Month: April 2025

Rebuilding America is being thrust upon us, whether we want it or not.
It will be a complex task, so I want to highlight just three foundational steps.

First, reconstitute a national ethos of what it means to be an American.
Second, restructure the federal government with an emphasis on efficiency, effectiveness, and customer satisfaction.
Third, elect legislators more committed to good government at a practical level and less to ideological extremism.

It may sound idealistic, but we have little choice. One can only hope it begins before we are forced to endure three and a half more years of Trumpism’s delusional incompetence, as it attempts to replace liberal democracy with oligarchic autocracy.

The Trump administration’s wanton destruction of principle, purpose, and programs has forced us to confront structural problems in government that we’ve known about for decades. We’ve also failed abysmally to teach each generation of Americans the meaning of being American—at least as well as we teach immigrants studying for their citizenship exams. In other words, we created the conditions under which ideological crackpots won elections at every level, conspiracy theories of the most outrageous kind became “alternative truth,” and progressives too often mistook funding and general support for actual results.

Angry discontent with the conditions of life—especially among a large swath of the public—has fueled scapegoating of coastal elites, university intellectuals, the news media, immigrants, and various ethnicities. That discontent is not without cause. The postwar global economy, once dominated by the U.S., has moved on. Rapid technological change has rendered many people’s skills obsolete. For reasons more selfish than ideological, decades of talk radio fomented discontent and incendiary anger—ultimately directed against liberal democracy itself. And here we are.

Reconstituting a national ethos of what it means to be American may be the most difficult of the three. It cannot mean uniformity. It must accommodate regional and ethnic differences, all anchored in central principles. But what might those be?

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are good places to start. The Declaration is more than a statement about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—it is a clear outline of what a free people cannot tolerate from their government. Its message remains valid. The Constitution, including its amendments, is not only the law of the land; it is the evolving story of how our collective understanding of liberal democracy has developed over the centuries.

Obviously, these essentials must be taught in every classroom—from first grade through graduate school. But we can’t wait for students to grow up to implant a new national ethos. I don’t know how, but some form of civic education must happen now in every adult community across the country. No doubt, you dear readers have good ideas.

Restructuring the federal government may be somewhat easier—only because we have no choice. The old structure, inefficient as it was, has been so corrupted by the current administration that it no longer has structural integrity. It must be rebuilt.

A good place to start might be the civil service. It must remain a nonpartisan, professional institution—responsive to legislative and executive leadership, and committed to customer satisfaction as expressed by the public it serves. It must also be easier for civil servants to be promoted, demoted, transferred, or fired—while still protecting their rights and dignity. The military may offer some guidance here; something similar to its personnel system might be developed. Above all, efficiency and effectiveness must become the primary standards by which civil servant performance is measured.

The legislative process is always messy, never efficient, and often wasteful. That’s one of democracy’s costs. That said, it works best when legislators represent a broad range of views and interests. I have no idea how to create the conditions for candidates of good faith to be elected, but I’ll suggest this much:

Voices of respected public wisdom must do three things to influence both voters and candidates

Lauren Jackson published a fascinating piece in the May 19, New York Times, exploring the many ways in which people search for alternatives to religion. Spiritual hunger persists even in the most secular of societies and it’s not surprising that people seek ways to satisfy it. My gut-level reaction is that there is no true alternative to religion. What is religion, after all, but a set of repetitive words and actions expressing spiritual hope—if not belief?

Religion is so integral to human life that those without it often create something to fill the void. Even confirmed atheists can turn their atheism into a kind of religion. As Jackson noted, people try all sorts of things—yoga, meditation, self-help routines, therapeutic practices. Some are on what they call a “spiritual but not religious” path that, in effect, becomes its own religion. People will make a religion out of almost anything they believe might satisfy their spiritual hunger. The most deluded make themselves their own god.

Everyone who seeks to satisfy spiritual hunger has a religion of some kind. That’s not to say everyone is on such a quest. Some go through life in a state of complacency, never giving spirituality much thought. Others are so overwhelmed by the daily grind that they lack the time and energy to consider spiritual hunger, let alone pursue its satisfaction.

The alternatives people are searching for are not to religion itself, but to the forms of religion expressed through established churches, synagogues, and mosques. As a Christian pastor, I’m well aware that church attendance has been declining for decades—for good and sufficient reason. One segment of the church became complacent in its proclamation of the gospel and provided poor instruction to young people, who grew up to find little of value in what they remembered as Sunday school fables. Another part of the church spent two decades mired in sex abuse scandals, eroding trust and credibility. A third offered a theology of feel-good prosperity, replacing the way of the cross. A fourth battered the faithful with fear of the devil and threats of eternal damnation. All of them challenged the legitimacy of the institutional church as a faithful representative of Jesus Christ.

That would be trouble enough—but it wasn’t the only challenge. The social upheavals of the 1960s and ’70s called into question the legitimacy of all established norms. Churches found themselves particularly ill-equipped to grapple with women’s roles in the church and the complex realities of human sexuality. The resulting debates were heated and divisive. As in every age since time began, accepted social norms were in tension with God’s way of truth, justice, and love. I can understand why many would look elsewhere for spiritual nourishment.

It is axiomatic that one cannot create something more moral than oneself. A religion created by human hands will eventually collapse under the weight of its creators’ own moral flaws. What truly satisfies spiritual hunger—what is undergirded by moral truth—cannot be manufactured. It must be divinely revealed. Prophets and sages have served as the agents of that revelation. Though human and imperfect, their testimony has proven trustworthy through the centuries. Likewise, our capacity to understand divine truth and live it out is limited by our own fallibility and ignorance. Yet the journey toward divine truth is never-ending—and it is a journey of progress.

More recent data suggest that the decline in church attendance has begun to level off, and in some places, even reverse. What has changed—or is changing? I believe there is growing recognition that the institutional church is merely the vessel through which God’s divine truth is proclaimed to the world. The institution and its leaders may stumble, but the light of Christ will not be extinguished. God’s truth will be made known. In Jesus Christ, God’s truth is revealed not only through prophets and sages, but through God incarnate—the Word made flesh.

The fullness of that revelation is beyond our grasp, but the essentials are clear. Spiritual hunger is never fully satisfied, but it is richly fed and nourished by God’s abounding and steadfast love. The way of peace, harmony, and true prosperity is the way of love revealed in all that Jesus taught and commanded. Faith is part belief, part trust—and even faith the size of a mustard seed is enough. No one, at any time or place, is excluded from God’s saving grace. Spiritual practices can assist us on the journey, but making them into a religion unto themselves can obstruct the fuller presence of God in one’s life. Worship, prayer, and community are necessary for spiritual nourishment.

Different denominations express our shared faith in different ways. No one denomination is the true church—but some institutions that call themselves Christian fall far short of the path Jesus set before us.

And what of other religions? It is not ours to limit how God may be working with and through others. We only know the faith that has been entrusted to us—and we want to share it with everyone. Yet we are also called to humility, reminded by the words God spoke through the prophet Isaiah:—Isaiah 55

Seek the Lord while he may be found,
call upon him while he is near;
let the wicked forsake their way,
and the unrighteous their thoughts;
let them return to the Lord, that he may have mercy on them,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
and do not return there until they have watered the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,

so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

When Jesus was arrested and crucified, it was because of the threat he posed to the power of temple leadership and the authority of Rome. Especially troubling was the growing number of the lower classes who believed Jesus was the rightful King of the Jews by divine appointment, and that he, not Caesar, was Lord. It was nonsense, of course, but troubling just the same.

On Thursday before Easter, Christians reaffirm that what was nonsense to the political leaders of his day was true, and is true today. Jesus is Lord, and his authority is not dependent on any king, president, political party, or popular movement. It means that Jesus and his followers remain a threat to political leaders. Not only will faithful Christians not subordinate The Way of the Cross to political demands, they will continue to advocate for the full dignity of every human being to be recognized by civil authority without discrimination. It has been harder for Christians to equally value the sacredness of creation and humanity’s sacred obligation to care for it, but it is a growing concern that will not be abandoned to the whims of the market.

There are loud voices claiming to be Christian that have allied themselves with secular power, social prejudices, and authoritarian rule. They are false prophets who have misled many who believe they are doing the right thing as they turn away from Calvary and towards Caesar.

That may sound harsh, but it’s intended to be a wake-up call to the truth. It may also sound self-righteous in the extreme, but it is simply a confession that the church has often erred, as has each of us, including me. In this holiest of holy days, it is a call to renew commitment to follow Jesus in the way of love and godly justice as best we are able. Speaking only for myself, the best of my ability is both limited and too often sporadic. I’ll try to do better with God’s help.

“Easter is upon us with colored eggs, chocolate bunnies, brunches, and parades. Amidst the fun, it is for Christians the highest of high holy days. So here is a brief primer on the most important three days in the Christian calendar. They last from sundown on Thursday to sunrise on Sunday and are called The Triduum.

The three day service begins on Thursday evening and commemorates three important events: the establishment of the Eucharist or Holy Communion; the new commandment to love one another as Jesus has loved us; and Christ’s demonstration of what it means to be a servant leader. It is also the evening when Jesus was arrested and taken to temple leaders for a show trial.

It is the evening of the Last Supper, probably a Passover meal, a Seder. During the meal, Jesus did two extraordinary things. First, he took a piece of bread, gave the blessing, broke it, and said, “This is my body given for you.” After supper, he took a cup of wine, said the blessing, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for you and many for the forgiveness of sins.” It sealed the new covenant God had promised through the voice of Jeremiah. Each time we celebrate the Eucharist, Holy Communion, we participate in the blessing of this last supper.

That same night, he washed his disciples’ feet. It was something one could do for oneself but would never do for somebody else. The Lord bending to wash his disciples’ feet demonstrated the servant leadership they were to take up.

Friday, Good Friday, remembers the completion of the trial before temple leaders and the Roman governor Pilate. It follows Jesus’ pathway to Golgotha, the place of execution outside the city gates where he was crucified along with two others. It was a form of execution reserved for the worst of criminals and anyone who incited insurrection.

Christians gather at noon on Friday in a church stripped of all its adornments. They listen to the story of his crucifixion and his burial in a tomb hewn out of rock. It is a time for deep, profound meditation on the meaning of the cross for all humanity.

They gather again for the great vigil of Easter in a darkened church after sundown on Saturday evening. They listen to the story of God’s people from creation through the prophecies of the Messiah who will redeem all of God’s people. Midway through the service, Christ’s resurrection is proclaimed in loud voices, the lights come on, and all the glory of the Easter decorations is revealed. The service continues with hymns, prayers, readings, and joyful celebration of Holy Communion.

The three days are ended. What follows are the traditional Easter Sunday morning services of joyful celebration.”

How can we explain the ease with which Trump has been able to bully big business and major universities into surrendering whatever integrity they claim to have had? Part of the answer lies in the nature of the institutions themselves.

Corporations are legal persons but they are not human beings. They are not moral beings and do not have a conscience. They cannot feel emotions and have no ability to experience or recognize guilt. Whatever morality or ethical standard a corporation appears to possess is derived from its human leadership, whose influence is temporary, lasting only during their tenure.

Standards of behavior with any semblance of permanence or morality exist only through government enforcement. This creates a competitive environment where corporate leaders and their agents strive to minimize regulations that hinder their ability to operate as they see fit, often without regard for the common good or national welfare. Securing special privileges or benefits for the corporation is even more desirable but increases vulnerability to the political whims of persons in high office.

CEOs are legally accountable for operating within regulatory limits, but their compensation is primarily tied to shareholder return on investment. This metric, more important than profitability, is enforced by compensation packages linked to stock prices and stock options. It creates a powerful incentive to subordinate everything else to personal financial reward. It partially explains why major corporate CEOs have been willing to challenge Trump only when the disruptive impact of tariffs posed a greater threat to their financial interests than the destruction of the  government’s ability to serve the needs of the people.

Major universities represent a different scenario. Unlike major corporations, they are part of a centuries-long tradition that emphasizes ethical and moral values as guiding principles. They justifiably pride themselves on becoming world-leading research institutions and providers of advanced education. However, it has come at a cost. They depend heavily on federal grants, often amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars funding their cutting-edge research.  It’s a beneficial symbiotic relationship as long as both parties operate in good faith.  But it makes them vulnerable to political pressure, as demonstrated by their willingness to compromise ethical principles when funding is threatened.

Universities could uphold that tradition if their leadership were unified in the moral courage to collectively resist the Trump administration’s bad-faith immorality. However, the administration’s “divide and conquer” tactics have proven effective; university presidents and boards of trustees have demonstrated a lack of moral fortitude. While they may eventually reclaim their roles as ethical and moral leaders in society, their weak knees and drooping hands are shameful. 

We cannot depend on major corporations and universities to do the right thing. Fortunately, other actors, formal and informal associations dedicated to building up a stronger and more just society, are the defenders of liberal democracy and hope for a better, more promising future. They are more independent of government control and not as vulnerable to financial ruin, represent the needs and interests of individuals and advocate for public policies that promote the common good and general welfare. They are numerous and diverse, with shifting alliances based on specific policy goals.

What distinguishes them from corporate interests is their ethical foundation. Beyond financial responsibility, their accountability stems from those they represent and the needs they articulate. The primary measures of success are: whether their voices are heard, whether they exert real influence, and whether they make a tangible difference. These outcomes are based on trust, acknowledging that progress may alternate with setbacks, but sustained commitment ensures future gains.

The millions who participated in the April 5th demonstrations exemplify their power. Their activities include campaigns to flood politicians’ offices with calls and emails, organize support for candidates, and expose the cruelty of oppressive policies and violations of human and civil rights. Their continued success hinges on maintaining momentum and resisting complacency.  April 5 was a great start and now the hard work begins.

Editing with Gemini

I have been using Gemini for about two months to help edit my articles. It has been working pretty well until my most recent one. In the final editing cycle, Gemini changed some of the language so it no longer reflected my style of writing. The substance of the article is mine; I wrote it. But there are enough stylistic changes to no longer read as I write. I found that disappointing and offensive. Some explanation of why I started using Gemini may be in order.

Writing an article is quite a production for a blind guy typing. I am most comfortable typing but am learning to dictate. I type very fast, but sometimes my thinking gets ahead of my typing, and strange things happen. This can be made worse by my fingers straying to the wrong keys, which they do with some frequency. Dictating should be an improvement, but it turns out Siri has a limited vocabulary of words she knows how to spell, and sometimes doesn’t listen to what I am saying. Moreover, I have to speak slowly, and that disturbs the process of creative thinking. Nevertheless, a rough draft eventually takes form.

I listen to the first draft and try to fix the most egregious errors. As any writer will tell you, this sometimes means cutting out entire sections, rearranging paragraphs, or filling in much-needed transitions between main points. The next step has been for my patient and much-harassed wife to review and edit for me. I make final changes after I have listened to what she has done, and she edits it again before publication… we hope. It’s not like she is sitting around waiting to edit my drafts. She is a professional artist with her own career and demands on her time.

So, a little over two months ago, I began using Gemini to do the initial editing and have been very happy with it until my recent article on messaging to win elections. It is quite a bit longer than most Country Parson articles and has more complicated arguments. I ran it through Gemini and then had my wife read it. She had some very good observations, made a few changes, and suggested I make more. I did and ran it through Gemini again. It still needed some tweaking. When I had finished, I ran it through Gemini a third time and published. It was a mistake.

When I listened to the published piece, I was shocked to hear something I wrote in a style that was not my own. I will keep using Gemini but be much more careful with it in the future. Even this short piece has been run through Gemini.”

Here is what Gemini did for this one:

Here’s a breakdown of the changes:

• Spelling: Corrected “aproductionm” to “production,” “follwoing” to “following,” “a. Eye.” to “AI,” and other typos.
• Punctuation: Added commas, semicolons, and other punctuation for clarity.
• Grammar: Corrected subject-verb agreement and pronoun usage.
• Clarity and Flow: Rephrased some sentences for better readability and flow. Removed redundancies.

Stopping White House Wast Fraud and Abuse

“Our democracy is being torn apart. Vital government services are being eliminated or weakened to the point of ineffectiveness. The OIG’s promise to root out fraud and waste has itself been a fraudulent waste of resources, time, and public energy. To save our democracy and restore the integrity of the federal government, the messaging of progressive and moderate parties and candidates must change. Parties and candidates must clearly define what they stand for and why it matters. Vague concepts like “democracy” and “integrity” lack impact in the public mind.

I suspect you receive the same political fundraising emails I do. They all follow the same formula: the end of the month or quarter is near, the fundraising goal hasn’t been met, the need is urgent; please donate now. They ask, “How can we ever win without more money?” Included are vague promises of positive outcomes if the candidate is elected and dire warnings of negative consequences if they aren’t. These appeals have become boring and unappealing.

For the American Dream to become more reality and less illusion, the constant barrage of fundraising messages must be replaced with simple, truthful, and easily understood statements about how a restored democracy will address the basic needs of families and local communities. The new messaging must speak to the needs of the voting public as they express them. Special attention must be given to voices that have often been ignored or silenced. Starting with the ordinary aspects of daily life, people want certainty and security about adequate housing, food, transportation, clothing, and sufficient time for rest and recreation. These are basic needs shared by everyone, but the specific definitions of “adequate,” “security,” and “certainty” should come from the people themselves.

Moderate and progressive messaging has failed when it speaks down to those with less and panders to those with more. It’s even worse when it emphasizes fears and anxieties. While Christians may have confidence in our hope for what is unseen, the voting public wants tangible and achievable hope, backed by evidence.

For all the services the federal government provides, most Americans perceive it as a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy. There are enough examples, however flimsy, to support this view. Therefore, we must acknowledge the need to make the government more efficient and effective. The most important step is to reorient the bureaucracy’s structure and procedures to prioritize consumer and customer service. The needs and satisfaction of the public must be the starting point, not just the end goal. This can only happen when a new administration and members of Congress make it a central focus of their rhetoric and actions.

The current administration has caused significant damage, and the extent of the damage over the next three years is unknown. Rebuilding will require time. This presents an opportunity for the administration and Congress to employ systems experts, rather than lawyers, to recommend more efficient and effective structures and processes. Lawyers should translate these recommendations into legislative language, but they should not be involved in the design phase. While I am deeply suspicious of the uncontrolled use of AI, it may be a valuable tool in the design phase.

Simple, straightforward, honest outlines of how basic needs will be met by a new administration and Congress are the foundation for realizing the American Dream. Other essential legislative elements include comprehensive renewal of the nation’s infrastructure, the orientation of industry toward a technologically driven future, the importance of a well-educated, healthy public, and a constructive role for the U.S. in the international community. However important, these are too abstract to be the core of the messaging needed.

New messaging must address the ambiguous concept of “fairness.” The American public values fairness and detests unfairness. The New Deal and Fair Deal were appealing because fairness was broadly distributed (though not universally) for the benefit of the community, creating opportunities for individuals. Trouble began when significant portions of the public were denied access to this “fair deal.” Those in power reacted by labeling national welfare as “socialism,” arguing that “true Americans” were rugged individualists who needed little from the government. The 1980s furthered this individualistic approach, allowing the market to concentrate power in the hands of corporations and big finance, promising that wealth would “trickle down” to everyone. This promise was never fulfilled. For various reasons, this seems to have transformed adults into squabbling toddlers, complaining “it’s not fair” whenever their personal desires are thwarted.

Even the radical right has recognized the dangers of unchecked individualism. They seek to create national unity by imposing a form of fascist nationalism, where a wealthy elite would use white supremacy to coerce the entire nation into an artificial unity. Moderate and progressive messaging must clearly articulate that individual opportunity is dependent on national prosperity, defined by shared values of liberal democracy. While I generally avoid political attack rhetoric, a direct challenge to the “it’s not fair” mentality might be necessary. A community or nation cannot be prosperous, harmonious, or secure if it doesn’t provide opportunity for everyone without distinction.

The old supply-side promise of trickle-down prosperity never materialized. It skewed the playing field toward the wealthy and powerful, hindering the American Dream for most Americans. The correction must begin with significant changes to the tax code. Again, while important, this is an abstract issue, difficult to make the core of the new messaging we need. For the last 50 years, we have heard that taxes are the confiscation of our money, used for purposes beyond our control, and that we could use that money more effectively for our own well-being. This narrative must be replaced with one that emphasizes taxes as our collective investment in the welfare and prosperity of the entire nation, especially those in middle and lower-income brackets. It’s about making personal investment in the nation’s well-being a highly esteemed American virtue.

We need higher marginal tax rates on the super-wealthy and a requirement that all profitable corporations pay their fair share of the cost of running the country. Just as importantly, the tax code needs to be changed to reduce the emphasis on profitability and stock prices as the sole measures of corporate success. These factors, while important, must be balanced with requirements that corporations invest not only in plant and equipment but also in their employees. This may be the most challenging message to construct and translate into legislation. The very idea clashes with the mercantile libertarian ideology that dominates corporate executives, market analysts, and investment advisors. Overcoming their resistance will be difficult, but it is essential.”