John C. “Chuck” Chalberg is professor of history emeritus at Normandale Community College in Bloomington, Minnesota and the author of Rickey and Robinson: The Preacher, the Player, and America’s Game as well as Emma Goldman: American Individualist. He is also a Church of the Annunciation parishioner. Two weeks ago he submitted this column on Minneapolis’s mayoral race in light of the Annunciation shooting to the Star Tribune. It takes up several of the issues we have raised in the aftermath of the shooting on Power Line. We are pleased to publish it here now that the Star Tribune has passed on it. Professor Chalberg writes:
* * * * *
The Democratic party that long ago was the party of slavery, secession and segregation is today the party of secularism, sanctuary cities and states (can secession be far behind?), the severing of body parts and socialism. The last set are all on display in the current Minneapolis mayoral race–and especially so in the aftermath of the August 27 shooting rampage at the Church of the Annunciation.
What should also be apparent are differences, perhaps even genuine fissures, within the reigning DFL that dominates the city’s politics. There is, of course, the established establishment difference between the “moderate” mayor and his radical/progressive/socialist opponent. But is that the only difference? For that matter, is it the most important difference?
In light of what happened at Annunciation, perhaps it would be more accurate to characterize the mayoral race as one that features two radical agendas. That’s certainly the case with a portion of the mayor’s social agenda, while his opponent’s agenda is primarily grounded in matters economic.
No doubt for political purposes, Senator Fateh is seeking to downplay the socialism of his democratic socialism, even as he stresses his progressive credentials. Mayor Frey is hanging tough as a moderate, albeit with an emphasis on his moderate progressivism. And yet his reaction to the horrific events at Annunciation ought to call into question his claim to be a moderate at all. How so? The mayor who is not backing away from the moderate
tag is also not baking away from the transgender agenda or his endorsement of it.
At the heart of that agenda is a secular approach to life: We can and should proceed with the business of playing God by creating new males and new females. The hand of science ought to be at work instead of the hand of God. And why not, since the Democrats claim to be the party of science, even while denying the permanent scientific reality of male and female.
The moderate mayor’s quick dismissal of prayer deserves mention here as well. To be sure, he is far from alone among his fellow Democrats. Witness Jen Psaki of MSNBC and her post-shooting outburst against “friggin” prayer.
Accompanying secularism is what might be termed a soft totalitarianism. This sounds extreme, but is it? Nearly two centuries ago Alexis de Tocqueville warned against “democratic despotism” in his magisterial Democracy in America. At base, his worry was that democratic Americans might become all too susceptible to what today would be termed groupthink.
Well, the mayor’s plea to his listeners to accept the “trans community” seemed to signal encouragement for just that. His strong suggestion seemed to be that the Church’s position on transgenderism is wrong and should be rejected. In other words, intellectual diversity be damned; let’s all think all think the same soothing, agreeable, inclusive thoughts of acceptance.
Then there is the very radical matter of the severing of healthy body parts. While we don’t know if this was part of the shooter’s Robert to Robin story or plan, there is little doubt that a major point of the legislation that transformed Minnesota into a sanctuary state for transgender minors was to assure that those seeking such surgery would be able to do so here.
On this point maybe the “moderate” mayor ought to take a page from our not-at-all moderate county attorney, who hesitates and often opposes prosecuting those who have committed serious crimes at a young age. Apparently, it is wrong to put the young on trial and possibly in jail, but it is perfectly fine to cut out pieces of their bodies. Who is the radical and who is the moderate here?
Once upon a time the left contended that there were no serious differences between males and females, that women could do what men could do and vice versa. Now we are being told that the differences are so great that one must be enabled to become the other.
It’s certainly possible for one to pretend to be the other sex. The former Bruce Jenner has been doing a bang up job of just that. Apparently, the shooter thought he was doing just that as well. And yet at some point he seems to have come to regret doing what he was doing.
In any case, what should be clear is that he should have had the opportunity to benefit from the full range of professional mental counseling. That would include exploring why one has become convinced that he is really a she or that she is actually a he. But when dealing with gender confusion issues anything approaching “gender conversion” therapy has been outlawed.
A simple question begs for an answer: Why must a therapist begin and end by accepting what is in the patient’s mind as the only truth? And if a therapist must accept this “truth” another question follows: Why then is it not reasonable to conclude that the moderate mayor has concluded that it is reasonable to rearrange the anatomy of a teenager, but it is not reasonable to counsel a teenager to come to terms with the sex that he or she is?
Where does all of this leave our “progressive” state senator who is challenging the “moderate” mayor? He did not appear at Annunciation on that fateful morning, but he did issue a serious and sober message of concern and condolence. And he did not call for prayers.
Apparently, the Democratic Socialists of America do not have a single set platform. Instead the DSA asserts “priorities and principles” that include “ensuring gender and sexual justice.” Does that include support for the transgender agenda? It’s difficult to know.
A cursory search of the senator’s platform reveals nothing about his position on transgenderism. He ought to be more forthcoming. Is he a practicing Muslim or a secular Muslim? How does his Muslim faith and/or background impact his thinking on social issues in general. And specifically does he favor the severing of healthy body parts? Does he favor the ban on so-called conversion therapy?
In sum, we know that Minneapolis has a self-defined moderate mayor who supports a very radical agenda on a suddenly very important issue. At the same time we don’t yet know whether the city has a progressive socialist candidate who, owing perhaps to religious beliefs, might be a moderate to conservative alternative when it comes to the very same issue. Either way, the DFL is not offering the city an across the board moderate on both economic and social issues.
Until we hear more from the senator, we can only conclude that the DFL has given the city two mayoral candidates who will likely walk arm-in-arm this fall behind the inevitable DFL demand for stricter gun control, while effectively ignoring everything else that may have contributed to the horror of that late summer morning.
