What A World

November 4, 2024 (Monday)

Today, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) warned that foreign adversaries, especially Russia, are working “to undermine public confidence in the integrity of U.S. elections and stoke divisions among Americans.” The intelligence community urged Americans to “seek out information from trusted, official sources, in particular, state and local election officials.”

That warning is an important backdrop for the next several days.

We are in the final hours of an unusual campaign season. Appearing to recognize that women were alienated from the Republican Party after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the constitutional right to abortion, Trump did not try to appeal to anyone but his base. His campaign courted white, male, low-propensity voters while hoping they could hold the white suburban women who in the past have voted Republican. If they could turn out that base to cause enough trouble at polling places, they could open a way to challenge election results.

To that end, as soon as Trump took control of the Republican National Committee early this year by putting his daughter-in-law Lara Trump and loyalist Michael Whatley in charge, they killed the get-out-the-vote efforts begun by previous chair Ronna McDaniel and put money instead into legal bills, both to pay Trump’s lawyers and to fund a legal team that could fight to keep people from voting and that could challenge election results.

Trump has doubled down on his appeal to his base voters, his speeches getting darker (along with his makeup, oddly) and more violent in the past weeks as his rallies are getting smaller. On Sunday, November 3, he told supporters that he should not have left the White House in 2021, appearing to think that holding the building would have enabled him to hold the title of president, as if it were a king’s castle rather than a symbol of a democratic office from which he had been ousted. He said he wouldn’t mind if reporters were shot, and called Democrats “demonic.”

But early voting numbers suggest that strategy has, so far, not worked. Without an official ground game, Trump turned to outside vendors, including Elon Musk, to get out the vote. Paid canvassers are not as reliable as volunteers, and Musk didn’t do it well anyway: his operation is being sued in California for violating labor codes, while his effort to collect voter information by running a “lottery” is also currently in court.

So far, men do not appear to be turning out in the high numbers Trump hoped for. On Rumble tonight, Donald Trump Jr. complained that “women are still showing up more than men.” He berated men for not “get[ting] off their butts” and voting. “If I can do what I’ve been doing for the last few months just getting crapped on by everyone all over the country…you can wait in line.” His eyes mostly closed, Don Jr. also suggested that celebrities are endorsing Harris because they are “on an Epstein list or a Diddy party list or both”—referring to men who were indicted for sexual abuse or assault—and that Harris is blackmailing them.

In fact, newly released tape recordings reveal financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein saying that he was Trump’s “closest friend.”

At the same time, the tactics the Trump campaign used to build his base have alienated the women who had stayed with him after Dobbs, and it’s clear that Trump knows it: at a rally today, he had a backdrop of women holding pink “Women for Trump” signs.

But Trump’s running mate, Ohio senator J.D. Vance apparently didn’t get the memo: today he called Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris “trash,” prompting MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace to say: “In my humble view, light’s out. Women. You can disagree with us. We’ve actually learned to take it for our whole careers all the time in every form. But you call us trash? Oh, oh, oh, J.D. Vance. You just effed up in a way that I’ve never seen in my political life, and I worked with Sarah Palin.”

Today, news broke that Trump’s regional field director for western Pennsylvania, Luke Meyer, is a white nationalist who, under the name Alberto Barbarossa, co-hosts a podcast with Richard Spencer, who organized the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. When Amanda Moore of Politico outed Meyer, he responded: “Like the hydra, you can cut off my head and hold it up for the world to see, but two more will quietly appear and be working in the shadows.” Meyer has called Trump a “con artist” but told Moore he supports Trump because Trump creates chaos that will cause a crisis that will make Americans turn against non-whites, enabling white nationalists to rebuild the country as they wish.

With his dark and unpopular message, Trump’s campaign has been unable to find people to act as surrogates, meaning that Trump and Vance are carrying their message to the voters largely alone. Trump financial backer Elon Musk and supporter Robert Kennedy Jr. are also speaking for the campaign, but they are not doing it any favors.

Musk expects to lead a government efficiency commission that he has said will cut $2 trillion out of the federal budget, throwing the country into an economic crisis of about two years. He says it will emerge in a stronger position than it is now, but that seems of little comfort to those who will be hurt.

Kennedy, a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaccine activist who claims to have suffered from a worm in his brain, says Trump has promised to put him in control of the public health agencies: Health and Human Services and its sub-agencies, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

As he campaigned today in Raleigh, North Carolina, in Reading and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Trump continued his usual lies about voter fraud and immigration, and promised that voting for him would “fix every single problem our country faces and lead America, and indeed the whole world, to new heights of glory.” Above all, he attacked his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris. He boasted that the election was his to lose, but significantly, he felt obliged to campaign today in North Carolina, a state he won in 2016 and 2020.

Also contradicting his pronouncement was an account of his campaign by Tim Alberta published Saturday in The Atlantic. It showed a chaotic campaign run by advisors frustrated with Trump’s instability and bitterly divided. The information campaign co-chairs Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles shared with Alberta reads like a preemptive attempt to blame others for an election loss. Alberta recorded that campaign officials told him they were done. “The past three months had been the most unpleasant of their careers. Win or lose, they said, they were done with the chaos of Donald Trump—even if the nation was not.”

In contrast, the closing argument of Vice President Kamala Harris, her running mate Minnesota governor Tim Walz, and their many, many surrogates has been upbeat. After appearing on Saturday Night Live, Harris spent Sunday in Detroit, Pontiac, and East Lansing, Michigan, before heading today to Scranton, Pittsburgh, and Reading, Pennsylvania. Unlike Trump’s, her rallies appear to be getting even bigger, and she has not mentioned her opponent in the closing days of the campaign, instead urging Americans to look to the future.

Harris held her final rally tonight in Philadelphia on Benjamin Franklin Parkway, near the Philadelphia Art Museum, where the statue of the famous fictional boxer Rocky Balboa, an underdog who became a champion, stands. Artists Lady Gaga, Oprah, The Roots, Jazmine Sullivan, Freeway and Just Blaze, DJ Cassidy, Fat Joe, DJ Jazzy Jeff, Ricky Martin, and Adam Blackstone all performed for the crowd, many of whom stood in line for hours to get in.

“We are all in this together…. Are we ready to vote? Are we ready to win?” Harris asked the crowd. “One more day in the most consequential election of our lifetime, and the momentum is on our side. Our campaign has tapped into the ambitions and the aspirations and the dreams of the American people. We are optimistic and we are excited about what we can do together. And we know it is time for a new generation of leadership in America. And I am ready to offer that leadership as the next president of the United States of America.”

She reminded the audience that this could be one of the closest races in American history and that her supporters needed to “finish strong.” The Harris-Walz campaign has focused on voter turnout, with an exceptional ground game of volunteers knocking on doors, phone banking, and texting. “Every single vote matters,” she said, encouraging people in the crowd to vote and to spread the word to neighbors, friends, and family. “Your vote is your voice, and your voice is your power,” she said.

“We have an opportunity in this election to finally turn the page on a decade of politics that has been driven by fear and division. We are done with that. We are exhausted with it. America is ready for a fresh start, ready for a new way forward, where we see our fellow Americans not as an enemy, but as a neighbor,” she said.

“Ours is a fight for the future, and ours is a fight for freedom, including the most fundamental freedom of a woman to make decisions about her own body and not have her government tell her what to do,” she said. And she pledged always to put “country over party and self and to be a president for all Americans.”

“Tonight…we finish as we started: with optimism, with energy, with joy, knowing that we the people have the power to face our future and that we can confront any challenges we face when we do it together.”

November 3, 2024 (Sunday)

I’m home tonight to stay for a bit, after being on the road for thirteen months and traveling through 32 states. I am beyond tired but profoundly grateful for the chance to meet so many wonderful people and for the welcome you have given me to your towns and your homes.

I know people are on edge, and there is maybe one last thing I can offer before this election. Every place I stopped, worried people asked me how I have maintained a sense of hope through the past fraught years. The answer—inevitably for me, I suppose—is in our history.

If you had been alive in 1853, you would have thought the elite enslavers had become America’s rulers. They were only a small minority of the U.S. population, but by controlling the Democratic Party, they had managed to take control of the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court. They used that power to stop the northerners who wanted the government to clear the rivers and harbors of snags, for example, or to fund public colleges for ordinary people, from getting any such legislation through Congress. But at least they could not use the government to spread their system of human enslavement across the country, because the much larger population in the North held control of the House of Representatives.

Then in 1854, with the help of Democratic president Franklin Pierce, elite enslavers pushed the Kansas-Nebraska Act through the House. That law overturned the Missouri Compromise that had kept Black enslavement out of the American West since 1820. Because the Constitution guarantees the protection of property—and enslaved Americans were considered property—the expansion of slavery into those territories would mean the new states there would become slave states. Their representatives would work together with those of the southern slave states to outvote the northern free labor advocates in Congress. Together, they would make enslavement national.

America would become a slaveholding nation.

Enslavers were quite clear that this was their goal.

South Carolina senator James Henry Hammond explicitly rejected “as ridiculously absurd, that much lauded but nowhere accredited dogma of Mr. Jefferson, that ‘all men are born equal.’” He explained to his Senate colleagues that the world was made up of two classes of people. The “Mudsills” were dull drudges whose work produced the food and products that made society function. On them rested the superior class of people, who took the capital the mudsills produced and used it to move the economy, and even civilization itself, forward. The world could not survive without the inferior mudsills, but the superior class had the right—and even the duty—to rule over them.

But that’s not how it played out.

As soon as it became clear that Congress would pass the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Representative Israel Washburn of Maine called a meeting of thirty congressmen in Washington, D.C., to figure out how they could fight back against the Slave Power that had commandeered the government to spread the South’s system of human enslavement. The men met in the rooms of Representative Edward Dickinson of Massachusetts—whose talented daughter Emily was already writing poems—and while they came to the meeting from all different political parties, often bitterly divided over specific policies, they left with one sole purpose: to stop the overthrow of American democracy.

The men scattered back to their homes across the North for the summer, sharing their conviction that a new party must rise to stand against the Slave Power. They found “anti-Nebraska” sentiment sweeping their towns; a young lawyer from Illinois later recalled how ordinary people came together: “[W]e rose each fighting, grasping whatever he could first reach—a scythe—a pitchfork—a chopping axe, or a butcher’s cleaver.” In the next set of midterm elections, those calling themselves “anti-Nebraska” candidates swept into both national and state office across the North, and by 1856, opponents of the Slave Power had become a new political party: the Republicans.

But the game wasn’t over. In 1857, the Supreme Court tried to take away Republicans’ power to stop the spread of slavery to the West by declaring in the infamous Dred Scott decision that Congress had no power to legislate in the territories. This made the Missouri Compromise that had kept enslavement out of the land above Missouri unconstitutional. The next day, Republican editor of the New York Tribune Horace Greeley wrote that the decision was “entitled to just so much moral weight as would be the judgment of a majority of those congregated in any Washington bar-room.”

By 1858 the party had a new rising star, the young lawyer from Illinois who had talked about everyone reaching for tools to combat the Kansas-Nebraska Act: Abraham Lincoln. Pro-slavery Democrats called the Republicans radicals for their determination to stop the expansion of slavery, but Lincoln countered that the Republicans were the country’s true conservatives, for they were the ones standing firm on the Declaration of Independence. The enslavers rejecting the Founders’ principles were the radicals.

The next year, Lincoln articulated an ideology for the party, defining it as the party of ordinary Americans defending the democratic idea that all men are created equal against those determined to overthrow democracy with their own oligarchy.

In 1860, at a time when voting was almost entirely limited to white men, voters put Abraham Lincoln into the White House. Furious, southern leaders took their states out of the Union and launched the Civil War.

By January 1863, Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation ending the American system of human enslavement in lands still controlled by the Confederacy. By November 1863 he had delivered the Gettysburg Address, firmly rooting the United States of America in the Declaration of Independence.

In that speech, Lincoln charged Americans to rededicate themselves to the unfinished work for which so many had given their lives. He urged them to “take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

In less than ten years the country went from a government dominated by a few fabulously wealthy men who rejected the idea that human beings are created equal and who believed they had the right to rule over the masses, to a defense of government of the people, by the people, for the people, and to leaders who called for a new birth of freedom. But Lincoln did not do any of this alone: always, he depended on the votes of ordinary people determined to have a say in the government under which they lived.

In the 1860s the work of those people established freedom and democracy as the bedrock of the United States of America, but the structure itself remained unfinished. In the 1890s and then again in the 1930s, Americans had to fight to preserve democracy against those who would destroy it for their own greed and power. Each time, thanks to ordinary Americans, democracy won.

Now it is our turn.

In our era the same struggle has resurfaced. A small group of leaders has rejected the idea that all people are created equal and seeks to destroy our democracy in order to install themselves into permanent power.

And just as our forebears did, Americans have reached for whatever tools we have at hand to build new coalitions across the nation to push back. After decades in which ordinary people had come to believe they had little political power, they have mobilized to defend American democracy and—with an electorate that now includes women and Black Americans and Brown Americans—have discovered they are strong.

On November 5 we will find out just how strong we are. We will each choose on which side of the historical ledger to record our names. On the one hand, we can stand with those throughout our history who maintained that some people were better than others and had the right to rule; on the other, we can list our names on the side of those from our past who defended democracy and, by doing so, guarantee that American democracy reaches into the future.

I have had hope in these dark days because I look around at the extraordinary movement that has built in this country over the past several years, and it looks to me like the revolution of the 1850s that gave America a new birth of freedom.

As always, the outcome is in our hands.

“How I will vote in November.”

Have you seen that viral meme going around with this title? It’s presented as a voting manifesto with seven issues on it with scripture references below each one.

A lot of folks have asked me to respond to this, so I just wanted to say one thing.

Notice all the scripture references used on that meme? Do you know what I noticed immediately? There’s not a single reference to a teaching of Jesus. Not a single one.

This should be pretty alarming for those of who claim to follow Jesus.

Notice how it’s always “vote according to Biblical values!” until it comes to welcoming the immigrant, empowering women, helping the poor, feeding the hungry, bringing healthcare to the sick, forgiving debts, laying down our swords, or loving our neighbors. All things embodied by Jesus.

This is because memes like the one we are talking about here are the result of reading a particular political ideology into the Bible rather than allowing the Bible to critique our political ideology.

Furthermore, as followers of Jesus, it is paramount that even our interpretation of the Bible be read first and foremost through how Jesus lived, loved, died, and rose again. The way he lived his life and treated others is the fulfillment of all the scriptures and should therefore be the lens through which we read all the scriptures.

This is crucial because a lot of things can be “Biblical” but not anything like Jesus. Genocide, slavery, and retributive violence are all “Biblical” and have been used to justify some of the worst things in Christian history, yet none of those things are like Jesus.

November 2, 2024 (Saturday)

Yesterday, in Time magazine, Eric Cortellessa explained that the electoral strategy of the Trump campaign was to get men who don’t usually vote, particularly young ones, to turn out for Trump. If they could do that, and at the same time hold steady the support of white women, Trump could win the election. So Trump has focused on podcasts followed by young men and on imitating the patterns of professional wrestling performances.

At the same time, he has promised to “protect women…whether the women like it or not,” and lied consistently about crime statistics to keep white suburban women on his side by suggesting that he alone can protect them. Today in Gastonia, North Carolina, for example, Trump told the audience: "They say the suburban women. Well, the suburbs are under attack right now. When you're home in your house alone and you have this monster that got out of prison and he's got, you know, six charges of murdering six different people, I think you'd rather have Trump."

The crime rate has dropped dramatically in the past year.

Rather than keeping women in his camp, Trump’s strategy of reaching out to his base to turn out low-propensity voters, especially young men, has alienated them. That alienation has come on top of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that recognized the constitutional right to abortion.

Early voting in Pennsylvania showed that women sent in 56% of the early ballots, compared to 43% for men. Seniors—people who remember a time before Roe v. Wade—also showed a significant split. Although the parties had similar numbers of registrants, nearly 59% of those over 65 voting early were Democrats. That pattern holds across all the battleground states: women’s early voting outpaces men’s by about 10 points. While those numbers are certainly not definitive—no one knows how these people voted, and much could change over the next few days—the enthusiasm of those two groups was notable.

This evening, a Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll conducted by the highly respected Selzer & Co. polling firm from October 28 to 31 showed Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris leading Trump in Iowa 47% to 44% among likely voters. That outlying polling result is undoubtedly at least in part a reflection of the fact that Harris’s running mate is the governor of a neighboring state, but that’s not the whole story. While Trump wins the votes of men in Iowa by 52% to 38%, and of evangelicals by 73% to 20%, women, particularly older women, are driving the shift to favor Harris in a previously Republican-dominated state.

Independent women back Harris by a 28-point margin, while senior women support her by a margin of more than 2 to 1, 63% to 28%. Overall, women back Harris by a margin of about 20 points: 56% to 36%. Seniors as a group including men as well as women are also strongly in Harris’s camp, by 55% to 36%.

A 79-year-old poll respondent said: “I like her policies on reproductive health and having women choosing their own health care, and the fact that I think that she will save our democracy and follow the rule of law…. [I]f the Republicans can decide what you do with your body, what else are they going to do to limit your choice, for women?”

The obvious driver for women and seniors to oppose Trump is the Dobbs decision. The loss of abortion care has put women’s lives at risk. Within days after the Supreme Court handed the decision down, we started hearing stories of raped children forced to give birth or cross state lines for abortions, as well as of women who have suffered or died from a lack of health care after doctors feared intervening in miscarriages would put them in legal jeopardy.

As X user E. Rosalie noted, Iowa’s abortion ban also has long-term implications for the state. It has forced OBGYNs to leave and has made recruiting more impossible. As people are unable to get medical care to have babies, they will choose to live elsewhere, draining talent out of the state. That, in turn, will weaken Iowa’s economy.

That same process is playing out in all the states that have banned abortion.

It seems possible that the Dobbs decision ushered in the end of the toxic American individualism on which the Reagan revolution was built. When he ran for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan set out to dismantle the active government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, promoted infrastructure, and protected civil rights. Such a government was akin to socialism, he claimed, and he insisted it stifled American individualism.

In contrast to such a government, Reagan celebrated the mythological American cowboy. In his telling, that cowboy wanted nothing from the government but to be left alone to provide for and to protect his family. Good women in the cowboy myth were wives and mothers, in contrast to the women who wanted equal rights and jobs outside the home in modern America. That traditional image of American women had gotten legs in 1974, when the television show Little House on the Prairie debuted; it would run until 1983. Prairie dresses became the rage.

Reagan’s embrace of women’s role as wives and mothers brought traditionalist white Southern Baptists to his support. Those traditionalists objected to the government’s recognition of women’s equal rights because they believed equality undermined a godly patriarchal family structure. They made ending access to abortion their main issue.

At the same time that the right wing insisted that women belonged in their homes, it socialized young men to believe in a mythological world based on guns and the domination of women. In 1980 the previously nonpartisan National Rifle Association endorsed Reagan, their first-ever endorsement of a presidential candidate, and the rise of evangelical culture reinforced that dominant men must protect submissive women.

When federal marshals tried to arrest Randy Weaver at his home in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in August 1992 for failure to show up in court for trial on a firearms charge, right-wing activists and neo-Nazis from a nearby Aryan Nations compound rushed to Ruby Ridge to protest what right-wing media insisted was simply a man protecting his family.

The next February, when officers stormed the compound of a religious cult in Waco, Texas, whose former members reported that their leader was sexually assaulting children and stockpiling weapons, right-wing talk show hosts—notably Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones—blamed new president Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, for the ensuing gun battle and fire that killed 76 people. Reno was the first female attorney general, and right-wing media made much of the idea that a group of Christians had been killed by a female government official who was unmarried and—as opponents made much of—unfeminine.

When he ran for office in 2015, Trump appealed to those men socialized into violence and dominance. He embraced the performance of dominance as it is done in professional wrestling, and urged his supporters to beat up protesters at his rallies. The Access Hollywood tape in which he boasted of sexual assault did not hurt his popularity with his base. He promised to end abortion rights and suggested he would impose criminal punishments on women seeking abortions.

And then, in June 2022, thanks to the votes of the three religious extremists Trump put on it, the Supreme Court handed down the Dobbs decision, stripping women of a constitutional right that the U.S. government had recognized for almost 50 years.

Justice Samuel Alito suggested that women could change state laws if they saw fit, writing in the decision that “women are not without electoral or political power.” Indeed, since the Dobbs decision, every time abortion rights have been on the ballot, voters have approved them, although right-wing state legislators have worked to prevent the voters’ wishes from taking effect.

In this moment, though, it is clear that women have electoral and political power over more than abortion rights.

The 1980 election was the first one in which the proportion of eligible female voters who turned out to vote was higher than the proportion of eligible men. It was also the first one in which there was a partisan gender gap, with a higher proportion of women than men favoring the Democrats. That partisan gap now is the highest it has ever been.

The fear that women can, if they choose, overthrow the patriarchal mythology of cowboy individualism that shaped the modern MAGA Republican Party is likely behind the calls of certain right-wing influencers and evangelical leaders to stop women from voting. For sure, it is behind the right-wing freak-out over the video voiced by actor Julia Roberts that reassures women that they do not have to tell their husbands how they voted.

The right-wing version of the American cowboy was always a myth. Nothing mattered more for success in the American West than the kinship networks and community support that provided money, labor, and access to trade outlets. When the economic patterns of the American West replicated those of the industrializing East after the Civil War, success during the heyday of the cowboy depended on access to lots of capital, giving rise to western barons and then to popular political movements to regulate businesses and give more power to the people. Far from being the homebound wives of myth, women were central to western life, just as they have always been to American society.