Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

At the start of the war, Pope Leo XIV declared that nations must “chart their future with works of peace, not with violence and bloody conflicts!” A few days later, the Pope told a group of parish schoolchildren: “War, again! We must be heralds of the message of peace, the peace of Jesus, the peace that God wants for everyone.”

Last Friday morning, Pope Leo was even more pointed in his criticism. Addressing a room full of priests and seminarians training to hear confessions, the Pope wondered aloud, “One might ask: Do those Christians who bear serious responsibility in armed conflicts have the humility and courage to make a serious examination of conscience and go to confession?”

Pope Leo didn’t name Donald Trump directly. Then again, he didn’t have to. His remarks were not only directed at Trump but Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, both Catholics, and both defenders of a war that has taken the lives of members of the U.S. military and scores of civilians in the Middle East, including 175 girls and adults whose Iranian school was mistakenly bombed by the U.S. The Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, warned that recognizing the doctrine of “preventive war” could “set the world ablaze,” a prophetic warning that is now a reality.

Pope Leo told the assembly of priests and seminarians that “only a reconciled person is capable of living in a way that is both unarmed and disarming.” His observation aligns with a warning issued long ago by the Second Vatican Council: “Insofar as men are sinful, the threat of war hangs over them. But insofar as men vanquish sin by a union of love, they will vanquish violence as well.”

This stands in sharp contrast to the Trumpian worldview as enunciated by Donald Trump’s Homeland Security Adviser, Stephen Miller, who sees nations governed by “strength,” “force,” and “power.” In such a world, Pope Leo notes, “War is back in vogue, and a zeal for war is spreading.”

In Pope Leo’s worldview, those serving in the military should remember that “in the service of security and peace, the common good of peoples always comes first.”

In 2024, Donald Trump won 59 percent of the Catholic vote. But the very vocal opposition to Trump’s war of choice against Iran, together with his cruel deportation policies, cuts to healthcare and the poor, and support for the death penalty—all vigorously opposed by Catholic leaders in the U.S. and inside the Vatican—heighten the cognitive dissonance felt by pro-Trump Catholics. That cognitive dissonance is likely to come to a breaking point in the not-too-distant future.

In just a few days since my Hill column was published, the gap between Pope Leo and Donald Trump has widened into a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon.

Read more

Read more

This year Virginia governor Abigail Spanberger gave the most effective response to a State of the Union Address ever. Speaking from the House of Burgesses in Williamsburg, Spanberger posed three questions for her listeners:

1. Is the President working to make life more affordable for you and your family?

2. Is the President working to keep Americans safe—both at home and abroad?

3. Is the President working for YOU?

Spanberger’s answered each of her questions saying, “We all know the answer is no.”

As to the first question about affordability, Spanberger denounced Trump’s tariffs as a “massive tax hike.” She criticized Trump’s approach to healthcare and the budget, reminding voters that the President is “stripping healthcare from millions of Americans, and driving up costs in energy and housing. All the while cutting food programs for hungry kids.”

As to her second question about safety, Spanberger lit into Trump for sending “poorly trained federal agents into our cities, where they have arrested and detained American citizens and people who aspire to be Americans—and they have done it without a warrant.”

And as to her third question about whether Trump is working for his constituents, Spanberger denounced his “cozying up to foreign princes for airplanes and billionaires for ballrooms,” noting “the scale of the corruption is unprecedented,” while Trump is “enriching himself, his family, his friends.” And then, she added, “There’s the cover-up of the Epstein files.”

In any election, voters are only as good as the question parties and candidates put to them. In 1936, Franklin D. Roosevelt asked whether he should continue his New Deal policies and got a resounding yes. In 1960, John F. Kennedy asked voters whether they wanted to get the nation moving again after accusing the Eisenhower administration of standing still to which they narrowly said yes. In 1980, Ronald Reagan specifically asked voters, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” And their thunderous negative response resulted in the challenger winning 44 of the 50 states.

In a midterm election perhaps the most effective statement put forth by the opposition party happened in 1946 when Republicans asked voters, “Had Enough?” Back then, rising inflation and housing shortages were enough to propel the GOP to assume control of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1928.

After Spanberger’s speech, former Republican National Committee Chair and MSNOW commentator Michael Steele criticized her response as lacking in policy details. Steele was right. Future Democratic congresses and presidents will need to set forth a governing agenda—i.e., their own rebranding of Project 2025.

But that’s not what Democrats need right now. What Spanberger did so effectively was to boil down the argument made by the Democrats this year to a simple question, “Is the President working for YOU?” That tagline is sure to be part of any messaging the Democrats put forth in midterm races across the country.

And, as Spanberger so effectively stated, the Democratic candidates will respond, “We all know the answer is no.”

For Democrats, winning is essential. After that, the party will have to set forth an effective governing agenda. Otherwise, like the Republicans after their big win in 1946, lacking an effective domestic policy agenda will have consequences. Two years after his big loss in 1946, Harry Truman defied the critics and won reelection by criticizing the “Do Nothing” Republican Congress.

By posing the right question, Abigail Spanberger got it right. And voters will deliver their answer come November. After that, Democrats need to establish a legislative agenda for the next Congress and Democratic president.

Lincoln’s speech set forth the proposition that the promises contained in the Declaration of Independence and the government established by the U.S. Constitution was one where governing would be responsive to and done “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

In just 272 words and in two minutes, Lincoln set forth the terms under which the Civil War was fought.

Last night, in the longest State of the Union Address in U.S. history at more than 10,000 words, Donald Trump did no such thing. Instead of grounding his speech in the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Trump invited his audience into a fantasy world that does not comport with the realities everyday Americans face. Prices remain too high, the graft and corruption abound at unprecedented levels, and his picture of a Golden Age is more like an old photograph of the Gilded Age of the 1890s.

What Americans have seen over the past year includes citizens pulled over and assaulted by masked ICE agents. States rights being trampled upon by the federal government with the presence of troops they do not want. Birthright citizenship, a promise codified in the U.S. Constitution, being challenged by a sitting president who promised to uphold the Constitution. A Speaker of the House standing and applauding when Donald Trump asserted that he had powers, especially concerning the issue of tariffs, that are exclusively reserved to the Congress.

Sometimes there are pictures of a presidency that are impossible to erase, no matter how hard presidents try. Lyndon Johnson could not make Americans forget the image of a Viet Cong prisoner shot in the head in the streets of Saigon. Richard Nixon could not erase the television images of tapes playing secret recordings where he could be heard plotting to obstruct justice. George W. Bush could not make Americans forget images of an Iraq War ending in failure. Bill Clinton could not make Americans forget the lurid details of his sexual escapades with Monica Lewinsky. Joe Biden could not escape pictures of a frail, elderly president.

And now there are images of the Trump presidency that are embedded in the minds of Americans: photos of Renee Good and Alex Pretti being shot dead in the streets of Minneapolis. Little Liam Conejo Ramos being held as bait by an ICE agent and sent to a Texas detention center.

Those images are powerful and the Trump administration realizes it by preventing access by religious leaders and journalists to detention facilities where there are reports of food laced with worms and mold, a lack of medical care, and children held behind bars.

Last night, Donald Trump tried to erase those memories with pictures of a victorious men’s hockey team that won gold at the Olympics, medals awarded to valiant soldiers, and images of grieving survivors of vicious crimes.

That didn’t work.

The longer Trump went on the more he lost his audience. Like The Apprentice and Celebrity Apprentice, the Trump Show is wearing out its welcome. With three more years left on its run, it is hard to see how Donald Trump can attract viewers to come back and watch.

To paraphrase Lincoln, “That speech didn’t scour.”

Read more