Seeking Truth in Today's Troubled World

 

From Fox News (November 20, 2024): “Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin is urging Democrats to change their messaging to say that “Republicans want to kill your kids.”  

On Tuesday’s installment of her “Jen Rubin’s Green Room” podcast, Rubin insisted Senate Republicans who acquiesce to President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees must pay a “political price.” “The people who irresponsibly put dangerous, treasonous, unfit people in positions of authority are responsible not only for those people, but for all the horrors that will unfold,” she said. “And Democrats better get started now tracking these people, holding these people accountable and making clear to ordinary voters who voted for what and who’s responsible for what.  

In order to do that, Rubin advised, “You can’t talk broad themes. You have to boil it down to nuts and bolts, and you have to be pithy. What do I mean by pithy? How about this: Republicans want to kill your kids. It’s actually true.” “If you’re going to oppose vaccinations, if you’re going to stop breakthrough medical research, if you’re going to allow minors and all sorts of people to get semi-automatic weapons, which they use to shoot up schools, well, then you are responsible for kids’ health and death, unfortunately. It has to be that simple and that direct, and it has to be over, and over, and over again,” Rubin continued.  

Fox News Digital reached out to Rubin and The Post for comment. Rubin, a former conservative writer who has infamously been advocating on behalf of Democrats in the Trump era, has been outspoken this week about her outrage towards MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski for meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, calling it “disgusting” on social media. Rubin is notably an MSNBC contributor. She even fueled a growing boycott of her network colleagues. “The market works great. You can stop watching Morning Joe anytime,” Rubin wrote on social media Monday evening. She then followed, “On MJ: If you don’t appreciate the audience you have, betray that audience and lose their trust you are [going] to lose lots of them. I have seen this movie.”  

Rubin even had some harsh words for billionaire Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos after he halted the paper’s endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris just days before the election, blasting his “bulls— explanation.” “First of all, I do not believe the reason stated. I don’t believe they have suddenly decided – he has suddenly decided that we should endorse everybody except presidential candidates, and that of all the elections, this is the one to start with this new policy,” Rubin said on her podcast in October. “We endorsed a presidential candidate in 2020 no problem. And I perceive this, and even if it’s not intended, it is inevitably perceived as bending the knee to Donald Trump at the worst possible moment when democracy is on the line.” “You have a billionaire who has a business aside from The Post that does business with the federal government deciding not to run afoul of a man who has declared war on democracy and on the free press, and I still find it absolutely inconceivable that someone who owns a newspaper would do this,” Rubin continued.”  

My Response: 

While we are forever free to disagree with one another in our society, Jennifer Rubin’s recent essay and podcast comments reflect a highly charged and confrontational stance against Republicans, framing their actions in a particularly extreme light. In urging Democrats to claim that “Republicans want to kill your kids,” Rubin sets a tone of hyperbole that is both politically dangerous and morally questionable. While it is crucial to hold politicians accountable for their decisions, especially on issues of public health and safety, Rubin’s argument ventures too far in its tactics and its reliance on exaggerated rhetoric. 

Critique of Rubin’s Approach: 

1. Over-simplification and Polarization: Rubin’s call for Democrats to distill complex policy disagreements into a simplistic slogan— “Republicans want to kill your kids”—is a textbook example of the kind of divisive rhetoric that fuels the political polarization currently rampant in American society. While it is true that policy decisions, such as opposition to vaccinations, resistance to meaningful gun control, and cuts to healthcare, can have devastating consequences, framing the debate in such stark terms is not only misleading, but also undermines the possibility of constructive dialogue. Complex issues like public health, gun violence, and medical research require nuanced discussions, not oversimplified demonization of political opponents. This tactic could alienate moderates and fuel further extremism. 

2. Moral Responsibility and Accountability: Rubin’s insistence that Republicans are “responsible for kids’ health and death” blurs the line between legitimate accountability and moral panic. It is essential to hold politicians accountable for their decisions, particularly those that directly affect the safety and well-being of the public. But accusing an entire political party of such extreme wrongdoing risks becoming more about scoring political points than actually addressing the root causes of issues like gun violence and public health. Rubin implies that Republicans are actively working against the well-being of children in a manner that could be interpreted as calling them morally reprehensible, but without addressing the broader systemic and political complexities involved. In truth, many Republicans may oppose policies on these issues, but their stance often comes from different ideologies and concerns about government overreach, individual rights, and economic impact. 

3. The Role of Media in Framing Debate: Rubin, as a journalist and commentator, should recognize the significant power that media figures hold in shaping public discourse. Her inflammatory statements exemplify the danger of using media platforms to stoke outrage rather than encourage genuine, thoughtful political engagement. By reducing serious issues to buzzwords and sensationalism, Rubin risks dehumanizing opponents and marginalizing voices that might otherwise agree on important aspects of policy reform. A healthy democracy thrives on debate and compromise, not on categorical demonization. 

A Biblical, Common-Sense Response: 

I do not know what faith Ms. Rubin ascribes to or to what moral standard she holds herself, but the Bible provides much wisdom on the nature of dialogue, responsibility, and justice. In Proverbs 15:1, it says, “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” This is a reminder that how we communicate—especially in matters of great public concern—has profound consequences. Rather than inflaming division with harsh, sweeping accusations, Christians and citizens alike are called to speak with truth and compassion. The apostle Paul encourages believers in Ephesians 4:15 to “speak the truth in love,” which suggests that while we must be honest about the consequences of policies and actions, we must also act with humility and empathy toward those who disagree with us. 

Furthermore, Scripture warns against bearing false witness (Exodus 20:16) and being quick to anger (James 1:19). Rubin’s approach, which attributes malicious intent to Republicans in such an extreme manner, risks violating the spirit of these principles. Political opponents may be wrong in their policies, but attributing the worst possible motives to them undermines the very possibility of constructive engagement. 

A better approach, rooted in common sense and Christian virtue, would be to focus on reasoned argumentation and the shared responsibility of both parties to protect the vulnerable, including children. For example, debates about vaccinations and gun control can be framed around shared goals like public safety, community health, and the protection of life – goals that are universally valued. Instead of vilifying entire groups of people, we should advocate for policies that protect children from harm without resorting to inflammatory rhetoric. 

Jesus himself offered a model for engaging with adversaries, not by shouting accusations, but by asking probing questions and offering solutions that reflect a higher moral standard. In Matthew 7:12, Jesus says, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you,” a principle that should guide any public discourse, particularly in our divided political climate. 

While Rubin’s criticism of Republican policies on healthcare, vaccinations, and gun violence is not without merit as no political party is above criticism, her proposed messaging strategy is flawed. It is a dangerous oversimplification that risks deepening political divides and encouraging a combative, rather than collaborative, approach to addressing critical issues. Instead of adopting the language of moral warfare, political discourse should be marked by humility, empathy, and a commitment to working together for the common good – values that resonate not just within politics, but also within the Christian tradition. 

~JH 

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and have been called according to His purpose.         Romans 8:28