MONDAY, AUGUST 10 , 2020. THE WASHINGTON POST EZ RE A
N
ever has a politician accorded
his opponent so much power.
Last week, President Trump said
that if former vice president Joe
Biden won the White House, he would
“hurt God.”
Wow! What supernatural chops!
Trump did not specify how exactly a
mere mortal could “hurt” the Almighty,
but he warns Biden would create a world
of “no religion, no anything.”
“He’s against God. He’s against guns.
He’s against energy, our kind of energy,”
said Trump. Yes, energy sources are now
polarized between red and blue, and the
Supreme Being is part of it.
Trump, of course, has little under-
standing of religion, or much of a
connection with faith. He saw no prob-
lem with holding a Bible aloft as a
political weapon without referencing
anything that it teaches us. (By the way,
he said Biden would “hurt the Bible,”
too.)
With no offense intended to elementa-
ry school students, Trump has a crude,
fifth-grade understanding of the words
and phrases that spur White, socially
conservative voters to turn out for him,
own the liberals and push back against
the dreaded secularists and atheists.
The dispiriting part is that this paint-
by-the-numbers approach has worked
for Trump. He continues to fare better
among White evangelicals than in any
other definable group in the electorate,
even if his numbers have slipped a bit
during the pandemic.
His strength with those who are
White, devout and conservative endures
despite the witness against him of many
deeply committed Christians who recog-
nize “The Spiritual Danger of Donald
Trump,” the apt title of a prophetic
collection of essays edited by evangelical
activist Ronald J. Sider.
Here’s the good news: Trump’s truly
idiotic language and Biden’s own faith
open new opportunities to push back
against forms of religious warfare that
have done grave damage both to religion
and to our politics. Trump’s theology-
free theology and his reduction of God to
a political consultant’s role offer Biden,
and progressives more generally, a large
opening for reconciliation. Think of it as
a Providential moment.
Biden’s initial response to Trump’s
bizarre salvo was promising. He issued a
statement declaring that faith is the
“bedrock foundation of my life,” and
declared that Trump’s “decision today to
profane God and to smear my faith in a
political attack is a stark reminder of
what the stakes of this fight truly are.”
Trump’s comments also had a whiplash
effect, spurring new journalistic explora-
tions of how Catholicism has shaped
Biden’s worldview.
You might think Biden’s response was
a no-brainer, but Democrats have been
increasingly reluctant to talk about faith
because religion presents the party with
an enormous coalition management
problem. It’s a problem Republicans
don’t confront because their party is far
more homogeneous by both race and
religion.
Fully 65 percent of Republicans are
White Christians (49 percent Protestant
and 16 percent Catholic), according to
surveys by the Public Religion Research
Institute (PRRI), but White Christians
account for only 38 percent of Demo-
crats. And fully 25 percent of Democrats
are religiously unaffiliated. The move-
ment away from religion is especially
pronounced among younger Americans
— an important source of Democratic
votes — with 40 percent or more declar-
ing themselves unaffiliated.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign
was divided over how she should ap-
proach religion. Some strategists feared
that if she spoke too much about her
Methodist faith (by all accounts, it is
both real and deep), she might turn off
the younger and intensely secular voters
she needed to get to the polls.
The tragedy is that Clinton, a candi-
date whose “authenticity” was always
being questioned, was at her authentic
best when she was talking about how
faith influenced her life and moved her
toward more progressive political views,
particularly on civil rights. The one time
she truly let loose her inner preacher was
during the South Carolina primary,
when she was inspired by her many
visits to Black churches.
Her experience speaks to a vicious
cycle: The more religion is associated
with right-wing politics, the more alien-
ated from religion progressives become,
and the more inclined they are to
dismiss religious people altogether. But
the more progressives do this, the easier
they make it for right-wing politicians to
cast liberals as hostile to faith — and,
reductio ad absurdum, as eager to “hurt
God.”
The price for religion is just as high.
Those who insist that faith requires
supporting Trump and opposing LGBTQ
rights (which younger Americans over-
whelmingly support regardless of party)
are closing off large categories of their
fellow citizens to the possibility of dia-
logue and, yes, conversion.
By devoting effort to ending the
Catch-22 around religion, Biden would
do more than prove he has no interest in
hurting God. He could also help create a
politics more worthy of a faith that sees
the ability to love each other as central to
salvation.
Twitter: @EJDionneE.J. DIONNE JR.A Providential
moment for
Democrats
W
e have become so accustomed
to President Trump’s incom-
petence that it’s easy to miss a
crucial change: In his fourth
year in office, Trump is learning to bend
government to his corrupt purposes.
The incompetence was and remains
uppermost, most lethally in the presi-
dent’s surrender to the coronavirus pan-
demic. The U.S. mortality rate, while not
the world’s highest, is some 84 times
greater than South Korea’s.
But in less visible corners, Trump is
coming to understand how to use the
bureaucracy to his ends. We might wel-
come such a learning curve in most presi-
dents, because most presidents want gov-
ernment to serve the public good, as they
see it.
Trump’s primary motivations are spite,
self-aggrandizement and greed. The
checks on his abuse are rapidly degrading.
The lesson he learned from impeachment
is that he can get away with anything —
and across the government he is acting
accordingly.
When Trump felt peeved at New York
earlier this year, he knocked the state off
the Trusted Travelers list, making life in-
convenient for many New Yorkers. (It has
since been restored.)
In earlier years, someone — a White
House chief of staff, an official in the
Department of Homeland Security —
might have stalled or dissuaded him. Now
he has a DHS chief willing to provide a
false rationale (as the government admit-
ted in court last month) to enable this
misuse of authority.
When Twitter put a fact-checking label
on one of Trump’s lies — in this case, about
mail-in voting — the president retaliated
by ordering the Justice Department to
withhold advertising from platforms that
don’t knuckle under and telling the Federal
Communications Commission to rewrite
the rules for platforms he doesn’t like.
This time, the president did get a brush-
back, albeit a polite one, from a Republi-
can member of the Federal Communica-
tions Commission. Michael O’Rielly
obliquely called out the president’s orders
for what they are: an attack on the First
Amendment.
Trump, who had nominated O’Rielly to
serve another term on the FCC, responded
by withdrawing the renomination.
When German Chancellor Angela
Merkel irritated Trump — declining to
sign on to Trump’s harebrained scheme to
include Russian President Vladimir Putin
in a Group of Seven meeting — Trump
retaliated by ordering the withdrawal of
half of America’s troops from Germany. If
he were still defense secretary, Jim Mattis
might have questioned the move, noting
that it would only help Russia and hurt the
West. But Trump no longer tolerates se-
nior officials who will stand up for what is
right.
After repeated, vile — and, it probably
doesn’t need saying, false — attacks on
the Voice of America, Trump finally man-
aged to install a lackey to run its parent
agency. The new director, Michael Pack,
promptly fired the qualified heads of
several U.S. broadcasting networks and
refused to renew visas for qualified, pro-
fessional j ournalists.
Is he laying the groundwork to turn
VOA into a Kremlin-style propaganda out-
let? That’s not yet clear. What is clear, as
Trump reaches into the U.S. Postal Service
and U.S. attorney offices and beyond, is
that opposition is being swept away.
Young acolytes in the White House
personnel office are purging officials
throughout the government who aren’t
sufficiently loyal. They are plenty loyal to
the United States, that is, but insufficient-
ly fervent about Trump.
Some of the departures, such as Alexan-
der Vindman’s, have been well document-
ed. Others are happening out of sight.
And because Trump has simultaneous-
ly been purging independent inspectors
general, who are supposed to keep an eye
on malfeasance like this, many of these
purges will remain out of sight. So, most
likely, will many instances of “burrow-
ing”: installing hacks in jobs that are
meant to be apolitical.
At every step of Trump’s education, Re-
publican senators have been his enablers.
For a long time, they delayed Pack’s
confirmation, though many knew he was
not fit for the job. Eventually they gave in.
Recently, a few summoned the courage
to join Democrats and deny confirmation
to an anti-Muslim bigot whom Trump had
nominated to a senior Pentagon position.
Trump promptly installed him in an act-
ing role performing the same duties —
and we heard not a peep from the Article I
branch.
Some of them murmur objections
when an inspector general is fired, or
troops are withdrawn, or Trump inserts a
provision in the economic rescue bill to
safeguard profits at the Trump Interna-
tional Hotel. But they never use their
powers — whether of investigation or
appropriation — to interfere.
Between now and January, Trump may
not have time to rewrite the rules for
Twitter, create his version of Russia Today
or withdraw troops from every allied na-
tion that annoys him.
But he is learning what he can do. He
has cowed dissenters in Congress, swept
aside aides of stature or independence,
purged and demoralized career officials,
and installed judges who will be less in-
clined to stop him. If he wins a second
term, do not expect his incompetence to
save us.
[email protected]FRED HIATTTrump bends
bureaucracy
to his ill will
I
t must be clear to almost every-
one by now that the sudden and
sharp economic downturn that
began in late March is something
more than a severe recession. That
label was, perhaps, justifiable for the
2007-2009 Great Recession, when
unemployment reached a peak of
10 percent. It isn’t now.
“This situation is so dire that it
deserves to be called a ‘depression’ —
a pandemic depression,” write econo-
mists Carmen Reinhart and Vincent
Reinhart in the latest issue of Foreign
Affairs. “The memory of the Great
Depression has prevented econo-
mists and others from using that
word.”
It’s understandable. People don’t
want to be accused of alarmism and
making a bad situation worse. But
this reticence is self-defeating and
ahistoric. It minimizes the gravity of
the crisis and ignores comparisons
with the 1930s and the 19th century.
That matters. If the hordes of party-
goers had understood the pandemic’s
true dangers, perhaps they would
have been more responsible in prac-
ticing social distancing.
Even after the July jobs report,
when the unemployment rate fell
from June’s 11.1 percent to 10.2 per-
cent, the labor market remains dis-
mal. Here are comparisons with Feb-
ruary, the last month before the
pandemic was fully reflected in job
statistics: The number of employed
fell by 15.2 million; the unemployed
rose by 10.6 million; and those not in
the labor force increased by
5 .5 million.
“The nineteenth and early twenti-
eth centuries were filled with depres-
sions,” write the husband-and-wife
Reinharts. Among economists, they
are heavy hitters. She is a Harvard
professor, on leave and serving as the
chief economist of the World Bank;
he was a top official at the FederalReserve and is now chief economist
at BNY Mellon.
What’s clear is that the Pandemic
Depression resembles the Great De-
pression of the 1930s more than it
does the typical post-World War II
recession. To simplify slightly: The
typical postwar slump occurred
when the Fed raised interest rates to
reduce consumer price inflation.
They lowered rates to stimulate
growth.
By contrast, both the Great Reces-
sion and the Pandemic Depression
had other causes. The Great Reces-
sion reflected runaway real estate
and financial speculation and their
adverse effects on the banking sys-
tem. The Pandemic Depression oc-
curred when infection fears and gov-
ernment mandates led to layoffs and
an implosion of consumer spending.
The collateral damage has been
huge. Small businesses accounted
for 47 percent of private-sector jobs
in 2016, estimates the Small Busi-
ness Administration. Many have
failed or will fail because they lacked
the cash to survive a lengthy shut
down. In a new study, economist
Robert Fairlie of the University of
California at Santa Cruz reports an
8 percent drop in the number of
small businesses from February to
June. Among African Americans, the
decline was 1 9 percent; among His-
panics, 10 percent.
In one respect, the Reinharts have
underestimated the parallels be-
tween the today’s depression and its
1930s predecessor. What was unnerv-
ing about the Great Depression is
that its causes were not understood
at the time. People feared what they
could not explain. The consensus
belief was that business downturns
were self-correcting. Surplus inven-
tories would be sold; inefficient firms
would fail; wages would drop. The
survivors of this brutal process wouldthen be in a position to expand.
This view rationalized patience
and passivity. Just wait; things will
get better. When they didn’t, anxiety
and discontent mounted. There was
an intellectual void. Modern scholar-
ship has filled the void. If — at the
time — government had been more
aggressive, preventing bank failures
and embracing larger budget deficits
to stimulate spending, the economy
wouldn’t have collapsed. The Great
Depression wouldn’t have been so
great.
Something similar is occurring to-
day. The interaction between medi-
cine and economics often baffles. Is
this a health-care crisis or an eco-
nomic crisis? Before the New Deal in
the 1930s, national leaders followed
the conventional wisdom of the day
— doing little. Similarly, leaders now
are following today’s conventional
wisdom, which is to spend lavishly.
Will this work or will the explosion of
government debt ultimately create a
new sort of crisis?
The language of the past increas-
ingly fits the conditions of the pres-
ent. The many busts of the 19th cen-
tury have long been referred to as
“depressions” — for example, in the
late 1830s, the 1870s and the 1890s.
The accepted reality at the time was
that mere mortals had little control
over economic events. We thought we
had moved on, but maybe we haven’t.
The implications for the economic
outlook are daunting. In their essay,
the Reinharts distinguish between an
economic “rebound” and an econom-
ic “recovery.” A rebound implies posi-
tive economic growth, which they
consider likely, but not enough to
achieve full recovery. This would
equal or surpass the economy’s per-
formance before the pandemic. How
long would that take? Five years is the
Reinharts’ best guess — and maybe
more.ROBERT J. SAMUELSONIt’s a Pandemic Depression
SCOTT HEINS/GETTY IMAGES
New Yorkers wait in line at a Food Bank for New York City distribution event at Lincoln Center on July 29.The 164-page complaint depicts LaPi-
erre treating the organization as a per-
sonal piggy bank for himself, his family
and a small group of allies. “Contrary to
his statutory duties of care, loyalty and
obedience to the mission of the charity,
LaPierre has undertaken a series of ac-
tions to consolidate his position; to ex-
ploit that position for his personal bene-
fit and that of his family; to continue, by
use of a secret ‘poison pill contract,’ his
employment even after removal and en-
suring NRA income for life; and to
intimidate, punish, and expel anyone at a
senior level who raised concerns about
his conduct,” the complaint says.
So by all means: Get rid of LaPierre
and his top lieutenants. Make them repay
any ill-gotten gains. Install a new board.
Refer matters to the appropriate authori-
ties: The Internal Revenue Service and
federal prosecutors come to mind. Treat
the NRA like a corrupt labor union, with
strict new internal controls and intensive
supervision.
But dissolution? This is within the
attorney general’s powers to seek, and it
has happened before, most notably to
the Donald J. Trump Foundation, the
pseudo-charity operated by the presi-
dent and his family. James’s predecessor,
Barbara Underwood, accused the foun-
dation of “functioning as little more than
a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump’s busi-
ness and political interests,” and it
agreed in 2018 to shut down and to
distribute its remaining assets.
But there is an enormous difference
between a tiny and moribund operation
like the Trump Foundation and a behe-
moth on the scale of the NRA, which
claims 5 million members. New York has
shut down other charities — cancerI
loathe the National Rifle Associa-
tion. With its reflexive opposition to
even the mildest gun regulation, it is
complicit in the deaths of thousands.
And yet, I worry that New York Attor-
ney General Letitia James has gone too
far in her bid to dissolve the organization.
Even assuming that the facts laid out in
the state’s lawsuit against the NRA are
true — and I believe every word about
chief executive Wayne LaPierre’s jaw-
dropping greed — the right remedy is
fixing the NRA, not dismantling it.
The NRA has a First Amendment right
to its misguided understanding of the
Second. Forcing its dissolution has dis-
turbing implications — made even more
disturbing by the fact that the attorney
general seeking that step is a Democrat
who vowed during her campaign to “take
on the NRA” and labeled it a “terrorist
organization.” In this country, we don’t
go after entities because of what they
advocate.
James’s lawsuit against the NRA does
not mention ideology, even if it strains
credulity to think that James would have
gone after the ACLU or Planned Parent-
hood with equal zeal if there were similar
facts. Still, the facts as alleged are jaw-
dropping — and, if you were a donor who
dug deep in defense of gun rights, should
be enraging.
The NRA is chartered in New York as a
not-for-profit. That being the case, it is
not just James’s right to investigate
whether the organization behaved prop-
erly; it’s her duty. And James has com-
piled more than enough evidence to
justify her description of the NRA as “a
breeding ground for greed, abuse and
brazen illegality” and to scorch its execu-
tives for having “looted” NRA assets.scams and the like — but this would be a
corporate death sentence of a different
magnitude. Dissolution would mean tak-
ing whatever assets of the NRA remain
and distributing them to like organiza-
tions; the NRA could then set up shop
elsewhere.
That is an outcome that has experts in
the field uneasy — and doubting that a
judge will end up agreeing. “I don’t fault
the attorney general for going for dissolu-
tion in this case,” Philip Hackney, a
University of Pittsburgh expert in non-
profit law, told me, citing the depiction of
“a long, substantial fraud that goes to the
entirety of the organization.”
At the same time, he said, it’s necessary
to consider the “incredible importance”
to many Americans of the NRA’s mission
to protect gun rights. “In weighing those
two things, if I’m a judge I’m not going to
dissolve this organization,” Hackney said.
Indeed, the request might be as much
for leverage as it is a serious bid to
dismantle the organization. Dissolution
is “one of the weapons in her quiver, and
if she doesn’t threaten to use it here, you
would probably never use it, and it would
make it harder for her to get the settle-
ment that she wants,” Pace Law School
professor James Fishman said of James.
Count me uncomfortable. Prosecutors
shouldn’t seek sentences they think
would be excessive because they figure
the judge will end up going easier on the
defendant. And while other groups aren’t
likely to present such egregious fact
patterns, consider the threat of a conser-
vative attorney general going after a
disfavored liberal group.
This country would be a better, safer
place without the NRA. Dissolving it isn’t
the way to get there.RUTH MARCUSDon’t dissolve the NRA