Saturday Morning Male Beauty

 Dedicated to homophobic lunatic and GOP gubernatorial candidate Winsome Sears.

More Friday Male Beauty

 

Is the "Christian Right" Going Extinct

For years this blog has argued that the so-called "Christian Right" and "conservative Christians" by and large pose a clear and present danger to constitutional government in America. Over the last few decades as these elements have become more politically active and obsessed with gaining power - power to allow them to trample on the rights of others and discriminate at will -  any hint of true Christian values has largely disappeared and the entire agenda has become one of harming one's enemies, namely anyone who looks different or holds differing beliefs, and imposing a perverted form of religion on the nation.  With Project 2025, a white "Christian" nationalist manifesto to subvert the U.C. Constitution and take the nation backwards in time, mainstream white racism, and harm those labeled as "other." The Felon's regime is actively implementing the white supremacist agenda of Project 2025, striving to bring back the worse of the 1950's, and putting on display that cruelty towards others is the true hallmark of today's "Christian Right" which has become merged with today's Republican Party.  Indeed, the teachings of Christ's sermon on the mount and the parable of the good Samaritan have been totally purged from the values and agenda of these false Christians.  A column in the New York Times by one who for too long was an apologist for these "conservative Christians" admits that the Republican Party and its hate and cruelty have become the religion of this demographic.  Here are highlights:

There have been two competing narratives about the rise of the Christian right in the United States.

The first story is the one we conservative evangelicals told ourselves: Religious conservatism arose as a force in the United States in response to the hedonism of the sexual revolution, the cultural intolerance of the New Left and the threat of the Soviet Union, an explicitly atheistic, Marxist empire.

According to this narrative, the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973 was the seminal domestic event of Christian conservatism. It represented a deadly corruption of our Constitution in service of a culture of sexual convenience in which human life was subordinate to sexual pleasure.

The response of the Christian right was both political and personal. That approach could be boiled down to a single sentence: Elect people of good personal character who will defend human life and religious liberty.

The movement placed a heavy emphasis on constitutional fidelity, seeing the Constitution as a bulwark against authoritarian overreach.

The competing narrative is substantially different. It placed the rise of the Christian right in a much darker context — as a last-ditch, racist effort to maintain segregation in the South.

As Randall Balmer, a historian at Dartmouth, argued in 2014, “Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a ‘Catholic issue.’”

Instead, what really motivated the early leaders of the Christian right was a 1971 Federal District Court case, Green v. Connally, which stripped tax exemptions from so-called segregation academies, the term that critics applied to racially discriminatory private religious schools that sprang up all over the South in the decades after the Supreme Court decided that separate was not equal in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

In other words, was the Christian right a virtuous — however imperfect — movement born out of deep regard for the life and liberty of human beings created in the image of God? Or was it a corrupt movement born out of fear and spite that used religion to deceive the masses (including countless good and faithful Christians) and conceal its true nature?

If it’s the former, then it should have strong antibodies against cruelty and corruption. If it’s the latter, then cruelty and corruption are no impediment to success. What matters is power, and power is the measure of that success.

Trump has watered down the Republican plank on abortion. The party no longer endorses a human life constitutional amendment that would protect unborn life, and its platform left abortion policy up to the states, its most pro-choice stance in more than 30 years.

The Trump administration has defunded evangelical ministries that focus on helping the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. Trump’s allies have attacked the religious liberty of dissenting Christian institutions.

And is there any remaining commitment to character in leaders at all?

“It is becoming increasingly clear,” Meador writes, “that evangelical Trump voters are, by and large, not abandoning Trump’s G.O.P. for any reason.” Evangelical “views and policy priorities simply can be ignored by the real leaders of the current G.O.P. because there is no reason to concede anything to people whose vote you will have no matter what.”

[A]s Meador observes, “sure, Vice President Vance will make an appearance at the March for Life. President Trump will show up to the National Prayer Breakfast. But even when he does acknowledge a Christian event, it often will come loaded with hatred and vile self-aggrandizement.”

The Christian right is dead, but the religious right is stronger than it’s ever been. Another way of putting it is that the religious right has divorced itself from historical Christian theology but still holds its partisan beliefs with religious intensity. The religious fervor is there. Christian virtues are not.

There is data to support this thesis. In a fascinating 2019 article, Ryan Burge — one of the nation’s foremost statisticians of American religion — took a close look at the political beliefs of evangelical and nonevangelical Republicans and made a sobering observation: “Looked at broadly, we see from this data there is essentially no difference between a Republican who is white and born-again and a Republican in general.”

In addition, there’s evidence that white evangelicals are unusually loyal to the Republican Party. . . . Among Christians, only white evangelicals precisely overlapped with their party. For the past decade, there has been no daylight between white evangelicals and the G.O.P.

There are many, many Christian conservatives who approach the public square with sincerity and good will, but the political actors and institutions of the religious right are far more Machiavellian than I ever wanted to believe.

How could I have been so wrong? . . . . The Christian right always had a commitment to political power. After all, why engage in politics if you don’t want to win elections and change policies? But that commitment to secular power was supposed to be secondary to its commitment to Christian principle. I had confidence that when the will to power collided with our principles, our principles would prevail.

Yet it turns out that the Christian right’s outside critics could see its true nature more clearly than many people inside the movement, including me.

It is no coincidence that as the religious right becomes less distinctively Christian, it is also becoming more intolerant of political dissent. If politics is the religion, then political disagreement is proof of apostasy.

Whenever I write about religion and politics, my inbox is flooded with poignant, emotional messages from people who once were both proudly evangelical and Republican yet now find themselves unwelcome in their churches and sometimes even in their Christian families — all because they broke with the party. . . . . if they’re not part of Donald Trump’s Republican Party, they’re deemed a heretic or a wolf — a biblical reference to an evil person who preys on the sheep, the people of God.

It’s hard to find anything distinctively Christian about Trump’s first 100 days. In fact, there’s been far more cruelty than Christianity on view over his first three months back in office. But white evangelicals still stand with him. As an April Pew Research Center poll found, they support him more than any other Christian group, by far.

On Tuesday, I participated in a columnist round table reflecting on the key moments of Trump’s first 100 days. To me, the Jan. 6 pardons set the tone:

America learned everything it needed to know about Donald Trump’s second presidency hours after it began. He pardoned or granted clemency to the men and women who violently stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. And he ostentatiously removed the security detail for John Bolton, his former national security adviser, who had criticized Trump after an acrimonious departure from the White House.

The combination of these two orders sent the clearest possible message. His friends and personal allies will enjoy protection, favors and perhaps even immunity from the law. His critics and foes, on the other hand, should live in fear.

 

Friday Morning Male Beauty

 

Thursday Morning Male Beauty

 

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Tuesday Male Beauty

 

Conservative Economist: Trump’s Plans Won’t Work

Many voters who voted for the Felon in 2024 claimed to be motivated by economic concerns (or the promise of tax cuts for the wealthy in case of the super rich) - rather than the racism, bigotry and general hatred towards anyone different that the Felon has normalized.  Ironically, the Felon inherited an overall good economy notwithstanding some inflation and sluggishness in some sectors.  And what has the Felon done?  One headline at CNN Business reads "How to Trash an Economic Super Power in 100 days" and looks at the self-inflicted wreckage that looks at the Felon's trade war and on again off again tariffs and general alienation of America's trade partners.  Consumer confidence has plunged and some say the U.S. economy just had its worse quarter since the Covid-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the stock market is still down thousands of points, with trillions of dollars in wealth wiped out, including many average Americans' 401(k) and retirement funds. As for the drop in prices on "day one" that the Felon promised, they are not happening and, in fact, prices are increasing thanks to the Felon's bizarrely calculated tariffs.  Some of this reality is sinking in with the public as the Felon has the lowest rating of any president at the hundred day mark in numerous decades.  Worse my yet to come as laid out in a lengthy piece at Politico authored by a conservative economist.  Simply put, the Felon's plans will not work:

. . . Trump is used to bending reality to his will. But he will soon learn – if he hasn’t already – that this is harder to do with the economy. Just ask former President Joe Biden, who painfully learned that an inflation rate of 9 percent could not be spun as illusory, transitory or driven by a sudden and inexplicable burst of corporate greed. Ultimately, people directly experience their gas and grocery prices, as well as layoffs and stock market downturns. Sustained political popularity requires getting economic policy right, because elected officials cannot spin real economic decline.

As is increasingly evident, many of Trump’s economic policy pronouncements make little sense, in large part because he makes ever-shifting arguments for contradictory policies. A president who promised voters that, “We’re going to become so rich, you’re not going to know where to spend all that money,” instead induced a market crash . . . .

As a right-of-center economist who has spent nearly 25 years producing research that warns against the dangers of unrestrained federal spending and debt, I am concerned that Republicans are dramatically over-promising and under-delivering. . . . . .Trump is offering policies and promises that — even on their own terms — don’t make any sense. The president’s vision cannot successfully produce fiscal responsibility or economic prosperity because nearly every statement and action contradicts each other. And ultimately, it is American families and businesses who will suffer from this fog of policy confusion.

Here’s the truth about some of the president’s promises.

1. Tariffs can’t both create permanent domestic jobs and be a temporary negotiating tool.

It is not entirely clear why Trump has long been fixated with tariffs and hostile to any form of international trade. We know this aversion goes back to his 1980s days as a real estate developer, which suggests that his zero-sum view of trade may be the product of the kill-or-be-killed world of New York real estate. Whatever the reason, the president’s  [Felon's] public arguments for steep tariffs seemingly reflect backward reasoning, as he promises that tariffs can provide all things to all people.

A clear example is the contradiction between selling tariffs as a permanent policy versus a short-term negotiating tactic. Trump has repeatedly emphasized that tariffs are intended to produce in America manufacturing that is currently taking place in China, Vietnam, South Korea, Mexico and elsewhere. . . . . Instead, Trump unleashed a global economic meltdown and won nothing in return.

More importantly, Trump’s constant fiddling with the tariff dials and his claims that they are merely a short-term negotiating tactic undermine any hope of building new factories in America. One of the most important requirements for business investment is policy certainty. . . . . Tariff, tax and regulatory policies may be helpful or hurtful, but they at least must be predictable.

2. Tariffs can’t both protect domestic industries and generate trillions of dollars in revenue.

Even more contradictory is Trump’s promises that tariffs can build a trade wall around America while also raising trillions of dollars in tax revenues to replace the income tax. A tariff cannot raise revenues from imports if those goods are no longer being imported. Tariffs can either lock out imports or collect revenues from them, but they cannot do both. . . . . Counting on tariffs to raise significant revenue is wishful thinking, not economic thinking.

3. You can’t both eliminate the federal budget deficit and protect Social Security, Medicaid and other popular programs.

Trump’s unrealistic and contradictory tariff revenue promises fit well within his broader, and equally contradictory budget promises.

In his recent address to Congress, Trump promised that “In the near future, I want to do what has not been done in 24 years: balance the federal budget. . . . .Without raising revenues, eliminating the $1.87 trillion budget deficit would require cutting 27 percent of the $7 trillion federal budget. Yet Trump has already promised no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, defense and veterans’ benefits, and he cannot directly reduce interest payments. That’s 66 percent of the budget taken off the table (or 75 percent if we include Medicaid, which Trump occasionally promises to spare from the budget ax).

That means balancing the budget would require eliminating nearly every remaining federal expenditure, including border security, infrastructure, federal courts, U.S. embassies, federal prisons, all health research, national parks, unemployment benefits, disaster aid and disability benefits. Even if the president demanded every one of those cuts, not even a tea party Congress could or would pass them.

4. You can’t eliminate the federal budget deficit and also cut taxes.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculates that, during last fall’s campaign, Trump proposed nearly $10 trillion in new tax cuts over the decade. This includes his promised “no tax on tips,” ending taxes on overtime and Social Security payments and reducing corporate taxes. He also endorsed significant new spending for defense and border security.  . . . . the president’s [Felon’s] proposals (combined with $20 trillion in baseline deficits) would double the national debt held by the public from $30 trillion today to approximately $60 trillion within a decade. . . . . his balanced budget aspirations should be dismissed as mathematically nonsensical.

5. DOGE’s actions are likely to increase the federal budget deficit, not lower it.

Nor does the president’s “Department of Government Efficiency” cut through this nonsense or improve this fiscal calculus. Despite Elon Musk’s promises to immediately save $2 trillion (later scaled down to $1 trillion and now to $150 billion), DOGE is limited by the aforementioned presidential pledges not to touch the two-thirds of federal spending that is actually driving spending upward. Moreover, DOGE is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and repeated Supreme Court jurisprudence from unilaterally canceling spending that was approved by Congress and signed into law.

While the DOGE website claims to have saved $150 billion, the verified savings have been less than $5 billion — or less than 0.1 percent of federal spending. The rest of the claimed savings are either not backed up with specific data, or based on mathematical errors, triple-counting the same savings and theoretical “savings” of funds that were never going to be spent. Ultimately, DOGE is government spending-cut theater that targets MAGA cultural totems . . . . In fact, DOGE is likely to ultimately expand budget deficits. Drastic layoffs of IRS tax enforcement employees are expected to encourage tax evasion and cost the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue.

6. The national debt can’t matter one day and not the next.

During his 2016 campaign, Trump promised not only to balance the federal budget, but even to pay off the entire $19 trillion national debt. Then during his first term, he signed legislation and executive orders adding $7.8 trillion more in red ink — only half of which was related to the pandemic. Now, Trump is promising to balance the budget while also proposing the largest borrowing binge since World War II. He even demanded that Congress completely eliminate the statutory debt limit.

Moreover, the self-described “king of debt” demands an end to each of America’s bilateral trade deficits (which are not economically harmful) yet has no qualms pushing budget deficits to stratospheric levels (which can be quite harmful).

These contradictions have real world implications. This is clear each time the Trump administration claims that budget deficits will no longer allow Washington to continue spending 0.1 percent of the federal budget to provide life-saving medications to 20 million African HIV patients, at the same time it is prodding Congress to slash taxes by $5.3 trillion.

All of this helps explain why the White House and congressional Republicans are weighing using a new gimmick to hide this economic reality.

The Republican budget’s solution is to override the $4 trillion price tag of the policy and simply claim that extending the tax cuts forever has zero impact on budget deficits. Their absurd argument is that, because the tax cuts already reflect the “current policy” until the end of this year, then renewing their cost forever is “free.”

This is fiscal nonsense. . . . . the next Democratic majority could use the same gimmick to declare zero cost for Medicare For All or the Green New Deal. As fiscally irresponsible as Congress and recent presidents have been, it is now likely to get much worse. . . . . none of this is going to fool the markets, particularly the bond market, whose recent gyrations suggest investors’ faith in the stability of the U.S. government has been shaken.

Trump has found political success selling his economic policies as achieving countless contradictory goals. But ultimately, he will be judged on whether the economy produces jobs, raises incomes, limits inflation and strengthens the stock market — metrics that are moving in the wrong directions. And his fiscal policies cannot escape the mathematical reality that deep tax cuts and spending expansions cannot reduce surging budget deficits.

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Monday Male Beauty