Month: November 2025

A joyful holiday was once again overshadowed by politically charged violence — or was it? The Afghan refugee who killed one National Guardsman and critically wounded another was himself a veteran of America’s war in Afghanistan. Those who knew him say he suffered from PTSD, and that it may have played a role in what happened. On the other hand, he did drive across the country to carry out his ambush, a level of premeditation that makes it impossible for anyone at a distance — including me — to assume a simple explanation.

That didn’t stop the president from leaping to his favorite target: immigrants from poor countries. His response was to demand investigations of every Afghan immigrant and to halt immigration from every “Third World country.” To add insult to injury, he has also called for a critical review of all green-card holders.

It is a terrible failure of leadership. What we need is not sweeping ethnic suspicion, but focused attention on the actual sources of lethal violence that have become disturbingly normal in American life. National security is not strengthened by broad-brush ethnic cleansing. It is strengthened when our intelligence agencies do the work for which they are trained.

Send the National Guard home. Let the police do the work they are trained to do.

Looking for God in all the Right Places

The Episcopal Church, what is it?

“I hear you are an Episcopal priest. What does that mean? Are you a Christian? Are you Protestant or Catholic?”

We Episcopalians seem to remain something of a mystery to many people. It’s hard to understand how we can stay so well hidden in plain sight, given that the very well-known National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. is, in fact, the Cathedral Church of the diocese of Washington DC and our national cathedral . What follows is a brief introduction for anyone who might be curious.

The best way to understand what we believe is to come and experience the way we worship. Our regular Sunday service includes extensive readings from Holy Scripture, hymns and prayers, confession of sin, public testimony to the faith of the Church, and an exhortation to live more fully into Christian discipleship. All of this culminates in the most important part of the service: Holy Communion. In it, we believe that Christ is truly present in the bread and the wine, nourishing us with divine life and strength for the days ahead. The way we worship really is at the very center of what we believe, proclaim, and try to live.

The sign out front says that all are welcome — and we mean it. That includes everyone who seeks to know Christ and be known by him, as well as those who are simply curious and have no real intention of joining anything at all. It includes people from every walk and  condition of life. Entering into an unfamiliar church can be intimidating, but don’t worry: just follow along, without feeling any pressure to do anything in particular. You are always free to speak with the clergy afterward and ask any question you like.  

We adopt positions on a wide array of theological and social matters but have no magisterium — no centralized teaching authority that demands uniform assent. We treasure questions, respect doubts, and take seriously the task of listening for the guidance of the Holy Spirit as we discern how to respond to the world as faithful disciples of Jesus Christ. It is a messy and sometimes inefficient process: too slow for those who want urgent change, and too fast for those who fear departing from God’s will. But it reflects our commitment to being a living, praying, thinking Church.

Congregations vary in  their styles of worship. Some are very Anglo-Catholic, with lots of “smells and bells” and formal ceremonial. Others are quite plain, with minimal ceremonial and a more informal, down-home character. Most fall somewhere in between, reflecting the customs and temperament of the local community. Yet in each the shape of the liturgy will be the same.

An Historical Note

Christianity came to the British Isles very early in the life of the Church, likely by the mid second century during the Roman occupation of Britain. After the Roman legions withdrew, pagan Germanic tribes — the Anglo-Saxons — invaded and settled in what is now England, pushing many of the indigenous British Christians into Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. From these regions, Celtic Christian missionaries returned to evangelize the Anglo-Saxons, while at the same time missionaries sent from Rome were working from the south and east. Eventually, in the seventh century, Celtic and Roman Christians in England agreed to form one English church, following Roman practice while retaining distinctive local customs.

In the early 1500s, King Henry VIII, unable to obtain an annulment from the Pope, declared himself Supreme Head of the Church of England and rejected papal authority. This led English church leaders to wrestle with a difficult question: if we are not Roman Catholic, and not entirely Protestant in the Continental sense, what are we? What emerged over time was Anglicanism — a reformed Catholic tradition, retaining Catholic worship and structure while embracing certain Protestant reforms.

As the British Empire expanded, the Church of England planted churches throughout its territories. Over time, these churches developed their own local identities and eventually became self-governing, while remaining in communion with one another and with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Together they now form the worldwide Anglican Communion.

If we are part of the Anglican Communion, why are we called Episcopal rather than Anglican? After the American Revolution, anything too closely associated with England was politically uncomfortable. What had been the Church of England in the colonies became The Episcopal Church. The word episcopal refers to bishops, and we are a church governed by bishops. True to the spirit of the American Revolution, however, we also developed a democratic form of church governance. Authority is exercised through a bicameral General Convention, with an upper house of bishops and a lower house of clergy and lay deputies. Instead of an archbishop, we have a Presiding Bishop.

Winning With Hope, Not Fear: The Real Lesson of Zohran Mamdani’s Victory

The media are flooded with speculation that Zohran Mamdani is now the model for all new Democratic candidates, as if only social democrats can be elected. It’s utter foolishness, and I wonder why reasonably sophisticated observers fall for it.

Nevertheless, Mamdani is a model in one important way. It isn’t his politics, youth, or charm. What mattered was his ability to connect with the deepest desires—and perhaps anxieties—of a majority of voters in a way that gave them hope for a better future.

Political operatives who rush to embrace every charming young candidate with vaguely leftish views will fail. They will have missed the point. Candidates who can win are candidates who reach deeply into the desires and anxieties of the voters they hope to represent. They work hard to understand those desires. They work hard to be recognized as one of the people—living among them, working with them, sharing their hopes and their worries—and they offer potential solutions that are more than the same old thing.

For defenders of American liberal democracy to field candidates who can win, they must support those who, like Mamdani, connect even more effectively—through hope and reasonable expectations for a better future. Many political pundits insist fear will always defeat what they dismiss as Pollyanna fantasies. They point to Mamdani as nothing more than an exception.

Yet consider Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR,  Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson in his first three years, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, and Biden. Each won by appealing to hope, then followed with determined efforts to deliver on it. Each had successes and failures, but each expanded opportunity for more people, strengthening the nation. I reluctantly include Reagan—whose rhetoric ignited some of the brush that became today’s MAGA fire—but he did generate a renewed feeling of hope for America’s future.

So back to the question of imitating Mamdani. Candidates who treasure liberal democracy must understand and be part of the culture, desires, and anxieties of the constituents they hope to represent. Sophisticated advertising and social-media outreach may be required in modern campaigning, but even more essential is old-fashioned retail engagement—face-to-face, door-to-door, and group-to-group. From rural communities to inner-city neighborhoods, voters are persuaded when they believe they are known by the candidate, and they know the candidate in return.

Cuomo tried to fake it, as many candidates do, but this time voters saw through him. They believed Mamdani was authentic. Whether he can sustain that belief will be tested in the years ahead. The mayor of New York has a great bully pulpit but limited authority to act.

What’s true in New York City cannot simply be replicated elsewhere. Every place has its own reality. Here in southern Virginia, successful candidates must do more than advocate for the military. They must speak to the hopes and concerns of enlisted personnel, junior officers, and their families. That is far more important than promising a new carrier or submarine. At the same time, many voters recognize that their social and economic welfare does not necessarily benefit from the vast sums invested in the military, and they too deserve to be heard. It’s a modern version of the old town-and-gown conflict: each prospers from the other, but each is suspicious of the other’s advantages.

What patriotic liberal democracy cannot tolerate are appeals to prejudice and the pointing of accusing fingers at vulnerable, marginalized people. We cannot tolerate blaming society’s problems on powerless or imaginary enemies. The ultra-right has long claimed their opponents favor a world with no standards or limits. It is utter foolishness, but we have all heard it many times.

The alternative is for candidates who defend liberal democracy to speak clearly about the high moral standards embedded in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the American ideal of respecting the dignity and rights of every human being, regardless of condition or status.

Democrats may have an opportunity to recover the House, possibly the Senate, and build momentum toward 2028 if their candidates pay attention to these dynamics—and firmly resist being harnessed to a campaign cart driven by overly self-confident political operatives. The same may be true for genuine conservatives who no longer have a party to call home but could become strong independent candidates.

Recovering from Trump: what will it take?

 was August in 1974, and I was in Washington, D.C. for a couple of days. On August 9, Nixon had resigned as president and flown off to California. Everywhere I went, the atmosphere was astonishing. It was like a rush of fresh air—a sense that a heavy burden had been lifted. A feeling of freedom and hope seemed to envelop every person and everything around us.

But as the weeks went by, it became clear that the issues the nation faced were still there. The difficult, unglamorous work of governing had not gone away. The new president, Gerald Ford, was in the unusual position of having been appointed—not elected—as vice president, replacing the disgraced Spiro Agnew in December 1973. Ford worked hard to restore trust in government and helped negotiate the Helsinki Accords on human rights. If there were only a few major legislative achievements during his brief term, the nation still owes him a tremendous debt of gratitude for the hard work he did to make integrity and honesty hallmarks of the presidency once again.

That memory has returned to me lately because something similar will happen when Trump is finally gone. Media pundits—even some from the far right—have been proclaiming the looming, ignominious fall of Trump. Yes, he has a way of surviving, and he may find one again, but the pundits might be right this time. There will be a wave of relief and elation—perhaps even joy—but the nation’s problems will remain stubbornly in place.

Whether we will then elect responsible representatives who can address those issues with the determination to find workable, if imperfect, solutions remains to be seen. The Trump era has normalized zero-sum politics, in which there is no good-faith negotiation—only the determination to win by destroying the other. Progress seldom comes in sweeping triumphs. It comes through compromises that are acceptable rather than ideal, and through steady, persistent effort that builds rather than dazzles.

Rebuilding the country from the bottom up and the middle out, as Biden often put it, cannot happen if the electorate does not believe it has ownership in what candidates promise and legislatures deliver. The people who identify as bottom or middle—and those who represent their interests—must engage in a political process that rejects MAGA ideology and the anti-democratic agenda of Project 2025 that has directed Trump-era intentions. It means rejecting the assumption that everyone who is not MAGA is somehow not conservative, or is probably a left-wing liberal. Rejecting one extreme does not mean accepting the other. It means restoring trust in representative democracy and the belief that government is the means through which prosperity and security are secured for all people, not just some.

Center-left, center-right, centrist politics have been reviled and ridiculed as unimaginative mediocrity, unable to address serious issues in serious ways. But the history of American progress has been one of forceful perseverance by voters and parties committed to finding workable solutions. It is a process that has often had to confront intense—sometimes violent—opposition from those who resist progressive change and occasionally from those who believe change has not come fast enough. It takes courage and stamina to work through immovable obstacles and political landmines laid down by those unwilling to negotiate in good faith.

We have lived through too many years of manufactured distrust—a deliberate sowing of animosity toward one another—and it has taken deep root. It will take time, patience, and considerable effort to pull up that noxious weed and keep it from infecting us or the generations who follow.

Two issues stand out as essential first steps for the nation to recover its democratic footing. First, Congress must find a way to eliminate corporate, super PAC, and dark-money campaign financing that has bought the loyalty of too many members of Congress and state legislatures while intimidating those who cannot be bought. Second, states must be induced to adopt fair redistricting methods. That may require vociferous moral outrage from the electorate, led by prominent public figures whose integrity is beyond challenge.

One Foot in Church, One in Secular Festivities

We are about to enter the holiday season — the most wonderful time of the year, and one of the most stressful and confusing. Retailers try to start it with Halloween, but the long-standing American tradition begins with Thanksgiving. From there it carries through New Year’s Day, ending in the gray doldrums of January that linger like an unwanted hangover.

Christians, however, mark the season differently. For them, it begins with Advent — the fourth Sunday before Christmas — the start of the new Christian year. Advent is a four-week period of preparation for celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, culminating not on December 25 but on the Feast of the Epiphany, January 6.

The overlap of an important Christian holy season with secular festivities has long troubled those who chant, “Put Christ back into Christmas.” But the truth is, the religious and secular holidays have been intertwined from the very beginning — and, surprisingly to many, the secular holiday came first.

In the Roman world at the time of Jesus, a midwinter festival took place around the same period we now call Christmas. Roman society celebrated Saturnalia, a feast honoring Saturn, the god of agriculture. It featured lavish banquets, gift-giving, and a temporary suspension of social rules and rank. Meanwhile, followers of Mithras — a cult especially popular among Roman soldiers — observed their own festival to the Sun God, rejoicing in the return of longer days.

Did these celebrations ever get out of hand? Seneca the Younger and Pliny the Younger thought so, condemning what they saw as immoral excess. But most Romans accepted it all with tolerant good humor — not so different from what we sometimes see in our own holiday season.

When Christianity became a legal religion in the fourth century, and Roman emperors began professing the faith, the church sought to replace these pagan midwinter festivals with the celebration of Christ’s birth. It was a brilliant idea but never wholly successful. The holy seasons of Advent and Christmas collided with the enduring pagan customs of northern Europe and Britain. Humanity, it seems, has always been determined to celebrate the season with one foot in church and the other in secular festivity — and so it remains.

Perhaps it’s time for Christians to stop complaining about it. More important is to enter fully into Advent as a season of preparation — through prayer, contemplation, and acts of abundant generosity. Christians should boldly and joyfully celebrate the birth of Christ and its meaning for the salvation of all creation. We should take seriously the angelic promise of “peace on earth” by renewing our personal commitment to be agents of God’s peace wherever we live, regardless of circumstances.

Let Advent and Christmas shine  brighter than festive decorations, speak more meaningfully than any Hallmark movie, and bring more genuine joy than the best holiday party.

We have something real to offer. However delightful the secular celebrations may be, they often end in little more than the sobering recognition that nothing has really changed. The celebration of Christ’s birth, on the other hand, offers joy that endures hardship, goodwill that becomes a habit of life, and a way of living that makes the world better — not just for ourselves, but for everyone around us.

In the meantime, enjoy secular festivities with friends and family, and don’t let artificial pressures to perform make it difficult for you. If you do not want to participate, don’t — and don’t feel guilty about it. If the season is truly stressful for you, know that you are not alone. Many others feel the same way. Comfort in this holy season in which we remember that Jesus began life in a barn from an unmarried mother in a time of great danger.  Nevertheless the Angels sang about peace and goodwill toward all. Let that embrace you and let everything else pass by to go its own way.

Hearing from the Heart of the Country

For several decades now, there has been a persistent complaint that much of the country west of the Appalachians and east of the Cascades is ignored, misunderstood, and uncared for by the elites who run everything. It’s often expressed as resentment toward the “coastal elites.” Whether that perception is true or not, it is deeply felt—and that is what has to be dealt with.

Major news organizations would no doubt object, insisting they cover significant events wherever they occur in the country. That’s true as far as it goes, but “significant events” usually mean disasters, scandals, or anything that can be sensationalized. Those stories must be reported, of course, but what is truly significant in the daily lives of ordinary people seldom rises to that level of drama.

National print media—based largely in coastal cities—naturally focus on issues that shape the quality of life in their own regions. National cable and online news platforms tend to concentrate on national and international politics, turning to local stories elsewhere only when they qualify as “breaking news.” Yet the local and regional issues that define quality of life—housing costs, jobs, education, infrastructure—are present in every part of the country, rural and urban alike. They are no less important than what is happening in New York, Washington, Chicago, or Los Angeles.

If the voice of the Heartland is to be heard and valued, those same kinds of issues must be covered nationally as well.

How can that be done? It would help if major news outlets—both the established networks and the newer ones claiming to replace them—reported regularly on public polling data from across the nation. Not everywhere all the time, but somewhere every day, so that at any given moment some part of the country would be in the public eye.

The polling data worth reporting aren’t the usual empty questions like “Is the country on the right track?” or “Are we headed in the right direction?” Those are meaningless. What track? Which direction? Far more valuable are questions about the cost of living, the availability of well-paying jobs, the quality of local schools, and other conditions that shape daily life. Better still are questions about what people themselves believe would make for a better life in their own communities.

Reporting on such things would not be difficult. The data already exist in every state, gathered by universities and local polling organizations. Sophisticated national surveys aren’t necessary. The point is simply this: to make the people’s voice heard—in some form—on a national scale, every day.

*“Thank You for Your Service” Is Not Enough

Veterans Day parades, memorials, monuments, and plaques are worthy tributes to America’s veterans—especially those who have served in areas of armed conflict. These tributes are appropriate, but they are not nearly enough.

Over the past thirty years, the Veterans Administration has too often been treated as a stepchild of the federal government, left to languish with outdated technologies and managed, in many places, with bureaucratic rigidity. The tribute truly due to every veteran is a system that meets their needs promptly, professionally, and with the highest standards of quality.

Every administration promises to improve the VA, and most make an honest effort. But changing the direction of a large, slow, old institution is not easy. The VA performs less like a ship turning into new waters than a barge drifting with the current.

If there is any silver lining to the disastrous Trump years, it is that the agency will have to be rebuilt from the bottom up. The next administration will have a rare opportunity to make a fresh start. Unfortunately, in the meantime, veterans must endure more years of boastful promises and incompetent leadership—years that will deprive them even of the modest improvements made by previous administrations.

Zohran Mamdani is about to face a test I suspect he is unprepared for.
The annual operating budget for the City of New York is about $117 billion. Those dollars provide income and flourishing profits for many people and businesses. Roughly 30% of the budget is devoted to payroll, and those employees have a strong vested interest in fair compensation and good working conditions. The remainder goes toward the goods and services the people of New York rely on, and they, in turn, have a vested interest in receiving them in adequate quantity and quality. Any big city mayor can tell Mr. Mamdani that pressure and complaints from both employees and citizens are constant and unending.

Almost all of that $117 billion eventually flows into the private sector. Contractors, suppliers of equipment and materials, and tens of thousands of businesses depend on city spending—as do businesses that rely on the wages of city employees paying for housing, food, clothing, education, recreation, and all the other necessities of living. Every one of these private sector beneficiaries has an interest in things continuing to go well, and if possible, even better.

Another powerful force is the network of property owners and developers. They have hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in land use decisions, building codes, and permitting processes. They have become expert at playing the system in whatever way provides them the greatest advantage.

Every new mayoral administration presents a familiar challenge to these forces. Their goal is to co-opt the administration so that their ability to profit from the city’s largesse is maintained—preferably increased. It always begins the same way: cultivating friendships, sharing insider knowledge, and becoming part of influential inner circles. It too often ends with elaborate schemes of bribery that do not look like bribery. And if the mayor’s office cannot be influenced directly, mid-level managers responsible for enforcement, inspections, and permitting are frequently more accessible.

All of these forces will now be unleashed on Mamdani with the confident expectation that they will succeed, as they have so many times before. His task is to ensure that the system works for the people, while keeping the powerful and self-aggrandizing players of the city’s entrenched networks of influence in check.

Complicating matters is New York’s unusual structure. Five borough presidents and their councils often act as if they are the singular authority in their domains. The City Council is powerful, and its members are fierce in defending the interests of those who put them in office. The mayor must find ways to work with them even when their priorities conflict with his own.

Perhaps that is why so few mayors of New York are remembered for their successes. If Mamdani can prove himself equal to the challenge, he will be among them. I hope he is.

Country Parson

On Redistricting, Democracy, and the Courage to Stop the Game

The GOP effort to engage in mid-decade redistricting—engineering Republican-dominated districts that would not otherwise exist—is, to resurrect an old phrase, deplorable. But equally deplorable are the efforts of several Democratic-led states doing the same in retaliation. Together, they have the cumulative effect of denying the people fair elections between candidates who put themselves forward for public office in districts that are fairly and equitably drawn.

I doubt there is anything I could say that would convince Republicans to cease and desist. Their minds are made up. But I do hope Democrats might give serious ethical consideration to what they are proposing—and stop it.
Yes, there will be a cost. Republicans are likely to pick up a few seats. But it is a cost that, in the end, will be an investment in preserving our democracy. Besides, it’s entirely possible that the American voting public may decide they have had enough and will vote for the minority candidate in every majority district, thus depriving the manipulators of the victory they have sought through corrupt means.

The Deeper Problem

My longtime Facebook friend David Nishimura noted that latent partisan gerrymandering dominated the redistricting process in 2020. This new effort at irregular, mid-decade redistricting is simply a calculated and corrupt expansion of what is already common practice.

Could computers be used to draw district boundaries that are fair and coherent? Of course they could. After all, they have been used for the past thirty years to draw the distorted maps we have now. Everything depends on the instructions they are given.

The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence offers a new opportunity for both good and evil. It is no longer necessary to engage in complicated programming; anyone with a decent AI setup can ask it to draw districts in any way they want. It is not only possible but easy to ask AI to draw districts that equalize population, create simple, coherent boundaries, and ignore race, income, or party registration. All it needs is access to the latest demographic data.

States with independent, bipartisan redistricting commissions might be inclined to do this. I doubt that states where legislatures control the process would ever agree. It is just as easy to ask the computer to draw lines that maximize advantage for a particular ethnic group, income level, or party. No one but the most brazenly corrupt would do it publicly—but it is easy to imagine legislators in both parties doing it behind closed doors. The whole process could be cloaked in the appearance of fairness without being fair at all.

A Crisis of Institutions

The American people face an enormous task. The future of our democracy is in our hands. The  current executive branch has already demonstrated its disdain for democracy and its intent to roll over opposition with as much authoritarian power as it can muster. Congress has been a crippled institution for some time—effectively hobbled the day Mitch McConnell declared that no legislation would pass if it were sponsored by Democrats or a Black president.

In the past nine months, its current leadership has largely collaborated with every scheme the executive proposes. Lower courts have done what they can to defend the Constitution and the rule of law, but the Supreme Court has too often served as an enabler rather than a check.

Of course, there remain men and women of integrity in high public office who speak out wherever they can. But they have been sidelined as agents of change. That is why it is now up to the informed citizens of this country.

The Duty of the People

Demonstrations, marches, and protests are an important first step—but by themselves, they achieve little. We must inundate our state legislatures and governors’ offices, regardless of party, with demands for fair, non-partisan districting. The message must be overwhelming and impossible to ignore.

It must come from every liberal and conservative who values the American democratic system and its Constitution. Party loyalties must yield to a higher loyalty—to elect candidates who can be relied upon to act in the best interests of their constituents and in defense of democracy itself.

The best interests of constituents cannot favor the wealthy over ordinary people. They cannot favor one race or ethnicity over another. They cannot elevate an ideology unwilling to negotiate in good faith, demanding unconditional surrender from those who disagree.

Perhaps most important, the voice of the people must refuse to be dominated by fear and anxiety. We have too long allowed the public conversation to be ruled by hatred, dystopian fantasies, bizarre conspiracies, and demands that America become a Hungarian-style illiberal autocracy ruled by a white aristocracy..

Keeping the Pressure On

Even if the people succeed in turning the tide back toward democracy and the promise of freedom and opportunity for all, it will not be enough. The pressure must continue—with demands that Congress pass simple, effective immigration reforms that encourage legal immigration through official ports of entry, andmeducate every immigrant in the fundamentals of American democracy and the rule of law.

We must demand reform of campaign finance laws to curb the power of money to buy legislative loyalty. We must insist that all three branches of government maintain their independence with integrity. And we must demand that the Supreme Court never again permit a president to act with immunity from prosecution for violations of the Constitution or federal law.

A Better America, Not a Perfect One

If we are successful, there will be no American nirvana ahead of us—no Democratic paradise. Perfection is beyond our grasp. But we will achieve something far better than what we are enduring now.

We will become a better people than we have been. Perhaps we will no longer be embarrassed by our failures and weaknesses—things that have too long driven fear and anxiety. Instead, we can face them honestly and move forward.

For almost 250 years, we have stumbled, corrected, and persevered. If we deny that history, we are fated to stumble into deeper pits ahead. But if we face it with honesty, we can celebrate our past successes and build upon them for a better future.

We do not have to be number one in the world.
We do have to be the best America we can be.