Ed. Note: All quotes are from actual shooter manifestos. I did not paraphrase or make up anything said by “Shooters”.
Republicans and Moderates: I don’t know what we’re going to do about these shootings. It’s a shame about these boys’ mental health.
Democrats: But you won’t pay for their health care and your Saint Reagan closed the mental hospitals and. . .
Moderates: *holds finger up* Ah-ah-ah. Remember we weren’t supposed to talk politics today. Too divisive. Both sides are to blame for where we are.
Shooters: “This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.” (1)
Republicans and Moderates: I just feel sorry for these troubled, obviously mentally ill boys.
Shooters: “I am just a regular White man, from a regular family. Who decided to take a stand to ensure a future for my people.” (2)
Republicans: If we prayed more as a people, this wouldn’t happen.
Shooters: “There has been little done when it comes to defending the European race. As an individual I can only kill so many Jews. . . Although the Jew who is inspired by demons and Satan will attempt to corrupt your soul with the sin and perversion he spews – remember that you are secure in Christ.” (3)
Republicans: Well, I mean, the things he’s saying are clearly not right, but he is talking about Christ, so. Shame about that boy’s mental health.
Republicans & Moderates: But it’s not really about the guns when you think about it, is it? Why do they do this?
Shooters: “To create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political and racial divide within the United states.This conflict over the 2nd amendment and the attempted removal of firearms rights will ultimately result in a civil war that will eventually balkanize the US along political, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.” (2)
Republicans: There’s nothing to be done I suppose. Guns are essential to our life and identity, and besides, who will protect us from the government without our guns?
Democrats: But you ARE the government! All we’re saying is a little more gun con-
Moderates: Stop playing politics. Both sides are the government, and both sides are to blame for this.
Republicans: You’re being too fair, Moderates. The black identity extremists calling everyone racist, and these women who can’t take a compliment and turn everything into a MeToo lawsuit are the problem. We need to go back to a better time when people weren’t so politically correct. That’s what’s creating this climate of violence.
Shooters: “My orchestration of the Day of Retribution is my attempt to do everything, in my power, to destroy everything I cannot have. All of those beautiful girls I’ve desired so much in my life, but can never have because they despise and loathe me, I will destroy.” (4)
Moderates: I guess we’ll never really know. And I guess things won’t get better until we stop playing politics, stop talking about things that divide us, and move forward.
Republicans: Yes, we have to stop playing politics, give every real American a gun, and back the blue. God bless our troops, our police, and our guns. God bless the real America.
Democrats: *presses face into hands and weeps*
1 – El Paso shooter’s manifesto, 2019
2 – Christchurch shooter’s manifesto, 2019
3 – San Diego Synagogue shooter’s manifesto, 2019
4 – Isla Vista shooter’s manifesto (the “incel”), 2014
White supremacy is a scourge from the pit of Hell and is Satan’s most effective weapon currently in use on this planet.
I tend to only weakly believe in an incarnate Devil and less in a concrete, fire and brimstone Hell. But I do believe that evil exists both on spiritual and physical planes. And evil has one power: “Did God really say?”
Did God really say love your neighbor as yourself?
Did God really say none are worthy, yet all have reconciliation available?
Did God really say we are all equal?
Did God really say the last shall be first, and the sanctimonious, heartless ones will be pushed to the outside while the humble, kind ones will be exalted?
That question echoes in our weak human minds in a thousand forms. We answer, “Maybe not. Not exactly.” And evil, cooked in that crucible, is made manifest.
We have enabled people like these shooters who killed so many in New Zealand when we have denigrated Muslims, insulted their religion, culture, and humanity. We have enabled them when we allow our leaders to ask “what’s so bad about white supremacy?” We have enabled them when we seek the advancement of Christian dominion instead of an irresistible community of love, too broad and beautiful to be satisfied with one narrow cultural expression.
As Rabbi Heschel said, “In a free society, some are guilty, but all are responsible.” If you made choices for economic reasons, or because of court picks, those choices have implications. If you ignore cries for collective justice and paper them over with individual kindness that does not require you to actually become uncomfortable, that ignorance has implications.
Some of us are guilty of supporting evil. But all of us are responsible for creating a world in which it has no quarter. There is plenty of research and thought on how to deconstruct this, if you have the will. Don’t get distracted by your preferred corner of evil to point at. Start where the seat of power is.
Start with white supremacy.
American Christians, especially those that identify as evangelical, love to “share the Gospel”. In many small group circles and among friends, weekly check-ins may include a delighted, “I shared the Gospel 3 times this week!” or a dejected “I didn’t share the Gospel with anyone. I need to do better.” We keep a scorecard, like golf, or bowling.
I was reflecting with my friend Dan Crain, a pastor and community leader I’ve co-led a Be The Bridge group with and become good friends with, today about what it means to be a peacemaker on behalf of Christ. I had a revelation in that moment. Those of us who profess Christ in this particularly American way think of ourselves as ambassadors of the Kingdom of God, bringing good news to the people of Earth. But this model separates us from the people who we wish to see join us in our understanding of who Christ is. In order to fully understand our purpose, we have to get a bit transcendental. We have to step outside of the present tense and operate with multiple views of time. In this way, we obtain a fraction of the view that a God that lives outside of time has.
Romans 5:6-8 talks about how Christ died for us while we were still weak, while we were still sinners. Christ’s act at one point in time in the past reaches into our present, pulls us out of a present depravity into a future hope of reconciliation of all things. Most of us accept that truth and rejoice. We gleefully report, as Paul did in Galatians 2:20, how “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”
But we don’t follow the next step. As we declare ourselves peacemakers and ambassadors, we proclaim we are already citizens of Heaven, and we’re coming to broker a deal with those unfortunates that haven’t filled out their applications yet. To get a complete understanding of this, we must combine our perceptions into a “future-present” view of reality.
The future tense speaks of things that will be. The present tense speaks of things that are, right now. As Christians, we live in the intersection of the present, our flesh with its infirmities, the brokenness of the world we see around us, and the future, a kingdom and family that we will be a part of for eternity. Christ mediates this transcendent breach in the order of time’s arrow and allows some portion of us to live in that future as if it were the present! We get to experience glimpses of the full acceptance of God and the completion of our future hope in our present.
This is undoubtedly good news. However, the part that we miss is that we are also still beings of the present. We are not God’s diplomats, sitting at the table overseeing the reconciliation between some sinful “other” and God. We are the rebellious, haughty party sitting at the other side of the table from our neighbor. We have been wronged, yes, but we have also done much wrong. And we are in need of an external mediator to complete the reconciliation to our neighbor and to receive the wisdom our neighbors have.
When we approach mission or literal evangelism in this way, we carry a humility and an openness that allows us to experience more of the fullness of God. We gain the capacity to learn how to more rightly see God from our neighbor rather than educating them on our narrow and limited glimpse and attempting to snuff out their light or make it shine on our particular frequency. We can meet needs without thinking we are the Provider of Good Things. We can carry the layers of our intersectional identity in the present while neither giving them primacy over our future identity nor diminishing them to irrelevance when they shape so much of how our present is experienced.
We are each carrying different, infinitesimal sparks of that incomprehensible glory, and only by recognizing our true position, as a member of a warring faction that is only now learning to lay down their arms, as a humble creature that has far more to learn than it has to teach, can we share a true Gospel laden with future hope that speaks to a present reality.
Who gets the surplus?
We use raw materials and labor to create additional value out of thin air. The materials are paid for. The labor is compensated. The goods are sold at a profit. A surplus is created.
Let’s assume a typical situation with a person with resources purchasing the raw materials and fronting the labor cost. The person with the resources took a risk and presumably should get something. The person who contributed the labor created the value. Should they get anything beyond compensation for their time?
Let’s say that 50 units of raw materials and 50 units of labor (fully loaded) went into creation of a widget, for 100 total. The widget is sold for 200 units. What should happen?
Capitalism as implemented says that the 100 should go entirely to the provider of capital. Labor has already been paid at a market rate (regardless of whether that constitutes a living wage) and is not owed anything else.
Cooperative socialism says that the inputs and surpluses should be shared by the collective of laborers without regard to what the government dictates. Cooperatives can collectively function as capitalists of a sort in a larger capitalist society. Unions are a prototype of this form.
Democratic socialism says the surplus should go to the society at large, with the people of the society deciding where it will be spent, be that social programs, defense, or whatever. Elements of this already exist in how America has historically been run.
Authoritarian socialism (what most people think of when they hear the term) says the state will take direct ownership of the means of production and apply the surpluses as it sees fit per the direction of unelected leadership.
This question of who should get the surplus is at the heart of our economic debate. If you look at our history and our present, we have no problem redistributing the surplus if we think the recipients are “worthy”. Currently, farmers, the military, and the rich are what our country has decided must be subsidized and funded at any cost.
We could make different choices. We could say that medical providers, teachers, and environmentally sound businesses are worthy. We could say a shorter workweek and more workers at the same price is a more worthwhile goal than reaching theoretical maximum profit. But we don’t, for various reasons.
My fellow small business owners will pipe up and say how they can’t afford to pay more or hire more. That might be true in our current context. But we have to look at the quality of our inputs as well. How much does productivity suffer from the anxiety of living in our current construct? And how much more could you get out of people that would be meaningfully impacted by improved corporate financial results?
I’ve frequently been rebutted with stories of how people got out of difficult situations with hard work. That’s great, and I genuinely applaud you. But if you know better than most how hard it was to claw your way out of poverty, why would you think that crucible is the best way to produce winners? Why is superlativity a requirement just to survive?
Inequality is not inherently problematic. But rising inequality where people working 60+ hours are still poor while others are basically living beyond the event horizon of a cash singularity will not stand indefinitely. History is clear that desperation leads to revolution. We will need to consider changes that will reduce the suffering and desperation in our society if we want something that resembles what we know to continue. And yes, those changes will have to mean benefits for non-white people too, unlike most of the historical benefits and subsidies that created mass affluence in America as practically implemented.
s/o to Professor Richard Wolff for helping clarify my thinking about surpluses.
- Why does he have to be President for you to get what you want changed in this country?
- How much more powerful could Sanders be as sitting senior senator operating as head of a Socialist party with national reach, or as the head of a movement within the existing Democrats rather than as a drop-in/drop-out candidate that uses the Democrats to advance his brand?
- What have you done with your local democratic socialist organization to advance your agenda at a city or state level?
There’s a lot more I could say, but after two years serving as a post holder in the Democratic Party, alongside centrists, progressives, and proud democratic socialists, I have significant respect for the workers. Not “the workers of the world unite!” workers (though I’m good with them), but the people who quietly work for the principles they believe in, building constituencies, knocking on doors one at a time, arguing passionately about what direction we want to go at a city, county, and state level.
I think about the black women from South DeKalb who ran our party in the years when no one bothered to show up to meetings (including me). The firebrands who backed their talk with action and ran for office or party leadership or supported those that did. The regular people who had just had enough and committed to knock 20, or 50, or 100 doors, just to make a difference.
Bernie’s Democratic affiliation of convenience spits on that progressive legacy, spits on that work. And it pushes forth the myth that Trump ran on: “I alone can fix it.”
As much as I wish there were, there are no heroes. No one will snap their fingers, or give the perfect speech, or wrestle Congress to the ground bare-chested to get through a dictatorship of the proletariat or a golden age of unity and social equity. What I’ve come to realize, even as I have trouble living it out, is something that my socialist friends should understand better than anyone:
Our heroism and our extraordinary capability lie in our collective effort.
So stop waiting on Bernie Sanders or some other media darling to pick up your rose and flag of solidarity. Get out there and fight for equity where you live. And for your President in 2020, vote for a person who has been a Democrat continuously, one who will advance environmentally responsible and socially equitable policies, one who will move the needle in the direction you want to go. And then do what Sanders did before becoming a Senator; set the example in your city for what your movement can become when done right.
It is so weird and sad how every Republican person who is bought into the “Democrats are the real racists!” storyline shares the same 3 or 4 tidbits of information as if it’s your first time hearing it and as if there’s not reams of historical evidence either debunking or contextualizing it.
I just need to build a Magic 8-Ball like program to help them with their arguments. Sides would include:
- Robert Byrd
- Democrats founded the Klan
- Hillary Said Super-Predator!
- Get off the plantation!
- Walk Away
- Evidence Unclear
I’m under no illusion that the Democratic Party is free of racial bias. It’s an American party. So it’s got racial bias, which is a core part of our country’s identity, sadly, along with some of those lofty visions of freedom and liberty that we also have. However, these arguments about the party’s history are both useless and insulting.
If you’ve found yourself making these arguments, I challenge you to sit with a more interesting question. (All “overall” numbers include the black population so are going to be closer than they would be otherwise). Black people are just shy of 13% of the population. They are the most religiously affiliated racial demographic (87% religious vs 83% overall), the most Christian (79% vs 75% overall), and much more devout on average (79% of religious saying religion is “very important” in their lives vs 56%).
So, if the Republican Party is truly a Christian party, and we make the reasonable assumption that Christianity as practiced by African-Americans is valid, then why is it not attractive to the overwhelming majority of them? Let’s make a further assumption that your average black person is a rational actor, like you. They are equally capable of reason and assessing a situation for what it truly is. Why would a Christian rational actor vote something other than Republican?
The typical reasons we give require us to make black people irrational actors. We are presumably swayed by promises of “free stuff” from Democrats. Our Christianity is infected with social justice that has nothing to do with the Gospel. Like children, we just need to be trained up properly in the way we should go.
What if, instead, the Republican Party wasn’t actually advocating for Christian values? What if the Republican Party refused to consistently confront and expunge neo-Confederates in their ranks, practitioners of an ideology that is explicitly anti-black? What if, instead of needing to walk away from a presumed mental enslavement from a party giving out trinkets but no real advancement, black people are rationally dealing with a “lesser evil” because the Republican Party is offering no credible change in their quality of life and will not acknowledge the shadow that America’s bipartisan history casts into the present?
Now, let’s ask a parallel question. Why would poor white people vote for economic policies that have demonstrably hurt their position? If I were to rely on the same reasoning as used on the “black voting problem”, I would be forced to conclude they are irrational, simple-minded actors, swayed easily by promises of protection from people trying to take their things or their status as the superior group. I’d be forced to conclude their Christianity is infected with a love of money and comfort that has nothing to do with the Gospel. But that wouldn’t be fair, would it?
It’s critical that we give the groups we are trying to win over the respect of assuming they’re no less capable of assessing a situation than we are. If you want me to vote Republican, it’s not enough to show me how the Democrats have failed me or fallen short. You need to show me how the Republicans won’t. And you have to be honest with who the party has decided to be.
The Republicans had 17 choices for what direction they could go in 2016. They chose Trump. Somebody, I don’t know who but I think they were important, said “By their fruits shall you know them.” I’m not passing judgment, I’m just looking at the fruit.
(numbers courtesy of Pew – http://www.pewforum.org/2009/01/30/a-religious-portrait-of-african-americans/)