Monday Miscellany, 3/31/25

(1) Go with the flow.  Cooperate with the new regime for now.  California Governor Gavin Newsom said, contrary to his earlier position, that he too opposes males competing in women’s sports.  Senate Minority Leader Schumer instructed Democratic senators to vote for the Republican budget plan so as not to shut down the federal government.  But that acquiescence stirred up the Democratic base into suppor for the next option.

(2) Bring Back the Resistance.  Double down on our leftist convictions!  Don’t water down our woke ideology!  Protest at every opportunity!  Resist, like we did the first time Trump was elected!  This is what the Democratic lawmakers who shouted, held signs, and waved a cane did at President Trump’s speech to Congress.  But that led only to wide-spread mockery, though the sentiment continues to simmer among the progressive grassroots, with talk of the emergence of a Democratic Tea-Party. similar to the populist uprising among conservatives a decade or so ago.  But the more seasoned politico James Carville, who was Bill Clinton’s Machiavellian operative, suggested a different tactic. . . .

(3)  Wait for Trump to Make Mistakes.  Specifically, Carville said to “play dead,” as quoted and summarized in the New Yorker:

His prescription is as follows: “With no clear leader to voice our opposition and no control in any branch of government, it’s time for Democrats to embark on the most daring political maneuver in the history of our party: roll over and play dead.” Donald Trump and his cronies, Carville argues, have underestimated the American public’s tolerance for chaos, incompetence, and masculinity contests with other world leaders that may very well end in a crashed economy. The best path, then, is to just wait while Trump still has some afterglow from the election until his approval numbers have tanked and then “make like a pack of hyenas and go for the jugular.”

Carville seems prophetic.  In the rush of Trump’s two months in office, mistakes were made (to use the bureaucratic passive).  The economy is in turmoil over the possible effects and the on-again-off-again threats of the tariffs.  Some of the DOGE cutbacks have had to be undone, due to the inadvertent cutting of essential services.  Other countries are in a panic at the disruption of long-held alliances.  Courts are slapping injunctions on Trump’s executive orders.

And now a long-time anti-Trump reporter was somehow copied onto a discussion of the administration’s plan to bomb the Houthis.  The consequences of this call have been exaggerated, but the question is, who on Trump’s team had the Atlantic reporter on speed dial and how did he get on the call?  The fiasco creates even in Trump supporters a feeling of incompetence.

At any rate, the hyenas have now been loosed.

Trump has the opportunity to reform the federal bureaucracy in a significant way.  His populist brand of conservatism can be of great help to ordinary Americans.  And the vibe shift against all things woke is a much-needed corrective to the cultural dominance of elite progressives.

Right now his support is still strong and support for the Democrats is at a record low.

But he and his administration need to start being careful.  Otherwise, Clinton’s henchman will be right and voters will put the hyenas back in power.

Abort the Poor to Save Money

Pro-abortion arguments usually try to evoke compassion for women in a “problem pregnancy” or wrap themselves in abstractions with positive connotations like “reproductive freedom” or “women’s health care.”

In Colorado, supporters of taxpayer-funded abortion are using a crasser argument:  aborting the babies of poor people is cheaper to the state than letting them live.

Medicaid (not to be confused with Medicare for retirees) is the federal program that funds health care for low-income citizens.  The government gives block grants to the states, which contribute a portion of the funding and within certain parameters can set their own eligibility rules.

Thanks to the Hyde Amendment, federal money may not be used for abortions.  But some states have chosen to add state money to pay for abortions for women in their Medicaid programs.  Right now, 19 states are doing that (Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington).

Democrats in Colorado want to join that number.  Ryan Mills reports:

“A birth is more expensive than an abortion,” Colorado House Speaker Julie McCluskie said at a committee hearing this week, touting a legislative fiscal analysis that claims taxpayer-funded abortions could save the state a half million dollars or more annually. . . .“Ultimately, we do achieve a cost savings because of the averted births that will not take place,” McCluskie told the House Health & Human Services Committee on Tuesday.

The bill, which has already passed the state senate 22-12, on a party line vote, turns children into a commodity.  Mills quotes some pro-lifers who object:

Talking about human life in that manner is “horrible” and “abominable,” say pro-life opponents of the bill. “Seriously, the bill’s sponsors are saying that if more babies die by abortion it will be cheaper for the state,” Dr. Catherine Wheeler, a pro-life OB-GYN and former abortion provider, told the committee, which ultimately advanced the bill. . . .

“Children cost money. No one disputes that,” [Michael J. New] said. But, he added, “life has intrinsic value and it’s priceless.

The thing is, the claim that funding abortion is cheaper than funding births is simplistic.  The state of Colorado would have to pay everything for an abortion, while federal Medicaid dollars would mostly cover the birth of the child.

Methodist Schism Sparks Violence and Arrests in Africa

We’ve blogged about the disuniting of the United Methodist Church, mainly over issues of sexuality but also over broader issues of Scriptural fidelity.  Conservatives have broken away to become either independent or to join a new denomination, the Global Methodists.

In the United States, church break-ups can get ugly, with lawsuits, harsh words, and broken relationships.  American Methodists devised a process that would allow for a more amicable split, by which congregations that decide to leave the denomination could depart with their property.  After all, the liberal side, which keeps the denominational infrastructure even though the conservatives outvoted them in convention, are happy to see the conservatives go, giving them free rein.

But no such arrangement was made for African Methodists, with some United Methodists resorting to violence against the Global Methodists.  Though both sides claim to believe in traditional sexual morality, the United Methodists still want the financial support of the Western mainline liberal denomination.

In Nigeria, as reported by Sarah Stewart, when Global Methodists were holding their annual conference at Banyam Theological Seminary, a group of United Methodists wielding guns and machetes disrupted the worship service, broke windows, and assaulted conservative Methodists, sending seven to the hospital.  The story quotes the Global Methodist bishop, who poignantly added, “The GMC people offered no resistance.”

In Liberia, some 100 Methodist congregations out of 500 chose to join the Global Methodists.  But the United Methodists are claiming their buildings, locking out conservative pastors and members from their churches.  Conflicts between the two factions have sometimes become violent, leading the Liberian government to intervene.  Mark Tooley reports that Global Methodist pastors and members have been arrested for refusing to relinquish their property.  Tooley says that “amid tear gas and mayhem,” the leader of the break-away Methodists, Jerry Kulah, was also arrested, though he was released later in the day.

Comments Tooley,

The sometimes-violent United Methodist schism, replicated in Nigeria, is tragic and unnecessary. Had United Methodism retained its traditional standards, Africa’s churches, where United Methodism is larger than in the U.S., could have remained together. Now they are torn apart not directly by theology but largely about concerns over funding from the U.S. The United Methodist General Conference also could have prevented this chaos by creating a practical exit policy for overseas churches. A further complication is that much if not most African countries do not have clear, much less enforceable, laws about the legal status of United Methodist church properties.

There are some 25 million Methodists in Africa, as compared to just over 4 million in the United States.  I couldn’t find membership numbers, but the United Methodists in the U.S. lost over 7,900 congregations, about 26% of their total.  But those who remain can continue their crusade against racism and colonialism.