Some More Musings About Civics

Over at Dakota Free Press, Cory provides an excellent line-by-line analysis of HB 1066, legislation designed to enact Governor Noem's proposal to mandate every South Dakota high school student pass a civics test before graduation. 

I have been snarky about the various civics requirements being advanced during the 2019 South Dakota legislative session.  This proposal and and silly sticker legislation are egregiously bad.

What is the civics test or sticker supposed to accomplish? The Brookings Institution asserts that civics education goes beyond memorizing facts:

The aim of civics education is broader and includes providing students with an understanding of how democratic processes work, as well as how to engage in these processes. A high-quality civics education thus includes opportunities for students to engage in activities within the classroom that model what democratic processes look like, as well as opportunities to participate in the civic life of their communities and learn from this participation as a formal part of their coursework.

It might be useful to adapt the goals of the Center of Civic Education to a civics curriculum. Students should, 

1. Gain "an increased understanding of the institutions of constitutional democracy and the fundamental principles and values upon which they are founded"  

2. Acquire"the skills necessary to participate as competent and responsible citizens,"  

3. Develop the "willingness to use democratic procedures for making decisions and managing conflict," 

4. Become part of "an enlightened citizenry by working to increase understanding of the principles, values, institutions, and history of constitutional democracy. . . ."

The American Federation of Teachers asserts "[w]hen civics education is taught effectively, it can equip students with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to become informed and engaged citizens."

Neither a test nor a sticker will help develop skills necessary to participate in local, state, or national government. More importantly, neither will solve the problem of apathy or misinformation. Earlier today, David Montgomery, a former Sioux Falls Argus Leader reporter re-tweeted the following screen grab.

The desire to seek news has decreased and headlines, not the article's content, dominate news consumption. It's doubtful that a civics test or sticker will change those habits.

If the goal of a mandated civics test is to make students better citizens, advocates of tests or stickers have the burden of proof to show how the test will change social media behavior and help develop the skills and desire to participate in civic life. As written, the bills may help students regurgitate facts, but belching facts does not help civic discourse.

Representatives Pischke and Brunner and Senator Nelson Embrace Marriage Equality

Ok, the post's title might be overselling the point a bit, but Pischke, Brunner, and Nelson are becoming more inclusive. They want South Dakota's legal definition of adultery to apply to every married person.

If their legislation passes, a married person who has voluntary sex with a person not his or her legal spouse will be guilty of adultery. It won't matter if the person is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or straight.

Pischke, Brunner, and Nelson are co-sponsoring HB 1107 which changes South Dakota's legal definition of adultery. If HB 1107  passes, state law will read, "Adultery is the voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with any other person to whom he or she is not married."

Currently, the law reads, "Adultery is the voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with one of the opposite sex to whom he or she is not married."

The definition of adultery is found in section 25-4 of South Dakota's Codified Laws. That section covers divorce. Pischke, Brunner, and Nelson are acting like social liberals and allowing aggrieved same-sex spouses to use adultery as grounds for divorce.

It is a little odd that folks who have strenuously argued for the sanctity of marriage would make it easier for anyone to divorce

In fact, some cynical folk might argue that the legislation is being being proposed as a form of sour grapes in reaction to Obergefell decision which legalized same-sex marriage. Those folks might contend that these legislators are making divorce easier for marriages that the legislators never considered valid.

I will be curious to see if anyone argues against this legislation because it removes from state law the premise that marriage is between one man and one woman. 

Repeat After Me: Political Cults Of Personality Are Bad

Donald Trump ascended to the presidency and shut down the government because he has a cult like following. He demonstrated his understanding of this fact when he said, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters." Like all cults, the Trump Cult has a talisman, the MAGA cap.

Any Republican readers who stop by will undoubtedly mutter to themselves "what about Kennedy or the Clintons or Obama." Please read the post's title.

Kamala Harris declared herself a candidate for president on Monday.Today, The Hill reports that Harris will be getting her own action figure because at least one person believes she's a step ahead of us mere mortals:

“Think of the impact California has had on our culture,” FCTRY CEO Jason Feinberg said in a statement about the company’s Harris doll. “Same-sex marriage. Computers, of course. Movies. Even small things like avocado toast! As a proud New Yorker, it’s a little hard to admit this, but California always figures things out a bit before the rest of us.” 

“Right now it’s hard to look at Kamala Harris and not get that same sense,” Feinberg said.

I have nothing against action figures. I own a William Shakespeare action figure, several Wonder Woman action figures, an Albert Einstein action figure, a Xena, Warrior Princess action figure, and a Doug Mientkiewicz bobblehead. I also live in a rudderless country presided over by a megalomaniac who claimed that he "alone [could] fix it."

I also have nothing against Harris. She announced her candidacy a few days ago and has not demonstrated any of Trump's megalomania. That said, the past few years have once again shown it's best to not underestimate the idiocy of fervent people overly invested in a single person. It would be far better to replace the Trump cult with a boring, competent president rather than a person venerated by a different cult.

Excuse me while I go look for my Sigmund Freud and Annie Oakley action figures. I want to make sure the packages are in mint condition.

What All The Civics Education Proposals Miss: BS Detection 101

The 2019 South Dakota Legislative Session is awash in civics legislation and proposals. HB 1051 will put a sticker on diplomas of students who "demonstrate competencies" in the following:

(1)    An understanding of the basic principles of American democracy and how those principles are applied in a republican form of government;
(2)    An understanding of the Constitutions of the United States and of this state;
(3)    Knowledge of the founding documents and how those documents shape the nature and function of the government; and
(4)    An understanding of landmark United States Supreme Court cases and the impact of those cases on law and society.

SB 52 requires a semester of civics education. Governor Noem wants students to pass the citizenship test.

There's nothing inherently wrong with any of those proposals, but they miss the point. Any civics education program should begin with long unit on BS detection. I'd suggest this video as start. It has the basis of two weeks worth of lessons if not more.

Plains Pops: Pleasant Stuff Edition

While some may say that most of my musings aren't really worth full posts, "Plains Pops" is just a collection of items that I want to draw attention to with little comment. Today, as the title indicates, it's pleasant stuff

First, his answers at the first 2019 Legislative Cracker Barrel prove once again that Representative Ryan Cwach is a damn fine legislator even if he is a rookie. The Yankton Press and Dakotan coverage is here.

Second, local businessman Ben Hanten has started a podcast called The Lanyard. According to the description, Hanten will "be interviewing someone who is building an interesting business or helping to make their community a little more interesting." Today's inaugural discussion was with Sister Maribeth Wenztlaff, the prioress of the Yankton Benedictines.

Finally, this graphic just made me laugh. It came through my timeiine as an @joshbarro retweet of an @tpcarney tweet. I suspect it may be a good metaphor for how Americans of different political persuasions see the world.

Quotation Of The Day: Is Donald Trump Trying To Make The Rest Of Us As Miserable As He Is?

I have to ask because this George Will analysis resonates with me.

By his comportment, the president benefits his media detractors with serial vindications of their disparagements. They, however, have sunk to his level of insufferable self-satisfaction by preening about their superiority to someone they consider morally horrifying and intellectually cretinous. For most Americans, President Trump’s expostulations are audible wallpaper, always there but not really noticed. Still, the ubiquity of his outpourings in the media’s outpourings gives American life its current claustrophobic feel. This results from many journalists considering him an excuse for a four-year sabbatical from thinking about anything other than the shiny thing that mesmerizes them by dangling himself in front of them.

Dislike of him should be tempered by this consideration: He is an almost inexpressibly sad specimen. It must be misery to awaken to another day of being Donald Trump. He seems to have as many friends as his pluperfect self-centeredness allows, and as he has earned in an entirely transactional life. His historical ignorance deprives him of the satisfaction of working in a house where much magnificent history has been made. His childlike ignorance — preserved by a lifetime of single-minded self-promotion — concerning governance and economics guarantees that whenever he must interact with experienced and accomplished people, he is as bewildered as a kindergartener at a seminar on string theory.

I'm never going to turn a phrase as well as George Will, so I won't try. I don't know about Trump's personal friendships and I don't really care. I know that all of us seem to think less and yell more whenever we discuss political issues. In short, Trump has brought us down to his level. I certainly feel suffocated by the oxygen that he takes out of the room, but ignoring him, a action that most other politicians make easy, is nearly impossible. He's driving a bulldozer through a china shop without worrying about the damage he's doing or those who will have to clean it up.

A Minor Musing On South Dakota SB 55 And God In Schools

I am bewildered as to why Senate Bill 55 exists. SB 55 requires that the national motto In God We Trust "shall be displayed in each public school. The display shall be located in a prominent location within each public school. The display may take the form of a mounted plaque, student artwork, or any other appropriate form as determined by the school principal."

When I had the privilege to teach world literature classes, I taught a unit on the Bible. I frequently supplemented the textbook with the Garden of Eden, David and Goliath, and Saul on the Road to Damascus passages. When I taught The Grapes of Wrath, I spent a class period discussing how Steinbeck inverted the biblical account of the search for the promised land.  I taught Flannery O'Connor stories every chance I got. I usually told students that O'Connor believed her "subject in fiction is the action of grace in territory largely held by the devil." It is difficult to teach literature with discussing grace, Christ figures, and a heavenly host of biblical archetypes and allusions.

Conservative and liberal students took my world lit, American lit, and AP lit classes. No conservative parent ever thanked me for exposing students to the Bible. They didn't show up at a parent-teacher conference and say that "the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” and we know that "it shall not return. . .void, but it shall accomplish that which [God] please[s]." Nothing close to that ever happened.

Nor did liberal parents contact Cory Heidelberger to have him charge into my classroom followed by an army of ACLU lawyers wielding 666 cease and desist orders. I expect a few students whom I bored to tears would have welcomed the intrusion, but nothing close to that ever happened either.

If the goal is to get students to see the phrase "In God We Trust," directing that principals place the motto in "a school entryway, cafeteria, or other common area where students are most likely to see the national motto display" means that the motto will become background noise like lunch menus, daily announcements, and posters reminding everyone to wear school colors on Friday. I can guarantee that students will pay more attention to lunch menus than they will the motto. I doubt the motto will remind them to say a table grace before they eat.

Finally, I'm willing to bet that most, if not all, of the legislation's sponsors complain about students being addicted to their phones. They should know that young'uns will be checking Snapchat or Instagram or texts from work on every trip through all common areas.

In short, God is not absent from public schools and SB 55 is an ineffective solution in search of a problem.

A Minor Musing: Skrulls And South Dakota Legislative Resolutions

Skrulls! That's right. Skrulls have apparently replaced many practical, no nonsense South Dakota legislators: good solid folk who believe that hard work is its own reward. How else does one explain the desire to hand out stickers and pass "give everyone a trophy for participating" resolutions? Shapeshifting Skrulls have taken on the form of South Dakota legislators and replaced the good folk South Dakotans elected.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 5 (SCR 5) provides the most obvious proof that something is amiss. SCR 5 commends Senators Thune and Rounds for supporting Brett Kavanaugh's nomination.

Let's review: a Republican state legislature commends the states's Republican federal senators for supporting someone nominated by a Republican president. Thune's and Rounds's votes were hardly profiles in courage. No South Dakota Democrat is going to win campaigning against the Kavanaugh vote. In fact, voting against Kavanaugh would have increased the chance of a Republican primary challenger. There's no need to commend someone for making a politically expedient vote. Republicans would know that. Skrulls probably would not.

More importantly, the resolution commends Thune and Rounds for supporting Trump, an act they perform with extreme regularity. Thune votes with Trump 95% of the time. Rounds is in line with Trump's positions on nearly 92% of his votes. The odds of the two men voting against Trump's nominee is only slightly higher than the odds of fictional Skrulls taking over the state legislature. (The odds of Trump's positions aligning with South Dakotans" best interests 90% of the time is likely lower.)

Republicans used to be republican. At the state level, they worried about the state first. Is it too much to hope that some work will get done about roads or nursing homes that are disappearing before the legislature devotes time to handing out participation trophies to politicians for taking politically expedient votes?

I Am Pleasantly Surprised ....

Even if the statement is late, Senator Rounds has demonstrated the ability to point out one of Trump's racist comments when Trump takes aim at something South Dakota specific.

The Wounded Knee Massacre was one of the darkest moments in our history. It should never be used as a punchline.

— Senator Mike Rounds (@SenatorRounds) January 15, 2019

Senator Thune and Representative Johnson have apparently given their social media team the night off.

A Modest Proposal To Amend HB 1041

Last year, I wrote a post about my Republicanism. Since then, I have read a good number of conservative authors at places like The National Review and The American Conservative. These articles repeatedly pointed out that conservatives and Republicans believe in freedom and responsibility, Further, Republicans and conservatives understand, in ways that other mammals cannot, that the world is filled with bad actors.

HB 1041 is a bill to "provide for the carrying of a concealed pistol without a permit." The legislation's sponsors certainly will contend that they proposed the legislation because they realize that freedom to carry pistols without a permit is the only available method to stop unabated wickedness wherever a good conservative or Republican  may find it.

According to the Argus Leader,

Republican Rep. Drew Dennert is sponsoring a constitutional carry bill in the House. He says backers have the promise of the governor and support from the public and both legislative chambers.

Given that Governor Noem seems supportive, one hates to temper the enthusiasm of "constitutional carry" advocates. Obviously every Republican or conservative who carries a pistol under HB 1041 will train weekly to become as proficient with a pistol as Wild Bill Hickok, Such people will, of course, never crack under pressure nor will they ever miss their intended target.

That said, South Dakota still retains a few Democrats. Some have even been elected to the legislature. The state also has a university system, and these educational institutions are known to be the last bastions of socialists and other nefarious scoundrels. It is, therefore, not beyond the realm of possibility that an irresponsible person might take unfair advantage of the "constitutional carry" freedom provision and carry a concealed pistol or several concealed pistols. Because South Dakota is home to 800,000 resident, it is not unlikely that several thousand feckless folk may abuse the the "constitutional carry" freedom. These capricious citizens may accidentally wound themselves or others.

It, therefore, becomes one's duty to offer a modest proposal, with all due apologies to Jonathan Swift, in the form of an amendment to rectify the situation.

The amendment would require every person carrying a concealed pistol also carry a trauma kit. The kit would contain gauze with a clotting agent, a chest seal, a trauma bandage, medical tape, a tourniquet, and heavy duty medical gloves. It would also require that the person carrying the concealed pistol and trauma kit should be able to show proof of competency with the medical items being carried. This proof could be demonstrated either by certificate of training or a field test consisting of properly applying the tourniquet and other items in the kit.

Some conservatives or Republicans may contend that this proposal springs from some hidden liberal bias. In an effort to allay such fears, prudence moves me to point out that a Blue Force Gear Micro Trauma Kit NOW won the 2018 NRA Golden Bullseye Award for "Accessory of The Year." If it as an approved NRA accessory, surely conservatives and Republicans cannot object to making it part of a "constitutional carry" law. (Neither the NRA nor Blue Force Gear sponsor this blog.)

I cannot conceive of a Republican or conservative legislature not wanting to ensure that freedom is accompanied with responsibility, so I eagerly anticipate sponsorship, debate, and passage of the amendments proposed above.

South Dakota Senate Acts Like An Abuse Victim

Per Axios, six of the ten states hardest hit by the shutdown voted for Trump. South Dakota is one of those states. Axios points out that "[o]ffices of the USDA's Farm Service Agency, which help farmers affected by China's soybean tariffs, are closed due to the shutdown. Further, agencies including the Indian Health Service and Small Business Administration are shuttered.

Meanwhile, the South Dakota Senate passed a resolution supporting Trump's monument to his own narcissism. Although Senator Stace Nelson's hyperbolic "black wind of death to race across this nation from coast to coast" will likely garner the most attention, it's Senator Lance Russell's plaintive desire to protect Trump from those with "nefarious motives" that indicates the need for an intervention.

After the original resolution was amended to reflect the historically accurate fact that nearly all walls including the Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall, and the Berlin Wall fail, Senator Lance Russel worried about Trump's feelings:

Lance Russell, R-Hot Springs, saw the amended version as a watered down version of the original resolution. He said that amending the resolution is on par with "the games that get played in Washington." He said he hopes the amended version doesn't send a message that South Dakota doesn't support Trump. 

The Senate needs to support Trump in constructing a wall across the entire southern U.S. border because the problems Trump is describing aren't "a manufactured crisis," Russell said. Trump is "trying to elevate all of us" by taking on the border issues, he said, adding that the South Dakota Senate needs to support Trump and the amended version of the resolution doesn't do that.  

"It is a crisis, and Trump didn't manufacture it," Russell said. "It's been around for a while. ... When we are watering down what we're doing here, I understand the politics of the situation, but this gives people with nefarious motives to question what the president is doing and what he was elected to do."

Let's be clear. If the wall were that important, Trump had a Republican House and Senate for two years. They could have passed the funding, gone to reconciliation to avoid the filibuster, and started construction. Instead, South Dakotans are being hurt and the legislature is looking to protect the person responsible for causing the pain.

According to Russell, South Dakotans need to support Trump even when he creates policies such as tariffs and shutdowns that adversely affect South Dakotans. It doesn't take any reading between the lines to get to abuse victim phrasing: "Trumpie just wants what's best for me; my Trumpie doesn't want to hurt me; he just gets angry sometimes. It's my fault really."

A Minor Musing About Tests, Citizenship And Otherwise

Let's begin with a point of agreement. It appears both Governor Noem and I want young'uns to be good citizens. Some of the best debaters I coached served as legislative pages.  Lincoln-Douglas debaters spent hours researching the nature of good and bad governments. Policy debaters, their desire to have every discussion reach a terminal impact notwithstanding, debated what the U.S government should and should not do. Public forum debaters argued about a little bit of everything relating to important political events. In one way or another, each of them dealt with what it means to be a good citizen.

Governor Noem doesn't want students to debate about the nature of good government or what constitutes a good government policy. Instead, she wants students to pass a citizenship test in order to earn a high school diploma. This is a bad idea.

First, I cannot count the number of times I have supervised a study hall and heard a freshman say, "When am I ever gonna use this?" when doing an Algebra I, physical science, or world history assignment. Every grammar class that I taught had a student who said, "I don't need grammar; I talk good." The reaction to the citizenship requirement will be the same if not worse. "I don't need to think about citizenship; I vote gooder than you" is not a habit or a syntax that South Dakotans should encourage.

Second, if the testing that has come with No Child Left Behind, Common Core, and any other education policy conceived in the 21st Century has shown anything, it's that the mandated measurement ceases to be a measurement: it becomes the goal. In other words, the test will soon become more important than good citizenship. I may be in a minority, but rational, curious, and independent voters should be the goal. If this policy is enacted, the goal will become good test takers.

Third, the citizenship test may require students to know that Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote the Federalist Papers, but does it require them to explain why "Federalist 10" or "Federalist 51" matters in 2019? The test may require students to know that the first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights, but will they be able to discuss why the absolute phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" has caused so much controversy over the past few decades? If the test requires students know the term "checks and balances," will it also include examples of when checks and balances have been successful or failed? In short, it's doubtful students be able to explain how the United States government works; they will just identify a few concepts.

Finally, my cynical nature causes me to suspect that this proposal is a throwaway line designed to further the impression that Republicans are the sole possessors of virtue, rectitude, and patriotism whereas non-Republicans hate the every decent part of western civilization writ large. Creating good citizens is an important goal, especially for a credal nation such as the United States. It's certainly a far too important goal to become a political talking point.

An Open Letter To South Dakota's 2019 Legislators

Dear Legislators,

We live in an angry era. In my memory, citizens have not been this divided since the Vietnam War/Watergate era. We also live  in an era in which many believe that people are entitled to select their facts as well as their opinions. You have chosen to serve in interesting times.

Given the divisiveness and anger rampant in political discourse nationally and online, I have three small requests that I believe are achievable and may even be bipartisan.

First, I don't expect you to agree on everything. In fact, the two of you whom I know personally may vote against each other 75% of the time. I would ask, however, that you remember the words of a former state legislator from Illinois who urged that people act "with malice toward none [and] with charity toward all." If South Dakotans are indeed the friendly, neighborly folks we claim to be, this request should not be that difficult to fulfill.

Second, put South Dakota first and the national debate second. Although many politicians seem fixated on a large construction project far south of us, many South Dakota communities struggle to maintain their infrastructure. In addition to physical roads and bridges, work to bridge the divide that separates South Dakota's Native American community from the rest of the state's citizens. Further, don't leave education for the last moments of the session. South Dakota's students at all levels deserve better.

Finally, accept that change is a constant. In 1999 many were worried about a Y2K computer glitch creating economic ruin if not societal collapse. Google was not commonly used as a verb; Facebook did not exist, and birds were the only species associated with tweeting. In short, remember that many current controversies will not matter 20 years from now Seek the counsel of clear headed people who look to the future to guide your deliberations and decisions.

As is often the case, Shakespeare offers the best closing: as you serve during 2019, "God's benison go with you and with those who make good of bad and friends of foes." (Macbeth Act II, Scene 4)

A Musing About State Senator Stace Nelson's Wall Resolution, Facts, Lies, Truth, And Politics

Daniel Patrick Moynihan allegedly said that one is entitled to one's opinion, but not one's own facts.

I thought of Moynihan this morning when I read this Stace Nelson's comment on Dakota Free Press.

35+ posts of personal attacks and absolute rubbish with not one intelligent comment about the actual bill. Who does that? The Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive and well. Ranting and raving and not one of you have read the actual bill.. If you can’t debate the issues? Make things up and lie, lie, lie.

Nelson's outburst was in response to comments about his proposed resolution supporting Trump's border wall. His comment also contains a draft of his own resolution. My comment which contained a link to a Washington Post article and used numbers that come from various media sources was apparently one of those pieces of "rubbish."

Perhaps I am being nostalgic and naive, but the Moynihan assertion was made a time when people agreed what the facts were and political arguments were about the implications of those facts. Granted, I can't remember a time in my life when someone didn't mutter something about lies, damned lies and statistics or utter the phrase "figures don't lie, but liars sure do figure." Even with those caveats, it seems that people used to agreed about what the facts were. The political arguments were about the best way to deal with those facts.

In 2019 no one seems willing to agree what the facts are. I believe that Trump has said 3924 false things as president as of this writing. Based on his comment cited above, Nelson may accuse me of having Trump Derangement Syndrome. Nelson's proposed resolution contains a copious amount of numbers, many of which Nelson claims he found in congressional records. I recognize some of them as numbers originating from sources that I believe to be biased. As I did at Dakota Free Press, I will point out that Trump seems to have made up the number about the cost of illegal immigration. Many supporters of the wall will claim the article is an example of mainstream media bias.

A few years back, Chris Mooney wrote an article "The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science." These conclusions seem relevant to the point at hand.

In other words, people rejected the validity of a scientific source because its conclusion contradicted their deeply held views. . . . The study subjects weren’t “anti-science”—not in their own minds, anyway. It’s just that “science” was whatever they wanted it to be. “We’ve come to a misadventure, a bad situation where diverse citizens, who rely on diverse systems of cultural certification, are in conflict,” says Kahan. 

And that undercuts the standard notion that the way to persuade people is via evidence and argument. In fact, head-on attempts to persuade can sometimes trigger a backfire effect, where people not only fail to change their minds when confronted with the facts—they may hold their wrong views more tenaciously than ever.

Were this post a high schooler's original oratory, I would expect a solution at this point in the composition. I don't have one. I'm going to try to approach issues like I approached judging a debate round and look for the best evidence and the best arguments. Nelson and other supporters of Trump's wall will likely claim they're doing the same thing.

If we can't agree about facts and Mooney is correct that evidence and argument only cause people to hold their views more firmly, the political climate will get more charged and angry. To apply an overused Thomas Hobbes statement, it will be nasty and brutish, a war of everyone against everyone. Welcome to post-truth America.

A Minor Musing On Idolatry And Trump

If it were possible to boil the problems with the Trump reign into three words, one could do worse than character, competence, and corruption. Yesterday, Mitt Romney succinctly explained Trump's character problem:

To a great degree, a presidency shapes the public character of the nation. A president should unite us and inspire us to follow “our better angels.” A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit. With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.

The other problem, however, is that Trump's followers, even those who should know better, deify him.  For example, Jerry Falwell Jr. asserts he can see no circumstance that would lead him to not supporting Trump.

Is there anything President Trump could do that would endanger that support from you or other evangelical leaders? 

No. 

That’s the shortest answer we’ve had so far.
Only because I know that he only wants what’s best for this country, and I know anything he does, it may not be ideologically “conservative,” but it’s going to be what’s best for this country, and I can’t imagine him doing anything that’s not good for the country. [Emphasis in original]

In response to Romney's op-ed, Trump's campaign manager, Brad Parscale doubled down on deification

The truth is @MittRomney lacked the ability to save this nation. @realDonaldTrump has saved it. Jealously is a drink best served warm and Romney just proved it. So sad, I wish everyone had the courage @realDonaldTrump had. https://t.co/mbxoTqbSX6

— Brad Parscale (@parscale) January 2, 2019

That tweet, which borders on idolatry, certainly goes against scriptural injunction found in Psalm 146: 3-4.

Do not put your trust in princes,in human beings, who cannot save.When their spirit departs, they return to the ground;on that very day their plans come to nothing.

The more secular and mundane problem with deification and the belief that Trump or any other human will save the nation is the fact that the "savior" needs a threat to save the nation from. That fact creates an illogical conundrum: there's a threat and the nation needs a savior; the savior has saved the nation, but now there's a bigger threat and the nation needs to be saved again.

Trump will not save the nation; he is incapable of saving the nation. That's not an insult or a political judgement. No human can save any nation. The danger is believing a human can do no wrong or singlehandedly save one. Deifying a human rarely works well.

A Look Ahead To 2019

Few of the comments that follow count as predictions; rather, they are events that bear watching.

On the national level, I have a few things I am keeping an eye on.

Will Lindsey Graham, the man who has yet to find a war he didn't love, devolve into a a 21st Century version of Joseph McCarthy? It seems obvious that the late John McCain had a far greater moderating influence on Graham's worst instincts than was previously known. Trump seems to have the superpower of making people debase themselves, so Graham, who seems to vying for the role of Trump's chief apologist,  may well sink to new depths

How will House Democrats play the game of chicken that Donald Trump has set up? It's clear that Trump is ginning up his base into a berserker rage to fight an impeachment battle. It's unclear if the Democrats have a coherent strategy to both pass legislation and deal with an angry old man full of sound and fury and capable of little to nothing positive.

Will the Democrats move beyond Warren, Sanders, or Biden and avoid the shining star of the moment like O'Rourke? In any election for national office, I will refuse to vote for anyone older than I am. The digital age demands someone who isn't old enough to remember sticking a quarter in a machine to play Pong. Likewise, I would prefer a candidate who has more of a record than raising a crap ton of money and losing to Ted Cruz.

Finally, the nation hasn't faced a major crisis since 2008, and we are likely overdue. Are there any adults in Washington capable of dealing with one when it occurs?

At the state level, there are are also three things.

Will Kristi Noem govern as a Trumpist? Governor Daugaard, for all his faults, was able to keep the worst elements of the Republican populist right fringe at bay. Noem seems much more willing to give that faction free rein.

The second question is related: what will Noem do? Her political raison d'être has been ending the estate tax. South Dakota Republicans take perverse pride in the state's low taxes and Noem's campaign promises about transparency and ethics were both vague and vapid, so it's unclear if she wants to accomplish anything other than be elected the state's first woman governor.

Finally, can the state's Democrats finally realize that Will Rogers wasn't praising them when he said, "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat"? I'll stipulate that demographics, including the urban/rural divide are against them, so they will not be the majority party, but adding a few seats shouldn't be too much to ask. Also, I fear they will continue the practice of eating their young and force some of the rising stars into statewide races prematurely.

Finally, I see that I averaged 111 words per comment in 2018 on the Dakota Free Press. I have to work to become more concise. That too will have to be a work in progress.