A Theory About Christie’s Trump Endorsement – Opportunism Meets the Art of the Deal

I am a lousy political prognosticator. Folks remind me that if things went as I predicted then we’d have President Romney. I don’t remember predicting Romney would beat President Obama in 2012. I am grateful for my less than stellar memory when it comes to faulty predictions!

A few months ago I was pretty sure and predicted with little doubt that neither Hillary nor Trump would gain their respective parties’ nominations. Both those predictions were based on my understanding of American politics. While I can rationalize and make sense of a Hillary nomination, the Trump thing still baffles me. I still maintain that he won’t get the Republican nomination. But I will not bet any money against him at this point.

The recent Christie endorsement of Trump is what moves me from the ‘surely Trump will not get the nomination’ column, to the ‘I’m saying he won’t get it because I don’t want him to get it’ column. In fact many people seem completely surprised at Christie’s open backing of Trump. Why, What, How?  I have a theory about the attack and the reward.


The Attack – Trump’s Benefit

As it is fashionable to say now, he is an opportunist. And a necessary condition to be an opportunist is to develop opportunities. My sense is that even before the New Hampshire primary Chrisitie figured out that he was not in the running. But he was still good enough to be on stage in the pre-New Hampshire Republican debate. Given Rubio’s strong showing in Iowa he won in spite of coming third – only in American politics), a strong Rubio showing in New Hampshire would have made it a two person race (Trump, Rubio) and an eventual Rubio nomination. That was Christie’s opportunity. And this is where the Donald struck a deal.

The deal was Christie would go after Rubio in the debate using a Donald technique – get personal and belittle the opponent. It made sense for someone other than Donald to do it. If Donald had gone after Rubio the way he went after Bush it would be entertaining, but not effective. Folks would have said, “Donald is being Donald,” not “Rubio is weak and programmed.” But if the straight shooting Christie went after Rubio, then it may stick.

And seven minutes of the debate was all that Christie needed. When Rubio said what he said about Obama and Christie was part of the conversation the New York-New Jersey deal bore fruit. Click here and see minutes 13.00 to 19.50 of the debate to see the damage being done. Rubio helped the Christie-Trump effort by repeating the line, “This notion that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing ….”

The irony is that while Christie rightly accused Rubio of delivering the “memorized 25 second speech,” listening to the tape now it seems that Chrisite himself had rehearsed a number of his lines. But Christie was smart enough to rehearse being extemporaneous as part of his preparation.


And Justice – Christie’s Reward

So what does Christie get in return? Whatever one thinks of Christie or not, it seems clear that he has political ambitions beyond New Jersey. If Trump goes on to win the Presidency I predict that Chris Christie will be the Attorney General of the United States. A pretty straight forward deal for a pretty ‘straight shooter’. And if it happens he will be the first New Jerseyian in over a hundred years to head the Justice department.


In Conclusion

Clearly I have no evidence to back any of this stuff. It is clearly speculative. But it seems like a plausible theory. I just hope that events do not so unfold that I will be right with my Christie Attorney General prediction. I sincerely hope that the premise of which the prediction is made (Trump wins) never comes to a pass.

Let me predict – “It will not come to pass. Trump will not be President.” For everybody’s sake, I hope I am right


Calling Out (with) Hope – At least become like Calvin …

While this is a piece that stands on its own, it may read differently if you understand my take ‘On Faith, Individualism, Decency, Tolerance and Public Policy’ – a piece that precedes this one in this blog.

“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28:

Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Christian is?  
Shakespeare, William  – Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene 1 http://shakespeare.mit.edu/merchant/full.html


Recently America has seen an increase in something between deep religious parochialism and outright religious intolerance. Mr. Trump’s campaign for President has fanned such feeling, but is not responsible for generating them. For some time now, religious parochialism has been practiced in what would seem the most unlikely of places – some Liberal Arts Colleges!! There is a group of colleges which will not hire folks who are not Christian, or some even narrower religious category. They include, and I’ll touch upon the mentioned ones in this piece, Wheaton, Calvin, and Hope Colleges. I would not be surprised if there are other institutions, either Christian or affiliated with other religious denominations who also practice the “we will hire only our religious kind” type of parochialism. If there are, I would be grateful if someone would share their names with me.

Recently in the news was Wheaton College, in Illinois, U.S.A.. The powers that be at Wheaton College are so Christian that they have a problem with a tenured faculty member, Larycia Hawkins, “standing in religious solidarity with Muslims” and stating that they “worship the same God.”  The institution’s reaction to the professor’s statement seems so bizarre that I am simply going to suggest that in my book any attempt to explain and justify the actions of Wheaton’s powers that be is making a case for a society that I will find deeply troubling. I can only ask, what are they thinking? The Wheaton administration first suspended Hawkins, then began termination proceedings against her, before both parties reached a “confidential agreement under which both parties will part ways.” In case you are interested in some of the details of this incident I give you the following links.

 I wouldn’t be surprised if you were not aware of the existence of such religious parochialism. My life centers around American liberal arts colleges and for the longest time I was simply unaware that folks who thought this way also taught undergraduates. About a couple of years ago I learned that Calvin College and Hope College (both in Michigan, U.S.A.) excluded folks from being hired if they were not Christian. In fact I have visited Calvin and Hope after knowing that there was no chance of my being hired in these institutions and I did not think too much about it. I remember walking around the Hope campus wondering how an institution can be so parochial in its hiring practices. But I didn’t act on those thoughts. I’ll come back to talking about Hope College in some detail soon. But first a word about Calvin because it presents an interesting contrast with Hope – a difference I think, that matters.

Calvin College is upfront about its hiring practices. The Faculty handbook clearly states – “For regular appointments (i.e. tenure track and renewable term appointments), it is expected that a department will conduct a thorough examination of candidates… Although a variety of procedures may be employed, each examination must address the candidate’s reformed Christian commitment, teaching ability…” (http://www.calvin.edu/admin/provost/handbook/Handbook.pdf).

In fact the college defends this policy with great clarity. On the college’s website it explains – Calvin College is a Christian institution situated within the Reformed tradition. As such, the college may, under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and various relevant statutes, lawfully discriminate on the basis of religious and confessional criteria in its hiring, personnel practices and admissions. One example is the College’s use of religious faith, confessional commitments and church membership as conditions of employment for faculty and administrators with faculty status. Another example…” (http://www.calvin.edu/admin/hr/handbook/employment/#hiring)

As much as I think Calvin College is parochial and wrong-headed in its hiring policy, I deeply appreciate Calvin’s transparency. Calvin clearly is willing to unambiguously articulate the rationale for its discrimination policy. It seems to me that when institutions want to discriminate based on some deeply held belief/value/principle/faith then at the very least they should have the courage to be open and articulate about their beliefs and the form of discrimination. Clearly Calvin has more than met that minimal yardstick.

Not so with Hope College. Based on public documents, websites, etc. you will be hard pressed to figure out that to be hired by Hope College you must be a Christian. In its jobs page (http://www.hope.edu/jobs/) the college says – “Hope College places a high priority on sustaining a supportive environment that recognizes the importance of having diverse faculty and staff in order to best prepare our students for successful careers in our multi-cultural nation and global community. Applications with diverse backgrounds and cultures are encouraged to apply. Hope is an equal opportunity employer.

If you read that and thought that Hope College encourages folks with diverse religious backgrounds – Atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, and the all-encompassing Non – Christian Others including Zorastrians –  to apply, you will be demonstrating a reasonable grasp of the English language, but will be wrong. For in that A to Z list, anyone who does not belong to category C and applies for a job at the Holland, MI’s liberal arts institution which encourages applications from people of diverse backgrounds and cultures will find that it is a Hopeless (the pun is begging to be made multiple times!) endeavor. Even if they think you are the best person for the job, they will reject you once they know that you are not a Christian! Let me repeat that, even if they think you are the best person for the job, they will reject you once they know that you are not a Christian! I’d been told that by a few people very familiar with Hope’s hiring practices. When I heard about this, in the abstract I didn’t think highly of it, nor did I think much about it. But then…

It happened to a colleague of mine. He is not Christian­­­ by birth. He applied for a position at the Philadelphia Center (http://www.tpc.edu/), which is managed by Hope College. He understood that Hope hired only Christians for on campus positions, but wasn’t sure this restriction applied to the off-campus Philadelphia Center, especially since he thought that there were other faculty at the Philadelphia Center who were not Christians (if that is , true, it further puzzles me!). So when he interviewed he asked and was assured by the Dean for International and Multicultural Education at Hope College that “being Jewish was not a bar to serving as the Executive Director of TPC.” Unfortunately, in spite of “having been the choice of the Search Committee for the position” my colleague was informed by the same Dean who assured him earlier that being Jewish was not a sufficient condition to deny him the position that “the expectations for this position had changed and that the Executive Director would now need to meet the same standards for employment as would any Hope College faculty member, namely, to be a Christian.” The quotes in this paragraph are from a letter my colleague wrote to the President and Provost (two different people) of Hope College after he learned that not being a Christian was the sole reason for his not getting the position at the Philadelphia Center. It is worth pointing out that the thrust of my colleague’s letter to the President and Provost of Hope College did not focus on his personal disappointment, but rather on the “relationship between Hope College and The Philadelphia Center (TPC).” Those details are tangential to the central point of this piece and so I will not address them here. But  it shows what a classy guy he is, and is an indication of TPC’s loss.

In his response to my colleague the Provost at Hope College addressed what he thought was the relationship between Hope College and the TPC. That made sense given the thrust of my colleague’s note. But he also said, “Allow me to begin by saying that I regret that your valuable time – to say nothing of the emotional investment involved in applying and interviewing for the directorship of TPC – was ill used (sic) by our process. I take personal responsibility for this, and I apologize on behalf of Hope College. Our intention from the outset was to hire an executive director who would meet the standard criteria for executive positions on our home campus.  We regret that these expectations were not made sufficiently clear to applicants.” He forgot to add, “and to the Dean from our institution who has been with us for about twenty years and who was involved in the search.”

It is not difficult to make clear that you hire only Christians. Just say it in your advertisement.  It is not unreasonable to ask, “Why does Hope College not make it clear that to be hired by Hope College you must be a Christian? If it is a matter of deeply held belief/value/principle/faith then it seems to me that there must be no confusion whatsoever about what the expectations and religious criteria are. And making the expectations and religious criteria clear are far from difficult. One just needs to say, “ONLY CHRISTIANS NEED APPLY.”

So what is the difference between Calvin and Hope, both of which hire only Christians (though, Calvin seems to be narrower in defining who is worthy of being hired) – Calvin is open and clear, whereas Hope is not. As much as I think both of them are deeply parochial and wrong-headed, I think Calvin’s openness and transparency is worth appreciating. Also, given that a Dean, who thought it was okay for a Jewish candidate to be hired, and his superiors (presumably the Provost and the President) disagreed calls into question how deeply conscientious (and as someone who read this piece before I posted it commented, and contentious) a position is the “hire only Christians” position at Hope. And one need not be too cynical in concluding that if Hope College is not clear about its hiring criteria based on religion, they might think that there is a strategic advantage to the obfuscation and lack of clarity. One wonders what that might be?

It seems quite obvious that Calvin and Hope (and others I am sure, even if I am ignorant about them) are not breaking the law. That surprises me. I am not sure how I feel about whether what Hope and Calvin do should be legal. It is complicated and I’ll hopefully get to tackling it in the near future. But one thing I do know, legal or not, if you are acting on a matter of faith and conscience, then be as open and transparent about it as you can.

I hope someone at Hope is listening. In fact my guess is that there at least some part of the Hope faculty are deeply troubled by this religious litmus test. As I said, I hope someone at Hope is listening.

On Faith, Individualism, Decency, Tolerance and Public Policy

It was about ten months ago that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) fiasco in Indiana had a few of my friends calling me to inquire how I live in a state of intolerance – Indiana. In fact, one of them even suggested that it was time I move! Ironically, that friend lives in California which passed Proposition 8, which was later overturned by the Supreme Court. Any attempt on my part to let my friends know that the good people of Indiana were just as tolerant or otherwise as folks in other parts of the country/world was often dismissed as a defensive tone of someone who made a choice to work, and live in the area whose zip codes begin with either 46 or 47.

The RFRA issue highlighted the discrepancy between the ‘free exercise clause’ of the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …) and Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin). While one can get technical and play constitutional lawyer about this tension, and quibble about whose rights are guaranteed by the constitution and the law (the opposition to the RFRA in Indiana was by the LGBT community and sexual orientation is not a protected class under Title II), the substantive central issue here is, ‘Should one be allowed to discriminate because of one’s deeply held religious beliefs?’ And it is worth separating the politics from the policy when thinking about this question.

My reading of the RFRA issue in Indiana was that it was a political tactic by a governor who was trying to shore up his credentials with the Christian Right, a rather important constituency in Republican primaries, by establishing his “ I am not pro-LGBT” credentials. He essentially wanted to make the case that an individual’s religious ‘rights’ must be protected if they were to come into conflict with their professional and social actions which could be (legitimately) seen as discriminatory. It was a way for the governor to announce to all that if one’s sincere Christian beliefs were to come up against society’s not so slow and sure move to legitimize in full measure the rights of the LGBTQ community, then he was for religious beliefs trumping the LGBT community’s civil rights. My sense is that the governor and the LGBT community would frame the issue in ways to tilt the balance of reasonableness towards their desired outcome. The LGBT community may object to the phrase “sincere Christian beliefs” and the governor and his supporters may object to the phrase LGBT “community’s civil rights”. It is worth noting that the political tactic backfired and Governor Pence did not seek the presidential nomination of the Republican Party.

In practical terms, what are we talking about here? The oft quoted example is that if a Christian (or a person of any other religious denomination) florist/baker running a mom and pop family flower shop/bakery sincerely believed based on their religious beliefs that marriage was a sacred institution between a man and a woman, and therefore objected to gay or lesbian couples marrying, and therefore did not want to provide flower arrangements/cakes for a same sex marriage then he or she should be allowed to refuse if asked without having to pay the legal price for being discriminatory. The governor underestimated the power of the opposition and eventually had to walk back what the RFRA legislation was attempting to do.

While I do think the governor of Indiana pushed the legislation for personal political advantages, I also take the position that as long as a reasonable substitute (another florist or baker who can cater the wedding, in the example) for the service that a religious person wanted to withhold for reasons of conscience was available then he or she should be allowed to withhold the service. And he or she must have a clearly stated policy of which groups they will not serve and must apply that standard in a non-discriminatory manner. The business in question cannot apply the religious standard in some cases and not others. I think that peoples’ deeply held religious beliefs (as misplaced and wrong-headed as I or anybody else may think they are) should be respected and that society for the most part should structure its affairs to accommodate these beliefs. I want to reemphasize the qualifications (“as long as a reasonable substitute exists” and  “clearly stated policy” and “apply that standard in a non-discriminatory manner”) in my position. I am essentially arguing that if society has to choose between respecting somebody’s deeply held religious belief or making sure that at times people belong to certain categories/groups (in our example, the lesbian or gay couple getting married) can be served by the exact person/organization (the Christian baker who believes …) that they want to be served by, then society must act to respect one’s deeply held religious belief.

To be clear I want to give an example which takes out the Christian and LGBT aspects of the Indiana fiasco so that the principle is clear. So, if my religion proscribes the coloring of one’s hair and I as the owner of a motel do not want to rent out rooms to a couple who have colored their hair, the law should permit me to do so as long as there are other motels nearby which the hair coloring couple can rent from. However if mine is the only motel in town, then I should NOT be allowed to discriminate. And I must have a clearly state policy in my lobby, on my website, and other reasonable places, so that everybody knows whom I will not serve and why. And if I do not apply my standards consistently and in a non-discriminate manner, then I should be charged with some civil offence!

There are a couple of problems with my position above. First, how does one define a reasonable substitute, and how will one know whether a reasonable substitute exists? Without going into the details here, it is worth noting that a judgment of this sort is made regularly when the authorities deal with whether to permit mergers between two firms – the question ‘will it change the competitive environment substantially?’ is essentially asking, “Do reasonable substitutes exist, such that the merged firm will not have a monopolistic/oligopolistic advantage?” And, if the position I suggest is adopted, over time a body of case law will develop, and conventions will be worked out that seem ‘natural’ as to when one can discriminate and when one may not. The other obvious problem with my proposal is that a lemons problem exists where at times (maybe, even often) it is hard to differentiate the true believer from those who falsely claim to believe. As far as possible, society should figure out a mechanism to separate the ‘true’ from the ‘false’ claim, but if a doubt exists, the benefit of the doubt should go to accepting the claim.

The fact that I think the ‘fictional florist or baker or motelier’ should be allowed to withhold his or her services for religious reasons should in no way be interpreted as my thinking that it is a good thing that people withhold services on religious or any other grounds. I share the deep sense of sorrow and disgust that many people have when individuals and businesses in the 21st  century act in discriminatory and bigoted ways – at the very least, I think  to do so is not decent.  And if I know of a business that discriminates on religious, social, cultural, and sexual orientation grounds I will demonstrate my displeasure of their behavior by engaging them to speak about why I think their stance is deeply problematic, or not engaging them (by not patronizing them) if I think there is little that will be achieved by engaging them – I will go to the businesses/organizations where the reasonable substitutes are available. But the fact that I do not like something, or am even deeply troubled by it, is not good enough reason to make it illegal! When an individual’s (and I reluctantly add, institutions’) deeply held conscientious choices are in variance with the way I (or anyone else) would like to see things pan out, individual’s deeply held conscientious choices should win the day.

Please read the related piece titled, “Calling Out (with) Hope – At least become like Calvin …”