It’s About Women (About Time!)
Written by:
Joe Morris Doss

What will be taught in history classes about the election of 2016? It will be about the equality of women. But the campaign also has clarified the negative perspective: it is about the death spiral of society as patriarchal.

This campaign – as dreadful as it has been – may be remembered as genuinely historical. It can prove historical due to a range of reasons that could come to pass. We may see the Republican Party implode; we may see a new political alignment based more on “identity” than on economic and class realities; we may see globalization and technological developments, such as robotics, change the whole landscape. And those are only some of the possibilities that loom before us, for we find ourselves in a rising, watershed, moment of worldwide change.

But, this campaign began with one grand possibility that would be “a first” for the United States: the election of a woman as President. When all is said and done, that should be the most notable step forward. For patriarchal inequality has been the longest standing wrong in human society, and this election can have a significant effect on the long road still ahead toward the genuine equality of all human beings as proclaimed in Christianity and the U.S. Constitution.

The superiority of men and the view of women as the weaker sex – with all that implies – has stood for all of human history as a given reality of nature. For most people throughout the human enterprise this was not a matter of prejudice, but just the way things are. And of course that meant that women were to be treated accordingly by men, and the ladies were to treat each other that way. Such a deep-seated matter of “reality” has been and will remain hard to overcome. We haven’t even been able to pass an equal rights amendment according to what the constitution already declares.

Note this, for I have not heard it declared: History will observe that this election was significant for the equality of women not only because a woman was elected, but because her opponent was rejected largely on the basis of his recalcitrant patriarchal prejudice and personal treatment of women. The combined reality of a women being elected President and of her opponent being convicted in the court of public opinion of standing for the continuing patriarchal abuse of women should prove effective in the cause of human dignity and equality for each and every person.

The positive statement of what this election has been about is the election of a woman; the negative statement of what this election has been about is the rejection of the patriarchal attitude. That is why the whole issue of Trump’s abuse of women, at least in language and perhaps in acts of criminal misbehavior, are so very, very relevant to the election. His abuse is only secondarily about sin or immoral behavior; primarily, it is about an attitude towards women that is no longer to be accepted.

There has been a rebuttal making the social network rounds against Christian pastors who reject Trump’s behavior. It asserts hypocritical and self-righteous moralizing. The point being made is that rejection of Trump on the charge of immorality violates the Christian precept that God can use broken vessels for good. They point to sinners in scripture, like King David and Paul, and even pagan Cyrus, the Persian King who is given credit in scripture for being God’s instrument for freeing the People of Israel from Babylonian exile. Never mind that it is the Christian view that God shapes everything to the good, or that in each instance employed for their argument, repentance remained the necessary dynamic (e.g. David was rebuked by Nathan: “You are the man;” Paul was knocked off his horse and blinded) and Cyrus would never have been considered for the throne of restored Israel. They are missing the point: it is not the candidate’s sin or personal moral failure – as some abstract wrong – that is making the difference, it is the attitude toward women that is no longer acceptable.

History is going to judge, as it always does, narrowly and with specificity: this election is about the equality of women.


McCain’s Presidential Campaign Chairman Predicts the Demise of the Republican Party
Written by: 
Joe Morris Doss

Steve Schmidt is a bright, politically experienced, and honorable man who greatly admired John McCain as a War hero, effective Senator, and fellow Republican. Schmidt was proud to run his campaign. Nevertheless, Schmidt realized that the Republican Party had come to a point that it was going to be very difficult to elect a standard bearer to national office. He reached for “a game changer” and recommended Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate. Aside from obvious campaigning talent, she represented the crucial part of the Republican Party that had come to dominate their “base” of support: evangelical Christians, and he hoped her ability to get them all out to vote for his candidate would make the difference.

Steve Schmidt learned his lesson. If you have seen the movie, “Game Changer,” you know that he soon realized that his choice was not only a mistake, but disastrous. It was disastrous not because she hurt the ticket, but because she was not qualified or fit, in any number of important ways, to serve as President — the most important qualification of a Vice-President. The enormity of his mistake overwhelmed him, to the extent that he was the consultant to the movie that made that mistake so obvious.

What Steve Schmidt realized was that his mistake was THE mistake being made by the Republican Party. Last week, just before the second debate, Schmidt articulated why he thinks the crucial mistake the Republican Party has made, and from which it seems incapable of freeing itself — the Grand Ol’ Party, that he had thought of as, “…one of the great institutions of the world,” and on behalf of which he spent his career — is so deeply in trouble. Hypocritical forces, exemplified by religious conservatives who exploit their church’s theological positions as an excuse to support their political, cultural, and social views, have captured it. He spit out the following thoughts about the Trump campaign:

“It has exposed the intellectual rot in the Republican Party. What this exposes goes much deeper into the Republican Party as an institution.”

“With the complicity of much of the leadership of the Republican Party. It has been building for some time.”

He terms the Trump candidacy a disgrace of “unimaginable magnitude to the country… almost impossible to be able to articulate.”

“This exposes a massive hypocrisy inside the Republican Party. Think about people like Gary Falwell, Jr., people who claim to be religious, or evangelical Christians who are apologist for this (Trump’s) behavior….It has exposed at a massive level… the modern day money-changers in the Temple.”

“Mike Pence says, “I’m a Christian; I’m a conservative; I ‘m a Republican, in that order.” If that’s true how did Mike Pence stay on this ticket, unless ‘I’m a career politician’ precedes it all?”

“In this fusion of religion to political conservatism is a toxic element in our politics,” “This hypocrisy is on display for all to see.”

“This party… has great soul searching to do.”


And Naming the Villains
Written by: Joe Morris Doss

What we are witnessing right now may well be the collapse of the Conservative Movement that has dominated American political and social life for almost three generations.

It began, let us say, with Barry Goldwater’s principled call from “The Conscience of a Conservative.”

The movement balked with JFK, LBJ’s Great Society, and the Watergate reforms, but after events that overwhelmed the United States and the Carter candidacy, it became established under Reagan.

The Conservative Movement captured the Republican Party, which cast aside it’s broadly based tradition to become the conservative party in the United States.

The Conservative Movement expanded on its domination up to this point, at which Trump’s nomination has led to the spectacular splintering during the campaign.

By the time the smoke clears after the election, either the Conservative Movement will have lost enough of its control of the Republican Party to have to search for another way to operate, or the Republican Party itself will break into factions that will lead to its demise sooner than later.

One way or another we will see a major political realignment in the United States, perhaps radical enough to drive constitutional rearrangements.

The Villains:

  • The decision that equated money with speech, Buckley v. Valeo, 1976. From that point forward money began to control politics. That decision needs to be overturned or to have a constitutional amendment so that we can get money out of elective politics, at least to the extent of other democracies.
  • The billion-dollar-behind-the-scenes controllers of politics, ranging from the use of foundations for personal enrichment and ideological political causes to all sorts of ways to engage in elective politics. The clandestine and manipulative formation of the Tea Party is a good example. (See “Dark Money.”) Particularly offensive is the way they have hidden motives, goals, and activities, while convincing the country to paint all big contributors of money with the same brush – summarized as “Wall Street.”  
  • The Trump-like, fascist-like, white nativists have been given a place at the political table today. During most of American history such radical opinions have been relegated to prejudice, ignorance, and anger over personal losses or social and economic failures. This “extreme right wing” has been at the table since the midterm election during the first Clinton Administration, though normally identified as ideological conservatives. First they were Clinton haters, then they were Obama haters, but their real frustration is broader than persons, political positions, or movements.
  • The fundamentalist Evangelical churches became hypocritically and improperly engaged in elective politics to impose their conservative, and often oppressive, moral and political perspective on society as law. For too many evangelicals – certainly not all, but too many, and certainly for almost all of the leaders in their political combat – this has been a matter of the tail wagging the dog, in that they are part of a culture that is socially, economically, and politically conservative and then learned how to use their religious clout politically, rather than being a of people of faith who are religiously convicted of certain conservative views.
  • The Roman Catholic Church’s long-standing obsession, perhaps prejudices, regarding issues that protect women’s rights and that touch on the hot rail of sexuality and procreation. At the top of that list is the over-any-top, popularly accepted conclusion, that abortion is the killing of children. The Roman Catholic Church has allowed itself to be co-opted by the fundamentalist Evangelical churches in opposing social and cultural reforms, not only undercutting its own institutional moral standing but that of Christianity. The inevitable hypocrisy regarding these positions was revealed in the sexual abuse of children in religious institutions and by the ordained.
  • The “establishment” leadership of the Republican Party, which brought their party to this state of affairs by embracing (1) the billion-dollar-behind-the-scenes political money, (2) the improper engagement of fundamentalist evangelicals, (3) the Trump wing of the right wing, (4) the conservatives of the Roman Catholic Church regarding “the culture wars” while ignoring its repeated calls for social and economic justice, and (5) making full and cooperative use of Fox News and prejudiced radio talk shows as their primary voices.
  • Ronald Reagan, for turning the country from a respect for government as, in Lincoln’s great insight, “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” into “the problem.” This negativity had more to do with the misgovernment of the following era than perhaps any other factor.
  • Fox News, that falsely claimed the objectivity of journalism, was the sole source of news in many areas of the country, and allowed many conservatives to live in a bubble that includes widely discredited ideas like climate change science is a hoax and the President is not an American citizen.
  • Opposition to globalization, instead of coming to grips with the realities in order to prosper America and help the stranger in other lands.

Caveat: A friend trained and proved in political observation warns that, “At this point, I think we are witnessing the “splintering” of the conservative movement, more than its “collapse.”  I say this because they are still in control of most state governments and may (or may not) still control at least one of the national legislative branches after the November elections.  The conservative movement has trouble with high turnout (e.g., presidential) elections, but usually bounces back in off year elections when voting by progressives declines. After the approaching elections, we may conclude that they are so split that they have collapsed, but it may be too soon to say.”


It Comes Down to the Abortion Issue
Written by: 
Joe Morris Doss

The official positions each American church community has taken on issues facing the next President are quite well documented, available, and clear. The fundamentalist evangelicals have decided to vote for Trump despite deep reservations about his actual Christian beliefs and commitments because they agree with him politically. A few examples should suffice: The members are almost all white, dominated by the leadership of men, and demand that America conform to the way they think and live; they are for sending away undocumented aliens and building a wall against Mexico; anti-evolutionist, there is little respect for science – which is pitted against “religion” and “revelation” – and there is almost no concern for protection of the environment or prevention of further global warming; social and economic justice are issues that cause resentment. The stated reason many fundamentalists give for voting for Trump is to prevent appointments a Democrat might make to the Supreme Court, and the primary focus there is on overturning Roe v. Wade.

Almost without exception, the official positions taken by Protestant mainline denominations oppose Trump because of the church’s prophetic tradition and its concern for social and economic justice, especially protection of minority rights. Again, theologically, most agree with the right of women to decide on issues regarding their own bodies, including the right to an abortion and use of contraception. Increasingly mainline Protestant churches are open to marriage equality and rights for LGBT persons.

It is faithful Roman Catholics who face a choice that will force them to choose between opposing but official positions. On the one hand, there are issues of justice and reconciliation that the National Council of Bishops has consistently supported with brilliant theological statements, guiding the faithful to vote for candidates who will follow the dictates of each statement. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of a declaration of belief regarding the issues came from the Pope: “A person who thinks only about building walls… and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel.” This was a stunning, but not surprising, rejection of Trump’s signature position. It did not take a careful examination of the context for the statement to realize that it was pointing to other such issues in which simple human compassion, internationalism, justice, and equality are rejected by the Republican Party nominee. The Pope came precariously close to taking a stand on the election.

On the other hand, there is the Roman Catholic Church’s position regarding human sexuality and the role of women (e.g. contraception) that gets summarized in the question of abortion. Since Roe v. Wade abortion has been the signature position for this denomination. Many American faithful have taken a position so extreme that they actually claim murder when a woman decides to have an abortion. The issue has become YUGE, as Trump would say, overwhelming all others.

Push now has come to Shove: Is allowing a women to have an abortion such an absolute wrong that it trumps – as it were – all of the wrongs and dangers that the church has long identified but that Trump now supports? Is changing the law of the land on abortion, two generations after it has been established, so crucial that it is worth having a man with Trump’s temperament, political and governmental inexperience, and remarkable ignorance hold the office of President? Will Roman Catholic leaders put out a word, however nuanced or blared out, for how the faithful should choose between wrongs? It is going to be interesting to see the faithful Roman Catholic choose.