One Nominee Down and... One To Go?

Donald Trump has put a pair of pretty awful nominees before the Senate. One of them, Jay Clayton, got approved as DNI yesterday. The other, acting AG Todd Blanche, will probably learn later this week whether he gets to keep his job on a permanent basis.

Let us start by reminding readers why Clayton is awful. First, he has no experience relevant to being Director of National Intelligence. He was serving as a U.S. Attorney until yesterday, and in Trump v1.0, he worked for the Securities and Exchange Commission. The closest he's ever come to working in intelligence is that he's seen a couple of James Bond films. The law that created the position of DNI says that the holder of that job must have "extensive national security expertise," but apparently the Senate is not concerned with the laws that, you know, it passed.

Meanwhile, Clayton is also a partisan hack. In particular, he has been more than willing to indulge Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen by Joe Biden. Clayton's reputation as an election-denier is so well known, that was the sole focus of some of the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, particularly Jon Ossoff (GA) during the nominee's hearings. But Clayton came prepared. He knows that the five D's of Senate confirmation hearings are dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge. So, he bent over backwards to avoid answering Ossoff's questions and risk offending Trump. Eventually, Clayton offered a milquetoast assent that Biden's victory might possibly have been legitimate.

In short, the best-case scenario is that Clayton will be a yes man who only tells Trump what Trump wants to hear. The worst-case scenario is that Clayton will abuse his position to help Trump lie about Iran, or lie about Cuba, or lie about Mali, or lie about elections, or all of the above. That did not matter to the 51 Republicans who voted to confirm (with Mitch McConnell, KY, not voting for obvious reasons, and Darline Graham, SC, not voting for reasons that are unclear). All 47 Democrats and independents voted against but, as the staff mathematician informs us, 47 is less than 51.

In part, the obviously unqualified Clayton got across the finish line because the Republican Senators are worried about how Trump might punish them, or their states, if they rebel. Another big part of it, however, is that the alternatives are worse. Until Clayton was confirmed, Bill Pulte was doing the job on an interim basis. Pulte is even less qualified, and even more hacky, than Clayton is. And if the Senate rejected Clayton, then Pulte might have stayed on the job for months. And then, the next nominee Trump sent to the Hill might have been an even worse horror show. DNI Michael Flynn, anyone?

And that brings us to Blanche. He's at least qualified to be AG, in that at least he's a lawyer. But if he does get the job, then on Day 1, he will already be the most corrupt person ever to hold the position. He's already participated in all kinds of chicanery, with the two most obvious acts of corruption being his efforts to bring bogus lawsuits against "enemies" of the administration like James Comey and Letitia James, and his creation of a slush fund for Trump to give out to whomever he wants, coupled with a promise that Trump will never, ever be prosecuted by the federal government for any tax (or other) crimes, even after he leaves office.

Rejecting Blanche should be a slam dunk, especially for senators like Thom Tillis (NC) and John Cornyn (TX), who are on the Judiciary Committee (and so know what an AG should look like) and whose careers are over, anyhow. However, they fear Trumpy retribution against themselves and their home states. Further, they are apparently concerned that if they reject Blanche, Trump will somehow find an even worse nominee. Though it's hard to imagine who could possibly be worse. Maybe Rudy Giuliani or Alan Dershowitz, or the reanimated corpse of John N. Mitchell.

And so, as they make clear that they definitely do not want to be included in the next edition of Profiles in Courage, Tillis and Cornyn have imposed only one meaningful condition on their Blanche votes. They want formal, legally binding paperwork that says that whatever "settlement" Trump has with the federal government, there will be no $1.8 billion slush fund for Trump cronies to distribute to other Trump cronies as they see fit. It should not be a problem for Blanche and Trump to give the senators what they want, since both have already said the slush fund is dead. And yet, Blanche and Trump have not acceded to Tillis' and Cornyn's demands, which tells you how dead the fund really is.

In theory, the Judiciary Committee is supposed to vote on the nomination tomorrow. If Tillis and Cornyn vote against, it's dead. So, will Blanche give the senators what they want? Or will the vote be postponed, so the game of chicken can be extended? Or will Tillis and Cornyn vote "nay," and poke both Trump and Blanche in the eye? We don't know which of these it will be, but we're definitely not betting on Option #3. (Z)

If at First You Don't Succeed...

You have to hand it to Donald Trump. No matter how many times he loses, he keeps going until he gets to someone who will give him his way. And that has worked remarkably well for him, in many cases.

Trump is determined to create chaos and confusion for the mid-term elections, and after a district court and a court of appeal enjoined his anti-mail-in voting XO, he has gone begging to the one body that will often give him what he wants regardless of the law or the consequences to democracy: the U.S. Supreme Court.

In yet another shadow docket filing, Trump has applied for an emergency stay of a lower court's order blocking his executive order from taking effect.

Back in March, Trump signed an executive order to control how states conduct mail-in voting, despite his having no authority to do so. The XO directs the federal and state governments to do several things: (1) expand an existing DHS database (SAVE database) that is used to determine eligibility for benefits and turn it into a massive voter database that includes partial SSNs to ostensibly check each voter's eligibility; (2) prohibit the USPS from sending a mail-in ballot to anyone not on the list; (3) require states to adopt federally-designed envelopes with a unique bar code; and (4) states that don't comply can be denied federal funding.

There are a number of problems with the order even before we get to the pending court case. Last month, in a separate case, a judge blocked DHS from expanding the SAVE database to use it as a universal voter verification tool, and it appears that DHS has complied. So, even if SCOTUS overturns the injunction regarding the XO, it won't affect the judge's order prohibiting the use of SAVE.

A second problem is that even the White House admits that nothing has been done to actually implement the XO, but it nonetheless argues that there's still time to do so before the November elections. And a third problem is that it's unclear if the USPS will even agree to do Trump's bidding since the Board of Governors is not under Trump's control—at least, not yet.

With this Supreme Court, especially when it can hide behind the shadow docket and issue a ruling with little to no explanation, the Republican majority has had no qualms about violating even its own rules (such as altering election rules too close to the election) in order to maximize Republicans' chances of staying in power. But here, this XO is so problematic and confusing that it's likely to hurt Republican voters as much as Democratic ones if it goes into effect.

Most states with Democratic secretaries of state, and even some Republican-led states, have told Trump to pound sand or, in the case of Republicans, politely declined to take any action to comply with the XO. So, it could very well be that even if SCOTUS gives Trump a victory, the only states that will be impacted will be Republican-controlled states. Of course, Texas and Ohio have critical Senate races, and if mail-in voting is made close to impossible, that could impact Democrats who have recently been voting by mail in greater numbers. But Texas already has strict eligibility requirements for voting by mail, and, in both states, voters are required to include an ID number on the outside of the ballot envelope (the carrier envelope). So, in those states it's not clear that this effort will benefit Republicans.

The one major question is the USPS. If the Board of Governors or the Postmaster General agrees to refuse to deliver certain vote-by-mail ballots based on an error-riddled database, they'll be looking at a major lawsuit. And who exactly is going to be qualified to make those determinations for each city or county? Are they going to train postal workers to sift through mail ballots and compare them to some list that has yet to be created? What could possibly go wrong? But of course, the chaos is the point. If millions of ballots conveniently go missing, Trump has won again. And amid all this chaos, if Democrats somehow still manage to win, Trump will have created the grounds to contest those outcomes in court.

A response from the plaintiff states to the emergency application is due by August 3. Presumably, the Court will issue a ruling shortly after that. (L)

There Were a Couple of Smallish Elections Yesterday

Things are going to start heating up again next Tuesday, when five states—Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Virginia and Washington—hold primaries. But there were a couple of elections yesterday, and we're a full-service electoral site, so we should probably mention them.

First, Gov. Larry Rhoden (R-SD) was not elected to his current position; he got it when Kristi Noem resigned to become DHS Secretary. Politicians like that, whether they succeeded to their office or were appointed, don't have a great track record. So, it wasn't too much of a surprise that the Governor did poorly in the first round of primary voting this cycle, taking 25.2% of the vote to finish in second place behind corporate executive Toby Doeden, who had 30.2%.

In South Dakota, you don't have to get 50% to avoid a runoff (as is the case in many Southern states), but you do have to get 35%. So, Rhoden and Doeden went head-to-head yesterday, and this time Rhoden trounced Doeden, 70.8% to 29.2%. We're not quite sure what accounts for the disparate results, though the Governor's main focus since the first round of voting has been "Hey, I cut taxes!" while Doeden's focus has been "Let's invest public funds in bitcoin!", so maybe that explains it. Anyhow, now that Rhoden is his party's nominee, he will surely win a full term in his own right. South Dakota hasn't elected a Democratic governor in over a half-century.

The other election yesterday was over in Georgia, where the GOP is trying to keep GA-13, a D+21 seat left vacant by the death of Rep. David Scott (D), open as long as is possible. That quest was aided by the state's "you have to get 50% to be elected" rule, as five different candidates split yesterday's vote. Marcye Scott (D), who just so happens to be David's daughter, came close to the promised land, with 46% of the vote, but 46% is not 50%, so she'll face off against Everton Blair, who took 37.4%, in a runoff.

That runoff will take place in just under a month, on August 25. You have to figure, given her stronger performance and her familial connection, that Scott will win. That said, whether it's Scott or Blair, it's a short-term gig. The election for a full term, to commence on January 3 of next year, will feature neither of them, as that one is going to be state Rep. Jasmine Clark (D) squaring off against Air Force veteran Jonathan Chavez (R). You can bet large sums of money that Clark will win that one.

Onward and upward to next Tuesday and, in particular, the battle royale for the Democratic nomination in the Michigan U.S. Senate race. (Z)

Democratic Presidential Candidate of the Week: #21, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA)

Here are the candidates we've already written up:

Runner-up: Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Runner-up: Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ)
Runner-up: Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Runner-up: Al Franken
Runner-up: Mitch Landrieu
Runner-up: Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Runner-up: Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ)
Runner-up: Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA)
Runner-up: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Runner-up: Jon Stewart
Runner-up: Jon Tester
Runner-up: Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)
#25: Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
#24: Gov. Tony Evers (D-WI)
#23: Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA)
#22: Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI)

And now, stepping to the plate is Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA).

• Full Name: Raphael Gamaliel Warnock
  
  
• Age on January 20, 2029: 59
  
  
• Background: Both of Warnock's parents were sharecroppers and Pentecostal ministers, and in whatever time they had left over from those two tasks, well... when the future senator was born, he was the 11th of what would ultimately be 12 children. He grew up in a four-bedroom apartment in Savannah, GA, which works out to roughly one bedroom for every four siblings.
  
  Some politicians find themselves later in life, others are obnoxious overachievers from an early age. Warnock was in the latter group. He preached his first sermon at age 11, and was a regular in the pulpit as a teenager. At Sol C. Johnson High School in Savannah, he was voted class president and "Most Likely to Succeed," graduating in 1987.
  
  Warnock was born a year after Martin Luther King Jr. died, so the two men could not have met. Nonetheless, after a visit to the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta, Warnock decided to model his life on King's. He became a Baptist and enrolled at King's alma mater, Morehouse College. When he graduated with his degree in psychology, he was the first member of his family to earn a degree from a four-year college.
  
  Warnock continued his education at the famous Union Theological Seminary in New York, taking an M.Div., M.Phil. and a Ph.D. there. His doctoral dissertation, later published as a book, was The Divided Mind of the Black Church: Theology, Piety, and Public Witness. During this time, he served as assistant pastor at Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem and then, on graduating, moved on to a position as senior pastor at Douglas Memorial Community Church. At age 35, he returned home to Atlanta, and took over the pulpit once occupied by King himself, at the famous Ebenezer Baptist Church, which has been in continuous operation for 140 years. Warnock is the youngest person ever named senior pastor there; he served for 15 years before commencing his political career.
  
  
• Political Experience: Warnock's first forays into politics took the form of advocacy; he was a leader in efforts to expand Medicaid in Georgia. Again taking a cue from his role model, he led a sit-in at the Georgia State Capitol in support of accepting the funds being offered as part of Obamacare. He also began campaigning for various candidates for political office, thus building the sort of network that is essential for a successful statewide campaign, unless the candidate has been a football coach or an oysterman.
  
  Warnock first considered running for the Senate in 2016, but decided that challenging the sitting Johnny Isakson, in what was then still a red state, was a lost cause. In 2019, Isakson stepped down due to health problems and was replaced by the appointed Kelly Loeffler. Loeffler was a considerably less formidable opponent than Isakson, plus the GOP was being weighed down, by that point, by an anchor inscribed S.S. Trump. So, Warnock decided to run in the 2020 special election for the balance of Isakson's term. He outpaced Loeffler by 7 points in the first round of voting, 32.9% to 25.9%, but Georgia is one of those states where you have to take 50% of the vote to win.
  
  The intensely watched runoff, in January 2021, with control of the Senate on the line, was much closer, but Warnock still came out on top, 51% to 49%. That made him (and, at the same time, Jon Ossoff) the first Democrats to represent Georgia in the U.S. Senate in 20 years, and Warnock the first Black man ever to do so. The whole point of Southern "50% to win" laws was to make sure that only Democrats were elected to political office, although left-leaning Black Democrats weren't quite the kind of Democrats the authors of those laws had in mind. Warnock was reelected to a full term in 2022.
  
  In the Senate, Warnock serves on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the Special Committee on Aging. He is known as a moderate (though he's not fanatical about it), and as a work horse who keeps his nose to the grindstone. He still preaches at Ebenezer nearly every Sunday.
  
  
• Signature Issue(s): Voting rights. This is one of his key issues, and he comes from a state that is Ground Zero for a lot of voter access shenanigans.
  
  
• What Would His Pitch Be?: "We must pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and I'm the man to get it done."
  
  
• Instructive Quote: "I believe in bipartisanship. But when it comes to something as fundamental as voting rights, I just have to ask, bipartisanship at what cost?"
  
  
• Completely Trivial Fact: The most common middle names for American males, over the past 200 years, are Michael, Joseph and William. The U.S. has never had a president with any of those middle names. On the other hand, if Warnock were elected, he'd be the second president with the middle name Gamaliel. And, very probably, the first such president not to conceive an illegitimate child in a closet next to the Oval Office. Note that Warnock's middle name was not inspired by Warren Harding, however; Gamaliel is a Biblical name.
  
  
• Recent News: Some members of Congress don't get much legislation passed into law. Warnock does. One of the key provisions of the housing bill that became law a few weeks ago, the ban on equity firms buying single-family homes (under most circumstances), was his doing.
  
  
• Strengths for the Democratic Primaries: (1) He's Black, and so are a lot of Democratic primary voters; (2) He comes from a swing state that the blue team would love to have in its column and (3) He's legitimately religious, and if James Talarico wins (or comes close) in Texas, many Democratic voters are going to decide that a religious candidate is the key to the promised land that is reddish-purple Southern states (Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, etc.).
  
  
• Weaknesses for the Democratic Primaries: (1) Warnock has a Troy-Jackson-style skeleton in his closet, in that he had an argument with his ex-wife in which she says he ran over her foot with the family car (the police investigated and sided with Warnock); (2) a lot of Democratic voters will be leery of putting a key Senate seat at risk, and (3) Warnock's past sermons are an oppo researcher's dream, particularly if they are willing to take some of his more provocative remarks out of context, which oppo researchers most certainly are willing to do.
  
  
• Polls: Pollsters do not test the approval ratings of senators very often, but when they do, Warnock tends to be about 10 points above water, roughly 50% to 40%. By the standards of modern politics, that's very good.
  
  
• Rank, Initial Poll: #19
  
  
• Rank, Readers' Preferred Candidates: #14
  
  
• How Does the Readership Feel?: We asked readers for their thoughts on Warnock running for president. Here are some of those responses:
  

  L.B. in London, England, UK: After doing a bit of research, Warnock is an even better senator than I realized. He won in a swing state, but one that is shifting left rapidly (so not at major risk of losing it if he were to be the Presidential nominee), and his politics are great. I was planning on mentioning how the other Senator from Georgia would be a better choice, but on further research I may have changed my mind on that.

  ---

  
  A.G. in Los Angeles, CA: I recently watched Warnock's appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher. While he did release a book recently, I can't believe he is truly running. His vibe was too measured and demure, which doesn't translate well in modern elections for president. He did not have any notable quotes or go into talking points like others who are likely to run. I think he would make a great VP for a more fiery candidate like a Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). The structure of the show is one guest first who is usually talking about something they are releasing, followed by two guests who discuss current events. It really didn't help Warnock that the first guest was J.D. Vance, who has been taking extensive lessons on being charismatic and personable. Unrelated to the question, but Vance is no longer the weird guy and will be a very formidable candidate.
  
  It's quite telling that a millennial who has voted Democratic since Obama was more impressed by Vance, even though I would never vote for him.
  
  

  ---

  
  J.P. in Chicago, IL: In a cycle that has Democrats afraid to vote for anyone besides a straight, white, Christian man, but where the Party needs to address the abandonment of black voters, he'd make a perfect VP. If needed, also a great president, but not elected as one in 2028.
  
  

  ---

  
  M.M. in San Diego, CA: I love this man, but the sad truth is he would galvanize the extremist, racist far right. Also, he's invaluable and needed for Georgia right now.
  
  

  ---

  
  K.H. in Scotch Plains, NJ: Back in the winter of 2020, when the season was mercifully almost over, I was heartened that both the election was called for Biden and that the 2020-21 U.S. Senate elections were called for Ossoff and Warnock in Georgia. They seem, much like my own Senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim (both D-NJ), very capable and intelligent. Ossoff is clearly interested in 2028 himself, if he can get re-elected this year, so that could cause a bit of a potential issue if Warnock is as well.
  
  But Warnock is a lot like Senate candidate James Talarico, I think: He's a man who actually lives his faith in a Congress with more people than I could count who invoke Christ's name and refuse to take any of His teachings seriously. He's actually a preacher and I'm not entirely sure there's ever been a sitting senator who's also worked as a preacher before, and he seemed very warm, sharp and agreeable when he was on The Daily Show last month. Basically, he seems like an admirable man who knows how to get into the weeds of politics without muddying up his own character. I do love that about him, he's clearly a man who will take the high road, but "taking the high road" does not mean "look the other way/hope for the best when clear injustice is going on." I do hope he's one of those people who can make sure to put that into practice. But he's someone I would vote for and he seems far more trustworthy than most people in Congress.
  
  Whether he could go the distance, I'm not entirely sure. It was a real relief to see him triumph over Herschel Walker, an incredibly sketchy, creepy man, but there are a lot of people who have run for office who are sketchy and creepy and plenty of them do know how to say the right things to get that sweet power. I do hope Ossoff and Warnock remain close because I think they could help bolster one another, the Democratic Party, and the nation, and I don't want there to be any 2028 competition between them, but I don't really know what either of them want right now. But I like and support both men.

  ---

  
  P.J.T. in Raton, NM: While I admire the man and his politics, and would happily support a senatorial run were he a resident of the Land of Enchantment, the only scenario in which I can see myself supporting a clergy[person] for President would be if the alternative were a clergy[person] from the other side. Otherwise, I'd lean into the green side of blue (I consider myself a "Turquoise Democrat"), and vote for the Green Party candidate. I believe in the wall of separation between church and state, and when it comes to the presidency, I want that wall to be impenetrably thick.
  
  

  ---

  
  M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO: I'm kind of embarrassed to say that I didn't know much about Warnock until very recently, when he appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (I knew who he was, and that he won hard races in Georgia, but that's about it). And my only thought after that interview was "We'll never be lucky enough to have this man as president, will we?" He totally blew me away. I'm as far from religious as you can get, so I'm not sure what it means that my favorite candidate for 2028 is a practicing Baptist minister.
  
  That said, we probably need his common sense and ability to connect with religious and non-religious alike in the Senate more than ever these days. I could easily see him being a future excellent majority leader there. I also just don't have enough faith in Americans to put him in the White House.
  
  

  ---

  
  P.D.N. in Austintown, OH: Good senator and perfect for his state. But until the racist Silents and Boomers die off, and they're getting close, America is not going to elect a Black man as President. Maybe for vice-president if the Democratic ticket absolutely needs Georgia.

• The Bottom Line: Warnock's been eyed as a potential Democratic presidential candidate since the day he first took office, and maybe one day he'll take a shot at it. However, we think the key factor in 2028 is that the blue team just can't afford to risk that Senate seat. That will not only forestall a presidential run, but probably takes the VP slot off the table, as well.

Next week, it's #20, former Sen. Sherrod Brown. If readers have comments about Brown running for president in 2028, please send them to comments@electoral-vote.com.

Lies Across America, Part II: The Pilgrims and the Puritans

These things take a while to write, and there is a LOT of news these days. Our initial plan was 2-3 entries a week, but we're going to have to aim for one per week right now. We most certainly will do 25 entries, no matter how long it takes.

Today's subject is the Pilgrims and the Puritans. It is not easy to juggle the terminology here, though we'll do our best. The Pilgrims were Puritans, and so technically we could just use "Puritans" throughout this piece, and we would not be wrong. However, in American historiography, the two terms are generally used to refer to two different "waves" of migration. The Pilgrims were the first group of Puritans to arrive, and were driven by religious motives. The group historians usually refer to as "the Puritans" largely came a few generations later, and were motivated primarily by economic opportunity.

When someone asks (Z) what his area of expertise is, it's actually a trickier question than it seems. The short version is "the Civil War." But that's not exactly what he studies, or what he writes about. His actual speciality is the memory of the Civil War, particularly in the latter half of the 20th century. In short, questions of what people remember, what they forget, what they distort, and why.

That background will inform this entire series, but it will particularly inform today's entry. The way we are going to organize this piece is that we will look at six myths about the Pilgrims and the Puritans, what the truth is, and when and why the myth really took hold. And with that intro, away we go:

The Myth: The Pilgrims intended to found a "city on a hill," that would be a beacon of religious tolerance and enlightened thinking.

The Truth: It is true that John Winthrop, an early leader, gave a famous sermon in which he decreed:

For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.

So, the "city on a hill" part is correct. But the purpose of the city on the hill was not to be a model of enlightenment ideals or religious tolerance. The Pilgrims, in particular, only favored some elements of enlightenment thinking (such as the notion that kings do not speak for God). And they most certainly did not embrace religious tolerance. Schoolchildren are often taught that the Pilgrims left England for the Netherlands to escape persecution, which is basically true. And then, goes the story, the Pilgrims left Netherlands for the same reason. This is not correct; the Netherlands was broadly tolerant of different flavors of Christianity, and did not persecute Puritans. The reasons the Pilgrims headed west was that they believed Dutch secular values were corrupting their religious practice and, in particular, their young people. That means the Dutch have been a bad influence for 400 years and counting.

This being the case, the message of the city on the hill was not "religious tolerance," it was "we're going to be a shining example of the right way to relate to God." Inasmuch as this was about a century after Martin Luther's theses, and was right in the thick of the Protestant reformation, relating to God in the "right" way was certainly the hot issue of the day.

When the Myth Took Hold: The 1770s

Why the Myth Took Hold: The United States was not created by Puritans. It was, however, created by fellows who were big believers in the Enlightenment and in religious tolerance. And so, rethinking the Pilgrims and their "city on a hill" was a pleasing way to affirm the values of the newly formed United States. Or, at least, the values the founders wanted to promote.

Ever since then, people who love the idea of American exceptionalism have embraced this line of thinking. For example, in his farewell address, Ronald Reagan decreed:

And that's about all I have to say tonight, except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.

The irony is that most people who think along these lines—though, admittedly, the Gipper was not one of them—do not actually embrace freedom of religion, and tend to think that their way of being religious is the correct one. Think someone like Pete Hegseth, who is only mildly OK with other forms of Christianity and with Judaism, and not at all OK with Islam or with non-Abrahamic religions. This being the case, Hegseth is not at all in line with the mythological version of the city on a hill, though he is in line with what the Puritans actually meant by "city on a hill."

---

The Myth: The Puritans were sexual prudes.

The Truth: The Puritans definitely did not approve of sex outside of marriage, but within the confines of that institution, they were big, big fans. Here's Winthrop again, in a letter written to his wife in 1618:

Being filled with the joy of thy love, and wanting opportunity of more familiar connection with thee, which my heart fervently desires, I am constrained to ease the burden of my mind by this poor help of my scribbling pen, being sufficiently assured that although my presence is that which thou desires, yet in the want thereof these lines shall not be unfruitful of comfort unto thee.

That may sound noble, because it's old-fashioned and feels vaguely Shakespearean. However, it's basically the seventeenth century version of Penthouse Forum.

When the Myth Took Hold: The 1840s

Why the Myth Took Hold: You can thank the Victorians, who actually were sexual prudes. The Victorians glommed onto historical examples that supported their philosophy of modesty and sexual restraint. There aren't too many of those, at least in the West, as most western civilizations were pretty OK with sex. However, the Puritans were adaptable to the purpose, especially since there weren't any of them still around in the 1840s to correct the record.

---

The Myth: The Puritans were theocrats.

The Truth: Early on, you had to be a member of the church to hold political office, but they got rid of that by 1664. Further, ministers were legally barred from holding political office, while politicians could not be removed from office for religious offenses. This is the opposite of a theocracy.

When the Myth Took Hold: The 1850s

Why the Myth Took Hold: By the mid-nineteenth century, two things were true. The first is that all the Founding Parents were dead. The second is that the Second Great Awakening was well underway. The Great Awakening caused some fervently religious people to decree that the United States was a Christian nation, and had always been a Christian nation. And the exit of the Founding Parents meant that none of them were around to object, even though they had left behind plenty of documentation indicating their intentions. Claiming that the original founders (i.e., the Puritans) were a theocracy helped bolster the case that America was always intended to be a Christian nation governed on Christian principles.

---

The Myth: The Pilgrims were the starting point for what became the United States.

The Truth: These days, there aren't too many people who think that the Pilgrims were the founders of the United States. Most people know that Jamestown, VA, preceded the Pilgrims by over a decade (1607 vs. 1621). But for well over a century, the Pilgrims were given credit as America's founders. There are countless statues honoring them as such around the United States, perhaps most famously the 1889 National Monument to the Forefathers, which is thought to be the largest solid-granite monument in the world. There are considerably fewer statues honoring John Smith and Jamestown (a story that largely did not become a source of pride for Americans until it was distorted into a tale of racial tolerance, thanks to Smith and Pocahontas).

When the Myth Took Hold: The 1870s

Why the Myth Took Hold: By the time of the centennial in 1876, and then later the World's Columbian exposition of 1893, Americans had become very interested in their own origin story. The Pilgrims were generally calm, law-abiding churchgoers who ostensibly believed in "enlightenment values" (not really; see above), were big on education (that part is true), and believed in industry and hard work. The folks who founded Jamestown were violent and often criminal, were fortune seekers looking for the "easy" path to success, and were slavers who just so happened to be the starting point for the Confederacy. The Civil War, of course, ended in 1865. So, most Americans of that era glommed onto the Pilgrims as their "founding generation," and pretended that Jamestown never existed.

---

The Myth: The Puritans wore black clothing with lots of big buckles.

The Truth: Metal was fairly scarce in colonial Massachusetts and, more importantly, black was a rare and valuable coloring, and its use was limited (by law) to clothing worn by important officials—mostly ministers and judges. The Puritans did not utilize big buckles, and their clothes came in a variety of colors, with a heavy emphasis on earth tones.

When the Myth Took Hold: The 1880s

Why the Myth Took Hold: In the 1880s, black clothing, big hats, big buckles, and leather shoes all suggested "old-fashioned." In modern terms, think about a man who wears a bow tie, or a woman who wears a big brooch or stockings.

As with the 1690s, and the 2020s, the Gilded Age was a time of rapid change in America. In times of change, many people look backward, to when times were allegedly "simpler" and "better." This is really what MAGA is about; Donald Trump has made clear that his goal is to return America to the 1950s. And there was much about Gilded Age culture that was backward-looking (a theme that will come up again in a future entry in this series). The Gilded Age is also when Thanksgiving, first celebrated as a national holiday in 1864, really took hold as a core element of American culture. And when crafting a narrative for this pleasant, nostalgic holiday, it's no surprise that people put them in old-fashioned (by 1880s standards) clothing.

There's actually another character who has a historical basis but is heavily fictionalized, and who also became a core part of American culture in the Gilded Age. This character does not wear black, but does have a big hat, leather shoes, and a big buckle. If readers care to guess the identity of this character, we'll reveal the answer at the end.

---

The Myth: The Puritans were superstitious fanatics who often tried, and executed, accused witches.

The Truth: Religious people of the 17th century, particularly Protestants, tended to see witches everywhere. In Europe, over the course of that century, it is estimated that 100,000 people were put on trial for witchcraft, and 50,000 of those were executed. By contrast, the Puritans of Massachusetts were quite restrained. From the first witchcraft trial in New England in 1638 to the last in 1697, 265 people were tried for witchcraft and 36 were executed. The majority of the trials (200) and executions (19) happened during the infamous Salem Witch Trials of 1692-93, which were actually not so much about witchcraft, and were a backlash to rapid economic and social change taking place in Massachusetts at that time.

When the Myth Took Hold: The 1920s

Why the Myth Took Hold: Following the horrors of World War I, theism took a big hit, particularly the type of devout and/or fundamentalist theism embodied by the Puritans. In 1925, for example, journalist H.L. Mencken, who had absolutely no use for religion, offered his definition of Puritanism: "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." Slurring the Puritans as witch-hunting fanatics served this anti-religious, often militantly atheistic, worldview well.

It also did not hurt that the biggest anti-Communist zealots in the 1920s, and again in the 1950s, tended to be wearing-their-religion-on-their-sleeves Christians. And so, the witch trials became a useful metaphor for both Christianity out of control and for political paranoia out of control. Of course, it was a nice Jewish boy (albeit a non-believing nice Jewish boy), Arthur Miller, who permanently linked the witch trials with anti-communism in the popular imagination.

It is exceedingly common that past groups and individuals who are perceived as good, noble, honorable, etc. are reinterpreted, over and over, by subsequent generations, so as to serve the needs of that particular generation. Often, these reinterpretations take a "historical evidence be damned" approach to the subject in question. This will be a major recurring theme of this series.

And that's the REAL story of the Pilgrims and the Puritans. (Z)

P.S. The other character who took their modern form in the Gilded Age is, like the Pilgrims, linked to a holiday that only became a major institution in that era. We speak, of course, of Santa Claus.

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger