Saturday, October 29, 2022

Why Republicans Will Finally Destroy the Church in the USA

How state support kills Christian faith

Image by ehrlif on Shutterstock

A couple of months ago, I moved back to the town where I grew up after two decades of living elsewhere. I felt waves of nostalgia as I showed my wife and children around.

“This is where I went to school,” I explained as we drove through town. My wife humored me, but the kids looked kind of bored. Regardless, I was having a good time reminiscing, as older people sometimes do.

“And there… there is where I went to church when I was a kid,” I pointed to an old, steepled building that, to be honest, looked a little tired and run down. The gardens were slightly overgrown, and the paint was chipping off the walls. The sign out the front was exactly as I remembered it, but I wasn’t sure if that was a good thing or a bad thing.

“Dad, that looks like a dump,” My daughter said.

I couldn’t deny it, and I felt a little sad to see a piece of my childhood in such a state of disrepair.

Once we had settled into our new home in my old town, I began to make inquiries about the local churches that were around. The plan was to go and try a few out. I remembered from when I was a kid where all the big and ‘happening’ churches were, so I asked about them first.

What I discovered left me shocked — although perhaps it should not have. Without exception, every single big and ‘happening’ church from when I was a kid had shrunk… significantly and noticeably. It was easy to find a car park. The pews were half-empty, the laughter of children was missing, and the congregations were overrepresented by the elderly.

I knew on an academic level that the church in the west is in decline, but to see it before my own eyes suddenly made it very real.

What’s going on?

Why is Christianity growing in some countries but declining in others — most notably in the West? Why? When you explore the many theories on offer, there are a number of common themes and ideas.

Is it Persecution?

Around the world, hundreds of millions of Christians live in countries where they experience high levels of persecution as a result of their Christian faith. Many Christians believe that persecution is a major factor in church decline. However, while Christian persecution has greatly damaged Christianity in some nations — such as modern-day Iraq — the church has proven surprisingly robust — not only continuing to exist but also, in many cases, thriving even under great persecution. In fact, Christianity is no more likely to be growing in countries that are free from Christian persecution than those that are not. The opposite may even be true.

Is it Pluralism?

Many Christians believe that the best way for Christianity to thrive is to shut out all other religions. They cite the rise of religious pluralism as a key reason for the decline of the Christian church. “If only we didn’t allow all those other people of other faiths into our country. If only we didn’t legitimize their systems of belief and give them a voice in our culture,” They bemoan.

Is it affluence?

Others have suggested that the decline of Christianity in the West is linked to the accumulation of wealth. Increasing prosperity, it is believed, frees people from having to look to a higher power to provide for their daily needs. Evoking a deity is reduced to superstitious nonsense. In other words, there is a direct link between affluence and atheism. Some use this argument in inverse to explain the rise of Christianity in Africa, for example, where there are still many people in great need. They need their God as a kind of cosmic crutch, or so the argument goes.

Is it science and education?

Another popular theory is the so-called secularization thesis: the theory that science, technology, and education will result in a decline in Christianity’s social influence. It is not unusual to hear someone claim, “I don’t believe in God; I believe in Science,” for example, as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive. The belief that one day our knowledge of the universe would supersede our need for a God as an explanation, is prevalent.

Is it the church itself?

The church has proven more than capable of shooting itself in the foot. Perhaps the crisis of church attendance is a mess of the church’s own making. Guilt-based religion, spiritual abuse, and child-sex scandals are not great for public relations. Add to this the fact that the prevailing views of modern people are increasingly at odds with conservative Christianity on many issues — like human sexuality and gender, for example — and it is no surprise that many choose to distance themselves from their former religious beliefs.

Image by Thoranin Nokyoo on Shutterstock

What new research tells us

There may be merit and truth to some of the arguments above. Perhaps it does have something to do with persecution, pluralism, affluence, science, and education, or even problems within the church itself. However, a new study published recently in the journal Sociology of Religion has revealed a surprising new theory behind the decline of Christianity in many Western nations.

After a decade-long statistical analysis of over 160 countries, Nilay Saiya of the University in Singapore has discovered a link between the decline of Christianity in particular countries and the level of official support governments give to Christianity through their laws and policies. Or, to put it another way, as governmental support for Christianity increases, the number of Christians declines significantly. So it turns out that church and state make lousy bedfellows. Who would have thought?

Yes, the more Christians clutch at political power, the faster they drive Christianity to extinction.

Why Government Involvement Destroys Christianity

When I first read this research, I found it hard to compute. How could government support for Christianity actually lead to its decline? Growing up in the church, I had been taught to believe that we needed good Christians in politics to preserve the Christian fabric of our society — enforce it, in fact.

Far from the marriage of church and state being detrimental to the health of the church, I was taught that inserting Christians in positions of influence would ensure the church’s future. And certainly, that’s the clear and shameless goal of much of the conservative branch of Christianity in the USA.

However, the more I reflected on the findings of this study, the more they began to make complete sense. Let me explain how state support negatively impacts the spiritual health of the church.

When the church forgets its mission

I used to work with a Christian organization that ran programs for troubled youth in local schools. It was a grassroots movement that simply wanted to demonstrate the love of Christ by offering practical and tangible assistance to others with no strings attached.

At some point, though, they began to lobby the government for financial support. They actively encouraged people connected to the organization to vote for particular politicians who would advocate for government funding while rejecting other candidates. Thus, by bringing political pressure to bear, they were able to obtain government funding and achieve bipartisan support.

However, something changed in the organization after that. Every election cycle, the organization would have to carry out another round of political lobbying to protect its financial interests. They would spend much of their time and resources convincing the community at large that they deserved to receive such government support. And, once they were enslaved to political funding, they were equally enslaved to the bureaucracy and red tape that comes with government money. Eventually, this organization lost its heart and soul, and many of the people who made the organization great in the first place.

Similarly, when the church attempts to curry favor from the state, they can become distracted from their mission and engrossed in the ‘things of Caesar’ rather than in the things of God. The focus shifts from the practice of Christian faith — of loving God and loving others, of serving the poor and unfortunate — to the maintenance of privilege. For this reason, state-supported churches often become bereft of real spiritual substance such that people who practice the faith end up becoming disillusioned and walking away.

What is worse, when favored churches use their privileged positions to exert influence over the rest of society, imposing conservative Christian values on those who have no desire to practice them, it leads to resentment against the church. Consider the church’s appalling treatment of the LGBTIQ+ community as an example.

Image by mark reinstein on Shutterstock

The repellent of favoritism

State support for Christianity can include other privileges such as funding for religious purposes, special access to state institutions, the freedom to discriminate on the basis of religion, tax breaks, and exemptions from regulations imposed on other minority religious groups.

Paradoxically, though, the state’s preferencing of Christianity in this manner does not end up helping the church at all. According to Saiya’s study, nine of the ten countries with the fastest-declining Christian populations in the world offer moderate to high levels of official support for Christianity. Not surprisingly, all of those ten countries are located in Europe.

For example, in the United Kingdom, the law established the Church of England as the state church and Christianity as the state religion, granting privileges not afforded to minority religious groups. However, The Guardian reports that less than 40% of Brits now identify as Christians, and only 1% of people aged 18–24 identify as members of the Church of England.

A similar pattern can be seen in Catholic-majority states. For much of the 20th century, countries such as Portugal, Spain, Belgium, and Italy offered strong support to the Roman Catholic Church and actively discriminated against non-Catholics in the areas of family law, religious broadcasting, tax policy, and education. Now, Church attendance in these countries is among the lowest in the Christian world, despite the vast majority of citizens nominally retaining their church memberships.

On the whole, European churches have taken on a largely ceremonial function and have little impact on people's day-to-day lives. Magnificent cathedrals designed to cater to hundreds of people typically welcome only a handful of worshipers in their normal Sunday services. They are purely for decoration, nothing more than relics of a bygone era and tourist attractions to the masses.

Consequently, Saiya argues that the secularization of Europe is strongly linked to the widespread support given to Christianity by the state. In short, Christianity in Europe has been waning not despite state support but because of it.

The benefit of competition

Many Christians believe that religious pluralism is one of the leading factors in the decline of Christianity. Subsequently, when Christians perceive any kind of threat from religious minority groups, they may look to the state to give them a head start on the competition, and enact laws and precepts to preserve so-called Christian values. They even try to limit immigration to prevent people of other faiths from entering their countries.

However, Saiya’s research suggests that Christianity is often stronger in countries where it competes with other faith traditions on an equal playing field. Perhaps the best explanation for this phenomenon is found in Adam Smith’s well-known work, The Wealth of NationsSmith, a famous economist, argued that just as a market economy spurs competition, innovation, and vigor among companies by forcing them to compete for market share, an unregulated religious marketplace has the same effect on institutions of faith.

In countries where religious pluralism is commonplace, Christians are forced to present the best arguments possible for their beliefs, even as other faith traditions are forced to do the same. This requires Christians to have a deep knowledge of their beliefs and defend them in the marketplace of ideas. The Christian may say that Christianity provides answers to life’s questions. The onus is on them to demonstrate the fact.

Saiya’s research concludes, quite remarkably, that as a country’s commitment to pluralism rises, so too does its number of Christian adherents. Seven of the 10 countries with the fastest-growing Christian populations offer low or no official support for Christianity. Paradoxically, Christianity does best when it has to fend for itself, as evidenced by the two world regions where Christianity is growing the fastest: Asia and Africa.

As a country’s commitment to pluralism rises, so too does its number of Christian adherents.

The greatest increase in Christianity over the past century has been in Asia, where the faith has grown at twice the rate of the population. Christianity’s explosive growth in this part of the world is even more remarkable when one considers that the region contains only one Christian-majority country: The Philippines.

In contrast to Europe, Christianity in Asian countries has not received preferential treatment from the state at all, and yet they have experienced stunning Christian growth rates. Thus, the Christian faith has actually benefited by not being institutionally attached to the state, feeding its growth and vitality.

Africa is the other region where Christianity has seen breathtaking growth, particularly in recent decades. Today, there are nearly 700 million Christians in Africa, making it the world’s most Christian continent in terms of population. Indeed, the top 10 countries with the fastest-growing Christian populations in the world from 2010 to 2020 are all located in sub-Saharan Africa.

Christianity has made inroads into Africa not because it enjoys a privileged position with the state but because it has to compete with other faith traditions on an even playing field. A handful of African nations, such as Tanzania, have a modest level of official support for Christianity. On the whole, though, government support for Christianity in Africa is below — and usually well below — the global average, according to Saiya.

In short, Christianity in Africa, as in Asia, is thriving not because it is supported by the state but because it is not supported.

The unsuitable marriage of religion and politics

Meanwhile, in Europe, politicians and political parties have sought to deepen the relationship between Christianity and their governments. Some successful politicians have positioned themselves as defenders of Christianity against a perceived wave of Islamic faith that threatens the ‘Christian-ness’ of their respective countries. In many cases, right-wing populist parties have proven capable of increasing their share of the vote by promising to defend their countries against the rising tide of religious pluralism.

A similar story can be observed in the United States. Conservative Christians initially became involved in politics in the 1970s as a way to fight against the erosion of “Christian values” in society and to “take America back for God.” Yet, as Christianity has become increasingly involved in politics, the USA has experienced a precipitous decline in Christian belief — a trend confirmed in several scholarly studies.

The intertwining of religion and politics has repelled people from a version of Christianity that they see supporting a certain kind of politics that they personally disagree with. As a result, politicized Christianity is able to appeal to an increasingly narrow group of individuals, even as it drives liberals and moderates away from the church.

Enter Donald Trump.

In the Evangelical world, whether or not a person was a good political candidate was dependent not on their policies, but on their profession of faith — even if the content of their character was at odds with that profession of faith. They merely had to hold up a Bible and stand in front of a church, and they would get the Evangelical vote, much to the chagrin of those looking on. Yes, the more Christian nationalists with the Republican Party push their agenda for a “Christian” nation, the more Christianity is despised, and the less likely they are to ever obtain that which they seek. What is more, they will destroy the church in the process.

Image by Jana Shea on Shutterstock (purchased with license)

Where to from here for the church?

One thing is certain. Jesus Christ was not interested in political power, or he could have had it. He arrived in human history precisely at the right moment to lead an uprising against the rule of his Roman conquerors.

He could have raised an army. He could have led an insurrection. He could have probably stormed the capitol. He could have leveraged his considerable influence to restore his nation to its former glory, preserve its religion, and vanquish its foes.

Yet, he did not.

The movement that he started required no armies, governments, or rulers to champion its cause. It can be practiced with or without the approval of any state and, therefore, can never be legislated out of existence. Neither is it threatened by those who believe different things. It is the movement of the human heart that takes place when one resolves to simply love God and love others.

Therefore, the best way for Christian churches to recover their credibility is to reject the quest for political protection and privilege and see it for what it is — completely inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Christians who believe that Trump and the Republican Party will save Christianity are kidding themselves.

The Backyard Church is not just a blog. It’s a real online community for people who have faith but can’t, don’t, or won’t go to church. Join today.

New to Medium? Click here to become a Medium member and get access to all my articles and thousands of others.

For more articles on life, faith, and spirituality, Sign-up for my newsletter. Also, feel free to send questions and story ideas to thebackyardchurch@gmail.com

Ultra-Wealthy Could Soon Be Paying 'Millionaire Tax,' Here's What That Means













By Lauren Dubois @l_dubois613
10/29/22 

In two states, the ultra-wealthy might soon see more money coming from their earnings, as ballots to enact a "millionaire tax" are on the ballot in two of the highest income states.

According to CNBC, voters in California will decide if they want to enact Prop 30, which would add a 1.75% levy on annual income of more than $2 million, in addition to the state's top income tax rate of 13.3%. In Massachusetts, the Fair Share Amendment would create a 4% levy on annual income over $1 million on top of the state's 5% flat income tax.

Both states are among the highest-income states in the U.S. According to Investopedia, Massachusetts had the second-highest median income of $85,800 in 2021, while California ranked fifth with $80,400 in median income.

If the proposals pass, the two states will be among the only ones in the country to propose larger levies on the wealthy, something that has had growing interest over the years, yet failed to gain traction at a national level.

Democratic lawmakers have floated several proposals for similar taxes, including the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act (a 2% tax on wealth over $50 million and 3% on wealth over $1 billion), a tax on those with either more than $1 billion in wealth or an adjusted gross income exceeding $100 million for three years, and even a proposal from President Joe Biden for a 20% levy on households worth more than $100 million.

The interest in taxing the wealthiest has only grown following ProPublica's publishing of a treasure trove of documents from the Internat Revenue Service in 2021, which showed that at various points, some of the richest Americans, including billionaires Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Michael Bloomberg, Carl Ichan and George Soros, had managed to skirt paying income tax multiple times, despite their income and wealth. However, measures have not gained steam due to some Republican pushback, as well as voters questioning what would be done with the funds raised from such taxes.

It's unclear if the current proposals will pass based on the plans for the revenue from them. In California, the plan is expected to bring in $3.5-$5 billion annually if it passes, and the revenue will be used to pay for zero-emissions vehicle programs and wildfire response and prevention. In Massachusetts, where it would be expected to generate $1.3 billion in revenue, money would fund public education, roads, bridges and public transportation.


Some U.S. nonprofits are rewarding their top fundraisers with seven-figure salaries, but critics say executives shouldn’t become millionaires off the goodwill of private donors. 

We Can’t Afford NOT to Have a Wealth Tax

Just a small annual levy on America’s grandest fortunes could finance a better future for all of America’s kids and families.


RESEARCH & COMMENTARY
OCTOBER 29, 2022
by Jack Metzgar



















Every time I hear that we as a nation cannot afford something — whether that might be assuring non-toxic water in Jackson and Flint or universal pre-K or an industrial policy with teeth — I have wondered how many dollars a national wealth tax might yield. So I looked the numbers up.

Wealth turns out to run way bigger than income. Our total U.S. wealth in 2021 sat at $150 trillion. Total income, combining personal income and company profits, amounted to about $25 trillion. A small wealth tax would clearly produce much more government revenue than a much larger income tax.

Like income, wealth in the United States remains highly concentrated. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans hold about one-third of that $150 trillion in U.S. wealth. That comes to $50 trillion, twice the total annual income of all Americans, everyone from the millions of workers making less than $15 an hour to the corporate executives making multiple millions. Again, you don’t need an algorithm to figure out that even a tiny wealth tax on the top 1 percent could produce as much — or more — than a large income tax on everybody.

A modest national wealth tax could solve a lot of problems and fund a lot of common good, even if that tax only somewhat reduced our savage economic inequality.

Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have offered pioneering proposals to introduce national wealth taxes to the United States. Critics have raised various objections to these proposals. Collecting a wealth tax would prove impractical, some charge. Others say that taxing wealth at the federal level would be unconstitutional. Senator Warren has convincingly addressed these objections, but I’d just like to add one point: Taxing wealth would provide a nearly inexhaustible source of government revenue. Collecting that revenue may well hit some administrative or political obstacles. But overcoming those obstacles would be well worth the effort.

Let’s look at what a 1 percent wealth tax on our top 1 percent could buy and then see how much pain and suffering that levy would impose on those who would pay the tax. A 1 percent wealth tax on the top 1 percent would produce $500 billion a year in revenue, or $5 trillion over the 10-year budget calculation demanded of federal legislation.


That $500 billion could buy something like a revolution in child-rearing. President Biden’s original Build Back Better proposal had elements of such a revolution, but never won full funding because implementing family-friendly policies will always be so damned expensive. With a 1 percent tax on the top 1 percent, we could meet that expense.

Here’s what a plan concentrated on helping children and making parenting more manageable could do with a 1-percent-on-the-1-percent tax:
From “Build Back Better” Annual Cost 10-Year Cost
Expanded child tax credit $160 billion $1.6 trillion
Childcare subsidies and universal Pre-K $125 billion $1.25 trillion
Paid family leave $20 billion $200 billion
Expanded earned income tax credit $13 billion $130 billion
My add-on
Baby Bonds proposed by Sen. Corey Booker $60 billion $600 billion
TOTALS $378 billion $3.78 trillion
Remaining revenue from 1-percent-
on-the-1-percent tax of $500 billion $122 billion $1.22 trillion
Sources: Congressional Budget OfficeCommittee for a Responsible Federal BudgetCNBC.

This package would provide $3,000 per child for virtually all parents, save an average of $11,000 for those now using day care for pre-schoolers, and open up employment opportunities for those parents with pre-schoolers who cannot now afford day care. This would all be great for children’s academic, psychological, and social development — and would transform the economics of parenting, most especially for low- and moderate-income families.

Senator Booker’s Baby Bonds would create and seed a savings account of $1,000 at the birth of every child in the United States and then add up to $2,000 each year depending on household income. The funds would earn income that would not be available for the children until they reach 18. At that point, they could use the money for education, to buy a home, start a business, or continue as a retirement account.

Taken as a whole, this package would cut child poverty by more than half, greatly improve general educational levels over time, and immediately provide substantial support for families during their most challenging years for managing both time and money. A modest wealth tax could provide all this benefit, with money left over to do still more common good. But at what cost? How much harm would a wealth tax do to those elite few who would have to pay the tax?

As illustrated below, the amount individuals would pay in wealth taxes would indeed be very hefty, often running into the millions, even billions of dollars. But in most years and on average, America’s top 1 percent would continue to get wealthier even with this wealth tax in effect. Given that the S&P 500’s annual average stock market return since 1957 has topped 11 percent, a mere 1 percent tax on wealth would amount to little more than a rounding error for anyone in the top 1 percent.

The impact of a 1% wealth tax on the top 1%

Wealth
Wealth tax Assuming 11% annual income from investments Increase in annual wealth with a wealth tax in effect
$10 million $100,000 $1.1 million $1 million
$50 million $500,000 $5.5 million $5 million
$1 billion $10 million $110 million $100 million
$190 billion $1.9 billion $20.9 billion $19 billion

Once established, a wealth tax could easily expand in small increments to a perhaps more reasonable 4 percent, producing $2 trillion a year in revenues, based on current levels of wealth. Or we could tax higher levels of wealth at higher percentages, as Senator Warren proposes, with tax rates on billionaires reaching 6 percent. Even at those higher rates, the wealthy would go on getting wealthier. But taxing the wealth of these wealthy would open a cornucopia of public capital to invest in addressing our multitude of problems and in bettering working people’s lives.

By not taxing wealth we are failing to tap by far the largest source of our potential public revenues. And because the wealth of the wealthy confers both economic and political power, we cannot adequately defend democracy if we go on allowing our economic oligarchy a completely free lunch.

A clear majority of Americans support most of the family-friendly policies listed above. Even larger majorities support the notion of a wealth tax, with nearly two-thirds of Americans favoring a tax on grand fortune. Imagine that. The polls are showing higher support for taxing the rich than for the beneficial programs that taxing the rich could finance. Makes you wonder why our elected representatives, especially Democrats, are not standing in line to support such a combination of policy and pay-fors.

Next time you hear a politician say “we” can’t afford something that clearly needs doing, just stop a moment and think — about what a wealth tax on a very small proportion of Americans could accomplish.

Jack Metzgar, a retired adult educator from Roosevelt University in Chicago, is the author of Bridging the Divide: Working-Class Culture in a Middle-Class Society (Cornell 2021).



What was the big emergency in Wuhan all about?

ProPublica and Vanity Fair published a blockbuster story yesterday suggesting that COVID-19 originated with a lab leak in Wuhan, not from natural causes. I've read it, and I feel like I must be missing something.

The story is 10,000 words long, but almost all of that is a rehash of past arguments. The only thing new is a review of some documents by Toy Reid, an expert in Chinese bureaucratese who spent nine months working with the Republican staff in the Senate on a report about the origins of COVID. Reid says that if you interpret the pishi correctly, it turns out there was some kind of big emergency at the Wuhan lab toward the end of 2019—and the ProPublica/Vanity Fair team says it confirmed this with other China experts.

And that's about that. It's a new wrinkle, but there's not very much there. It's a bit of a Jenga tower of supposition based on marginalia, and even if it's all true there's no evidence the emergency had anything to do with a leak, or with COVID, or with bats, or with anything else specific. At the end, we're left at about the same place we started.

The strongest reason to believe the lab leak theory has always been simple and entirely speculative: It's a hell of a coincidence that COVID-19 originated precisely at the site of a major biolab facility that was widely known to be a little loosely managed. Aside from that, there's long been knowledge of a sick researcher, Chinese unwillingness to cooperate in an investigation, and a few other things that are suspicious if you have a suspicious mind.

Conversely, the case for a normal zoonotic origin of COVID has always been based on solid evidence that's only gotten stronger as more research is done. It remains the overwhelming consensus of virology experts who have looked into it.

There's not much more to say about this. Virologists are virtually unanimous in thinking that COVID-19 originated naturally. Non-virologists span the gamut, including a subset of conservatives who are seemingly desperate to find evidence of Chinese deceit lurking behind the scenes. There's a chance they're right, but their evidence remains thin, cherry picked, and always vaguely conspiratorial. Draw your own conclusions.

This Is Why American Democracy Is on the Brink

When an Assassination Attempt on the Speaker of the House Barely Makes the News, Something’s Very Wrong

Image Credit: Teri Carter

It was even more shocking and disturbing, in a way, than what happened the night before. Yesterday, there was an assassination attempt on the Speaker of the House. Her husband was attacked by a far-right extremist wielding a hammer, and underwent brain surgery. And today? American media failed to cover it properly.

If you opened the Washington Post or New York Times, the stories were below the fold. If you were just scanning the top stories, you wouldn’t even know that there’d been an assassination attempt on a major political figure, on the eve of a crucial election.

I put that in italics because even given America’s abject state, that is a gross, scandalous failure. It beggars belief that media wouldn’t cover a story like this properly, because of course, it should be the biggest one. So. Let’s note the deafening silence here first, and then discuss it a little bit, the meaning and implications of such a failure.

I’m going to put the central question very simply.

Why wasn’t the top headline in every newspaper and media outlet in America “Assassination attempt on Speaker of the House?” How could it really be anything else? And why is it that even when the story was covered, in the meagre ways it was, that wasn’t the headline at all — but stuff like “Pelosi’s Husband Attacked” was?

That isn’t the truth. The truth isn’t that Pelosi’s husband was “attacked.” This wasn’t a random mugging, or a street fight, or someone’s dog nipping at his heels. It was a) a politically motivated fanatic b) radicalized by the GOP c) its Big Lies in particular, from the election was stolen to Covid is a hoax and all the rest of them d) looking for the Speaker of the House, not her husband e) likely in order to kill her.

That is an assassination attempt. Not an “attack.” The way this story is being covered is dismal — and it tells us, too, why America still struggles with fascism even at this juncture, its democracy under threat.

After all, if the media won’t write the headline, “Assassination attempt on Speaker of the House” — and won’t put it at the top of the coverage, either — then, really, how can democracy survive? If violence of this kind — political, extreme, fanatical, targeted — is minimized, how can democracy survive?

This failure isn’t just about “the media,” which takes a lot of flak these days. It’s about the consequences, really. It’s about a general atmosphere of complacency. It can’t happen here. How does that attitude come to be?

If I was to ignore a certain subject, day after day, then my silence would also speak volumes. American media’s like that. There are certain words, phrases, angles, truths, it chooses to avoid, over and over again. And that sets cues. Cues which let fascism flourish.

Even in “third world countries,” this would have been the top story. Imagine if a left-wing fanatic had broken into some GOP leader’s house, and tried to kill them, beating their spouse with a hammer. Don’t you think that story would get top billing? So what’s going on here, exactly? Why does American media fail like this?

This is what happens when you won’t tell simple truths. There are three consequences. One, Big Lies flourish. Two, fanatics like fascists can set the terms. And three, society slowly loses it bearings, its norms, its sense of normalcy. And all that has happened in America. Let’s take those points one by one.

Remember when you and I used to warn that a coup attempt was coming? And then it happened. And even after it did, media called it a “riot.” It was left to the Jan 6th to establish the fact that it was a coup attempt, the culmination of a sophisticated plan. American media still won’t use those words, largely, though. So what “was” Jan 6th? Well, now it’s up for debate.

Because in America, institutions don’t establish truths the way that they should — and that leaves reality perpetually up for “debate,” even when facts are, well, facts. It’s all the more possible to say Jan 6th was a “riot” or an “outburst” or what have you — not a coup attempt, which is the fact of the matter, because media is trying to please “both sides.” And in doing so, truth dies a swift and sure death.

But truth is a fundamental value of democracy. Without it, the entire project begins to fall apart. Words cease to have meanings. As Orwell warned us, history gets rewritten. Events that happened are forgotten. The memory hole swallows up lessons to be learned, and the vicious cycle of regress takes hold. Truth matters, my friends.

And truth, sadly, exists. The American media believes that it’s job isn’t to establish truths. Its job is merely to hew a fine balance between what one side says, and the other shouts. It hopes that middle ground is “the truth.” But it isn’t. We all know that. Just because the idiots and lunatics and fanatics among us insist that the earth is flat and your blood makes you pure it doesn’t make it true. Truth is empirical, verifiable, real. Not just in physics, but in social affairs, too.

And when we don’t defend the truth, what happens? Big Lies flourish.

Why is it that Big Lies are so prevalent now? It isn’t just the noxious effects of social media, though they certainly play a role. It’s also because, as a precedent cause, media refuses to establish basic truths, and really drive them home. Was the election stolen? It’s one thing to cover the fact that there’s no evidence of voter fraud — and the media does that. But it’s another to say that “insisting an election was stolen when it didn’t go your way is textbook authoritarianism.” To cover that fact every day, and talk to people who’ve lived and studied it. That part’s what American media fails at, abjectly. And because it failed at that part, the process of radicalization goes on and on.

It’s not enough to debunk lies. That’s not the same thing as establishing Great Truths. American media doesn’t understand this, so let me continue my example. Debunking a Big Lie is to say there’s no evidence of voter fraud. So what? The fanatics will just keep on looking, or invent some. But to establish a Great Truth is a higher matter entirely: it’s to say that looking for voter fraud where none exists is abnormal, anti-democratic, authoritarian in itself.

That’s the part that American institutions fail at. And so an attitude of complacency is bred. Deliberately manufactured would be a better way to put it. Let me give you an example of that, too.

It was just a few short days ago that the New York Times ran a fawning profile of Marjorie Taylor Greene. She’s the kind of fanatic who’s said Nancy Pelosi should be executed for treason. And now an assassination attempt really happened.

Maybe you see the problem here.

There is a direct link here. To cover fanatics and extremists and bigots as if they’re great intellectuals — they did it with every kind of noxious Trumpist, from Bannon to neighborhood fascists — is to legitimize violence and hate.

And that is what is really going on here.

The poor beleaguered American media doesn’t know it, I think, but they are legitimizing violence and hate. They think they’re not — they think they’re doing a wonderful job. But the fact is that violence and hate are spreading precisely because they’re not doing nearly a good enough job. What they don’t cover gives a certain kind of license — hey, I guess it’s OK to be that kind of person. How they allow fascism to cover itself with the gloss of fawning profiles is another way this happens. And the way that Great Truths go by the wayside in the search for “balance” between two “sides” is the connecting factor.

You might think that’s harsh. But. When you don’t write headlines like “Assassination attempt on Speaker of the House”…what are you really doing? You’re legitimizing violence and hate. You’re saying this was an “attack” — implying something random, anomalous, could have happened to anyone, wrong time, wrong place, maybe even provoked. You’re not providing accurate context, accurate information, even an accurate description. And in precisely that way, violence and hate spread.

Let’s take the simplest example. Use of the N-word spiked after everyone’s least favorite billionaire took over Twitter. What is that, precisely? Read the American media, and you’d think it was “free speech.” But racial slurs are not “free speech.” Nor is any of this about “free speech.” Racial slurs are hate, and “free speech” is about government interference, not your so-called right to hate someone.

Hate is a real thing, a real problem, but you wouldn’t know it from reading American media. You wouldn’t know that much of the rest of the world bans hate speech precisely because it has consequences. It manifests in violence. Hate is the intent to hurt someone, to do harm them, and in that sense, it is a form of violence itself, because it begs and calls for the real thing. If I use the N-word, it’s not just a word. It’s a set of intentions about subjugation and domination, a context of violence that goes right down to enslavement and murder.

That is why we don’t say that word. Because as normal people, we ‘re morally repulsed by the idea of hurting others in this way.

So when media equate these two things — free speech and hate speech — it’s committing so many errors the mind boggles. An intellectual error, a sophomoric one: nobody’s “free speech” was ever at risk on Twitter, in precisely the same say that you can’t start hurling abuse at someone in a shopping mall, or risk being swiftly ejected. A moral error: free speech is about self-expression, but hate is a form of violence. And a political error: those of us against hate, and for “free speech” aren’t “two sides.” Limiting hate expands freedom, for obvious reasons, and nobody has absolute freedom in a shopping mall or in a public square or on Twitter, and if you think they do, go ahead and think about the many ways you’d call the cops on someone if they’d crossed certain lines. So many errors. Obvious ones.

Why do they keep making them?

The reason, ultimately, is that they’re afraid. They don’t want to deal with the mess of being shouted at and insulted and threatened by the fascists. They think of intimidation as “complaints.” But these are two different things, too. It’s not a legitimate complaint if some crackpot says “the N-word is free speech! I can say it anywhere I want! My kids should be able to say it at school!!” It’s intimidation. And yet the media is easily cowed by this sort of thing in America, which is sad to see.

Let me conclude with one final sad, disturbing example.

To this day, most of America’s mainstream media is reluctant to use the word fascism. Except in one consistently repeated case. To warn the average reader that this isn’t fascism. When it comes to saying it isn’t fascism, the American media’s comfortable using the term. But when it comes to warning that it is, well — then the word can’t be said. Even now. At this juncture. That’s ridiculous, absurd — and more than that, it’s a dead giveaway of where this all ends.

It ends in a bias for the fascists. Because people who believe in democracy and those who don’t are very different. We’re not out there threatening to kill anyone or shouting abuse at anyone or hating anyone or intending to harm anyone. But the fascist side is.

This is the fundamental difference, and American media still doesn’t seem to grasp it. Only one side consistently insists on hate, violence, harm, and brutality. Did you see Nancy Pelosi threatening to kill Marjorie Taylor Greene? Do you see much of anybody on the side of democracy harassing, intimidating, threatening violence? So when we equate these two sides, we’re making a tremendous mistake. One side is violent, and the other isn’t. And that being the case, they’ll try to intimidate us, and they’ll probably succeed, too, because we’re licensing them to do it.

None of this is good enough. Even in poor countries, the headline would have read: “Fascist attempts to assassinate Speaker of the House.” Or maybe: “Assassination attempt on Speaker sparked by growing fascist violence.” I could go on. Those are even truer levels of truth. And that is how you take the power out of Big Lies. You have to call them by their true name. Or else, because nothing happened, they just grow, from poison into catastrophe.

Umair
October 2022