White Christian Nationalists and an American soldier

Yesterday a young man wonderfully named Godspower Nwawuihe scored two touchdowns for the US Military Academy team in a rout of the University of Connecticut in the Fenway Bowl in Boston. The internet is not very forthcoming about his ancestry, but hints that his parents came from Lagos, Nigeria, before settling in Garland, Texas. 

The day before yesterday, Donald Trump ordered the US military to lob missiles at northwestern Nigeria. CNN reports that people on the ground in the target area were mystified. 

Abuja, Nigeria  — A day after part of a missile fired by the United States hit their village, landing just meters from its only medical facility, the people of Jabo in northwestern Nigeria are in a state of shock and confusion.

... Kagara did not realize it at the time, but what he was witnessing was part of a US strike that President Donald Trump would later refer to as a “Christmas present” for terrorists.

Not long after the impact in Jabo, Trump declared on Thursday that the US had carried out a “powerful and deadly strike” against ISIS militants in the region, who he accused of “targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even centuries!” 

According to US Africa Command, the operation neutralized multiple ISIS militants. 

But Trump’s explanation has left Kagara and his fellow villagers scratching their heads. 

While parts of Sokoto face challenges with banditry, kidnappings and attacks by armed groups including Lakurawa – which Nigeria classifies as a terrorist organization due to suspected affiliations with Islamic State – villagers say Jabo is not known for terrorist activity and that local Christians coexist peacefully with the Muslim majority.  

“In Jabo, we see Christians as our brothers. We don’t have religious conflicts, so we weren’t expecting this,” he said.

When local violence does break out in northwestern Nigeria, it seems often to involve conflicts between herders who are Muslims and settled farmers who are Christian. Such conflicts are thought to have been part of human history all over the world.

Should Mr. Nwawuihe complete his time at West Point and be commissioned as an Army officer, will he be sent to kill Nigerians? 

Mr. Trump seems to treat random strikes in Nigeria as a gift to white US Christians who probably couldn't find Nigeria on a map. These strikes are just one more crime against hard won civilization from our clownish grifter ...

• • •

The contemporary Republican base of white evangelicals is a morass of white Christian nationalism. They think God gave them this country and they have a right to rule us all -- and the world too.

 Historian of religion Jemar Tisby provides a succinct definition of the affliction. 

White Christian nationalism is an ethnocultural ideology that uses Christianity as a permission structure for the acquisition of political power and social control. 

It is characterized by beliefs such as a conviction that Christians have a mandate to exercise dominion over all segments of society, the notion that the United States was founded as an explicitly Christian nation, and the sense that they are under attack by anti-American and anti-Christian forces. ...

Jennifer Rubin at The Contrarian catalogues the fixations and crimes of the nationalist-deluded. 

... White Christian nationalists generally do not seem interested in good works, helping the most vulnerable, or personal character. This is a movement seeking power, not redemption. Its adherents are motivated to remake America into a white, Christian dominated nation. 

Lacking the votes to bring their goals about through democracy, they are all too willing to suppress voting and rely on other anti-democratic measures. Blowing up people on the high seas, separating children from parents, brutalizing Hispanics, and taking away SNAP benefits are features, not bugs for people lacking empathy who seek racial and religious dominance.

These people are a lot of us. Sociologist Robert P. Jones attempted last March to measure carefully the prevalence of this dangerous fantasy.

... three in ten Americans qualified as Christian nationalism Adherents (10%) or Sympathizers (20%), compared with two-thirds who qualify as Skeptics (37%) or Rejecters (29%). These percentages have remained stable since PRRI first asked these questions in late 2022. In other words, Christian nationalism supporters, while a sizable minority, are outnumbered by a margin of two to one among the general public.

... A majority of Republicans today qualify as either Christian nationalism Adherents (20%) or Sympathizers (33%), compared to less than one quarter of independents (6% Adherents and 16% Sympathizers) and less than one fifth of Democrats (5% Adherents and 11% Sympathizers). These views are reinforced by TV media outlets consumed disproportionately by Republicans, such as Fox News or far right TV news outlets such as OAN and Newsmax.

... As the US has become more racially and religiously diverse over the past few decades, our two major political parties have responded in dramatically different ways to these shifts. Today, only 41% of Americans identify as white and Christian. But today’s Republican Party is 70% white and Christian, a stark contrast from the Democratic Party, which is 25% white and Christian.

... We see the connection between Christian nationalism and support for political violence clearly in the data. Nearly four in ten Christian nationalism Adherents (38%) and nearly three in ten Sympathizers (28%) agree that “because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country,” compared with only 15% of Skeptics and 7% of Rejecters.

If these folks get their way, Mr. Nwawuihe may indeed find himself dispatched to attack people in the land of his ancestors. What a dangerous, ignorant world we are making ... 

Seasonal reminder

Can't have refugees wandering about unmolested ... via Naked Pastor

We could use some truth telling

 

It seems a waste of pixels to post this (from the Guardian UK) but I'm feeling intolerant of foolishness and will not resist. This headline is false, absurd, and based on lies. Why do otherwise semi-sane media continue to play along with the game?

 

There is NO evidence that any party to the war being fought by Ukraine against Russian aggression wants "peace."

• Putin wants to erase Ukraine from the map; it's all Russia in his fantasy.

• Trump wants Russian minerals and whatever additional payoff Putin is offering. Oh yeah -- and a peace prize.

• Ukrainians want Russia to get the hell out of their country and must wander through whatever convoluted byways are required to keep that hope alive. While suffering.

• Europeans wish the whole thing would stop impinging on them; though on alternate Tuesdays they understand Russia threatens them all.

Ukraine is the Spanish Civil War of our era, a messy contest between more-or-less democracy and fascism in which the unfortunate Ukrainians provide a plaground for big bullies.

This time as deadly farce ... 

Merry Christmas

 

Hark! the planet continues its round and we've arrived here. Hark, indeed!

A few words for the occasion from Diana Butler Bass' A Beautiful Year:  

... Christianity is that sort of faith. A messy one where the mystery of God's glory runs smack into the muck of human bodies. At its heart is the most shocking idea: The Divine One became flesh from the same dust and spittle that made us all. Mary's body brought forth the tiny body of God; her water breaking and the bloody birth made possible the water and blood of the cross some thirty years later.

... God is born. And that would not have happened without the body of a woman, a body that had experienced all sorts of trauma to bring new life to the world. The cattle in that stable may have been lowing, but surely Mary was moaning. And that was the sound of honest, painful relief, exhaustion, and maybe even joy. ...

I'll be back here after the holiday. 

One of my favorite seasons ...

No, not the Solstice. Like many of us in the Northern Hemisphere I'm grateful for the turn toward more light. But I trust that cycle to survive our best efforts to screw things up. The days will get longer, even if humanity doesn't.

And also, grateful for the celebration of the birth of the Christ child, of God in humans made manifest.

Not so excited by the Great American Consumption Holiday. I understand that much of our economy depends on gift-giving excess, but our Christmas season does seem a little gross.

But also, this is the season of Peak Football, the time of dreary and then unexpectedly delightful college bowl games between schools that may also offer education. As well, this is the apex of the professional football season, and what's not to like about that gladiatorial extravaganza?!

I note that, among the TV ads shown along with the games, advertisers are decidedly NOT onboard with MAGA's crusade against diversity, equity and inclusion. The little clips advertising the participating schools always emphasize that their student bodies include lots of young people of color, often studying the mysteries of science and math. The ads for consumer products likewise seem aimed at a decidedly diverse population. Marketers can't afford to ignore half of us and they don't. In addition to people of color as consumers and interracial couples, gay couples turn up frequently. 

Consumer capitalism knows where we're at, even while MAGA resists demographics. 

'Tis the season of enticing customers to change phone service

The Trump regime borrowed a torture prison

MAGA media billioinaires and Bari Weiss, their bought and paid for stooge, tried to prevent you from seeing this 60 Minute segment about El Salvador's torture prison and the men sent there so Donald and Kristi Noem can look butch. Watch it here.

With the turn of the season, perhaps more light ahead

On this winter solstice, Jamelle Bouie, that wise commentator/historian of America, writing in the NYT [gift], thinks we might just be seeing the Trump catastrophe losing momentum. Overreach and sheer incompetence are finding some kind of limit. 

... In their pursuit of power, Trump and his allies have done a lot of damage to the United States, and the world. But as this year comes to an end, I think it’s clear that they’ve reached the limits of what they can accomplish through brute force alone. More important, Trump’s attempt to consolidate authoritarian power has inspired a large and ferocious backlash, from mass protests and organized efforts to stymie his most draconian plans to election results that show a voting public ready for change.

The 2024 presidential election wasn’t a plebiscite in favor of regime change, it was just a vote over the choice of chief magistrate. And when Americans put Trump back in office, they expected him to turn the page back to the prepandemic status quo, not make the country his personal fief. A more able president would recalibrate, take control of his administration and try to salvage what is left of his standing before he loses the trust of everyone but his most devoted followers.

Trump is not an able president.

He interrupted prime time television to yell at the American people this week because he does not know what to do besides yell. He can’t convince and he can’t persuade and so he demands, in the hope that he can browbeat the public into giving him the praise he thinks he deserves.

I think he’ll find that this isn’t going to work.

Of course a failing Trump is likely to escalate. There will likely be more violence from the regime in our future. 

If Bouie is right -- if the Trump turn of the Ameriican people is on a downslope -- we need as much commitment from those who have thwarted Trumpism to repair and to reparations as his collection of thugs and looters have made to destruction ... and then some!

Happy Solstice! 

A message for the Christmas season

Choose Love, Not ICE

 

The Roman Empire that Jesus was born into was as violent and capricious as our own nation states. Maybe more so. But we have more power than those subjugated people under Roman rule. At least we think we do. What are we doing to break the power of violence in this season?

Video from the Interfaith Alliance. 

Friday seasonal critter blogging

Snoopy and Woodstock await the postal van along my walk the other day.

Like Western civilization, international law would be a very good idea (apologies to M Gandhi)

The most fascinating book I read in 2025 was Phillipe Sands' East West Street: On the Origins of "Genocide" and "Crimes Against Humanity". By way of his gripping, intimate story of some of the human flotsam thrown about in the violent chaos of Central Europe in the first half of the 20th century, Sands interrogates the development of our contemporary understandings of international law.

For my generation of Americans which came of age when Central Europe -- Ukraine, Hungary, what was then Czechoslovakia, what was then Yugoslavia, Austria, Poland, much of Germany -- were barely visible behind the Iron Curtain erected by Soviet Russia, it is not obvious that this region was once the heart of European civilization. But it was. And then, what we call World War I, (functionally 1914 through 1920 or so) tore up and rearranged the state entities that had ruled and organized this part of Europe. After that war, violence and chaos continued. The Austro-Hungarian empire disintegrated into unstable nationalist successor states; in Russia, the Soviets overthrew the tsar and fought a wide-ranging civil war that leached westward. Individuals were tossed about between city and country, between morphing national states and nationalities, and among competing intellectual and political influences. 

Much of this human upheaval Sands traces by chasing down evidence about the lives of four individuals whose ideas and fates continue to shape international law today. All lived in or passed through what is known today as Ukrainian Lviv, but which in this period was named Lemberg, Lvov, and then Lwow before the contemporary Ukrainian state took its current form. (Yes, Vladimir Putin is still seeking undo Ukraine's claim to national status which emerged in this period. )

Sands' characters are: 

• Hersch Lauterpacht, professor of international law, born in August 1897 in the small town of Zolkiew, a few miles from Lemberg, to which the family moved in 1911. ... In 1923, he married Rachel Steinberg in Vienna, and they had one son, Elihu, who was born in Cricklewood, London. 

• Hans Frank, a lawyer and [German Nazi] government minister, was born in Karlsruhe [Germany], in May 1900. ... In August 1942, he spent two days in Lemberg, where he delivered several speeches. [He was executed 1946 after being tried at Nuremberg for presiding over the Eastern European death camps.] 

• Rafael Lemkin, a prosecutor and lawyer, was born in Ozerisko near Bialystok, in June 1900. ... In 1921, he moved to Lwow. He never married and had no children.

• Leon Buchholz [grandfather of the author] was born in Lemberg in May 1904. ... He married Regine "Rita" Landes in Vienna in 1937, and a year later their daughter, Ruth, who is [Sands'] mother, was born there.

Sands knew little of the lives of these four when he began the project that became this book. All contributed through actions and their intellectual contributions to his professional career as one of the most distinguished international lawyers of our day.The book is the story of his investigations into their lives, of finding survivors from their families and associates who knew the men, and unraveling who lived and who died as the Nazis tore apart European civilization.

The book is a compendium of fascinating, very contingent stories. Luck played a huge role in who made it through war and tyranny and who was murdered amid the turbulent chaos.

• • • 

And, in the midst of Sands' tale of these main characters, he takes a charming detour to recount the exploits of one person otherwise lost to history: "Miss Tilney of Norwich."

Who was Miss Tilney?" I asked my mother. 

... she said, "I think she was the woman who brought me [as an infant] from Vienna to Paris in the summer of 1939," insisting there was no more information. ...

Sands was not content to leave the question of Miss Tilney there. He chased around Europe and beyond, finding additional stories of the mysterious English woman who somehow managed to hide or facilitate the escape of a few Jewish people and others at risk from the Germans in turbulent wartime Europe. He never completely uncovered her motivation for this dangerous project which could have easily cost her her life. Perhaps she adhered to a warped Christian theology about bringing on the apocalypse; perhaps she just knew it was the right thing to do. She died in 1974, still unrecognized publicly, in a Florida retirement community. Yet Sands owes his own life to her rescue of his infant Jewish mother.

• • •

Ultimately this book consists of Sands, one of the worlds' current most eminent human rights lawyers, trying to sort out the conflict between the legal "crimes against humanity" edifice that Hersch Lauterpacht brought to the British delegation at Nuremberg and the novel notion of "genocide' invented and advocated by Rafael Lemkin to the American legal delegation at that tribunal.

The most succinct description of this conflict between adjacent legal frameworks that I've seen comes, in our own moment, from M. Gessen, written in the context of reporting on the attempts by legal NGOs, humanitarian organizations and some nations to discern how Israel's murderous campaign against the people of Gaza should understood. She describes the competing legal notions like this:

... International law makes two key distinctions between genocide and the broader category of crimes against humanity. One difference involves intent: Crimes against humanity are crimes of disregard for human life, while genocide is a crime of hatred against a specific group. The other difference involves the way the world is obligated to respond: Under existing law, other countries need not prevent crimes against humanity from occurring, but the Genocide Convention does require other countries to prevent genocide. ...  

• • •

Sands affirms the value of both legal frames and describes a history of human rights advocates leaning in one direction or the other. 

 

At the Nuremberg trials which led to the execution of Hans Frank and other leading Nazis, "crimes against humanity" took center stage. But later Rafael Lemkin's coinage, "genocide," gained adherents, led by the founders of the United Nations, including especially Eleanor Roosevelt. 

Sand ponders deeply about the two ways of looking at the horrors people and nations inflict on each other. As a practitioner of international law, he tries to come to terms with their implications.

... An informal hierarchy has developed. In the years after the Nuremberg judgment, the word genocide gained traction in political circles and in public discussion as the "crime of crimes," elevating the protection of groups above that of individuals. Perhaps it was the power of Lemkin's word, but as Lauterpacht feared, there emerged a race between victims, one in which a crime against humanity came to be seen as a lesser evil. That was not the only unintended consequence of the parallel efforts of Lauterpacht and Lemkin. 

Proving the crime of genocide is difficult, and in litigating cases I have seen for myself how the need to prove the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part, as the Geneva Convention requires, can have unhappy psychological consequences. It reinforces the sense of solidarity among the members of the victim group while reinforcing negative feelings toward the perpetrator group. The term "genocide" with its focus on the group, tends to heighten a sense of "them" and "us," burnishes feeling of group identity, and may unwittingly give rise to the very conditions that it seeks to address: by pitting one group against another it makes reconciliation less likely. 

I fear that the crime of genocide has distorted the prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity, because the desire to be labeled a victim of genocide brings pressure on prosecutors to indict for the crime. For some, to be labeled a victim of genocide becomes "an essential component of national identity' without contributing to the resolution of historical disputes or making mass killings less frequent. It is no surprise that an editorial in a leading newspaper, on the occasion of the centenary of Turkish crimes against Armenians, suggested that the word "genocide" may be unhelpful, because it "stirs up [defensive] national outrage rather than the sort of ruthless examination of the record the country needs."

Yet against these arguments. I am bound to accept the sense of group identity is a fact. ... "Our bloody nature," the biologist Edward O. Wilson wrote ... "is ingrained because group-versus-group was a principal driving force that made us what we are." It seems that a basic element of human nature is that "people feel compelled to belong to groups and, having joined, consider them superior to competing groups." 

This poses a serious challenge for our system of international law confronted by a tangible tension: on the one hand, people are killed because they happen to be members of a certain group; on the other hand the recognition of that fact by the law tends to make more likely the possibility of conflict between groups, by reinforcing the sense of group identity. ...

Sands could not and does not resolve the tension in his own mind. He sought to understand the two men who represented the two approaches. That quest led him into his own history and how he understands his own career as a human rights litigator. But he arrived at no clean conclusion:

... I [have] wondered ... whether I was closer to the ideas of Lauterpacht or Lemkin, or stood equidistant between them or sat with them both. Lemkin would probably have been the more entertaining dinner companion, and Lauterpacht the more intellectually rigorous conversationalist. The two men shared an optimistic belief in the power of law to do good and protect people and the need to change the law to achieve that objective. Both agreed on the value of a single human life and on the importance of being part of a community. They disagreed fundamentally, however, on the most effective way to achieve the protection of those values, whether by focusing on the individual or the group.

Lauterpacht never embraced the idea of genocide. To the end of his life, he was dismissive, both of the subject and, perhaps more politely, of the man who concocted it, even as he recognized the aspirational quality. Lemkin feared the separate projects of protecting individual human rights, on the one hand, and protecting groups and preventing genocide, on the other, were in contradiction. It might be said the two men cancelled each other out. 

... I saw the merits of both arguments, oscillating between the two poles, caught in an intellectual limbo.

Nothing is easy about trying to envision an international legal order based in justice. Today we watch the Trump regime tear up American fealty to the long standing law of the sea by killing men already drowning, a legal dictate that predates both human rights and genocide law .

 

Bob Dylan sang: "to live outside the law you must be honest." This is not an honest time.

Hate is not healthy for living beings ...

The particular anguish felt and expressed by people who come from the Right and have left those precincts out of disgust with Donald Trump sometimes moves me deeply. Maybe I'm a sucker. But there is something wrenching about observing people who feel the need to repudiate much of their own history. I could weep.

Peter Wehner, speech writer to several Republican presidents past and a serious evangelical Christian, has that effect on me. The current loathsome sentiments with which the Orange Baby Man has responded to the murder of Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner, by their own son inspired Wehner to speak out again on Trump's effect on many in his own tribe. 

Trump’s Inferno of Hate Is Intensifying

... When a man with Trump’s personality feels caged in, when he feels besieged and abandoned and begins to lose control of events, he becomes more desperate and more dangerous. 

...Trump sets the pace, and his apparatchiks follow. Many of them have gained power and made money dumping toxic sewage into our civic water supply. But their devotion comes at a personal cost. Those who relish cruelty, who take special delight in dehumanizing others, are engaging in self-harm of a certain kind. “When we desecrate the divinity of others,” the author Brené Brown wrote, “we desecrate our own, and we betray our humanity.”

“Those who are kind benefit themselves,” the author of Proverbs put it, “but the cruel bring ruin on themselves.”

At No Kings march in San Francisco.

... Trump is president mainly because of the early and undying support he has received from white evangelical Christians and fundamentalists, not all of them but most of them. They stand with him to this very day, to this very hour, to this very second—not on his every utterance but on the moral arc of his presidency.

Many of the people who claim to follow Jesus are instruments of a merciless leader and a merciless movement. They have chosen their political loyalties over their faith, even while using the latter to validate the former. There is something morally twisted and discrediting in this.

In the season of the Donald, we're all at risk for allowing ourselves to be morally twisted. Ain't worth it.

How soon will the rats start to jump?

Are we getting to the stage of the Trump regime when we might begin seeing preparation for a rat exodus? The vermin that jump off a sinking ship, that is. It seems early, but there's evidence.

Trump's White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles, gave a series of tell-all interviews to a reporter for Vanity Fair, Chris Whipple. Peter Baker at the New York Times (gift) provided a summary of these with some additions of his own.

Wiles here comes off as either ignorant, or stupid, or afraid of the consequences to herself of the bad company she's keeping. I doubt she's either of the first two -- but her behavior here carries a strong whiff of the last. Above all, she insists the crimes of the administration come from her boss, not from her.

Ms. Wiles described her own reservations about certain policies in real time to Mr. Whipple, author of a well-regarded book on White House chiefs of staff, even as debates raged inside the administration. She said she urged Mr. Trump not to pardon the most violent rioters from Jan. 6, 2021, which he did anyway. She unsuccessfully tried to get him to delay his major tariffs because of a “huge disagreement” among his advisers. And she said the administration needed to “look harder” at deportations to prevent mistakes. 

But she did not complain about being overruled and at various points said she “got on board” with the eventual decisions. “There have been a couple of times where I’ve been outvoted,” she said. “And if there’s a tie, he wins.” 

... Ms. Wiles does not view her role as constraining Mr. Trump. Instead, she makes clear that her mission is to facilitate his desires even if she sometimes thinks he is going too far.

This is someone who knows she is part of a crew that seems to be thieving and murdering for fun and profit. Wiles has some regrets, but mostly she hangs back and criticizes cautiously.

Mr. Musk’s demolition of the U.S. Agency for International Development including its lifesaving aid to impoverished people around the globe upset Ms. Wiles. “I was initially aghast,” she told Mr. Whipple. “Because I think anybody that pays attention to government and has ever paid attention to U.S.A.I.D. believed, as I did, that they do very good work.” 

Mr. Musk’s approach was “not the way I would do it.” She said she called Mr. Musk on the carpet. “You can’t just lock people out of their offices,” she recalled telling him. She said that Mr. Musk was a disrupter. “But no rational person could think the U.S.A.I.D. process was a good one. Nobody.” 

She offered no objection to Mr. Trump’s saber rattling against Venezuela and bombing of boats carrying alleged drug traffickers, suggesting that regime change against President Nicolás Maduro was Mr. Trump’s real goal. “He wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle,” she said. “And people way smarter than me on that say that he will.”

Oh yeah, and then there are those pesky migrants under assault by the Department of Homeland Security's new posse of masked thugs. Wiles has misgivings ...

Ms. Wiles expressed misgivings about how the roundup of immigrants has been carried out at times. “I will concede that we’ve got to look harder at our process for deportation,” she said. Criminals should be deported, she added. “But if there is a question, I think our process has to lean toward a double-check.” When two mothers were arrested and deported with their children after voluntarily attending routine immigration meetings, she said, “I can’t understand how you make that mistake, but somebody did.”

Josh Marshall sees successful guile in what Wiles chose to get spread around by Vanity Faire and Baker: 

If I’m not mistaken, Wiles seems to have tried to warn Trump off of his wildest and most malevolent actions. She tried. And she wants us to know she tried.

Well maybe. Maybe she's just trying to look less complicit. But I will not be surprised if she and other smarter Trump enablers are getting an inkling that one of these days there may be a personal cost from enabling Trump's criminal initiatives.

Just as the Wiles story took over the news, at the New Yorker, editor Michael Luo published History’s Judgment of Those Who Go Along. He writes about several lawyers who've left the Justice Department, refusing to violate professional standards. 

He recounts the story of the internment of Japanese-ancestry residents of the West Coast at the outbreak of World War II and how history has judged the high government officials who did that dirty deed -- and mostly privately knew better. 

... Anyone still serving in the Trump Administration must reckon with the reality that, when the government has previously perpetrated egregious miscarriages of justice, history has not been forgiving to those who’ve gone along, however reluctantly. ...

Luo believes that people choosing to carry out the Trump Administration's crimes may learn they've lost themselves in pursuit of not much more than permanent infamy.

Standing firm on principle sometimes sits opposite other factors, such as fealty to colleagues and professional ambition, but it invariably comes from within. During the early days of the first Trump Administration, Sally Yates, who had been Obama’s Deputy Attorney General and had stayed on as the acting Attorney General, directed her staff not to defend an executive order from Trump restricting travel from several Muslim-majority countries—his so-called Muslim ban. Trump fired her.  

Several months later, Yates delivered a commencement-week speech to graduates of Harvard Law School, in which she talked about the need to hone the “compass that’s inside all of us.” Introspection about difficult decisions that involve conscience, she said, helps “develop a sense of who you are and what you stand for.” 

For those in the second Trump Administration, the time to answer those questions could be now.