How to live above the partisan noise of our day

Some news is tragic no matter your politics, such as Friday’s announcement that Gene Hackman died from heart disease and Alzheimer’s a week after his wife died of a respiratory illness linked to rodents. But some news make headlines precisely because of politics, such as the comments of MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace and Rachel Maddow following President Trump’s speech to Congress last week. Both focused on DJ Daniel, a thirteen-year-old brain cancer survivor who has always dreamed of being a police officer. During the speech, the president said to him, “I am asking our new Secret Service director, Sean Curran, to officially make you an agent of the United States Secret Service.”

After the speech, Wallace said, “I hope he has a long life as a law enforcement officer,” but added that she hopes he “never has to defend the United States Capitol against Donald Trump’s supporters.” Maddow called Daniel’s inclusion in Mr. Trump’s speech “disgusting,” accusing the president of making a “spectacle” of the boy’s illness while claiming that DOGE cuts have “cut off funding for ongoing research into pediatric cancer.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called their responses “sad and frankly pathetic.” And DJ’s father said Maddow “needs to shut her mouth if she has nothing nice to say.” He added, “This lady didn’t even serve time in the military. I was on the USS Kitty Hawk. She does not need to put her bad energy on us.”

Why we need “two strong and healthy parties”

The first time I traveled in Europe, I was surprised to discover the monolithic nature of the various cultures I experienced. Most of these countries have a history dating back millennia. Over the centuries, many have self-selected into particular demographics, languages, and societies.

When people came from these various countries to the New World, however, they created a nation of colonies that became states, many with widely different cultures. The Founders’ solution was to make a governmental system that recognized and gave agency to these various constituents.

As Yuval Levin shows in his brilliant book, American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again, the checks and balances built into our governance are a feature, not a bug. Our leaders are elected by districts and regions with very specific social features. Then they work together to represent these constituencies while serving the common good. Our president is the only leader elected by the entire nation; everyone else represents America’s broad diversity in hopes of fulfilling our national motto, E Pluribus Unum, “out of many, one.”

As a result, partisan agendas and political parties that reflect and advance them are a necessary part of our democracy. As Peggy Noonan writes in her latest Wall Street Journal column, “two strong and healthy parties vying for popular support is good for the country.”

Who was “the most trusted man in America”?

While our governance was intended to represent the spectrum of subjective partisan politics, the media is a different story. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of the press. But no one elects the press, nor are they paid a government salary for their service. As a result, media is a business that must make money, typically through subscribers and advertisers.

For much of my lifetime, they did so by being objective. People watched Walter Cronkite each evening because he was widely considered “the most trusted man in America.” No one knew what partisan views he espoused personally. Media platforms made money by appealing to the broadest possible audiences, primarily through their objectivity. Newspapers had opinion sections, of course, and were known in these sections for partisan alignments, but the rest of the paper was thought to be objective reporting.

Then came cable news, disrupting the “big three” networks by offering a plethora of competitors, and social media, disrupting the “legacy” news organizations in the same way. Competition for “eyeballs and clicks” grew fierce. As analytical data enabled platforms to target specific demographics, media began focusing on particular partisan audiences. Companies began advertising on platforms targeting the audiences they felt were most likely to buy or consume their products.

As a result, Nicolle Wallace and Rachel Maddow know precisely the political views of their constituents and spoke to them after the president’s address. Those who disagree with these views will obviously disagree with their comments. Those who agree with these views will applaud their responses.

The Founders relied on a commitment to objective truth and consensual biblical morality to unify the disparate factions of the nation. Now that our “post-truth,” post-Christian culture has abandoned both, it is hard to see a path forward for our secularized society short of a unifying national crisis.

The good news is that there is a way to live above partisan noise and conflict available to any who will choose it.

“It’s not about success and failure”

The Westminster Shorter Catechism states, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.”

The former leads to the latter.

Because we are “created for [his] glory” (Isaiah 43:7), we are to “glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:20) and in all we do: “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).

This is not because God is a divine egotist. Rather, when we seek to honor and revere God, we humble ourselves as creatures before our Creator. We serve a cause greater than our fallen “will to power” and partisan agendas. And the closer we get to him, the closer we draw to each other.

In this way, when our “chief end is to glorify God,” we “enjoy him forever”—in this world and the next.

Pastor and author Mark Batterson wrote:

“It’s not about success and failure. It’s not about good days and bad days. It’s not about wealth or poverty. It’s not about health or sickness. It’s not even about life or death. It’s about glorifying God in whatever circumstance you find yourself in.”

Do you agree?

Quote for the day:

“We must learn that the glory of God is to be preferred before all other things.” —Ezekiel Hopkins (1633–1690)

Our latest website articles:

• Why you should go back and watch the Gather25 Conference: Finding hope in what God is already doing around the world
• Meet Donna Kalil: the first woman to hunt pythons full-time: “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction”
• Dolly Parton’s husband dies at 82: What we don’t know about people doesn’t change their reality
• A review of Mark Sayers’ “Non-anxious Presence”: How to lead in an unstable culture
• Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame? A reflection on sin, forgiveness, and consequences

Denison Forum

Why trust is the quality we can least afford to lose

News broke Thursday morning that President Trump was planning to sign an executive order instructing newly appointed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin dismantling the Department of Education. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt quickly wrote on X that such an order would not be signed on Thursday, though it’s perhaps telling that she did not refute the idea that such an order could come soon.

As of this morning, that order has still not been signed, though the situation could change quickly. And while the timing is still uncertain, Trump seemed to indicate that it won’t be long: “I want to just do it . . . I mean, we’re starting the process. We’re trying to get the schools back into the states.”

But why is dismantling the department such a high priority for the President? And what would it look like if he was able to succeed in doing so?

Before we can answer those questions, we first need to understand a bit more about what the Department of Education actually does.

What does the Department of Education do?

Congress created the Department of Education in 1979 to consolidate the various education programs that had previously been spread among different agencies. Ronald Reagan campaigned on dismantling it the following year, and seeing the department dissolved back into its disparate elements has been a goal for many Republicans ever since.

But while the department is responsible for a variety of education-related services, it doesn’t have nearly as much of an impact on high school and below as you might think. The states still set the curriculum and local school boards have far more influence over what is taught and how schools are run than the federal government.

Moreover, the states pay for roughly 90 percent of public education, with the remainder coming from the federal level. Still, that 10 percent is often enough for the federal government to wield a good bit of influence over what is taught, as evidenced by both the push for LGBTQ rights under Biden and warnings against the “indoctrination” of children under Trump.

The bulk of the Department’s energy and resources, however, is aimed at programs intended to support low-income children or those with disabilities, as well as grants and student loans for those continuing their education beyond high school. Were Trump to be successful, those responsibilities would return to other areas within the government.

Given that completely dissolving the Department of Education would require sixty votes in the Senate—Republicans currently have a 53-seat majority—it’s unlikely that the President will be able to accomplish his goal. And McMahon acknowledged as much in her confirmation hearings. Instead, the most likely outcome is that anything that can be jettisoned or reassigned will be, with the remainder forming a shell of what the department is today.

Would such a shift solve the problem? More than 60 percent of Americans seem dubious, though the latest polling also shows that both confidence in public schools and satisfaction with the quality of education they provide are not trending in the right direction.

Change of some sort is clearly needed, and it’s not hard to see why.

When trust is lost

In a recent article for Law & Liberty, Frederick M. Hess analyzed the loss of trust that many parents still harbor against the public education system in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Early on, when so much was still unknown about the virus, closing schools seemed like a necessary and correct precaution. As Hess points out, though, “By summer 2020, it was increasingly clear that kids weren’t at risk and weren’t major sources of spread.”

At that point, it made sense for schools to open back up to in-person learning, and many did while taking precautions like requiring masks, social distancing, and other steps that were—at that time—considered helpful to prevent the spread of the virus.

However, many not only remained closed but were heavily critical of any suggestions they should do otherwise. Their resolute rejection of calls to return to the classroom, coupled with clear evidence that the closures were “having devastating effects on youth learning, well-being, and mental health,” eroded much of the confidence parents used to have in the institutions entrusted with their children.

The fact that teachers were not considered “essential workers” in the same vein as doctors, sanitation workers, and grocery store clerks further inclined many to question the significance of their role.

To be clear, that assessment is not accurate for most teachers, who are routinely underpaid while devoting long hours and their last shreds of sanity to foster an environment in which children can learn and grow. And it seems like most parents still trust the individual teachers responsible for instructing their kids.

However, public trust in the teachers’ unions and the larger apparatus that enabled so many Covid-era policies to endure beyond the point of necessity in many parts of the country has not returned. And there’s an important lesson in that reality for each of us today.

The first step to rebuilding trust

For the most part, people understand that we’re not perfect. All of us make mistakes, and what matters most is what we do after. Will we try to explain away our errors, or even double down on the notion that we’ve been right all along? Or will we own up to them, ask forgiveness, and try to make things right going forward?

Having the humility to admit when we’re wrong is the first step toward rebuilding trust, and that’s just as true for you and me as it is for presidents, union leaders, and everyone in between.

Fortunately, today is likely to bring each of us the chance to practice such humility in the face of our mistakes. The question then becomes, how quickly will you take advantage of that opportunity? Will you respond in arrogance and defiance or humbly admit your mistake and ask for forgiveness?

Which path you choose is likely to have a profound impact on the degree to which others feel like they can trust you in the future. And, considering the impact of our witness is based largely on the degree to which people find us trustworthy, learning to face our mistakes well should be among our highest priorities.

I don’t know what will ultimately happen to the Department of Education, but I suspect its fate would be different—or at least the path to its dismantling more difficult to tread—if public trust in its institutions and those in charge of them were higher. And while their response to the pandemic was not the only reason why that trust has waned, it certainly had a role to play for many parents and citizens.

Will the same be true in your life? Will you move forward as if your sins and mistakes never happened, or will you own them and ask for forgiveness?

Only one of those answers can position you to experience the fullness of God’s loving mercy and help others to do the same.

Which will you choose today?

Quote of the day:

“Nothing sets a person so much out of the devil’s reach as humility.” —Jonathan Edwards

Our latest website articles:

• Buying the “Cheetozard” and playing Monopoly with apps
• Why you should go back and watch the Gather25 Conference
• A review of Mark Sayers’ “Non-anxious Presence”
• The latest on tariffs, Ukraine, and Gaza
• Oval Office showdown, more tariffs, Oscars results & a landscaping hot take

Denison Forum

“An extraordinary display of partisan scuffling”

President Donald Trump spoke to a joint session of Congress last night. This was not a State of the Union address. Rather, it followed the precedent set by President Reagan in 1981 and continued by every president since as they delivered speeches to Congress and the nation in the months after being inaugurated.

The one-hour, forty-minute address was the longest of its kind. Mr. Trump defended his policies, casting his first month in office as the most successful in history. He said he received a letter earlier in the day from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, saying he was ready to sign a proposed minerals deal between the two nations. And Mr. Trump said the mastermind of a 2021 bombing during the US withdrawal from Afghanistan had been detained.

However, seven minutes into the speech, Rep. Al Green (D., Texas) was escorted out of the chamber after rising from his seat and shouting at the president. Numerous other Democrats marched out of the chamber of their own accord; by the time the address was over, their side of the aisle was half empty.

Many Democratic women wore bright pink in a display of defiance. Some Democrats held up protest signs during the address. Others refused to attend; one hosted a Facebook Live town hall instead.

The Hill called Democrats’ actions “an extraordinary display of partisan scuffling even by the standards of the polarized modern era.”

The higher the stakes, the higher the emotions

If you support President Trump and his policies, you probably find these responses frustrating. If you agree with the Democrats, you may find their responses appropriate and even necessary.

We can wish for a system of governance that is less fraught with partisan conflict. But I have witnessed personally the alternatives available today and cannot recommend them to you.

I have traveled over the years in Cuba, China, and Russia. None see protests within their governments against their leaders, but this is because they are led by autocrats who severely punish dissent. By contrast, dissent and even chaos are common features when parliaments meet in the UK, Israel, and similar countries. This is because all (or at least most) of the viewpoints held in their nations are represented in their governments—often loudly.

Political opposition and division have been a part of American governance throughout our history. In the presidential election of 1800, for instance, John Adams’ camp warned that should Thomas Jefferson win the presidency, the US would become a nation where “murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will openly be taught and practiced.” Jefferson’s camp in turn called Adams a “gross hypocrite” and “one of the most egregious fools on the continent.”

The higher the stakes, the higher the emotions.

What has changed over the years is the degree to which politics have become a religion for many. At the same time church membership and identification with Christianity have declined, political issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage have become more urgent and polarizing. Social media has enabled many to find community not in a religious congregation but within “tribes” of political alliance and allegiance. Demonizing the other side has become a central strategy of political campaigns and engagement.

As Gerard Baker laments in the Wall Street Journal, traditional media has taken on this religious tenor, advancing partisan agendas as orthodoxies and marginalizing or canceling those who disagree. Rather than holding leaders and parties accountable as neutral arbiters of nonpartisan fairness, they have become “like prayer books for a believing congregation . . . tending to the emotional well-being of committed believers.”

When politics replace religion

When politics replace religion, here are some consequences:

• If our nation is to flourish, our leaders must be infallible, since we have no higher authority to trust.
• Our citizens must be infallible in their political choices and personal conduct, since we have no wisdom or accountability beyond our own.
• Those who disagree with us are by definition the enemies of what is right and good and must be opposed in any manner necessary.
• Vengeance and retribution are ensured when the other side inevitably regains power.

As a result, participatory governance fails, leading either to autocracy or civil war.

By contrast, Julian of Norwich (1342–c. 1416) testified: “God is the ground and the substance, the very essence of nature; God is the true father and mother of natures.” When we worship and serve him as our Lord and King, making our political aspirations and engagements a means to the end of loving our Lord and our neighbor (Matthew 22:37–39), here are some consequences:

• We know that our leaders are fallen and fallible, so we pray for them (1 Timothy 2:1–2) and support them (Romans 13:1–7). If we must choose, however, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
• We know that citizens are fallen and fallible, so we hold each other accountable to biblical truth and morality with honesty, compassion, and humility (Ephesians 4:2, 15).
• Those who disagree with us are opponents rather than enemies, so we treat them with the respect we would wish from them (Matthew 7:12).
• Vengeance and retribution are rejected, forgiving as we have been forgiven by Christ (1 John 1:9).

As a result, participatory governance flourishes as the means by which we serve each other to the glory of God (cf. Acts 2:42–47; 4:32–37).

Abraham Lincoln famously warned, “As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” The choice is ours.

“Words which do not give the light of Christ”

As you respond to last night’s presidential address to Congress, will you view those with whom you disagree through the lens of religious charity or political division? Will your words and actions promote gracious unity or partisan rancor? Will they enhance your witness for Christ or drive people further from your faith?

Mother Teresa noted,

“Words which do not give the light of Christ increase the darkness.”

Which kind of “words” are more common in our culture?

Which kind will you share with the world today?

Quote for the day:

“Our forgiving love toward men is the evidence of God’s forgiving love in us.” —Andrew Murray

Our latest website articles:

• Why are celebrities dressing in immoral ways? “I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?” (Job 31:1)
• The power of being seen & valued

• Adrien Brody’s second Oscar puts him in rare company: Why “you’ve got to be believed to be heard”
• A review of Rebecca McLaughlin’s “No Greater Love”: A call to see friendship as an extension of our faith
• Will Pope Francis resign? Should he? “Stay faithful to the last word you heard from God”

Denison Forum