It's Shrove Tuesday - a long read

 Well, that was a strange week in Washington:

Donald Trump got religion, apparently as a result of being hit on the earlobe by a rifle bullet, shot presumably by a rather bad marksman. So on Wednesday he asked someone to open his first cabinet meeting with a prayer. The president bowed his fine white-hair, and all the heads around the table did likewise. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner (who's also associate pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church) stood up and delivered this prayer:

'Father, we thank You for this awesome privilege … to be in Your presence. We all thank You that You’ve allowed us to see this day. The Bible says that Your mercies are new every morning and … we give You the glory and the honor. Thank you, God, for President Trump … [and] for anointing us to do this job. Father, we pray You will give the president [and] the vice president wisdom … as they lead. Father, I pray for all of my colleagues that are here around the table and in this room. Lord God, we pray that we would lead with a righteous clarity … as we serve the people of this country and every prospective agency, every job that we have.

'Father, we would humble ourselves before You and we would lead in a manner that You called us to lead and to serve. Father, the Bible says, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord." … Father, we today honor You and in Your rightful place. Father, thank You for giving us this opportunity to restore faith in this country and be a blessing to the people of America. And Lord God, today in our meeting, we pray that You will be glorified in our conversation. In Jesus’s name, amen.'

'Hallelujah, brother!' we all cried. 'Now we'll see a real Christian democracy in action.'

The president's verdict, 'Scott, that was a very good job you did.' (I didn't notice whether the president's IT expert, Mr Musk, removed his baseball cap and bowed his head. Maybe he even knelt down.)

So after two days of diplomatic tangoing with France and Great Britain, on Friday came the awaited climax, with the granting of an audience in the hallowed Oval Office to the war-scarred and beyond dispute courageous Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. (Watch it here: President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office.) It was an extended news conference, overseen by the reinstated bronze of Sir Winston Churchill, in which both presidents seemed to listen to the other. 

That was until President Trump's Flashman, JD Vance, made what appeared to be a preplanned intervention (answering Trump's cue, 'One last question') criticising Joe Biden's 'chest thumping' without action and claiming instead a new type of 'diplomacy'. That is when the world-supporting Christian statesmen turned out to be the hosts from Hell. And unsurprisingly the Ukrainian who had stood up to Putin's worst was not going to be bullied by two self-important men in suits and ties.

The president's verdict, 'This is gonna make great television.' 

I am inclined to wish that President Zelenskyy had spoken in Ukrainian or Russian - which would have slowed the conversation/argument down and given him space to formulate his reponses. And on this Shrove Tuesday, when traditionally everyone was summoned to church to confess their sins to be shriven (absolved) before the start of Lent tomorrow, I wonder what confession the self-proclaimed born-again Catholic, JD Vance, will be making - if any. Anyway, this morning's news of the 'pause' of military aid to Ukraine suggests a distinct lack of repentance.

Dr Peter Saunders (Chief Exec of the International Christian Dental & Medical Association) has posted a number of important entries on his facebook page: 

One is this psycholgical examination of the press conference:

An intriguing analysis has been circulating online regarding the psychological aspects of Zelensky’s meeting with Trump and Vance, conducted using ChatGPT.

From this analysis, it becomes evident that we have witnessed a true masterclass in gaslighting, manipulation, and coercion on the part of Trump and his entourage. Let’s break down the key points:

1. Blaming the victim for their own situation

Trump explicitly tells Zelensky: “You have allowed yourself to be in a very bad position.” This is classic abuser rhetoric—blaming the victim for their suffering. The implication is that Ukraine itself is responsible for being occupied by Russia and for the deaths of its people.

2. Pressure and coercion into ‘gratitude’

Vance demands that Zelensky say “thank you.” This is an extremely toxic tactic—forcing the victim to express gratitude for the help they desperately need, only to later accuse them of ingratitude if they attempt to assert their rights.

3. Manipulating the concept of ‘peace’

Trump claims that Zelensky is “not ready for peace.” However, what he actually means is Ukraine’s capitulation. This is a classic manipulation technique—substituting the idea of a just peace with the notion of surrender.

4. Refusing to acknowledge the reality of war

Trump repeatedly insists that Zelensky has “no cards to play” and that “without us, you have nothing.” This is yet another abusive tactic—undermining the victim’s efforts by asserting that they are powerless without the mercy of their ‘saviour.’

5. Devaluing the victims of war

“If you get a ceasefire, you must accept it so that bullets stop flying and your people stop dying,” Trump says. Yet, he ignores the fact that a ceasefire without guarantees is merely an opportunity for Russia to regroup and strike again.

6. Dominance tactics

Trump constantly interrupts Zelensky, cutting him off: “No, no, you’ve already said enough,” and “You’re not in a position to dictate to us.” This is deliberate psychological pressure designed to establish a hierarchy in which Zelensky is the subordinate.

7. Forcing capitulation under the guise of ‘diplomacy’

Vance asserts that “the path to peace lies through diplomacy.” This is a classic strategy where the aggressor is given the opportunity to continue their aggression unchallenged.

8. Projection and distortion of reality

Trump declares: “You are playing with the lives of millions of people.” Yet, in reality, it is he who is doing exactly that—shifting responsibility onto Zelensky.

9. Creating the illusion that Ukraine ‘owes’ the US

Yes, the US is assisting Ukraine, but presenting this aid as “you must obey, or you will receive nothing” is not a partnership—it is financial and military coercion.

10. Undermining Ukraine’s resistance

Trump states that “if it weren’t for our weapons, this war would have ended in two weeks.” This is an attempt to erase Ukraine’s achievements and portray its efforts as entirely dependent on US support.

Conclusion

Trump and his team employed the full spectrum of abusive tactics: gaslighting, victim-blaming, coercion into gratitude, and manipulation of the concepts of peace and diplomacy. This was not a negotiation—it was an attempt to force Zelensky into accepting terms beneficial to the US but potentially fatal for Ukraine.

Another is this powerful letter from former shipyard worker, founder Solidarity and former President of Poland, Lech Walesa:

Your Excellency, Mr. President,

We watched the report of your conversation with the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, with fear and distaste. We find it insulting that you expect Ukraine to show respect and gratitude for the material assistance provided by the United States in its fight against russia. Gratitude is owed to the heroic Ukrainian soldiers who shed their blood in defense of the values of the free world. They have been dying on the front lines for more than 11 years in the name of these values and the independence of their homeland, which was attacked by Putin’s russia.

We do not understand how the leader of a country that symbolizes the free world cannot recognize this.

Our alarm was also heightened by the atmosphere in the Oval Office during this conversation, which reminded us of the interrogations we endured at the hands of the Security Services and the debates in Communist courts. Prosecutors and judges, acting on behalf of the all-powerful communist political police, would explain to us that they held all the power while we held none. They demanded that we cease our activities, arguing that thousands of innocent people suffered because of us. They stripped us of our freedoms and civil rights because we refused to cooperate with the government or express gratitude for our oppression. We are shocked that President Volodymyr Zelensky was treated in the same manner.

The history of the 20th century shows that whenever the United States sought to distance itself from democratic values and its European allies, it ultimately became a threat to itself. President Woodrow Wilson understood this when he decided in 1917 that the United States must join World War I. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt understood this when, after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, he resolved that the war to defend America must be fought not only in the Pacific but also in Europe, in alliance with the nations under attack by the Third Reich.

We remember that without President Ronald Reagan and America’s financial commitment, the collapse of the Soviet empire would not have been possible. President Reagan recognized that millions of enslaved people suffered in Soviet russia and the countries it had subjugated, including thousands of political prisoners who paid for their defense of democratic values with their freedom. His greatness lay, among other things, in his unwavering decision to call the USSR an “Empire of Evil” and to fight it decisively. We won, and today, the statue of President Ronald Reagan stands in Warsaw, facing the U.S. Embassy.

Mr. President, material aid—military and financial—can never be equated with the blood shed in the name of Ukraine’s independence and the freedom of Europe and the entire free world. Human life is priceless; its value cannot be measured in money. Gratitude is due to those who sacrifice their blood and their freedom. This is self-evident to us, the people of Solidarity, former political prisoners of the communist regime under Soviet russia.

We call on the United States to uphold the guarantees made alongside Great Britain in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which established a direct obligation to defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for its relinquishment of nuclear weapons. These guarantees are unconditional—there is no mention of treating such assistance as an economic transaction.

Signed,

Lech Wałęsa, former political prisoner, President of Poland

 

 I couldn't have put it better.

Guilty, or not guilty

Did I hear right, Wednesday morning, on the Today programme? A Republican congresswoman, Marjorie Taylor Greene, outside the New York courtroom to which Donald Trump, under arrest, had been taken to face 34 felony criminal charges said, "Well, he's in good company," she said, citing Nelson Mandela and Jesus Christ as others who'd been arrested. I see that her modus operandi is to court controversy and follow conspiracy theories; so maybe the comment wasn't entirely out of character. Yet even so, during Holy Week when Christians remember Jesus' crucifixion, it was an extraordinary parallel. 

She could have used other characters from the trial of Jesus such as ... Barabbas ("Mark and Luke further refer to Barabbas as one involved in a στάσις (stasis, riot)" Wikipedia), or the two criminals or rebels hanged on either side of Jesus, one of whom correctly told the other, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong." Whatever else can be said of Donald Trump or Boris Johnson facing tribunals - or indeed any of us in the final analysis - it's not that "we have done nothing wrong". Which is, mysteriously, theologians tell us, the point of the crucifixion. He has done nothing wrong, and is crucified so that we, who have all gone wrong, may escape the divine gallows and go free - or if not, at least be offered the prospect of paradise. 

Night in Garden Tomb, Jerusalem

I'm not sure I agree with those theologians, superficially attractive though that theory is. I prefer to think that the life and death of Christ who is the human face of God demonstrate that no part of human experience is outside God's own comprehension and empathy, not even the most acute torture and the worst dying. As that most popular of Hebrew psalms puts it, "Even though I walk through the darkest valley (or valley of the shadow of death) I fear no evil; for you are with me...."

As Archbishop Justin Welby wrote on his Facebook page today (Saturday):

"Holy Saturday is a day of silence. Profound, deathly silence.

It is the day after the worst possible thing has happened, and now there is only living with the consequences.

All of us have our own Holy Saturday moments that mark our lives. Perhaps, like Mary, we have seen a loved one die and we live with that empty space. Perhaps, like Peter, we have forever lost a chance to apologise for a mistake and repair a relationship. Perhaps, like Judas, we have done something very wrong and the consequences have been disastrous.

It isn’t possible to control the outcome of such moments. We can wait and see what happens. We can distract ourselves, and try and ignore the pain we feel. We can carry on with our normal lives, tinged with lost hope, fear and uncertainty. This is what the disciples must have faced the sabbath day after Jesus’ death. All is lost. For with Jesus so much else has died.

They had no idea the resurrection was coming, no clue that their sorrow would be transformed to joy.

Holy Saturday is a day like no other. A day of holding the pain and failure and uncertainty. A new dawn is coming. The promise is true that all will be well.

But today, on this day, as we remember Jesus lying in the grave we sit in silence together with the disciples, weighing the absence and praying for a miracle that will transform our lives and our world."

And although we don't yet see the miracle, we do discover that even death is not outside God's experience and we therefore have hope.

Tweeting truth

I want to gripe again. My question is this. When do you ever hear what a politician really thinks?

 

Cartoon from Cartoon Stock

Maybe Donald Trump’s tweets are genuinely his thoughts. But if they are, then where do his more reasonable speeches come from? Are they really what he thinks and wants? Or are they what his speech-writers reckon will go down well with his audience at the time? Certainly his minders minded when in the early days he strayed off-script. And it’s probable that they now also try to vet his tweets, with limited success it must be said.

Meanwhile on our side of the pond it’s fairly obvious that our prime ministers don’t have the time to write the host of speeches they choose to deliver every week. One imagines that their party minders, the ones who pre-brief on coming speeches, suggest a promising topic as well as a crowd or party pleasing line; the PM chooses it and the speech writers produce it for her to deliver. And so we have the curious phenomenon of shifting policy arguments stated with all the conviction of a university debating chamber.

How I long for a politician whom one knows where they stand! And I don’t think I am alone. I suspect the perceived straightforwardness of Jeremy Corbyn accounted for the unexpected success of Labour at the last general election, and the beautifully articulate rigidity of the honourable member for the 18^th century, Jacob Rees-Mogg, explains similarly his unaccountable and regrettable popularity among certain circles. Even the wily Father of the House, Ken Clarke, remains consistent  at the expense of his colleagues falling asleep.

There is, it seems, a struggle between politicians of convenience and politicians on conviction. Sadly often those with political aspirations start off with conviction but the pressures of expediency and the pursuit of power soon squeeze them into the mould of convenience.

It would be nice to believe that a good interviewer might elicit the truth from a politician. But of course the party machines have that awful possibility covered as well. Their representatives are intensively trained in interview technique, which we recognise all too well. It seems to boil down to, “Don’t answer the question asked. Have a sound bite and repeat it at every opportunity. Above all, stay on message.” In my view, the adversarial nature of the interviewing game has done nothing for honest politics. Belligerent interviewers such as John Humphrys simply produce defensive politicians.

 

E B Herbert, The Fox Hunt

Let me add one thing. I’m not blaming politicians more than anyone else. The rest of us have a mob mentality, like a pack of hounds led by journalists on their high horses, seeking out any weaknesses and hunting down our prey to their political extinction. We relish the chase. Perhaps if we respected our politicians more, who are entrusted with a huge responsibility on our behalf, we might receive the respect of their honesty in return.

So, meanwhile, are Donald Trump’s tweets the nearest we will get to knowing the honest views of a politician? If this is as good as it gets, how sad.

The Oxygen of Publicity

Recalling Margaret Thatcher's speech to the American Bar Association in 1985, I find it hard to understand why the media gives Mr Trump so much “oxygen of publicity” which is his meat and drink.

“And we must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend. In our societies we do not believe in constraining the media, still less in censorship. But ought we not to ask the media to agree among themselves a voluntary code of conduct, a code under which they would not say or show anything which could assist the terrorists' morale or their cause while the hijack lasted?”

(http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106096)

However, I do understand the need to speak truth to power.

I realise that Mrs Thatcher was talking before the era of social media which is the preferred means of communication of both Donald Trump and ISIS/Daesh – interesting that, isn’t it? They both present a slanted or selective view of reality through Twitter or Facebook. But that all the more emphasises the need for the media to exercise restraint in what they broadcast and commit to print. It needs to be as objective and factually accurate as is possible. They need to avoid the lure of the populist and sensational story over the important.

Photo ; Democracy Now

For example, how shaming it is that the preoccupation of the West’s media with the new president of the USA has diverted our attention away from the massive continuing tragedies of Syria and of the huddled masses of refugees facing intolerable cold and hunger, or the triumph in Gambia of an elected president replacing a dictator of twenty years! I am not denying that Donald Trump’s election was a major news story and that his presidency will have a massive impact for good or ill on both the United States and the world. But I am questioning whether, at this stage, it is wise to pander to his apparent vanity. He clearly enjoys being seen to be “doing”. It may be that reproducing White House photos of every executive order signing is counterproductive in making for what is surely to be desired, a leader who consults and considers.

Meanwhile how about the media going off piste, and telling us more about what’s happening in Burundi, Myanmar, Yemen, Cyprus or the Philippines? Help us to lift our eyes above our customary self interest and in the words of the BBC’s origins, “inform, educate and entertain” – aims which in the case of television at least seem to have been turned on their head. I believe this reversal has contributed to a parochialism which is potentially dangerous.

Across the Western world we are witnessing a rise in nationalism. Although often bracketed together patriotism and nationalism are not the same. While patriotism, love for one’s homeland, is a virtue, nationalism is a perversion of patriotism. Nationalism is seeking the nation’s self-interest at the expense of every other. It says, “My country first!” As an aim of government that is evil and we don’t have to look far back in history for the proof. The true aim of government, as of humanity, should be to do justice, love mercy and act humbly, because ultimately we are not answerable solely to ourselves.