The Future of the Political Parties

 

A previous blogpost dealt with the future of the Republican Party under Donald Trump.

However, that same post left off asking what that would mean for the party as a whole.  Well to steal a line from Captain Barbossa, the parties are to “be two immortals locked in an epic battle until Judgment Day and trumpets sound”.  However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the parties will be tomorrow what they are today.  In fact, I predict that, based on personal experience, the parties will actually grow to reflect each other over time while the differences become more regional than ideological.

It’s a bit of a cliche to talk about how divided American society is now.  A Gallup poll shows that the political parties are more ideologically divided now than before.  More interesting though is that the parties are also extremely divided along territorial lines with the Democrats dominating the cities and the Republicans dominating the countryside.

Another interesting trend is that many people are fleeing blue states in favor of red ones.  After all, blue states lost more congressional representatives in the last census while red states picked them up.  One could claim that’s irrelevant in the grand scheme of things as once red states like Georgia and Arizona are now purple, but, on the flip side, purple states like Ohio, Iowa, and Florida have been voting Republican more consistently these days.  So there is a growing territorial reshuffling of where the national power center is and that’s likely to continue.

So it’s likely that people are splintering into areas where people are closer to their political beliefs or, at least, not in favor of policies that hold their states’ economic growth back.  However, elections in the U.S. are run by states, not landmasses.  There are still decent sized enclaves of Republicans in blue states and Democrats in red states.  So, what happens to them as their states become more ideologically captured by either party?

Well, I was knocking doors for Michelle Davis last month during the campaign and some conversations I had may provide the answer.  There were several anti-Trump homes that told me they were voting in the primary just to stop Michelle from winning because she was endorsed by the President.  With Indiana having a Republican supermajority in the legislature and no statewide elected official that’s affiliated with the Democrats, it seems these voters believed it was better to vote in the Republican primary, which is legal since Indiana has a functionally open primary system, to get a more moderate or anti-Trump candidate since the Democratic is unlikely to win regardless of the nominee.

One could make fun of Indiana for being a one party state, but that’s true for other regions as well.  I knew people who lived in Chicago who simply didn’t vote there because Dems always won so voting there was a waste of time.  I had the same experience in Bloomington, Indiana because the conventional wisdom was that Republicans never win so it was always better to run as a Democrat.  Point is, everyone knows a region that’s essentially a one-party state and current redistricting battles are making more of them.

Which brings us back to the Greg Walker voters I was talking to that were voting just to oppose Donald Trump.  Honestly, it’s likely that may become a more likely phenomenon as the states become increasingly captured by their respective parties.  It’s possible that more voters may find themselves joining or running in parties they don’t necessarily connect with because that’s what party is in control in their area.  After all, there is no way to have influence without being involved in the community, and if you aren’t part of the local party, it’s harder to influence politicians.

With the growing regional divide, that likely may determine what the parties look like going forward.  It may no longer be conservative vs. liberal or libertarian vs progressive, but rural vs urban or south vs west coast.  Ironically, this may lead to more moderate candidates and decreased ideological polarization because it means the candidates will need to balance out the new factions in the party.  So there would be less ideological divides, but more regional divides instead.

Now I’m going to wrap this up by acknowledging that I’m not very good at making predictions.  After all, if I was then Bob Iger wouldn’t have returned as Disney’s CEO and Pete Buttigieg would have been the Dem nominee 2020.  However, I do notice trends so discussing possible consequences of those trends is still worth considering.  After all, one of my predictions may not come true, but that doesn’t mean a different possibility I haven’t thought of may address the reasons behind it.

However, with growing pushes to make it harder to vote for political opponents to win going forward, from redistricting to making Indiana a closed primary state, joining the dominant party may be the only way to be engaged in politics locally or higher.  With Republicans enjoying a slight advantage in terms of registration, that would definitely bode well for them nationally.

So will this be the future of the party or will something else happen entirely?  Only time will tell.  However, never forget that many of the state senators that got primaried last week had been in the state senate for decades.  It will be interesting to see who’s still in office in 20 years.

The Crown of Thorns

My spiritual director once told me to do a daily rosary.  In addition, he told me to reflect on each mystery as I did it.  I’ve found myself doing this now for months since then and it has increasingly made me feel closer to God the father, the son, the church, and the Virgin Mary.  However, of all the mysteries that stick out to me the most, the one that I keep coming back to is the crown of thorns.

As it says in the book of Matthew, as Christ was scourged by the Romans during his trial, the Roman soldiers took Jesus and placed a crown of thorns on his head.  The intent was to mock him for his title of “King of the Jews,” a moniker they nailed above his head on his cross.  Yet ironically, since he was the “King of the Universe,” that parody crown became the symbol of Christ’s authority over his subjects: us.

In the Greek and Roman world, crowns were fashioned as wreaths and made out of different plants or flowers and had different representations.  For the Greeks, they were a sign of victory at games, association with religious ceremonies, or for performances.  The symbolism was continued by the Romans, but the wreath eventually became more associated with military accomplishment and power.  Julius Caesar himself wore a wreath made of laurels to symbolize his military victories and it was normalized for emperors to wear by his nephew, Caesar Augustus, the first Roman Emperor.  For Christ though, his crown was not made out of laurels, roses, or gold, but instead thorns.  They would have been thick enough to dig into his head and inflict great pain on him as he carried his cross for his crucifixion.

It’s also a fitting symbol for God’s love as it is an inverse of the curse that was inflicted on Adam.  As Adam was being punished for accepting the forbidden fruit “And to Adam he said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, “You shall not eat of it,” cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field’.”  Many historians and theologians accept Christ’s wearing of the thorns as redemptive for this reason.  On his head, as he is sent to die, he is carrying the pain and weight of those sins, including the original one.

In many ways this is also an inverse of Roman culture and leadership.  In Rome, strength was idolized as the symbol of man’s authority and ability.  The man who committed the most conquests, asserted himself the hardest, and fought the most wars was usually the one who was awarded the highest honors.  Unsurprisingly, 75% died of unnatural and usually violent causes, proving that they were the poster children of the phrase “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

Christ, meanwhile, sacrificed himself for us so that all, Jew or Gentile, slave or free, would be reconciled to God and could be with him when they die.  That action is a reflection of what Christ said in his sermon on the Mount, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” a promise he also makes to the poor in spirit.  So the great King of the earth conquered and redeemed not through violent conflict, assertion of power, or military strategy, but taking on the role of a servant and sacrificing his life.

We are called to imitate that willingness to sacrifice and that humility in service to God, the church, and our fellow man.  To prioritize others and to love them at great cost to ourselves.  That’s why the crown of thorns is such a powerful symbol.  Because it reminds us that our suffering and sacrifices redeem us and our neighbors the same way Christ’s sacrifice redeemed us.

I personally connect with it as well because it is also a symbol of leadership.  Many people imagine positions of power represented the same way the most do: A golden crown representing strength, wealth, pleasantry, or freeness from pain.  In reality, leadership is a sacrifice because of the requirements and responsibilities one has to take as they rise.

A good leader always has to put the wellbeing of the team and the mission above their own needs.  To constantly be deprioritizing themselves and willing to make sacrifices so that whatever project they are working on can be seen to fruition.  Those sacrifices could include longer hours, greater passion, greater financial sacrifices, or simply spending more time with a struggling teammate to help them complete a task.

In addition, the failures of the team are a reflection of the person who leads because, as former President Harry S. Truman would say, “The Buck Stops Here.”  There’s no one higher the blame can be passed to, and the leader always has to take responsibility for where the team goes because they are the one driving those following their direction.  Never forget that Adam ate of the tree and yet blamed his wife, shirking his own responsibility.  So if a project fails, even if someone else can be blamed, it always comes back as a reflection of the person who put that person in that position and let them go as far as they did.

That’s why the crown of thorns is the most appropriate symbol for leadership: because it is a sacrifice to suffer the responsibility of the team.  To actively be willing to guide people in a direction towards a hopefully good end and help them accomplish what they never could on their own.  It’s what Christ did when he sacrificed himself for us on the cross, and it’s what we do when we help others get to where they need to go.  It’s why I like to say, “If you can’t feel the thorns, you’re not wearing a real crown.”

 

The Old Republican Party is Dead

This past Tuesday, May 5th, Indiana held its primary elections.  Those who went to bed early woke up to find that Trump endorsed candidates had swept at the ballot box with five out of seven challengers beating incumbent state senators.  Outside of that, one state senator who voted against redistricting lost to a non-Trump backed candidate while a Trump backed candidate won a three way primary.  The President had a good night this week and one that will play a key role in shaping future policy in the state.

This marks a continued trend, though, of Trump backed candidates winning across the country as he has had a high success rate with his endorsement over the past decade.  After all, his candidates have won 90% of primaries and more than a majority in the general elections of both midterms and Presidential election years.  Sure, one could say this doesn’t matter as much since much of his domestic agenda has stalled in Congress and many of his backed candidates could have won anyway.  However, those points are irrelevant as Trump is reshaping the Republican party with his endorsed candidates getting elected, which means the party will be the vehicle for his platform going forward long after he’s out of the White House while the old party fades away.

Now Trump’s not purely the reason that a lot of incumbents are finding themselves facing early retirement.  The truth is that most of them are just old and out of touch with where the times are.  Several of them were in politics for decades and times have changed.  Finding themselves out of touch, it was only a matter of time before they found themselves either leaving gracefully or being pulled out of their offices.

Indiana is a reflection of that better than any state as most of the redistricting opponents have been there for decades.  Both Sens. Jim Buck and Greg Walker originally intended to retire this year, which probably made sense since the latter was in the state senate for about two decades and the former was in the state legislature for three.  Sen. Travis Holdman, who claimed his district opposed redistricting efforts, has been a state senator since 2008 and was also removed.  Meanwhile, the only two non-redistricting senators that survived the primary, Sens. Greg Goode and Spencer Deery, only became senators within the last five years.  So a lot of the election was a replacement of the old guard.

That’s generally happening across the U.S. political spectrum as a whole.  Various Trump critics/opponents that had positions in the GOP like Robert Mueller, Dick Cheney, and John McCain have all passed away.  Others, like Mitt Romney, John Boehner, and John Kasich have all retired.  In reality, a lot of Trump critics were the ones from the yesteryears of either the Bush or Clinton administrations, and they’re finding themselves removed because they’re simply too old.  So a lot of what’s happening under Trump is just the natural transition of the old guard leaving.

Unfortunately for NeverTrumpers, the fact that incumbents are leaving or being aged out doesn’t mean that this isn’t beneficial to the President.  Far from it as he is the one replacing them.  As mentioned earlier, many of his candidates are winning primaries, and, even if they don’t win the general election, having so many successful candidates win nominations means that the party will be taken over by people open to the President’s agenda.

After all, elections have consequences and they can cause ripple effects.  In Indiana, there’s already calls to replace the Senate Pro Tempore from his position.  Also, new discussions on redistricting once he’s gone are coming up, which means Trump could get his new districts in the state of Indiana.  Unsurprisingly, the states of Florida, Tennessee, and more seem to have gotten the message and are now approving new districts.  We’ll see if they survive potential court challenges, but this will set precedents for redistricting that will outlast the President.  So his influence will be far reaching because it will set a precedent for future politicians or legal precedent for rejecting such legislation.

That is reflected in the makeup of the national party as well.  Already, the future candidates for President and thus leadership of the party include members of his administration like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance so the 2028 nominee will likely be a continuation of the Trump era.  Their candidacies are also worth noting because many former critics of his administration like them and Lindsey Graham are now strong supporters of his Presidency.  Meanwhile, former supporters like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Joe Kent that have turned hardcore critics are no longer in office anymore and can only complain about him to the media and on podcasts.  Also, certain politicians like Sen. Rand Paul and Congressman Thomas Massie are still in office (at the time of writing this post), but they’re simply individuals that don’t seem to be influencing future nominees for office (yet).  So in the long run, it looks like Trump is going to influence the party for a while as his candidates win.

So, now that Donald Trump is taking over the Republican party, what does that mean for the future of the average voter?  Will the Republican become the shining example of patriotic nationalism dedicated to bringing about an almost religious love of the United States?  Will many NeverTrumpers make peace with the Democrats and mount a counter offensive, relegating the Republican party to a junior party nationally?

Well, that’s a question for another day, but some of the implications might be discussed in a future blogpost.

Michelle Davis for State Senate

Today I’m writing to endorse Michelle Davis for State Senate.  She’s a proud Hoosier with a passion for public service and a dedication for the wellbeing of the general public.  From serving as the Director of Adult Education at the Central Nine Career Center to her position as State Representative in the Indiana General Assembly, she will take that experience and continue to work for her constituents in the state senate.

As a legislator, she’s also backed policies to protect Hoosiers and their heritage.  She’s a proud supporter of the second amendment, authored the bill to keep men out of women’s sports, pushed legislation to allow the display of the Ten Commandments in schools, and promises to defend life from conception to natural death.  That’s why she’s received the endorsement of Senator Jim Banks, Governor Mike Braun, Congresswoman Erin Houchin, Right to Life Indiana, and State Treasurer Daniel Elliott.  There is no person better suited to support a conservative agenda, promoting public safety, and improving education in the state.  For that reason, remember to vote Michelle Davis for State Senate on Tuesday, May 5th.

What the Heck is Going on at the Pentagon?

Strange things are going on at the Pentagon.  That’s hardly surprising knowing the U.S. government, but the actions taken under Secretary of War Pete Hegseth have been confounding.  I could mention the fact that the Pentagon is now soliciting car manufacturers to start building weapons, or I could mention how much they were spending on lobster, but neither is the point of this blogpost.  No, the purpose of this blogpost is to discuss the strange religious news that keeps coming from the US’s military.

Most prominently, there was an announcement of lawsuits claiming that various military commanders were saying that Trump had been anointed by God to start Armageddon by invading Iran.  Those who have studied the book of Revelation would know that that’s not how the apocalypse works, and the lack of magisterial sanctioning should be more than enough cause for its rejection.  However this was not the only strange spiritual statement coming from the Pentagon.

This year, Hegseth also had a pastor lead a worship service at the Pentagon, and that same pastor later called for bans on Eucharistic processions for being idolatry.  Also, Pete Hegseth quoted a Bible verse from Pulp Fiction that was only based on a verse from the book of Ezekiel.  So there seems to be a recurring theme of religious fervor at the Pentagon, but none of it is based on a sound foundation.

It would be easier if this could be blamed purely on one cabinet official, but this has expanded beyond the War Department.  For whatever reason, the President decided to post an image of himself as Jesus on social media, and his senior advisor to the White House Faith Office once said “saying no to Trump would be saying no to God.”  So there is a growing spirituality in the White House that seems to idolize the President.

One could wonder why these events are happening.  It’s possible that we may be living in a country where the leader believes himself to be a God, but he has denied as much and claimed the Jesus image was an accident so there’s no direct evidence of that.  It would be easy to write this off as a self-serving manipulation of scripture to serve his agenda, but the line between fanaticism and selfishness has traditionally been a very confusing one.  It’s possible then that there is some genuine attempt at spirituality, though a tragically misguided one.

After all, there has been discussion of the President’s spirituality.  Former Archbishop of New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan once said that Trump takes his faith seriously.  Similarly, the President had created a religious freedom board that included multiple prominent bishops, including Bishop Barron, who has both worked with and opposed him at times, and Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades, whose diocese is one of the few in the U.S. that is providing new priests above replacement.  So it’s not as simple to write this off as completely disingenuous unless we doubt the sincerity of these bishops as well.

Also, there are members of his administration who have been outwardly religious and yet not in a self-serving way.  Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert Kennedy Jr. once said before getting his position that he prays 30 minutes a day.  Similarly, JD Vance converted to Catholicism long before running for senate.  He’s had his contentions with the church, such as his spat with Pope Francis, yet he met with the pope shortly before his passing and has apologized for other spats.  So there is a case that there is sincerity in the faith of these men.

So that does beg the question then as to what might be motivating these strange actions from Washington.  Well, I’m not talking to these people so I couldn’t guess what’s in their hearts.  Still, these have been strange actions indeed and it should cause concern for the average Christian.

Now, before leaving, I’m going to leave advice when navigating these troubled times.  First of all, the book of Psalms warns “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help.”  All humans are fallible and prone to sin, so putting them as the center of salvation inevitably ends in destruction.  It’s why we need to trust in God above all things.

Second, St. Faustina once wrote that “Satan can even clothe himself in a cloak of humility, but he does not know how to wear the cloak of obedience.” Whatever is said by anyone, a person must always be in obedience to God’s will first and foremost.  When they reject it, it will usually reveal evil and for that reason must be ignored.

Finally, Proverbs 19:21 states “Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will be established.”  Whatever we choose to put our support behind, it is God’s  Will that we must prioritize.  So when choosing which side to be on, we should always do our best to prioritize that.  If we abide by those three rules, I think we’ll turn out alright.