Here is some text[1]

[feedback-form] 

1. and a footnote[↩]

Vienna city councilor (ÖVP)  and devout Catholic Jan Ledóchowski [1] laments the fact that the “Right-Wing Extremism Report” [2] of the Documentation Archive of the Austrian Resistance (DÖW) equates terms like “right-wing extremist” and “right-wing Catholic” [3] and mentions him in this context, along with other politically active conservative Christians like Suha Dejmek [4] or Gudrun Kugler [5].

In my opinion, the DÖW, like many other public (state, semi-state, and private) institutions, simply reflects the “political orthodoxy” [6] of the zeitgeist, which does not tolerate opposition to its favored projects (such as abortion rights and the normalization of “alternative sexualities”). An integral part of this political orthodoxy is the premise that political positions stemming from religious beliefs (or religious beliefs not left at the door but leading to political action) are dangerous and potentially violate the separation of church and state, whether they are advocated democratically or pursued by force. For this reason, both conservative Christians and radical Islamists are labeled with the term “fundamentalists”[7] used as a pejorative.

But none of this should surprise us, because around two thousand years ago, the Apostle Paul wrote to his disciple Timothy:

“Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,”
(2 Timothy 3:12, ESV)

Personally, I would not yet classify the intolerance of political orthodoxy toward religiously motivated beliefs in politics here in Austria (and in most “Western countries”[8] as persecution [9], but it is a precursor that will sooner or later provide the pretext for the coming actual persecution.

1. Jan Ledóchowski is a lawyer, married, and father of five children. As the president of the Platform for Christian Democracy and Vienna city councilor, he advocates for Christian values in politics and for greater political engagement by Christians in Austria.

   [↩]

2. The Right-Wing Extremism Report (Rechtsextremismusbericht) serves to observe and document right-wing extremist structures and includes:

   • Right-wing extremist groups and parties: such as neo-Nazis, fraternities, or the Identitarian movement.
   • Ideological focuses: racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, nationalism.
   • Crimes: statistics of right-wing extremist offenses (e.g., vandalism, violence, propaganda).
   • Right-wing terrorism and networks: monitoring international connections and potential threats.
   • Internet and social media: the growing role of online platforms in radicalization.

   Until 2001, the report was regularly published by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Counterterrorism (BVT). Since then, it has been managed by the Documentation Archive of the Austrian Resistance (DÖW).

   [↩]

3. It is not easy to define these two terms in a way that no one feels discriminated against. The Wikipedia articles on right-wing extremism  provides a good starting point, but (unsurprisingly) it isvery biased. Right-wing Catholicism as a term overlaps with the Christian Right but in its usage in Germany and Austria is more pejorative.

   [↩]

4. Suha Dejmek is a business consultant, evangelical Christian, and ÖVP district councilor in Vienna-Liesing.

   [↩]

5. Gudrun Kugler is a Roman Catholic theologian and lawyer as well as a member of Austria’s parliament representing the ÖVP.

   [↩]

6. “Political orthodoxy” refers to the sum of political and ideological positions and beliefs considered “socially acceptable” in a society; dissenting opinions are stigmatized.

   [↩]

7. The term fundamentalism originally emerged in the early 20th century in American Protestantism to signify a return to the fundamental tenets of Christianity. Over time, the term became neutral and then negative, used to describe a dogmatic and uncompromising attitude. It was eventually applied to movements in other religions, such as Islamism, Orthodox Judaism, or Hindu nationalism, and now even to secular ideological movements that take an uncompromising stance.

   [↩]

8. “Western countries” typically refer to nations that share cultural, political, and historical ties to Western Europe and its global influence. These countries are often characterized by:

   1. Geography:

      • Western Europe (e.g., Germany, France, the UK).
      • Countries with cultural roots in Europe, like the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

   2. Political Systems:

      • Democracies with systems emphasizing individual rights, rule of law, and separation of powers.

   3. Economic Characteristics:

      • Market-oriented economies with advanced infrastructure and industries.

   4. Cultural and Religious Foundations:

      • Historically influenced by Greco-Roman traditions, Christianity, and Enlightenment ideals.

   5. Global Context:

      • Often contrasted with “Eastern countries” or “Global South,” including regions influenced by different traditions, such as Asia, the Middle East, or Africa.

   While the term is widely used, its definition can vary depending on the context, sometimes encompassing cultural, economic, or political factors rather than strictly geographic ones.

   [↩]

9. The European Union defines religious or ideological persecution as follows:

   1. Persecution, as defined in Article 1A of the Geneva Refugee Convention, includes actions that:

      • Due to their nature or repetition, are so severe that they constitute a serious violation of fundamental human rights, particularly those rights from which no derogation is permitted under Article 15(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, or
      • Consist of a cumulative series of measures, including human rights violations, which are so severe that they affect a person in a similar manner as described in (a).

   2. Acts considered persecution include:

      • Physical or psychological violence, including sexual violence,
      • Discriminatory legal, administrative, police, and/or judicial measures, or their discriminatory application,
      • Disproportionate or discriminatory prosecution or punishment,
      • Denial of judicial protection, resulting in disproportionate or discriminatory punishment,
      • Prosecution or punishment for refusing military service in a conflict involving crimes or acts covered by Article 12(2)’s exclusion clauses,
      • Acts based on gender or directed against children.

   3. There must be a connection between the grounds in Article 10 and the acts defined as persecution in paragraph 1.

   [↩]

Der Wiener ÖVP-Gemeinderat und gläubige Katholik Jan Ledóchowski[1] beklagt die Tatsache, daß der “Rechtsextremismus-Bericht”[2] des “Dokumentationsarchivs des österreichischen Widerstandes” (DÖW) Begriffe wie “rechtsextrem” und “rechtskatholisch“[3] einander gleichsetzt und in diesem Zusammenhang ihn sowie andere politisch engagierte konservative Christen wie  Suha Dejmek[4] oder Gudrun Kugler[5] erwähnt.

Meiner Meinung nach reflektiert das DÖW, so wie viele andere øffentliche (staatliche, halbsttatliche und private) Institutionen, einfach die “politische Rechtgläubigkeit“[6] des Zeitgeists, der keinen Widerspruch gegen seine Lieblingsprojekte (wie Abtreibungsfreiheit und Normalisierung “alternativer Sexualitäten”) duldet. Ein integraler Teil dieser politischen Rechtgläubigkeit ist die Prämisse, daß politische Positionen, die religiösen Überzeugungen entspringen (oder religiöse Überzegungen, die nicht an der Gardarobe abgegeben werden, sondern zu politischem Handeln führen), gefährlich sind und potentiell der Trennung von Kirche und Staat widersprechen, egal ob sie mit demokratischen Mitteln vertreten werden oder versucht wird, sie mit Gewalt durchzusetzen. Deshalb werden sowohl konservative Christen als auch radikale Islamisten mit dem zum Schimpfwort umgemünzten Begriff “Fundamentalisten“[7] belegt und in die Extremismus-Schublade gesteckt.

Aber all das sollte uns nicht überraschen, denn schon vor rund zweitausend Jahren schrieb der Apostel Paulus an seinen Schüler Timotheus,

„Alle, die in der Gemeinschaft mit Christus Jesus ein frommes Leben führen wollen, werden verfolgt werden.“
(2. Tim. 3,12, EÜ)

Ich persönlich würde die Intoleranz der politischen Rechtgläubigkeit gegenüber religiös motivierten Überzeugungen in der Politik hier in Österreich (und den meisten “westlichen Ländern”[8]) noch nicht als Verfolgung[9] bezeichnen; aber sie ist eine Vorstufe, die früher oder später den Vorwand für die kommende, tatsächliche Verfolgung liefern wird.

1. Jan Ledóchowski ist Jurist, verheiratet und Vater von fünf Kindern. Als Präsident der Plattform Christ­demokratie und Wiener Gemeinderat setzt er sich für christliche Werte in der Politik und ein stärkeres politisches Engagement der Christen Österreichs ein.

   [↩]

2. Der Rechtsextremismusbericht dient der Beobachtung und Dokumentation rechtsextremer Strukturen und umfasst:

   • Rechtsextreme Gruppierungen und Parteien: Etwa Neonazis, Burschenschaften oder Identitäre Bewegung.
   • Ideologische Schwerpunkte: Rassismus, Antisemitismus, Homophobie, Nationalismus.
   • Straftaten: Statistik rechtsextrem motivierter Delikte (z. B. Sachbeschädigungen, Gewalt, Propaganda).
   • Rechtsterrorismus und Netzwerke: Überwachung internationaler Verbindungen und potenzieller Gefährdungen.
   • Internet und soziale Medien: Zunehmende Bedeutung von Online-Plattformen und deren Rolle bei der Radikalisierung.

   Bis 2001 wurde der Bericht regelmäßig vom Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz und Terrorismusbekämpfung (BVT) herausgegeben; seither wird er vom “Dokumentationsarchivs des österreichischen Widerstandes” (DÖW) verantwortet.

   [↩]

3. Es ist nicht einfach, diese beiden Begriffe so zu definieren, daß sich niemand davon diskriminiert fühlt. Die beiden Wikipedia-Artikel Rechtsextremismus und Rechtskatholizismus bieten gute Anhaltspunkte, sind aber (was nicht verwundert) sehr tendenziös.

   [↩]

4. Die Unternehmensberaterin Suha Dejmek ist evangelikale Christin und ÖVP-Bezirksrätin in Wien-Liesung

   [↩]

5. Gudrun Kugler ist römisch-katholische Theologin und Juristin sowie Nationalratsabgeordnete der ÖVP

   [↩]

6. “Politische Rechtgläubigkeit ist die Summe der politischen und weltanschaulichen Positionen und Überzeugungen, die in einer Gesllschaft als “salonfähig” gelten; abweichende Meinungen werden stigmatisiert

   [↩]

7. Der Begriff Fundamentalismus drückte bei seiner Entstehung im Protestantismus Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts in den USA  zunächst  eine Rückbesinnung auf die fundamentalen Glaubenssätze des Christentums aus. Mit der Zeit wurde der Begriff zunächst neutral und dann sogar negativ verwendet, um eine dogmatische und kompromisslose Haltung zu beschreiben, und wurde schließlich auch auf Bewegungen in anderen Religionen übertragen, wie z. B. den Islamismus, das orthodoxe Judentum oder den Hindu-Nationalismus, und inzwischen auch auf säkulare ideologische Bewegungen, die eine kompromisslose Haltung einnehmen.

   [↩]

8. „Westliche Länder“ bezieht sich typischerweise auf Nationen, die kulturelle, politische und historische Verbindungen zu Westeuropa und dessen globalem Einfluss haben. Diese Länder zeichnen sich oft durch folgende Merkmale aus:

   1. Geografie:

      • Westeuropa (z. B. Deutschland, Frankreich, Großbritannien).
      • Länder mit kulturellen Wurzeln in Europa, wie die Vereinigten Staaten, Kanada, Australien und Neuseeland.

   2. Politische Systeme:

      • Demokratien mit einem Schwerpunkt auf individuellen Rechten, Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Gewaltenteilung.

   3. Wirtschaftliche Merkmale:

      • Marktorientierte Volkswirtschaften mit fortschrittlicher Infrastruktur und Industrie.

   4. Kulturelle und religiöse Grundlagen:

      • Historisch geprägt durch die griechisch-römische Tradition, das Christentum und die Ideale der Aufklärung.

   5. Globaler Kontext:

      • Häufig als Gegensatz zu „östlichen Ländern“ oder dem „Globalen Süden“ gesehen, einschließlich Regionen mit unterschiedlichen Traditionen, wie Asien, der Nahe Osten oder Afrika.

   Der Begriff wird zwar häufig verwendet, aber seine Definition kann je nach Kontext variieren und umfasst manchmal kulturelle, wirtschaftliche oder politische Faktoren statt nur geografische.

   [↩]

9. Die Europäische Union definiert religiöse bzw ideologische Verfolgung wie folgt:

   „(1) Als Verfolgung im Sinne des Artikels 1A der Genfer Flüchtlingskonvention gelten Handlungen, die

   1. aufgrund ihrer Art oder Wiederholung so gravierend sind, dass sie eine schwerwiegende Verletzung der grundlegenden Menschenrechte darstellen, insbesondere der Rechte, von denen gemäß Artikel 15 Absatz 2 der Europäischen Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten keine Abweichung zulässig ist, oder
   2. in einer Kumulierung unterschiedlicher Maßnahmen, einschließlich einer Verletzung der Menschenrechte, bestehen, die so gravierend ist, dass eine Person davon in ähnlicher wie der unter Buchstabe a) beschriebenen Weise betroffen ist.

   (2) Als Verfolgung im Sinne von Absatz 1 können unter anderem die folgenden Handlungen gelten:

   1. Anwendung physischer oder psychischer Gewalt, einschließlich sexueller Gewalt,
   2. gesetzliche, administrative, polizeiliche und/oder justizielle Maßnahmen, die als solche diskriminierend sind oder in diskriminierender Weise angewandt werden,
   3. unverhältnismäßige oder diskriminierende Strafverfolgung oder Bestrafung,
   4. Verweigerung gerichtlichen Rechtsschutzes mit dem Ergebnis einer unverhältnismäßigen oder diskriminierenden Bestrafung,
   5. Strafverfolgung oder Bestrafung wegen Verweigerung des Militärdienstes in einem Konflikt, wenn der Militärdienst Verbrechen oder Handlungen umfassen würde, die unter die Ausschlussklauseln des Artikels 12 Absatz 2 fallen, und
   6. Handlungen, die an die Geschlechtszugehörigkeit anknüpfen oder gegen Kinder gerichtet sind.

   (3) Gemäß Artikel 2 Buchstabe c) muss eine Verknüpfung zwischen den in Artikel 10 genannten Gründen und den in Absatz 1 als Verfolgung eingestuften Handlungen bestehen.“

   [↩]

Ich lese gerade Faye Kellermans Roman „Habgier“, der Teil ihrer „Peter Decker & Rina Lazarus“-Serie ist.

Rina ist lebenslang praktizierende, orthodoxe Jüdin. Der Polizist Peter „Akiva“ Decker aus Los Angeles ist zwar gebürtiger Jude, wurde jedoch von nichtjüdischen Pflegeeltern adoptiert und hat erst durch seine Liebe zu Rina zum praktizierten Judentum gefunden.

Hier ist ein interessanter Dialog über Glauben und Zweifel im Zusammenhang mit der Frage nach der ultimativen Gerechtigkeit:

„Ich hoffe es sehr. Es macht mich wütend, dass ein Mörder der Gerechtigkeit entkommen ist.“

„Er wird sich irgendwann für seine Taten verantworten müssen. Vielleicht nicht vor dir oder vor der Strafjustiz, aber ganz sicher vor einer höheren Instanz. Was man sät, das wird man ernten: Middah keneged middah.“

„Ich wünschte, ich könnte das glauben.“

„Manchmal weiß ich selbst nicht, ob ich das glauben kann. Aber das ist die Grundlage des Glaubens, und ich bin eine gläubige Frau.“ Rina legte ihr Buch zur Seite. „Diese ungelösten Fälle müssen frustrierend sein. … Ich weiß, es macht dich fertig, dass jemand mit Mord davonkommt, aber am Ende sterben wir alle, und dann sehen wir, dass letztlich jemand anderes die Kontrolle hat.“

„Und was, wenn man stirbt und das war’s?“ fragte Decker. „Ich meine, das war’s wirklich! Man endet als Futter für die Würmer.“

„Vielleicht ist das so“, sagte Rina. „Da niemand es wirklich weiß, entscheide ich mich, anders zu glauben. Selbst wenn sich herausstellen sollte, dass ich einer Täuschung aufgesessen bin, denke ich, dass der Glaube an Gott eine gesündere Lebensweise ist. Glaube ist für die Lebenden, Akiva, nicht für die Toten.“[1]

Faye & Jonathan Kellerman

Ich selbst bin Nichtjude und evangelikaler Christ, kein praktizierender Jude, aber ich finde es faszinierend, wie solche „jüdischen“ Gespräche mit meinen eigenen Erfahrungen als Gläubiger im Einklang stehen. Und ich finde generell „weltliche“ Romane mit glaubensbezogenen Figuren – ob jüdisch oder christlich – interessanter, auch wenn diese Figuren nicht perfekt oder heilig dargestellt werden. Solche Romane gefallen mir besser als explizit „christliche“ Bücher, in denen Gläubige oft wie „brave Musterkinder“ wirken – denn seien wir ehrlich: Wir sind nicht alle perfekt oder heilig, und auch in unseren Reihen gibt es Schurken. Aber wir neigen dazu, ihre Fehler zu übersehen oder sie zu verleugnen, wenn sie uns zu blamabel werden.

1. Dieser deutsche Text stammt nicht aus der deutschen Ausgabe des Romans, auf die ich keinen Zugriff habe, da ich das Buch auf Englisch lese. Stattdessen habe ich den englischen Text mit Hilfe von ChatGPT selbst übersetzt.[↩]

I am currently reading through Faye Kellerman’s novel “The Burnt House”, part of her “Peter Decker & Rina Lazarus” series.

Rina is a life-long orthodox Jew, Los Angeles police detective Peter “Akiva” is Jewish by birth but was adopted by gentiles and only came to Jewish faith and observance about 17 years ago in the wake of his love for Rina.

Here is an interesting conversation about faith and doubt as it relates to ultimate justice:

“I certainly hope so. It pisses me off that a murderer has eluded justice.”

“He’ll eventually have to account for his actions. Maybe it won’t be to you or to the criminal justice system, but certainly to a higher authority. What goes around comes around: Middah keneged mid-dah.”

“I wish I believed that.”

“Sometimes I don’t even know if I believe that. But that’s the basis of faith, and I’m a woman of faith.” Rina put down her book. “These cold cases must be frustrating. … I know it upsets you that someone got away with murder, but eventually we all die, and that’s when everyone sees that, ultimately, someone else is in control.”

“But just suppose you die and that’s it?” Decker said. “I mean that’s really it! You’re nothing but maggot food.”

“Maybe that’s the case,” Rina said. “Since no one really knows, I choose to believe otherwise. Even if it turns out that I was sold a false bill of goods, I think believing in God is a healthier way to live. Faith is for the living, Akiva, not the dead.”

Faye & Jonathan Kellerman

I am a gentile, evangelical Christian, not an observant Jew, but I find it fascinating how such “Jewish” conversations resonate with my own experience as a believer. And I generally find “secular” novels with characters who are people of faith, whether Jewish or Christian, even if they are nor portrayed as perfect or saintly, more interesting than explicitly “Christian” novels where the believers tend to be “goody two-shoes” — because, let’s be real: we are not all perfect and saintly, either, and we have our share of crooks in our ranks even though we are quick to either close our eyes to their faults or else to disown them if they are too much of an embarrassment.

On Facebook every now and then someone will post a “How many squares in this image?” riddle, and in the comments the answers will range from acurate to ignorant to outlandishly stupid. Today I came across this image:

Thousands of comments with answers from 6 to 18, so I set out to write a little PHP and Javascript program to count and visualize the squares.

For those not sure of the terminology:

• all the shapes in this image are rectangles, i.e. their corners are all 90º;
• however, not all of them are squares, i.e. equilateral rectangles, with four identical sides.

Also, while there are only four shapes in this image which are themselves squares, combinations of two or more shapes also form squares and will be counted as such.

So here we go:

As this demonstrates, there are:

• 6 single, simple squares (1-6),
• 5 composite squares made up of two to four single squares 7-11), and
• finally the whole image is also a square (12),

which makes a total of twelve squares.

Multi-instrumentalist Brackin Kirkland together with his lovely wife Lindsay and their seven children (six boys and one girl) are a homeschooling, musically gifted Christian family who live in North Carolina and have been vlogging on YouTube since 2015. On “Sounds Like Reign” they present music videos to go with their albums (ten so far), and on “Tiny Notes from Home” until recently they shared the life of their family and also interviewed other families.

Sounds Like Reign’s music can also be found on Facebook and Spotify. On their web page all albums can be downloaded for free.

Two years ago they released an album “King Jesus” and I thought this would make suitable listening to accompany the Feast of Christ the King which many liturgical churches celebrate on the last Sunday of the church year, i.e this upcoming Sunday, November 24, 2024.

Here are Links to their other album playlists on Youtube:

For eight years, I have made it no secret that I do not consider Donald Trump qualified to be the head of state and government of the most powerful nation in the Western world—primarily due to his character and temperament—and I have therefore been criticized by many of my American evangelical friends. They claim American politics is none of my business since I am neither a U.S. citizen nor a resident of the U.S. I have always disagreed—sometimes sharply—and insisted that I am very much entitled to have an opinion on U.S. politics and to express it because America, as the most powerful country (at least in the “Western” world), influences all our lives. I have also been a lifelong admirer of America, who has never forgotten that without the decisive involvement of the United States in World War II, I probably would not be living in a democratic country today. Additionally, I grew up in a home funded by the Marshall Plan, so the fate of this country is very dear to my heart.

Unfortunately, my enthusiasm and sympathy for the country have significantly diminished in recent years because I couldn’t understand how a country with around 300 million citizens, about half of whom are eligible to vote, could not find better candidates in the last three presidential elections than Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris—a real indictment. Other weaknesses have also come into sharper focus: the inability to curb the gun epidemic and the resulting mass shootings in schools and elsewhere, the inability to ensure an affordable healthcare system, especially for the poorer and more disadvantaged sections of society, and the increase in racially motivated attacks by police, to name just a few examples.

I have also become severely disillusioned about American Evangelicalism which has been a very formative influence in my life: It is incomprehensible to me how around 82 percent of American Evangelicals could, encouraged by many of their most prominent leaders, vote for a foul-mouthed serial adulterer who boasts of sexually harrassing women, demonizes his political and displays his dehumanizing disdain for people of color, women, the handicapped, members of the LGBT community, and immigrants.

Throughout it all, I never imagined that my very vocal opposition would have any effect on the outcome of the election, and sure enough it didn’t: Donald Trump won the election by a landslide, and if nothing unforeseen happens, he will steer the United States’ affairs as the 47th president for the next four years, thereby also exerting a great deal of influence on the rest of the world.

For a long time, I looked at Trump supporters among my friends, and especially among evangelical leaders, with great incomprehension, and in some cases, I was tempted to break off contact. However, I have since revised my stance on this, especially concerning ordinary voters—though I remain very disappointed and critical of evangelical leaders who brush aside Trump’s character deficits with sometimes bizarre theological arguments (it seems character only matters in political opponents, not in our own candidates).

This lengthy process of changing my attitude is difficult to describe and is probably still incomplete, but on the Monday before the election, and then three days afterward, I came across a few articles that reflect my thoughts better than I could describe them myself and that have also given me further food for thought.

First, there was a lead article in the news magazine profil on Monday by Robert Treichler titled “America Wants to Dream”(4), in which he describes Trump’s appeal to voters:

What is Kamala Harris’s great promise? No, I don’t mean a list of proposals from all kinds of fields, but a big idea that can deeply resonate with 150 million people.

I fear there isn’t one. The only issue Harris addressed in an emotionally stirring way during the campaign is the right to abortion. But that’s not an overarching idea for the entire nation.

Trump has such a promise: “Make America Great Again.” This simple slogan, with which Trump has campaigned for a third time, embodies many motives that create a political sense of identity. The desire for strength, a return to old, disreputable ideas, a commitment to ruthlessness toward opponents, and defiance of moralistic objections…

Trump intertwines his slogan with his numerous character flaws. But the vow to make America great again apparently still outshines all the unspeakable things.

In the same issue, Siobhán Geets and Robert Treichler answer 47 questions about the U.S. presidential election in an article titled “Do You Understand America?”. It begins:

Would you vote for a black woman or a man convicted of sexual abuse, who is also suspected of attempted election fraud and inciting an uprising? You may not have to think long. The trickier question is: Why does the above-mentioned convicted felon—you’ve recognized him by now, it’s Donald Trump—have a good chance of being elected the 47th president of the United States next Tuesday?

Trump’s ongoing popularity and political success are baffling. But there are explanations: It is a fact that Trump recognized the problem of illegal immigration early on and made it a political megatopic, similar to right-wing parties in Europe. In his unique style of grotesque exaggerations, he demonizes migrants as murderers and rapists, even going so far as to claim that immigrants from Haiti “eat other people’s pets.” Nevertheless, even though Democrats have since imposed restrictive measures against illegal immigration, a large portion of the population grants them no credibility on this central issue.

Additionally, the politically charged question of identity politics comes into play. Democrats fight for diversity, LGBTQ rights, and abortion rights. John Della Volpe, director at Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics and a former advisor to Joe Biden, warns that they are neglecting men in the process. These men increasingly turn to the Republicans, who promote a carefree role model with limited tolerance for patriarchal and sexist behaviors. It’s entirely normal for one half of the population to want something different than the other half.

However, the problematic aspect is that the two halves no longer seem to meet on any level—not even figuratively. Trump supporters believe the 2020 election was rigged, dismiss court rulings, ignore warnings from his former associates about Trump being dangerous or even fascistic. Thus, all accusations from the other side fall flat.

Although Trump himself says outrageous things, such as wanting to use the military against “enemies from within”—meaning his opponents within the U.S.—his supporters dismiss these as typical exaggerations. Meanwhile, the other half of the country shudders in horror.

Similar reflections to these during the past year have led me to try to understand ordinary Trump voters better and to approach them with more tolerance.

Finally, three days after the election Jonah Goldberg’s newsletter titled “Stop Bashing Democracy!” arrived in my inbox. He writes:

And that, in a nutshell, is the grave error people are making. People vote for candidates—any candidate—for lots of different reasons. If you think Trump is a fascist, fine. We can talk about that. But just because you think he’s a fascist doesn’t mean someone who voted for him agrees with you and voted for him anyway. I know dozens of people who voted for Trump. None of them are idiots or fascists or fascist idiots.

This argument works every bit as much in the other direction. You may think Kamala Harris is a “communist” or “Marxist,” etc. Whether she is or not is a debatable proposition in the sense that it can be debated. But if you want people to agree with you, you need to make the argument, not just hurl the accusation. If you’re sure she is a communist, no one can deny you the right to say so—but saying so doesn’t mean everyone has to agree with you. Very few of the 68 million people who voted for Harris did so because they thought she was a Marxist or a communist.

I still believe I am correct in my assessment of Donald Trump, and that Trump’s supporters are mistaken, but I now understand them better, especially since Kamala Harris (just like Hillary Clinton eight years ago) was only a marginally less problematic candidate.

Now, lets jump back across the Atlantic to my country, Austria. Much of what Robert Treichler and Siobhán Geets write can be applied almost one-to-one to our situation, where Herbert Kickl, in my opinion a completely unsuitable candidate, won the most votes in the parliamentary election. Fortunately, he did not receive a governing majority, and no one wants to form a coalition with him, so there is a good chance we will have a coalition government, possibly involving the ÖVP, SPÖ, and perhaps NEOS.

But one thing is clear: if the new government continues with “business as usual”, Kickl will garner even more votes in four years, and perhaps even an “absolute majority”, enough to govern. Blaming it on stupid voters won’t help then either. Because the problem here, as in America (and many other countries), is the same: a political class, an aspiring elite too committed to their own interests and ideological pet issues to care about the concerns and fears of ordinary citizens. It may take different forms in America and here, but at its core, it’s the same.

Footnotes:

• • Note 1: These figures are estimates from 2020 ↩️
  • Note 2: Robert Treichler was born in 1968 in Graz, studied French and philosophy, and has been a journalist with the news magazine profil since 1997, serving as deputy editor-in-chief since 2021. In 2024, together with Gernot Bauer, he published the book Kickl und die Zerstörung Europas (Kickl and the Destruction of Europe) with Zsolnay. ↩️
  • Note 3: Siobhán Kathleen Geets, born in 1984 in Vienna, studied cultural and social anthropology at the University of Vienna with a focus on gender studies, international development, philosophy, and religious studies. She completed her thesis on ladyboys in Thailand and was awarded her degree in May 2008. From October 2008 to September 2009, she attended a course at the Vienna School of Photography. In January to February 2008 and February to March 2009, she conducted field research in Thailand, interviewing ladyboys for her thesis and a radio feature for Ö1. Since 2020, she has been part of the foreign affairs team at profil. ↩️

Recently I acquired a discounted collection of Michael Connelly’s novels[1], foremost among them the more than twenty novels featuring LAPD[2] homicide detective Hieronymous “Harry” Bosch, and I was instantly hooked and spent two weeks binge-reading them.

What impressed me about Connelly’s novels, apart from the fact that he is a brilliant story teller, is the meticulous research which has gone into providing a lot of factual information about the LAPD and other Los Angeles institutions.

Because I find the Wikipedia article about Harry Bosch well-written and informative, I am including much of it here:

1. https://thrillerandhorror.com/product/complete-works-of-michael-connelly/[↩]
2. Los Angeles Police Department[↩]

Taken from Wikipedia for my own reference.