Going back to one member resigning from the choir because of their agreeing to sing at the inauguration, there have been many arguments against her, including that this is not about Trump and just the normal thing to do. Because I had mentioned her story in relation to decision making and counting the cost, I want to address that from two different directions that will blend pretty well.
First of all, when you have to make a decision, weighing the cost can mean looking at things you know and things you can only speculate on. Some people suggested that the choir singing could cause Trump to feel the Spirit and then it would be a good thing. My initial reaction was "Yeah, right," but there is some cynicism in that. Stepping back and considering it as a possibility - because that would be a good thing - I still have to conclude that based on his temperament it is unlikely, and based on his ego he is more likely to take it as a validation.
The second part of this blog is going to be about why validating him is bad, but first we are looking at a small chance of doing good and a much larger chance of doing some harm. If it would be a great good and a relatively small harm, those odds might not be as strong of an argument against it, but another factor is the emotional cost. For the choir member in question, she could not feel comfortable with the message it was sending, and how she felt about it.
Factoring in that, she made the only reasonable decision for herself. Obviously other choir members do not feel the same way. That may not be because of more positive feelings for Trump; it could also be a stronger sense of tradition or a stronger need for conformity. Individual results vary, but if you are at least looking at potential likely results and personal cost, weighing the good and bad, you should be making decisions you can live with. Praying and listening for guidance is an important part of that.
Now let's get on to why the choir should not have accepted the invitation. It's lengthy, but I want to stress this is not simply about disagreements on policy, but ways in which this is not normal and should not be treated as normal.
Many have argued that it is a tradition, pointing out all of the other inaugurations they have sung at. What you quickly notice with that list is that they have only sung for Republican inaugurations. I don't know how it is happening - maybe Orrin Hatch is suggesting the
choir every time a Republican inaugural committee is meeting - but that alone sends a troubling message for a church that constantly reminds us that we don't endorse any candidates or parties. It gives an appearance of bias.
Appearances can be important. One problem with Donald Trump's candidacy was that he was constantly rewarded for not even attempting to keep up with appearances. Previously it was not uncommon for racism to be a strong undercurrent for conservative candidates, but they at least masked it by using coded language.
https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
That seemed bad enough, enforcing negative stereotypes and structural racism, but now we have seen that when you run as openly racist, you bring white supremacist groups into the mainstream. People become more comfortable committing hate crimes.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/
For a church that has rarely done a good job of addressing racism in its own past, that considers the love of Christ to be the most important attribute, that has been persecuted on account of their religion, and that has a larger presence internationally than nationally, there are many reasons to avoid any perceived endorsement of the president-elect's Islamophobic, anti-Mexican, racist, sexist speech.
But let's say you're okay with the racism; that is not the only way in which Trump's refusal to abide by norms and protocols has been rewarded, and it is not the only way in which his blatant disregard manifests the weaknesses of the system. This may be most clear in his refusal to release his tax returns, which continues now because he believes his victory means it is unnecessary. The returns could have shown us some important things.
It seems likely that he has not been a successful businessman, losing a great deal of money despite frequently shorting those who work for him. For those who have considered his business acumen to be one of his chief selling points, that could have been important information.
Without full disclosure about his businesses, and unwillingness to
fully divest, the tax returns could have at least provided some sense of the scale of his conflicts of interest. Having already - while only being the president-elect - used the office to pave the way for business deals, and having already damaged the stock of companies (like Boeing) by reckless statements, this matters.
http://shareblue.com/trumps-lawyer-makes-devastating-case-against-trumps-conflicts-of-interest/
Full financial disclosure could also have shown that he may be in debt to some unsavory parties. His donations to a "museum" set up at a mobster's former headquarters (with other mob ties being less former) and his casino losses kind of smell like money laundering, not to mention his possible indebtedness to Russia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-boasts-of-his-philanthropy-but-his-giving-falls-short-of-his-words/2016/10/29/b3c03106-9ac7-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?
Russia becomes a special case in itself, because having a foreign power interfere in an election is not desirable, and it casts suspicion on Trump's constant deference to Putin, as well as his working so quickly to already tick off China. (Again, before even taking office.) A president with Trump's temperament alone might be a concern for war with Russia, but a president in Putin's pocket - and Putin in the Crimea - makes me worry for Eastern Europe.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/31/politics/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-crimea-putin/
There is an issue with appearances in Trump encouraging Russia to hack Clinton during the campaign, and that should be investigated, but you could still make a case that Trump was not responsible, he merely showed bad judgment in a joke he made. If evidence comes to light of participation, then what?
Normally the remedy would be impeachment, but there are serious concerns about whether that would happen. Trump's pick of Elaine Chao - wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell - for his cabinet looks like a way of exerting undue influence. Again, people who worry about propriety might not do that.
It also seems completely unnecessary. The congressional response to Trump's election has included attempts to weaken ethics oversight, prevent filming of proceedings so they can work in darkness, and (making the working in darkness part really literal) a late-night session confirming that the Affordable Care Act will be eliminated and its important features will not be preserved. The Legislative Branch does not appear interested in acting as a check on the Executive Branch.
When you consider that many of those who did not vote in this election did not because of changes in their ability to vote based on the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, then it appears that the Supreme Court may not be much of a check either.
When you add in that this is a president who has threatened press, and dissenting speech, and reproductive freedom, who wants his own private security other than the secret service, who is letting family members into positions of power, who took a victory tour instead of working on his transition, and who comes with too many trappings of fascism to count, this is not normal. This is the constitution hanging by a thread. My reading of Revelation may tell me that there has to be a Beast at some point, but that is not a motivation to vote for him.
No, we should not be celebrating this. We should not be normalizing this.
I had been planning this post before reading this, but my thoughts are not unique:
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/this-is-why-you-dont-kiss-the-ring-1791079856
ETA - Just as I posted this, an article comes up indicating that if pressure from callers ruined one attempt to weaken ethics, they will just keep at it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/15/trump-aide-reince-priebus-to-ethics-chief-be-careful/
No comments:
Post a Comment