Tag: Napp Nazworth

On fighting straw men

Earlier today, Lis Smith — campaign strategist extraordinaire behind Pete Buttigieg’s presidential run — made this comment on Twitter: It’s why the “CRT isn’t taught in schools” line that’s parroted on cable tv doesn’t translate to voters. It’s a communications challenge Dems need to confront.

You’ve no doubt read volumes about Governor-elect Glen Youngkin’s pledge to Virginia voters that he was going to stop Critical Race Theory from being taught in schools. Parents raise concerns about children being taught to be “woke” and to feel badly about those pieces of American History that would make them feel bad or somehow — in spite of all evidence — to become convinced that white people are all bad and non-whites have been victimized.

Often these concerns are based upon anecdotal reports of an isolated classroom somewhere or an overly aggressive diversity, equity, inclusion workshop for teachers. A state legislator in Texas has come out with a list of 850 books available in school libraries that he believes are indoctrinating.

Some have argued that schools became a battle ground over questions of Zoom school or due to mask mandates (or both). There is also a historic patterns of anti-teachers union sentiments that provide a ready reservoir of concerned and vocal parents (even if they are the minority of parents in the district). Terry McAuliffe fed these concerns in Virginia with his bone-headed comment that “parents have no say in education” and then doubled-down when challenged. (Note: McAauliffe was a pretty weak candidate in 2013 against a much more extreme candidate than Youngkin.)

So how do we respond to these concerns, as Lis Smith suggests we should? I suggest that this is very hard to do because 1) the critics are often arguing in bad faith and 2) the goalposts keep moving. Respond to one particular concern (masks keep schools functioning by protecting vulnerable staff and also protect those at home who may have health risks) and quickly the conversation is about pseudoscience and Hitler and oppression. It’s not that the critics actual believe these metaphors are apt — they just work.

Perhaps there’s an avenue in returning to conversations about the purpose of education. For decades, public education has been about learning but also about citizenship. Those are the lessons begun in Kindergarten — sharing, listening, realizing that it’s not all about you. We have gotten test crazy to make sure “our children are learning” (No Child Left Behind) which has confused much. Those same parents who thought we were too reliant on testing now are suddenly concerned about learning loss.

Here’s another example. My Twitter feed has been full of reactions to Senator Josh Hawley’s Axios interview where he said that liberals are attacking masculinity, defining men as part of the problem in modern society. He says that men need to stop playing video games and watching porn.

In response to a prompt from my friend Napp Nazworth, I tweeted the following:

Hard to respond when Hawley makes claims like this. The choice is not between Withdrawn Men and Toxic Patriarchy. There are literally millions of men, Republican and Democrat, Christian and Secular, who look nothing like the straw man he’s offering up.

Again, I have no idea what data Hawley is using to support his claims. My best guess is that he’s posturing, looking for a signature issue that will make him a potential Presidential candidate in 2024 (in case that other guy doesn’t run). Senator Hawley is 41 years old. Like many of his generation, he would have grown up with readily available video games (I’ll forego addressing the porn question). Probably many of his staffers play video games in their free time. But he wasn’t really talking about men but about his continued attempts to paint tech giants as enemies of society.

Concerns about men have been showing up recently, especially around college attendance. Pew shared data today that 20% of men and 12% of women aged 25-34 had college degrees. In 2021, the comparable figures are 36% for males and 46% for women. The subtext in this any many articles is that somehow this is a problem.

It’s quite likely that the 1970 figures reflect some structural barriers to women attending college and a lower percentage of women headed to the workforce. The percentage of men 25-34 with college degrees nearly doubled as a function of the job market. Sure, the percentages for women increased nearly fourfold over the same period. While it’s tempting to argue that this is a turn away from men, but it’s more likely a reflection of the job market for all players. But this isn’t nearly as much fun as the inflammatory claim of a war against men.

Here’s another example. Today, conservative NYT columnist Bari Weiss announced that she and others were starting the University of Austin, a non-accredited non-profit institution that will be a safe place for conservatives to study. This is claimed as a direct response to the belief “that higher education is broken”, notoriously liberal, and unsafe for anyone who won’t follow the party line laid down by indoctrinating professors. This is on top of Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance claiming over the weekend that “professors are the enemy”. {It should be noted that there were bomb threats at three Ivy League schools and one Ohio institution this weekend.)

How does one respond to these outrageous claims about college professors? Sure, sociologists (like me) are largely left of center politically. We assign books that those parents discussed above might take issue with. But nearly all professors I know, in Christian colleges, state schools, and research universities want their students to engage the assigned material thoughtfully but would never demand that their students adopt pre-determined positions.

A final example, also from today. In promoting the newly passed infrastructure legislation, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg referenced a historic decision by New York official Robert Moses who intentionally designed an underpass too short to allow buses to go through, keeping people from black and Puerto Rican neighborhoods from getting to the beaches.

Naturally, Senator Ted Cruz responded on Twitter that “The roads are racist. We must get rid of roads.

One could easily point to work of prominent historians and journalists who explain how these things happen. Mayor Richard J. Daley had the Dan Ryan Expressway moved to cut off the “Black Belt” from his Irish neighborhood. There’s a reason that the Ninth Ward of New Orleans was devastated by the levee failures of hurricane Katrina. I won’t even bring up the housing policies of the New Deal that screened Black families out of the housing boom accompanying suburbanization (this, by the way, is what CRT is really about).

This, then, is the problem. There are rational responses to all of the straw men claims that aim to divide the voting population. And Democrats must, as Lis Smith, argues, find meaningful ways of addressing those concerns. The challenge is that even if successfully addressed, the bad faith actors have moved on to three other outrageous and mostly meritless claims.

Gregory Alan Thornbury calls this “kayfabe“. Performative posturing designed to signal the joke to insiders while making outsiders crazy. It’s what is often called “owning the libs” or “celebrating liberal tears”. They aren’t good faith arguments but positions that are advantageous in the moment.

Responding to kayfabe requires discipline and repetition. At the end of the day, it will require us to address the motivations of those posturers, and maybe pull back the curtain to show man making the great Wizard do his thing.

One more point. This weekend I shared a screenshot on Twitter from James Fallows’ 1996 Breaking the News. I was thrilled when Fallows retweeted my item and added to it. My phone was buzzing all weekend as a result. James wrote about it here. Part of our response to all the straw men is to identify the ways in which they are using the news media and social media to promote their bad faith arguments. There are a number of people tackling the issue but many more are needed.

The Christianity Today Editorial: Eleven Days Later

When I saw the news that Mark Galli had penned a pro-impeachment editorial in Christianity Today on December 19th, I wasn’t sure what to think. Obviously, it was good to see an evangelical opinion leader speak out on the current political moment. Having read and heard Mark over the years, I knew he was not the kind of evangelical leader who would come to such a conclusion easily. I think it is fair to label him a traditionalist and certainly no bomb-thrower. Sure, he was a never-Trumper early on, but lots of evangelical leaders wrote similar things over the years.

Galli centered his critique on two principal pillars: the illegality of the Ukraine scheme as documented in House Intelligence Committee testimony and the president’s moral challenges (lying, attacking, demeaning, damaging norms). For the first, he recognizes that impeachment is a feasible (if unlikely) remedy. For the second, he is advocating discernment when it comes to the 2020 election, especially in consideration of the witness of the church to a world in need of the Gospel.

To be honest, I wasn’t sure that Galli’s editorial would make much of a splash. After all, many others like Micheal Gerson and Peter Wehner have been regularly raising the same critiques for years. In addition, releasing such an important editorial the week before the world shuts down for Christmas suggested that it would make a brief splash and then fade away (I realize that Galli wrote the piece when he did because he was about to retire).

Of course, my supposition that this would be an important but soon forgotten editorial was way off the mark. Here we are, over a week later, and the story has been the center of both broadcast and social media discussions. By the end of the first day, a number of what John Fea calls “Court Evangelicals” plus the president himself, had pushed back. They argued that Christianity Today represented “cosmopolitan evangelicals” and the magazine was “left-leaning” and “progressive. Another common refrain was to suggest that somehow CT was arguing that Democrats would better match evangelical values (which nobody had suggested). CT President Tim Dalrymple, himself no liberal, wrote a wonderful follow-up underscoring that the real issue presented by the Trump-aligned evangelicalism is the diminution of the witness of the church itself. He concluded, “We nevertheless believe the evangelical alliance with this presidency has done damage to our witness here and abroad. The cost has been too high.”

What is also intriguing to me is that it is the CT critics who have kept this story in the center of the media narrative. They regularly list the imagined harms that would come if Democrats were to win election. As John Fea said on MSNBC the other night, this is the result of 40 years of rhetorical excess that resulted in the current political alignment. The letter from the 200 pastors identified themselves as “Bible-believing Christians and patriotic Americans”, which is one of the clearest statement of Christian Nationalism I’ve seen in print. The critics have also argued that Trump has accomplished many things that directly benefit these political evangelicals: pro-life judges and justices, support for Israel (including moving the embassy to Jerusalem), fighting for “traditional” stances in terms of religious accommodation (Masterpiece and Hobby Lobby), and standing for Christian values in the public square (Merry Christmas, everybody!).

But nearly all of those anti-Democrat and pro-Trump arguments seem focused on what primarily benefits conservative evangelicals. This view, which last week I labeled “evangelical ethnocentrism”, suggests that these evangelicals are less concerned about the common good than on protecting their own interests. Today, Grudem’s response focused on the promise of liberty in the Declaration of Independence which is distinctly different than the Constitution’s “in order to create a more perfect union.”

They have also adopted right wing talking points verbatim. They dismiss Galli’s concerns about Ukraine, arguing that there was nothing wrong with the July 25th call. Never mind that the Ukraine incident ran from May to September and involved attempts to subvert normal governmental process through private, non-accountable actors. They list Trump’s accomplishments in ways that sound as if they came out of the White House press office (Record Stock Market! Low unemployment! Executive Orders! No Iran Deal!).

Every Court Evangelical response to the CT editorial has resulted in careful analysis by scholars and opinion leaders identifying the challenges evident therein. It has caused moral stances like that of Napp Nazworth who left his role at Christian Post upon learning how that site was responding to CT. The news of Napp’s courageous resignation made news and launched another media cycle.

It encouraged a fascinating and disturbing analysis from Paul Djupe in which he identified an “inverted golden rule. Expect from others what you would do to them.” It spurned PRRI’s Robbie Jones to update his argument of demographic change among religious populations and how that relates to the fears the Trump Evangelicals have.

It must be noted that most evangelical churchgoers may not be paying any attention to these conflicts. They are happy to go to their Sunday Services and worship Jesus in song and word. Emma Green had a great interview with former head of the National Association of Evangelicals Leith Anderson. He argues that evangelicalism is about faith and not about politics. Emma tries valiantly and compassionately to get him to address the conflict therein, but he never gets there. Sarah McCammon interviewed a pair of Southern Baptist pastors (note: lots of evangelicals are not Southern Baptists!) on Saturday’s Weekend All Things Considered. The pastors argued that while there are broad social conflicts, people “at the level of the pew” don’t experience that division.

It needs to be recognized that the privatization of faith is what has allowed a public political stance that is largely divorced from deep theological insight. If we ever need serious work on political theology, it is today. Even though it runs the risk of causing short-term discomfort within local congregations, it would create a more healthy body of Christ as it interrogates matters of politics and public policy.

The most intriguing outcome over the last ten days is that way in which the media has begun to be more articulate on the definition of evangelicalism, what the core values ought to be, and how we square the circle of public and private belief. While they are often stumbling in their coverage (at best), the fact that we have been talking about morality, politics, and faith within the public sphere has been a net positive.

For a variety of reasons, it is unlikely that the Galli editorial will change the forty-year alignment between evangelicals and the Republican vote that John Fea mentioned. There are many correlates of voting (rural, education, age, race) that disproportionately represent evangelicals.

And yet, there is a sense that something has shifted in the last week and a half. There is a conversation underway about how evangelicals should relate to the broader culture, especially in this pluralistic age. The coming weeks likely will prove to be just as problematic, but I’m moderately hopeful that these dialogues will strengthen religion in the public square. As Dalrymple suggested, this could be good for the witness of the church to the broader culture.