trump supporters don’t care whether his policy is good for the nation, the two for one policy looks like someone is finally doing something.
In the end, the Trump supporters I know will waffle, if pushed, on their support of his economic policies, mostly because they don’t want to get too far out on the thin ice of their knowledge about the dark arts.  It’s safer to say something nasty about liberals and go on to other things.
What other things?  Now we’re at the heart of the matter.  What they like about Trump’s policies are his public pronouncements about nationalism, immigration, and his not so subtle endorsement of white supremacy.  They like his Archie Bunker appeals to their exclusive interests, they like his put downs of intellectuals and elites.  They believe he favors ordinary good people like them as no other president has.  He says so in all his rallies.  None whom I know consider themselves to be racist in any fashion, but there’s something reassuring in the way Trump keeps white male hegemony at the center of what it means to be American.  Black, brown, yellow, and red, they’re all good people, in their proper places.  Women too.  White men, and their women, have a place as well, and Trump is defending it.
It’s never stated that way, but it comes out when they talk about open borders, invasions by illegals, out of control #MeToo fanatics, rampant voter fraud, and the criminality that goes with all of it.  The values that have made America great are under attack. 
Curiously, they seem to be immune to any recognition that Trump’s moral character is deeply flawed, that he has a life long record of betraying friends and business partners alike, that he holds an unbeatable record for flat out presidential lying, and that he’s clearly uninformed about the fundamentals of governing.  It’s hard to understand because these are the same people who have high moral standards for themselves, their friends, and those with whom they work. 

Be that as it may, they’re quick to point out that Trump promised to put a stop to immigration across the southern border, get tough with China, open talks with North Korea, renegotiate NAFTA, cut taxes, and do away with burdensome environmental regulations.  He’s kept his promises.  They approve.   The creeping fascism that goes along with it?  It’s just a liberal scare tactic.  Ignore it.

What’s With This Tithing Stuff

The ancient practice of tithing is rooted in the Hebrew scriptures where various tenths of one’s harvests were dedicated to God as signs of thanksgiving.  The cost was not too high, but high enough to make it important, not a thing to be shrugged off.  It demonstrated one’s  intentionality to be a part of the greater community of God’s people.   Harvest continues to be the time of year when we pause to celebrate Thanksgiving, often around the dining room table.  For observant Christians it’s usually a time renew their commitments as people of God doing the work God has given them to do.   
In most churches it’s also the dreaded season of stewardship, the annual fund raising effort needed to support the work of the church in the year ahead.  It’s dreaded because pastors dislike coming up with some new way to ask for money that does’t sound like it’s asking for money.  Parish councils, and their kin by many other names, dislike having to struggle with known costs and unknown revenues as they prepare budgets.  Some in the pews grumble that all the church ever wants is their money.  There will be talk of tithing, but not many will.  Most will pledge what they can without causing too much pain.  It never seems to work very well.  What happened to thanksgiving?
Maybe it would help to start at the other end.  The people of God, gathered in their places of worship, are called to be stewards of the treasures that have been given into their keeping.  They are to protect, enhance, and invest in them as accountable to God .  Some treasures are intimately personal: one’s own body, mind, and spirit for instance.  Families, careers, and friendships are treasures too.  Treating them as stewards responsible to them, but not for them, is guaranteed to bring greater joy to the adventure of life.  In grateful thanksgiving for all God’s goodness and loving kindness, for our creation, preservation and all the blessings of this life, Christians are called to invest their treasures so that they may continue to be holy treasures in the lives of others for generations yet to come.  
Start with that.  Then we can go back to the community of worship that is the church.  Providing the resources to support the work God has given it to do is a holy obligation.  Whether in a house or cathedral, church is a gathering place not for worship only.  It’s a safe place, perhaps the only safe place, for folks to meet who need help with substance abuse, emotional health, a nourishing meal, spiritual direction, and so much more.  From youth to old age, it’s where God’s love is made present in the lives of those who need it most.  Keeping it all going costs money – that’s the practical side of stewardship most congregations face each fall. 
It should be a time of joyfully thankful and holy giving.  The dedication of a significant portion of one’s resources to support the work of the church is an act of faith that brings rewards in strange measure.  Those who do so with a generous heart will tell you it’s fun, it brings a sense of gladness, and a peculiar desire to want to give more.  Rich or poor, it doesn’t seem to matter.  So have some fun this fall.  Tithe at your place of worship.

Fear, Power, and Respect

Woodward’s book “Fear” begins with a quote from candidate Donald Trump: “Real power is – I don’t even want to use the word – fear.”  Maybe he’s watched Patton too many times.  It might explain his penchant for tightly scripted rallies where he plays a warped version of George C. Scott playing George S. Patton.  He may even have a vague recollection of Machiavelli writing that it’s “better to be feared than loved (if you can’t have both).”  In any case, it’s clear that Trump has a need to surround himself with toadies who cater to his insatiable appetite to be liked while he presents himself as a tough, smart leader with right answers no one else has.  Even in his dealings with other leaders, his slithering ability to charm is only a facade behind which he expects to dictate the terms of the relationship.  It’s reminiscent of petty tyrants and old jokes about used car salesmen.
Intimidation, It seems, is the only power tool he knows how to use.  Intimidation creates fear, and for him that’s what real power is.  His anger, spitefulness, insults, and determination to punch and keep on punching, are how he instills fear.  Curiously, for those he can convince that he’s on their side, it inspires from them a form of respect.  He’s the one fighting on their behalf.  Calling with bellicosity a spade a spade, he’s saying what they would like to say for themselves, but know they don’t have the standing to do it.  The fearful are encouraged by the one who puts fear into the hearts of others.  Equally curious, the bellicose intimidator is a fearful coward who can’t stand on his own, but needs minions to keep him upright.
Fear is the way to get respect for those who confuse respect with being liked.  The need to be liked is a two sided coin.  On one side it means catering to the wishes of others, even at the cost of effectiveness.  It’s the side where the leader is afraid that if he or she is not liked, others won’t follow.  On the other side it means Trumpian use of intimidating fear to create the illusion of being liked while holding onto leadership power.  Leaders on both sides live in fear.  One side gives into it, the other side fights it by intimidating others to be even more fearful. 
Respect is not the same thing as being liked.  It’s admiration from others earned through demonstrated ability, perseverance, integrity, and genuine concern for the success and welfare of those with whom one works.  It’s what’s earned through the servant leadership fundamental to Jesus’s teachings, and secularized through the writings of people such as W. Edwards Deming.  It’s often demonstrated by ordinary people in ordinary places doing ordinary jobs, gaining the respect of their communities in the process.    
Over a long career I’ve encountered a few leaders and would be leaders who said they didn’t want to be respected, they wanted to be feared.  They made it known they would not suffer fools gladly.  I guess they heard it somewhere, and thought it would give them more control over how things were done.  It often looked like success in the short run, but it was a set up for failure in the end.  Using fear as a primary management tool always surrounds leaders with the very fools they claim not to suffer gladly.  Where did that suffer fools gladly thing come from anyway?
It came from St. Paul, in his second letter to the Corinthians, where he chastised them with the original saying.  He said they put up with fools gladly, falsely thinking themselves to be wise.  It seems that leaders who boast about not putting up with fools gladly, surround themselves with sycophants who play the fool to keep the leader’s intimidating temper from flaring up.  Those kind of leaders can’t tolerate the presence of others who won’t be intimidated and might be more able.  In the end they lead only to failure.
I look forward to the time when the presidency is again held by someone who has earned respect, and doesn’t need to use intimidating fear as a primary tool for forcing others to follow.

Scary Socialism

How scary is socialism?  From comments on my Facebook and Twitter posts, it’s exceedingly scary.  Democrats are all socialists, they say, and socialists want to strip away individual rights, nationalize industries, control all aspects of personal life, and tax people into submission as has been done in places like Cuba and Venezuela.  Socialist are all Marxist, which leads to Leninism, which leads to Stalinism, and who wants that?  Not only that, but Democrats, they say, secretly believe in a one world government, of which the United Nations is the camel’s nose under the tent.  Who are these people who say such things?  They claim to be conservatives, but are very unlike the conservatives of previous decades who were willing and able to live in creative tension with others in the public debate.  Populism is a misnomer.  Might as well call them tea party libertarians for lack of anything better.  But I digress.  Back to socialism as a convenient bogey man.
The story of socialism is well documented, with little agreement among its historians and theorists about what it is, other than concern for the well being of ordinary people, and belief that governments should be organized to have a role in seeing to it.  Some are earnest capitalists, some libertarian, some old time Marxists, some more liberal, and some more conservative.  If there is anything that unifies their thinking, it’s steadfast opposition to plutocracies, oligarchies, and the fascist direction they tend to go in.  
American interest in socialism as an element of our democratic processes and capitalistic economy developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  Evolutionary theory, developments in physics, progressive political ideas, they all contributed to various elements of socialism as it was then understood.  Government was the necessary tool for assuring the safety of food and drugs, establishing and defending the rights of children, workers and their unions, and for controlling robber baron oligarchies.  Many, both liberal and conservative, were concerned about an economy dependent on major corporations organized under the exclusive control of and financially benefitting a very few.  Business, they believed, existed not for profit only, but also for the public good, and government was needed to make it happen.  
Christian Socialism, which flourished at the same time, focused on the expectation that following in the way of the Sermon on the Mount, and Jesus’s related teachings, could be expressed through government programs that would bring the kingdom of God a bit closer.  The Great War, WWI, stripped away the illusion that godly perfection was near at hand, but the connection had been made in mainline denominations that following Jesus meant to be politically engaged, doing what one could to influence public policy in a more Christlike direction.  
Yes, romantic interest in Russian communism could also be found on the fringes of socialist thinking, but was never a part of the mainstream.  Yet it is that kind of dictator socialism that has captured the mind and fears of conservatives who are unwilling to comprehend it in any other way.  
Against the tide of socialist thinking was an equally strong belief that American self reliant individualism was incompatible with it, and stood in the breach defending individual rights, especially the right of property.  It feared that confiscatory socialist policies would replace self reliance with reliance on the government, eroding the American values of hard work and personal ambition.
Adherents of the myth of self reliant individualism have made it the lynchpin through which all political decisions must be channeled.  It’s helped pave the way for tea party type movements, and has given uncritical encouragement to right wing libertarians who increasingly drift toward fascism.  
They’ve become adept at picking low hanging fruit from the worst of socialism (Russia, Cuba, etc.), selling it as the secret produce of Democrats and anything liberal or progressive.  “Oh, so you’re a liberal; that means you’re a socialist, and that means you want government to own and run everything, including out lives.”  Isn’t that the way it goes? 
At least in part, it’s a problem of vocabulary.  Liberals, or progressives if you prefer, use a different vocabulary.  The American form of republican democratic government isn’t the enemy, not the problem, not something other than or foreign to the American ideal.  Like local and state governments, the federal government is a vehicle for bringing the American ideal into reality.  It’s government “of the people, by the people and for the people.”  As the people’s agency, elected by the people and accountable to them, it has a moral responsibility to enact policies that promote the general welfare without prejudice.  Because individuals cannot prosper except through community, it’s government’s duty to see that the community is capable of promoting prosperity, not for some but for all.  When engaged in public debate about how government can best be used to address crucial issues, socialism isn’t a word likely to come up, at least not by liberals.  Oddly enough, they’re more interested in creating conditions in which business, large and small, are more likely to prosper as employees and customers prosper.  
Working on important issues requires asking whether government is the right tool to use, does it have the resources, can it be effective, and how could progress be measured?  Issues that flow across governmental borders may be addressed best at the federal level, in cooperation with local and state governments.  Matters deemed essential to national well being need national solutions.  Volunteerism, NGO programs, and individual charity can be powerful tools for good, but, as the old saying goes, “You can’t keep just your part of the pool clean.”  It’s the whole pool or nothing.  To keep the whole pool clean requires public policy using public resources.  Keeping the whole pool clean may restrict certain kinds of individual and corporate behavior, while requiring others.  For individuals to prosper in their ambitious hard work, well financed programs may be needed for public health, education, and welfare.  For trade and commerce to prosper, well financed programs may be needed for infrastructure of all kinds.  For the environment to sustain life in its many forms, well financed programs may be needed to regulate and manage the way the environment is used.  
Conservatives are, for the most part, willing to spend without limit on national defense, but are skeptical about the need for other forms of federal government involvement in the lives of people.  Liberals are, for the most part, skeptical about the need for massive spending on national security, but willing to spend what is needed for the public good.  Conservatives are reluctant to give up individual rights to government control.  Liberals are reluctant to allow individual rights to erode the well being of others.  Conservatives tend to attract anti taxers.  Liberals tend to view taxes as investments in the well being of the community.  The public debate, at its best, seeks to find places where the two can agree.  The right wing fright fest about the venial evil of socialism works against it.  They may generate a lot of social media attention, but it’s, what’s the phrase, oh yes, Fake News, and useless in guiding the nation toward better public policy. 

Puritanism’s Support for Trump

I can’t say I know a single Puritan, but strains of puritanism linger in strange places. The thought came to mind when reading in the Psalms recently.  There are numerous passages assuring the reader that “The Lord loves the righteous; the Lord cares for the stranger; he sustains the orphan and widow, but frustrates the way of the wicked.” (Ps. 146)  One might wonder how thoughts of puritanism worked their way into a passage like that, so I’ll explain.
Important to Puritan thinking was the idea of the reprobate, one predestined for eternal damnation.  In their calvinistic way of understanding God’s grace, some were predestined for salvation, and many were predestined for damnation.  While one could never be sure who was who, it was obvious that certain lifestyles indicated damnation.  The known reprobates were lazy, shiftless, irresponsible, drank too much, and didn’t adhere to the social standards of the community.  There were also indicators of salvation.  The Lord showered the righteous, whom he loved, with the good things of life.  The way of the wicked was frustrated, and it showed in how they lived their misbegotten lives.
It’s that part that lingers on.  The very conservative people I know are concerned about the moral decay of America, which they understand to include liberalism (whatever that is) and homosexuality.  They’re loathe to admit it also includes greater anxiety about the rise of non-white people displacing their majority status, or that a black president was a step too far, but it’s there in the subtext of their conversations.  They believe their own way of life (and thinking) exhibits the kind of righteousness God prefers and has blessed.  
They’re not without genuine compassion for those in need.  Of course the unfortunate need to be helped, one at a time, as they deserve, through local resources, mostly charitable, as needed to get them back on their feet.  But the reprobates, the lazy shiftless ones, are not deserving until they show willingness to change their ways.  Their misfortune is their own fault, and that’s the way it is – bless their souls.  
Liberals pouring tax payer dollars down the rat hole trying to make life better for them is more than wasteful.  It’s misuse of money forcibly taken from those who’ve earned it to make life easy for those who aren’t willing to earn it for themselves.  If liberals had their way, government would run everything, no one would have any rights, everyone would be entitled, and the worst of European socialism would replace American democracy.  Opening the flood gates of immigration, liberals would cause the nation to be overrun by the dregs of society from violent countries, reprobates all, sinking the country into the depths of damnation.
Who stands in the way of such a disaster?  Trump does.      
What makes Trump not simply tolerable, but worthy of support?  He understands and agrees with them that to restore national morality, the government must stop mollycoddling reprobates, and enact policies that reward those who are willing to work hard to help themselves.  After all, if the Lord helps those who help them selves, shouldn’t the government should do likewise?  Moreover, he understands that shutting down the tide of immigration across the southern border is needed to keep the nation a place of safety and prosperity for the hard working people God has destined to be blessed.
Not so many years ago fundamentalist Christians asserted that world was a battleground between good and evil, the outcome of which was uncertain.  Christians were called to be prayer warriors standing in the breach to take up the fight against the Devil’s forces.  The overtly religious fervor of that call faded, but its secular version has lived on and has political staying power.
That Trump’s own lifestyle is a blazing neon sign of sure and certain reprobation is offset by his wealth, and public adoration of the (hard) working class on whose behalf, he, and only he, will make America Great Again.  Whatever his eternal destiny, God has made him the agent of their desires for the present, and that’s good enough for them.  

It’s a remnant of puritanism with a faustian twist.

This little piggy went to market, but the market had taken a hike.

The stock market has taken a five meter dive.  It’s been jumping off the low board for a while, but this was a big one.  Because it happened on Wednesday, there will probably be a modest rebound by Friday as investment managers rebalance their portfolios.  But what’s up?
Is it a reaction to the Fed raising interest rates, as Trump has claimed?  Probably not. They’ve been in the works for over a year and are highly predictable.  More likely the market is showing deep concern over the disruptions caused by the good and easy to win tariff battles that aren’t working quite the way Trump expected.  It’s also possible that the market is expressing some discomfort with the amorality of the administration that has become manifest in blatant immorality.   You can add a few members of congress to that.  
In an odd way, the market claims amorality for itself, but expects a degree of morality from political leaders who create the environment in which it can make some money.  While many investors have benefitted from the recent tax act, the market is aware that it has ballooned the deficit and forced the debt into dangerous territory.  It makes the market nervous.  
Corporate earnings may be up, but the market understands how much is due to increased sales and improvements in productivity, and how much has been generated by stock buy backs and accounting tricks that jack up stock value.  Savvy investors have made money but know it’s all smoke and mirrors that can’t last.  Time to bail, at least for a little while.  
The market knows that vaunted reductions in regulations haven’t done anything to improve government’s commitment to customer service or make it more efficient.  Add that to the list of causes.  It sounds schizophrenic, but that’s the way the market works.  There’s nothing invisible about the invisible hand of the market.  It’s out there probing everything from global warming to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin as it tries to assess how to make money.
Speaking of things global, global economic growth is projected to be a tad lower than previously expected.  International trade relationships are strained.  China is not a weak as Trump thinks.  Russia is not as strong as Trump thinks.  Saudi Arabia is not as friendly as Trump thinks.  Other nations are carefully romancing each other to see how they can circumvent Trumpian intentions without putting themselves at greater economic risk.  They’ve always known he’s a buffoon, but now they understand he’s a dangerous buffoon.    
On top of it, the Brexit debacle illustrates the fantasy of thinking that old time nationalism can restore a golden age that never existed.  None of it makes for a happy market.  The market is not nationalistic.  It takes a global view.  When the world’s largest economy begins acting like a moderate sized 19th century economy using a 17th century economic theory to restore an imaginary mid 20th century industrial base, the market will milk it for whatever it can get, and then take a hike.  
Is that happening now?  Maybe.  I don’t know.  Stand by.  We shall see.