Donald Trump and maga Republicans created political polarization fueled by hate

Wow, this essay is not classic David French, but in my opinion this exactly the kind of straight talk free speech expression our nation needs.  Of course, the problem is, the people who Mr. French describes do not trust anything they disagree with. 

Does anyone think a healthy nation with a healthy political culture would elect a man like Donald Trump not once, but twice❓

We Have Reached End-Stage Political Polarization.

Echo essay by by David French published in the New York Times.

The eternal return of Donald Trump is a sign of our national sickness 🤒🤢, and a recent Pew Research Center study shows us exactly what that sickness is. We despise each other, and demagogues rise when hatred increases. It’s as predictable as night following day.

In a 25-country survey, which included a cross section of European, Asian, African and American nations, the United States was the only country in which a majority of adults surveyed said that the morality and ethics of their fellow citizens were either bad or somewhat bad. Even countries torn apart by violence and civil strife — countries such as Nigeria and Mexico — had higher views of their fellow citizens.

We’ve known for a long time that America is deeply polarized, and we’ve known the problem is only getting worse. For example, in a 2022, survey, Pew found that large shares of Democrats and Republicans thought of each other as close-minded, dishonest, immoral and unintelligent, and the measurements were getting worse every year.

Both sides hate each other so much that it’s almost meaningless to ask who hates whom the most. In the morality and ethics survey I mentioned at the start of the column, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents were more likely to believe that other Americans were unethical or immoral than Republicans. 

But, in the 2022, survey, Republicans were more likely to believe that Democrats were dishonest, immoral and lazy.

If you’re a Republican or a Democrat, the best way to imagine the other side’s view of you is to simply mirror your own attitude. They despise you with the same intensity that you despise them. They view you with the same sense of threat and alarm that you view them.

To say that both sides view each other with equivalent disdain is not to say that both sides are equally dangerous. When a hateful, vengeful man is in the Oval Office, wielding the awesome power of the presidency beyond its constitutional limits, then he immediately becomes the most dangerous person in America.

But the urgent necessity of defending our republic from his assaults on the Constitution, from his intense cruelty, and from his profound corruption shouldn’t blind us to the divisions that helped bring him to power.

American hatred is growing so great that partisans, perversely enough, often view kindness and tolerance from political opponents as a threat. The only good people are people who agree with them. The supposedly decent person on the other side❓ 

We have a name for him or her, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

This reality came home to me once again after the column I published last week. My argument was simple: I very much disagree with James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Texas on many important issues, most notably his stance on abortion.

At the same time, however, I very much appreciate his condemnation of the politics of hatred and vitriol, and his appeal to the better angels of our nature is giving voters hope that this miserable political moment may one day come to an end.

In a CBS interview days after his primary victory, Mr. Talarico said: “My faith teaches me to love my neighbor as myself. Not just my neighbor who looks like me, or prays like me, or votes like me.”

“I’m tired of being pitted against my neighbor, he continued, “I’m tired of being told to hate my neighbor. And I think in Texas across the political spectrum, there is a deep hunger for a different kind of politics.” One that’s “rooted in love.”

“That old politics that we’ve been suffering under for the last ten years — politics as blood sport, as trolling and owning, as total war, that politics is dying.” 😕 (I can only hope Mr. Talarico is correct.)

That isn’t just a virtuous approach to political differences; it’s a deeply Christian approach to political differences. After all, what does it mean to love our enemies if we do not demonstrate patience and kindness toward them❓(IMO, But not in a condescending way.)

The online response to my argument, however, was volcanic. I was accused of legitimizing heresy. 

Another writer said that I’d suffered an apparent “brain injury.” My appreciation of Talarico’s approach even put the soul of evangelicalism at risk. 

Once again, I was written entirely out of the Christian faith by angry (hypocritical❗) Trumpist evangelicals.

(I did have to laugh at the Babylon Bee’s joke headline: “David French Praises Satan as ‘Most Christian Person in History.’”)

In their minds, I was elevating “niceness” over justice and righteousness. To this way of thinking, Talarico’s manner makes him more dangerous, not less, and it was my responsibility to warn Christian America away from this dreadful man. (IMO Mr. French does not speak for me in this assessment. I admire Mr. Talarico.)

In their anger and vitriol, I saw the mirror image of the far-left intolerance I’ve encountered through much of my career. There are people who can’t conceive of the idea that a pro-life Christian can be a decent person, or that a person who, for example, opposes surgical and medical interventions for youth gender transition, or trans women’s participation in female sports can have any redeeming qualities at all.

I’m fully aware that to them, I’m the wolf in sheep’s clothing because I hide what they see as religious and political extremism behind a veneer of civility and pluralism. 

Civility itself is a questionable value. It’s a version of “respectability politics” when the times call for direct, aggressive action against your evil political opponents.

This approach is profoundly dangerous to our republic. The American constitutional system is, at its heart, a dispute-resolution mechanism. It takes all the differences and divisions inherent in a continent-sized multiethnic, multifaith democracy and channels them into a political system marked by checks and balances and firewalls against tyranny.

In the United States, there should never be any such thing as a winner-takes-all electoral result. Even the worst losers and everyone else in American politics enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights and the opportunity to try to win again, very soon, in election cycles that arrive with clockwork regularity, every two years.

But hatred puts this system to its most severe test — a test we’ve faced over and over again. It is relatively easy to support the civil rights of people you like (even if you disagree with them). It is profoundly difficult to support the civil rights of people you hate.

Or, as John Adams wrote in his 1798 letter to the Massachusetts Militia: “We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net.”

Restrain those vices and we preserve our republic. Indulge them, and we risk its dissolution.

A federal appellate judge, Lawrence VanDyke, issued a truly remarkable dissent — a textbook example of how not to handle disagreement on profoundly important constitutional issues.

The Ninth Circuit had denied a petition to rehear, en banc, an opinion upholding the State of Washington’s Law Against Discrimination against a challenge brought by two Washington spas that banned men and preoperative transgender women “who have not yet received gender confirmation surgery affecting their genitalia.” The spas are Korean spas, where customers are typically nude in communal bathhouses.

Under the current interpretation of Washington’s law, which the Ninth Circuit sided with, women (and some girls) could be exposed to the sight of male genitalia without their consent — an act that, in different circumstances, could constitute indecent exposure or sexual harassment.

I disagree with the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that the First Amendment does not grant the spa the right to exclude customers with penises from receiving the spa’s services. But I also know that the interaction between nondiscrimination statutes and the First Amendment is complex. There will always be competing and overlapping interests in play, and line-drawing can be difficult.

But this is how Judge VanDyke began his dissent: “This is a case about swinging dicks.”

Yes, you read that correctly. And then he doubled down. “The fact that so many on our court want to pretend that this case is about anything other than swinging dicks,” he wrote, “is the very reason the shocking language is necessary.”

No, the shocking language was wholly unnecessary. It’s worse than unnecessary. It’s further damaging our political culture. It’s a court opinion as a 4chan post — an “own the libs” statement that brings thunderous applause from the angry right but communicates nothing but scorn and contempt for the opposition.

To call for decency doesn’t deny the depth of our disagreements. It does, however, acknowledge the essential humanity of our opponents. I keep thinking about the commitment card that Martin Luther King, Jr. asked his followers to sign before they joined the 1963 Birmingham campaign.

The 10 directives included these admonitions — “Meditate daily on the teachings and life of Jesus,” “Remember always that the nonviolent movement seeks justice and reconciliation — not victory,” “Walk and talk in the manner of love, for God is love,” and “Refrain from the violence of fist, tongue, or heart.”

Does anyone believe Dr. King was not dedicated enough to justice? Or that he was ineffective in his quest to transform American culture and politics? His love and regard for others — even as he fought desperately for civil and economic and political rights — were indispensable to his success. They’re what makes reconciliation possible, even if we’re still far from perfect.

I disagree with James Talarico on many things. But I also agree with his desire to reject politics as a blood sport. And unless we can remember — as Dr. King did, with his life perpetually on the line — to seek both justice and mercy, then we’ll be left with neither.

Democrats must support people who show examples of hope and courage in the dangerous age of maga Trumpzi-ism

Maria Shrivere writes in "Sunday Paper": The other evening as I watched the news, I listened to a national anchor interview a young, up-and-coming Democratic Texas representative James Talarico. 

An unnamed political strategist said: "Only a savior can save the Democratic Party." The strategist supposedly went on to say that the country and party need an actual, real-life savior, and that this so-called savior will not appear until after the midterms.

The young Texas representative smartly responded by saying, “I already have a savior. And furthermore, I don’t believe we have to wait until then to save ourselves.”

He went on, “We must all acknowledge what is broken in both parties and offer a vision for how to fix it. I think folks are hungry for the truth.”

Amen to that.

The next morning, looking at the trees and listening to the birds, I found myself thinking again about the privilege of being alive and how absurd the idea of waiting for some fantasy political “savior” is.

Sitting around waiting for someone to save you—be it politically, romantically, financially—is dangerous. Isn’t that what gets us into trouble in the first place? Believing that someone else is going to save us, make the hard choices, or know what’s better for us than we do?

Sadly and truthfully, I’ve been there before. Waiting for someone to come along and save me. Waiting for someone to come along and tell me what to do, how to move myself forward, and tell me that it’s all going to be okay.

Yes, I hate to admit it, but there was a time when I thought someone other than myself would know how to build my media company, would know how to grow MOSH, would know how to expand my work at the Women’s Alzheimer’s Movement, or would tell me what to do regarding certain personal decisions. 

I was waiting for someone to walk in the door, make my troubles go away, and ease my pain. I often wondered silently when I met someone new: Is this the person who will show me the way?

But guess what ❓No one did.

It was only when I realized that I was the person who knew what was best for me that I was able to get busy building what I envisioned for myself. It was only after I took responsibility for myself that I was able to see my life differently. It was only after leaning into my faith in God, my faith in myself, and my faith in my dreams that things started to become clearer and that my confidence grew.

I didn’t need to be saved by some unknown person, and neither do you. We also don’t need a political savior. First, we need to believe in our country. We need to believe in the potential of ourselves. We need to take responsibility for ourselves. We need to take responsibility for things that are broken. We need to find a way to work with others—yes, even those we think we can’t work with—to build something we can all be proud of.

Someone can always emerge who can help us amplify our dreams. That happens a lot. But when we sit around abdicating our power, waiting for some unnamed savior to come along and save us, that’s when we get in trouble. 

We surrender our thinking skills. We surrender our judgment, our clear vision, and perhaps worst of all, we lose our courage. And courage is what this moment needs.

Whenever we sit around thinking someone else is smarter, or that someone else knows us better than ourselves, that’s when we enter dangerous territory. And when you are in this territory, you can talk yourself into all kinds of things. You start seeing the world through someone else’s eyes. But trust me, now is not the time to see the world through someone else’s eyes.

Please do not allow yourself to believe crazy, outlandish things, like the “story” that former President Barack Obama is guilty of treason, as some are alluding to. I mean, please. That video❓😧😒 C'mon.

Do not allow yourself to become a victim to a distract-deflect strategy. Do not let someone come along and gaslight you or manipulate you—be it in your personal life, your professional life, your public life, or your political life.

We all need courage. You are smart. You are clear-eyed. You know the truth when you see it, hear it, witness it. You can see that children and others are starving in Gaza. You can see that it’s possible to denounce this tragedy without being labeled antisemitic. You can see that chaos reigns in Washington, and that it’s not just one party that needs saving, but that both must take accountability and offer the change the American people deserve. You know that courage isn’t reserved for so-called saviors. You have courage, too. Don’t tell yourself otherwise.

Rep. Melissa Hortman and Mark Hortman murdered in Minnesota

Which brings me back to that “savior” comment from the Democratic strategist. Don’t tell the family of Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman that we need a savior—what we need is someone with the courage to lead. I hope we can remind ourselves that there are already so many people in public life exhibiting courage on the front lines, every single day. You may not agree with everything they say or do, but courageous they are: Josh Shapiro, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Pete Buttigieg are just a few, but there are plenty of others—including people running for statewide and local offices now. They may not be “saviors.” That’s the wrong word. But they are public servants, risking their lives for our country.

This is not the time to abdicate your courage. It’s not the time to lie down and wait for some so-called savior to come along. 

Rather, this is the time to see yourself as smart, capable, and courageous, no matter your age, no matter what you have been through. Because it’s true.

I am 100 percent sure that you have had to be courageous to get to this moment in your life. Maybe you haven’t used that word before, but it’s the truth. Getting through life requires courage. Staying true to your principles requires courage. Falling down and getting back up requires courage. Starting again requires courage. Going, staying, persevering—it all requires courage.

This week, courage was on display everywhere I looked. The Wall Street Journal showed courage when it stood by its reporting, even though the president threatened it. They stood strong. PBS also came out swinging. “We intend to stay the course,” they said.

At least, let’s hope so.

Andrea Gibson’s wife showed courage in the face of her grief. The families in Texas who buried their little girls showed courage—wow, did they ever. Actor Gary Sinise displayed tremendous courage in talking about his grief and his son. The families of the Idaho victims showed unwavering courage as they stood to face their children’s killer in court. This coward just sat there like a motionless wax figure. Disgusting.

Courage or cowardice. It’s a choice.

Speaking of courage, every week I’m blown away by so many Sunday PLUS members who show courage in their weekly comments. I’m often left speechless by all they are juggling, dealing with, and managing without complaint. They are grateful to be here and to be alive, to be in service to family, to community, to one another. They give me so much hope. They really do. They are caregiving, 

So here we are. And here I am. In a way, I’m back to where I started. It’s early in the a.m. on yet another summer day. The sun is out. A butterfly flies by. Negative news abounds. 😒😞For some reason—maybe it’s a good one, I don’t know—Jeffrey Epstein still dominates the news, something, no doubt, Donald Trump finds beyond irritating. But thankfully, I’m focused on the hope that abounds.

Yes, I’m focused on the hope in you and in me. So that’s what today’s edition of The Sunday Paper is all about. The hope that lies in medical research. The hope that lies in our kids. The hope I have in the Pope and so many other spiritual leaders that I look to for daily inspiration. The hope that resides in the millions of us who are grandparents, who are right there alongside our kids offering a helping hand, some wisdom, some perspective—and always, some laughs. (Hope is a motivator, said Pope Francis.  Hope does not disappoint, said Pope Leo XIV)

"Hope is a thing with feathers," wrote Emily Dickinson.

“Hope” is the thing with feathers -
That perches in the soul -
And sings the tune without the words -
And never stops - at all -

And sweetest - in the Gale - is heard -

And sore must be the storm -
That could abash the little Bird
That kept so many warm -

I’ve heard it in the chillest land -

And on the strangest Sea -
Yet - never - in Extremity,
It asked a crumb - of me.

Mr. Fred Rogers used to say, “Look for the helpers.” Amen to that, but also keep your mind on hope. Do not let the news, the negativity, or the algorithm take you down.

The early morning is full of hope, as is the world around you. 

Can you hear the birds? (...a thing with feathers). Can you hear the sounds of summer❓ Can you smell the grass and the morning air❓ That’s hope you see coming ‘round the bend and down the street. It makes me smile. And I hope it has the same effect on you as well.

I’ll leave you with this message I got from my friend Jimmy. Thank goodness it was the first message I read this summer morning: “I’m on a train from Poland to Prague ~ watching life go by outside the window. Our time together is so incredibly brief. We think we are here forever. Our lives are but a blip on the great big screen of life. It all goes by SO FAST ~ a gentle reminder to savor this moment, because I promise you this: it will not last.”