Newsletter #126

On an Entirely Predictable Tragedy

Jul 15, 2024

Today’s newsletter will take on a slightly different format in view of recent events. I had originally planned a newsletter that explored the recent evolution of former President Trump and many Republicans on the issue of abortion. Given the gravity of that subject, I will still be sharing those concerns, though they will be delayed for at least one week as we let the dust settle following the attempted assassination of the former President, and the other death and injuries at the Trump rally this past Saturday.

I apologize for any grammatical errors which slipped through. It was probably inevitable given the sudden change in newsletter plans for today.

Where Were You When You Heard the News?

Contemporary American life is filled with what Daniel Boorstin once called “pseudo-events.” Writing in 1961, Boorstin coined this term to describe events manufactured for the purpose of garnering media attention and publicity. Such an event is usually devoid of substantive value, yet it still manages to get significant media coverage. Creating pseudo-events often ends up being part of a public relations strategy, as cynical as that may sound. (How quaint that Boorstin wrote about this in the early 1960s!)

It used to be that such events were largely confined to the arena of Hollywood and entertainment, though they have increasingly penetrated sports and politics.

Dear readers, the attempted assassination of former President Trump was no pseudo-event. It is actually historical; in the way we ought to be using that term.

I say this not because people aren’t treating it as historical. I say it because in a moment when so much news is dubbed as “Breaking” or world-altering (think SCOTUS decisions, for example), it’s important that we keep our wits about us and remember the historical context.

Assassinations of sitting presidents are rare in the history of our republic, though we could certainly say they have been too common. Four have succeeded: Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. Regardless of how you feel about Lincoln or JFK, they are widely regarded as two of our most important presidents. For conservative Christians, Garfield perhaps held out the most promise for a president whose term was cut short. He was only months into office when he died. And McKinley has been called by one biographer the architect of the American century. (He also happens to be one of my favorite presidents). What could have been had any of these four lived?

Assassination attempts are unfortunately more common. Presidents Jackson, Roosevelt (Theodore), Roosevelt (Franklin), Truman, Ford, Reagan, Clinton, Bush (41) and Obama all had gunmen fire at them, even if some had no real chance of striking their target. We regard the TR and Reagan incidents as the most notable since they were struck by bullets, and some rather humorous things happened subsequently. You can look those stories up for yourself.

Assassinations (whether successful or not) of presidential candidates are much rarer. Robert F. Kennedy is the most notable example, having been shot in a New York hotel in 1968 after winning the California Democracy primary. And Alabama Governor George Wallace was shot in 1972 while making his third bid for the White House. Though he survived, his life was forever altered. I wrote about Wallace in Newsletter #75.

Certainly, the American public will never know how many assassination attempts have been foiled by the Secret Service and other intelligence agencies. We are left to endure those which succeeded or could have succeeded had circumstances been different.

Then we have the attempt on former President Trump.

Donald Trump is a former president running again for the presidency. This itself is exceedingly rare. But the point is that he is both a former president and a candidate. Second, he was wounded, even if only grazed. Third, other people were killed and wounded at the event. (Three people besides President Reagan were wounded by assassin John Hinckley’s bullets. One of them eventually died.) Finally, this attempt happens essentially on the eve of the Republican National Convention.

I mention these details to capture both the historical aspects of what happened, as well as the unique political moment in which it occurs. This situation deserves the kind of extensive coverage it is receiving.

Yet Not That Surprising

Some of you who subscribed to Churchatopia early on may recall the following excerpt. But let me refresh everyone’s memory:

Recently, I finally read a book that had lingered on my list far too long: Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President (Anchor, 2012). Candice Millard has distinguished herself as an energetic writer of history, and this treatment of the assassination of President James Garfield exemplifies this…
A second and perhaps clearer takeaway from Millard’s work is how political climates and political violence fuel one another. Guiteau was, by all accounts, a deranged charlatan. And amid all his failed pursuits, he ultimately believed that he was both integral to Garfield’s election, and that he would assuredly have a desirable role in the new administration. In those days, the spoils system was alive and well; some simply called it patronage.
Presidents entered office owing favors to many, including the most unsavory, unscrupulous, unqualified persons. When Garfield refused to dole out roles the way many had expected, people turned on him politically, including Guiteau. Guiteau would go on to proclaim publicly that he was serving the republic by shooting Garfield, making it possible for Vice President Chester Arthur to become President. Imagine Arthur’s dismay when he heard that the madman who shot Garfield did it to help him become President! Speculations ran wild that perhaps there was a connection between the two.
There’s much at stake when tempers rage, and political ressentiment is pervasive. Is there a better way to characterize the climate in Washington D.C., or simply social media? If one truly believes that democracy itself is at stake in a single election, or that a specific politician can destroy it (e.g., Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Joe Manchin, Nancy Pelosi), they can easily rationalize taking an action like that of Guiteau. Isn’t violence justified under such circumstances? It wouldn’t take the most deranged person to reason to that conclusion. Others have followed a similar logic. And if the riots of 2020 were justified in the name of Social Justice, Inc., and the Capitol riot of 2021 was justified in the name of Election Integrity, Inc., why not walk up to the congressman, senator, or presidential candidate blocking your political priorities, and fire?
I don’t mean to be cynical. Far from it! While I don’t remain hopeful of any great national unity in the near future, followers of Jesus should recognize the potential cost of not praying for and pursuing civil peace.

I wrote this on January 17, 2022. Can we honestly say the political climate has improved? I dare say that some might observe that it has further deteriorated.

What I wrote two and a half years ago wasn’t prophetic. It was common-sense supposition.

I’m grateful that officeholders in both major political parties have united in saying that we need to turn the temperature down on our politics, but this is what it took to do that. That isn’t leadership. That’s Johnny-come-lately spin.

I’m not claiming the people calling for cooler heads and rhetoric aren’t sincere. I don’t doubt that they feel bad that this happened. I don’t even doubt that many are shaken up. After all, this isn’t the first-time politicians or their family have been targeted in recent years. Extremists on the right and left have been complicit, and their anger has been aided and abetted by politicians, journalists, celebrities, and cranks online.

Real leaders don’t wait until the worst happens before moderating and tempering their language. And good citizens and wise voters don’t support candidates and officeholders who don’t have the decency, integrity, and honesty to do so. We may not all be equally culpable for such tragedies, but we’re most certainly obligated to not create the wrong incentives for politicians and media personalities who fuel and feed off destructive political speech.

Being Constructive

In the interest of being constructive and practical, I’ll repost a prayer I was happy to lead at a county prayer rally several months ago. Hopefully, this can be more than mere words for us all:

Heavenly Father,
We gather in the name of your Son and in the power of your Spirit to pray for our nation. Specifically, we pray for ourselves and our political opponents.
In your kindness, you have allowed for the establishment of a nation with many wise principles in its founding documents. We benefit from these and are grateful for them. Yet as we exercise our rights, we encounter others who exercise theirs differently, and this often troubles us, and it troubles them.
We speak freely and find that others don’t agree with what we say. We express our faith in the world one way, and others feel threatened. We see a relationship between your Word and man’s laws that others cannot or will not see.
We often disagree with our neighbors on basic ideas like justice and righteousness, virtue and vice, wealth and poverty, race and ethnicity, honor and dignity, and much more.
Even among other Christians, our own brothers and sisters, we often have significant disagreements. These threaten relationships, households, and even churches—the bride whom you love.
God, we desperately need your presence in these relationships as we relate to Christians with whom we have political differences, and especially as we relate to unbelievers who are likely to be our political opponents.
Father, forgive us for where we have sinned so grievously in this area. Forgive us for where we have let the heat crowd out the light. Forgive us for where we’ve sullied your name among our unbelieving neighbors while advancing political preferences, many of which have little to no eternal value.
Forgive us for when we’ve worried more about our neighbor’s vote rather than their eternal destination.
Moreover, we ask: help us to see the differences between biblical principles and prudential policies. Help us to distinguish your commands from our preferences.
Help us to not make the differences larger than they really are, and in so doing, treat people like they’re less than creatures made in your image, souls whom you desire to redeem.
Help us to be grateful every time we’re able to participate in civic life, cast a ballot, run for office, or voice a concern, knowing that these rights and opportunities are gifts, but help us also to respect others who share these rights and opportunities.
Help us sometimes, as your servant Paul teaches us, to surrender some of our freedom for the sake of not alienating people, and keeping opportunities open for conversation, trust, and one day, a brotherly affection that comes from us both knowing you as ‘Father.’
Soften their hearts and ours toward your truth and toward each other. And in this very delicate and tense election year of 2024, help us to model a different way of relating to political opponents, and in so doing, exalt the glory of Jesus, in whose name we pray all these things.