The Overview (Monday, December 28)
Christmas reflections, debating patriotism and Christian nationalism, and what Trump and Biden voters think of each other
Let’s get right to it, shall we? Here’s the Monday, December 28 (and the last of 2020!) edition of The Overview:
1) Two short essays about Christmas caught my attention: one from Samuel James, and one from Caitlin Flanagan. James’s essay paints a convincing picture of how the Christmas story featured folks on “the wrong side of history,” while Flanagan explains why “A Charlie Brown Christmas” still strikes a chord today, more than five decades after its premier.
2) Andrew Walker writes of the need to reconsider how we care for the elderly in our society, following a pandemic that has highlighted serious problems with the status quo. The elderly, Walker reminds us, “are not burdens to be saddled with but persons whose dignity can be recognized as we reimagine what it means to be vulnerable and dependent.”
3) Thomas Kidd warns against the temptation of Christian nationalism. Nationalism, he argues, places the nation in “a central place in our understanding of redemptive history,” while also equating defenders of the nation to defenders of the faith. This is not the same thing as patriotism, Kidd says, which he argues is “good in moderation” and actually inevitable given the dictates of Romans 13.
In response, Brad Littlejohn criticizes Kidd’s definition of nationalism. He takes particular issue with Kidd’s admonition against placing America (or any nation) as central to God’s redemptive story, saying it overcorrects in response to the problem. “We cannot peer behind the curtain of God’s secret purposes to know whether our nation is destined for a starring role or a bit part,” Littlejohn concedes, “but should not try to write it out of the script either.”
4) A study from the Pew Research Center highlights the divide between those who voted for Donald Trump and those who voted for Joe Biden. Specifically, the study attempts to gauge how these groups of voters understand one another. It’s worth perusing their responses, which range from empathetic to frustrated.
5) Recently, President Trump announced a new round of pardons and commutations. This isn’t particularly surprising, given that presidents typically conclude their presidencies by issuing pardons that would have been politically problematic earlier in their administrations. The nature of Trump’s pardons, however, have raised eyebrows, given that recent recipients have included his former political advisers and the father of his son-in-law.
Keith Whittington, a professor of politics at Princeton and one of our sharpest minds on the Constitution, wrote earlier this summer about the need to reform the pardon power. Considering the pardon power is enshrined in Article II of the Constitution, Whittington argues for several reforms via a constitutional amendment, including:
A president cannot pardon himself or family members
A president cannot issue pardons in the lame-duck period of his presidency, following the November election and prior to the inauguration
Pardons must be subject to greater oversight from the Department of Justice, or even vulnerable to a congressional override
I tend to be fairly deferential to a president’s power to pardon; while it is possible to abuse this power, it’s also a useful check on judicial and legislative errors. Still, Whittington’s reforms strike me as worth exploring further, which probably means they have no chance of actually happening. C'est la vie.