Medievalism, Part 2

In Part 1, Congresswoman Greene talked about the futility of fighting climate change. She favors confronting it stoically, as brave people have always done in the face of natural disasters. She declared her love for science when it manifests God’s glory, but she resists the timeline that science assigns to the development of life. She disparaged homosexual marriage because it doesn’t respect Nature’s demand for procreation, and she warned that changes in our sexual mores would soon lead to our extinction. She conceded that she hated Democrats and blamed them for instituting a policy of immigration without quotas. She predicted this blunder would destroy the culture that Americans had come to love.

Obviously, her enmity ran deep. I wanted to explore this further.

Please tell me more about the disputes with Democrats that push you toward hatred. Maybe it’s still possible to find common ground.*

I see you’re slow on the uptake, Ken, so I’ll spell it out for you.

Please do.

In the Democrats, we have a nationwide political party whose policy is to bankrupt the country with socialist spending sprees. They want to wreck the birth rate by wrecking marriage. They want to dilute our culture to the point that “American” loses its meaning. Do they despise America? Obviously. They just have to hold power long enough to see our destruction through to the end.

In 2016, their presidential candidate matched their plans perfectly. Just to look at her and hear her voice — and her laugh! her hideous laugh! — was toxic. She’s the devil’s work, hands down the nastiest bitch who ever entered politics. By the grace of God — and I mean that literally, Ken — the Democrats were too transparent for their own good. The average voter could see the venom in her heart and recoiled. Her evil became even plainer in contrast to her opponent, a man who understood the people’s heart and spoke their language. And don’t think for a minute that his emergence was a fluke. God had a hand in that, too.

Hold on, Marjorie. Do I have this right? You’re telling me that Hillary Clinton is an agent of the devil and Donald Trump is an agent of God? You make it sound like American politics is a battleground where the forces of Good and Evil are engaged.

Bravo, Ken! You put it together! Of course, the battle is far older than America, but America took center stage in colonial times. America is pretty much God’s creation. The Founding Fathers get the credit, but they were given divine wisdom. How often do people marvel that so many political geniuses could exist at the same time and place? Well, it was no accident. God is the founder of the Founding Fathers.

By “God,” you mean the Christian God of the New Testament? Or are you including the God of the Jews as well?

They’re the same God, Ken, but the Jews didn’t agree, and they reject the idea even today.

Are they a lesser people because of that?

I wouldn’t say “lesser,” but not as trustworthy. Only by converting can they be trusted, and even then, how can we know what’s really in their hearts?

And what about people who have always been Christians. Are they automatically trustworthy?

They get the benefit of the doubt, unless there are clear reasons for not trusting them.

That’s too funny! Donald Trump constantly professes his Christianity and love for the Bible, and millions — I’ll include myself — place him among the least trustworthy people in history. Yet you see him as a hero.

Yes, I do. He’s done God’s work, and he’s taken no end of abuse. Even so, he fights on and wants to do more! He’s amazing! He knows what’s at stake — all the devil’s work we’ve been talking about. What if he did urge those patriots to stop the House from certifying Biden? Any right thinking person would do exactly the same. The man is trying his damnedest to save this country! And let me tell you something. If his party doesn’t nominate him in 2024, it won’t matter. Moses never saw the Promised Land, and President Trump may never return to the White House. But his agenda lives on, and that’s because he put it in our hearts! That, at a minimum, will be his legacy.

I agree. I can imagine the Republican Party dissolving over the next two years, only to rise like a phoenix as the Christian Nationalist Party. You and Governor DeSantis have put this label on yourselves. This is simply distilled Trumpism, is it not?

It’s Trumpism whose name has been elevated from a man to an ideal. It tells people what to fight for in just two words.

You don’t foresee the possibility that people will see your rebranding as blatant fascism?

Ha! They will see it as blatant euphoria. It will give every real American a new focus, a new energy.

But what if you’re wrong and your party fails at the polls?

Well, the Democrats will continue with their swindling schemes, that’s certain! It’ll be a call for war, and we’ll be ready.

Ready with angry mobs brandishing their guns?

Let me wise you up about guns, Ken. Guns are instruments of freedom. They’ve changed history for the good. Without them, tyranny would rule the world. With them, ordinary, peace-loving people feel secure. So, yes, people will brandish their guns — and use them!

Marjorie, you can’t be serious. U.S. military forces can fight from the air and with firepower that will overwhelm any attack against the government. You know this. You’re talking suicidal nonsense.

And you’re talking about conventional war. I’m not thinking of replaying the Civil War. I’m thinking of replaying the Vietnam War. But even that isn’t right because in our case the opposing populations are integrated. I guess the closest model would be gang warfare.

I see your point, but even so, your party would be outlawed. It would be disorganized, without funding, and excluded from political power. Your fighters would have almost no mobility or access to advanced technology. The road would be bloody, and the Second Amendment would vanish forever. The consequences for people who hold your values would be devastating.

[She pauses and stands.] Ken, I think you’ve just brought this interview to an end point. Really, no more needs to be said.

I suppose you’re right. It got pretty intense. Even though our values are very different, I want to thank you for your frankness. You put a lot on the table. I hope you accomplished what you came here to do.

I did, but frankly, you dip your oar in the water too often for my liking. After all, this was to be an interview about me.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, there’s a political strategist I need to fire.

* See Confession.

Medievalism, Part 1

Marjorie Taylor Greene is a polarizing, far-right politician who represents Georgia’s 14th congressional district. She peddles conspiracy theories, tosses off racist remarks, ardently opposes abortion, immigration, and gay rights, and happily serves as a Trump echo chamber. But you probably knew all that already. What you certainly don’t know is that she called me last week and asked that I interview her and publish the transcript on this blog.* I was dumbstruck.

I stammered something incredibly insincere, like “I’m flattered that you thought of me,” and recovered with, “But our political views are poles apart. How could my name have entered your mind?” Her answer was another surprise. “I want people to know me better. And I realized that what I have to say would be much better received if it was reported by someone who, politically, has practically nothing in common with me.” Then she flattered me with, “People tell me that your commitment to fairness is as strong as anyone who writes about politics. That was all I needed to hear.” “True words,” I said, laughing, “but you should expect some hardball questions.” “Of course, Ken,” she replied.

We met on a Saturday in my San Jose office. I was impressed that she had flown out to see me, and thanked her for it. We chatted about her flight and the miserable summer heat. When the smalltalk trailed off, I motioned at my voice recorder and asked, “Shall we?”

Marjorie, apropos of this sweltering weather, do you accept that we’re going through a climate change?

I do, Ken, but that’s not really a controversial question. Practically every year, average temperatures rise around the world, and ocean levels rise as glaciers melt. But can we do anything about it? As of last year, fossil fuels supplied 79% of our energy needs and supported 10.3 million jobs. That’s more or less what they supplied a decade ago. The growth in renewable energy sources has been piddling, and no one is predicting explosive growth in the future. What about the rest of the world? Their rates in the growth of renewables are mostly worse than ours. Face facts. We need to stop whining about greenhouse gases and figure out how to roll with the punches.

So you’re giving up. You’re saying there’s nothing we can do?

Pretty much. There’s nuclear power, but everyone’s afraid of it. Germany would rather burn coal than go nuclear.

It sounds like you’re taking a “fix it or forget it” position. What about mitigation? Surely we can mitigate the disastrous effects of unchecked climate change.

How would we do that, Ken? By adopting Biden’s Green New Deal? If we did that, we’d bankrupt the USA and make Communist China the richest, most powerful nation in the world. The Democrats are determined to force us to drive electric vehicles, but EVs won’t run without special batteries made from rare earth elements. And where are those elements found in greatest abundance? You guessed it. No other country comes close. In a decade or so, Communist China will be to the rest of the world what we were 75 years ago. We will be a declining mediocrity.

You’re such an alarmist, Marjorie. First, rare earths aren’t all that rare; the name is misleading. Second, the batteries in EVs and other high-tech gadgets rely mostly on lithium and cobalt, neither of which is a rare earth. Third, our reliance on lithium and cobalt is far from indefinite. Apple is developing plans to use only renewable resources and recycled materials in their products; others will follow their lead. So go out and buy an EV, and continue to use your iPhone with a light heart.

You must be getting your facts from left-wing publications, Ken. But I accepted that risk when I chose you.

Marjorie, your disdain for renewable energy solutions and lack of alarm over climate change make me wonder … are you anti-science?

Heck no — I love science! For example, that new telescope that’s sending us all those thrilling pictures. It’s got me on the edge of my seat.

What is it exactly that thrills you?

It’s God, Ken! He’s revealing himself to us. In biblical times, he talked to a few of us directly, and he spoke through his son, Jesus. Some of the saints have heard his voice, but today he reveals himself through signs. And what signs these pictures are! All Moses got was a burning bush, but we have billions of galaxies each burning with the fire of billions of stars! And there’s so much more. Vast dark spheres with a ripping pull that can’t be resisted, oddly shaped expanses that hold the fragments of exploded stars, billions of miles of star dust dotted with concentrations that become new stars. How can anyone not drop to their knees at these sights?

Marjorie, I’ve never heard you talk so rapturously. You’re almost another person. But I’m curious … part of the mission of the JWST is to help us envision the universe as it was less than a billion years after the Big Bang. Another part is to analyze the atmospheres of exoplanets for signs of life, perhaps intelligent life. What do you think of claims that the universe is over 14 billion years old, or that we may share the universe with life forms whose intelligence is greater than ours.

Ken, I think you know that God didn’t create the Earth until the third day, and he didn’t create the Sun until the fourth day. It wasn’t till the sixth day that he created man. Only when Adam saw one cycle of daylight and darkness pass did the concept of “a day” come into being. So how long really were the first five so-called “days” of creation? We don’t know. Maybe they lasted 14 billion years.

As for the idea that beings more intelligent than us may be in the universe — no. The Bible says God made a covenant with the Jews, but if you read deeply, you realize that he made a covenant with all humans. People are special to God. He made us in his image and made our intelligence an echo of his intelligence. He didn’t make squirrels in his image, and he wouldn’t make Bingonians from the planet Bingo in his image. Nor would he give them a bigger share of his intellect. That would diminish our dearness to him and destroy the covenant.

Marjorie, please. Do you really think the first five days of creation might have been eons? God actually putzed around for 14 billion years before he created Adam? That doesn’t sound very omnipotent. Do you suppose he needed rest periods?

Scoff if you like. As I said, we don’t know. What we do know is that God is an eternal being. Time means nothing to him. You’re imposing human notions of time on eternity.

True enough. It’s the only frame of reference we humans have. But tell me more about your love of science. According to Genesis, on the sixth day God said, “Let the land produce living creatures.” That’s Adam and cats and dogs and pigs and goats, and dinosaurs. Scientists have trouble with that grouping. They say dinosaurs appeared and disappeared tens of millions of years before mankind appeared. How does that disagreement affect your love of science?

That’s an area of science that’s mistaken — for now. Science continually amends itself, which is what makes science so admirable. Some day, carbon dating will be discredited. In fact, the theory of evolution will eventually be discredited.

Don’t hold your breath, Marjorie. Using radioactive decay to measure the age of fossils has improved with time, and in 37 more years the theory of evolution will be 200 years old. I’d say that “eventually” has come and gone.

Well, it’s pointless to debate this. We’ll probably both be gone before a winner is declared.

This may be a good point for me to make a generalization about the way my mind works. I freely admit that I’m simple-minded, but not in the way you think, Ken. I’m not saying that I’m simple, as in stupid. I’m saying that when questions arise about politics, economics, human rights, or morality, I look for simple answers. A simple answer is one that has a compelling rightness. We understand it at once, and an inner voice says, “Of course!” Not all of life’s important questions have simple answers, but a great many do.

Can you give some examples of consequential questions and the simple answers to them?

No problem. Take homosexuality. Is it normal? No, it’s not, and it’s stunningly obvious that it’s not. In every society since the word “society” was a thing, homosexuality has been abhorrent. Why is that? Because the need to reproduce is an imperative of nature, and you can’t have babies if all you crave is homosexual sex. Let’s go a step further. All societies approve of marriage. That makes sense because it’s the best idea we’ve come up with for promoting procreation in a nurturing environment. But how about homosexual marriage. Is that a good idea? No, it’s a silly idea. Marriage without procreation negates the very purpose of the institution. If two people want sex without the possibility of impregnation, fine, but that’s not marriage.

What about all the heterosexual couples who get married to mark their devotion to each other but who don’t want children?

Well, if they’re sure of that beforehand, they have no business getting married. It’s that simple.

What about adoption? Would you allow a gay couple to adopt? And what about a childless couple adopting?

No to the gays. They can’t model a heterosexual relationship. It’s a recipe for maladjusted children. But I’d say yes to the childless straight couple, provided they were childless for medical reasons. They really want to parent.

Marjorie, when do you suppose the first marriage took place?

Ha! Such an odd question. I guess it was in the Garden of Eden, with God blessing the union of Adam and Eve. And it became a sacrament from then on.

Where do you think we’ve found the earliest records of marriages?

I have no idea, Ken.

It was in Mesopotamia, and ensuring the continuation of society was not the motive for inventing marriage. Men, especially powerful men, wanted more control over women. They wanted to keep an eye on the women they impregnated so that these women alone could claim giving birth to an heir. Naturally, women in this role would be regarded as property.

I also have simple thoughts. One of them is that procreation has never been or ever will be a societal problem. The human sex drive is too strong to make depopulation a serious concern. Only a cataclysmic war or an apocalyptic act of nature could end our species. You don’t agree?

No, I don’t agree at all. As I’ve said many times, if our obsession with the rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders, and other sexual misfits doesn’t stop soon, procreation will end in just a few more generations. The Democrats are leading humanity off a cliff.

I’m glad you brought them up. I get the impression that the days of “the loyal opposition” are gone, and they’re now regarded with genuine hatred. Would it be accurate, Marjorie, to say that you hate Democrats?

Wow, that’s a tough one, Ken. Hatred does not come easily to me, and I resist giving that name to my feelings about Democrats. But their ideas are so destructive to what I hold dear. I don’t want to live in the world they want to create. They are my enemies, truly, and it’s so hard to deal with enemies without letting feelings of hate creep in.

Take, for example, the question of immigration. At least once in every great civilization, there is an idyllic time of peace, security, and prosperity. America had that in the 50s. We were the envy of the world, and then came the unrest of the 60s. Under President Johnson and a Democrat congress, our quota system ended. Since then, the number of immigrants in America has quadrupled. According to projections, immigrants and their descendants will account for 88% of our population growth by 2065! The process the Democrats started in 1965 will wipe away American culture in one century!

Let me tell you about the greatest misconception in American history. It’s the idea that calling America a “great melting pot” is a proud truth. Imagine an actual melting pot into which you add iron, tin, nickel, aluminum, lithium, and magnesium, as well as some gold and silver — an indiscriminate mix of metals. You invent a new alloy. What is it, though? Does it have any particular characteristics, any useful purpose? Or is it just a nondescript hodgepodge?

Why do you take it for granted that cultural diversity produces a “nondescript hodgepodge”? Let’s change the metaphor to one of weaving. Perhaps what we’re seeing is an emergent tapestry, full of vibrant colors and beguiling patterns that delight the eye. Why is my glass full and yours bone dry?

Ken, your glass is full because you have a talent for spinning fairy tales, just like so many of your left-leaning colleagues. Get real. Tapestry weavers are craftsmen of the highest order. They work as if they shared a single mind. Immigrants are tribal. Each race and ethnicity is an interest group; they see oppression and discrimination everywhere they look. If their complaints aren’t handled to their satisfaction, look out. They become a mob. In the 50s, there were no mass protests. Now they occur every week or so. Nothing could be further from an “emergent tapestry.” [She snickers.]

Well, our views of what our world is now and what it can be are diametrically different. Please tell me more about the disputes with Democrats that push you toward hatred. Maybe it’s still possible to find common ground.

* See Confession.