A question designed to foment something

I remember the letter to the editor in the Morris paper, "Who would Jesus vote for?" I'm sure Jim Morrison would smile if reminded of this. 

The letter by itself was unremarkable. We are used to hearing religious zealots out and about blending religion and politics. And such a blending we've had over the last several years. There are middle-age people who have been bombarded by so much of the Trump phenomenon, they might think such an obsession or distraction has been the norm from way back. Well I'm age 70 and I can demur. 

If you're my age you can remember Jimmy Carter against Gerald Ford. A downright amicable relationship between the two! Shall I consider that exemplary? And Carter was the one who was associated with religion. He put that forth as part of his image. But wait, he was a Democrat! You might feel profoundly puzzled. 

As part of Trump's arsenal of attack strategies, he paints himself and his party as the total banner carrier for Christianity. And you know how he is inclined to diss the opposing side. Look up the opposite of "amicable." He described the chairman of the Federal Reserve as a "numbskull." 

Trying to tamp down Trump-ism is like pulling teeth. I actually had a tooth pulled recently. I hadn't been to the dentist in over four years. I must have gotten out of the habit due to covid. 

The polls say that Trump's support is slipping some. He should have been impeached by now. There have already been two tries at impeaching him. The only hope for the forces for good here, is for the Republican Party behind closed doors to reach a consensus on how Trump could take down the whole party. But I'm not sure that's close to happening. 

There is no hope for our congressperson out here in western Minnesota, Michelle Fischbach. Are you on her email communications list? I would faint if there's ever a hint of criticism in there about Trump. It's quite the opposite right up to the present. 

So "who would Jesus vote for?" The interesting thing about this letter is that it "begat" so many other letters in the following weeks. People were much more inclined to use the letters to the editor in the paper in a previous time. Well, more limited communications options I guess. It sure is different now. 

 

Quiet on the letters front 

There is an easy way to illustrate how different it is now. And that is: the meeting of our school board where 100 members of the public were reported present. A good source among the Apostolic guys at Caribou Coffee Sunday mornings (7 a.m.) modified the figure up to 125. Seemed to know what he was talking about. Is it possible that any of the Apostolics ever vote for a Democrat? That's a rhetorical question if there ever was one. 

All you fools who continually talk up Trump should try to equate what all is going on with the Holy Bible. To reconcile it. Isn't this such a ridiculous notion, that we can forego the whole exercise? 

The Morris school board was cutting staff positions, actually quite soon after we passed a referendum, because referendums always pass here in Motown. Well, the margin was closer this time. "It was the city that passed it," one of my Apostolic friends noted. Yes, the city as opposed to the country. But we're all really "country" out here. 

The public turnout of 125 for the school board meeting suggests at very least some restlessness. We can fill in the blank: some dissatisfaction. Hell hath no fury like school parents scorned, you might say. 

So hockey has to pay its own way now? Well that's OK because these people can come up with the money? Well I suppose they can. You've heard of the "broken window" principle in economics? Yes it's possible for a particular group to come up with the money but this is money that would have been spent in other ways. Every action has a reaction like with the rug pulled out from under food stamp recipients. 

Would Jesus approve of this? Would Jesus approve of Donald Trump at all? Are you willing to argue "yes" with all that's going on? So then is it time for all people of good conscience to discard the Christian faith, to maybe even criticize it sharply? The Christian faith was an essential element for Trump getting elected twice. It would not have happened without Jesus. But would Jesus approve of Trump and MAGA? Would He want to see more compassion and gentleness? 

I watched the Morris paper in the weeks following the big school board meeting. I assure you that in a past time we would have seen several letters, even a flood maybe. But, there were zero. Compare that to the numerous letters that followed "who would Jesus vote for?"

Let's see, what are some other examples of "floods" of letters to the editor in the Morris paper? Well surely the "cemetery chimes!" City authorities should have swept in on that matter much faster. Gay rights became a flashpoint. Gay rights made its contributions to the rise of Trump because of the backlash against it in the romanticized American "heartland." We're sparsely populated and we get inspired by country music. I recently read that the "country club Republicans" of old have had to step aside for the "country music Republicans." I don't think that's funny. 

At DeToy's Restaurant this morning I heard some typical music fare from the radio, lyrics starting out "She don't drink whiskey but I do." I complimented my server on the song's motif - perfect fit for out here. 

 

Let's consider UMN-Morris 

As for something that has not been a perfect fit - quite the opposite - we have our U of M-Morris. Sad but true: the values over the long course of time have been incongruent. I'm sure that's why there is no Homecoming parade anymore. Something about having a "queen" who was a biological male. 

I covered the Homecoming parade for a long time when it was a pleasant little event if not huge. My first memory is of the Cougar mascot being in the lead vehicle. 

A bunch of conservative kids on campus launched a backlash against the whole progressive thing with a publication that only set back conservatism or libertarian-ism. By attacking so many progressive things, the publication simply became a reminder of the popular image of UMM. Alas, the publication was an unspeakable abomination from the standpoint of sheer taste. And as such it was another example of terrible PR for the campus. 

I really think the new chancellor will do whatever it takes to fix UMM's problems. He'll step on toes if he has to. We're in an "emergency" transition from one chancellor to another. The top U administration saw a fire that needed to be put out here. Kudos to my brethren in "the press." Lest anyone was asleep at the wheel for noticing UMM's travail, well the Star Tribune sure came forward and handled that. Big headline type lest there be any doubt. 

Ah, shades of the Washington Post with Watergate! All that unraveled in my most formative years. I can't let go of the influence. I grew up when we had to condemn the Vietnam war and get our troops out. It didn't happen on a swift timetable of course. But those of us in the press kept our eyes on the prize. Along the way we faced brickbats for "lack of objectivity." And finally we just didn't care anymore. 

I have never been one to run "objectivity" up a flagpole. People like me dissed John Wayne. Wayne was nothing more than a movie industry professional. And within his craft he was close to being the best. That did not give him the basis for trying to influence politics. He even made a jingoistic movie abut the Vietnam war, "The Green Berets," which got zero stars from Roger Ebert.

 

Hot off the press

Hey, I saw the new Morris paper at the Willie's Cafe just now. So the city manager is out and we have the former guy Blaine Hill donning his cape to come back and get things back to normal? It makes me wonder if maybe Pastor Todd Mattson could put on his cape and come back to First Lutheran Church for a year maybe. 

Is First Lutheran doomed? I would say yes. Certainly it's time for some Latin words to be spoken over what remains there. Very sad. 

 

Citing Brad Pitt? 

I shared some more thoughts about the UMM thing in an email to a friend Sunday:

 

Re. the whole Janet Ericksen thing, I'm reminded of a Brad Pitt line from "Moneyball": "This isn't a discussion." In other words, when Cunningham laid out what Erickson was supposed to do, Cunningham wasn't interested in Ericksen's opinion. The problem with Ericksen is that she was so used to being considered special because of her academic standing, she had a hard time taking orders. So at a certain point I think Cunningham "snapped" and decided "you're done." That was it. Ericksen should have realized that whatever she was being asked to do, these things were decided on as being prudent for the U's future, like it or not. UMM is not a charity for certain people to keep their jobs which I'm sure have fantastic pay and benefits. Cunningham might say that these decisions have to be made for us to hope that UMM can survive. If Erickson had just gone ahead and done it, she'd finish out her career and be in the pantheon of past UMM chancellors, a special circle. She has lost that now. She's just a footnote in UMM history. I think she'll regret that now. It will be interesting to see if Rodriguez just "quietly" starts work here. That's what I predict. No sounding of the trumpets to welcome him.

- BW