Who is the good man?

I actually began this post 10 years ago, but I've often thought about it and I think it's time to finish that thought.  I've been a huge fan of the reality TV show Survivor since the first group of castaways were "marooned" in Borneo way back in the spring of 2000.  I find the show a fascinating window into human behavior and I am entertained but also challenged by what it takes for one person to outwit, outplay, and outlast all the others.  The rules of Survivor are not the rules we live by outside of the game, but that in itself provides unique insights into how we make decisions, how we relate to others, and what our values are.  Twenty-five years of watching Survivor, watching the hundreds of players battle it out with only 46 people managing to win the game, I've come to notice a particular type of player.  A player who has lessons for those of us in the real world. I call this player the good man (or woman--but often it's a man):

Sometimes "good people" can cause the most damage.  In the Gospels, the one group that Jesus seemed to reserve the harshest criticism for were the so called "good people."  He had great patience with sinners, outcasts, misfits.  But it was the good people that got Him really worked up.

During the 30th season of Survivor, titled Worlds Apart, which aired in the spring of 2015 (when I first began this post), one of the contestants emotionally destroyed another competitor.  The aggressor was a guy who was known by all to be open-hearted and friendly, a nice guy.  A good person.  Indeed he and his wife grew to be internet celebrities through their viral videos that showcased good-natured people with a sense of humor and a zest for life.  And this was the persona that Will Sims brought to the show and maintained for much of the season. 

Will Sims II, Survivor: Worlds Apart (Season 30)

But another deeply unkind side of Will reared its head late in the show when he lashed out at another competitor, reducing her to tears.  His brutal dismissal of Sharin as a worthless individual who no-one loved, liked, or cared about came as a shock to the other competitors and was especially devastating to Sharin considering her lack of family and a history of abuse growing up.  It was as awful as anything I've seen on television and I found it uncomfortable to watch.   Several times Will had the opportunity to back off his harsh attack and make amends, and each time he chose to double down and stand by his statements.  Even at the after show, which aired months after the game had been taped, when presumably he would have had time to think, reflect, and perhaps soften his stance, he was still defiant in his attack on this woman. What was Sharin's crime?  She dared to question Will's integrity.  She challenged his "good person" persona, and suggested a generous act on his part was duplicitous and insincere. And his response proved her right

No one thinks of themselves as villains.  We are all the hero in our own story, and everyone views themselves as basically a good person.  Maybe not perfect, but you know, decent.  And yet it can't possibly be true. Some--if not most of us--are kidding ourselves.  The Bible would suggest that we all are. Every one of us is prone to selfishness, pride, unkindness and even cruelty given the right (or should I say wrong) circumstances.  And I wonder sometimes if, given this reality, maybe the least good people are the ones who proclaim their own goodness, the ones who drape themselves in the mantle of hero, who wear the badge of integrity, honesty, goodness boldly.

Besides Will, it seems like some of the more problematic players in Survivor history have been those who insist that they are above the regular riff-raff who play the game.  While others might muck around in lies, duplicity and backstabbing, they are playing a more noble game, operating at higher moral level than those around them.  Of course there are exceptions to this.  Russell Hantz is probably one of the worst people to ever play the game and he didn't pretend to be a hero. He relished his role as a villain. But Russell... you saw him for what he was.  It's the good guys--specifically the self-identified ones, the "honesty and integrity" players that stick in my craw.

Joe Hunter, Survivor 48

In the most recent Season, #48, we had Joe, a fireman who took the "honor & integrity" approach to a whole new level.  In many ways Joe was exactly who he claimed to be--a compassionate, caring person who put his whole game on the line to be a support to another player who needed it.  I admire that. But when it came to the game, Joe had a high standard of honor and integrity that in fact boiled down to something a little less admirable--a demand for absolute loyalty. I recall one scene in which he reprimanded one of his allies, Kyle, for making choices that that Joe felt did not meet his standard of integrity.  Kyle chose to protect himself in the game at a cost to Joe's advantage.  Joe's sanctimony dared to scold Kyle for acting in a way that helped himself, but more importantly cut across Joe's plans. Kyle went on win the entire game, while Joe came in third with just one vote. Joe is coming back for Season 50, so it will be interesting to see how he chooses to play this time around.

And then there's Tom, arguably one of the most dominant players ever to play the game of Survivor.  Kai and I have been rewatching some old seasons of Survivor this summer as we prepare for Survivor's epic 50th season airing next spring.  We are rewatching (or in his case watching for the first time) old seasons so we can pick our favorites among the returning players.  Our eyes were on Stephanie LaGrossa Kendrick who will be competing in 50 but of course you couldn't miss the winner of Survivor Palau, Tom Westman. 

Tom Westman, Survivor: Palau (Season 10)

The guy was incredible--a challenge beast, a sharp strategist, a charismatic leader who earned the admiration of most his fellow players. In short he was a shoe-in to win, and he did. Tom didn't lean as heavily into the "integrity and honor" ethos. He did in fact mislead some of the other players. He did in fact woo in players without any serious plans to honor the commitments they believed he'd made to them. His catchphrase was "I'll do as much as I can," which meant I'll stick with you until it's no longer useful for me to do so.  He did however, have an internal code of ethics which every player--at least the effective ones--bring into the game and stick to so that they can sleep at night and be at peace with themselves.  Tom had a handful of people who he'd decided he would not betray.  They'd go all the way to the end and then "duke it out like men."  When Tom realized that one of his allies, Ian, maybe wasn't going to stick to that code his response was ruthless.  It wasn't Will Sims level ugly, but it was unpleasant. Whether he realized he was doing it or not, Tom leaned hard into emotional manipulation, guilting Ian for betraying the code, for failing to be a "man of honor."  Like Joe he punished Ian for failing to act against his own best interests for Tom's benefit. I don't see a lot of honor in a stance like that. And unlike Kyle, Ian--who was younger than Kyle and perhaps more in awe of Tom--folded.  He ended up offering to quit the final immunity challenge, giving up his shot at the million dollar prize and requesting Tom take Katie to the final two instead of him--all so he could "earn back Tom's respect."   And Tom, magnanimously agreed, saying that he would have always considered Ian a friend no matter what he did, but yes this gesture earned his respect as well.  Well, that response didn't earn my respect. 

To me the truly honorable thing to do would have been to say, "Ian, if you step down that's your choice. But I have to do the honorable thing.  That's my code.  And if I feel that you are the most worthy opponent [and Ian was by the way], then I will take you to the final two and we will duke it out as men just like I said we would." Instead, Tom happily accepted Ian's repentance and waltzed to the final with Katie where he handily defeated her in a 7-1 vote.

I'm sure Tom would disagree with my analysis of what happened.  Of course he would.  We all would.  Because we all like to think of ourselves as the good guy. 

But being a good person isn't about whether other people live by our code of honor.  It's always and only about whether we are ourselves are living up to it. In Survivor, I've noticed that "honor and integrity" players tend to have another quality that gets overlooked--strength.  "Honor and integrity" is the refuge of the physically dominant player--one who can also dupe others into feeling wrong if they move against them. It's hardly fair or honorable.  There's no integrity in it.  When we dub ourselves the good person, we tend to judge others weaknesses by our strengths.

So what, then?  Should we not aspire to be people of integrity and honesty?  Of course we should!  We just don't need to advertise it.

A good person doesn't need to proclaim their goodness.  They wouldn't think to--because they are aware of the ways they fall short.  I can name many good people, people I deeply admire and respect, and not one of them would thing to label themselves that way.  They don't claim to be good people. They just are.

"As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one....there is no one who does good,

    not even one." 

                          --Romans 3:11-12

"Therefore let him who thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall."

                          --1 Corinthians 10:12

       

What's Going On: Remember the Constitution?

 

The things is: if our country were to devolve into an authoritarian state, life for most of us would go on more or less the same.  Most of our citizens would not feel the impact of our loss of freedom in our daily lives even though every one of us would be effected.  We'd still go to work, relax on the weekends, hang out with friends and so on.  Many people in Russia, China, Iran, and even North Korea are basically living normal lives.  The only time living in an authoritarian state becomes a problem is when you cross the State.  When you do that. . .well, that's when you have trouble.  So the biggest change in an authoritarian state is that you're careful about what you say and who you say it to. You don't protest, you don't complain, you don't criticize.  And it's generally not too hard to do that, because the information that the government allows you access to is only what the government wants you to hear.  You're unlikely to be upset with the government.   As long as you don't belong to a group that the government has deemed undesirable or dangerous and you keep your mouth shut, you'll probably be fine.

But the writers of the Constitution, especially those who demanded a Bill of Rights were worried about exactly that group of people--those that ran afoul of the government.  It's kind of strange when you think about it, that the four of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights deal directly with those that are accused of a crime.  Why were the founding fathers so worried about protecting "the bad guys"?  I mean who really cares what happens to criminals anyway?   Let 'em rot, I say!  And yet the fourth amendments provides clear restrictions on the governments ability to search and seize a citizen's property.  The fifth amendment provides multiple rights to those accused of crimes including the right not to testify against themselves, the right not to be tried twice for the same offense, and the right to due process before being deprived of life, liberty, or property.  The sixth amendment goes on to enumerate still more rights for the accused including a trial by jury, to confront witness against them and get witnesses to testify on their behalf, and the right to counsel.  And then the eighth amendment is even worse.  Let's say you are found guilty, even then this weepy, bleeding heart, leftist, liberal, criminal loving document we call the Constitution demands that we not saddle the criminal with excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment.

What in the world?  What were these white guys from the 1700s on about anyway?  So much love for the criminals.  Don't they care about the innocent at all?

Well, it turns out they do.  Very much. You see, the founders understood something that we seem to be losing sight of.  That a government that is able to declare you a criminal "because I said so", a government unrestrained by the limitations placed on it by the Bill of Rights, is a government that will almost certainly end up penalizing innocent people.  It is vital that the Constitution not specify that it's provisions apply only to the innocent.  It has to apply to anyone guilty or innocent.  Sure it's annoying to see some monster being defended by his attorney, demanding his rights and what have you.  It's odious.  But the founders knew that that aggravation was worth putting up with to avoid something far worse. They understood that if rights were only for the innocent, it's only a short step to the government being able to declare that individuals who hold certain opinions or viewpoints, certain groups of people that are undesirable, are guilty and thus not entitled to any rights.  Our rights apply to all or they apply to no one.  

The founders understood this because they had just escaped an oppressive government that penalized them for protest, that branded them criminals, and gave them little recourse.  They were terrified of a national government with too much power.  And, it's funny, up until January 20, 2025, many of the same people who now cheer on our slide towards authoritarianism were terrified too.  It appears that all along, it was never about the government having too much power--but which government had too much power.  As long, at it's our side holding the power, let 'er rip!

So when we argue about whether Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a gang member, or not.  When we dispute whether the college students protesting are anti-Semitic or not, we are kind of missing the point. It's not about whether we think these people are "bad dudes."  We have a system.  We have due process. We have the rights of the accused.  We have a judicial system that exists to prevent the executive branch of government from having untrammeled power.  We have the Constitution.  And what we should  all be worried about is that those things are being disregarded. 

What's Going On: The Chainsaw Massacre

 

There's three branches of government. . .and then this guy

Elon Musk occupies a strange and unique position in the Trump regime. One of my friends who is a strong Trump supporter recently posted a lengthy apologetic on Facebook defending the actions of the Trump/Musk team.  "How can all the Leftists be crying about Elon cutting waste, fraud, and abuse?" he asked. "This is a good thing!"  He's saving your money, my friend suggested.  And doing it for free!

I have a number of concerns about what's going on with Elon Musk and they fall under three categories:

The Man

To be clear, it's not that I object so much to Musk himself (thought I admit I'm not a fan) but simply that he is just one man. One man (and his team) acting without accountability. Every American should be concerned about an unelected individual having such sweeping power.  Sure there are whole departments within the executive branch--whole agencies--full of unelected officials.  But none of those civil servants have the kind of singular authority granted to Elon Musk.  They can't fire hundreds or even thousands of federal workers with a single command.  They can't make executive decisions about federal spending, or of their own accord enter the payment systems of the government and make unilateral decisions.  And each of these government departments typically have a head who has to be vetted and approved by the Senate.  Granted the current Senate is pretty much ready to rubber stamp just about anyone the president places before them.  But even they have standards--which is how Matt Gaetz ended up not making the cut.  But the point is that right now, even if they wanted to stop DOGE they cannot. 

Right now we are entirely dependent on Elon Musk's good will, the purity of his motives, and depth of his wisdom and knowledge. We just have to trust that he's a good man who knows what he's doing.  And many in the Trump camp do have extraordinary faith in this guy.  But to me it's not about whether he's a good guy or not--it's that history has shown time and time again that giving too much unbridled authority to one person, no matter how "good" is always a bad idea. You know the saying.  Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The Method

The cutting of waste, fraud, and abuse is clumsy and poorly thought out and stems from a belief that the mere existence of a government agency or federal worker is itself fraud, waste, and abuse.  Musk's use of  the chain saw is apt, but not in the way he thinks.  He's using a chain saw to excise tumors in the body politic, when he should be using a scalpel.   There's no doubt that there is waste, fraud, and abuse, and streamlining the federal government is a serious task that's long overdue.  And of course any cuts are going to hurt some ordinary, hard-working civil servants.  Hard choices should be made, but that's not what happening right now.  Shutting down whole departments of the federal government in one fell swoop is not "making tough decisions."  It's quite easy in fact, if you're not terribly informed or interested in becoming informed about what's actually going on in the federal departments you want to wipe out.  This is a theme we are going to come back to by the way.  Pay attention and you'll notice that Trump consistently takes the easy way.  His tendency is to pick easy battles and weaker adversaries where he knows he can win.

The Results

Finally, the Trump/Musk campaign to tighten the budget is mostly performative.  While gutting USAID and other departments is devasting to those who work there and the people they serve, the savings are marginal.  The only real way to deal with the budget deficit is to tackle the massive and massively popular entitlement programs that suck up most of our budget.  We've always known this but politicians have been too afraid to do the difficult work of figuring out how to cut our spending in these areas.  Trump's team is no different.  And it's understandable. The American public would be outraged if there were significant cuts to social security or Medicare (those two, along with defense make up 50% of the federal budget).  If we got rid of all expenditures except for those big three and the 13% of the budget that goes to paying interest on our debt, we could erase the budget deficit and have some surplus.  That would mean zero spending on health unrelated to Medicare, income security, veterans benefits and services, education, training, employment, and social services, transportation, natural resources and environment, and everything else (USAID falls under "everything else." That last category altogether amounts to a measly 3% of the federal budget).   I'm not at all sure it's realistic to reduce the federal budget to two entitlements, defense and servicing interest.  And even then there's still the matter of 36 trillion dollars in debt the U.S. government owes.  

Chainsaws are not going to fix theses problems. The practical--and much more difficult--solution is the same as it always has been.  Make hard cuts to social security and Medicare and raise taxes.  It's the only way. The conservative passion for tax cuts (a passion I share every year around April 15) has always been the flaw in their supposed fiscal "responsibility".  Can you imagine sitting at the kitchen table trying to balance the family budget and suggesting that what we really need to do is cut back on our income. A true fiscally conservative position is tax and cut.  That's a hard conversation that no one wants to have, so instead we get a showy pretense of being responsible.  As is common with Trump, it gives the appearance that "things are getting done" when in fact very little of it has a meaningful impact on the stated goal.

When all is said in done, especially if this latest round of tax cuts (which I hear are really only going to to benefit the wealthy. I'm pretty annoyed about that. If you're going to be stupid at least let regular people like me benefit from the stupidity too!) makes it to Trump's desk, whole sections of the government will be hollowed out by Musk's chainsaw, millions will pay the price in lost services, and we'll still be running a federal deficit. What a mess.

What's Going On: In The Time of the King (Not Like Us)

 But the people refused to listen to Samuel's warning.  "Even so we still want a king," they said.  "We want to be like the nations around us.  Our king will judge us and lead us into battle."  So Samuel repeated to the Lord what the people had said, and the Lord replied, "Do as they say, and give them a king."

                                                                                                       1 Samuel 8:11-22

As you read this post you may think that I'm engaging in hyperbole.  But keep in mind that this image wasn't disseminated by the president's detractors, but by Trump himself.

This is the third time that I've witnessed an event never before seen in my lifetime.  The first was the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  The second was the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020.  And now, we have the reign of Trump. No matter where you stand when it comes to Trumpism, I think we can all agree that his actions are without precedent in the history of our country.  In terms of impact, I really do believe that history will judge Donald Trump as America's most consequential president, with really only Lincoln providing any real competition.  In an occasional series of posts, I'd like to document this remarkable moment, just as I did for the pandemic (Dispatches from Coronaville) and the Black Lives Matter movement in the wake of George Floyd's murder (Angry).  My posts will fall under the title, "What's Going On."  And my goal will be to cut through the noise--and there is a lot of noise--and get to the essence of what is actually going on in this country.  

One thing is clear.  The United States of America is undergoing rapid and far-reaching change.  What does it all mean?  And what lies ahead?  Some say a new American Golden Age. Others worry that a second American Civil War looms on the horizon. And still others suggest we are witnessing the rise of a Fourth Reich, an American one.  I'm highly skeptical of the first.  I have my doubts about the second--in a sense, I think that maybe that Civil War is already over, without a shot being fired.  I probably lean more closely towards the third possibility, though there are some key elements lacking in Trumpism that were present in the rise of the Nazi party in Germany.  I'm also reminded of the end of the Roman Republic (though, again, without the civil wars).   Just as the Roman senate continued to exist as ancient Rome shifted from republic to empire, I believe our three branches of government will continue to exist.  However, all meaningful power will be in hands of the executive branch going forward.  President Trump is our Julius Caesar, seizing the reigns of government solely for himself.  What I'm really curious about is who will be our Augustus, the second Roman emperor who solidified and made permanent what Julius had begun. 

What Trump's election, and the continued support of his faithful, reveal is the myth of American exceptionalism.  We've allowed ourselves to believe the flattery of our politicians over the years--that somehow, we, the American people are just different from the rest of the world. We believed that they're not like us, to borrow a phrase.   We were told we were a freedom-loving people that fought to overthrow a tyrannical king and would never stand for another one.  I believe The United States of America was exceptional, yes, in its form of government--in its novel pursuit of a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.  It was the American idea, the American experiment, as flawed and as hypocritical as it often was, that was truly unique. It was an experiment got out of the lab if you will, and expanded in its reach much further than the founders could ever have imagined.  It's an experiment that has come to an end.

Because in the end, the American people are just like people all over the world, throughout history. We wanted a king, just like people always have.  Something in human nature wants to worship.  We want a charismatic, powerful leader we can bow before.  We want a King David, a Caesar, a William the Conqueror, Peter the Great, a Queen Elizabeth I, a Lenin, a Hitler, a Putin, a Bukele, a Trump. We want a strong man who will judge us and lead us into a battle.  We want someone who will "fix it" for us.  We want someone who with one sweep of his sword or stroke of his pen, will wipe out our enemies within and without and lead our country to greatness.

Now granted, there are many of us who don't like this particular king.  But I wonder if even those in the anti-Trump camp are as true to the principles of democratic republic as we would like to believe or if it's mainly the man and the policies we dislike.  What's happened to our siblings on the other side of the political aisle should serve as a cautionary tale.  The American Right has always been more worried about the rise of the tyranny than the Left.  They were ready, with their second amendment rights to fight for freedom and democracy.  But the fact that tyranny came from the Right instead of the Left has caught all of us flat-footed, revealing a hard truth.  That a principled stand for the democratic self-government is only of concern to us if it is our own freedom, our own beliefs, our own way of life that is under threat. The Right (except for a few lone voices crying in the wilderness) finds itself unable to stand up to a tyranny that champions an ascendant and muscular conservativism.  And the Left had no plan for this at all, and is left stymied.

In my view, there is one ray of hope glimmering among the darkening clouds of authoritarian rule in America, and that is our first amendment rights, especially the free press.  For now at least, there is nothing preventing dissenting voices from speaking out.  Whether  via old media or the various tech platforms, including little blogs like like this, the government is not preventing us from protesting vigorously what is going on right now.  When that changes, well, then we are well and truly enveloped in darkness.

I'd like to close this first entry of the What's Going On series by shifting from the political to the spiritual.  What does it mean for us as Christ-followers to live in the time of the king?  What are we to do?  How should we live?  The answer, I think, is simple--and it's the same answer it has always been.  To do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God. The counsel is the same whether we rejoice at our heroic new king, or mourn the passing of our former republic.  His Kingdom is not of this world and our first allegiance is to that Kingdom.  We are called to do the right thing.  To love everyone and to be a blessing to everyone, even our enemies.  We are to be humble, fearless, and deeply focused on walking with Jesus. 

It will not be easy--it never has been.  Most people when faced with a severe cost to following these simple instructions-to do justly, to love mercy, and to keep walking with God--have chosen to take the broader, easier path.  We all like to think that we would have worked on the Underground Railroad, that we would have hidden the Jews in our homes, that we would have marched with Dr. King.  But the truth is is those are the people that are truly not like most of us.  To be like them in the days ahead will take extraordinary courage, deep conviction, and, for those of us who love Jesus, a total commitment to walking in lockstep with our One True King.