Now that the 2020 Election is over....

[Julio]

Note to all:
I really tire of these personal shots from Julio, who seems obsessed with anything I post. I try to ignore them, and would hope that sensible participants in this modest forum would not consider them a helpful part of the discussion. The most recent post from "Julio" is a prime example.
As is the tagline of another anonymous poster.
Remember, we progressives have feelings, too. Oh, wait, I forgot. Feelings don't matter.

It’s hardly a personal shot to point out the conflicted message that Rev. Austin sent… Criticizing and lambasting his opponents while piously crying for unity.

In fact, my desire is to increase form decorum… Reduce the personal attack and bombastic language the tragically occurs so frequently on this humble form.

Personal attack is not repeat not anything that opposes Rev. Austin’s point of view.

[peter_speckhard]

Note to all:
I really tire of these personal shots from Julio, who seems obsessed with anything I post. I try to ignore them, and would hope that sensible participants in this modest forum would not consider them a helpful part of the discussion. The most recent post from "Julio" is a prime example.
As is the tagline of another anonymous poster.
Remember, we progressives have feelings, too. Oh, wait, I forgot. Feelings don't matter.

What post of Julio are you talking about?

[Pr. Terry Culler]

I have come to believe that Ocasio-Cortez and the other members of "the squad" have some kind of authority or influence because conservative media gave it to them.  The member from New York brings a level of ignorance and childishness seldom seen in the House of Representatives where ignorance and childishness have often been on display in recent decades.  The best way to deal with her is to ignore her.  Besides, she isn't the first commie to serve from NYC (I've forgotten his name but one of the congressman in the 1930's was a member of the CPUSA)

But whatever she is, she does not have power unless we give it to her.  Forget about her and she'll disappear into well deserved oblivion.

[D. Engebretson]

I suppose it's tempting to say, 'Just give the man a chance. He's barely been elected.'  But he himself has signaled that he has no plans to sit on his laurels, but is even as we speak assembling his advisors in preparation for office.  He is making statements.  He does not plan to wait until inauguration day to be ready. And I take him at his word that the tone of his presidency will be one of unity and healing. I think that the first things you state and the initial actions you take send a signal of whether that is mere rhetoric or real intent. 

I would like to believe that if he approaches his work this way those on the other side of the aisle will work with him.  It would be easy, of course, to immediately turn to Republicans and put the burden on them if they appear be obstructionists.  But Biden is the lead man here.  That's the nature of the office. And he needs to signal loud and clear that his initial intent for unity and healing is genuine. And he needs to make sure those who speak for him are on the same page. The stage is going to be set now, not in January.

[Charles Austin]

Peter:
What post of Julio are you talking about?
Me:
His reply #131.

[David Garner]

David Garner:
The institutions of our society, specifically the media and bureaucracy, destroyed themselves. Often with your active apologia, and even cheerleading. If you want to strengthen them, stop making excuses for their awful behavior and hold them accountable.
Me:
Cannot deal with such vague, broad declarations. The “bureaucracy” of government has been, for four years, in the hands of the party that lost the presidency (but remains strong elsewhere). Dominant media include Fox News and Trump-lovers all over social networks. (I have not been swishing pom poms and shouting for them.) Other “institutions”? Science? Medicine? Education? Retail stores? Religion? Philanthropy? Sports? The arts? Hardly “destroyed,” for which we thank God and the resilience and good will of the American people.
This is Proof that we should be able to work together for a better future..

They aren't yours to deal with.  I said what I said.

More, this is a dodge.  And you know it. 

[David Garner]

Ross Douthat has an interesting post-mortem.  The gist of it is that at its best, Trumpism represented a potential multiethnic coalition more focused on blue collar workers, social conservatism, and economic populism than previous Republican leaders, a coalition that is now just shy of a majority.  The big question is whether it could be a majority absent Trump's abrasive personality, or whether it would be a smaller minority without Trump's personal appeal to some segments of the coalition:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/opinion/sunday/is-there-a-trumpism-after-trump.html

My take is simple.  It's not only a majority, but likely a permanent majority, if Republicans can moderate on race and other divisive issues and take the best of Trump's approach without the worst of it. 

Most of the country is not in the rabidly woke camp that the Democrat base is.  It is also not in the same place as the angrier parts of the Republican base.  But Republicans are better positioned to move in their direction, because on social issues they are where most of the country is, and they can easily pivot on economic issues.  For example, come up with an actual healthcare plan instead of promising to "fix" something that they have shown no inclination to actually do anything about.  Etc.

[Charles Austin]

I have reluctantly modified the comment just upstream because of Pastor Kirchner’s objection.

[Norman Teigen]

Julio's posts are tiresome, bothersome, and ill-mannered.  The Election is over.  Stop attacking individuals on this Forum and post something constructive.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Regarding masks - For the record I wear one all the time.  More now than I did in the beginning.  I've even started wearing a KN95 mask for extra protection.  I had a lady at my last funeral - the soloist - who called me on Friday to inform me of COVID-like symptoms (test results still outstanding, as far as I know).  I've been having members of my parish coming down with it.  I buried a member who died from it.  So I see the value and follow my governor's order.

But I know this is a divisive issue, which for some people is a freedom issue.  I don't agree with it, as you can see from my own practice, but I realize folks out there do not feel the same about it. I also know that the governor's mask mandate in Wisconsin not only experienced some push back from leaders on the other side of the aisle, but it also appears virtually unenforceable.  The CDC is already on record and has been for a long time about the value of wearing masks.  Biden was very open about wearing a mask during the election.  My sense is that strong encouragement and personal example from his position is what is needed, not an attempt at invoking a law-like force that may only anger a number of people and exacerbate his efforts to bring "unity and healing."

True, a Federally law-like enforcement of mask-wearing may not bring "unity," but it could bring "healing" and a quicker end to the pandemic in our country.

[Norman Teigen]

Evangelicals aren't giving up even though the election is over and. Joe Biden is the President Elect.  Evangelicals are politically power hungry and do not confine themselves to doing the work of the Lord,  This is my letter to NY Times which has been approved for distribution.   

"Your comment has been approved!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with The New York Times community.

Norman Teigen | Hopkins MN
In 1780 Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter to Richard Price on the subject of religious tests: "When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are obliged to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." see the Library of America collection."

[Brian Stoffregen]

P. S. Biden has said, about a million times, that he would pay attention to those who did not vote for him, That he would be a president for all Americans. Do we believe him? If so, why keep bringing it up?

We are uncertain about this because we also hear talk about a mandate to implement his policies as though there is no opposition to them. He can have his polices without compromise or he can pay attention to those who voted against him - but not both.

Receiving 50.7 percent of the popular vote is hardly a mandate ... receiving fewer electoral votes than President Trump in 2016 is even less of a mandate since the progressives have incessantly dissed the 2016 election results.

Electoral college votes do not necessarily express the will of the people.

By the way, the Stoffregen statement ‘ But he has a much, much wider margin (in his favor) in the popular vote, than the previous president had. That suggests that the people of the United States would like to see many of Trump's policies changed.’ hardly sounds unifying ... much less the desire to work together ... and much more like the childish ‘I won rant’.

The desire to have change, doesn't say what the process will be to make those changes.

Any way you cut deliberately spinning the current election number (currently lacking certified results) by speaking of existing margins as ‘much, much wider or as a mandate is hardly a unifying action ... it smacks more of a childish sandbox like rant than any unifying effort.

And your ranting that I'm ranting is even more sandbox like.


Part of the change that I, and I think many desire, is the working together with congress for bipartisan acts that benefit most Americans. Such acts must include better ways of curtailing the coronavirus. It must include health-care and immigration reforms.

[mj4]

Ross Douthat has an interesting post-mortem.  The gist of it is that at its best, Trumpism represented a potential multiethnic coalition more focused on blue collar workers, social conservatism, and economic populism than previous Republican leaders, a coalition that is now just shy of a majority.  The big question is whether it could be a majority absent Trump's abrasive personality, or whether it would be a smaller minority without Trump's personal appeal to some segments of the coalition:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/opinion/sunday/is-there-a-trumpism-after-trump.html

My take is simple.  It's not only a majority, but likely a permanent majority, if Republicans can moderate on race and other divisive issues and take the best of Trump's approach without the worst of it. 

Most of the country is not in the rabidly woke camp that the Democrat base is.  It is also not in the same place as the angrier parts of the Republican base.  But Republicans are better positioned to move in their direction, because on social issues they are where most of the country is, and they can easily pivot on economic issues.  For example, come up with an actual healthcare plan instead of promising to "fix" something that they have shown no inclination to actually do anything about.  Etc.

I agree. Republicans have a great opportunity to build a new multiracial populist coalition without Trump. But they’ve got to make some changes in order to capitalize on the moment. Trump was elected on the populist impulse but squandered his chance to give it shape by tripping over his own ego. He also appointed advisors who were corrupt and let some like Steven Miller betray values that are woven into the very fabric of the American identity.

I could foresee a successful Republican Party that embraces its history as a champion of emancipation, smaller government, environmentalism (without necessarily going full on Green New Deal), and create opportunity for individual economic success. It would also need to get us out of the wars we are currently fighting (Is it six or seven now?) and come up with a smart and efficient healthcare plan. It would be a more populist and even progressive Republican Party, one less concerned with Wall Street and more concerned with Main Street, to use a cliché.

All of this would make the corporate elites and lobbyists squirm, but I think it would be a winning approach.

[Pr. Don Kirchner]

Evangelicals aren't giving up even though the election is over and. Joe Biden is the Vice-President Elect.

Are you suggesting that Kamala Harris is the president-elect?   

[Brian Stoffregen]

"Another of [Biden's] welcome campaign messages is one that he repeated Friday: 'We may be opponents, but we are not enemies. We are Americans.'

Russ Saltzman, who had been involved in politics in his younger days said something like that in a newspaper interview some 35 years ago. Opponents do not have to become enemies. Lawyers oppose each other in the courtroom, without becoming enemies. Athletes oppose each other on the playing field without becoming enemies. (They could be teammates next season.)

It’s absolutely the right tone, but some of his key supporters sound more interested in humiliation and revenge than reconciliation.

And some of Trump's supports engaged in illegal acts (and some were found guilty and imprisoned). That doesn't mean that President Trump agreed with their rhetoric or actions.

His spokesman, Andrew Bates, also said Friday in a statement about Trump that “the United States government is perfectly capable of escorting trespassers out of the White House.”

Isn't that a true statement? If (former) President Trump has not moved out of the White House by January 20, he will be a trespasser.
 

As for Ocasio-Cortez, she is supporting the reprehensible idea of having her side keep lists of Trump supporters, writing on Twitter: 'Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future?'

I have no idea what that means. I don't use Twitter. Most of the political posts I read on Facebook I ignore. Most, on both sides, are inaccurate.

A group of Never Trumpers echoed the banana-republic notion, saying they aimed to punish the president’s supporters. Jennifer Rubin, the odious Washington Post columnist, wrote that Trump supporters 'should never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into ‘polite’ society. We have a list.'


The best response Biden could give is to say that he, too, is keeping a list — of those who continue to stir hatred and division and that he denounces them, regardless of how they voted."

What makes you think he isn't keeping a list?



Making it more personal: are there people in your congregation who disagree with you? (There always were in congregations I served.) What do you do to balance your own convictions with trying to maintain peace within the congregation? I know that when writing sermons, I constantly had my opponents on some issues in mind. The pulpit should not be a place to espouse my partisan political views, but to proclaim the gospel - the good news from God through Jesus for all people. It had to be Law/Gospel, conviction of sins and forgiveness of sins, for all the hearers: both those who agree and disagree with me about different issues.


Note: I had a number of council members who had also served under previous clergy, comment about how peaceful our meetings were. We lost one elderly couple over our 2009 vote. They transferred to an LCMS congregation. I remained friends with them. She was active in our quilting group - and went and had snacks with them every week. I was invited to her 90th birthday party.