Can Democracy Save Us from Voters?
We the people are the ultimate deciders in a democracy. But what if we choose authoritarianism?
A UMAss Amherst poll conducted last month asked, "Former President Donald Trump recently said that if elected, he would be a dictator only on the first day of his second term. Do you think that this is a good or bad idea for the country?"
Nearly 2 out of 5 respondents, including a majority of Republicans, said it would be good to have Trump as dictator for a day. Over 1 in 3 Republicans (35%) said it was "definitely" a good idea and another 39% said it was "probably" a good idea. There were even some Democrats, 13%, who said it was definitely or probably a good idea, as well as 36% of independents.
This is yet another reminder of a point I've made previously in this newsletter: Our democracy is more fragile than we realize. It's nearly unfathomable really, given how much a respect for democracy has seemed to be a deeply ingrained American ethos. Yet, as this poll and previous studies show, there are a significant number of Americans who would choose authoritarianism.
What Else We're Reading
ABC News: "The top threats facing the 2024 election"
"We are heading into a highly dangerous, perfect storm," said John Cohen, the former intelligence chief at the Department of Homeland Security, now an ABC News contributor.
"It's not simply due to the fact that foreign and domestic threat actors will seek to exploit this election to achieve their ideological and geopolitical objectives. We can also expect the political discourse associated with this election will become even more polarized, more angry and more divisive. And all those factors together is what has law enforcement concerned."
Christianity Today: "How Doubt Derailed a Train Town"
Disasters often bring a community together. But in East Palestine—a place where families go back generations—the opposite is happening. All the unknowns have divided neighbor against neighbor, churchgoer against churchgoer, husband against wife.
Community conflict was the first thing anyone brought up with me about the derailment. In a local store, one woman told me bluntly that anyone still anxious about the crash could just move. Some residents didn’t want to be interviewed for fear of being seen as on one side (“Everything is fine”) or the other (“Our town is ruined”) of the social divide. Conflict spilled into—or perhaps was encouraged by—comments on social media. When a news story appeared on Facebook announcing that testing for a particular chemical was no longer necessary, someone posted, “Everybody can be totally hooray for this good news!” Someone else responded, “Bulls—.”
USA Today: "Could evangelical Christian women hold the key to compromise on immigration reform?"
White evangelical Christians helped deliver Trump's 2016 presidential victory in a campaign fueled by his "build the wall" mantra. They favored him again in 2020. Surveys suggest white evangelical Christians are lining up behind him in 2024, even as he calls for "the largest deportation program in American history."
But there are signs of fissures. A small, but growing, group of evangelical Christian women like Cochrane are questioning the narrative of "invasion" at the southern border. They're wondering why lawmakers can't reform the nation's immigration laws in a way that could both enhance border security and treat people humanely.
CNN: "The relentless focus on White Christian nationalism is spreading a racist myth"
The constant linking of Whiteness with evangelical Christianity, though, obscures another major story. There are millions of Black, Latino, African and Asian evangelical Christians who are already profoundly changing America. They represent what one scholar calls the “de-Europeanization of American Christianity.”
And these non-White evangelicals will likely not only save the American church but transform the nation’s politics.
Study: “It's Not Literally True, But You Get the Gist:” How nuanced understandings of truth encourage people to condone and spread misinformation
Abstract:
People have a more-nuanced view of misinformation than the binary distinction between “fake news” and “real news” implies. We distinguish between the truth of a statement's verbatim details (i.e., the specific, literal information) and its gist (i.e., the general, overarching meaning), and suggest that people tolerate and intentionally spread misinformation in part because they believe its gist. That is, even when they recognize a claim as literally false, they may judge it as morally acceptable to spread because they believe it is true “in spirit.” Prior knowledge, partisanship, and imagination increase belief in the gist. We argue that partisan conflict about the morality of spreading misinformation hinges on disagreements not only about facts but also about gists.
Something Brand New for Pastors!
Are you a Christian pastor or ministry leader who has experienced political and cultural divisions in your church and community? Are you concerned about increasing polarization in an election year? AVC has a new project especially for you!
J29 Coalition will help you disciple your congregation through our current challenges by connecting you with experts on these topics and putting you in fellowship with other pastors experiencing the same challenges. Our first J29 Cohort starts in April and is limited to 50 pastors. We'll meet online throughout the year and at an expenses paid trip to Chicago in September. To learn more, sign up on our email list and join one of our online informational sessions on Feb. 20 at 1pm Eastern or Feb. 20 at 11:30am Eastern.
 | A guest post by
|