The April 2018 Atlantic Cover Story by Michael Gerson
On Gerson, Diversity, and Lambasting
Yesterday I read a cool blog entry on artistic motivation by one of my favorite SF authors. She picks four famous people and dissects their motivations. Although she never really lets onto hers, she does make the point that whatever it is, it has to come from you.
What motivates you? It’s a great question and one I am currently struggling with. I do know that part of my own motivation has to do with connections. I’m not sure I fully understand why I do or don’t connect, but when I do, I want to keep connecting to other connections. Exploring this aspect of me, and honing my writing skills are both reasons I am starting to write this blog.
What motivates you? It’s a great question and one I am currently struggling with. I do know that part of my own motivation has to do with connections. I’m not sure I fully understand why I do or don’t connect, but when I do, I want to keep connecting to other connections. Exploring this aspect of me, and honing my writing skills are both reasons I am starting to write this blog.
My connections to the Atlantic run pretty deep. Growing up, my parents had a few magazines they kept on the coffee table: National Geographic, Newsweek, Scientific American, and the Atlantic. I ended up getting subscriptions to all of them at one point or another, but the Atlantic is the only one I get now. I think it was the Falklands War coverage that got me in the habit of reading Newsweek (back in HS). For years I would read the whole magazine cover to cover on Tuesday evening. I think having kids took away my leisure time, and broke me of that habit. I never got into TV news, the CNN Headline News used to run incessantly in our ready room and I hated the repetition with only minor changes. Newsweek held onto stories important enough to wait a week - that was good for me. When I ran out of time and stopped Newsweek, I reached back into my memory (I’m sure visits home helped) and rediscovered the Atlantic. Turns out I still had time for issues important enough to last a month. |
Would I have stuck with the Atlantic without Michael Kelly? Another question for the infinite slag-heap of unanswerable counterfactuals. My first son was born in May of 1999. As fate would have it, this was the same time Michael Kelly had just taken over at the Atlantic. So here was a magazine that put out deep, thoughtful articles that covered a spectrum that I did and didn’t agree with. Perfect.
Along with connections, I love irony. In what is coming up on two decades with the Atlantic, I have learned to respect and value writers from a wide variety of viewpoints. Ta-Nehisi Coates was one with very different perspectives from my own. I liked how he challenged my perceptions; he would say he gave me a lot of ideas to grapple with. So I found it fun and ironic reading the article where TNC lambasts Kelly. The irony is that TNC complains about MK’s Iraq war cheerleading: “That glee turned Kelly into a thin writer who spurned nuance in favor of hyperbole,” yet TNC’s quote is an apt description for what TNC did to MK in that very piece. *I can’t stop chuckling*
Along with connections, I love irony. In what is coming up on two decades with the Atlantic, I have learned to respect and value writers from a wide variety of viewpoints. Ta-Nehisi Coates was one with very different perspectives from my own. I liked how he challenged my perceptions; he would say he gave me a lot of ideas to grapple with. So I found it fun and ironic reading the article where TNC lambasts Kelly. The irony is that TNC complains about MK’s Iraq war cheerleading: “That glee turned Kelly into a thin writer who spurned nuance in favor of hyperbole,” yet TNC’s quote is an apt description for what TNC did to MK in that very piece. *I can’t stop chuckling*
Ack! Keith, Keith - what has all of this to do with Gerson? you ask. Hmm, stay with me, I’m getting there. I first learned about Michael Gerson from Mathew Sculley’s lambasting in 2007. I was struck by how the article was unusually mean and scandalous. Eventually, I just came to find Gerson an interesting writer on his own merits. His social conservatism often conflicts with my libertarian views, but I find his arguments thoughtful. This kind of reflection is where I find TNC lacking in his piece on Kelly. As an editor, your work is often reflected through other voices. Kelly commissioned this important piece critical of the coming Iraq War just months before the start of the war. There is nothing “thin” about that piece. From my perspective, MK’s own voice was balancing that of others’ who were critical. |
Twitter is not All Bad, Really
My favorite thing about Twitter is how it can personalize people who already feel personal to me. After reading nearly 20 of her novels, Kristine Kathryn Rusch, is a voice in my head. Through Twitter I have connected with her, to a level one might call a mini conversation. Christopher Orr, like many Atlantic voices, is also in my head. Except he’s my personal movie critic. I have read enough of his reviews and then watched the movies to have him calibrated for my own tastes. Following him on Twitter has added an extra dimension. I now know that his politics lean left of my own, but that he often picks up on issues that I find interesting. His comments and my understanding of his professional work add depth I appreciate, even as I often disagree. So I was intrigued this morning to read this Tweet:
Ha, Mr. Orr, be careful what you wish for :P Kevin Williamson, a controversial writer for National Review, was recently hired and then fired days later by Jeffrey Goldberg (current chief editor at the Atlantic). The idea behind his hiring was to continue the deep custom of providing a variety of viewpoints for Atlantic readers. I don’t know where Orr stands on KW’s brief stint, but I do agree with him that the Gerson cover story is proof that KW was not a one-hit wonder that failed. I am pretty sure Orr was not expecting over three thousand words, but all the connections, and the possibility that I’d get one interested reader was sufficient motivation to write this review. *big cheesy smile*
On Trump, Dubya, and ‘Evangelical’ as a Positive Term (my review)
Dubya is an evangelical, and Gerson was his main Chief Speechwriter. I think it's safe to assume that the juxtaposition of Trump’s superior hold of the evangelical vote to his terribly non-Christian behavior was a strong motivation for Gerson to research and write this article. He gleefully dives into making this juxtaposition terribly clear. My favorite quote (speaking of Trump):
“His tribalism and hatred for ‘the other’ stand in direct opposition to Jesus’s radical ethic of neighbor love.” |
Yup, the country is certainly feeling that one. He goes on to compare Trump as more Nietzsche than Christ. Personally I feel he is more Jr-High-playground bully than Nietzsche, but give Gerson credit for staying above Trump’s level. A strength of his. Gerson then quickly draws a connection between “unprecedented access” and hard-to-explain support:
“ ‘Clearly, this Russian story is nonsense,’ explains the mega-church pastor Paula White-Cain, who is not generally known as a legal or cybersecurity expert.” |
*Bites lip to stop laughing* Ok, so I might enjoy the biting snark Gerson is bringing. Perhaps he isn’t at Jesus’ level either? In fact, upon reflection, some of my less admirable HS moments could be described as intellectual bullying through snark. However, leaving the president’s bullying aside, Gerson’s analysis here rings true, based on my own observation regarding how deeply Trump values loyalty.
After a bit of frolicking in the cornucopia of available evidence, Gerson pulls the quintessential Atlantic maneuver, he - as a cultural conservative voice - defends Obama:
After a bit of frolicking in the cornucopia of available evidence, Gerson pulls the quintessential Atlantic maneuver, he - as a cultural conservative voice - defends Obama:
“One can only imagine the explosion of outrage if President Barack Obama had been credibly accused of similar offenses.” |
Here we run into a second motivator for Gerson. He is pissed about what Trump is doing to the Evangelical label. It turns out he grew up evangelical and was drawn into Dubya’s influence because of Compassionate Conservatism, a slogan I was also drawn to. He even points to the evangelical push that helped Bush create one of his strongest and most underrated legacies - support for AIDS in Africa.
Preparing a deep dive into evangelical decline, a bit of an emotional saga for Gerson. He starts with some history on Wheaton College, his alma mater. Here, my limited understanding of the underground railroad gave me pause. When I read that Wheaton, located west of Chicago (ie quite north of the Mason Dixon), was notable as a sanctuary for black slaves, I had to rethink my notion of the Mason Dixon line. Apparently slaves couldn’t cross it and then put thumb to nose and taunt Southerners - clearly it was still plenty dangerous as far north as Chicago.
While I’m awakening a little further to what slavery is about, and emerging from my Google crosscheck frenzy, Gerson did a pretty satisfying job of improving the historical credibility for evangelicals. A highlight, spoken by the lead Wheaton founder:
Preparing a deep dive into evangelical decline, a bit of an emotional saga for Gerson. He starts with some history on Wheaton College, his alma mater. Here, my limited understanding of the underground railroad gave me pause. When I read that Wheaton, located west of Chicago (ie quite north of the Mason Dixon), was notable as a sanctuary for black slaves, I had to rethink my notion of the Mason Dixon line. Apparently slaves couldn’t cross it and then put thumb to nose and taunt Southerners - clearly it was still plenty dangerous as far north as Chicago.
While I’m awakening a little further to what slavery is about, and emerging from my Google crosscheck frenzy, Gerson did a pretty satisfying job of improving the historical credibility for evangelicals. A highlight, spoken by the lead Wheaton founder:
“ ‘slave-holding is not a solitary, but a social sin.’ He added: ‘I rest my opposition to slavery upon the one-bloodism of the New Testament. All men are equal, because they are of one equal blood.’ ” |
Hmm. Perhaps them dag blasted evangelicals are about more than proselytizing and hypocrisy? Gerson also notes that the president of Oberlin during the Civil War was evangelical too, strategically chipping away at Blue Tribe reticence. In fact, it turns out that the Atlantic itself was founded by the daughter of a prominent evangelical. An evangelical who made an early contribution to the image of America as a “city on a hill.”
Singing evangelical praises is the fun part for Gerson, but this is a saga. So we need get to that deep dive part, and learn how evangelicals came on hard times. And no part of American life was left unscathed by the Civil War, so it was easy for me to agree with Gerson that:
Singing evangelical praises is the fun part for Gerson, but this is a saga. So we need get to that deep dive part, and learn how evangelicals came on hard times. And no part of American life was left unscathed by the Civil War, so it was easy for me to agree with Gerson that:
“It was harder to believe in the existence of a religious golden age that included Antietam.” |
Beyond the Civil War, Gerson discusses other evangelical troubles. Interestingly, past evangelical stress due to immigration (eg growth of Catholic belief and Judaism) mirrors our own current national stress, as immigrants penetrate deeper into American culture and geography. But the real trouble came when evangelicals decided to pull an own goal regarding evolution. It started as the theory of evolution and maturing critical thought divided evangelicals:
“Woodrow Wilson’s uncle James lost his job at Columbia Theological Seminary for accepting evolution as compatible with the Bible.” |
Some camps, the progressives, were willing to flow with new ideas. Others picked a more conservative path. Thus fundamentalism was born to protect religious conservatives from all the dangerous new progressive thinking. In their desperation to maintain the status quo, fundamentalists lost sight of the best advertising for evangelicals:
“...social activism was deemed irrelevant to the most essential task: the work of preparing oneself, and helping others prepare, for final judgment.” |
Though fundamentalists shot themselves in the foot, all was not lost. Adding a bit more nuance to my historical understanding, I learned that our religious decline has not been linear. American church membership went up 50% between 1920 and 1960. Heck Billy Graham even managed to find common cause with Martin Luther King Jr.:
“Graham was joined one night at Madison Square Garden by none other than Martin Luther King Jr.” |
I find it fun imagining Blue Tribers wrapping their brains around that one! However, as we know, the nation has been on a recent secular tear. It is this assault, this feeling of resentment - moving from the majority to irrelevant - that binds evangelicals to Trump emotionally. Geron captures the idea well:
“As a result, the primary evangelical political narrative is adversarial, an angry tale about the aggression of evangelicalism’s cultural rivals. In a remarkably free country, many evangelicals view their rights as fragile, their institutions as threatened, and their dignity as assailed.” |
This is a passage TNC can relate to, with evangelical emotions mirroring white those of nationals. Geron paints the fundamentalists - rebranded as evangelicals - as boxed in with no political option except the Republicans. This seems strikingly similar to the current black situation with regard to Democrats. Except for lingering Southern bigotry, the joint King-Graham assembly shows that they are not at opposite corners - what a fascinating, counterfactual world a black-fundamentalist coalition would present! Sadly, as Trump continues to show us, lingering bigotry is no small exception.
As he sets the stage to show how evangelicals have hamstrung their own political power, Geron unintentionally offers up a solution to halt their continuing decline:
As he sets the stage to show how evangelicals have hamstrung their own political power, Geron unintentionally offers up a solution to halt their continuing decline:
“So where do evangelicals get their theory of social engagement? It is cheating to say (as most evangelicals probably would) ‘the Bible.’ The Christian Bible, after all, can be a vexing document: At various points, it offers approving accounts of genocide and recommends the stoning of insubordinate children. Some interpretive theory must elevate the Golden Rule above Iron Age ethics and apply that higher ideal to the tragic compromises of public life.” |
Especially in that last line (highlights mine), he begs for an answer whose omission has cast so many adrift into secular chaos. Ah, that answer, well-crafted, could move mountains. Alas, having cracked open the door, he fails to provide the answer. Of course he is in good company, as no one has charged him with seeking and creating this answer. Instead he continues to sketch out the contours of evangelical decline. I like how he crafts the idea here:
“But the timing and emphasis of evangelical responses have contributed to a broad sense that evangelical political engagement is negative, censorious, and oppositional.” |
Geron must be privately apoplectic. The answer to these struggles so obvious, just bring back the lost activism - bring back Jesus! Here he brings up his experience with Dubya helping Africa:
“The President’s Emergency Plan for aids Relief (pepfar)—the largest initiative by a nation in history to fight a single disease—emerged in part from a sense of moral obligation informed by George W. Bush’s evangelical faith. In explaining and defending the program, Bush made constant reference to Luke 12:48: ‘To whom much is given, much is required.’ ” |
This reminds me of another former Bush employee, Keith Hennessy. Hennessy was the 7th Director of the National Economic Council. As a lecturer at Stanford, he often found himself defending his boss’ intellectual capacity. So he wrote this defense of Dubya. Probably not a Blue Tribe favorite. *big smile*
As Geron continues to call out reasons for evangelical decline, I find myself marvelling at a new Red Tribe - Blue Tribe equivalence. A pet peeve of mine is Blue Tribe insistence on playing the part of Chicken Little: Malthusian Population Apocalypse, Peak Oil, Death by that evil pollution I am currently breathing out of my body - Carbon Dioxide (ie cataclysmic climate change). This perplexing tendency is really getting around. I have spent most of my adult life primarily reading SF; how the heck did I miss the apocalyptic creep into SF?? Consider the parallels with how Geron casts Red Tribe evangelicals:
As Geron continues to call out reasons for evangelical decline, I find myself marvelling at a new Red Tribe - Blue Tribe equivalence. A pet peeve of mine is Blue Tribe insistence on playing the part of Chicken Little: Malthusian Population Apocalypse, Peak Oil, Death by that evil pollution I am currently breathing out of my body - Carbon Dioxide (ie cataclysmic climate change). This perplexing tendency is really getting around. I have spent most of my adult life primarily reading SF; how the heck did I miss the apocalyptic creep into SF?? Consider the parallels with how Geron casts Red Tribe evangelicals:
“Evangelicals also have a consistent problem with their public voice, which can be off-puttingly apocalyptic. ‘We are on the verge of losing’ America, proclaims the evangelical writer and radio host Eric Metaxas, ‘as we could have lost it in the Civil War.’ Franklin Graham declares, a little too vividly, that the country ‘has taken a nosedive off of the moral diving board into the cesspool of humanity.’ ” |
Although I grant evangelicals great respect, due to my time in non-evangelical church and the connection to true Christian values I have experienced there, I have learned to ignore them politically. So, I probably haven’t even exposed myself to this side of them. I guess the point I am trying to make is that like the Blue Tribe I ignore the hot air, but unlike the Blue Tribe I understand there is something worth respecting underneath.
How many Blue Tribers would find this surprising to hear from an evangelical?
How many Blue Tribers would find this surprising to hear from an evangelical?
“But their resistance was futile, for one incontrovertible reason: Evolution is a fact. It is objectively true based on overwhelming evidence.” |
Hard to argue picking a fight against evolution was a bad move. Geron’s continued analysis of this egregious error is right on point:
“By denying this, evangelicals made their entire view of reality suspect. They were insisting, in effect, that the Christian faith requires a flight from reason. This was foolish and unnecessary. There is no meaningful theological difference between creation by divine intervention and creation by natural selection; both are consistent with belief in a purposeful universe, and with serious interpretation of biblical texts. Evangelicals have placed an entirely superfluous stumbling block before their neighbors and children, encouraging every young person who loves science to reject Christianity. ...Count this as an ironic achievement of religious conservatives: an overall decline in identification with religion itself.” |
Now Geron brings the conversation around to the crux of his thesis, how rebranded evangelicals positioned themselves to fit right in with the Trump message - Red Tribe apocalypse:
“But when the candidate talked of an America in decline and headed toward destruction, which could be returned to greatness only by recovering the certainties of the past, he was strumming resonant chords of evangelical conviction.” |
Oh, haven’t we all learned how people hear only what they want to hear? And what is Trump selling? Hope through catharsis, a resonant religious theme if there ever was one (and we all know there have been many). So why would an evangelical listen to stories about personal foibles, or Trump's terrible “style,” when all of that is tied to redemption itself? Here is Geron explaining the evangelical leaders’ rationalization:
“Their justification is often bluntly utilitarian: All of Trump’s flaws are worth his conservative judicial appointments and more-favorable treatment of Christians by the government.” |
Like with the unforced error on evolution, Geron is accurate and merciless in his analysis of where evangelical support of Trump is leading us:
“It is remarkable to hear religious leaders defend profanity, ridicule, and cruelty as hallmarks of authenticity and dismiss decency as a dead language. Whatever Trump’s policy legacy ends up being, his presidency has been a disaster in the realm of norms. It has coarsened our culture, given permission for bullying, complicated the moral formation of children, undermined standards of public integrity, and encouraged cynicism about the political enterprise. Falwell, Graham, and others are providing religious cover for moral squalor—winking at trashy behavior and encouraging the unraveling of social restraints.” |
Ouch. I have been dealing with this personally, through the well-trodden tactic of avoidance. I prefer not to listen to Trump’s latest, and am just thankful he seems incompetent or unmotivated to achieving his agenda. However, forced to think on the decline of religion as a beacon of hope, the purpose that helps people avoid opioid addiction, for instance, I don’t like where the vision I get leads me, when extrapolating increased secularity, from the science denial meme, and Trump not-filling the void, from the Trump as savior meme.
As he wraps up, Geron seems surprised or upset at the acceptance of race in the mix of trouble evangelicals have brought down upon themselves. But his analysis has shown me how this is so. Both the evangelical and nationalist branches of the Red Tribe are happy with their tribalism. Maybe even defined by it, for hard-core cases. This is similar to the identity politics branch of the Blue Tribe. It is really the Grey Tribe as SSC comes to describe himself - those of us who don’t really want a tribe - that find these tribal cohesions to be uncivilized.
But thankfully, Geron does not leave us without hope. It is our youth, those determined enough to see past the anti-science slogan garbage, yet compassionate enough to embrace social justice that will see evangelicals through:
As he wraps up, Geron seems surprised or upset at the acceptance of race in the mix of trouble evangelicals have brought down upon themselves. But his analysis has shown me how this is so. Both the evangelical and nationalist branches of the Red Tribe are happy with their tribalism. Maybe even defined by it, for hard-core cases. This is similar to the identity politics branch of the Blue Tribe. It is really the Grey Tribe as SSC comes to describe himself - those of us who don’t really want a tribe - that find these tribal cohesions to be uncivilized.
But thankfully, Geron does not leave us without hope. It is our youth, those determined enough to see past the anti-science slogan garbage, yet compassionate enough to embrace social justice that will see evangelicals through:
“Younger evangelicals are less prone to political divisiveness and bitterness and more concerned with social justice. (In a poll last summer, nearly half of white evangelicals born since 1964 expressed support for gay marriage.) Evangelicals remain essential to political coalitions advocating prison reform and supporting American global-health initiatives, particularly on aids and malaria. They do good work in the world through relief organizations such as World Vision and Samaritan’s Purse (an admirable relief organization of which Franklin Graham is the president and CEO). They perform countless acts of love and compassion that make local communities more just and generous.” |
Less in number, but higher in quality, this is an interesting not-quite prediction. Ultimately, I may have more faith in it than Geron professes. A huge part of my problem with Blue (and now Red) apocalyptic prediction, is that it is so simply based on extrapolation to the extreme. But, time and again, we see how systems adjust to accommodate change and avoid extreme results. So I am inclined to believe that evangelical and/or religious belief is not just dying away. His analysis is as good as any I’ve seen to suggest how the system might adjust to accommodate and mitigate our recent secular trend. Society needs what religion brings, and we have high-quality young people who see this clearly. They will help buck the trend. Whether they hear Michael’s call to arms or not, they will be there; they will respond.
Reflection
They teach us teachers to reflect, or at least my school taught me that. I suppose if Orr was my editor, he would say the best reviews find more to be critical about. Perhaps also: it’s too long, include less wacky connections. Well, I don’t have the luxury of an editor, and I am trying to find my voice, and I liked most of what I read. I like to think there is value in demonstrating how the article connects with me, while also offering disparate links connecting to ideas and issues I find interesting, that can add depth.
I like to think Kris would agree :P
*3500 words - on a 7000 word article -> holy cr@p!* <- only here at Deep Learning :P
I like to think Kris would agree :P
*3500 words - on a 7000 word article -> holy cr@p!* <- only here at Deep Learning :P