Tag: #maga
Pope Leo XIV

MAGA Meltdown Over Pope Leo's Remarks On Abortion, Death Penalty

In a rare moment of direct commentary on American politics, Pope Leo XIV ignited a firestorm among conservative Catholics and MAGA-aligned figures after defending Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich’s decision to honor longtime Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) — a pro-choice Democrat — for his decades of public service.

Speaking to reporters at the Vatican on Tuesday night, Pope Leo XIV called for a broader, more consistent interpretation of Catholic social teaching, particularly around what it means to be "pro-life."

“I think that is very important to look at the overall work that this Senator has done during, if I'm not mistaken, 40 years of service in the United States Senate,” the pope said.

“I understand the difficulty and the tensions, but I think, as I myself have spoken in the past, it’s important to look at many issues that are related to what is the teaching of the Church," the pontiff said. "Someone who says 'I'm against abortion but I'm in favor of the death penalty' is not really pro-life. So someone who says 'I'm against abortion but I'm in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants who are in the United States' — I don't know if that's pro-life.”

The remarks came just days after Cardinal Cupich announced that Durbin would receive the Archbishop Bernardin Award for Public Witness, praising the Illinois Democrat’s “lifelong commitment to human dignity, social justice and the common good.” The reaction from the MAGA wing of the American Catholic community to Pope Leo XIV's remarks was swift and vitriolic.

Conservative influencers, commentators, and clergy accused both Cupich and Pope Leo XIV of "selling out" the pro-life cause and elevating politics over doctrine.

MAGA filmmaker and anti-DEI advocate Robby Statbuck wrote: “Pope after Pope has been a disappointing profile in cowardice who I just can’t look to as a leader. If Robert Sarah was Pope, this would not happen. Many would come back to the church then. Leo sounds like another Francis.”

Joe Rigney, an associate pastor, wrote: “I know that Protestants are supposed to be sheepish in the face of Catholic social teaching (‘deep in history,’ layers of tradition, antiquity, etc), but when the ‘Vicar’ of Christ and the successor of Peter morally equates abortion, deportations, and the death penalty for heinous crimes, and then proceeds to bless a block of ice in order to save the planet from climate change, I admit to being decidedly unimpressed with the ‘seamless garment.’”

Far-right podcaster and self-described traditional Catholic Matt Walsh wrote: “Really terrible answer from Pope Leo. God Himself prescribes the death penalty in the Bible. Is the Pope saying that God is ‘not pro-life’? And who exactly is advocating for ‘inhumane treatment of immigrants’? What sort of inhumane treatment is he referring to? Deportations? Also, how can he say that ‘nobody has all the truth’ on any of these issues? We know the truth on abortion. It isn't complicated. Awful stuff from the Pope. Truly horrendous on about five different levels.”

He continued: “Even if you disagree with the death penalty, to draw a moral equivalence between executing convicted murders after a fair trial and dismembering children in the womb is moral madness. Reddit-tier nonsense coming from the Pope. Very disturbing.”

Michael Heinlein, a Catholic commentator, wrote: “A terribly unclear question made this all the worse. As Cardinal George used to say ‘don’t tell me how you feel, tell me what you think!’”

Christopher Hale, a former Democratic nominee for Congress, mocked the MAGA backlash and wrote: “Maybe if he said it in Latin while wearing the papal tiara, MAGA would listen to him.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Polls: Trump's Attacks On Democracy Alienate Normal Americans

Polls: Trump's Attacks On Democracy Alienate Normal Americans

Two very important things are concurrently ongoing in the U.S. One is fast-moving, headline-generating, relentlessly shocking, and existentially threatening to our nation’s long democratic project. The other is a slow burn, prosaically plodding along in the background, though it is equally important, perhaps even more so, than the first thing. I've written about here, but it is largely crowded out in the media by much newsier and scarier developments.

Readers know what thing one is, but just to be explicit, I’m of course talking about Trump’s attack on democracy, from sweeping tariffs, to deportations, to mass firings (including of those who produce accurate data which he doesn’t like), to weaponizing the Justice Department to go after his enemies.

But what’s thing two? It’s Trump’s fading popularity on the issues that matter most to people. It’s the fact that he’s underwater on every important issue.

This is born of the fact that he continues to exploit his extremely and uniquely concentrated power to double down on actions that turn regular, non-MAGA people off. When it comes to the economy, most people are most worried about affordability. Yet he continues to double down on big tariffs, most recently on prescription drugs, kitchen cabinets, furniture, and heavy trucks.

He and his minions are now putting themselves between you and the late-night TV you watch. I grant that a tiny share of Americans watch Jimmy Kimmel, but that’s not the point. The way this works is that people who reasonably choose to block out politics—“it’s just a bunch of rich, old men making DC noise”1—find themselves impinged upon by something close to home, as in choosing to watch what they want. That may not sound like as big a deal as weaponizing the DoJ, but there are many Americans for whom the free-speech intrusion into their everyday life feels like a bigger intrusion than the new Comey indictment.

It’s even worse, and considerably more dangerous, when they intrude in your medicine cabinet, the fact that when you open the drawer to get a Tylenol, you have to hear in your head the president warning you, against all evidence, to not go there.

I predict—and these are measurable predictions; I could, of course, be shown to be wrong—that the administration continues to double and triple down on these and many more such negative intrusions into the lives of regular people, and that as they do so, their popularity will continue to erode.

My predictions stem from my view that the two forces I’m elevating in this note are closely linked. Force one amplifies force two. The administration is increasingly drunk on its sweeping powers, unblocked by Congress and—in the part that scares me most—unleashed by what is arguably the most dangerous Supreme Court in our history.

But not unlike a drunk person endangering you on the streets, or just—and this may be a better analogy given my intrusion theory of the case—ruining your evening by shouting dumb sh— and over-laughing such that you can’t enjoy a simple meal out with the family, the further out they go from existing norms in ways—this part is critical—that show up in your everyday life, the more large shares of Americans are going to want them gone. If I’m right, then the voters that put them over-the-top will be like: “I thought I was voting for lower prices, lower interest rates, more affordable housing. I’m getting higher prices, cracks in job market such that my college-grad kid can’t find work, and a bunch of bullsh— about Tylenol.”

One objection to my rap is “they don’t care what people think about them.” Clearly true. If they did, force one would cease proliferating. But it’s not my point. My point is that they’re increasingly unpopular, and not just with the Democrats, the left, the folks reading this post. But with the large, swing share of the electorate wherein resides the precious “median voter.”

Another objection is thus, “Okay, but what if there isn’t another election?” That is a very potent challenge indeed, and should it become anything close to reality, we must fight like our lives and those of our progeny depend on it. Because they do.

Jared Bernstein is a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Budget and Policy Priorities. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Econjared.

'Stark Raving Mad': Trump's UN Speech Did Not Go Well

'Stark Raving Mad': Trump's UN Speech Did Not Go Well

Shortly after concluding his widely panned 57-minute speech to the United Nations, President Donald Trump declared it was "very well received," but members of the foreign diplomatic corps and others appeared to disagree.

Calling his address to the UN "meandering," The New York Times wrote: "Boasting about his record and assailing the U.N. as ineffective in a nearly hourlong address, he sought to portray himself as the only leader who could solve the world’s problems."

The headline at Axios tells the tale: "Trump's middle finger to the UN: 'Your countries are going to hell'."

"With a few exceptions, Trump garnered very little applause from the leaders and diplomats in the room," the news outlet reported.

Indeed, some diplomats reportedly were angered by the American President's remarks.

Washington Post global affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor reported: "A senior foreign diplomat posted at the UN texts me: 'This man is stark, raving mad. Do Americans not see how embarrassing this is?'"

Former U.S. Ambassador to Jamaica, Luis Moreno, responded, writing: "I speak to a lot of foreign diplomats, journalists, officials and just plain folks. They are simply astounded and speechless on how one man has turned us into a punchline. A very dangerous and reckless one. Americans need to wake up."

Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia and professor of political science Michael McFaul remarked: "Trumps UN speech will appeal to his MAGA base, but no one else. Missed opportunity."

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who serves on the Foreign Relations Committee, observed: "Trump just embarrassed our country in front of the entire world at the UN. We heard America in Retreat. For all our partners who still believe in the rule of law, freedom, human rights, and democracy, we need you to step up and lead. It will demand all our collective action."

The Atlantic's Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and Russia expert, added: "I would say that it's a dangerous thing to show the world that the American president is clearly suffering from some kind of disordered emotional issue, but by this point, there's not a country on the planet that didn't already know it."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Trump's Negatives Up: People Want Cheaper Groceries -- And Free Speech

Trump's Negatives Up: People Want Cheaper Groceries -- And Free Speech

In numerous posts, I have expressed some degree of puzzlement as to why this administration keeps doing things that regular folks don’t like. After all, they are led by a president who, as chaotic, corrupt and self-dealing as he is, has good antennae for working-class sentiment. Today, I’d like to speak freely, while one still can, and say a few words about why I believe free speech is the latest item of that list.

Let me remind you of my rap in this space, and I’ll be brief, because I don’t want to get out of my depth. I think of myself as a political economist, and I find that works best when I weight the two sides of that equation at 30 and 70 percent, respectively.

Trump has a reliable base who will stick with him no matter what. There was some overheated journalism around the base’s negative reaction to his suppression of the Epstein files, but it predictably fizzled. These are what political consultants call “unpersuadeables.” I don’t know their share of the electorate, but people say they’re in the 35-40% range, though that could be high. His “strongly approve” poll rating typical runs short of 30%

But the folks who put him over the top electorally—the marginal Trump voter—are not in this group. They didn’t like a lot of what they saw under Biden, particularly regarding affordability, and Trump argued he could get them their old prices back (not the whole story, of course).

Those folks are not happy (see figure above) and I see little prospect of their moods improving. Trump is 25% underwater on inflation and the cost-of-living. Some of that is incumbency bias (it’s his vibecession now) but it’s also definitely his fault, as most people recognize that his tariffs push the wrong way on affordability. Health care—another big affordability issue—is closely behind the cost-of-living’s disapproval rating, and note that some of most egregious coverage cuts from Trump’s budget bill haven’t even hit folks yet.

Why, then, does he continue to dig this hole for himself? First, he doesn’t believe any of the above negative polling or data, and will fire any messengers who try to intrude on his alt reality. Second, he overestimates his ability to convince the public not to believe their lying eyes. People’s number one, top concern right now is affordability and price increases, while he and his minions endlessly rattle on about how there’s no inflation and no tariff passthrough.

Now, they’re coming for free speech. They believe they can use their powers of persuasion to build a false narrative connecting free speech to violent radicalization, and, again, that may resonate with the MAGA base (though some MAGA reps are complaining of the rise of the “woke right”).

But if they continue to overreach on suppressing free speech, it will penetrate the lives of people who pay little attention to these types of arguments, folks for whom Fed independence and government shutdowns and budget reconciliation are just more DC noise. But when your policies make groceries and furniture and toys more expensive, when they see their kids taking ever longer to find work because you cracked what was a very welcoming labor market (see figure), and when you start removing people from TV because you don’t like what they say, that far surpasses DC noise.


It doesn’t matter that Jimmy Kimmel’s audience was relatively small. It matters that you’re intruding into normal people’s lives in ways that both make those lives more expensive and more attentive to your excessive reach. “Wait, they’re now kicking late-night talk-show hosts off of TV?!” is as politically salient—and damaging—to the incumbent as “Wait, they’re making my groceries cost more?!”

Anymore of such analysis and I’ll be over my skis. And the above is testable—let’s see what forthcoming polls say on the matter. But I think I’m right based on the simple principle that eventually, policy matters and bad policy redounds on its parents, especially when it breaks through into their daily lives.

And these folks just keep shoving terrible policies down America’s throat.

Reprinted with permission from Econjared.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World