US Politics Archives • Wolf’s Notes : Wolf’s Notes

Why did Trump win the election?

2024-11-14 Wolf Paul

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. ↩️

Warum hat Trump die Wahl gewonnen?

2024-11-10 Wolf Paul

Ich mache seit acht Jahren kein Hehl daraus, daß ich Donald Trump nicht für qualifiziert halte, Staats- und Regierungschef der mächtigsten Nation der westlichen Welt zu sein — vor allem charakterlich und aufgrund seines Temperaments — und bin daher von vielen meiner amerikanischen, evangelikalen Freunde kritisiert worden. Amerikanische Politik ginge mich nichts an, da ich weder US-Bürger wäre, noch in den USA wohnen würde. Ich habe dem immer — mehr uder weniger scharf — widersprochen und darauf beharrt, daß es mir sehr wohl zustünde, eine Meinung zur US-Politik zu haben und auch zu äußern, da Amerika als mächtigstes Land (zumindest der “westlichen” Welt) unser aller Leben mitbestimmt. Außerdem war ich zeitlebens ein Amerika-Fan, der nie vergessen hat, daß ich heute, ohne die maßgebliche Mitwirkung der USA, wahrscheinlich nicht in einem demokratischen Land leben würde , und auch nicht in einem, vom Marshall-Fund finanzierten Elternhaus aufgewachsen wäre, und daß mir daher das Schicksal dieses Landes sehr am Herzen liegt.

Leider hat in den letzten Jahren meine Begeisterung und Sympathie für das Land stark abgenommen, weil ich nicht nachvollziehen konnte, daß es ein Land von mit rund 300 Millionen Staatsbürgern, von denen etwas mehr als die Hälfte wahlberechtigt sind, bei den letzten drei Präsidentenwahlen keine besseren Kandidaten aufstellen konnte, als Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, und Kamala Harris — ein echtes Armutszeugnis. Und auch andere Schwachpunkse sind immer mehr in den Fokus gerückt: die Unfähigkeit, die Waffenpandemie und die daraus resultierenden Amokläufe in Schulen und anderswo einzudämmen, die Unfähigkeit, ein erschwingliches Gesundheitssystem gerade auch für die ärmeren und benachteiligteren Teile der Gesellschaft sicherzustellen, und die Häufung von rassistischen Übergriffen von Seiten der Polizei sind nur ein paar Beispiele dafür.

Auch von der evangelikalen Bewegung, die ein ganz wichtiger Einfluß auf mein Leben und meine Entwicklung hatte, bin ich sehr enttäuscht: Es ist mir unbegreiflich, wie rund 82 Prozent der amerikanischen Evangelikalen, ermutigt von vielen ihrer prominentesten Führungspersönlichkeiten, für einen vulgären Serien-Ehebrecher stimmen konnten, der damit prahlt, Frauen sexuell belästigt zu haben, seine politischen Gegner dämonisiert und seine entmenschlichende Verachtung gegenüber Menschen anderer Hautfarbe, Frauen, Menschen mit Behinderung, Mitgliedern der LGBT-Community und Einwanderern zur Schau stellt.

Ich habe mir bei alledem nie eingebildet, daß meine Ablehmung irgendeine Auswirkung auf den Ausgang der Wahl haben würde, und so kam es auch: Donald Trump hat die Wahl haushoch gewonnen, und wenn nichts unvorhersehbares geschieht, wird er vier Jahre lang als 47. Präsident die Geschicke der USA lenken, und damit auch sehr viel Einfluß auf die restliche Welt ausüben.

Ich bin Trump-Unterstützern sowohl unter meinen Freunden, aber vor allem auch untet christlichen Leitern, lange Zeit mit großem Unverständnis gegenübergestanden, und bei einigen meiner Freunde war ich stark versucht, den Kontakt abzubrechen. Ich habe jedoch meine Haltung diesbezüglich revidiert, vor allem was normale Wähler angeht — christlichen Leitern, die Trump’s charakterliche Defizite mit teils theologisch sehr skurrilen Argumenten beiseite wischen (Charakter ist offensichtlich nur beim politischen Gegner wichtig, nicht bei unseren eigenen Kandidaten) stehe ich nach wie vor sehr enttäuscht und kritisch gegenüber.

Dieser langwierige Prozess der Einstellungsänderung ist schwierig zu beschreiben und wohl auch noch nicht abgeschlossen, aber am Montag vor der Wahl, und dann drei Tage danach, bin ich auf ein paar Artikel gestoßen, die meine Überlegungen besser reflektieren, als ich sie selbst beschreiben könnte, und die mir auch noch einen weiteren Anstoß gegeben haben.

Zunächst gab es am Montag im Nachrichtenmagazin profil einen Leitartikel von Robert Treichler mit dem Titel, “Amerika will träumen“, in dem er Trumps Attraktivität für die Wähler beschreibt:

Worin besteht das große Versprechen von Kamala Harris? Nein, ich meine nicht eine Liste von Vorschlägen aus allen möglichen Bereichen, sondern einen großen Gedanken, von dem sich 150 Millionen Menschen tief drin angesprochen fühlen können.

Ich fürchte, so einen gibt es nicht. Das einzige Thema, das Harris im Wahlkampf auf emotional aufrüttelnde Weise auf den Punkt gebracht hat, ist das Recht auf Abtreibung. Aber das ist keine übergreifende Idee für die ganze Nation.

Trump hat ein solches Versprechen: “Make America Great Again.” In diesem simplen Slogan, mit dem Trump den nunmehr dritten Wahlkampf bestritten hat, sind enorm viele Beweggründe enthalten, die ein politisches Lebensgefühl erzeugen. Der Wunsch nach Stärke, die Rückbesinnung auf alte, in Verruf geratene Vorstellungen, das Bekenntnis zur Rücksichtslosigkeit gegenüber Widersachern, der Trotz gegenüber moralisierenden Einwänden …

Trump verknüpft seine Parole mit seinen zahllosen charakterlichen Defiziten. Aber der Schwur, Amerika wieder großartig zu machen, überstrahlt offenbar immer noch alle Unsäglichkeiten.

In der gleichen Ausgabe beantworten Siobhán Geets und Robert Treichler unter dem Titel, “Verstehen Sie Amerika?” 47 Fragen zur US-Präsidentenwahl. Hier ist der Beginn dieses Artikels:

Würden Sie bei einer Präsidentenwahl eher für eine schwarze Frau stimmen oder für einen wegen sexuellen Missbrauchs verurteilten Mann, der zudem im Verdacht steht, sich des versuchten Wahlbetrugs und der Anstiftung zu einem Aufstand schuldig gemacht zu haben? Durchaus möglich, dass Sie nicht lange nachdenken müssen. Die kniffligere Frage lautet: Warum hat der oben genannte verurteilte Straftäter – Sie haben ihn längst erkannt, es handelt sich um Donald Trump – am kommenden Dienstag gute Chancen, zum 47. Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten gewählt zu werden?

Die anhaltende Popularität und der politische Erfolg Trumps machen ratlos. Doch es gibt Erklärungen: Es ist eine Tatsache, dass Trump frühzeitig das Problem der illegalen Migration erkannt und daraus ein politisches Megathema geschmiedet hat, ähnlich wie rechte Parteien in Europa. In seinem unnachahmlichen Stil grotesker Übertreibungen verteufelt er Migranten als Mörder, Vergewaltiger, und er verstieg sich gar zu der Behauptung, Einwanderer aus Haiti würden „die Haustiere anderer Leute essen“. Dennoch: Auch wenn die Demokraten seither restriktive Maßnahmen gegen illegale Einwanderung verhängen, gesteht ihnen ein großer Teil der Bevölkerung keinerlei Glaubwürdigkeit bei diesem zentralen Thema zu.

Dazu kommt die politisch aufgeladene Frage der Identitätspolitik. Die Demokraten kämpfen für Diversität, LGBTQ-Rechte und das Recht auf Abtreibung. John Della Volpe, Direktor am Harvard Kennedy Institut für Politik und früherer Berater von Joe Biden, warnt, dass sie damit die Männer vernachlässigen. Diese wenden sich prompt wieder stärker den Republikanern zu, die ein unbeschwertes Rollenbild mit eingeschränkter Nachsicht gegenüber patriarchalischen und sexistischen Verhaltensweisen propagieren. Dass die eine Hälfte der Bevölkerung etwas anderes will als die andere, ist völlig normal.

Problematisch ist jedoch, dass die beiden Hälften einander auf keiner Ebene mehr zu begegnen scheinen – nicht einmal im übertragenen Sinn. Trumps Anhänger halten die Wahl 2020 für geschoben, nehmen die Richtersprüche nicht ernst, schlagen die Warnungen seiner ehemaligen Mitarbeiter, wonach Trump gefährlich oder gar ein Faschist sei, in den Wind. So gehen alle Vorwürfe der Gegenseite ins Leere.

Auch wenn Trump selbst haarsträubende Dinge sagt, wie etwa, dass es gegen die „Feinde von innen“ – also seine Widersacher innerhalb der USA – mithilfe des Militärs vorgehen wolle, tun das seine Anhänger als typische Übertreibung ab. Während sich die andere Hälfte des Landes vor Entsetzen schaudert.

Ähnliche Überlegungen im Lauf der letzten Monate haben dazu geführt, daß ich versuche, normale Trump-Wähler besser zu verstehen und ihnen mit mehr Toleranz zu begegnen.

Am Freitag nach der Wahl landete schießlich der aktuelle Newsletter von Jonah Goldberg in meiner Inbox, mit dem Titel, “Stop Bashing Democracy!” (“Hört auf, die Demokratie schlechtzureden!”), in dem er unter anderem schreibt,

Und das ist im Kern der schwerwiegende Fehler, den die Menschen machen. Menschen wählen Kandidaten—irgendeinen Kandidaten—aus den unterschiedlichsten Gründen. Wenn du denkst, dass Trump ein Faschist ist, in Ordnung. Darüber können wir reden. Aber nur weil du ihn für einen Faschisten hältst, bedeutet das nicht, dass jemand, der für ihn gestimmt hat, dir zustimmt und trotzdem für ihn gestimmt hat. Ich kenne Dutzende Menschen, die für Trump gestimmt haben. Keiner von ihnen ist ein Idiot oder ein Faschist oder ein faschistischer Idiot.

Dieses Argument funktioniert genauso in die andere Richtung. Du magst denken, dass Kamala Harris eine „Kommunistin“ oder „Marxistin“ ist usw. Ob sie es ist oder nicht, ist ein diskutierbares Thema, im Sinne davon, dass es diskutiert werden kann. Aber wenn du möchtest, dass die Leute dir zustimmen, musst du das Argument bringen und nicht nur die Anschuldigung aussprechen. Wenn du sicher bist, dass sie eine Kommunistin ist, kann dir niemand das Recht nehmen, das zu sagen—aber zu sagen, dass es so ist, bedeutet nicht, dass alle dir zustimmen müssen. Nur sehr wenige der 68 Millionen Menschen, die für Harris gestimmt haben, taten dies, weil sie dachten, sie sei eine Marxistin oder Kommunistin.

Ich bin natürlich immer noch der Meinung, daß ich mit meiner Einschätzung von Donald Trump recht habe, und Trumps Unterstützer verkehrt liegen, aber ich habe inzwischen mehr Verständnis für sie, vor allem, da mit Kamala Harris (genauso wie vor acht Jahren mit Hillary Clinton) nur eine marginal weniger problematische Kandidatin zur Wahl stand.

Und damit springe ich jetzt zurück über den Atlantik, in unser Land Österreich. Vieles, was Robert Treichel und Siobhán Geets schreiben, läßt sich fast eins zu eins auf unsere Sitiation anwenden, wo mit Herbert Kickl ein meiner Meinung nach absolut ungeeigneter Kandidat bei der Nationalratswahl die meisten Stimmen gewonnen hat. Zum Glück hat er keine regierungsfähige Mehrheit erhalten, und niemand will mit ihm koalieren, sodaß eine gute Chance besteht, daß wir eine Koalitionsregierung, aus ÖVP und SPÖ, möglicherweise mit den NEOS, bekommen werden.

Aber es Eines ist klar: wenn die neue Regierung so weitermacht, wie bisher, dann wird Kickl in vier Jahren noch mehr Stimmen, und möglichetweise eine “Absolute”. bekommen und dann regieren. Sich auf die dummen Wähler auszureden wird dann auch nicht mehr helfen. Denn das Problem ist hier bei uns das gleich wie auch in Amerika (und vielen anderen Ländern): eine politische Klasse= eine Möchtegern-Elite, die zu sehr ihren eigenen Interessen und ideologischen Lieblingsthemen verpflichtet ist, um sich um die Sorgen und Ängste von normal sterblicher Bürger zu kümmern. Das mag in Aerika und bei uns andere Formen annehmen, aber im Kern ist es dasselbe.

Fußnoten:

1. geschätzte Zahlen aus 2020 ↩️
2. Robert Treichler wurde 1968 in Graz geboren, studierte Französisch und Philosophie und ist seit 1997 Journalist beim Nachrichtenmagazin profil, seit 2021 in der Funktion des stellvertretenden Chefredakteurs. Bei Zsolnay erschien 2024 gemeinsam mit Gernot Bauer das Buch “Kickl und die Zerstörung Europas”. ↩️
3. Siobhán Kathleen Geets, geboren 1984 in Wien. Studium der Kultur- und Sozialanthropologie an der Universität Wien, Fokus auf Genderstudies, Internationale Entwicklung, Philosophie and Religionswissenschaften. Diplomarbeit über Ladyboys in Thailand, Verleihung des akademischen Grades im Mai 2008. Von Oktober 2008 bis September 2009 Besuch des Lehrgangs an der Fotoschule Wien. Jänner bis Februar 2008 sowie Februar bis März 2009 Feldforschung in Thailand, Interviews mit Ladyboys für Diplomarbeit und Radio-Feature für Ö1. Seit 2020 bei profil im Außenpolitik-Ressort. ↩️

Donald Trump now champions “reproductive rights”

2024-08-28 Wolf Paul

Peter Wehner, senior fellow at the Trinity Forum and a former Republican speechwriter points out some inconvenient facts and asks disturbing questions, but I doubt somehow that this will sway many of Trump’s followers.

If I were an American I could not in good conscience vote for either Trump or Harris come November, and in the absence of a credible and viable third party candidate would simply not vote, but I don’t really have a problem with those who would vote for either one of the candidates as the lesser of two evils–that is a legitimate prudential judgement.

My issue is, rather, with those of my fellow evangelicals (and Christians of other traditions) who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and/or 2020 because they consider abortion the most significant of all issues, and did so while holding their noses with respect to Trump’s character, and who now, in the wake of January 6 and when Trump has had the Pro Life plank removed from the GOP platform and repeatedly expressed his support for “reproductive rights” and greater abortion access are still Trump loyalists defending their champion and their support for him. Unfortunately this group includes many prominent evangelical leaders (such as Al Mohler, Franklin Graham, Tony Perkins, Robert Jeffress, Michael Brown, and many others) as well as most of my American evangelical friends.

Here are the two, in my opinion most important paragraphs from Wehner’s article:

Now ask yourself this: How could an evangelical who claims to be passionately pro-life vote for a presidential candidate who now promises that his administration will “be great for women and their reproductive rights”? Especially when that person has cheated on his wives and on his taxes, paid hush money to porn stars, and been found liable of sexual assault?

And how can those who profess to be followers of Jesus cast a ballot for this candidate, once the excuse of casting a pro-life vote is gone? For a convicted felon and a pathological liar, a man who has peddled racist conspiracy theories, cozied up to the world’s worst dictators, blackmailed an American ally, invited a hostile foreign power to interfere in American elections, defamed POWs and the war dead, mocked people with handicaps, and encouraged political violence? How can they continue to stand in solidarity with a person who has threatened prosecutors, judges, and the families of judges; who attempted to overthrow an election; who assembled a violent mob and directed it to march on the Capitol; and who encouraged the mob to hang his vice president?

I feel an immense sadness for this once great country which in many important areas increasingly looks like a third world nation and which out of a population of 335 million could not find two suitable candidates for the nation’s, if not the world’s, most important office. Unfortunately neither of the current candidates will make America great again.

And I feel an even greater sadness for that segment of the American church which seems to have lost its moral compass.

Putin — A Religious Fundamentalist?

2024-03-16 Wolf Paul

This was an interesting conversation between Piers Morgan and Slavoj Žižek.

I would disagree with Slavoj Žižek on one major point:

I don’t think Vladimir Putin is a religious fundamentalist. He has a mixed motivation of Russian nationalism fuelled by imperialist delusions, and a limitless ambition and lust for power. He merely uses religious fundamentalists as tools, as useful idiots.

In that he resembles Donald Trump, who also has a mixed motivation, of American nationalism fuelled by American exceptionalism “MAGA” delusions, and a limitless ambition and lust for power, and he uses Evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists as tools and useful idiots.

The big difference is of course that Putin has invaded a neigbouring country and has had more than one political opponent locked up and assassinated. Trump hasn’t done that, but judging by some of his campaign rhetorik, the locking up at least no longer seems impossible.

Oh, and I agree with Mr Žižek that the political establishment on both sides of the aisle have made Trump possible because of their failure to listen to the real needs and concerns of the people they are supposed to represent, instead being preoccupied with their pet ideological projects.

And so it goes on and on …

2023-02-14 Wolf Paul

And so it goes on and on and on …

But private gun ownership with minimal checks and controls remains a sacred right protected by a particular reading of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to keep and bear arms is here clearly linked to the citizens being organized as a militia. But for some reasons otherwise rational Americans ignore this and insist that every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be able to walk into a store and buy not just a pistol or a hunting rifle but a machine gun or assault rifle.

An American friend told me that as a European I do not understand that. For a long time I thought I did, but with every incident like this I my understanding wanes.

Some folks tell me that without the right to bear arms the U.S. would still be under the British Crown[1]. But for this to hold true, for freedom-loving citizens to rise up against a despotic government and actually prevail, you would also need private ownership of tanks, fighter jets, war ships – the full arsenal of modern warfare. Ludicrous!

What is most difficult for me to wrap my head around is that many of the people who put forth such (unpersuasive) arguments for this particular interpretation of the Second Amendment are all evangelical Christians, followers of the Prince of Peace, quite a few of whom have served as missionaries in Europe. What a testimony! Unbelievable!

So we can look forward to more such incidents in 2023, an uninterrupted stream fom 2022 and years past.

When our application to stay on in the U.S. long term was denied in 1989, it was with disappointment and regret that we returned to Austria. It pains me to say so, but today I am so relieved and thankful that we are no longer in that hopelessly polarized and divided country and that our kids grew up without only a minimal threat of a shooter going on a rampage in their school.

__________

Not that this would be so much worse than the current political situation, especially in the past seven years, with no end in sight![↩]

No Rule of Law for spies and their spouses in the U.K. and U.S.

2022-12-09 Wolf Paul

The Guardian reports on the trial, conviction, and sentencing, by video link, of Anne Sacoolas for the negligent, accidental killing of motorcyclist Harry Dunn in August 2019.

«The mother of the British teenager Harry Dunn has said her promise to win him justice has been fulfilled after his killer was sentenced, but said it was “despicable” that she had failed to appear in court.

Although Anne Sacoolas, a US citizen who was driving on the wrong side of the road when her car struck the young motorcyclist in 2019, avoided jail, she received an eight-month suspended sentence and was disqualified from driving for 12 months.

Dunn’s family had waged a three-and-a-half-year campaign eventually acknowledged her guilt in a British court after a UK request for her extradition was denied.

Speaking outside court, Dunn’s mother, Charlotte Charles, said it was “job done, promise complete” now that Sacoolas had a criminal record.

But she said Sacoolas, who appeared via a video link after her lawyers said her US government employer had advised her not to return to the UK, should have been in court. “I think it’s despicable that she didn’t come over on the judge’s orders … Huge coward,” she said.

“We weren’t cowards. We didn’t back away from the US government or the UK government. We didn’t back down, because we have values. Maybe she doesn’t.”»

What to say?

So Sacoolas received a suspended sentence; her 12-month driving ban is a joke, because her U.S. employer will no doubt tell her that the ban doean’t apply in the U.S. and she should go right on driving.
Undoubtedly it was cowardly of Mrs Sacoolas to refuse to obey the court’s summons.
The way the U.S. government whisked Sacoolas back to the U.S. after the fatal accident and then refused to extradite her was despicable (and no difference there between the Trump and Biden administrations).
Especially deplorable is the fact that Harry Dunn’s family did not receive the unreserved support of their own U.K. government in their quest for justice.

It seems that the Rule of Law does not always apply when it comes to American spies and their spouses. No doubt the situation is similar in other countries; diplomatic immunity, like parliamentary immunity, is easily and often abused.

But both Britain and the United States like to present themselves as global beacons of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, and it is disappointing (although no longer very surprising) that one finds George Orwell’s satirical tale against Stalin, Animal Farm, with its conclusion that “all animals are equal—but some are more equal than others” so clearly demonstrated.

Quo Vadis, America?

2022-08-03 Wolf Paul

In a recent Facebook discussion on the subject of “Christian nationalism” a commenter said,

“I sometimes feel we have an attitude that because we do it better than most, we don’t need to make changes. When you believe you are the best, why make changes??”

This was my response, slightly expanded here, which gave me no pleasure to write:

As an Austrian who grew up in a home built with Marshall Plan funds and and who was fully aware that without US involvement in WWII my country would likely be living under either Hitler’s or Stalin’s terror regime, and who therfore used to be an uncritical fan of the US in my youth; as one who was socialized and formed as an Evangelical Christian by American missionaries, spent almost five years living in the US working for a Christan ministry, and still has many dear friends in and from the US, but who now is thoroughly disillusioned with both American society/politics and the American church, I would say the attitude you describe is wrong on two counts:

Of course you need to make changes. Even the best can always do and be better.
But you don’t actually do it better than most. Let’s see:
- You are almost the worst at controlling violent crime, largely due to a ludicrous misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment to your constitution;
- You may have some of the best (and best-equipped) doctors and medical facilities but you are pretty worse than most industrialized nations at providing equal and equitable healthcare access and funding to all;
- You are a leader in technological research who sends people into space and spends tons of money on your military, but your power grid and road network and telephone network are in deplorable condition;
- Your education system leaves most of its graduates shackled by debt for many years;
- Your society is hopelessly polarized and your politics controlled by the extremes of the left and the right:
  - The Democrats are dominated by a destructive “progressive” agenda which seeks to deconstruct human nature as essentially male and female and plays with identity politics which divides rather than unites the country;
  - The GOP is under the thumb of a serial adulterer and liar who has brought the country to the brink of political collapse and possibly civil war and whose followers know only law and order but not mercy and compassion;
- Vast swathes of the American church, instead of being a prophetic witness speaking truth to power, have got into bed with either the political left or the political right, championing their respective agendas and favouring the separation of church and state only when it suits them while trying to push their own agenda on the state when that suits them.

I could go on, but this is enough to show why in a very real sense you do it worse than most in so many areas that the meaning of American exceptionalism has become inverted, and why there is definitely room (and a desparate need) for change.

It pains me especially that many churches and leaders in my own Evangelical tradition have, in an extreme and especially bizarre form of supersessionism, appropriated the Jewish people’s status as God’s uniquely chosen people not just for the church (bad enough in view of Romans 9–11) but for the United States, claiming the promises made to Israel but disregarding most of the responsibilities such as caring for the poor and welcoming strangers. At the same time they uncritically support the State of Israel as an actor in and venue of their favourite end time scenario but have little use and sympathy for Jews as a people.

So the question posed in the title of this post is a very real one: unless the American nation and the American church drastically change direction, and do so soon, I fear for their future.

The cover image appeared here. The editor of e-International Relations could not find any licensing information so I decided to use it. If anyone claims copyright I will of course remove it.

Shocked By The Reactions To The Roe Reversal

2022-06-26 Wolf Paul

I must confess to being a bit shocked by the reactions to SCOTUS reversing Roe v Wade.

On the one hand there are my conservative Christian friends, both Evangelical and Catholic, who celebrate the court’s decision, in a triumphal tone, seemingly without any awareness of how this will increase and confirm the polarization of the USA; many without recognition that abortion is first a spiritual issue, and only then a legal issue. It is very easy to see abortion primarily as the result of self-indulgent recreational sex and to ignore the desparate situation of thousands, if not millions of women who are in borderline abusive relationships where the man can’t be bothered to take responsibility for either contraception or the baby that may result without it — women who simply cannot afford another baby or cannot cope with another pregnancy. The latter is also why adoption is not a good alternative for many pregnant women: as soon as the baby is born there is instinctive bonding that makes it difficult to give the baby up and for many women results in feelings of guilt; relentless propaganda by the pro-choice side during the past half-century has convinced many women that a baby in the early stages of pregnancy is merely a blob of tissue one doesn’t need to feel guilty about.

I am not an expert in this area, but it seems to me that instead of triumphal celebrations and the feeling that we have arrived at the goal, the challenge for pro-life Christians and their churches is to find good solutions for these desparate situations. This may include making sure that the laws passed by their states do not save the lives of babies at the expense of the lives of mothers but have robust medical exceptions; ramping up existing programs which provide material assistance to pregnant women, and legal initiatives to hold fathers accountable for their offspring, with compulsory paternity tests if necessary.

On the other hand I am astonished at the hysterical reaction of the pro-choice side to this reversal of Roe v. Wade; this includes most of the media, not just in the US but in Europe etc as well. SCOTUS argues pretty convincingly that the US constitution not only contains no explicit right to abortion but that contemporary jurisprudence didn’t assume an implicit right to abortion, certainly not after “quickening”, i.e. when a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

In view of that fact Roe v. Wade invented a right to abortion; all the current court did was to return this issue to the legislatures, which is where laws are supposed to be made in a democracy.

The hysterical reaction also demonstrates total oblivion to the fact that a human fetus is a human being, and therefore is entitled to the protection of the law; making that dependent on viability independent of the mother would take us down a very sinister path because human beings at all stages of life can become so dependent on another that they are no longer independently viable, and I hope no-one other than Peter Singer suggests “aborting” them.

And finally, the hysterical reaction demonstrates a marked lack of confidence in the democratic processes and institutions — or else a very UNdemocratic unwillingness to accept the will of the majority.

The challenge for the pro-choice side, instead of this hysteria, is to engage in the political and legislative processes to achieve their goals; to persuade enough of their fellow citizens of their point of view to pass legislation they can live with (should not be too difficult since they always claim that the majority of Americans want abortion to be legal); and finally, to redouble any efforts designed to give pregnant women such good alternatives that abortions become unnecessary.

Allister Heath on the Fall of the American Empire

2021-08-21 Wolf Paul

Allister Heath of the British Telegraph newspapers has recently published two compelling – to me, anyway – commentaries in the Daily Telegraph, one on Aug. 4, 2021 on the American “woke” crisis, and one on Aug 18, 2021 drawing conclusions from the chaotic fall of Afghanistan. Because these articles are behind a paywall, here are a few excerpts which seem to summarize his main points.

Despite my growing conviction that the stance most compatible with the New Testament is Christian pacifism, I have nothing but gratitude for the role of America in defeating the Nazi regime and providing Marshall Plan aid to rebuild Germany and Austria, and I thoroughly enjoyed the time we lived in Texas. So I regard the current situation not with “Schadenfreude”, but with sadness and a heavy heart.

(Italic emphasis is mine; “liberal” and “liberalism” does not carry the derogatory meaning in which the terms are used by American conservatives and Evangelicals.)

«America’s elites, led by younger graduates, have abandoned their post-1960s liberalism and embraced instead what Wesley Yang has described as its “successor ideology”: the sinister “woke” secular religion of so-called “social justice warriors” who see the world through the distorted prism of “intersectionality”, oppression, identity politics and the catch-all of “white supremacy”. These people say they want to fight racism but, in reality, are Balkanising America and have no interest in a truly meritocratic, colour-blind society finally at peace with itself, the original liberal ideal.»

«In the authoritarian, anti-democratic worldview which now dominates universities, big business, government and cultural institutions, free speech is dismissed as violence, conservatism as fascism and differences of opinion as “micro-aggressions”. Capitalism is loathed, as is free enquiry. The old elite – whether Left-liberal or Reaganite – tried to help the poor: the new elite dislikes the working class and seeks to deploy “cancel culture” to stamp out dissent. It attacks selective state schooling and campaigns to defund the police, moves that have led to an explosion of crime and are hitting minorities especially badly.»

«The Right, for its part, has also gone mad: too many Republicans have ditched their old principles – be it free markets, limited government or social conservatism – and instead embraced a dumbed-down, populist demagoguery on a long list of issues. Many Republican voters still believe, against all facts and evidence, that the election was rigged; on Covid, conspiracies have been rife. Trumpism could be the death of the Republican party. Left and Right hate each other: they refuse to talk, to live together, and they don’t want their children to marry one another. Race relations are also deteriorating again after years of gradual progress, according to polling.»

«No empire is eternal: all eventually fall amid hubris and humiliation. The heart-wrenching, humanitarian calamity that is the botched Afghan retreat is merely the latest sign that the American era is ending: Washington is no longer the world’s policeman, and an unsettling future of clashes between expansionist, authoritarian regional powers beckons.»

«In the late 1980s–early 1990s America’s global clout peaked.»

«Twenty years on, America’s global plan lies in ruins, its elites confounded on almost every issue, the stupidity and incompetence on display over the Afghan withdrawal confirming that they don’t understand the rest of the world, and aren’t fit to govern their own country, let alone the globe. Blinded by a simplistic universalism, they no longer understand religion, tribalism, history, national differences or why countries want to govern themselves.»

«America’s internal problems are immense: its constitution is broken, its predilection for second-rate gerontocrats such as Biden unrivalled. Racked with self-doubt, its elites in the grip of a bizarre “awakening” centred around a nihilistic, ungrateful self-loathing, it no longer has values to sell, neither capitalism nor democracy nor the American dream. How can people who live in terror of “micro-aggressions” find it in themselves to defeat real evils? As to the public, it doesn’t want to know about the rest of the world: how, under such circumstances, can the US empire not be in terminal decline?»

«The West has lost control: there will be mass population movements, currency wars and battles over natural resources. The American empire at least believed in freedom and democracy; what replaces it won’t even pretend to be liberal.»