Francois Ntone

Introducing William Barber

Reverend Dr. William Barber is the current president of the North Carolina chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).  He is a prominent civil rights leader with a strong anti-racism, anti-poverty and anti-war agenda.  Such an agenda is obviously aligned with the goals of this website, which explains my interest in his work.

Rev. Barber has been a strong advocate for death row inmates and has fought for voting reforms to defeat efforts in North Carolina to limit the voting rights of minorities.  He has also been active in support of marriage equality as a civil right issue.  He is the pastor of Greenleaf Christian Church in Goldsboro, NC, where he has led community development efforts to reduce poverty, drug and gang violence, and to provide education and job training targeting both youth and adults.

Recently, Rev. Barber received national attention when he spoke at the Democratic Presidential Convention.  It is noteworthy that he did not speak as a Democrat who came to paint an unflattering picture of his political opponents.  In his introduction, he stated: “I don’t come tonight representing any organization, but I come to talk about faith and morality.”  Since he has a reputation for being truthful and bold, and has in the past been reluctant to endorsing any political candidates, his obvious endorsement of Hillary Clinton for the 2016 election is an indication of the incompatibility between his beliefs and Republican beliefs.  In fact, he apparently offered his message to the RNC first, but the RNC refused to meet with him.  In this article, I will compare the Democratic and Republican convention messages by examining the speeches of the party nominees, in order to highlight why the DNC message is more appealing to a Christian such as Barber.

Trump’s Convention Message

Donald Trump presented himself as the candidate who will restore safety, prosperity and peace while, at the same time, promoting generosity and warmth.  He then spent a great deal of time painting a bleak picture of the state of America, and saying nothing about peace, generosity and warmth.  He blamed the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton for a tremendous escalation of crime, and for putting the lives of law enforcement officers at risk.  He also blamed them for the increase in illegal immigrants with criminal records.  He summarized the results of their policies as “poverty and destruction at home, war and destruction abroad”.  Since the convention, he has gone even further by claiming that Obama is the founder of ISIS.

Trump introduced himself as the candidate of Americanism, not Globalism, who would put the interests of Americans first.  He declared that he was the only one who could fix the current mess.  He would restore the rule of law by appointing the best prosecutors and law enforcement officials.  This of course assumes that current prosecutors and law enforcement officials are incompetent.  At the same time, he mentioned that all kids would be treated and protected equally.  But somehow, even though he spent a great deal of time describing attacks on law enforcement officers, he did not, at any point, acknowledge the shooting to death of black youth by police officers.  We know that a prominent republican such as former mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Trump supporter, has even declared that “Black Lives Matter” is a racist statement.

Trump stated that he will, as president, defeat ISIS.  He will do so by focusing on better intelligence gathering, and working with allies, especially Israel.  That in itself does not set him apart from the current administration.  But he added that he will abandon all efforts aimed at nation building and regime change.  One might assume, based on history, that the blame associated with nation building and regime change should be placed on past Republican administrations, but Trump did not make that clear.

Of course Trump also stated that he will suspend immigration from any nation that is associated with terrorism.  His highly publicized ban on Muslims entering the United States is obviously the most explicit translation of that statement.  But he also reiterated another familiar proposal, the building of a wall at the border with Mexico, which is his controversial solution for stopping Mexican illegal immigration.  Generally speaking, reducing immigration was important to him as he blamed record immigration for the low wages and high unemployment in the country.  Therefore, he promised that his administration would put a great emphasis on enforcing the rules to promote respect for the laws.  Again, this was an accusation against the current administration which, in his view, has no interest in enforcing the law.  Of course if that is true, then one wonders why President Obama is also accused of deporting more illegal immigrants than any other administration before him.

On the economy, Trump strongly stated his opposition to major trade agreements, opting instead for individual deals with individual countries.  The big difference between his proposals and Democratic proposals, however, was in his intention to implement a large tax reduction and get rid of what he calls “excessive regulation”.  According to the old Republican mantra, these two items are necessary elements to create a sure path to prosperity.  This is a republican belief that cannot be changed by facts pointing to the contrary, such as the failure of the Bush tax cuts or the currently disastrous experience with tax cuts by Governor Brownback in the state of Kansas.  Republicans refuse to acknowledge that the economy was losing 800000 jobs per month at the end of the Bush administration.  They refuse to admit that the job chart, as seen below, went from highly negative to positive right after the Obama stimulus was implemented.  How can they claim that they are interested in solving national problems if they refuse to objectively look at the facts?

Trump did promise to spend on infrastructure projects to build roads, bridges, etc.  Of course efforts by the Obama administration to invest in infrastructure projects have for many years been blocked by the Republican Congress.  Furthermore, Trump just seems to assume that funding will be available, even though projections by economists regarding his plan for the economy are rather pessimistic. I suppose he is, like Brownback, a believer in trickle-down economics.  Again, being able to objectively examine the facts is an issue: Republicans maintain their belief in trickle-down economics even though the facts show that it is nothing but a myth.  Even a conservative economist such as Ben Stein made that point recently in an interview on the Fox Business Network.  Stein said:

“Well I don’t think Mr. Trump’s plan is going to work very well.  I don’t think we need that tax cut when we’re running deficits the size we are running.  I think the evidence that tax cuts stimulate business in any kind of meaningful way, at least not sufficient to overcome the tax revenue loss, is extremely poor to put it mildly.  I think the idea of cutting taxes on the rich in a time when there is so much concern about inequality is not a good idea.”

Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York and Trump supporter, defended trickle-down economics:

“First of all, Donald Trump’s tax plan will produce an enormous amount of economic growth.  The key factor is slashing the corporate tax rate, currently the highest in the world, down to 15%.  Companies in the United States are being taxed to death.  And that’s why so many of them are leaving or retrenching their business investments.”

McCaughey added: “And let me just point out in response to Ben’s comments about the poor and tax deductions for the rich – slashing the corporate tax rate and producing growth will benefit the poor the most.”

An intense argument between the two of them ended with the following words from Stein: “With all due respect, I’m the one that’s studied this.  You’re the politician.  You can say whatever you want as a politician.  There simply is no evidence of that. […] You don’t know that.  You have no idea of that.  You can say it but there’s never been any data connecting those two.”

Like any Republican, Trump intends to eliminate and replace Obamacare, even though Republicans have been, after many years, unable to come up with an alternative.  He promised to rebuild what he called the “depleted military”.  He promised to defend the second amendment, which means he intends to continue the Republican opposition to any form of gun control.  Also, speaking directly to Evangelical Christians, he promised to repeal legislation that keeps religious institutions from maintaining their tax-free status when they choose to engage in political activities.

Clinton’s Convention Speech

Trump’s position, as presented in his convention speech, was widely perceived on the democratic side as an attempt to capitalize on the dissatisfaction existing among those who have been left behind by the economic developments of the past few decades.  It was seen as an attempt to put the blame on populations that are ethnically different and are not considered by some as truly American.  In other words, it was an attempt to exacerbate the anger of White Americans against minorities such as Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, etc.  Therefore Hillary Clinton’s response at the Democratic Convention was largely a call to embrace America’s diversity rather than reject it.  It was a declaration that Americans are stronger together, should work together and should rise together.  This position, when contrasted to the dividing nature of Trump’s message and his assumption that he alone can fix America’s problems, is bound to appeal to people like William Barber who care about the common good and proclaim that “we” is better than “I”.

In contrast to Trump, Clinton declared that she did not want to build a wall, but wanted to build an economy with good paying jobs for all.  She rejected a ban on certain religions and proposed a path to citizenship for immigrants who had been contributing to the American economy.  She stated that America was already strong because America had dynamic and diverse people, tolerant and generous young people, a powerful military, innovative entrepreneurs and enduring values.  She gave the audience her guiding principle, which is derived from her Methodist faith: “Do all the good you can, for all the people you can, in all the ways you can, as long as ever you can.”

Clinton gave credit to the Obama administration for pulling America out of a depression and creating 15 million private-sector jobs, for providing health insurance to millions of people and saving the auto industry.  However, she acknowledged that there was much more to do.  While Trump seemed to blame immigrants for most of America’s problems, she said the economy was not working as it should because America’s democracy was not working as it should.  She called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United in order to reduce the influence of big money on the electoral process.  She stated that comprehensive immigration reform would be good for the economy.

Clinton proposed to fight for the American worker by pushing for an increase in the minimum wage, for profit sharing for employees in corporations, and for equal pay for women.  She promised to make further improvements to health care and expand social security.  She said she would stand against unfair trade deals. She stated her commitment to invest in jobs in manufacturing, clean energy, infrastructure, and to encourage innovation.  She agreed with Bernie Sanders on the goal of tuition-free college and the elimination of student debt.  She proposed to encourage alternatives to college such as learning a skill.  She said she would fight for affordable child care and family paid leave.  She explained that she would pay for her programs by insisting that Wall Street, corporations and the super-rich pay their fair share in taxes.

On safety and security, she applauded the fact that the Iran Deal negotiated by the Obama administration will put a lid on Iran’s nuclear weapons without military intervention.  Like others, she recognized that defeating ISIS required working closely with allies.  Domestically she vowed to fight the gun lobby and pass common sense gun control laws.  She also urged Americans to listen to each other: Blacks, Latinos, men, women, police officers, etc.

William Barber’s Convention Speech

Rev. William Barber speaks during the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Thursday, July 28, 2016. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

William Barber’s speech is reproduced here in its entirety.

Good evening, my Brothers and Sisters. 

I come before you tonight as a preacher, the son of a preacher, a preacher immersed in the movement at five years old. I don’t come tonight representing any organization, but I come to talk about faith and morality.

I’m a preacher and I’m a theologically conservative liberal evangelical biblicist.  I know it may sound strange, but I’m a conservative because I work to conserve a divine tradition that teaches us to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. 

I’ve had the privilege of traveling the country with the Reverend Dr. James Forbes, and Reverend Dr. Traci Blackmon and Sister Simone Campbell as we are working together in the revival and calling for a revolution of values. And as we travel the country, we see things. That is why I’m so concerned, about those that say so much about what God says so little, while saying so little about what God says so much.  And so in my heart, I’m troubled. And I’m worried about the way faith is cynically used by some to serve hate, fear, racism and greed. 

We need to heed the voice of the Scriptures. We need to listen to the ancient chorus in which “deep calls unto deep.”  The prophet Isaiah cries out, “What I’m interested in seeing you doing, says the Lord, as a nation is, ‘Pay people what they deserve’  ‘Share your food with the hungry.’ Do this and then your nation shall be called a repairer of the breach.” 

Jesus, a brown skinned Palestinian Jew, called us to preach good news to the poor, the broken, and the bruised, and all those who are made to feel unaccepted. 

Our constitution calls us to commit our government to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to provide for the common defense and to ensure domestic tranquility. 

Now, to be true, we’ve never lived this vision perfectly. But this ought to be the goal at the heart of our democracy. And when religion is used to camouflage meanness, we know that we have a heart problem in America.

There have always been forces that want to harden and even stop the heart of democracy. There have also always been people who stood together to stir what sister Dorothy called “the revolution of the heart” and what Dr. King called a “radical revolution of values.” 

I say to you tonight, there are some issues that are not Left versus Right, Liberal versus Conservative, they are “right versus wrong.” 

We need to embrace our deepest moral values and push for a revival of the heart of our democracy.

• When we fight to reinstate the power of the Voting Rights Act and to break interposition and the nullification of the current Congress, we in the South especially know that when we do that, we are reviving the heart of our democracy.
• When we fight for $15 and a union, and universal healthcare, and public education, and immigrant rights, and LGBTQ rights, we are reviving the heart of our democracy. 
• When we develop tax and trade policies that no longer funnel our prosperity to the wealthy few, we are reviving the heart of our democracy.
• When we hear the legitimate discontent of Black Lives Matter and we come together to renew justice in our criminal justice system, we are embracing our deepest moral values and reviving the heart of our democracy. 
• When we love the Jewish child and the Palestinian child,  the Muslim and the Christian, and the Hindu, and the Buddhist, and those who have no faith— but they love this nation, we are reviving the heart of our democracy.
• When we fight for peace and when we resist the proliferation of military style weapons on our street, and when we stand against the anti-democratic stronghold of the NRA, we are reviving the heart of our democracy.

In times like these, we have to make some decisions and I might not normally as a preacher, an individual, but when I hear Hillary’s voice and her positions, I hear and I know that she is working to embrace our deepest moral values —  and we should embrace her. 

But let me be clear, let me be clear, that she, nor any person, can do it alone. The watchword of this democracy and the watchword of faith is “WE.” The heart of our democracy is on the line this November and beyond.  

No, my friends, they tell me that when the heart is in danger, somebody has to call an emergency code. And somebody with a good heart will bring a defibrillator to work on the bad heart.  Because it is possible to shock a bad heart and revive the pulse. In the season, when someone to harden and stop the heart of our democracy, we are being called like our foremothers and forefathers to be the moral defibrillators of our time.  

We must shock this nation with the power of love. We must shock this nation with the power of mercy.  We must shock this nation and fight for justice for all. We can’t give up on the heart of our democracy, not now, not ever! 

And so, and so I stop by here tonight to ask,

• Is there a heart in this house?  
• Is there a heart in America?
• Is there somebody that has a heart for the poor, and a heart for the vulnerable?  
• Then Stand up. Vote together. Organize together. Fight for the heart of this nation. And while you are fighting, sing that old hymn. “Revive us again. Fill each heart with Thy love. May each soul be rekindled with fire from above.” Hallelujah! Find the glory.

I highlighted in bold characters the parts of the speech that I found particularly interesting.  The fact that Barber considers himself as a conservative minister means that he considers his values as more representative of the biblical tradition than the values emphasized by so-called conservative Christians today.  These Christians have historically focused on issues such as abortion or homosexuality, which are barely mentioned in the Bible, but tend to ignore issues of social justice that were a big part of the message of the Old Testament prophets and the teaching of Jesus.  Conservative Christians have a tendency to find in the Bible material that supports their prejudices.  As a result, they give an impression of meanness, which is at odds with the fact that the message of the Bible, the New Testament in particular, is about love, compassion, forgiveness and treating all humans with decency.

For those who take the Bible seriously, a choice must therefore be made.  In the past, conservatives managed to present themselves as the guardians of Christian morality.  Many Evangelical Christians assumed that the Republican Party is the only party where a Christian can find a home.  Today, we watch in dismay as Evangelical Christians disregard the character flaws of the Republican candidate and endorse him because he appeals to their lowest instincts.  We also watch as KKK leaders such as David Duke attempt to rise again, finding legitimacy in Trump’s message.   And yet, many Evangelical Christians support Trump.  As we watch, we must ask the question: has it really been about Jesus all along?

Current Voting Trends for Christians

Results from a Pew Research survey published in a Christianity Today article posted by Kate Shellnut on July 28, 2016, indicate that support from Trump among White Evangelicals remains strong.  According to the survey, support for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney by Christians who attend church weekly stood at 55% in June 2012, while support for Obama stood at 40%.  In June 2016, these numbers shifted to 49% for Trump and 45% for Clinton.  The shift towards the democratic candidate apparently indicates that some Christians could not in good conscience vote for Trump.  However, in June 2012, 79% of White Evangelicals who attend church weekly supported Romney, while 15% supported Obama.  In June 2016, these numbers remained essentially unchanged, with 79% supporting Trump and 16% supporting Clinton.  Among Catholics who attend church weekly, 48% supported Romney in June 2012, while 45% supported Obama.  In June 2016, those numbers changed to 38% for Trump and 57% for Clinton.  Obviously many Catholics simply could not reconcile their values with Trump’s statements.

It is interesting to see how these numbers change among Christians who do not attend church weekly.  According to the same Pew Research survey, support for Romney in June 2012 by Christians who do not attend church weekly stood at 40%, while 56% supported Obama.  In June 2016, 38% supported Trump, while 54% supported Clinton, an obvious shift towards the democratic candidate.  But among White Evangelicals, 62% supported Romney in June 2012, while 33% supported Obama.  In June 2016, support for Trump among White Evangelicals who do not attend church weekly grew to 76%, while support for Clinton dropped to 19%.  On the other hand, Catholic support for Romney stood at 47% in June 2012, while Obama was supported by 51% of Catholics who do not attend church weekly.  In June 2016, 40% of Catholics who do not attend church weekly supported Trump, while support for Clinton rose to 66%.  I suspect White Evangelicals who do not attend church weekly are less biblically grounded and will tend to be moved by their biases and prejudices rather than sound Christian teaching.

It is not my intention in this article to make a political case for Hillary Clinton as president.  However, I have no hesitation in stating that a look at the public statements made by both candidates leaves no doubt regarding the reason why an authentic Christian leader such as William Barber would choose the democratic platform rather than the Republican one: it is a trivial choice.  The RNC leaders refused to meet with him simply because they do not speak the language he speaks.