This looks amazing. Watch the last 45 seconds for the star-studded lineup.
According to McKay Coppins, Newt Gingrich “turned partisan politics into bloodsport, wrecked Congress, and paved the way for Trump’s rise.” Here is a taste of his piece at The Atlantic, “The Man Who Broke Politics”:
There’s something about Newt Gingrich that seems to capture the spirit of America circa 2018. With his immense head and white mop of hair; his cold, boyish grin; and his high, raspy voice, he has the air of a late-empire Roman senator—a walking bundle of appetites and excesses and hubris and wit. In conversation, he toggles unnervingly between grandiose pronouncements about “Western civilization” and partisan cheap shots that seem tailored for cable news. It’s a combination of self-righteousness and smallness, of pomposity and pettiness, that personifies the decadence of this era.
In the clamorous story of Donald Trump’s Washington, it would be easy to mistake Gingrich for a minor character. A loyal Trump ally in 2016, Gingrich forwent a high-powered post in the administration and has instead spent the years since the election cashing in on his access—churning out books (three Trump hagiographies, one spy thriller), working the speaking circuit (where he commands as much as $75,000 per talk for his insights on the president), and popping up on Fox News as a paid contributor. He spends much of his time in Rome, where his wife, Callista, serves as Trump’s ambassador to the Vatican and where, he likes to boast, “We have yet to find a bad restaurant.”
But few figures in modern history have done more than Gingrich to lay the groundwork for Trump’s rise. During his two decades in Congress, he pioneered a style of partisan combat—replete with name-calling, conspiracy theories, and strategic obstructionism—that poisoned America’s political culture and plunged Washington into permanent dysfunction. Gingrich’s career can perhaps be best understood as a grand exercise in devolution—an effort to strip American politics of the civilizing traits it had developed over time and return it to its most primal essence.
Read the entire piece here.
Coppins is probably right about Gingrich, but let’s be careful making too many grandiose claims about Newt as the originator of political bloodsport. As I read Coppins’s piece I was reminded of Yale historian Joanne Freeman’s new book The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to the Civil War.
At the time Gary Bauer wrote this he was the president of American Renewal, a public policy organization that promotes family, faith and freedom. He was also the president of the Family Research Council.. Today he is a prominent court evangelical.
The highly educated people who daily hold forth at our nation’s universities, on the editorial pages of major newspapers, and in network television studios could learn a great deal if they would stop and listen to the wisdom of children. Take, for example, the children who recently gave the New York Times their reaction to the scandal swirling around President Clinton.
Eleven-year-old Keith Lynch of the Bronx said, “He’s lying to people who love him and trust him. That’s no President to me. He should be ashamed of himself for teaching kids bad things.” Tyrone Strother, 15, also of the Bronx, said, “He went to lie school, not law school.”
Cory Hinojosa, a Houston seven-year-old, knows that lying is wrong. When he lies, he says, he gets a “time-out.” Says Cory, “They should give a punishment like not to be President the rest of the year.”
The point here is that children inhabit a moral universe. There is a law, St. Paul says, “written on the hearts of men” that gives us a sense of right and wrong. These kids know right from wrong. Dare we reeducate them to believe that there is no truth, that there are no consequences for bad behavior?
On inauguration day 1993, Bill Clinton led a children’s parade across the Memorial Bridge into Washington. He sought to symbolize his leadership of this new generation. He would be the President to lead all of us into the 21 st Century.
Children, at least those who have already been born, have been at the center of countless Clinton pronouncements during the past six years. Now, however, his bridge to the 21st Century is crumbling, and the children are at grave risk.
These children cannot be set adrift into a culture that tells them that lying is okay, that fidelity is old-fashioned and that character doesn’t count. Every American parent’s job has been made more difficult by this debacle. The virtue deficit has grown.
Day after day, children hear adults saying that it doesn’t matter if the President lied. After all this is just about sex. Everyone lies about sex, they are told. These messages are abominable, and the messengers must be vigorously rebuked.
Our nation has reached a disturbing pass when the mass of allegations and evidence swirling around our President requires parents in every part of the country to clutch the TV remote for fear that some news about the highest official in the land will reach their children’s ears.
The seamy facts under public discussion are shameful enough. But fascination with this story should not be allowed to obscure the deeper lesson these incidents impart. That lesson is this: Character counts–in a people, in the institutions of our society, and in our national leadership.
In character is destiny. Our founders believed and set down in their own words that only a virtuous people could remain free.
Edmund Burke reminded us that people who are enslaved to their passions only “forge their own fetters”–they cannot be free. Those moral chains, in a world where self-government is eroded, swiftly become physical chains of iron.
There are those who say that we must recognize absolute boundaries between public and private behavior. If all that matters is the quality of the job an individual does, then it is the concern of no one that a corporate executive sexually harasses every woman in his vicinity. Or that a securities expert beats his wife. And the lawmaker with his hand out for a bribe is home free, too, so long as he brings back the pork or the local economy hums.
Whatever we believe about these things, we must recognize this: Our nation’s founders believed otherwise. They understood that the fate of the nation they established was mortally linked to the character of the people who inhabited it.
They called such character indispensable. They knew the human truth that private deeds spill over into public philosophy and public actions. And they also knew that the mixture of power with corrupt character was nothing short of deadly.
Samuel Adams, in a letter written in 1775, told a friend, “He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country.”
Source: Gary Bauer, “Clinton Corrupts Our National Culture,” Human Events, September 25, 1998. (Cover story).
This article is not online, but you can look it up through Academic Search Complete if your institution subscribes.
Here is Bauer in the Oval Office earlier this year. He is standing to Paula White’s right. (White is in the red dress).
One of my Facebook followers recently called my attention to a 1998 document that has some implications for our present moment. The “Declaration concerning religion, ethnics and the crisis in the Clinton presidency” was signed by religious leaders and scholars seeking to bring some moral clarity to the nation during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.
Look closely at the people who signed this statement. The signers include Catholics, theological liberals, mainline Protestants, progressive evangelicals, evangelicals who might be described as theologically “conservative,” and everyone in-between.
There are parts of this statement that are still useful as we deal with our current president. I am struck that the writer of this statement is reflecting on how to deal with a president–Bill Clinton–who has asked forgiveness for his indiscretions. How does this statement hold up today with a president who does not believe in asking for forgiveness?
Declaration concerning religion, ethics, and the crisis in the Clinton presidency
Declaration concerning religion, ethics, and the crisis in the Clinton presidency
The following declaration can be found at moral-crisis.org, November 16, 1998
The following declaration can be found at moral-crisis.org
To be released on 13 November 1998
As scholars interested in religion and public life, we protest the manipulation of religion and the debasing of moral language in the discussion about presidential responsibility. We believe that serious misunderstandings of repentance and forgiveness are being exploited for political advantage. The resulting moral confusion is a threat to the integrity of American religion and to the foundations of a civil society. In the conviction that politics and morality cannot be separated, we consider the current crisis to be a critical moment in the life of our country and, therefore, offer the following points for consideration:
1. Many of us worry about the political misuse of religion and religious symbols even as we endorse the public mission of our churches, synagogues, and mosques. In particular we are concerned about the distortion that can come by association with presidential power in events like the Presidential Prayer Breakfast on September 11. We fear the religious community is in danger of being called upon to provide authentication for a politically motivated and incomplete repentance that seeks to avert serious consequences for wrongful acts. While we affirm that pastoral counseling sessions are an appropriate, confidential arena to address these issues, we fear that announcing such meetings to convince the public of the President’s sincerity compromises the integrity of religion.
2. We challenge the widespread assumption that forgiveness relieves a person of further responsibility and serious consequences. We are convinced that forgiveness is a relational term that does not function easily within the sphere of constitutional accountability. A wronged party chooses forgiveness instead of revenge and antagonism, but this does not relieve the wrong-doer of consequences. When the President continues to deny any liability for the sins he has confessed, this suggests that the public display of repentance was intended to avoid political disfavor.
3. We are aware that certain moral qualities are central to the survival of our political system, among which are truthfulness, integrity, respect for the law, respect for the dignity of others, adherence to the constitutional process, and a willingness to avoid the abuse of power. We reject the premise that violations of these ethical standards should be excused so long as a leader remains loyal to a particular political agenda and the nation is blessed by a strong economy. Elected leaders are accountable to the Constitution and to the people who elected them. By his own admission the President has departed from ethical standards by abusing his presidential office, by his ill use of women, and by his knowing manipulation of truth for indefensible ends. We are particularly troubled about the debasing of the language of public discourse with the aim of avoiding responsibility for one’s actions.
4. We are concerned about the impact of this crisis on our children and on our students. Some of them feel betrayed by a President in whom they set their hopes while others are troubled by his misuse of others, by which many in the administration, the political system, and the media were implicated in patterns of deceit and abuse. Neither our students nor we demand perfection. Many of us believe that extreme dangers sometimes require a political leader to engage in morally problematic actions. But we maintain that in general there is a reasonable threshold of behavior beneath which our public leaders should not fall, because the moral character of a people is more important than the tenure of a particular politician or the protection of a particular political agenda. Political and religious history indicate that violations and misunderstandings of such moral issues may have grave consequences. The widespread desire to “get this behind us” does not take seriously enough the nature of transgressions and their social effects.
5. We urge the society as a whole to take account of the ethical commitments necessary for a civil society and to seek the integrity of both public and private morality. While partisan conflicts have usually dominated past debates over public morality, we now confront a much deeper crisis, whether the moral basis of the constitutional system itself will be lost. In the present impeachment discussions, we call for national courage in deliberation that avoids ideological division and engages the process as a constitutional and ethical imperative. We ask Congress to discharge its current duty in a manner mindful of its solemn constitutional and political responsibilities. Only in this way can the process serve the good of the nation as a whole and avoid further sensationalism.
6. While some of us think that a presidential resignation or impeachment would be appropriate and others envision less drastic consequences, we are all convinced that extended discussion about constitutional, ethical, and religious issues will be required to clarify the situation and to enable a wise decision to be made. We hope to provide an arena in which such discussion can occur in an atmosphere of scholarly integrity and civility without partisan bias.
The following scholars subscribe to the Declaration:
1. Paul J. Achtemeier (Union Theological Seminary in Virginia)
2. P. Mark Achtemeier (University of Dubuque Theological Seminary)
3. LeRoy Aden (Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia)
4. Diogenes Allen (Princeton Theological Seminary)
5. Joseph Alulis (North Park University)
6. Charles L. Bartow (Princeton Theological Seminary)
7. Donald G. Bloesch (University of Dubuque Theological Seminary)
8. Carl Braaten (Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology)
9. Manfred Brauch (Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary)
10. William P. Brown (Union Theological Seminary in Virginia)
11. Don S. Browning (University of Chicago)
12. Frederick S. Carney (Southern Methodist University)
13. Ellen T. Charry (Princeton Theological Seminary)
14. Karl Paul Donfried (Smith College)
15. Richard Drummond (University of Dubuque Theological Seminary)
16. Jean Bethke Elshtain (University of Chicago)
17. Edward E. Ericson, Jr. (Calvin College)
18. Gabriel Fackre (Andover Newton Theological School)
19. Robert Gagnon (Pittsburgh Theological Seminary)
20. Joel B. Green (Asbury Theological Seminary)
21. Robert H. Gundry (Westmont College)
22. Scott J. Hafemann (Wheaton College)
23. Roy A. Harrisville (Luther Theological Seminary)
24. Stanley M. Hauerwas (Duke University)
25. Gerald F. Hawthorne (Wheaton College)
26. S. Mark Heim (Andover Newton Theological School)
27. Frank Witt Hughes (Codrington College)
28. Robert Imbelli (Boston College)
29. Robert Jenson (Center for Theological Inquiry)
30. Robert Jewett (Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary)
31. Jack Dean Kingsbury (Union Theological Seminary in Virginia)
32. Paul Koptak (North Park Theological Seminary)
33. John S. Lawrence (Morningside College)
34. Walter Liefeld (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)
35. Troy Martin (Saint Xavier University)
36. James L. Mays (Union Theological Seminary in Virginia)
37. S. Dean McBride (Union Theological Seminary in Virginia)
38. Sheila E. McGinn (John Carroll University)
39. John R. McRay (Wheaton College)
40. Robert Meye (Fuller Theological Seminary)
41. David Moessner (University of Dubuque Theological Seminary)
42. Grant Osborne (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)
43. Carroll D. Osburn (Abilene Christian University)
44. William A. Pannell (Fuller Theological Seminary)
45. Jon Paulien (Andrews University)
46. John Piper (Bethlehem Baptist Church)
47. Stephen Pope (Boston College)
48. J. E. Powers (Hope College
49. Mark Reasoner (Bethel College),
50. John Reumann (Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia)
51. David Rhoads (Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago)
52. W. Larry Richards (Andrews University)
53. Daniel E. Ritchie (Bethel College)
54. Joel Samuels (University of Dubuque Theological Seminary)
55. David Scholer (Fuller Theological Seminary)
56. Keith Norman Schoville (University of Wisconsin)
57. J. Julius Scott (Wheaton College)
58. Mark Seifrid (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)
59. Christopher R. Seitz (St. Andrews University)
60. Klyne Snodgrass (North Park Theological Seminary)
61. Max Stackhouse (Princeton Theological Seminary)
62. W. Richard Stegner (Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary)
63. Jeanne Stevenson-Moessner (University of Dubuque Theological Seminary)
64. R. Franklin Terry (Morningside College)
65. David Tiede (Luther Theological Seminary)
66. Reinder Van Til (Eerdmans Publishing Company)
67. Warren Wade (North Park University)
68. J. Ross Wagner (Princeton Theological Seminary)
69. David H. Wallace (American Baptist Seminary of the West)
70. Timothy P. Weber (Northern Baptist Theological Seminary)
71. Merold Westphal (Fordham University)
72. Jonathan R. Wilson (Westmont College)
73. Edward and Anne Wimberly (Interdenominational Theological Center)
74. Harry Yeide (George Washington University)