The Feb. 14 edition of The Brooking’s Register contained a “Speakout” column by Bernie Hendriks titled “Criticism of Trump Doesn’t Stand Up.” Hendricks begins, “Rev. Carl Kline’s hatred for President Trump first surfaced during the 2016 presidential campaign: ‘Let me state in no uncertain terms, Donald Trump is morally abysmal.’”
Can one conclude that one who holds someone to be “morally abysmal” necessarily hates that person? Might it be possible to love someone yet find their actions to be “morally abysmal”? Christ’s crucifixion provides a resounding “yes.” If, as Christians, we are called to conform ever more closely to the image of God, we are called to love everyone – saints and sinners. Trust me – it is easier with saints!
As one who has taught logic for many years, I find Hendricks’ article to contain a serious logical fallacy – argumentum ad hominem (argument against the man). It is one thing to attack another person’s ideas; it is another thing to attack the man who holds them. I note that Hendricks names several organizations aligned with the Occupy Wall Street movement, then writes, “Kline’s alignment with these types of groups is curious enough in its own right. But totally accusing President Trump of Russian ties, while Kline himself has promoted the political goals of a Russian affiliated group adds a whole new element of intrigue to his weekly columns.”
As one who preaches the gospel, I cannot help point out that Jesus also suffered guilt by association – he ate with sinners (Zacchaeus and others), hung around with prostitutes when no other males were present (the woman at the well), and routinely violated prohibitions pertaining to the Sabbath to advance a program of love and mercy. Jesus also left us with these comforting words in the beatitudes: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5.10; NRSV).
Let’s look more fully into the Russian connection. Hendricks’article downplays this connection by noting the “Russian connected Internet Research Agency spent $46,000 on Facebook ads during the 2016 election” while the Clinton and Trump campaigns spent $81 million. Hendricks says, “The Russian’s Facebook presence during 2016 was a mere drop in the ocean. There is no evidence whatsoever that a single vote was changed.” I wonder how such evidence would be collected. Given the scope of the Russians’ program, one who changed a vote may have had no idea they were doing so due to Russian influence. There may be differences of opinion concerning Russia’s involvement in the election. But let’s consider another authority in international relations and history. Here we see a more vivid picture. Timothy Snyder, the Levin Professor of History at Yale University and author of “On Tyranny and The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America” (2018, Tim Duggan Books), depicts the Russian involvement as follows:
In a cyberwar, an “attack surface” is the set of points in a computer program that allows hackers access. If the target of a cyberwar is not a computer program but a society, then the attack surface is something broader: software that allows the attacker contact with the mind of the enemy. For Russia in 2015 and 2016, the American attack surface was the entirety of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Google.
In all likelihood, most American voters were exposed to Russian propaganda. It is telling that Facebook shut down 5.8 million fake accounts right before the election of November 2016. … In 2016, about a million sites on Facebook were using a tool that allowed them to artificially generate tens of millions of “likes,” thereby pushing certain items, often fictions, into the newsfeeds of unwitting Americans. One of the most obvious Russian interventions was the 470 Facebook sites placed by Russia’s Internet Research Agency but purported to be those of American political organizations or movements. … As researchers began to calculate the extent of American exposure to Russian propaganda, Facebook deleted more data.
“This suggests that the Russian campaign was embarrassingly effective. Later the company told investors that as many as sixty million accounts were fake” (pp.227-228).
Why would the Russians pay for advertising when they had such easy access to creating fake accounts and fake organizations? A “drop in the ocean”? More like several rivers!
Snyder’s book reveals the Russian agenda – to promote authoritarianism, destabilize the European Economic Community and the West – in short, to sow discord in whatever way possible to promote destabilization. As Snyder details, through Russia’s Internet Research Agency, 1,600 bots were used to target the Brexit election, after which, they targeted our presidential election. Trump may not have collaborated with the Russians – it appears he really did not have to – but I do remember his overtly asking the Russians to find Hillary’s e-mails.
In this adversarial climate, we need more emphasis on living out the gospel. We need to encourage and exhort one another to good works. In short, we need to imitate the actions of Jesus – something I find lacking in Donald Trump. We also need more emphasis on good critical thinking – the survival of our American democracy depends upon it.
