Tuesday

A TREACHEROUS GIFT AND POWER OF MANIPULATION

CC™ NewsPost

By Yahaya Balogun

"Saintly and well-behaved humans rarely make history. Humans who make history are very disruptive, honestly disrespectful to disrespectful humans, assertive toward manipulators, and respectful and honest to good humans. History is shaped not by the virtuous only, but by those who stand boldly against the manipulative, show respect to the noble, and challenge the unruly humans." -- Yahaya Balogun.

I considered giving this mindfulness piece the intriguing title 'A Good Human is a Dangerous Human' to infuse it with a more profound, nuanced significance. However, the current title resonates better and conveys the essence of the essay more clearly! It depicts the hackable nature of vulnerable minds, with the unhackable minds to their rescue. 

The two quotes above explore the intricate depths of our human essence. Throughout the ages, many notable figures have boldly challenged societal norms, fueled by a commitment to values like honesty, dignity, respect, and the esteem of others.

In stark contrast, those who have receded into the shadows often cling to shallow attempts at proving their worth, all while they remain ensnared in the deceptive calm known as the "peace of the graveyard."

Anyone seeking to transform or confront a fragile society must brace themselves against the seductive charm of those who quietly wield influence and sow chaos. An intriguingly virtuous individual, who embraces “good trouble,” is driven by a profound empathy for fellow beings. Their own sense of well-being is intricately linked to the welfare of those around them.

In a world where the concept of normalcy is merely a façade, those who represent genuine normalcy appear as rare exceptions in a twisted society. At the same time, those exuding unconventionality are often celebrated as the standard. In other words, abnormalities are perceived as normal in an abnormal society, while normalities are underrated and disliked as abnormalities.

A truly outstanding person does not shy away from "good trouble"; instead, they skillfully navigate through it to provoke meaningful transformation. A harmless person is not synonymous with a virtuous one; indeed, the genuinely virtuous harness their inner perils with artfulness. They ignite “good troubles” to free society from the grips of tyranny and the manipulative tactics of Machiavellian leaders.

Though life offers no guarantees of fairness, equity, and equal justice before the law, those who embody virtue in a world of injustice present an exhilarating challenge, fanning the flames of equality. Just do good; the long-term rewards far outweigh the fleeting bad behavior or lasting consequences and the insidious or gradual harm of human manipulation.

Monday

Mile High Slap - President Emmanuel Macron denies dispute with wife, blames ‘disinformation’

CC™ NewsWeek

French President Emmanuel Macron denied Monday having a domestic dispute with his wife Brigitte after a video appeared to show her shoving his face away when they touched down for a visit to Vietnam, blaming disinformation campaigns for trying to put false meaning on the footage (below courtesy of The Sun).

The Elysee had been hoping that the visit to Vietnam would showcase France’s reach into the Indo-Pacific, but it has been shadowed by the incident which occurred as the doors of the presidential plane swung open after landing in Hanoi.

This is the third time this month that Macron has been the subject of viral video footage at a time when France says it is being targeted by repeated disinformation attacks as Russia steps up attacks on Ukraine.

It was falsely claimed Macron took cocaine on a trip to Kyiv alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and images also emerged purporting to show Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan dominate the French leader in a handshake.

Brigitte sticks out both her hands and gives her husband’s face a shove, according to footage shot by the Associated Press news agency.

The French president appears startled but quickly recovers and turns to wave through the open door. But with most of her body hidden by the aircraft, it is impossible to see his wife’s facial expression or body language.

“My wife and I were squabbling, we were rather joking, and I was taken by surprise,” he said.

Now it’s “become a kind of planetary catastrophe, and some are even coming up with theories,” Macron told reporters.

Macron testily referred to the other incidents, including the images shot on a train to Kyiv where some accounts falsely claimed he shared cocaine with Merz and Starmer.

But the object Macron removed from the table when the media entered was a tissue.

Erdogan, meanwhile, was filmed holding the president’s finger at a summit.

“For three weeks… there are people who have watched videos and think I shared a bag of cocaine, that I had a fight with the Turkish president, and that now I’m having a domestic dispute with my wife,” said Macron.

“None of these are true,” he said.

“Everyone needs to calm down,” he added.

After the incident in Hanoi, the couple proceeded down the staircase for the official welcome by Vietnamese officials, though Brigitte Macron did not take her husband’s arm when he offered it.

The video circulated rapidly online, promoted particularly by accounts that are habitually hostile to the French leader.

Macron’s office initially denied the authenticity of the images, before they were confirmed as genuine. A close associate of the president later described the incident as a couple’s harmless “squabble”.

Referring to the past incidents, Macron said: “In these three videos I took a tissue, shook someone’s hand and just joked with my wife, as we do quite often. Nothing more.”

“We have loads of accounts, anonymous or not, whose frustrations are going to their heads, including news commentators who said this morning that I have the diplomacy of a beaten man,” he added.

He emphasised that all three videos were “completely authentic” but the meanings attached to them were not.

Vietnam is the first stop on Macron’s almost week-long tour of Southeast Asia where he will pitch France as a reliable alternative to the United States and China.

He will also visit Indonesia and Singapore.

The relationship between Macron, 47, and his 72-year-old wife has long been a subject of fascination at home and abroad.

She was a drama teacher and he a pupil when they met at a private school in their hometown of Amiens in northeast France. A mother of three children, Brigitte divorced her husband and began a relationship with Macron while he was in his late teens.

A high-profile first lady, she has taken legal action to counter false claims on social media about her gender.

SOURCE: AFP

Sunday

As the Fulani Jihadist killing orgy continues, a Catholic priest and two others shot in Nigeria’s volatile North

CC™ Sunday News

The Catholic Priest in Charge of St. John Quasi Parish Jimba, Rev. Fr. Solomon Atongu has been reportedly shot by suspected armed herdsmen along the deadly Makurdi-Naka road.

The priest was shot Saturday evening while on his way from Makurdi back to his duty post in Naka when he drove into an ambush by the armed herdsmen.

It was also gathered that two other occupants of the vehicle were abducted by the armed men and whisked away into the forest after they mistook the clergy for dead.

“Luckily security personnel got to the scene of the attack and rescued the Priest who had already lost so much blood, and took him to hospital where efforts are being made by medical personnel to stabilise him,” he said.

While confirming the incident in a statement, the Chancellor, Catholic Diocese of Makurdi, Revd. Fr. Shima Ukpanya, called for prayers for his quickly recovery.

Part of the statement read: “I write on behalf the Bishop, Catholic Diocese of Makurdi, Most Revd. Wilfred Chikpa Anagbe, to inform and request for your prayers for the quick recovery of one of our Priests, Revd. Fr. Solomon Atongo who was attacked and shot this evening around Tyolaha, Makurdi-Naka Road, Gwer West Local Government Area, LGA, by suspected terrorist herdsmen.

“Let us unite in prayer for God’s healing upon him as the medics try to stabilize him. May our Lady Mother of Perpetual Help intercede for us.”

The Police Public Relations Officer, Chief Superintendent, CSP, Catherine Anene could not be reached.

Saturday

Nigeria was once an indisputable leader in Africa: What happened?

CC™ Opinion Editorial - By Sheriff Folarin

The traditional leadership and redeemer posture of Nigeria in Africa has, in recent years, been put into question.
Issues like corruption and infrastructural decay have held the country down from playing a leadership role in Africa. As have transitions from one poor leadership to another. A visionary leadership is lacking while public institutions are weak, inept and compromised. Decades of political patronage and nepotism have seen a corrosion of quality and performance in the public service.
In addition, the intractable problem of Boko Haram and Islamic State, coupled with kidnappings, have created a security crisis. All continue to shatter the myth of military invincibility and the might of the Nigerian state.
In the beginning, it was not so. From independence in 1960, Nigeria took upon itself the role of uniting Africa against western recolonisation. The continent, from then on in, became the centre-piece of its foreign policy. The fact that nations were living under foreign rule made it possible to galvanise them around a common cause. This led to the creation of the Organisation of African Unity  – now the African Union – in 1963 and Economic Community of West African States in 1975.
Nigeria assumed a leading role in these events as it forged a foreign policy with a strong Afrocentric posture. In fact, so frenetic was its involvement in this role that it sometimes paid little attention to the home front.
Nigeria’s leadership role on the continent was a product of the vision, dreams and, sometimes, whims of the founding fathers. They were nevertheless premised on real national capacity. Jaja Wachukwu, Nigeria’s first external affairs minister noted  in 1960 that:
Our country is the largest single unit in Africa… we are not going to abdicate the position in which God Almighty has placed us. The whole black continent is looking up to this country to liberate it from thraldom.
This defined the country’s behaviour and continental outlook and has continued to influence successive administrations – weak or effective.

Assuming a leadership role

The sheer size of Nigeria’s population – the largest on the continent which rose from 48.3 million in 1963 to over 220 million in 2022 — gave the country the idea that Africa was its natural preoccupation.
In addition, its colonial experience and the abundance of its oil resources and wealth have empowered Nigeria economically. This made it possible for the country to pursue an ambitious foreign policy. It also permitted Nigeria to finance its Civil War, strengthening its international independence. And oil made possible an unparalleled post-war recovery.
Nigeria has used its influence to good effect and to good ends. For example, it worked with other countries in the West African sub-region to establish the Economic Community of West African States in 1975. It went on to push for the prevention and resolution of devastating conflicts that engulfed Liberia in 1992. The conflict spilled over into Sierra Leone and other countries in the region. Nigeria spearheaded the cessation of hostilities and created the cease-fire monitoring group to bring a total end to the civil strife and restore democracy in both countries.
Many observers agree that the sterling performance of the monitoring group is unparalleled in the history of regional organisations the world over. It has now become a model to emulate for its operational efficiency and for giving regional actors pride of place in the resolution of regional conflicts.
shutterstock
Nigeria exerted similar efforts to ensure that democratic governments were restored to Guinea-BissauCote d’Ivoire and Sao Tome et Principe, after military take-overs in those countries.
It spent over US$10 billion in these peace campaigns and also lost soldiers in the process.
Nigeria has not limited its peacekeeping role to West Africa. It has also been engaged in Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia-Eritrea.
The country also played the most important role  in fighting apartheid in Southern Africa and supporting liberation movements on the continent.

Disappointments

But Nigeria has not been immune to challenges facing countries on the continent. Corruption, misappropriation of public funds, electoral malpractices, insurgency and terrorism have devastated its capacity and weakened its moral fortitude to lead the continent.
Amidst enormous wealth, poverty in Nigeria is endemic . It could even become the poverty capital of the world, according to The World Poverty Clock. Nigerians have been reduced to the behest of the politicians that tie them to gridlock of “stomach infrastructure”. This is a new trend which reflects institutionalised and structural poverty. Deprivation puts people in a vulnerable and compromised position where the desperation for survival makes them sell their votes and conscience.
The slow movement of the current administration is also killing the Nigerian spirit and leadership posture. South AfricaGhana and even Madagascar have acted faster in continental and global politics, including during times of emergency such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. But Nigeria seems content with a spectator position.

What next?

Nigeria has been relegated to the background of international affairs. To turn this around requires a revisit to the roots – and mowing the lawns afterwards. Nigeria must take stock of its own performance and capacities and re-position itself – first from within.
If Nigerian leaders are increasingly determined to proffer African solutions to their problems, then political structures and institutions must be reformed to reflect conditions suitable for sustainable development. Without a formidable political base, the economy will remain weak and fragile. The political base is crucial, because, the state is the repository of all ramifications and dimensions of power – political, economic, technological and military. And the purpose of the state is to authoritatively allocate these resources.
There is also a need to empower people to mobilise their local resources and to use them for development. And, of course, public funds should not be concentrated in the hands of few individuals, who may be tempted to steal them. An accountable system is one in which money management has several checks.
Oil wealth has been the country’s nemesis, a curse that has promoted corruption and blatant bleeding of the economy. But it is declining in value and as source of national revenue. Now is the time for Nigeria to make good its repeated and well-advertised intentions to diversify the economy.
A de-emphasis on oil would open the door to smarter ideas about how to create wealth. It would also herald in getting rid of a great deal of the phlegm of corruption which has played such a central role in Nigeria’s infrastructural decay, eroded its influence and given it such a negative image.
Added to this is the succession of weak rulers since 2007.
African leaders do not look towards Nigeria anymore for counsel, inspiration and help. They think Nigeria has a lot on its plate already and needs help. The potential is still there for Nigeria to return to power; but it takes leadership to (re)build the auspicious atmosphere and to activate the country’s potential – the two steps required to regain that enviable frontliner spot on the continent.
This article was originally published in The Conversation.

Friday

Barbarians at the gate - How America mortgaged its future on the altar of MAGA

CC™ Editor’s Review

By Editor-in-Chief

The administration of Donald J. Trump has predicated its policies on ‘cleaning the swamp’. 

Here are the facts:

1) 8 of Trump’s cabinet picks donated almost half-a-billion dollars to his (Trump’s) re-election campaign. While the influence of large campaign donors on policy making is a recurring concern across administrations, the scale of these donations with regard to the incoming Trump administration, raises valid concerns about cronyism and how these relationships might shape policymaking. 

2) Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

The establishment of the DOGE with figures like Elon Musk (and Vivek Ramaswamy at the onset), underscores broader concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Tesla’s historical receipt of government funds to innovate in clean energy contrasts with any policy that undermines competitors like Rivian. Canceling Biden-era funding for Rivian, as Ramaswamy had intimated, could:


•Stifle competition in the EV market, undermining innovation.


•Harm Georgia’s economy if the promised 8,000 jobs fail to materialize.


•Reinforce perceptions of favoritism, potentially benefiting Tesla.

3) Regulation Rollbacks

A loosening of regulatory oversight, particularly in critical sectors like healthcare and aviation, could indeed have far-reaching consequences. Historical examples suggest that deregulation:


•May increase corporate profits but often at the expense of public safety or service quality.


•Risks weakening consumer protections, as seen in sectors like banking and energy following similar moves in the past.


4)  Broader Implications


My concern (and that of many well-meaning folks) is about how concentrated wealth and political influence can blur the lines between public service and personal gain. While Trump’s policies have long championed deregulation as a driver of economic growth, the balance between efficiency and accountability will ultimately define public perception of his governance.

Policy Implications for the EV Industry as a result of the possible actions of DOGE and the impact of deregulation, using the Healthcare and Aviation industries as test cases:

Policy Implications for the EV Industry


The competition between Tesla and newer players like Rivian is central to understanding the potential effects of DOGE’s decisions. Here are the key points:


1. Market Competition and Innovation

•Favoritism Risks: If Rivian loses the $6 billion promised by the Biden administration while Tesla continues benefiting from previous subsidies, the playing field could tilt significantly in Tesla’s favor. This reduces competition, which is vital for innovation and cost reduction in the EV market.


•Job Loss and Economic Impact: The proposed Rivian factory in Georgia would generate around 8,000 jobs, directly boosting the local economy. Its cancellation could harm not only the state’s workforce but also U.S. efforts to expand domestic EV manufacturing capacity.


2. Global Leadership in EVs


•Policies favoring one company over others may hinder the U.S.’s ability to compete globally, especially with countries like China, which dominates the EV supply chain and production. A diverse domestic EV ecosystem is critical to achieving energy independence and global competitiveness.


3. Public Perception and Policy Credibility


•Rolling back Rivian’s funding while Tesla remains dominant could spark accusations of bias or corruption, undermining public trust in government energy policies.


Impact of Deregulation


Deregulation in sectors like healthcare and aviation often has mixed results, with both short-term gains for businesses and long-term risks for consumers and workers.


1. Healthcare


•Impact on Safety Standards: Deregulation could loosen controls on drug approvals, hospital standards, and medical device quality. While this might accelerate innovation and reduce costs for companies, it risks patient safety if oversight is weakened.


•Access and Affordability: If deregulation leads to the consolidation of insurance companies or healthcare providers, patients may face fewer options and higher prices in the long run.


2. Aviation


•Safety Concerns: The aviation industry is highly regulated to ensure passenger safety. Reduced oversight could increase the risk of accidents or mechanical failures, as was seen in the aftermath of deregulation in the 1980s. We have already seen that with the tragic air mishaps in Washington D.C. and Philadelphia. 


•Cost vs. Quality Trade-offs: While deregulation might lower ticket prices, it often comes at the cost of service quality (e.g., reduced legroom, increased fees, or overbooked flights).


With no guard rails in place for the incoming Trump administration, balancing efficiency and oversight will be a tall order as Trump will not be favorably disposed to the concept of independent watchdogs. 


Furthermore, policies that support fair competition, especially in the EV industry, through the encouragement of a diverse marketplace that engenders innovation across multiple players, will be abandoned for archaic and authoritarian policies that promote favoritism and stifle competition.


The basic premise for the creation of DOGE was to promote  transparency around funding and policy decisions. It was supposed to help rebuild trust and reduce perceptions of corruption.


Under Trump, with Musk as the main anchor, realizing that aforementioned noble premise will be at best, an illusion. 


America and Americans are in for a long and painful ride. 

Thursday

Laura Ingraham: An epitome of hypocrisy and a walking contradiction of privileged ignorance

Laura Ingraham
CC™ Editorial 

By Deji Fashola (Contributing Editor)

One of the most consistent things in life is time. Time never fails to tell the story. The story of the day, the story of your life and the events that have shaped that very life; but even more importantly, time never fails to remind us of our past, with historical and poignant markers that speak to how our past actions ultimately determine where and who we are, or will become.

For Laura Ingraham, a talk show host of Fox News and someone whom I had never heard of until she name dropped basketball superstar, Lebron James, a few years ago by telling him to shut up and dribble, time has essentially encapsulated the very essence of her being, as it relates to her place in the evolving but contentious conversation about Americas contract with people of African descent, in particular.

I am not a consumer of American news as a matter of principle, be it CNN, Fox, MSNBC or any other alphabet news organization, but one thing I will say having had a glimpse of Fox news in particular, is that the latter (Fox news) is the most brazen attempt at instituting State-run TV in a country that is supposed to be the very epitome of democracy.

Time and time again, we are inundated with the Republican mantra that seemingly serves to eschew the tenets and principles of so-called conservative values. But, what exactly do these values entail. 

According to Laura Ingraham et al, conservative values seek to:

a) Preserve the sanctity of life pre-birth but seemingly abuse and devalue it after birth, especially if the life in question is of the wrong hue.

b) Promote avaricious greed that encourages limitless profit by a very limited few to the detriment of the overwhelming majority.

c) Encourage and promote governmental interference in the lives of others with the exception of those who profess a divine following of a God, whose commandments and ordinances they (the so-called conservatives) never abide by, but project and force on others who merely seek to live and let live.

d) Bully, vilify, slander, defame, abuse and in some cases, seek to intimidate with threats of violence those they disagree with, including defying constituted authority even though the latter's conduct and ordinances are within the framework of the laws and statutes of the land.

A perfect example of this vilification is the Republican messaging of referring to those who ask why the wealthiest nation on earth has more than half of its population without basic healthcare, as socialists.

These same conservatives (Republicans) have no problems though with the government giving away billions of dollars in corporate welfare to big corporations, deemed too big to fail. To them, the average American is too irrelevant and too small to succeed or be cared for, so long as Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Tom "call in the troops" Cotton, Josh "inordinate ambition" Hawley and the always opportunistic Rafael Ted Cruz line their pockets and those of their corporate benefactors.

e) Extol the virtues of democracy and civility when in the majority or win elections but then turn the same institution on its head, refusing to concede when you lose, and then seek to undermine and subvert the will of the people by judicial fiat. And when the latter fails, incite a violent insurrection against the duly elected leadership of the country, namely the Vice President and Congress, a co-equal branch of government, by a sitting President of the United States of America.

The four years of the Trump misrule of incompetence, laced with brazen nepotism, cronyism and racism, as well as unbridled corruption, was undoubtedly egged on by State TV (Fox News), with Sean Hannity (the former construction worker and high school dropout) and Laura Ingraham as the unofficial spokespersons of the Trump-led civilian junta. 

It remains to be seen if the resulting socio-political scars remain embedded in the mental and institutional psyche of the nation, for decades or even generations to come.

Wednesday

Flashback: White Evangelicals Made A Deal With The Devil And Are Still In Bed With Him.

Donald Trump holds a Bible outside St John's Church in Washington DC. Credits: Getty Images
CC™  Viewpoint

By Sarah Jones

In the end, white Christian America stood by its man. The exit polls present an imperfect but definitive picture. At least three-quarters of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump in November, a figure largely unchanged from 2016. Evangelicals didn’t win Trump another four years in power, but not for lack of effort. While most of America tired of the president’s impieties, the born-again found in themselves a higher tolerance for sin.

And the sins are legion, lest we forget. He tear-gassed protesters so he could walk to a D.C. church and hold a Bible upside-down in front of it without interference. He lied and cheated, and smeared women who accused him of sexual assault. He separated migrant children from their parents and staffed his administration with white nationalists. Over a quarter of a million Americans died of coronavirus, while he railed against doctors and scientists trying to save lives. Not even a plague turned evangelicals from their earthly lord. For Trump, the consequences are political and legal. For evangelicals, the fallout has a more spiritual quality. What does it profit a faith to gain a whole country and then lose it, along with its own soul?

Evangelicals had more to lose than Republicans, for reasons I learned in church as a child. You can’t evangelize anyone if your testimony is poor. If you disobey your parents, or wear a skirt that falls above your knees, how can anyone believe you’re saved? Another Sunday School lesson, conveniently forgotten? Be sure that your sin will find you out. Evangelicals bought power, and the bill is coming due. The price is their Christian witness, the credibility of their redemption by God. Evangelicalism won’t disappear after Trump, but its alliance with an unpopular and brutal president could alienate all but the most zealous. 

To be evangelical in the 1990s was to learn fear. The world was so dangerous, and our status in it so fragile. The fossil record was a lie, and scientists knew it. You could not watch the Teletubbies because Jerry Falwell thought the purple one was gay. No Disney, either, and not because Walt had been a fascist; Disneyworld allowed a gay pride day, and in one scene of The Lion King, you could see the stars spell out “sex.” You were lucky to even be alive, to have escaped the abortion mill. The predominantly white evangelical world in which I was raised had created its own shadow universe, a buffer between it and the hostile world. Our parents could put us in Christian schools or homeschool us; if they did risk public school, we could take shelter with groups like YoungLife and the Fellowship Christian of Athletes, which would tell we to make the most of this chance to save souls. We had alternatives for everything; our own pop music, our own kids’ shows, our own versions of biology and U.S. history, and an ecosystem of colleges and universities to train us up in the way we should go: toward the Republican Party, and away from the left, with no equivocation.

Whatever the cause, whatever the rumor, the fear was always the same. It was about power, and what would happen if we lost it. Certain facts, like the whiteness of our congregations and the maleness of our pulpits and the shortcomings of our leaders, were not worth mentioning. You were fighting for God, and God was not racist or sexist; He was only true. The unsaved hated this, it made them angry, and that was proof you were doing the right thing. If “owning the libs” has a discernible origin point, it’s here, in the white evangelical church.

While I was in college and Trump was still a reality show star, evangelicals faced a crisis in the pews. Young people were leaving the church, and they weren’t coming back. The first signs arrived in 2007, in the last hopeful months before the Great Recession. A pair of Christian researchers released a study with troubling implications for the future of the church. Young people aged 16 to 29 were skeptical of Christianity and of evangelicalism in particular, concluded Dave Kinnaman of the Barna Group and Gabe Lyons of the Fermi Group. “Half of young churchgoers said they perceive Christianity to be judgmental, hypocritical, and too political,” they wrote. Among the unchurched, attitudes were even more negative. A mere 3 percent said they had positive views of evangelicalism, a precipitous decline from previous generations.

I interviewed Lyons about his research while I was a student journalist at Cedarville University, a conservative Baptist school in Ohio. By the time I graduated, I’d become one of his statistics, an atheist with a minor in Bible. Trump was not even a glimmer in Steve Bannon’s eye, but the evangelical tradition had already asked me to tolerate many sins. There was George W. Bush and his catastrophic invasion of Iraq; welfare policies that starved the poor; the dehumanization of immigrants, of LGBT people, of women who do not wish to stay pregnant, and my own, non-negotiable submission to men. At some point I realized that I had traveled some distance in my mind, and I could not go back the way I came. I was over it, I was through.

The years after my personal exodus brought with them more proof that the church was in trouble. Partisanship did not entirely explain why. Membership declined fastest in mainline congregations, even though they tend to be more liberal than the independent churches of my youth. Social media has expanded the philosophical marketplace; all Christian traditions face competition from new ideologies for the hearts and minds of the young. But conservative denominations are suffering, too. The Southern Baptist Convention said this June it had experienced its thirteenth consecutive year of membership decline. By age 22, two-thirds of adults who attend Protestant services as teenagers have dropped out of church for at least a year, LifeWay Research found last year, and a quarter cited political disagreements as the reason. An alliance with a president the young largely hated might not lure new generations to the fold.

Years of attrition have taken a toll on white evangelicals, said Robert Jones, the author of White Christian America and the founder of the Public Religion Research Institute. “If you go back a couple of election cycles ago, into Barack Obama’s first election, they were 21 percent of the population, and today they are 15 percent of the population,” he told me. The share of Black evangelicals has remained relatively stable, he added, while the numbers of Latino evangelicals have grown. And while these groups ostensibly share a religious label, politically they are far apart.

“If I take the religious landscape, and I sort religious groups by their support for one candidate or the other, what inevitably happens is that there are no two groups further away from each other in that sorting than white evangelical Protestants and African-American Protestants,” Jones said, adding that Latino evangelicals are “a little more divided.” (Indeed, Trump won significant support from this group in 2020.)

But white evangelicals are still outliers overall: They’re more conservative than other Protestants, more conservative than Catholics, more conservative, in fact, than any other demographic in the country. The implicit claim of the Moral Majority — that it embodied mainstream opinion — always lacked evidence, but it’s become even less true over time. By the time Trump applied Richard Nixon’s label of a “silent majority” to his own coalition, it barely made sense at all. A bloc that can only take the White House through the electoral college, and not the popular vote, only to lose it outright four years later, has no claim to majority status. They are a remnant within a remnant, a nation within a nation.

There are still dissenters. Last year, the outgoing editor of Christianity Today, Mark Galli, called for Trump’s removal from office. Galli wrote the typical approach for his magazine was to “stay above the fray,” and “allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible,” he wrote. But Trump had abused the power of his office and revealed a “grossly deficient moral character.” Galli has since converted to Catholicism, a decision he explained to Religion News Services as being more personal than political.

Others stay. But they can experience a painful friction between their spiritual convictions and political independence. My parents, both pro-life evangelicals, have now voted against Trump twice. I spoke to another by Skype, not long before the election.

I know Marlena Proper Graves from my days at that Baptist university, when I was an upstart college feminist, and she was a resident director and the spouse of a professor. Now the author of two books on faith and a doctoral candidate at Bowling Green State University, Graves worries about the influence of Trump, and Trump’s party, on her beloved church. The word “evangelical,” she noted, had always referred to a constellation of beliefs. “You have a relationship with God, God cares about you, God cares about all people, and Christ is central,” she said, ticking them off. “But now it seems to be something of a culture.” That culture is an exclusionary one. “I’ve been disinvited from events because of my views and activism for immigrants, because it’s controversial,” she said.

When Proper was young, she told me, she listened to Christian radio all the time, just like I did. Preachers and commentators like James Dobson, a famed radio personality and the founder of Focus on the Family, would opine on the issues of the day, on morality, and virtue. “All these people would talk about character,” she said. “How you can’t vote for Bill Clinton in particular because of Monica Lewinsky, because he had affairs.” Then came Trump. “People said, first, that they didn’t think he would win. Then it was all about abortion and judges. I felt like I was being punked,” she remembered. But many evangelicals are in on the joke. Faced with popular rejection and the humiliation of Trump, they declare themselves persecuted, and identify numerous enemies. The mission remains the same: Purify the nation, and pacify the barbarians.

Beyond the usual celebrity preacher scandals, the faith’s place in the broader Christian right required it to make moral compromises it never tolerated among the rank-and-file members of the flock. Our definition of morality narrowed the further up the pyramid you climbed. For the politicians we backed, it shrank to a pinprick point: Ronald Reagan was divorced. What mattered instead to the Moral Majority was his opposition to abortion, his hippie-bashing, his ability to trade in euphemisms about “states’ rights.” Two Bush presidents later, thrice-married Trump gave evangelicals the conservative Supreme Court of their dreams.

As hypocritical as white evangelical support for Trump may look from the outside, the president actually understood his base quite well. Eight years of a Black, liberal president threatened their hegemony. So had the Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. Sarah Posner, an investigative journalist and the author of Unholy: Why White Evangelicals Worship at the Altar of Donald Trump, told me that Trump managed to tap into two key evangelical tendencies. “Those two things were the racial grievances of the white base of the Republican Party, and how televangelism had changed evangelicalism from the 1970s onward,” she said.

Galli, the former Christianity Today editor, believes Trump also appealed to an entrenched evangelical sense of marginalization. By the time same-sex marriage was legalized, public opinion on LGBT rights had already liberalized; the gap between white evangelicals, and everyone else, on matters of sexuality is now wider than it’s ever been. “Here comes Donald Trump, saying it’s OK to be Christian, it’s OK to have your values, it’s OK to practice your values in the public square. And he does this in a very authoritative manner,” Galli explained. Trump didn’t know his Scripture, but he knew there was a war on, and that was enough. The nation’s culture warriors had found their general.

Evangelicals, Galli added, “are deeply suspicious of human authority,” but only to a point. What they may fear, really, is authority they don’t control. “Paradoxically,” he continued, “they are a group that’s attracted to authoritarian leaders, whether that person be a pastor of a megachurch or a dictator.” Those tendencies existed before Trump. With the help of the far-right press, social media, and alternative institutions, they will survive Trump, too.

“I think that the thing that we have to keep our eye on is the ways in which the infrastructure that they built gives them an advantage beyond what their numbers would tell you,” Posner said. Conservative evangelicals already know that they’re no longer the Moral Majority, and they’ve found a way to make it work for them. “They’ll recognize, for example, that they may be in the minority on LGBTQ rights, but in their view, that’s all the more reason that they should be protected by either the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or the First Amendment, in having the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people.”

That infrastructure still churns out new acolytes, who embrace the worst elements of the tradition we all used to share. The same movement that produced me also spawned Madison Cawthorn, a Republican elected to Congress last month. He was born the year the Southern Baptist Convention first apologized for slavery, and he will be the youngest member of Congress when he takes office in January. He’ll also be one of furthest-right Republicans in office, with a personal life that once again tests the bounds of evangelical toleration for sin. Women from his Christian homeschooling community in North Carolina and women who studied with him at the conservative Patrick Henry College have accused him repeatedly of sexual harassment and misconduct. A racist website linked to his campaign criticized a local journalist for leaving academia to “work for non-white males” like Senator Cory Booker, “who aims to ruin white males.” After he won, he celebrated with a tweet. “Cry more, lib,” he wrote.

There’s time for Cawthorn to self-immolate on a pyre of his own sins before he’s old enough to run for president. But there will be other Cawthorns, other white evangelical candidates who will try to master Trumpism-without-Trump. They might not need an army to win, either. The GOP already knows it doesn’t have to be popular to stay in power. They need a radical remnant, and a lot of dirty tricks. Republicans can get what they want by suppressing the vote, or by undermining our confidence in elections. They can protect themselves through the subtle tyranny of inequality, which empowers the wealthy while alienating the most under-represented among us. A party out of step with most voters must either reform, or it must cheat. This, too, is something the modern GOP has in common with the Christian right. Democracy is the enemy. People can’t be trusted with their own souls. Leave them to their own devices, and they make the wrong choices, take the easy way out, threaten everything holy. They need a savior, whether they like it or not.

INTELLIGENCER