It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Opinion Commentary: What more does Kamala Harris have to do to win?
Carla Hall Sat, October 19, 2024 Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris with Arizona Rep. Ruben Gallego and vice presidential candidate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz at Cocina Adamex restaurant in Phoenix. (Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)
There is a video clip of Vice President Kamala Harris talking to a young girl about leadership. Her advice: “You never have to ask anyone permission to lead. When you want to lead, just lead,” she says.
Clearly Harris took that permission for herself in her overnight rise from Joe Biden’s loyal running mate to his replacement as presidential candidate.
Even Oprah Winfrey, in a town hall with the candidate on Sept. 19, commented on how Harris transformed from serviceable Joe Biden stand-in one week to fiery, swaggery speechmaker the next. I saw it too. Gone was the vice president from early 2021 stuck with the gargantuan no-win task of figuring out why people illegally cross the border.
She was the commanding candidate accepting her party's nomination. She was master debater, putting Donald Trump on his heels during their Sept. 10 debate, verbally smacking him for boasting about his supposed friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, “a dictator who would eat you for lunch.”
This was a Kamala Harris I didn’t know existed. Years ago, probably when she was California attorney general, I’d seen her leave an L.A. Times editorial board meeting, looking exasperated after being pummeled with questions from my colleagues and me. We could be a tough room, and how the attorney general dealt with criminal justice issues was often a topic of controversy.
Kamala Harris, the 2.0 version, is self-assured, unflappable and funny. (To the hecklers at one of her recent rallies in Wisconsin: “Oh — you guys are at the wrong rally. No, I think you meant to go to the smaller one down the street.”)
But being smart and compelling may not be enough in the scary closing days of this race. She can’t win against Trump just by having a successful record as a prosecutor and lawmaker and creative ideas about how to increase housing supply, support entrepreneurs starting businesses and help people buy their first home. And that’s maddening. That should be enough.
Of course, she knows all this, but even reminding her audiences that Trump is “unhinged, ” as she has done, has so far not moved the needle on polls that show Harris and Trump in a dead heat.
When she first got in the race, Republicans were obsessed with her and treated her like some exotic animal whose name they pretended they couldn’t pronounce. The way she talks, her ethnicity — is she Black or South Asian or, shockingly, both? — her lack of biological children. Though Harris has two stepchildren whom she treats as her own, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a smarmy speech that her children keep her humble but Harris "doesn't have anything" to keep her humble. Trump called her low-IQ and, according to published reports, “retarded.”
Never has Harris taken the bait. Never has she been drawn into a trash-talk brawl. But as a childless (though cat-less) Black woman, I’ll throw a punch on Harris’ behalf: If children keep you humble, how have Trump’s five children failed to keep him from becoming a megalomaniac?
She took the high road, but her poll numbers didn’t. Alarmingly, she seems to be losing some support among Black men — even though the overwhelming majority of Black people polled say they support her. In an effort to win as many Black voters as possible, she dashed to Detroit on Tuesday for an hour long chat with the enormously popular Black radio show host Charlamagne Tha God. Then, to woo any remaining fence-sitters, she went to Pennsylvania on Wednesday where she sparred with Fox News political anchor Bret Baier.
She skipped the fusty white-tie Al Smith dinner fundraiser in New York for Catholic charities — generally a must-show event for presidential candidates — to campaign in Wisconsin on Thursday night. She's right to focus on campaigning in key states. But here is what she should never skip in what time remains: Harris, who has long fought for a federal right to abortion, needs to remind voters that Trump is a threat to reproductive rights, not (as he called himself) a protector of women — or white men, or Black men or any person of color. He is a protector only of himself.
Two and a half weeks from now, I don’t want to write that Harris lost but ran a glorious campaign. I want to write that she had a spectacular victory. And then on Inauguration Day, I want to watch Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman to become a Supreme Court justice, swear in the first Black and South Asian woman to become president of the United States. I want to imagine what it would be like if my parents had lived to see that. My father would be sobbing as he watched, and my mother would be smiling as if she trusted all along this would happen.
Harris says it’s ‘not the 1950s anymore’ in dismissing criticism over not having biological children
Ebony Davis and Jack Forrest
CNN Sun, October 6, 2024
Kamala Harris said she feels “sorry” for Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who suggested at a town hall with former President Donald Trump last month that the vice president doesn’t have anything to keep her humble because she doesn’t have biological children.
“I feel sorry for her, and I’m going to tell you why,” Harris said on an episode of the “Call Her Daddy” podcast released Sunday. “Because I don’t think she understands that there are a whole lot of women out here who one, are not aspiring to be humble. Two, a whole lot of women out here, who have a lot of love in their life, family in their life and children in their life, and I think it’s very important for women to lift each other up.”
Responding to Republicans who have criticized her for not having biological children, Harris told podcast host Alex Cooper, “I feel very strongly, we each have our family by blood and then we have our family by love. And I have both. And I consider it to be a real blessing.”
The Democratic presidential nominee has two stepchildren – Cole and Ella Emhoff – through her 10-year marriage to second gentleman Doug Emhoff. She detailed during the interview, which was taped on Tuesday, her “very modern family” and her relationship with her “two beautiful children,” who she noted refer to her as “Momala.”
“I love those kids to death. Family comes in many forms, and I think that increasingly, all of us understand that this is not the 1950s anymore,” Harris said.
Sanders, the Republican governor of Arkansas, said last month that her three children serve as a “permanent reminder of everything that is at stake in this country” and that “my kids keep me humble. Unfortunately, Kamala Harris doesn’t have anything keeping her humble.”
The former Trump White House press secretary’s argument that children serve as reminders of what matters in an election, which alluded to the vice president’s lack of biological kids, was reminiscent of repeated comments made by Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance. The Ohio Republican has received criticism for his past remarks that the US was being run by “childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made.”
Harris’ appearance on the “Call Her Daddy” podcast, which has a reputation for frank conversations about sex and relationships, comes as her campaign prioritizes booking interviews with local media and more unconventional forums. That strategy has garnered both criticism for dodging challenging interviews and praise as a savvy messaging move.
The interview marked the start of a media spree, as Harris will make appearances this week on “The View,” “The Howard Stern Show,” “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” a Univision town hall and CBS’ “60 Minutes.” Harris talks abortion rights
As Harris’ campaign looks to place reproductive rights at the center of its platform, the vice president used her appearance on “Call Her Daddy” — which Spotify has billed “the most listened-to podcast by women” — to hit her opponent on an issue where she has so far held the upper hand.
During the interview, she criticized Trump for casting himself as a “protector” during a rally last month where he claimed American women won’t be “thinking about abortion” if he’s elected.
“So he, who, when he was president, hand-selected three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention that they would undo the protections of Roe v. Wade, and they did just as he intended,” Harris told Cooper.
Harris added: “This is the same guy that said women should be punished for having abortions. This is the same guy who uses the same kind of language he does to describe women?”
Cooper was surprised when Harris told her she became the first sitting US president or vice president to visit a reproductive health center when she went to a Minnesota Planned Parenthood clinic in March.
“That is not happening anywhere in the United States,” Harris said, adding, “Can you imagine, he’s suggesting that women in their ninth month of pregnancy are electing to have an abortion?”
While both Trump and Vance have claimed that Democratic states are allowing such abortions, no state has passed or is passing a law that allows the execution of a baby after it is born, and killing a person after birth is illegal in every state.
CNN’s Arit John, Eva McKend, Brian Stelter and Daniel Dale contributed to this report.
Kamala Harris Defends All Forms of Motherhood in Powerful “Call Her Daddy” Interview
Rosa Sanchez
BAZAAR
Mon, October 7, 2024 Kamala Harris Defends All Forms of Motherhood in Powerful “Call Her Daddy” Interview
In what felt like a natural move in a youth-focused campaign, the Democratic nominee for president made a historic appearance on the Call Her Daddy podcast on Sunday—and while there, doubled down on her support for all kinds of families, mothers, and women.
Harris fiercely criticized Republican opponent Donald Trump’s stance and past comments on abortion, but the most powerful part of the interview came when podcast host Alexandra Cooper asked the vice president how she feels about Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s recent remarks about her. For context, Sanders tried to paint Harris in a negative light by saying at a town hall that she (Sanders) stays humble because of her children, but because Harris has no biological children of her own, she “doesn’t have anything keeping her humble.”
“I feel sorry for her, and I’m going to tell you why,” Harris told Cooper of Sanders. “Because I don’t think she understands that there are a whole lot of women out here who one, are not aspiring to be humble. Two, a whole lot of women out here, who have a lot of love in their life, family in their life and children in their life, and I think it’s very important for women to lift each other up.”
Harris has two beloved stepchildren, Cole and Ella Emhoff, through her 10-year marriage to second gentleman Doug Emhoff. And this is not the first time in her political career that she has been questioned or attacked by Republicans for not having birthed children. Just look at Trump running mate J.D. Vance’s recent comments ridiculing the “childless cat ladies” whom he says are running the country into the ground.
Responding to the ongoing criticism, Harris said in the interview: “I feel very strongly, we each have our family by blood and then we have our family by love. And I have both. And I consider it to be a real blessing.” She added that she and Emhoff have a “very modern family” and her relationship with her “two beautiful children,” who refer to her as “Momala,” is sacred.
“I love those kids to death. Family comes in many forms, and I think that increasingly, all of us understand that this is not the 1950s anymore,” Harris said.
Kamala Harris Slams Criticism About Being Childless
“I feel very strongly, we each have our family by blood and then we have our family by love,” Harris told Alex Cooper during Call Her Daddy’s Oct. 6 episode. “I have both. And I consider it to be a real blessing. I have two beautiful children who call me ‘Mamala.’”
“We have a very modern family,” she noted, before quipping, “My husband’s ex-wife is a friend of mine.”
The 59-year-old also reflected on how her own childhood changed her approach to step parenting.
“I’m a child of divorced parents,” Harris explained. “When I started dating Doug, I was very thoughtful and sensitive to making sure that until I knew that our relationship was something that was going to be real, I didn’t want to form a relationship with the kids and then walk away from that relationship.”
She continued, “My own experience tells me that children form attachments and I wanted to be thoughtful about it. So I waited to meet the kids. And they are my children and I love those kids to death.” Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Because, as she noted, there is no one way to define family.
“Family comes in many forms and I think that increasingly, all of us understand that this is not the 1950s anymore,” Harris added. “Families come in all shapes or forms and they are family nonetheless.”
And the Vice President also had a response for comments made by President Donald Trump’s running mate JD Vance, in which the Republican nominee for vice president referred to Harris as a “childless cat lady” for not having biological children.
“I just think it’s mean and mean spirited,” she told Cooper. “And I think that most Americans want leaders who understand that the measure of their strength is not based on who you beat down, the real measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you lift up.”
Kamala Harris Says Donald Trump Is ‘Full of Lies’ on ‘Call Her Daddy’ Podcast: ‘I Just Have to Be Very Candid With You’
Michaela Zee
VARIETY Sun, October 6, 2024
Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris appeared in a new episode of Alex Cooper’s “Call Her Daddy” podcast, where she spoke about abortion rights, student loan forgiveness and remarks made by Donald Trump and JD Vance.
In the episode, released Sunday, Harris criticized former President Trump’s stance on women’s rights and reproductive freedom, particularly following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
At one point, Harris commented on Trump repeating the false claim during September’s presidential debate that Democrats support states “executing” babies after they are born.
“That is not happening anywhere in the United States. It’s a bold face lie. Just a boldfaced lie that he is suggesting,” Kamala said. “Can you imagine he’s suggesting that women in their ninth month of pregnancy are electing to have an abortion? Are you kidding? That is so outrageously inaccurate and it’s so insulting to suggest that that would be happening and that women would be doing that. It’s not happening anywhere.”
“This guy is full of lies,” Harris continued, referring to Trump. “I mean, I just have to be very candid with you.”
Harris also responded to Trump telling women, “You will be protected, and I will be your protector,” at a rally on Sept. 23.
“So he, who, when he was president, hand selected three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention that they would undo the protections of Roe V. Wade and they did just as he intended and there are now 20 states with Trump abortion bans, including bans that make no exceptions for rape or incest, which we just discussed, which means that you’re telling a survivor of a crime with a violation of their body, they don’t have a right to make a decision about what happens to their body next, which is immoral,” Harris said on the podcast. “So, this is the same guy that is now saying that, this is the same guy that said women should be punished for having abortions. This is the same guy who uses the same kind of language he does to describe women? So yeah, there you go.”
Elsewhere in the interview, Harris reacted to Republican vice presidential candidate Vance’s “childless cat ladies” comment he made in a 2021 interview with Tucker Carlson. “I just think it’s mean and mean spirited,” she said. “And I think that most Americans want leaders who understand that the measure of their strength is not based on who you beat down, the real measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you lift up.”
Listen to the full “Call Her Daddy” podcast with Vice President Harris below:
Kamala Harris Reacts to J.D. Vance’s ‘Childless Cat Ladies’ Viral Remark In 'Call Her Daddy' Episode
NBC Updated Sun, October 6, 2024
Kamala Harris is the latest guest for “Call Her Daddy.” Ahead of the 2024 Presidential Election, which is less than a month away, the Vice-President sat down with Alex Cooper for the Oct. 6 episode of her popular podcast, “Call Her Daddy.” The two women discussed a variety of topics, from reproductive rights in the United States to the Democratic presidential nominee’s late mother’s influence to her former career as a prosecutor. The Vice President also reacted to personal attacks by her opponent, former President Donald Trump, who criticized her identity and character. “I think it’s really important not to let other people define you. And usually those people who will attempt to do it don’t know you,” Harris said. Before the interview began, Alex addressed her listeners acknowledging that she knows their political views are mixed, but said she felt that she had to engage in the important dialogue. “I will be honest; I had been going back and forth with this decision for a while to get involved or to not get involved. But at the end of the day, I couldn't see a world in which one of the main conversations in this election is women and I'm not a part of it.” She added that her goal was not to change her audience’s political affiliations, but hopes they can listen to the conversation, which she notes isn’t too different than the ones they have every week. The podcast host also said she reached out to Trump to come on the show and have a meaningful, in-depth discussion surrounding women’s rights.
Harris Slams Trump’s Claim That He’s a ‘Protector’ of Women on ‘Call Her Daddy’ Pod Cast
Althea Legaspi
ROLLING STONE Sun, October 6, 2024
Kamala Harris rejected Donald Trump’s recent claims where he told women, “You will be protected, and I will be your protector,” which he said while campaigning in Pennsylvania last month. “This is the same guy who said that women should be punished for having abortions,” Harris said as a guest on the popular Call Her Daddy podcast hosted by Alex Cooper, which was released on Sunday.
Cooper quoted the former president’s remarks and asked Harris, who is running neck-and-neck against Trump in the presidential race, “What do you make of that?”
Harris didn’t hesitate to quickly and succinctly break it all down. “So, he who when he was president, hand selected three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention that they would undo the protections of Roe v Wade, and they did just as he intended,” she began, addressing the question.
“And there are now 20 states with Trump abortion bans, including bans that make no exception for rape or incest, which we just discussed, which means that you’re telling a survivor of a crime, of a violation to their body, they don’t have a right to make a decision about what happens to their body next, which is immoral,” she added.
“So, this is the same guy that is now saying that. This is the same guy who said that women should be punished for having abortions. This is the same guy who uses the kind of language he does to describe women. So yeah, there you go,” she concluded.
Cooper said during her intro before her 40-minute conversation with Harris that she “went back and forth” on whether or not to address politics or interview politicians at all for her podcast, but she said she felt “the conversation I know I’m qualified to have is the one surrounding women’s bodies and how we are treated and valued in this country.”
Cooper also said that her team reached out to Trump to be interviewed on her show. “If he also wants to have a meaningful, in-depth conversation of women’s rights in this country, then he is welcome on Call Her Daddy anytime,” she said.
The Conservatives' ability to hold Labour accountable has disappeared down the same rabbit hole as the Party itself. As the Tories struggle with their own identity crisis, the press has stepped up to fill the gap.
“A honeymoon period will be very, very short. Almost non-existent,” said the former Sun editor David Yelland. Some right-wing newspapers may have briefly endorsed Labour during the election, but Yelland, who led the Sun from 1998 to 2003, warned that these outlets would never truly support Starmer. He stressed that Starmer and his team must understand that the two most influential media groups – News UK and Associated Newspapers, the parent company of the Daily Mail – are not their allies.
This became evident immediately after the election when the Sun – despite Starmer’s efforts to cosy up to the Murdoch press by attending the media mogul’s summer party and visiting the Sun HQ, much to the ire of the left – swiftly issued a challenge to the new prime minister. “Better times? Let’s see them … While we wish Labour luck, we will scrutinise every decision and hold their feet to the fire,” wrote the newspaper the day after the election.
And nine weeks into Labour’s leadership, the newspaper has stayed true to that promise.
On September 16, the Sun attacked Starmer and his wife, accusing them of hypocrisy. In a comment piece, assistant editor Clemmie Moodie criticised them for “private jets, cronyism, and free clothes,” eagerly reviving the familiar “champagne socialist” trope often used against Labour figures perceived as wealthy, or hypocritical because they do not live out a ‘socialist’ life as imagined by the likes of Moodie.
The Daily Mail followed with its own sensational headline: “Starmergeddon, after just 68 days,” accompanied by an image of newly freed prisoners celebrating with champagne. The lead article asked, “Who voted for all this?” implying that the country was already descending into chaos after only two months of Labour governance.
These early and relentless critiques from the right-wing press signal that the media, particularly these powerful newspaper groups, may now be acting as Labour’s most vocal and influential opposition. Of course, we would expect the usual right-wing, Tory-loving media to take aim at the new Labour government, recycling the usual attacks – “Labour’s in the pocket of the unions!”, “they’re lying about the ‘black hole,’” etc. But beyond the predictable criticisms, there’s a growing sense that the media in general is taking on a more central role in opposing the government.
The Conservatives, weakened and navel-gazing after years of internal battles and declining public support, seem to have gone AWOL. Consequently, their ability to hold Labour accountable has disappeared down the same rabbit hole as the Party itself. As the Tories struggle with their own identity crisis, the press has stepped up to fill the gap. Publications like the Mail and Express are driving the narrative, scrutinising every move the government makes, but even traditionally more centrist outlets, like The Times newspapers, seem to have adopted a more mocking tone.
The Sunday Times, like The Sun – both owned by Murdoch’s News UK – had endorsed Labour ahead of the general election. In a June 30 editorial, it stated that the Conservatives had “in effect forfeited the right to govern” and that it was “the right time for Labour to be entrusted with restoring competence to government.”
But post-election, the paper’s coverage of the new Labour government seems more exaggerated and critical. On September 15, the newspaper led with a sensational headline: “Starmer breached rules over clothes that donor gave wife,” plastering it on the front page as if it was a major political scandal. While the allegation that the prime minister violated parliamentary rules by failing to declare clothing donations is indeed a legitimate public interest story, the headline appeared unusually tabloid-like for a publication known for its typically serious and measured tone. It seemed more designed to provoke controversy than to provide a balanced account of the situation.
In a commentary piece the following day, the Times Leader called for Starmer to apologise: “Ministers are demanding painful sacrifices by Britain’s pensioners this winter. For most, there will be no one to buy them a warm coat, let alone a designer one. Sir Keir should apologise.”
But did these newspapers take the same moral stance when Boris Johnson, as prime minister, accepted freebies, including the extravagant renovations to his Downing Street flat? On X, author Peter Osborne highlighted this apparent hypocrisy: “Powerful Times leader. I can’t remember any Times leaders making the same point about Boris Johnson’s free holidays, free meals from donors etc. I can remember the Times suppressing Simon Walters’ story about Johnson wanting to make Carrie Symonds his £100,000 pa chief of staff.”
Even the Financial Times, a reputable and respected publication, appears to be following this broader opposition trend. ‘More than half of Britons disapprove of Labour government, poll finds,’ was a recent headline. Polls are of course a legitimate tool for gauging public opinion and reporting such findings is a standard journalism practice, but the FT’s choice to lead with this particular headline simplifies a complex issue into a negative snapshot of public opinion. This editorial decision may be seen as part of a broader shift, with even traditionally neutral or business-focused outlets like the FT leaning into more critical coverage of the Labour government. Whether this is a conscious choice or not, such coverage can substantially shape public perception, especially when it comes from a publication as influential as the FT.
Farage and the press
As the centrist press adopts a more critical stance in its coverage of Labour, seemingly amplifying more minor issues to undermine Starmer’s leadership, the tabloids appear to be rallying behind Farage.
Following the general election, Yelland cautioned that tabloid coverage might increasingly be influenced by the Reform Party in the months ahead. “Farage says he’s coming for the Labour party. He’ll work with the tabloids to control the agenda,” he said. “Most of the tabloids are at least 50 percent pro-Reform now, if not more. Three areas that the right will push are immigration, what they call ‘the war on woke’, and net zero. The tabloids are going to use these tools of the right to oppose the government.”
Farage has said that he aims to become the “real opposition to a Labour government” in the years ahead, and it seems that the right-wing press may be furthering his ambition. This week, the Express ran a headline: “Keir Starmer issued urgent Farage warning as Labour on ‘far shakier ground’ in Red Wall.” The article references a pollster who claims that Farage’s party may have helped deliver an emphatic Tory wipeout, but it could “spell trouble for Labour’s hopes of re-election.” The piece also quotes Reform UK Chairman Zia Yusuf who told GB News that his party is planning a major push in seats currently held by Labour. With Reform targeting key Labour seats, and media outlets amplifying these threats, Farage and Reform could present a significant challenge to Labour in the years ahead.
The rise of far-right media: Paul Marshall buys the Spectator
As the tabloids shift towards Reform and centrist outlets mock Labour, the far-right media is on the march. GB News, created to challenge mainstream UK media, has become a platform for populist right-wing views, focusing on culture wars and immigration, and attacking what it perceives as a disconnected establishment. In an FT article entitled Why GB News is Angrier than Ever, Henry Mance, the FT’s chief features writer, noted: “GB News hoped to reshape British TV news in a post-Brexit world — to provide an alternative to the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky News, which pride themselves on impartial journalism, but which, to some, are guilty of liberal metropolitan bias. Critics worried it would have the same impact that Fox News did in the US: undermining truth, dragging voters to the right.”
A prominent figure at GB News is Sir Paul Marshall, a hedge fund tycoon, owner of the right-wing news site UnHerd, and a major investor in the channel. Earlier this month, Britain’s media landscape was rocked with the news that Marshall had bought the Spectator, which has always been considered the “house journal” of the Conservative Party, with its editorship often used as a springboard to political prominence, most notably Boris Johnson. The Telegraph remains for sale, and Marshall is believed to be in the running to buy it, as he continues his bid to build an empire of right-wing media outlets. The purchase also led to the dramatic public resignation of the magazine’s chair, Andrew Neil, who expressed concerns that Marshall might not fully grasp the importance of the magazine’s hallmark – editorial independence.
Having been bought by a buyer who has a history of providing a platform for hard-right narratives, where the likes of Lee Anderson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, and Esther McVey are let off the leash, there is concern that Marshall’s acquisition of the Spectator and possibly the Telegraph will take the outlets even further to the right. As Guardian columnist Zoe Williams writes in a piece about the Spectator, “You only have to look at GB News, in which Marshall is a major investor, to know exactly what makes Marshall tick, and that his project does not set out to excel in ratings and profits, and its impact can’t be measured in those terms.”
This development could pose a real threat to the Labour Party, as these platforms have the potential to amplify opposition voices and shape public opinion in ways that may undermine Labour’s messaging.
But the media’s rightward shift and its bias in marginalising the left is nothing new. The demonisation of Jeremy Corbyn in the media is perhaps the most glaring example. Research by the London School of Economics (LSE) showed that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader. According to LSE, this process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: through a lack of or distortion of voice; through ridicule, scorn, and personal attacks; and association, mainly with terrorism.
“All this raises, in our view, a number of pressing ethical questions regarding the role of the media in a democracy. Certainly, democracies need their media to challenge power and offer robust debate, but when this transgresses into an antagonism that undermines legitimate political voices that dare to contest the current status quo, then it is not democracy that is served,” wrote LSE.
The rise of populist platforms like GB News and Paul Marshall’s growing media empire further consolidates the right’s control over influential outlets, allowing them to set the narrative and fuel opposition against Labour on topics like immigration, cultural issues, and climate policies. The press, emboldened by its own political agendas and less concerned with traditional impartiality, is stepping into the role of a primary opposition force. With the Conservatives weakened, the media has filled the void, and Labour faces an unrelenting barrage of criticism from across the spectrum, suggesting that in today’s political landscape, the media is indeed the real opposition.
Goodness knows what would happen if Labour actually tried to do anything at all radical, or even slightly socialist!
Right-wing media watch – Press fuels absurd claims about Kamala Harris
Deciding whether to have children is a deeply personal choice and no one else’s concern. One would think that this would be universally understood, but recent events suggest otherwise. A grotesque term, the “childless cat lady brigade,” has been doing the rounds, pushed by Republican figures and their media allies.
This phase originated from Senator JD Vance of Ohio, the Republican vice-presidential nominee. After Donald Trump named Vance as his running mate, an old 2021 interview resurfaced in which Vance claimed the US was being run by “childless cat ladies” like Kamala Harris – women, he said, with no “direct stake” in the country’s future.
The remark understandably sparked outrage among most people, but the right-wing media was quick to defend it. Vance had “meant it as a joke” and that it had been “wilfully misinterpreted by Democrats,” claimed Fox News.
This week, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders joined the vile assault. Sanders previously served as press secretary in the Trump White House. During an event in Detroit with Trump this week, Sanders criticised Harris for not having children of her own, saying: “The most important job I have; the greatest title I have is that of being a mom.” She added, “My kids keep me humble. Unfortunately, Kamala Harris doesn’t have anything keeping her humble.”
In response to the smear, a satirical movement has been gaining momentum, with childless women voicing solidarity with Harris. Taylor Swift, who has three cats but no children, recently endorsed Harris, posting a photo of herself with her cat Benjamin Button and signing it “Childless Cat Lady.”
Right-Wing Media Watch might not have picked up on this grotesque smear had it not been reported by the Daily Mail. The tabloid ran a headline this week that read: “Sarah Huckabee Sanders slams Kamala for not having kids after Taylor Swift joins childless cat lady brigade supporting Harris.”
Sadly, this is just the latest in a series of desperate attacks on the vice president. With Harris’s popularity rising, Trump’s camp seems intent on seizing every opportunity for personal attacks. The ugly ‘childless women’ smear followed unfounded accusations that Harris has a drinking problem. The unsubstantiated rumour was reportedly started by Trump campaign insider James Blair on X.
These childish and slanderous tactics are all too familiar with Trump’s campaigns, despite concerns from Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham, who worry that focusing on personal attacks rather than policy may harm Trump’s election chances.
Most sensible observers can see these smears for what they are, a juvenile attempt to tarnish Harris’s reputation by campaign officials mirroring the impulsive immaturity of their leader
Yet, the Daily Mail couldn’t resist joining in, even reporting the baseless claim that Harris appeared drunk during several public appearances, though they admitted there was no evidence of a drinking problem.
They also dredged up a nearly 30-year-old DUI incident involving Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, Harris’s VP pick, though it had absolutely no relevance to the story.
One might expect more from a national newspaper than digging up irrelevant scandals to stir controversy. But the absurdity doesn’t stop there. The article entertained suggestions that alcohol was to blame for Harris’s so-called “lunatic” laughter and her occasional off-script “word salads,” even pointing to a speech where she repeated the word “democracy” three times in 30 seconds.
A Vice President emphasising democracy in a speech? Surely it would be more concerning if she didn’t?
Smear of the week – From swans to strays – Trump’s baseless immigrant smear echoes absurd right-wing media myths
Do you remember when the Sun sensationally claimed that asylum seekers in London were poaching and eating swans? In July 2003, the newspaper published a story about the disappearance of swans in Beckton, alleging that the police had caught asylum seekers preparing to roast them. After complaints, the paper issued a small clarification, admitting that no arrests had been made. But they stood by claims that locals had accused Eastern European refugees of killing swans for food.
The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) deemed no further action necessary, as the Sun had published a retraction, a decision that was criticised by Presswise, the media ethics charity, as “disgraceful.”
This lack of accountability likely did little to curb right-wingers’ fixation on immigrants and the bizarre notion that they are eating domesticated, or, in this case, protected animals.
Fast forward to today, and this strange narrative has found new life in an even stranger claim from Donald Trump. During his first presidential debate against Kamala Harris, Trump echoed a conspiracy theory promoted by his running mate, J.D. Vance, (him again) stating that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating cats and dogs.
Kamala Harris wasn’t the only one left bewildered by Trump’s comments, anyone watching with a hint of normalcy was similarly stunned. The jokes and memes quickly flooded the internet. A parody song by the South African musician David Scott mocking the former president’s outrageous claim went viral. A video, entitled “Eating the Cats” by Scott’s band Kiffness, used an edited audio clip of Trump’s viral comment, composed in a Reggaeton-beat style. In the satirical song, Scott urges the people of Springfield not to eat his cat and dog and suggests alternative food options.
A flurry of Bart Simpson memes did the rounds. The BBC’s Have I Got News For You X account shared an image of Homer Simpson and his dog writing: “US Presidential debate: After Trump claims people in Springfield are eating dogs, there’s concern about where he’s been getting his news from.”
Jokes aside, just as the Sun’s nonsensical swan story showcased a low point in media accountability, Trump’s baseless claims show how far political discourse has strayed from serious, substantive issues.
It’s a sad commentary on the current state of politics, where misinformation and sensationalism overshadow meaningful discussion.
Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch
Monday, August 19, 2024
Christians, evangelicals rally for Kamala Harris ahead of DNC
'Voting Kamala … (is) a vote against another four years of faith leaders justifying the actions of a man who destroys the message Jesus came to spread,' said Jerushah Duford, granddaughter of the Rev. Billy Graham.
Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris speaks during a campaign event at the Hendrick Center for Automotive Excellence in Raleigh, N.C., Friday, Aug. 16, 2024. (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson)
(RNS) — A diverse group of Christians is throwing support behind Vice President Kamala Harris’ White House bid, organizing fundraisers and Zoom calls in hopes of helping catapult the Democrat to victory in November — and, they say, reclaiming their faith from Republicans in the process.
Their efforts come on the heels of similar campaigns aimed at specific constituency groups, such as the recent “White Dudes for Harris” Zoom call that featured celebrities and grabbed headlines. John Pavlovitz, a liberal-leaning Christian author and activist, was on that call when he hatched the idea for a Christian-centric version and texted his friend Malynda Hale, a singer, actress and fellow activist.
“We had a conversation about how, specifically on the Democratic side of the political spectrum, you don’t hear a lot of people talking about their faith,” Hale told Religion News Service in an interview. “We wanted people to know that there are progressive Christians, there are Christians on the Democratic, left-leaning side, so that they didn’t feel alone.”
The result was Christians for Kamala, a part-fundraiser, part-virtual roundtable livestreamed event on Monday (Aug. 12). Featured speakers cited their faith as they praised liberal policies and personally endorsed Harris — who recently entered the presidential race after President Joe Biden bowed out — and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Over the course of the nearly three-hour event, the group raised more than $150,000 for the Harris campaign, a number that has climbed to just shy of $200,000 in the days since.
“It’s been really difficult to keep up with the flood of comments and connections that have been coming in,” said Pavlovitz, who said the only formal help he received from the Harris campaign was in setting up a donation system for fundraising.
A number of Christian groups — including evangelicals, a constituency key to former President Donald Trump’s base — have assembled similar calls in the lead up to next week’s Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Most have had little to no assistance from the official Harris-Walz campaign, which, barely a month old, has yet to announced a dedicated faith outreach director. The emerging grassroots coalition vies not only to bolster Harris but also to push back on what organizers say is a false assumption that to be Christian is to be a Republican — or a supporter of former President Donald Trump.
Signage is hung Aug. 14, 2024, on the exterior of the United Center in preparation for next week’s Democratic National Convention in Chicago.(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
Christianity has long been associated with the Republican Party, which is more than 80% Christian, according to a 2022 survey from the Public Religion Research Institute. It has also been associated with Trump, who has benefitted from the consistent support of white evangelical voters.
But while the same PRRI poll found that 31% of Democrats are religiously unaffiliated, the majority — around 60% — still ascribe to various forms of Christianity. The difference lies in the types of Christians that make up each party’s ranks: Whereas 68% of the GOP are white Christians (with 30% of the party represented by white evangelical Protestants alone) only 24% of Democrats are the same, and they are primarily white Catholics (10%) and white mainline Protestants (9%), while white evangelicals only represent 4%. Meanwhile, Black Protestants — a key part of the Democratic base — constitute 16% of the Democratic Party, with Hispanic Protestants representing 3%, Hispanic Catholics 12% and “other Christians” rounding out the group with an additional 6%.
That diversity was on display during the Christians for Kamala call, which included a mix of faith leaders such as the Rev. Jacqui Lewis, of Middle Collegiate Church in New York City, and the Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr., head of the nonprofit Hip Hop Caucus; activists like environmentalist Bill McKibben and LGBTQ+ rights advocate Charlotte Clymer; commentators such as CNN’s Van Jones; and politicians, including New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and Texas State Rep. James Talarico.
The speakers linked their support for specific policies, such as working to blunt the impacts of climate change or passing immigration reform, to their faith and Christian Scripture. Some rebuked conservative Christianity’s ties to the GOP, calling it a form of Christian nationalism.
“My faith in Jesus leads me to reject Christian nationalism and commit myself to the project of a multiracial, multicultural democracy where we can all freely love God and fully love our neighbors,” said Talarico, a Presbyterian Church (USA) seminarian who has been vocal in his condemnation of Christian nationalism in his state. “That same faith leads me to support Vice President Harris to be the next president of the United States.” Texas state Rep. James Talarico speaks on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives on May 24, 2021, in Austin, Texas. (Courtesy photo)
Although a member of a mainline denomination, Talarico was also a speaker on a separate “Evangelicals for Harris” Zoom call assembled on Wednesday evening. Organized by Faith Voters, a 501(c)4 organization, the effort was geared toward conservative Christians who have disproportionately sided with Trump. The call struck a different tone than Christians for Kamala: some speakers noted they had never endorsed a candidate before, and at least one pastor suggested he was risking friendships and relationships with his congregation by participating.
News of the event sparked blowback from conservatives, such as Sean Feucht, an evangelical worship leader and activist who once ran for Congress in California and has at least informally worked with prominent Republican strategists for his own initiatives. Feucht, who has also said he is in regular contact with Trump’s campaign staff, accused evangelicals who participated in the call of apostasy and heresy, deriding them on social media as “Heretics for Harris.”
In addition, the Rev. Franklin Graham, son of famed evangelist Rev. Billy Graham, decried a new advertisement produced by Evangelicals for Harris targeting swing state voters, saying it was “trying to mislead people” by using images of his father.
But call participants like evangelical activist Shane Claiborne appeared unmoved by the criticism, as was Jerushah Duford, a counselor who is also Billy Graham’s granddaughter and Franklin Graham’s niece.
“Voting Kamala, for me, is so much greater than policies,” Duford said. “It’s a vote against another four years of faith leaders justifying the actions of a man who destroys the message Jesus came to spread, and that is why I get involved in politics.”
Jemar Tisby, an author and historian who spoke during the call, told RNS that while he grew up in conservative Christian communities, he does not identify as evangelical himself, preferring the term “evangelical adjacent.” Even so, he felt compelled to participate because, he said, “we have the choice before us between democracy and authoritarianism, and I feel like this is a historic moment when people of conscience need to take a stand.”
Tisby, author of the forthcoming book “The Spirit of Justice: True Stories of Faith, Race, and Resistance,” also praised the diversity represented on the call, some of which was conducted in Spanish. He said it represented a broader understanding of evangelicalism than is often represented in U.S. politics.
“Many people of color, many women, many people who traditionally have not been platformed or been passed the mic, are now able to have their voices heard. I think that’s very significant,” Tisby said.
The call closed with remarks from former Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, a Republican who drew backlash from fellow conservatives after he became one of 10 Republicans to vote to impeach Trump for insurrection connected to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. He argued the current Republican Party does not resemble “conservatism or, frankly, Christianity,” and lamented “pastors and faith leaders that have sold themselves down the river.” Some of today’s support for Trump, he said, amounted to a form of idol worship.
There are “certainly a few things that can make God a little jealous,” he said, “and one of those is worshipping something other than Him. And that’s what you see in today’s GOP.”
The calls add to a slate of organizing efforts launched in recent days aimed at specific religious groups. Nearly 500 faith leaders have signed on to a letter endorsing Harris, a “Latter-day Saints for Harris” call was convened last week and multiple separate calls have been organized for Jewish Americans — including one on Thursday that targeted Jewish women and featured singer Barbra Streisand.
A separate “Catholics for Kamala” call, facilitated in part by the Harris campaign, was also slated for this week but organizers rescheduled it until after the Democratic National Convention, citing scheduling conflicts.
According to Pavlovitz, his group is already partnering with others, such as Catholics for Kamala, Christian Democrats of America and Vote Common Good. What form their collaborations take remains to be seen, but Pavlovitz said he is hopeful for whatever comes next.
“We’ve all begun talking as a part of this process about what these partnerships could look like moving forward,” he said. “There is talk about some, you know, collective expression of our spirituality, which is really what this was about.”
Opinion
Why I’m a Christian for Kamala but not a ‘Christian for Kamala’
Now is not the time to pledge blind allegiance. Now is the time to start making some demands.
Supporters display signs in the audience before Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at a campaign rally, Aug. 10, 2024, in Las Vegas.
(RNS) — I watched the Christians for Kamala live event with a good deal of interest. For one thing, I’m a Christian. For another, I plan on voting for Kamala Harris in November. I guess that makes me a Christian for Kamala. Or does it?
The event, organized by John Pavlovitz and Malynda Hale, was a real success as these things go. It raised over $150,000 and brought in a murderers’ row of respected Christian leaders to rally the growing but still somewhat nebulous and unorganized religious not-right around the Harris/Walz ticket. Many of the featured guests were people whose lives and ministry have meant a lot to me — people like Diana Butler Bass, the Rev. Jacqui Lewis, William Matthews and the Rev. Dante Stewart. I’ve learned from these people and they made the Christian case for Harris with grace and conviction, highlighting her campaign’s inclusive and liberation-minded spirit, contrasting it with Donald Trump’s whole thing. It was, all told, a pretty convincing couple of hours.
So why was I left feeling unconvinced?
Let’s take a step back and evaluate the genuinely disorienting vibe shift we’ve all been through over the last month. After President Joe Biden’s disastrous debate performance against Trump, I felt the same spirit of bitter cynicism practically everyone to the left of JD Vance felt. The polls were all but unanimous: Biden was going to lose and nobody was surprised. “Here go the Democrats again!” “They’re addicted to losing!” “We hate life and ourselves! We can’t govern!”
Except this time, Democrats did something nobody could have seen coming: They took action. Thanks to what sure sounds like a dramatic, high-stakes few days of behind-the-scenes political maneuvering, Biden agreed to bow out of the race and endorse his vice president for the 2024 ticket.
Since then, the Harris campaign has been soaring on good vibes, huge rallies and coconut memes. This energy only got more juice from the addition of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, whose jovial demeanor and bawdy dressing-down of his opponents made him all but impervious to the right’s various attempts to smear his military record. Meanwhile, Trump the Campaigner is, for more or less the first time, on his heels. His famed bravado has been replaced by a meandering, listless desperation, and Sen. Vance’s efforts to blow some fresh wind into the sails have been dampened by a naked and charmless misogyny.
Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at a campaign rally, Aug. 10, 2024, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson)
So, yeah. It’s been a vibe shift. And as a white Christian guy who has always found himself in the statistically unusual position of opposing Trump, I can’t say I’m mad about any of it. Trump’s reelection odds are looking mighty iffy, and goodbye and good riddance to them. But I don’t think that automatically makes me a die-hard Christian for Kamala either.
My politics don’t conveniently map onto either political party. I think most Christians feel the same way. Heck, I think most people feel the same way. This isn’t because I’m one of those faux-sanctimonious centrists who see staking out the middle ground between Republicans and Democrats as a worthy goal in and of itself. It’s just that a lot of things I’d like to see done politically are not being touted by either party.
For example, I’d like to see some action on climate change commensurate with the actual threat it poses. I’d like to see the U.S. stop sending strongly worded letters to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and actually shut off the endless stream of weapons that allow him to vaporize whole entire blocks and everyone on them. I’d like to see every American earn a living wage and have access to health care. I want well-funded public schools. I want strong unions. I want LGBTQ kids to live without fear. I want accountability for police and other authority figures who abuse their power, particularly where racial minorities are concerned. And so on and so forth.
These things are important to me, and while context clues suggest the Harris/Walz ticket comes a lot closer to achieving at least some of them than the Trump/Vance one does, that’s just an educated guess. Harris’ website doesn’t have a policy section and she’s been light on interviews with the press. I can live with that for a while, given the extraordinary circumstances of her apparent nomination. But given the Democratic Party’s track record, I’m a little skeptical. While the Republican Party of the last few years has staunchly opposed many of those goals, Democrats haven’t exactly been wildly enthusiastic about them either. Will Harris break with Biden’s blank checks to the Israeli military? I hope so, but I have yet to see any concrete evidence that she’ll try.
For these reasons, I’m less interested in being a “Christian for Kamala” than I am in being a “Christian with particular and occasionally even contradictory politics who is forced to make a strategic vote in this two-party system and will ultimately pull the lever for the candidate who seems more likely to hear my side out than the other candidate is.” (Not the catchiest name, but you get the idea.)
Based on what I know right now, that candidate is pretty clearly Harris. Of course, it’s at least conceivable that a third candidate would be more in line with my politics than Harris is. I know plenty of people sleep better by casting a symbolic vote for a third-party candidate or writing in their own dream option. I don’t begrudge anyone that, but it’s never been clear to me how these votes actually help struggling people. I’m all for working to disrupt the two-party system, but it seems to me that voting day is probably the least effective possible time to do so, especially if your overall goal is to put people in charge who can make the world a little better for people who are struggling right now.
But the reason I hesitate to call myself a “Christian for Harris” is that when we pledge allegiance to one political candidate, we surrender a lot of the power we have in a democracy. This is more than just semantics. Our political influence comes not just from who we decide to vote for, but how we use our voices in the intervening years between elections. A “Christians for Undocumented Immigrants” group has a lot more leverage to influence politicians and hold them accountable than a “Christians for (Politician)” group does, because the former isn’t beholden to a single flawed person who is susceptible to mistakes and lobbyists and squishy polling data and billionaire donors, but to a noble cause.
Anti-abortion protesters celebrate after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the federally protected right to abortion, outside the Supreme Court in Washington, June 24, 2022. The Supreme Court ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years, a decision by its conservative majority to overturn the court’s landmark abortion cases. (AP Photo/Gemunu Amarasinghe)
For an example of how quickly these “Christians for (Politician)” groups go awry, look no further than Harris’ opponent. I personally spoke with many Christians in 2016 who admitted they found many things about Trump distasteful but voted for him anyway because of their opposition to abortion. Anti-abortion groups’ support for Trump turned out to be well-placed, as Trump’s GOP delivered a once-unthinkable Roe v. Wade overturn. However, Republicans now seem a little sheepish about this victory, as it has turned out to be a significant electoral liability. They’re so embarrassed about gutting federal abortion protections that they’re distancing themselves from all responsibility for this herculean accomplishment and omitting a pledge to ban abortion nationwide from the official party platform for the first time in 40 years.
Given this apparent reversal on the ostensibly all-important issue of abortion, have “Christians for Trump” withdrawn their support? Have these single-issue voters stood outside of Trump rallies and demanded he make his position clear on Florida’s abortion amendment? Has evidence that overturning Roe actually led to an uptick in abortion led these groups to find new ways to bring these rates in line with their stated goals? Current polling has observed no such break.
Once you’ve thrown in with a candidate, it’s much easier to shift your values to align with that person than to pressure the candidate to align their policies with your values.
I bring this up not to draw any moral or political equivalence between Trump and Harris, who are very different people. But I do think it’s a helpful illustration of the pitfalls that come from backing a politician instead of a political vision.
In the Gospels, Jesus proclaims a unique vision of the world — one where the meek inherit the earth and the mourning are comforted. I do not think either Trump or Harris is going to bring the kingdom proclaimed in the Sermon on the Mount to reality. I do think Harris is likely to get us marginally closer, but not if all of us just put the entirety of our weight behind her, no questions asked.
Now is not the time to pledge blind allegiance. Now is the time to start making some demands.
(Tyler Huckabee is a writer living in Nashville, Tennessee, with his wife and dogs. Read more of his writing at his Substack. This column does not necessarily reflect the views of Religion News Service.)
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
Trump leans into religious extremism to energize rightwing evangelicals
Adam Gabbatt August 5, 2024
THE GUARDIAN Donald Trump campaigns in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on 31 July 2024.Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Donald Trump, now facing a tougher challenge in the US election after Joe Biden stepped down in favor of Kamala Harris, is increasingly leaning into religious extremism aimed at energizing a key section of his support base: socially conservative Christians.
Fears that Trump would be an authoritarian leader if elected seemed to be realized last week, when he told a group of Christian supporters they “would not have to vote” in four years if he becomes president.
“My theory would be that since Harris has entered the race, Trump has recognized that he’s on shakier ground,” said Matthew D Taylor, author of The Violent Take It by Force: The Christian Movement That Is Threatening Our Democracy.
“If you watched the RNC and saw the discourse there, [Republicans] really were quite confident that they were going to kind of have a cakewalk to victory in November.
“I think there’s, there’s more anxiety there now. I think Trump is dialing up religious dog whistles, and sometimes just straight up whistles to really galvanize and submit that religion’s religious support.”
Since 2016, Trump has become an unlikely hero for Christian nationalists – a loose grouping of evangelical Christians who believe the US was founded as a Christian nation, and want to see Christianity feature prominently in American life and politics.
After a stumbling start – during his first run for president the thrice-married Trump struggled to name a single Bible verse, referred to the Eucharist as a “little cracker”, and put money in the communion plate during a church visit – the relationship was cemented when Trump-installed supreme court justices overturned Roe v Wade.
The bond between Trump and Christian nationalists has now deepened to the extent that Trump is comfortable with comparing himself with their messiah, while some on the religious right have come to believe that the one-term president has been chosen, or anointed, by God himself, especially after a recent failed assassination attempt at a rally in Pennsylvania.
Over the past couple of weeks, as Harris has posed a threat that Republicans apparently didn’t see coming, and Trump has been questioned over appointing JD Vance as his running mate, he has looked for the support of these religious groups.
The speech at Turning Point’s Believers’ Summit, a gathering of Christians and Republicans that had the stated aim of “ultimately turning our nation towards the Lord”, was the furthest Trump has gone yet in appealing to this Christian base.
“Christians, get out and vote, just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it will be fixed, it will be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians,” Trump said in his speech, where he also repeated a promise to form “a new federal task force on fighting anti-Christian bias”, which would investigate “harassment and persecution against Christians in America”.
The crowd at the Believers’ Summit was a gathering of the more extreme type of American Christian, and came days after the Trump campaign launched a “Believers for Trump” coalition, backed by controversial religious figures who reinforced the sense that the base was being pandered to
I think the more overt Christian appeals are maybe a little bit of desperation, but also it’s a tried and true method for them
Matthew D Taylor
Those backers included Eric Metaxas, an anti-vaxxer and conservative radio host, who in the press release accompanying the event claimed that “American Christians are falling for the same religious lies” that German christians succumbed to as the Nazi party ascended in the 1930s”, and who recently retweeted a post on X which discussed “the way to wipe that smug, bitchy smirk off Kamala’s face”.
Taylor said there is a distinction between Christians who merely support Trump and those – like the people at the Believers’ Summit – who have a “religious attachment” to the former president. Those people, who include an array of religious leaders, see Trump in religious terms and have attached “spiritual narratives” to him: one example being the comparison of Trump to King Cyrus, who, according to the Bible, liberated the Jews from Babylonian captivity, despite himself being a Persian ruler.
The real goal with Trump’s appeal to this crowd is about more than just winning individual votes, Taylor said.
“I think the more overt Christian appeals are maybe a little bit of desperation, but also it’s a tried and true method for them, of drumming up more and more support and the truth is the religious voters who have a religious attachment to Trump are not just voters – they’re force multipliers,” Taylor said.
“If somebody believes that it is God’s will for Donald Trump to be elected, and they believe that there are demonic and satanic forces pushing back against God’s will, and that they need to be active and pushing against [those things] to see Trump elected. That is a level of political fervor and ardency that is very, very valuable to a candidate, because those are people who are then talking to their friends, who are then mobilizing some of these groups.”
The assassination attempt, Taylor said, “added even more certainty for these folks that God wants Trump to be elected”.
At the Republican national convention, held days after the shooting, speaker after speaker leaned into this idea that God had been at work.
Tim Scott, the South Carolina senator, suggested that it was “the devil”; Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the Arkansas governor, said “God almighty” had saved Trump; and Ben Carson claimed that God had “lowered a shield of protection over Donald Trump”. Corey Comperatore, the former fire chief who was killed in the shooting, was rarely mentioned.
Trump is appealing to a specific type of Christian, Rev Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, president and CEO of Interfaith Alliance, said in a statement. Raushenbush said Trump is trying to reinforce his popularity with the religious right, who do not represent every person of faith.
“The majority of religious people in this country are alarmed and threatened by Trump’s promise to hand Christian nationalists the keys to power. Their agenda hopes to repress diversity and difference and impose one extreme religious worldview on all of us,” he said.
“Trump’s shameless appeals to ‘my beautiful Christians’ are unsettling and infuriating to the many millions of American Christians who proudly believe in pluralistic democracy and healthy boundaries between religion and government.”
The leaning in has continued since Trump made his incendiary speech at the Believers’ Summit. Jake Schneider, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, sent an email out on Tuesday which falsely accused Harris of supporting “taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand without limits until birth”, which was designed to appeal to the Christian base.
On Truth Social, meanwhile, Trump has accused Harris of being “anti-Catholic” and made a direct appeal to Catholics as he tries to expand his religious support.
“I think he’s really trying to win votes and shore up his quote unquote religious base,” said Kristin Du Mez, a professor of history and gender studies at Calvin University whose research focuses on the intersection of gender, religion and politics.
Du Mez said Trump “has been unsettled by what’s transpired in the last couple of weeks, that’s been very clear”. But she said it was impossible to say whether Trump had recalibrated his speech in response to Harris replacing Biden on the Democratic ticket.
“There’s no way that isn’t a part of this context. And yet, I don’t really envision that his speech to that particular crowd would have been that different, even if he was still kind of on top of the world as he was a couple of weeks ago,” she said.
The main takeaway from the speech, Du Mez said, was the lingering fear over what Trump has planned if he wins a second term.
“Those of us who study authoritarian movements saw huge red flags right there. That language is unprecedented for a US presidential candidate, and I think it’s important to say that, because Trump is always saying weird things, and it’s important to just put down that marker,” she said.
“This is not normal for a presidential candidate in this country to say anything remotely like that.”
Sunday, June 09, 2024
ARKANSAS
'We won’t be intimidated': Activists balk after right-wingers publish AR canvasser list
Supporters of a proposed Arkansas constitutional amendment that would allow a limited right to abortion denounced a conservative advocacy group’s publication of a list of paid canvassers, calling the move an intimidation tactic.
The right-wing Family Council posted Thursday on its website a list of 79 people that the Arkansans for Limited Government ballot question committee is paying to collect signatures from across the state. The committee needs 90,704 signatures from registered voters by July 5 for the proposed amendment to appear on the November ballot.
The Family Council obtained the list of paid canvassers and their home cities via an Arkansas Freedom of Information Act request, according to the post. Ballot question committees do not have to submit lists of unpaid or volunteer canvassers to the state.
AFLG released a statement Friday in response to the post.
“The canvassers working tirelessly to collect petitions in support of the Arkansas Abortion Amendment are proud of the work they are doing to promote reproductive liberty in the state and to engage in direct democracy — they aren’t hiding,” the group stated. “But when the Family Council releases lists of their names and whereabouts to their network of anti-choice protestors who vehemently, and sometimes violently, disagree with our work, it puts our team at great risk for harassment, stalking, and other dangers. The Family Council’s tactics are ugly, transparently menacing, and unworthy of Arkansas. We won’t be intimidated.”
The Family Council’s post is the second instance of alleged intimidation of abortion amendment supporters in less than two weeks.
On May 30, canvasser Veronica McClane filmed an interaction between herself and Little Rock police, in which Officer Christopher Tollette told her that both Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and the Arkansas Martin Luther King Jr. Commission did not want her and others canvassing at the intersection of 9th and State streets.
Tollette told McClane that canvassers could be arrested for obstructing traffic. The canvassers told reporters they were not blocking traffic but instead sought the attention of drivers from a public sidewalk. The Martin Luther King Jr. Commission, located at the 9th and Broadway intersection, attracted a slow-moving line of cars with a free food giveaway on May 30.
Mark Edwards, the Little Rock Police Department’s spokesman, told reporters that Sanders had nothing to do with the officers’ presence and that Tollette misspoke when he mentioned her.
Edwards also said the police arrived because a Martin Luther King Jr. Commission member claimed to have overheard a canvasser trying to coerce someone into signing the petition.
The proposed amendment
The Arkansas Abortion Amendment would not allow government entities to “prohibit, penalize, delay or restrict abortion services within 18 weeks of fertilization.” The proposal would also permit abortion services in cases of rape, incest, a fatal fetal anomaly or to “protect the pregnant female’s life or physical health,” and it would nullify any of the state’s existing “provisions of the Constitution, statutes and common law” that conflict with it.
The Family Council claims this measure would allow “thousands of elective abortions in Arkansas every year” and “permit abortion through all nine months of pregnancy in many cases” because of its health provisions despite the 18-week limit.
The proposed amendment would alter Amendment 68 to the state Constitution, which currently states that Arkansas policy “is to protect the life of every unborn child from conception until birth, to the extent permitted by the Federal Constitution,” by adding “and the Constitution of the State of Arkansas” at the end.
Amendment 68 states, “No public funds will be used to pay for any abortion, except to save the mother’s life.” The proposed amendment would not alter this statement, contrary to the Family Council’s claim in Thursday’s post.
Abortion has been illegal in Arkansas, with a narrow exception to save the pregnant person’s life, since June 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that made abortion a federally recognized right.
Democratic state lawmakers introduced bills during the 2023 legislative session that would have created exceptions to the abortion ban for fatal fetal anomalies, child victims of incest and threats to the health of the pregnant person. Republican lawmakers voted down all three proposals in committee.
The anti-abortion Arkansas Right to Life has been leading a “Decline to Sign” campaign encouraging voters not to sign petitions for the amendment. McClane said last week that opponents of the proposed amendment have attended AFLG’s signing events in protest, which she said amounts to harassment.
Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions:
