Showing posts with label Populism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Populism. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 7, 2026

The 2026 Election, 23rd Edition. Stein's Law meets the GOP. The hints of a mutiny edition.

If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.

Herbert Stein.

September 23, 2026

Something is actually going on in the GOP for the first time since the Dixiecrat MAGA insurgency took control of the party and made it a populist party.

Bit and pieces of the signs are everywhere, all of a sudden.  Stein's Law has arrived.

GOP candidates are in trouble all over the country and now they're starting to dump Trump.  A good example of this is Congressman Ashley Hinson, who is trying to do the same thing that Harriet Hageman is trying to do, which is to move into a retiring Senator's spot.  She's in real trouble in that effort and recent polls indicate that she's behind. The Republican seat appears slated to go to a Democrat.  The GOP sent out John Barrasso to stump for her, an odd choice as Barrasso isn't inspiring on his alleged home turf, but the thought must have been that the Senate Whip could show how Hinson winning would help the Dear Leader.

Well, that message didn't seem to take. So Hinson started to bolt.  From her Facebook.

Iowans are being squeezed and shouldn’t have to foot the bill at the pump or the checkout line for the war in Iran. We need to use every option at our disposal to provide some relief from high prices. 

That includes suspending the gas tax, pausing diesel exports, unleashing E-15 everywhere we can, reinstating the $1/gallon biodiesel tax credit, and creating a diesel relief program to help our farmers and truckers being crushed by the high costs. 

While doing this, we should also ensure our highway trust fund is replenished, so that Iowans don’t suffer from crumbling roads and bridges while relief comes our way now. These actions to lower costs are needed ASAP, and the war needs to be brought to a successful and immediate end.

I am working every day to deliver bipartisan results for Iowans and I will work with anyone who is ready to tackle this challenge immediately.

She otherwise demanded that the war against Iran be stopped.

Hinson had voted against the War Powers Resolution every time it's been voted on in the House, and did so just a week prior, so she's voted to keep the war rolling.  Now she wants it over.  Fuel prices are the reason why.

Closer to home, there are all of a sudden all sorts of die-hard right wingers who are criticizing Trump.  Whether that translates over to opposing Trump lover Chuck Gray and Trump supported Harriet Hageman is another thing, but there's definitely stirring in the ranks.

Indeed, Cowboy State Daily carpetbagging columnist Dave Simpson went into a "boo hoo' fit about the whole thing, wondering if the imaginary Sweet Home Alabama Wyoming he believes to have existed has gone "wobbly".

Go home Dave.  You drank too much WFC Kool aide.

Elsewhere, Wyoming teachers are organizing against the attempt to bankrupt the state:

Teachers, hospital leaders launch $1M campaign to fight property tax ballot measure

And it's been noted that Wyomingites are voting their interests:
Beyond that, the revolt is getting large enough that as early as it is, we're now seeing the non Trump GOP start to reemerge from the bunkers for the 2028 races, with Chris Christie having basically indicated that he's running.

Elections are not over, until their over, but it is clear that the GOP, and for that matter Trump, have no idea on how to hold on to the Senate, let alone the House.  Doubling down on all the old tired lines (the Red Chinese are coming to have babies, date your daughters, steal your lunch) isn't working.  The MAGA base was always the demographic that was most vulnerable to an economic downturn and now it's suffering.  Agriculture, a Republican base, can't deal with the high fuel and fertilizer prices.  Trucking can't deal with the high prices either.  Regular people don't like the high prices at the grocery store and nobody likes the high fuel prices in the West.

This can't and won't be fixed by the election. The war against Iran won't be over and fuel prices will be high unless a ban on exports tanks the price of diesel, which it likely won't.

It took a lot, but people seem to be waking up to being lied to.  Moreover, as that happens, Trump gets weirder and weirder by the day.

One place that appears now almost inevitable to go to the Democrats is Texas, where Texas Democratic Senate James Talarico has seen a 28-point swing in vote share against Ken Paxton.  

Cont:

Fresh from getting its head handed to it in the primary, where its endorsements didn't pan out for the most part, the Dixiecrat controlled central committee of the Wyoming Republican Party has endorsed the property tax cut bill that would gut local governments like fish.
Basically, the Dixiecrat Wyoming Freedom Caucus hates the Gubbement and figures that stuff like education and the like can be handled by Ella Mae back at home.


September 24, 2026


September 25, 2026

Dixiecrats are moving over to their rightful home:

Rod Miller wrote an op ed on this and I've been meaning to post on it, so I'll just comment here.  Bextel moving over to the Constitution Party, delusional though she is, is a good thing if it causes other Dixiecrats of the WFC to follow her, and they should.  Here, a prominent Hot Springs politician has done just that.  

The Constitution Party, which believes in a double secret constitution written in crayon and visible only through secret decoder glasses may pull over 10% in the election, which would make it a good place for people from the WFC to pack up their gray kepis and go and be "real".  As is actually they, not traditional Wyoming Republicans, who are the aberration, they'd be doing themselves a favor, they'd have more voice in the CP, but the Republican Party and the State one as well.  It'd allow the GOP to shake off the chains of the Confederacy which the WFC is attempting to bind it with.

In this environment, it might be noted, it's amazing that the Democrats can't get more traction than they are, but they aren't.  Byrd still stands a good chance, but he's about the only one outside of the very few Democrats holding seats in the legislature.

September 29, 2026

From here on out in the election we're going to see Bat Shit Crazy on full display nearly every day.

Apparently not realizing that the election is a referendum on Donald Trump, a couple weeks ago Trump urged votes to imagine he's on the ballot.

The Republican problem is that voters are doing just that.

If people think back to the 2024 Presidential Election, most voters were never very keen on Trump. The most commonly expressed opinion going into the election was that voters disliked both candidates.  The Democrats screwed themselves by running Biden, which was simply insane.  Republican voters in the primary were in part MAGA true believes, but that misses the point that a lot of Republicans have left the party.  When Biden dropped out, way too late, the Democrats did the typical Democratic thing and killed themselves by nominating a Kamala Harris, about the most irritating candidate they could have found.

2024 is in the rear view mirror of course, but what's been missed in the Trumpian Reign of Terror is that most people went into 2025 disliking Donald Trump and it's gone downhill from there, something made worse by the fact that this administration is made up of the cynical advantageous and those with some agenda, often a deluded one.

With that mix, Trump has had a free hand in acting like a mad king, and he's made the most of it.  People with an agenda, moreover, are fully exercising their one and only chance to try to pull it off.  

Trump's pretty clearly aware of this, in spite of his addled state.  It explains the constant effort to build monuments to himself.  In spite of what some in the far right Evangelical camp believe, there's pretty good reason to doubt Trump's belief in an afterlife.  He certainly hasn't lived like he believes in one.  So he's trying to make sure we remember him as a great man in terms of architecture and conquest.

It's all going to fail.

Trump doesn't seem to be able to grasp that people do not love him.  He's a narcissist who is profoundly in love with himself.  The worst, therefore, nightmare of his life is unfolding.  A lot of motivated people who range from horrified to absolute contempt are going to boot the GOP out of the House, and now it looks like the Senate, and for the very reasons that Trump has urged us to do.  They're voting on him, as the GOP has become a sycophantic personality cult.  

People don't love him.

From now until the election Trump will pull out all the stops to try to keep the result he fears from happening. Anything he can legally get away with he will try.   It'll be a long month until the election.

On not loving Trump, it's a shame Wyomingites don't have a better option to contest Chuck Gray.

Gray has made a career out of loving Trump more than Trump loves Trump. That's about all he has going for him.  We're about to send somebody completely unqualified to do anything for the State to Congress.  Would that somebody other than Johnson and Kinney were running. Neither stand a chance, and they don't really deserve to. 

If none of the above were an option in that race, that'd be the one that would win.

Speaking of Gray, Gray has been showing up at UW football games recently and having pictures taken with students.

It's pathetic.

September 30, 2026

Wyoming Secretary of State and GOP candidate for Congress Chuck Gray emerged from hiding from debate requests, while he's not going to UW football games to be photographed with students, to congratulate the Supreme Court for temporarily upholding 

October 1, 2026

The backers of a data center in Natrona County invited Republican candidates for the County Commission to tour the site and omitted the Democratic candidates.

The GOP candidates are Lisa Jamieson (Democrat), Matt Keating (Republican), Ray Pacheco (Republican), Candace Machado (Democrat) and Dallas Laird (Republican).

We haven't addressed this race much yet, but Laird is a 1,000,000 years old and needs to go.  Keating was a somewhat controversial commissioner and then a somewhat controversial assessor.  He's been battling cancer.  Pacheco is a City of Casper councilman.  Machado was a controversial mayor of Evansville.

October 4, 2026

The Gillette News Record ran an article about a Campbell County event of the meet the candidate type in Gillette for Bextel.  It was held at The Railyard, which is a restaurant in Gillette.  It's a fair sized restaurant but not huge.  Apparently about 20 people went, which shows how little interest Bextel's campaign is drawing.

Her campaign does receive media attention as she's able to run it and it's so unusual.  I hesitate to post on her regularly as it makes her look like a bigger deal than she really is.  It is interesting however.

For one thing, Bextel keeps stating the "I didn't want to do this but had to" type of line. Nobody has to run for anything. What that really means is that the Dixiecrat is suddenly awake to the fact that Wyoming isn't 1960s Alabama and is terrified of what that means.

Also, Bextel continues to use some crude language.  I guess that's no shock in this day and age but at least to some it sort of edges her towards Southern White Trash, which isn't a good look for anyone. 

Those in attendance asked why Hageman and Gray (Gray stayed at her house, apparently, while campaigning) haven't come to her support.

As if.

Politics is a backstabbing game and there's no way that Hageman and Gray are going to buck the GOP for anyone.

Some local politicians showed up, which risks their being associated with her.  I don't blame them for showing up, but the press coverage might be a deterrent to that occurring in the future.

October 5, 2026

More on the Gillette News Record article.

Bextel claims that Harriet Hageman went after Barlow in a major way in a discussion with her personally, claiming that she said he was "pure evil".  Bextel is clearly a bit baffled why Gray and Hageman don't come to her aid in her race.

She also has a theme, or maybe a sort of obsession, with "weak men", which she claims include the current Governor, Barlow, and some other male Republicans.  It's odd.

Bextel has always been a curious figure, to the extent we know anything about her, but her naivete on why Hageman and Gray (she mused she wondered what they have on Hageman), is amusing. Gray and Hageman are on a glide path to higher office, in spite of not being very good choices, and they don't want to ruin it by supporting Bextel who is a crash and dive to political oblivion.

And once again we see the South sort of rearing up in the Dixiecrat Wyoming Freedom Caucus.  Bextel crudely claimed she had bigger "balls" than Barlow and interprets them not being in Nathan Bedford Forrest's Partisan Rangers as their being weak males.  There's a certain sort of peculiar early 20th Century literary quality to this.

Becky, the Southern Damsel, coming to rescue us all. . . 

Go home Becky.

October 6, 2026

Just looking at net chatter, the boo hoo Dixiecrats who think they are conservatives are appearing to break for Bextel in surprising numbers.  She won't win, but it'll be interesting to see if the Constitution Party is able to ride her back into 10% of the vote and be qualified as a "major party".  

That wouldn't be a bad thing if it drug the Allemands, Bears, etc., over to that party, where they really belong.

I'm guessing they won't make the 10%.

As was seen in the last election, the Dixiecrat WFC is noisy as well as deluded, but it doesn't enjoy much support from real Wyomingites.

Another question is whether the Democrats are able to make 10% themselves.

They should, as one of the GOP candidates, Chuck Gray, is held widely in contempt.  The problem is that the Democrat opposing him is Lisa Kinney.  

Gail Symons wrote an op-ed on this topic for the Cowboy State Daily.


I'm seeing a lot of moderate Republicans declare support for Kinney, and some for Johnson, but both candidates are really unattractive options.  Kinney is singularly uninspiring and comes from the ancient Democrat demographic that caused the Democrats to slip into oblivion here.  If the candidate came from the Mike Sullivan wing of the party, Chuck would be doomed.  In spite of GOP support for her, Kinney is really hard to get enthusiastic about.

So is Johnson for that matter, and the Libertarians in general.

A debate would be really helpful but Chuck is hiding and won't debate.

For people like me this is really a problem.  I'd like to see Gray loose so badly that he moves to Russia and takes a job as the toilet bowl cleaner in the Kremlin, but both of the other two candidates are really lacking.  The Libertarian Party in general is always subject to a caution flag, although in Wyoming Libertarians are often moderate Republicans looking for someplace else to go following the Dixiecrat seizure of the party.

This one will be interesting to see how many people just can't vote for the other two non GOP candidates and therefore simply don't vote.  My guess is that there will be a lot.  My guess also is that Kinney will take a larger percentage of the vote than Democrats normally do on this race, which is usually about 25%.  I could see her getting at least up to 30%, maybe 35%.  I don't expect Johnson to do as well, but he might be able to draw 10%.

Overall, it's not impossible to imagine Kinney and Johnson together pull down over 50% of the vote, but probably not much more than that.  Still, if that happens, Gray will be a Congressman with the minority of the vote.

Of course, this year, who knows.  It's not completely impossible that Wyoming might elect a Democrat, although by the slimmest of margins, to the House for the first time in years.  If it did, it would have a member of what's going to be the majority party in the House, and it would really give the Freedom Caucus the middle finger salute.

It'll also be interesting to see how many votes Byrd draws.  Lummis' opponent in 2026, Merav Ben-David, drew 27% of the vote in an election in which former Congressman Lummis was going to win no matter what.  Hageman has a lot more fanatic supporters than Lummis ever did, but she also has a lot more people who detest her as well.  Byrd is a much stronger candidate than Ben-David, and Hageman has been hiding from debating him.  Hageman showed up at a town hall somewhere recently and gave her usual poor performance.  She's not good at handling negative questions at all, which is surprising given that she was a practicing attorney.  Byrd might outright slaughter her in a debate.

Hageman also is taking flak from the disaffected Dixiecrats of the Freedom Caucus.  Bextel complained in a town hall in Gillette about Hageman not endorsing her.  Hageman endorsed Degenfelder in the Governor's race which upset the Dixiecrats as they, and the GOP they control, had endorsed Bien.  Of course Trump endorsed Degenfelder, it was the point of her entire campaing, and Hageman sure wasn't going to buck Donald on that.  Still, some disaffected WFC types are now mad at Hageman a bit.   

I suspect they'll get over it, but a tiny percentage will write in Bien or just refuse to vote.  One WFC person I know fairly well has outright declared they will not support Hageman, and another gadfly local WFC member has indicated that they're writing in Bien.  

Byrd is definitely going to do better than Ben-David.  I'm guessing that Byrd will draw at least 35% of the vote.  That's not enough, of course, to get elected, but I'd also guess that Bien will still draw about 5% of the vote.  That'd still leave Hageman with 60%, and that's likely, but it's not completely impossible that she draws under 50%. 

October 7, 2026

Donald Trump, who loves Donald Trump, endorsed Carpetbagger Chuck Gray, one of the founders of the Dixiecrats in Wyoming, who has campaigned on loving Trump even more than Trump loves Trump.  Hid did so on his Twitter like platform, Raging Delusional Lies Social, stating:


The fact that Gray is a "true friend of MAGA" is the very reason that Chuck ought to be sent to be a toilet bowl scrubber in the Kremlin.  The question is who to vote for.

Former Gov. Mike Sullivan says that person should be Lisa Kinney.
Sullivan's endorsement shows how dim people have become in Wyoming, not because of the endorsement, but because the carpetbagging migrants fail to realize that Wyoming has had Democratic Governors fairly frequently until just recently.  Sullivan is a Democrat and always has been, but one of the social commentary Twitter Twits came in to accuse him of being just that, having presumed that Sullivan must be a Republican.

Sullivan was gracious to Gray, he's a gracious man, noting something that I didn't know, that he's worked for Wyoming Right To Life.  And he provided more information on Kinney than I had known.

Sullivan was a great Governor, but frankly I really doubt his endorsement will make a difference in the election.  I also doubt Donny's will.  People who are weak or lazy enough to pay attention to his endorsement were already going to vote for Chuck.

Early voting started yesterday in Ohio with people lining up before dark vote.  According to polls, Democrats turned out in larger numbers than Republicans, but Republican voters may very well not be voting for Republican candidates.

Early voting has started here in Wyoming as well.  With the races set, the major endorsements made for the most part (I'm sure more are to come), we'll close out this edition.

We'll probably also go down to the Courthouse this week and vote.

Appendix


Last edition:


Additional labels:


Monday, August 17, 2026

Saturday, August 17, 1946. All The King's Men.

 


Published on this day in 1946.

The novel was a fictionalized account of the rise and fall of Huey Long.

Soviet physicist Pyotr L. Kapitsa was removed from his posts and put under house arrest over his feud with Beria.

First Sergeant Lawrence Lambert, U.S. Army Air Force,  became the first person in United States to test an ejection seat by being ejected mid flight.


It was a brave act, but it should be noted that both German and Swedish developers had already introduced ejection seats.  The very first use of one occured on January 13, 1942, when Henkel test pilot Helmut Schenk was forced to use one while making a test flight of a He 280.

Last edition:

Friday, August 16, 1946. Direct Action Day and the founding of the KDP (ارتی دیموکراتی کوردستان).

Sunday, August 16, 2026

Throwing the pollster off . . .

by answering honestly.

From this afternoon (apparently pollsters don't honor the Sabbath).

Pollster:  Your race?

Me:  White, I guess.*

Pollster:  Do you consider yourself Hispanic, Latino, or come from a Spanish speaking household?

Me:  Pause. . . No, I guess. . .

Pollster:  Repeats question

Me:  A lot of people speak Spanish who aren't Hispanic.

Pollster:  Nervous laugh.**

Pollster:  Are you a Republican or a Democrat?

Me:  I register as a Republican.

Pollster:  Are you a traditional Republican or . . 

Me:  Traditional.

Pollster:  Do you have favorable view of MAGA?

Me:  MAGA isn't Republican.***

Pollster:  Um, would that be unfavorable?

Me:  Yes.

Pollster: Do you have a positive or negative view of the Freedom Caucus?

Me;  I have a less than favorable view of the Freedom Caucus.

Pollster, um, we'll put that down as unfavorable.

Pollster:  Did you vote for Donald Trump or Kamala Harris in the last election?****

Me:  Neither one.

Pollster:  Did you vote?

Me:  Yes.

Pollster:  Um, um

Me:  I voted third party.

Pollster:  Nervous laugh.  Thanks me for my honesty.

Pollster:  (Reads long ballot initiative that will gut property taxes here). If the election was held today would you vote yes or no?

Me:  No.

Pollster: Are you sure?

Me.  Yes.

Pollster:  Any chance of changing your mind?

Me:  No.

And people wonder why polls are wrong. The questions were too narrow, and my guess is that my results are now put down inaccurately.  They'd nearly have to be.

Or they're just tossed out.


Footnotes:

*I'm caucasian, but I don't get the question in some ways.  A lot of Hispanics are just as caucasian as I am, and I have a little French ancestry, does that make me something else?  Most of my DNA is from Ireland.  Before WWI Americans regarded that as some sort of separate race.

For that matter, horror of horrors, I have a trace of Beaudoin Arab.  Probably some crusader brought home Mariam from Tyre when he went home to Beuvron-en-Auge. "Mama, Papa. . .  J'aimerais que vous rencontriez Mariam."

M'eh.

A point, for those who follow such things, Normans are fair skinned people. The French, however, often are not.  In the summer, I'm not, and my skin doesn't burn.  Look at my daughter, and you'd think she was a Viking.  Look at me, and you'd think I was an, well, Arab.

**So are people who learn to speak Spanish suddenly Hispanic

**MAGA is not more Republican than the Social Democrats are Democrats.  MAGA are some strange sort of fascist for the most part.

****What kind of stupid question is that?  I voted for Brian T. Carroll.

Sunday, July 26, 2026

The Sign of Their Own Surrender: A misunderstood version of what was, doesn't get you to what ought to be.


This started off as a Blog Mirror on a post on a different blog.

I find the reference to Hillsdale particularly interesting here:

The Sign of Their Own Surrender

Why the Trump administration's new warning signs at the Smithsonian say more about conservative history's weakness than its strength.

I won't claim to have a lot of familiarity with Hillsdale, but what I do know, bothers me.  From my very little exposure to it, it seems to focus in part on a sort of rah rah Americanism, in so far as culture and history are concerned (and of course the two are highly related.

That sort of view of American history was once very common in general.  I'm old enough to have seen the very end of it when I was in grade school, and I'm also young enough to see it pass away.  To give a really bad example, as it doesn't involve school text or teaching at all, if you grew up in the 1970s, you could simultaneously see She Wore A Yellow Ribbon run as a not that old rerun on television, and find Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee in the bookstore.

Students had received a pretty narrowly focused history education prior to the 1970s  The United States was always right. There was that slavery thing but that was fixed.  The West had been won, not conquered, and even if it had been conquered, it was to the benefit of the conquered people.  

The Vietnam War really changed all that in a way that it had not been since the 1840s when the country had gone through the Mexican War.  Conservatives never got over that.

The oddity to it is that people in this cultural camp would rather be taught lies than the truth, which never serves anything, and they want children taught lies if it means they'll come out of school believing in an unvarnished version of American Exceptionalism.  The fact of the matter is, as this article points out, it won't.  In the age of the Internet, while many evils have been spread, you really can't just keep a lid on the past.  Pete Hegseth can restore Medals of Honor conveyed for action at Wounded Knee but you can't keep the facts, on both sides, from being known about what happened there.

People who are following Hillsdale on stuff like this think you can.  In reality, however, what happens is the miseducated student eventually hits university or just real life.  It only takes one crack in the dam to cause a flood, and soon they're off and questioning everything.

This is already happening in various spheres, I might note.  One of the most interesting example is in Christianity.  The entire Protestant Reformation was based on ignorance and its pretty provable.  Of all the Reformation era reformers, only Luther had some serious points, and he didn't intend to cause a separation from the Church at all but, rather, once he started rebelling, he couldn't stop.  At any rate, what this leaves Protestants with is that every single Protestant faith is founded on some sort of error, and often back with lies.  For those with enough savvy or interest, it's easy enough now to find that out.  What was the early Church like, they pose. Well, the Didache isn't too hard to find, nor are the works of the Apostolic Fathers.  Lots of very serious Protestants have done this, often trying to support their view that their brand of Protestantism reflects the early Church, only to find that it doesn't, and then convert to Apostolic Christianity.

The same is true of history.  The American Revolution was founded upon some amazing principals, but at the same time amongst the reason the colonists cited for rebelling was that the Crown was trying to halt westward expansion in recognition that the natives were also his subjects and that they were upset as the Crown hadn't forced the Church of England upon Quebec.  The Constitution is amazing but there was a giant acknowledged hypocritical compromise allowing Southern states partial credit for slaves for representation purposes.  The Civil War wasn't a glorious highly decorative contest between two equally valid points of views, but a rebellion against decency and humanity by Southern oligarchs.  We didn't enter World War Two to save humanity, but entered it only because were were attacked in spite of a real effort by FDR to get us into the war earlier, and once in it, we didn't defeat the Germans or Japanese single handedly by any means.  The British had more troops in the field in Europe until late 1944 and the Soviets always had many more in the field.  The Japanese regarded the war in China as the main event up until some point in 43 or 44.

It's just the attempt to whitewash American history, which by and large is admirable, that leads to something like Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.  Indeed, that book came out while I was still in high school and within the last two years I was continually in a situation where a highly educated person who just discovered it was repeatedly engaging me with "did you know"?  

Locally there's been a movement in the Trump era to allow for "charter schools" here which are nothing other than private schools that come as close to being Protestant schools as conceivably possible.  I'm familiar with one and it proclaims that teaches an "American Classical Education" and that it is "a Hillsdale College Member School, a distinction that offers our school access to curriculum and training from the Hillsdale College K-12 Education Office.".  I've known at least two families that chose it as their own world view was in the MAGA camp.  The irony here is, as it is so often, that neither of the two families who are so concerned about their children receiving an "American Classical Education"  are living an "American Classical Life".

They probably just don't know that.

Which gets back to, well, this:


In order to get back to what you think needs to be restored, you need to know what actually was.  

I don't know about the rest of it, but history wise, the current variant of an "American Classical Education" ain't going to get you there.

*********************

I was going to post on it individually, but the July 4, or thereabouts, editions of Catholic Answers had some fascinating discussions on Catholics and the United States.

In spite of what poorly catechized American Catholics may think, there's always been tension between being a Catholic and an American, and early on the country was outright hostile to Catholics.  As Catholics always have a worldview that's international in scope, as they view the Church as the Bride of Christ and serving all humanity, Catholics never have the really narrow world view that quite a few very far right wing Evangelical Protestants do.   The episodes are worth checking out, but the second of the two is really fascinating on how Catholicism can and is impacting the United States and American culture long term.

************************

I was also going to post on the recent excommunication of the SSPX and relate it to how far right conservatism has crawled out very far on a branch that's going to snap off.  I ended up shelving that, even though I'd started a pretty developed post on it.  I'll just complete my thoughts on it here.

Pope Leo XIV recently took an action which his immediate predecessors wouldn't.  He excommunicated the SSPX, the Society of Saint Pius X .  As this is sort of a confusing topic, we will refer you to this, which explains it.


This is a really serious action.  The Vatican didn't just address a few figures in the SSPX, but the whole SSPX.  If you are going to an SSPX Mass, you are excommunicated.

Frankly,. while the Pope doesn't consult me on such matters, he did what needed to be done here.  And there may be some who should take heed on on this, such as German bishops.  Pope Leo isn't messing around.   The SSPX is in schism which, in turn, introduces a certain element of irony.

The SSPX is not as large of group as the controversy might cause a person to suppose.  Part of the reason this briefly received so much attention is that the SSPX stream sort of flows into the lake of traditional Catholicism, and that's a much larger group.

The actual SSPX has approximately 1,500 formal, professed members globally, including about 750 priests. The SSPX claims around 600,000 worshippers worldwide, with an estimated 25,000 adherents in the United States, but that's a rough number as not everyone who enters the doors of an SSPX church actually quite appreciates what it is, and some are Trads flirting with the society.  The SSPX dates back to November 1, 1970 when  French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who had served the Catholic Church as Apostolic Delegate for French-speaking Africa, Archbishop of Dakar, and Superior General of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit, a missionary order of priests, formed it in contravention to the Vatican.  In 1988 the organization went into schism the first time when it ordained Bishops without the authority of the Vatican.  The ordinations, as they were done by Bishops with valid holy orders, were illicit, but valid ordinations.  They were slowly brought back into the Church and the ordinations lifted, but now they've done it a second time.

Okay, so what's behind this all?

Archbishop Lefebvre, who was at Vatican II and seemingly approved of it at the time, was in the group of traditionalist Catholics that came to take exception to it, most specifically, in the case of the SSPX, ecumenicalism and the new form of the Mass.  Ecumenicalism is more of a European thing than an American one, so that one might baffle Americans a bit.  It was a big deal here for awhile, but as the Baptist and Baptist like churches are such a big deal here, as opposed to everywhere else, it's more or less gone away.  At the same time, in the US, the churches that were closest to Catholicism, the Anglican churches and the Lutheran churches, have been suffering a substantial decline and, as their churches "liberalized" and they began to self educate, they've started to cross over to Catholicism on their own.  

For that matter, the Catholic Church globally has become more conservative in recent decades. The Latin Mass, however, is another matter.  After Vatican II, and actually separate from it, the new form of the Mass came in and it came in with the "vernacular".

The Latin Mass, in its high version particularly, is beautiful, but frankly the new ordinary form of the Mass is as well, and, well, it has real advantages, the ability to understand it in your own language being a big one. Beyond that, however, the Church enormously expanded the set of readings with the new Ordinary Form from the much more limited set in the Latin Mass.  There are real historical reason for both the long lasting use of Latin, which had started off as the vernacular for the Roman Rite, and the limited number of readings, but neither of them held any longer by the mid 20th Century.

The real dispute, however, is over Vatican II's reforms or more particularly, "Dignitatis Humanae," which recognizes a civil right to religious freedom, and "Nostra Aetate," which encourages dialogue with non-Christian religions while recognizing elements of truth and holiness within them.   The SSPX feels that these went too far because (to reduce the argument unfairly) "there's no salvation outside the church".  The SSPX maintains that these documents are not magisterial whereas the Church maintains they are.

The ultimate irony here is that there's no question that all observant Catholics acknowledge a duty of obedience and that the Pope is the head of the Church.  As ultra traditionalist, the SSPX acknowledges this as well.  Given that, it's almost impossible to rationalize their taking the SSPX into schism, which is a grave sin.

There's probably a forlorn hope in the part of members of the SSPX that the Church will change its mind on the excommunication and, for that matter, on  "Dignitatis Humanae," and "Nostra Aetate".  It's not going to.  

While the SSPX may refuse to accept that, the entire event brings into focus why Pope Francis clamped down on the Latin Mass.  The Mass can still be said, and for that matter the Ordinary Form of the Mass can still be said in Latin, but to say the Traditional Latin Mass requires permission and that's largely been withdrawn.  

This was baffling to American Catholics when it happened, but the fact of the matter is that Traditionalist Catholics center around TLM, even if that's not what makes them traditionalist.  It's probably difficult to explain to outsiders, but it's one form of observance that's very obviously traditional.  Added to that, the persistent use of forms from the TLM in the Ordinary Form (kneeling when others are standing, not taking communion form Extraordinary Ministers, the wearing of manteas, all are visible form.  You could be, however, a traditionalist, and I'm sympathetic with traditionalist, without doing any of those things.  The line, I suppose, is when a type of devotion crosses into intolerance of a certain sort, or a rejection of something that's magisterial.  

I'd thought that Pope Leo might open the TLM back up, but now that this has occurred, I doubt it.  I think he's acting forcefully in keeping the sheep inside the gate for their own good.

Before "liberal" Catholics start rejoicing, however, I suspect certain "liberal" groups within the Church are next.  

A hint that Pope Leo may be redirecting cames nearly simultaneously.  The Pope has called for meeting of the Presidents of the world's Bishops' conferences to discuss Amoris laetitia, Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation on marriage and the family, and which was not popular with "conservatives". On June 30 Pope Leo announced that he is calling the presidents of the world’s bishops’ conferences to Rome in October for “synodal discernment” on how “to proclaim the Gospel to families today, in light of Amoris laetitia.”  My guess is that it's going to be scaled back.

Pope Leo has been left with the Synod on Synodality, started by Pope Francis, which is supposed to issue its final report in October, 2028. June 30, 2027 is the deadline for Dioceses and Eparchies to prepare their reports. An international Ecclesial Assembly is slated to occur in October 2028.  Some of the group reports have been released already, although that gives input on their thoughts and not really on where the Vatican may be headed.  Pope Francis had throughout this process wrestled with the German Bishops who, in the eyes of many, were headed towards schism.

Whether it comes in October, or in 2028, I suspect the German Bishops are going to get the same message the SSPX did and told to conform or be excommunicated.  The big difference, however, is that the laity who follow the SSPX are all volunteers, so now they have to determine if they follow their desires, or the Church.  My guess is that a fair number will follow the Church.  German Catholics, however are to the right of their Bishops by quite some measure and are much more conservative, and the Bishops themselves have been faced with the fact that their leadership has been plagued with declining attendance.  If Pope Leo excommunicates the Bishops, or some of them, a large number of their laity are not going to be that upset, and the Bishops for that part have no real ability to follow the example of Martin Luther and take entire congregations out of communion with Rome. Those days are over unless you have a willing laity, and they do not.

All of this means, accordingly that Pope Leo is acting, well, very Catholic, and very traditional Catholic at that.  For those who were hoping for a Pope that acted that way, it appears we now have one.

Speaking of Bishops, it was Pope St. John Paul II who required Catholic clergy to no longer hold elective office, as a small number did.  That didn't prevent association with politicians, however.  One figure who has done that a fair amount since Donald Trump's second term started has been Bishop Robert Barron, who was a highly popular Bishop with a blog.  Bishop Barron's close association with Donald Trump has made some of us quite nervous, as Trump definitely isn't a religious man.

There's a lot that occurs within the Trump administration that should worry Catholics.  A core membership of the Trump inner circle are American Evangelicals of the far right persuasion who don't believe Catholics are even Christians (and therefore share an interesting mindset with the SSPX which believes that pretty much all American Evangelicals are going to Hell).  

Trump's far right positions has naturally caused the rise of the far left in some quarters, notably in New York, which will be sending a Democratic Socialist to Congress, and in Colorado which appears slated to do so.  Democratic Socialists are not Communist and, indeed, in the revolutions of the 1910s through 1970s, Democratic Socialist would get the bullet in any country Communists took over.  Nonetheless, Donald Trump, who did not seem that gung ho about fighting communists in the 1960s when he actually literally could have, had he wanted to, is all about fighting the Reds now.

All of the above gets back to what should true conservatives and true traditionalist do?

In terms of the Church, as I noted above, I'm sympathetic with traditionalist and I feel badly for them about the general loss of the Latin Mass.  But I've noted that when there's a very orthodox priest and traditionalist Catholics in the Catholic population, it tends to show up best a devotionals in their behavior.  Frequent attendance at confession, the wearing of outwardly Catholic clothing, and often large families  Good for them. They serve, I'd note, as an influence on the larger Catholic community as a sobering and inspiring reminder of the core of the Faith.

But here's the thing.  The education of everyone, like it or not, at a younger age, is much better now than it was in the 1960s. For that matter, it's much better now than it was in the 1990s, or 2000s.  Vatican II is actually part of that. Following Vatican II the new Mass included many more readings than the TLM did, and no wonder.  Advances in printing and the like no longer meant that the Church was challenged with the transmission of the Gospel to a polyglot world the way it had once been.  If there are beautiful traditions to look back on, we have to acknowledge at the same time that restoring something means restoring what should benefit us, and that we can't go back, as much as we might want to, to an era when most people knew less and their world was smaller.

Put another way, modern Americans are not going back to what they think the 1950s were like in terms of education (what the 50s were actually like is another matter) and even Rod Dreher doesn't think we're going to build Benedictine walled cities any longer.  

That doesn't mean accepting the present either, particularly one in which Americans, civilly, are in the Age of Stupidity.

Thursday, July 23, 2026

BREAKING: The House just voted to integrate Israel and the US Military (and this is a bad idea).


This idea is frankly insane.

When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, I recall at home my mother was a fan of Israel.  Basically, she sort of thought it was a small nation that really stood up to larger neighbors, sort of an underdog things.  She also thought that it was a fulfilled promise of the New Testament that it existed, which is something I've heard the very orthodox Catholic theologian Jimmy Akin also express.

My father, however, was not as sympathetic.  He didn't express a lot of views on Israel, but basically he thought it came about as a way for Western nations to feel better about the Holocaust but that it foisted a large  European population on an Arab populace that had a different religion and didn't want them there, and that wasn't a good idea.  He also felt that Israel had a tendency to pick on its neighbors a bit.

When I was quite young, I shared my mother's view, in part because it seemed like every time it got into a spat it really cleaned up on its neighbors.  By my teens, however, my view was shifting and ultimately shifted a great deal.  I didn't become anti Israel, but I frankly sympathized to a large degree with the Arab Palestinians in regard to what had happened to them. By my 20s, additionally, I was of the view that Israel's ongoing existence as a Jewish state was a demographic impossibility.

Later my views shifted more towards the middle, but I've never really been in the "support Israel at all costs" camp.  One of my good friends, of an Evangelical background, holds the view that supporting Israel is mandated by the Bible.  I'm reminded, however, that the Old Testament is fully of examples of the People of Israel acting badly, which was frequently a reason that God would send a prophet to them, with the prophets frequently being unwelcome.

I'm a Catholic, of course, and I hold a much more nuanced view of the modern state of Israel.  It might be that modern Israel is indeed a fulfillment of the Biblical promise that the state would be restored, but I don't think that means at all that the country gets a free pass at everything.

And I'm much more of my father's view, and frankly probably well to the left of it, that American support of Israel has a lot to do with war guilt from the 1940s.  

The 1940s are now a long time ago. Israel is a country and it deserves to exist, although I still feel that its existence is very tenuous given the demographics of the neighborhood.  It doesn't deserve to be attacked, but it doesn't have license to wage genocidal level wars on neighboring territory, as the recent war in Gaza became.  Long term, if Israel is going to continue to exist, it's going to have to come to some sort of accommodation with its neighbors, and that means the entire region needs to figure out what to do about the plight of the Palestinians, which nobody has demonstrated an inclination to do.

Under Benjamin Netanyahu I suspect the silent Israeli policy, opposed by a large number of Israelis, is to drive the Arabs out of lands that were within British Mandatory Palestine.  That has never been openly stated, but if they were driven out, the thought would run, the demographic problem is solved.

The moral one certainly wouldn't be.

Anyhow, the modern GOP is more in love with Israel than any group of Americans has ever been, and that says something.  Israel always had the solid support of both parties, but now the GOP is absolutely besotted with Israel.  So much so, that we're integrating our militaries to a certain extent.

The irony of this cannot be overstated.  Since he came into office Trump has beat the National Conservative drum that the US is to be an isolated entity until itself.  He's come as close to taking us out of NATO as he can, and doesn't seem done trying, and he's ignored a major war that actually involves a major Western country, Ukraine.  He's all be declared that if Russia attacks Western Europe he doesn't care.  He's threatened to outright invade the territory of a NATO member, Denmark, in order to steal land from Greenland, which doesn't want us there.

But with Israel, it's totally different.

We're not only supporting Israel, with which we have no written treaty, we're backing Israel up in one of its wars, the one against Iran, which we can now not get out of and are basically carrying on, and losing on our own.  In spite of that, we're about to significantly merge our defense industries to no benefit of our own, but major benefit to Israel.  And in doing that, we might note, we're going it for a country that has periods in which its been governed by the extreme Socialist left.  It's also been a country which actively spied on the United States.

This is just flat out nuts.  

Israel has been in existence for nearly 80 years now and it can defend itself.  I see no reason at all to tie the US to regional wars which have a heavy religious element to them.  If Israel is going to persevere, it needs to find a way to do so with Arab allies, not the United States.  It's come a long ways towards doing that, and facilitating that is in the interest of world peace, even if it really has nothing else to otherwise do with US interests.  Fighting Israel's wars for it is flat out wrong, but this makes that more likely, and we're already doing that right now.

Indeed, if the US had a sane leader and a sane policy, we'd be looking for ways to pull out of the Middle East entirely.  We don't due to petroleum oil, which provides a good reason, in addition to the environmental one, to do what China is doing, which is to pull away from petroleum as rapidly as possible.  The whole world should be doing that, and recent actions by the Saudis, as well as some of the past decade, show that Saudi Arabia expects that to be done.

If we'd started it a decade ago, we'd be largely petroleum free, to everyone's benefit, right now.

So why are we doing otherwise?

It's really for the simple reason that the GOP has been captured by the American Evangelical right and that body has a strong theocracy behind it that views supporting Israel, and an eventually conversion of the Jews to (Protestant) Christianity as a prerequisite for the Second Coming.  Israelis know this and make use of it, which is how Netenanyu was able to push Trump along into a major war it could not have pulled off itself.

If this keeps up, this is going to have a bad end.

It likely will not, however, keep up, which is the irony.  

In the 2022 election Muslim Americans, enraged over Joe Biden's moderate support of Israel following the attacks on it by Hezbollah, voted for Donald Trump.  But at the same time younger American voters were shifting their views towards the Palestinians.  Younger Americans have no personal memory of the Holocaust. Their parents weren't swept up by it, and indeed, their grandparents weren't.  It's something in the rear view mirror, part of history.  Israeli attacks today, however, are not.  

Also new is the large numbers of Muslims in the US.  

Only 1.3% at most of Americans are Muslim, but only 2.4% are Jewish.  There are, therefore, more Jewish voters than Muslim ones, but in both instances their votes are only significant where they are concentrated, and Muslims are very much concentrated in some places.  They're making an electoral difference in those places.

The GOP is doing a really good job of angering massive numbers of Americans.  By now, it's largely lost Hispanics, who helped pull it through in 2022.  It's no doubt completely lost Muslims.  Those people who really didn't want the US in foreign wars are now wondering what happened.  Economic conservatives are horrified.

I very much doubt this provision will survive in the Senate.  It shouldn't.  But already, during the Trump Administration, we've seen the rise of outright antisemitism due to the war with Iran. We haven't seen anything like this since 1940.  It will grow worse.

And this will be one of the factors that's going to drag the Republicans down in the fall.  If passed, it won't survive the next administration.  And not only is it going to be a factor in dragging down the GOP in the fall, it'll help drag down far right Evangelicalism in general.

Indeed, I suspect the Israeli far right knew that, which is why it had to strike while the iron was hot, and Donald Trump in office.  It doesn't expect this era to last in the US.

Monday, June 8, 2026

Lex Anteinternet: Sunday Morning Scene. Religion in the military. The back currents of religion in the Trump administration and the New Apostolic Reformation.

Lex Anteinternet: Sunday Morning Scene. Religion in the military.: The Department of Defense scaled back its list of recognized religions.   There were 211, now there are 31.  Here is the full list: Agnostic...
So, in our last installment of this, we sort of defended Pete Hegseth's Department of Defense.  But we have to ask, is there more to this story?

Probably not.  The classification is correct.  Mormons are in fact not Christians in the fashion that Christians would define the faith.  Mormons of course disagree, which is there right.

And some feel that more is going on.

Under new military guidance from Pete Hegseth, the LDS Church is officially classified as a non-Christian religion. My fellow Saints, you can love these Christian nationalists all you want, but they will not love you back.

"Dem Saints" is a really good and irreverent group made up of Mormon Democrats.

Yes, there are Mormon Democrats.

Branding their irreverence is the use of the "Dem Saints" name, which is really borrowing from Louisiana Catholics, whom minstrels' lampooned with the line "Who dat, who dat, who dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints?"  In the second half of the 20th Century it got picked up as a line boosting the New Orleans Saints football club.

That there are Democratic Mormons shouldn't be surprising.  In most regions of the country they are actually a little known faith, but where they are strongly represented they are in all walks of life and all stations of education.  Most Mormons are fairly conservative of a rule, but in no way shape or form does that mean they're all part of the far right.  "Dem Saints" are probably what used to be regarded as middle of the road Republicans in the West.  Of those I know fairly well, all are in the GOP but none of them are in the far right.

Dem Saints aren't the only ones taking note of this. Deseret Mike Lee, whose radical right wing political positions are highly informed by his being a devout Mormon is absolutely freaking out, noting:
I’m a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints My church membership is inextricably intertwined with my Christianity, as it is for 17 million other Latter-day Saints Regardless of what the Pentagon thinks
Lee has absolutely hitched his wagon to Donald Trump.  I've written about him here before, but his views are radially different than Dem Saints, and probably for the most part radically different in terms of religious views.  We've discussed Mike Lee in that context before, and won't replough that ground, but a good guess is that Lee, like Mike Johnson and Pete Hegseth, is highly informed and often extremely motivated by a unique religious view of the United States and its mission, as he conceives of it.  He'd fit into a minority group of Mormon's in that sense, just as Hegseth and Johnson do as to Christians.  The difference here is that his view, if I'm correct, and I may not be, would be vastly different than the overwhelming majority of Americans, and probably the majority of Mormons.

Hegseth in particular has been the public face of the New Apostolic Reformation and there's no place for Mormons in it.  For that matter, there's no place for Catholics or Orthodox in it either.

The question is whether Deseret Mike is too besotted with Trump to realize that.  Based on his surprise to this reclassification, which likely isn't motivated by people like Hegseth viewing Mormons as really not counting, it would appear so.

Lee just totally freaked out and posted over 37 time over 24 hours on Twitter.  Eventually he got an audience with Trump on the telephone, and reported back.

I just got off the phone with President Trump We discussed the Pentagon’s “Christian list” I won’t speak for him, but I’m thrilled about where this is heading We’re most fortunate that President Trump (1) loves Latter-day Saints, and (2) is our commander in chief Stay tuned
Based on that, Trump will probably issue some babbling change to the list, but the wake up call should already be there.

Trump isn't a religious man.  Trump loves himself and at this point Mormon's don't really matter to him most likely.  He shouldn't presume  that Trump "loves Latter-day Saints" or members of any other religion.  And we're not fortunate that he's the commander in chief.  If he's going to order the list changed, it's to gain a little support from a group right now that's likely shocked, and frankly to address a situation in a state, Utah, that has shown a surprising willingness at the grass roots level to rebel.

But now Lee is out there.  If his shameless sycophantly doesn't pay off, it's a lesson for people who think that Trump is carrying water for you.  He isn't, you are carrying water for him.

And in terms of the back channels in the administration, it's the view of Doug Wilson on what sort of religion the Latter Day Saints is that may matter more than what Trump thinks, who doesn't really have any deep thoughts about religion at all.