Kristin Du Mez, “Where We Are Now”
Christian nationalism—appealing to “traditionalist” values, demonizing liberals, “the woke,” immigrants, convincing certain Christians that they are the only “true Americans” and that the rest of us are out to take their rights away and destroy our country, all of this was the mechanism by which the oligarchs achieved their goal of being handed unprecedented power. This wasn’t just a bait-and-switch. Those who fully support the goals of Christian nationalism also do not believe in pluralist democracy. They support hierarchies (of wealth, gender, and/or race and ethncity) as part of “God’s order,” dismiss language of rights and equality, and have bought into the us vs. them rhetoric that defines fellow citizens—neighbors, family members—as enemies that must be disempowered if not destroyed.
The Right Rev. Marian Edgar Budde, Homily, January 21, 2025
It goes without saying that in a democracy, not everyone’s particular hopes and dreams can be realized in a given legislative session or a presidential term—not even in a generation—which is to say, not everyone’s specific prayers (for those of us who are people of prayer) will be answered in the way we would like. But for some, the loss of their hopes and dreams will be far more than political defeat, but instead a loss of equality and dignity and their livelihoods.
Given this, then, is true unity among us even possible? And why should we care about it? Well, I hope we care. I hope we care because the culture of contempt that has become normalized in this country threatens to destroy us. We are all bombarded daily with messages from what sociologists now call the “outrage industrial complex,” some of that driven by external forces whose interests are furthered by a polarized America. Contempt fuels political campaigns and social media, and many profit from that. But it’s worrisome; it’s a dangerous way to lead a country.
Ana Raquel Minian, “Trump’s Deportation Model”
Our history speaks loudly to the legal and human toll of anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies. Scapegoating migrants—much less deporting them—does not solve our social or economic crises. Indeed, deportation has proved time and time again to hurt not only migrants themselves but also their families and communities who stay behind. Anti-immigrant politics have diluted the rights granted by the Constitution and as such threatened all American citizens. We should reject the Eisenhower model—or any other draconian approaches to immigration.
Elizabeth Pop Berman, “Personal Discretion Over the Treasury’s Payments System Means the End of Democracy”
Musk’s team not only has the ability to see every government payment, but can make changes to the system—which could mean having the capacity to turn that spigot off. What Musk appears to be attempting is using the payments system to decide what congressionally approved spending will actually occur. If that happens, it will take our unfolding constitutional crisis to a whole new level.
Normally, the federal payments system is apolitical plumbing managed by nonpartisan bureaucrats. Those bureaucrats simply process funds; they don’t make decisions about whether spending is justified. But they have immense unused power, because controlling the federal spigot means they have the capacity to stop any government payment with the push of a button, even if they have never done so.
With Musk at the reins, that power shifts to an unelected billionaire who intends to use it. Don’t like “woke” research? Turn it off. Hate USAID? Cut off the money. Think payments to Lutheran Family Services are illegal? Shut them down. Giving a single individual, let alone one with no official position, such control over the federal government would be extraordinarily authoritarian.
Jamelle Bouie, “There Is No Going Back”
But that is the situation. A power-mad president possessed of radical theories of executive authority and convinced of his own royal prerogative has given de facto control of most of the federal government to one of the richest men on the planet, if not the richest, whose own interests are tangled up in those of rival governments and foreign autocracies as well as the United States. The public has no guarantee that its most sensitive data is secure. At best, they have the personal word of Donald Trump, which, paired with a few dollars, might buy you a cup of coffee.
David Dark, in Everyday Apocalypse
We’ve apparently got the word “apocalyptic” all wrong. It’s not about destruction or fortune-telling, it’s about revealing. …
Apocalyptic shows us what we’re not seeing. It can’t be composed or spoken by the powers that be, because they are the sustainers of “the way things are” whose operation justifies itself by crowning itself as “the way things ought to be” and whose greatest virtue is being “realistic.” Thinking through what we mean when we say “realistic” is where the apocalyptic begins. If the powers that be are the boot which, to borrow Orwell’s phrase, presses down upon the human face forever, apocalyptic is the speech of that human face. Apocalyptic denies, in spite of all the appearances to the contrary, the “forever” part.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In