Party brands: Democrats are "weak." Republicans are "extreme."

Neither political party has a popular brand.


-- April polls showed Democrats with a net favorability of minus 21.

-- April polls showed Republicans with a net favorability of minus 26.

Yikes!

My May 2 post was titled "How Democrats can win elections." I said that some of the positions that were identified with the Democratic brand should be abandoned because they did not express the party's core values. Moreover, they were unpopular with voters. Democrats, I said, had adopted positions that even most Democrats don't like. Get back to its roots, I said. Get real. Get popular again, and win elections.

Mark Dennett commented on that post and then agreed to share his observations about the parties's brands. I consider him an expert on branding and product positioning. He developed America’s first frequent flyer program (1980) while he was a senior airline executive. He was a founding partner of Medford’s Laurel Communications, a respected Northwest ad agency. Mark’s career also included being an author (Powershift Marketing), an adjunct college instructor at Southern Oregon University, an award-winning broadcast writer/director/producer, blogger, and a successful internet entrepreneur. Today, as a semi-retired marketer, he still conducts a limited number of research projects (www.DCGResearch.com).

Guest Post by Mark Dennett

 

Peter asked me to give my thoughts on the current brand of the two major political parties. I am certainly not a branding guru, but over the years I’ve worked with dozens of firms on branding, and I have been fascinated by why it is so hard for a business to create and maintain a brand.  

 

First, it is pretty easy to create a brand. You just need to understand positioning. This term, invented in the 70s by Al Ries and Jack Trout, is simply a statement of why the public should support you. As they state in their book, it is “a brief written description of the customer benefits offered and the value position to be occupied that makes your brand clear and promotable.” It’s hard for me to discover the positioning of the current Republicans and Democrats. 

 

Some of us are old enough to remember Republicans’ historic brand: small government (stay out of our lives), live within your means (balance the budget), welcome immigrants, and support free trade. Well, that brand is gone. Vanished. In fact, in 2024 the national Republican Party couldn’t even come up with a platform, which is basically a very long-winded positioning statement. They simply stated that whatever Trump wanted was what they wanted. Bye, bye Republicans. 

 

So now the Republican brand is the Trump brand. Of course, if you read Peter’s blog (May 2 post), that shouldn’t surprise anyone. Trump has always been a better marketer than politician. He knows that marketing in its purest form is just finding out what is important to people (their hot buttons), then promising it. In politics the promise is always more important than the delivery.   

 

Trump understands positioning. While he may be tainted, besmirched, and in every other way discredited as a human being, he is very consistent with his positioning: “The world and America are in trouble, and I alone can fix it.” This may reflect more of a cult identity. Many MAGA believers see him as above human, and thus beyond the reach of pesky "facts". That is called charismatic authority. He worships his brand and keeps building monuments to it. (Spoiler alert: The Iran War might become his “Waterloo.”) 

 

Now let’s look at the Democratic brand. Their historic brand focused on protecting the working man, and supporting unions, environmental regulation, green tech developers, and guaranteeing a social safety net. Even the perceived Bernie conflict is overstated, as many of his ideas were in Kamala's platform.  But I do believe that the Democratic brand has been hijacked by infighting, which makes their brand look weak and ineffective. Aging (some would say ancient) leadership is focused on personal power and wealth. They appear in constant conflict with young liberal elitists who are even more out of touch with the mainstream. 

 

A recent NBC Poll shows that Democrats are not happy with their brand. Republicans are not happy either. 

 

·      Only 62% of Democrats questioned viewed their party positively. 

 

·      Only 37% of Republicans questioned view their party positively, with 51% seeing the GOP in a negative light.  

 

·      Overall, 30% of registered voters view the Democratic Party positively, compared to 52% who view it negatively. Hard to win a national election with those numbers. 

 

Peter outlined four ways that Democrats could pivot their brand (May 2 Post) to better match Democratic voters. I agree with Peter. But because of the brand failure of the two established parties, wasn’t he really providing a blueprint for winning the third force in American politics: Independents? 

 

For purposes of this discussion, I am grouping Independent, Green, and Libertarian party members with unaffiliated voters who register to vote without joining any political party. Today this is the largest voting group in America.

 

In 2024 Edison Research did a national survey of 22,900 respondents that is representative of the national electorate in terms of gender, age, race, and geography. It clearly shows that people are turning away from the two party system. Many are just not voting.  

 

·      There were 4.3 million fewer votes cast for president in 2024 than in 2020. 

 

·      Republican voters decreased by 3.5 million.

 

·      Democratic voters dropped by 11.2 million. 

 

·      But 11 million more people who identified themselves as Independents cast ballots in 2024. 

 

Independents are not really a voting bloc. There is a lot of diverse political thought in this group. It goes from green to libertarian, which is left to right in the extreme, and then it includes the center, which is different from either of them. These inconsistent characteristics make it hard to call this a “voting bloc.” Could they be? Well, they do share one belief: They reject the two-party duopoly system. But this does not unify them in any identifiable way. 

 

To explore if they could become a brand, I looked at some research from The Independent Center – THC (https://www.independentcenter.org/insights). While not exactly peer-reviewed research, it does provide some interesting discussion points. 

 

After analyzing Independent voters with their proprietary AI technology and polling techniques, THS believes they have discovered recurring themes and words. THC believes Independent voters are more cohesive in their worldview than either Democrats or Republicans. Meaning, Independents take a holistic approach, connecting issues and thinking deeply about tradeoffs. So, if you are going to build a voting bloc, according to THC research, your brand needs to recognize the following:

 

Independent Voters are Fiscally Focused – Words like competition, equal opportunity, merit, fairness, and choice arise repeatedly. In their own way, Independents seem to navigate between the left and right views of the market economy. 

 

Independents Voted with Affordability and Inflation in 2024 – The candidate most capable of addressing these two key issues got their vote. That turned out to be Trump. They will pull support if affordability and inflation are not prioritized.

 

Independent Voters are Socially Tolerant – Their take on social issues is distinct. They favor gay marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, but they take them as a given. They’re settled. And they don’t think men should compete as women against women. 

 

Independent Voters Believe in Maximizing Choice – Independent voters view choice as an essential part of their belief system. When asked what could make government more effective, the answer is always the same: more choice and competition. THC got the same answer when they asked about choice in politics. People want more choices. 

 

Current Pew Research also supports these THC assumptions. Their research shows that Independents tend to believe in autonomy, fairness, and tolerance. They value the freedom to pursue personal and family goals while respecting others’ choices. 

 

One last thought. Years of doing marketing research has taught me that few people really have brands they love. So they are often forced to choose the “least objectionable” one. It is like watching TV. You looked through all your streaming choices and TV channels (if you still have TV channels) and can’t find anything you really want to watch. Do you turn the TV off? No, you choose the least objectionable program and binge watch. 

 

As long as Democrats and Republicans struggle with their brands, the battle for the “least objectionable” brand will add power to Independents. If they vote. That is the big question. Since neither party has enough base support, Independent voters are in a powerful position. Yes, current gerrymandering battles are certainly hurting our democracy, but Independents if they vote will determine the midterm results. 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.] 

 

 

Redistricting Oregon: Let's discuss it as a serious idea.

"There's nothing you can know that isn't known
(Love) Nothing you can see that isn't shown. . .

John Lennon and Paul McCartney, "All you need is love," 1967

John Lennon's words described the Overton Window 20 years before political scientist Joseph Overton introduced it as a concept of the evolution of political ideas. You cannot know an idea until it is known. An idea has to be thinkable before it can be considered. 

People familiar with political science commentary know the chart:

Political concepts, and indeed brands, art and music genres, and all ideas generally ,float somewhere in this universe of unthinkable, acceptability, and popularity. Yesterday I floated an idea: Oregon should respond to Trump's demand that red states do extreme congressional district remapping to make their state delegations as Republican as possible. 

I wrote yesterday that the current Oregon map is partisan, but fair-minded, with one red district and two swing districts. It fails the Trump test for red states. It is nowhere near as partisan as possible. A map with six Democratic representatives is easily possible. Oregon Democrats would be doing exactly what Republicans are doing right now. Do Democrats dare take action?

Democrats find Trump so corrupt and dangerous that it blinds them to what a change-agent revolutionary he is. He is like the girl in the story who shouts "But the Emperor has no clothes!" That would be the positive way to describe Trump. Trump-the-truth-teller. Trump the guy who shakes America out of group-think as the country slides into middle-class distress as our manufacturing jobs move offshore. Trump who noticed that the working class was angry. Trump who noticed that immigration was out of control and Americans didn't like it. 

And the dark side: We have a Trump who recognized that Americans and their institutions are about as prejudiced on race and religion as liberal critics say they are, and Trump finally gave Americans permission to voice that prejudice publicly. And a Trump who recognized that many men have the barely-concealed predatory and misogynist views of women that feminists claim they do, and that men were looking for some politician who would acknowledge and praise them. Trump said it aloud: he can grab women by the genitals without asking, and they let him do it, and then they elect him president having heard it. Is this a great country, or what?

Trump moved the Overton Window of acceptable self-serving partisan warfare. Democrats watch it but have a hard time quite believing it. They remain shocked at the bold disregard for democratic fair play. There is still a remnant of "If they go low, we go high." Democrats accepted small hypocrisies, which muddles their criticism of Trump. President Biden tolerated his son, Hunter, doing nepotistic grifting, getting $50,000 a month from Burisma, and then President Biden pardoned him. Some Democratic and Republican legislators trade stocks, apparently on inside knowledge. It is small potatoes compared to Trump's family grift-- thousands, not billions -- but Democrats are a flawed critic. Democrats are hypocrites. Trump and MAGA don't bother with hypocrisy.

My suggestion that Democrats do exactly what red states do with mid-cycle redistricting breaks new ground. It is no longer "unthinkable." It is now "radical." If a Democratic state senator were to propose it, it would move up to "acceptable." I would not expect Governor Tina Kotek to discuss it as an idea worth exploring until some elected state officials promoted it as something they support. That support puts it onto the public stage as a proposal, not just a supposition. If one of the five Democratic U.S. Representatives in Oregon voiced support, the idea would move immediately to that boundary between "acceptable" and "sensible."

Oregon Republicans candidates will oppose the proposal. This is a bad issue for them because they would be condemning Democrats for doing what they are doing proudly and aggressively. It is especially bad for incumbent 2nd District Rep. Cliff Bentz because he has done nothing whatever to protest his party doing it elsewhere, and he is the beneficiary, with an improbable district that combines LaGrande and Grants Pass, an eight-hour drive apart. He sits pretty in flagrant hypocrisy.

It is a good issue for Governor Kotek. She would be standing up to Trump, and she needs issues like that.

It is a good issue for the six Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2nd District. They would be arguing that Bentz is a silent puppet of Trump, out of touch with the interests of his district because he has a district that allows him (he thinks) to ignore Democrats.  Remember: Congress has an approval rating of about 15 percent. He and the GOP caucus oppose national rules to prohibit partisan gerrymandering. 

But nothing moves until Democrats speak up. Silence keeps the idea unthinkable. I don't think redistricting is unthinkable. I think it is a necessary adjustment in a world being remade by Trump.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Gerrymander Oregon: If you can't beat them, join them, part two.

I consider the map below of the partisan makeup of the U.S. House to be an image of democracy on its sickbed.

But not hospice.

It is the image of Democrats facing reality and taking strong medicine temporarily to cure an illness.

It is a realistic image of the future.

 

What we see here is a map in which every red state is doing the extreme gerrymandering that Trump demands. The map depicts a future in which Democrats didn't act like passive victims; they responded in kind.

California set the way forward for Democrats. California Governor Gavin Newsom described California's action as reaction and temporary. California's goal is national reform for fair districting. Congress has the power to require states to establish nonpartisan district-forming commissions. Republicans oppose the law. They think they are advantaged by hyperpartisan districting. Appeals to higher goals like "democracy" or "fairness" or "representation" have no effect. Democrats need to make Republicans see the advantage to ending hyperpartisan districting. Some Republicans need to feel the pain. 

Cliff Bentz, Oregon's sole Republican House member, needs to lose his job.

In an August 7, 2025 post I posited that Oregon might redistrict. The world has changed dramatically in the past nine months. Trump's hints became plans of action, now underway.

Oregon's own districting was partisan, but by the standards of the current era, far too reasonable and fair to Republicans. Here are the congressional districts as they stand today:One of the six congressional districts was designed to give the very sparsely-populated portion of Oregon its own district. To get the population up to 725,000 people, the  2nd district needed to extend west to include my own area, the Interstate-5-linked Jackson and Josephine counties west of the Cascades.

This districting pattern created two districts that are very contestable "swing" districts. In fact, one of them elected a Republican, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, in 2022, who then lost her seat after one term. Oregon Democrats did not need to be so generous in their districting. They were operating under old rules of fair play.

There are 988,000 registered Democrats in Oregon and 737,000 Republicans. Democrats in charge of redistricting could allocate those Democrats approximately evenly, assigning an extra 42,000 Democrats to each reconfigured district. Under the current map, Democrats wasted their advantage, giving a Portland-centered 1st district a whopping 109,000 Democratic lean, with 189,000 Democrats and 82,000 Republicans. Was that reasonable in light of what Trump has initiated? No, alas. It creates a district so blue that its representative risks being out of touch with the state. Worse, it makes Oregon a patsy. Oregon isn't playing the game as Trump has revised it. And it fails as policy leverage; it doesn't incentivize Republicans in Congress to establish a nationwide reform of districting.

But didn't Democrats pack Republican voters into the red 2nd district? Yes, they did, creating a supposedly-safe seat for Bentz, who sits quietly as fellow Republicans gerrymander themselves into majorities in red states. He has no incentive to complain.

A map that creates a Columbia-River-adjacent district, one that includes Portland, the ports in Hood River and Wasco plus the wheat-growing farmland of Eastern Oregon would be logical, connected, and have a common interest. It would divide Bentz's comfortable district into two, and it would create a 40,000-voter Democratic majority. Bentz would need to stop being an obedient Trump tool and would need to represent the district. Realistically what would happen is that he would lose, and the district would elect a Democrat who would oppose tariffs and cuts to the Medicaid subsidies that keep the district's hospitals open. That sounds to me like democratic government at work.

Above is a draft map of Oregon with six Democratic-majority districts. I am not saying this configuration is a final one. Map makers would create a map looking closely at existing county lines and natural features. But this sketch shows that a new map can be drawn that divides Democrats approximately evenly. There is commonality of interest in an Oregon district that includes the coast plus the western coast-oriented suburbs of Portland. And commonality in districts that include suburban Portland and the wine country to its south. And a district that is centered on the college towns of Eugene and Corvallis that then includes the Interstate-5- connected cities of Medford and Ashland. 

Because of the already-established election calendar, it may be impossible for Governor Tina Kotek to call a special session to redistrict Oregon with representatives elected into new districts in 2026. Oregon would be two years behind Texas, Florida, and the others, with new seats established for the 2028 election, but better late than never. A proposal to establish new districts could be included in her re-election campaign now. Make it an issue. She could call it a first item of housekeeping in the legislative session to begin next year. It would send a message to Bentz and to the GOP nationally, that Republican representatives in blue states are subject to the same punitive redistricting they are dishing out.

And in Oregon, I suspect this would be a good campaign issue for Kotek. She would look feisty and smart. Democrats would like seeing that she is fighting Trump. I assume her Republican opponent would need to oppose her redistricting plan, and do so while failing to condemn Trump for doing the same thing elsewhere, an embarrassing bit of hypocrisy. Issues that force Republican candidates to defend Trump's worst excesses against the interests of Oregon (end mail balloting, closing Oregon's rural hospitals, cuts to Forest Service research, tariffs that damage wheat exports) are good issue for Kotek. Issues that tie Republicans to Trump, especially the need to resist Trump's aggressive partisanship, remind Democratic voters of the stakes of this election.

Last August I floated redistricting as an improbable, half-serious idea. Times have changed. Events have made it plausible, and indeed necessary.

The political peril for a Democrat with the power to act has reversed. Now a Democrat who accepts the status quo and is passive in the face of Trump's initiatives is the one at political risk -- another feckless, worthless Democrat. 

Democratic voters don't want a patsy. 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Paper Tiger

I had written that the U.S. had a glass jaw. The American public would not tolerate taking a punch, not at the gas pumps. 

It is true, but it isn't the point.

The point is that our trillion-dollar military is not accomplishing our strategic goal. It accomplished Iran's. 

We are a paper tiger, and the world sees it now.

Trump entered the war thinking it would be another Venezuela, an easy win, a good distraction from Epstein, Epstein, Epstein, and it would shore up relations with Israel and Israel-hawks within the U.S. He named the war "Epic Fury."  Mr. Tough Guy. Overwhelming military force would make Iran a whipped and obedient dog. 

Instead, we learned that we can win battles but lose the war. We have weapons of mass destruction, but Iran has the will and the geography. 

Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz was open. It belonged to the world. Today, ships pass only if Iran allows. Insurers realize the U.S. Navy and Air Force cannot protect shipping. 

Before the war Iranian oil exports operated under an extensive sanctions regime. Today, those sanctions are unenforceable. Nations make side deals with Iran.

Before the war West Texas and Brent crude was priced about $70/ barrel. Now oil markets are driven by scarcity and war news, with a price bouncing around $100/barrel. It results in unpopular price-hikes for American consumers and windfalls for Iran and Russia.

U.S. bases

European satellite view of damage

Before the war the U.S. gave security to Gulf oil kingdoms while they provided oil to the world, reliably and at a stable cost, priced in U.S. dollars. They allowed the U.S. to place forward bases on their land. The war destroyed that arrangement. Not only can we not defend their oil infrastructure, we cannot defend our own bases. 

Before the war, going back to when Trump took office in 2017,  the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was in place. It allowed inspections of Iran's nuclear program. Trump voided the deal, so Iran restarted its nuclear buildup. Bombing last year supposedly obliterated it. Epic Fury supposedly obliterated it a second time. Now Trump is scrambling to negotiate a new nuclear agreement to give him an excuse to abandon the war and declare a tremendous success, only this time from a weaker position than Obama's. The clock is ticking on Trump. Fuel prices are high in the U.S., poll numbers are dropping, foreign countries are rationing gasoline, the world may fall into recession, and it is Trump's doing. Trump, not Iran, is under the gun.

Before the war the U.S. interest in discouraging nuclear proliferation was addressed by the presumption that the U.S. military could protect countries against invasion by neighbors.  That implied guarantee is gone. Every country learned the bitter truth that the only real protection against invasion is to build or buy nuclear weapons that can be delivered by missile or shipping container. The world is more dangerous.

Before the war Iran was led by its aging clerical establishment scrambling to maintain order. We killed them. They are replaced by younger, hardline nationalists. We got regime change, but in the wrong direction.

Before the war the U.S. arsenal of weapons looked untouchable. Such aircraft carriers! Such stealth bombers! Such firepower! The war revealed that we provisioned for 20th-century wars. We use 10-million-dollar missiles to shoot down 50-thousand-dollar drones. Swarms of drones or self-piloted small boats can stop shipping where it really matters. Our aircraft carrier is a target.

Before the war, the U.S. still had presumed allies and friends that would stand with us in joint actions in the Middle East. Trump insulted European countries and NATO, placed tariffs on their products, mocked and picked fights with their leaders, and then entered this war without consulting with them. Trump asked them for help in opening up the Strait of Hormuz. No one offered help. The world learned: America is alone.

The 2020 election of Biden let the world conclude that Trump was a hiccup, a one-off aberration. Then Americans re-elected Trump knowing who he was and what he wanted to do. This is for real after all, a new America, weak and unreliable. The world is recalculating everything.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Ask not what your country can do for you.

Americans try one thing. Then we grow discontent and want the opposite.

We are trying out having a president of bad character who is openly self-serving.

Trump does not hide his character. People accept it.

There have been two moments in the past decade when Americans were so shocked by undeniable examples of Trump's bad character that they stopped to reconsider him. The first was the Access Hollywood tape. It was disgusting, but was it disqualifying? It wasn't, not to almost half of Americans. Democrats made the opposite decision, expressed in the #MeToo movement.

The second was the January 6 events. Even most Republicans were shocked. We saw people climbing the balconies. That disapproval passed. Trump re-wrote history, describing the event as peaceful protest seeking last-minute justice to repair a rigged election. Republicans accept Trump's version, or pretend to. They don't care if it is false.

Republicans have entered a steady-state equilibrium for understanding Trump's character. Some of it is bad. Even people in the Fox and conservative media silos get hints of it, but they do not care. 

--  He shorted vendors and subcontractors. 

--  He cheated on wives. 

--  He openly enriches himself with meme-coin crypto schemes, business deals for his family, gifts from foreign countries. 

--  He is flagrantly vain in seeking glorification and praise, in coins, banners, named buildings, prize-seeking, ballrooms, and arches. 

--  He tweets hyperbolic rants in the middle of the night. 

--  He lies about Iran, tariffs, his political opponents, the economy, and even the price of gasoline, which we can see on our own is higher than he claims.

Americans understand that Trump is all about what is in it for him. Americans are living in that reality. Republicans have a majority. Now, after very aggressive gerrymandering, they may well keep it after the midterm election. Trump, the openly self-serving president is the status quo.

This is creating an appetite for something opposite. Maybe it will be a retired general or admiral, talking about duty and honor. I have not seen that person emerge, but there is time if someone acts now. Possibly it will be a Democratic politician who integrates selfless duty into his or her message. There is room for a self-confident Democrat who voices a higher purpose. It won't look like ambition. It will look like patriotism. 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not my favorite politician to lead the Democratic Party. I see her as pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic, immature, and insufficiently grounded in the world of practical getting and spending. But I recognize that the current political environment -- Trump's character and a Gilded Age concentration of wealth -- creates a moment for dramatic change. Trust-busting, progressive Theodore Roosevelt was perceived as an extraordinary change agent 125 years ago. Maybe Americans want dramatic change, and I am just too old and comfortable to realize it.

Here are two minutes of AOC. She isn't describing her character. She is revealing it. She is describing her purpose. Americans are getting ready for this or something like it. This may be the future:

Click Here

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Easy Sunday: What could go wrong?

I have done far better financially when a Democrat is president.

So has the country.

George Girton, a college classmate, was playing around with ChatGPT from his home in Southern California. He fed data from the St. Louis Fed on new jobs created in the U.S. and prompted ChatGPT to make a bar graph of those numbers during the terms of recent presidents. It produced the chart below. 

It was easy and fast to do, he wrote me. No surprise. He was a software developer for his career. 

I would summarize the chart this way: More jobs during Democratic administrations than Republican ones. George's chart reminded me about the boom and bust rhythms of the economy during presidential terms of office.

Below is a chart of the U.S. stock market, beginning in 1985 when I began my 30-year career as a financial advisor.

1985 to 2026

The big trend over the 40 years is onward and upward. 

But notice something: that big capital M-shaped graph line in the middle. The left point on that M is the market top in March 2001, in what we now understand to be the end of the internet bubble. The internet bubble didn't seem fragile on the 18-year run-up to form the left side of that M. The "irrational exuberance" seemed pretty rational during the years that  technology stocks kept climbing. The midpoint bottom of the M is the 2002 bottom after the recession that followed 9/11. Stocks generally lost nearly half their value in two years. Technology stocks lost 80 percent of theirs at that midpoint of the M. The market rebounded to make the second high point of the M in 2007. That coincides with the time of great optimism among bankers, pension funds, and homeowners who believed that financial engineering with mortgages had created a risk-free way to make money. After all, real estate only goes up, and people never fail to pay their mortgage. By the time the market hit bottom in March 2008, amid the Great Financial Crisis, the market was back in price to where it was about 12 years prior. Adjusting for inflation, it was a 14-year period where investors made no money. 

The bar graph below overlays those numbers to presidential terms.

Democrats tend to regulate; Republicans like to de-regulate. Cheap money and deregulation lead to misallocation of resources and debt that cannot be repaid. Trump is careless and impulsive. He has a history of foolish risk-taking with debt, leading him to file for bankruptcy six times. He has an incoming Fed chair who wants to accommodate him. The Fed is proposing to reduce the reserve requirements for banks. Trump is deregulating crypto.  Trump is shaking up the international order. We are in a war. 

Lots could go wrong.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Is God a dude?

     “God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is nonbinary.”

      James Talarico during a debate in the Texas House of Representatives

 

"Nonbinary" was an impolitic thing to say. Talarico allowed a word from the realm of partisan politics to invade the realm of religion.  "Nonbinary" is a fighting word from one side of the culture wars over pronouns, gender expression, and the role of trans people. He might still have gotten in trouble from some had he said that God is so great that the heavenly spirit is beyond gender," but "nonbinary" was a pure gaffe.

Gaffes aren't when a politician says something untrue. A gaffe is when one says something that is true, but must not be acknowledged.

Texas' senior U.S. Senator John Cornyn jumped on the gaffe with a Twitter/X post. Gotcha!  

I enter a discussion religion's understanding of the nature of ultimate truth mostly as an outsider. I'm not religious, but I realize that many people are, and that it has become central to U.S. politics. Some readers feel sure they know exactly who and what God is, and that God is most certainly male. Not "beyond," not ineffable, not spirit. Male!  

I get the willies when I try to get my head around the nature of reality, religious and scientific, especially since Newton is out and now the world is quantum everything. Was there a creative force that predated creation? Who knows? Can anything predate anything if time isn't real? What with time dilation and that Schrödinger's cat thing, and superposition, I give up.

As I reflect on the here-and-now world of politics, I feel pretty sure that whatever created the universe was not a being in the form of a physical human male -- a gendered being with upper-body strength, a penis, body hair, and a healthy heterosexual interest in females.

Such gods existed at the time the Bible was put together. Zeus was indeed binary. Greek statues depict a tall, bearded guy. Zeus is hyper-sexual, married to and flagrantly cheating on his wife, Hera. He unleashed lightning bolts in a way that President Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth unleash bombs on Iran. 

The God my parents prayed to, and the one I grew up accepting passively, was invisible, omni-present, and spiritual. It was, as Talarico said, nonbinary because such a god is too big and too ephemeral to be limited by gender. 

Within the "serious commentary" arena of Republican media, the National Review says that I am wrong and Talarico is spouting nonsense. Of course God is male; how dare Talarico say otherwise?

National Review

Talarico is not retreating. He is pushing ahead, explaining a non-gendered God in public appearances when the subject comes up. The GOP under Trump closed ranks with an evangelical Christian patriarchal and gendered view of Judeo-Christian belief. It is God-the-hands-on dominator, dispenser of harsh, righteous justice, a war god on behalf of his chosen people, the USA, not the empathetic God of the Sermon on the Mount. Talarico's dilemma is that the Sermon on the Mount version of God is a kind and generous nurturer, a classically feminine expression of gender roles.

The special sauce that makes James Talarico someone who could possibly win election in Texas is that he has openly linked Christian faith to the values that he wants expressed in legislation. Polls show him doing better than either of his two Republican rivals. Talarico's liberal social gospel version of God, the one expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, is hard to live by. It conflicts with human nature and our instincts of survival. In the context of the current worry over the erosion of American "manliness," Talarico is on the wrong side. He hasn't grown a beard. He reads as a choir boy, not a cage fighter. He may not be aggressively masculine enough, and the "nonbinary" word lingers in the air. He is unmarried. And his political message seems just a little bit soft-hearted, too much like Jesus, not enough like Zeus. It is more satisfying to bomb enemies than to love them.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.