This Friday "What the Heck" feature almost always focuses on three events from the week that left me dumbfounded. But this week I couldn't find a way to limit it to just that, so you're getting four. Let's hit it.
President Scott?
I've written often about the Donald Trump v Ron DeSantis fight that seems to be gearing up in the Republican presidential primary. It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to deduce which way I think the party should go should that be the ultimate choice. But I'm somewhat disappointed and surprised that there hasn't been more made of this announcement this week:
Several months ago I wrote a piece outlining some of my personal preferences for the Republican nomination in 2024, and Tim Scott was at or near the top of that list. He's conservative, articulate, appears to be genuine, and also has a statesmanlike dignity to counteract the boisterous bickering that characterizes American politics these days. He'd be great, and I'm not sure I understand why there isn't more awareness of that fact.
Vivek gets it
Speaking of the Republican presidential primary, one of the declared candidates, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, became one of the first (if not the first) significant party figures on the right to point out the blatant inconsistency raging within the progressive shilling for LGBT "allyship." Take a look at this:
This will get precisely no media attention, no campaign coverage, no traction, because it does two things. First, it exposes the inane meaninglessness of the "bigot" label these days. That word, just like "racist," "sexist," "misogynist," had a definition at one point. Now it's simply a pejorative, devoid of logical boundaries, used to shame and silence. Second, it reveals the self-contradictory dead end of modern gender ideology. It's unsustainable, illogical, and incredibly dangerous. But the media is invested in advancing those who preach it, so they will be mum.
It's a moral crime if every other Republican candidate for high office doesn't join Vivek in pointing this out and thereby forcing the media's hand.
Who needs unity?
I'd like to think I've come a long way in understanding and seeking unity in Christ with those believers who espouse more progressive politics. I want to be defined by Christ in me, not my political inclinations or biases. To be totally transparent, posts like this one from progressive pastor and activist Zach Lambert, convince me that many confessing the name of Jesus on the political left just aren't that interested in reciprocating a commitment to Christian unity with people like me.
I've read enough and listened to enough of Mr. Lambert to know he's a smart guy. Which means he knows that his straw man characterization isn't fair. He knows that the disagreement centers not around whether those things Jesus commanded His followers to do are necessary and good, but rather how He was teaching those things be done. The disagreement is whether government confiscation and redistribution of property, or state-ordered hospitality and charity are the manner in which Jesus was commanding His followers do those things.
So why intentionally misrepresent people who disagree with you if you're truly interested in unity with them? And if the answer is that you're not truly interested in unity with them, aren't you ignoring and intentionally disobeying the Lord's command in John 17:20-23?
Nothin new for John Q
Finally, I can't tell you how unsurprised I was to see this:
The reporter guilty of spreading this most recent falsehood is John Quiñones. I will forever associate that name and face with what was one of the most flagrant demonstrations of intentional narrative-pushing in the history of network television. For a few month period, Quiñones was the host of the ABC show "What Would You Do?" Some of the segments were fairly benign, but the entire point of the program seemed aimed at proving how bigoted, hateful, uncaring, and lacking in compassion average Americans are.
I understand human nature and the propensity towards sin as well as anybody. But setting people up on camera to humiliate and expose them as selfish, racist, or sinful? I suppose that's one way to build a career. Nice to see Mr. Q is sticking with it.
