Tuesday, October 27, 2026

It's Tuesday, October 27, 2026. I'm Albert Moeller and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Midterm elections come by definition at the midpoint of a presidential term. So you have the four-year presidential terms, you have the general elections that produce a president or a presidential term, and then you have the midterm elections because it's so important for Congress. So every two years, the entire House of Representatives is re-elected. Those representatives are elected to two-year terms. Senators are elected to a six-year term, and there are only 100 of them, two for every state, 50 states, you can do the math. And when it comes to the Senate, about a third of senators is up every two years. But here's the secret to American electoral politics. Everything is focused on the next election, but just before the next election, the next election is the next election. Everything's already shifting to the election after that. So just to put the matter bluntly, there isn't much that can be done right now in terms of changing the meter one way or the other on the 2026 midterm elections. And that's because at this point, millions of Americans have voted, that's one thing. But the larger point is that most Americans have pretty much made up their mind, number one, if they're going to vote, and number two, if they're going to vote, for whom are they going to vote? All right, we're going to talk more about that in a moment. But what's really interesting, is that the professional class is really ready to move on. They're going to accept whatever comes on Tuesday. That's going to be the new reality. But everyone is going to be focused on the 2028 election. Now, I want us to look at the larger picture and understand that there are some very interesting things going on here. Number one, Susan Page at USA Today ran a major front page article. It was in yesterday's edition. And the headline is, Nation Divided Over Its Values. The subhead, The GOP Chose Patriotism. Democrats' Equality as Poll Shows Partisan Distrust. Okay, there are several things we're going to look at here. And it's not just this USA Today piece, but it is on the front page of the paper. It was sometimes known as McPaper back in the old days. It bills itself as a national paper for the United States. It's often very thin on news, but it's often very interesting in terms of what it thinks is most important and how it presents these issues. Susan Page, who's the Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today, has been on the front page of the paper. And she's been at this for a very long time. She's an old Washington hand. In this piece, she writes about the fact that a Gallup poll that was also done with a group with honor has indicated that the two parties are associated with different virtues. So when it comes to the virtues associated with the Republican Party, well, that's patriotism. The virtue associated with the Democratic Party was equity or equality. The most important word there is equality. The independents were chose who identified as neither Democrat or Democrat. And they were associated with equality. Now, in the Christian worldview perspective, there are a lot of issues here. Number one, what are virtues? How do we name those virtues? What do we know are real virtues versus synthetic or artificial virtues? But let's just say when it comes to patriotism, when it comes to honesty, those are very clear moral virtues. Equality is a policy. And so if you're talking about fairness, that would be a virtue. If you're talking about the affirmation of equality of all people, all human beings, made in God's image, that would be a virtue. But if you're talking about image, then that would be an issue in which you'd say, again, that's fairness, that's honor, that's respect, all kinds of moral virtues. Equality is not in itself a virtue. It's not unimportant. It's not without moral consequence. But it is really interesting that we're talking about a nation that's pretty confused about all these issues. It is interesting, however, Susan Page is really reporting something here when she says that according to this poll, the Americans associate the Republican Party with patriotism and the Democratic Party, with equality. The independents, again, associate at least themselves with honesty. Well, when you're looking at virtues and you're looking at arguments, let's just talk about the fact that political parties are really constellations of coalitions, and they are assertions of political principles. And I know it may not look very principled at times, but when you're talking about Republicans, when you're talking about Democrats, you're talking about two rival visions for the future of the United States of America, two rival visions of policies. And it really comes down to the fact that they're not the same. And so, you know, two rival visions of morality. That's also really important. I think maybe the most interesting thing about this Susan Page piece in the front page of USA Today is that it does recognize that there's a moral dimension underneath and pervading all of this that, if anything, is more important than the political and the policy issues. Remember, the headline was nation divided over its values. Okay. Now, here's another little footnote we need to think about for a moment. When you really don't have enough moral and political values, you don't have enough moral and political values. You don't have enough moral and political values. You don't have moral and political values. You don't have it was 7, 8, 9 grades, and then I was moved to a middle school that was 6, 7, 8 grades. It was all part of the educational experimentation of the 1960s and 70s. But it is interesting that I was confused at the time by the fact that a part of the curriculum was about so-called values clarification. Now, that's very different than moral knowledge. Christians understand that what we're called to is moral knowledge, not just values clarification. You change from using the word morals to the word values when you're really rejecting the fact that there's any objective basis to this moral judgment. Values are subjective. They're held by individuals. Moral principles are general, and that's why the left increasingly, and the therapeutic culture also, just hates the idea of morality as fixed principles of right and wrong. And by the way, if you're going to talk about a word that goes with moral, that word traditionally is knowledge, moral knowledge. Do you know what is right and know what is wrong? If you're going to reduce everything to mere values, well, you really don't talk about value knowledge. Instead, that was the term used in the curriculum, values clarification. It was all about you. It was all about the individual determining what we believe is true, what we believe is virtuous, what we believe is righteous, what we believe is fair. And the values clarification was supposed to be a part of just learning about yourself and your own moral self in terms of how you apply it to different issues. Now, let me just say that in the entire curriculum of values clarification, I want to tell you what was not at all clarified, and that is values, because the whole thing was confusion. Now, while we're at this, let me just ask you to note something. You often hear people on the ideological left talking about values, especially when it comes to, say, personal morality. When it comes to social issues, they may believe in at least the appropriateness of the word morality. But when it comes to their sexual behavior, their personal lives, no, that's a matter of values. Susan Page, again, the headline was Nation Divided Over Its Values. Later in the article, we come to understand that America is morally divided. It's value divided. Regardless of the language you want to use, there's a deep moral divide in the United States. And by the way, it's not by accident that maps onto the political divide. Now, it doesn't map onto it perfectly, but it does generally to such an extent that when you say red America and blue America, and then you say something like same-sex marriage, you can pretty much, do the math, and you can pretty much color the map. Well, at this point, I want to shift to a very different approach. This is an article in The Atlantic by David Vondrele, and this is really important because he asked the question, what's the matter with moderation? Where are the political moderates, we might ask? And the reason why we use that language is because for decades and decades, we've been told that there is a right wing and there's a left wing, and then there is a moderate center. But you may have noticed the absence of much consideration or conversation about moderates or a moderate middle, a moderate center to the nation in recent election cycles. And that's because red and blue America just doesn't work that way. The political issues, by and large, do not work that way. Instead, what you have is a very divided nation, and it's divided somewhere approximately like 45-45 with something like 10% undecided. But undecided is not moderate. Undecided is just basically undecided. Little footnote here, when you look at the registration patterns by party, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, the fact is that there have been some changes in terms of the registrations when you look at the comparisons between the Democrats and the Republicans. But the big, the big development over the course of the last several cycles has been the increase of independents. But independents are not moderates. As a matter of fact, most of them vote just as predictably as those who are registered Republican or Democrat. So again, the reason why I believe this is true is because the issues just don't fit a moderate category. They just don't avail themselves of a moderate option. Are you going to legalize same-sex marriage or not? Well, maybe you could say that at one point, the idea that you'd have legal domestic partnerships but not marriage, because that would be a moral judgment, that that was a moderate possibility. But you'll notice, of course, that didn't work because you're either going to have same-sex marriage or you're not, period. There's really nothing in between. The same thing really applies to the abortion issue when you get down to the And furthermore, it just is something that plays out on so many of the big issues. of the day. Now, once again, if we're talking about politics as being a debate over marginal tax rates or even some issues in foreign policy, trade negotiations, and all the rest, that's not exactly always left and right, although it is interesting that even those issues do map out often in the same terms. But I want to look at this piece in The Atlantic because it's asking the question more or less, where are the moderates? The actual headline is, what's the matter with moderation? And what's really interesting is that David Vondrela just zeroes in on one senatorial election in the 2026 cycle. And he's looking at the candidate, Adam Hamilton, who of course is a liberal Methodist pastor who is now the Democratic nominee. He's running against Roger Marshall, the incumbent Republican senator, and it's going to be a very, very interesting race, and everyone nationwide knows that. But the interesting thing here is that Adam Hamilton, this founding pastor of this United Methodist Church, is going to be a very, very interesting race. And he's going to by some reckoning, the biggest United Methodist Church in the United States. He presents himself as a moderate. And the question that David Vondrela is asking is, well, number one, how does that work? And number two, is there a way that a moderate might win? And I could say that virtually by absolute necessity, he asked the third question, and that is, is he actually a moderate at all? In the article, he writes, quote, not just as an electoral strategy, but as an approach to life, end quote. Well, it's very interesting because I think this writer for The Atlantic really wants to give Adam Hamilton the opportunity to do his best to be a moderate. And he does present himself very much in terms of attitude, in terms of language, where he describes himself from the political landscape. He just wants good for everybody. He just wants everyone treated right. He just wants all the issues to be basically diffused and let people just work things out. Let me just argue, that's not moderation. That's a pipe dream. The reporter followed Adam Hamilton on the campaign trail. He writes about one event, quote, a few dozen people awaited Hamilton who arrived in a blue blazer and an open collared white shirt. He immediately went to work shaking hands and nodding thoughtfully. After watching Hamilton campaign half a dozen or so times, the best description I can manage is pastoral. Fair enough, I suppose, for a 62-year-old pastor. Hamilton, he says, has a soft voice and his gaze is gentle intent and framed by horn-rimmed glasses. His head moves constantly in tiny yeses and no's like a seismograph needle registering each quick conversation, end quote. I think we've pretty much seen that in the campaign videos thus far. There is no doubt that Adam Hamilton is trying to present himself as something of a moderate in a political landscape of those who are extremists and radicals. He doesn't want anything to do with that. Instead, he nods pastorally wearing his blazer and his open collared shirt. And yet, I'm going to make the argument that he's not a moderate at all. I'm going to make the argument that moderates like this don't actually even exist. And that's because the issues do not bend to a moderate frame. Now, by the way, I paid some attention to Adam Hamilton long before he decided to get into electoral politics. And that's because he was very much a figure in world Methodism and in the conflicts and controversies of the Methodists. And let's just say that he was a figure in the conflicts and controversies of the Methodists. And let's put it clearly, he didn't side with the conservatives. Not at all. It is interesting that the Atlantic reporter really came around to seeing that. He writes about the fact that Hamilton claims the via media, the middle way that goes back to medieval thought with roots in ancient philosophy, quote, society as Hamilton envisions it is a sort of Newton's cradle, the toy that is composed of a line of metal balls suspended by threads. When the ball on one end is lifted and released, it swings into contact with the pack, whereas energy is conducted to the ball in the other end. And that's why Hamilton claims that the media, the media, the media, the media, the other extreme, which swings away in reaction. Energy might come from extremism, but stability lies with the center. See how reassuring those words are. At one point on the campaign trail, the candidate simply said, I'm wired to see both sides. Well, that's very interesting. He's wired to see both sides, but on the big issues, he lands not on both sides, but on one of those sides. And let me just say, theologically and politically, predictably, it's going to be on the Atlantic eventually saw this. He writes, quote, Hamilton hasn't shied from hard issues as a pastor when a faction of American Methodists joined forces with culturally conservative congregations in Africa to try to pass anti-LGBTQ ordinances for the denomination. He led the opposition. Okay, let me just stop there. So here you have the admission that he's supposedly hardwired for the middle to see both sides. But when it came to the issue of LGBTQ and morality and same-sex marriage and gay clergy in the United Methodist Church, he led the fight against the conservatives. So he may just nod reassuringly, but trust me, he's taking sides. When it comes to politics, the same thing. But you'll notice the Atlantic reporter, this writer is really paying attention to his role within Methodism. Quote, criticizing what he saw as a misguided focus on a few biblical verses over a larger gospel of inclusion and acceptance, Hamilton ultimately concluded that a schism was inevitable and he was instrumental in negotiating, the many deals of separation. End quote. So much for being hardwired to see both sides, so much for some middle way. He took the liberal way and they basically forced the conservatives out. This is not a middle way. It isn't even well disguised as a middle way. You say, where are the moderates? Well, there isn't a moderate position on these issues. Now, here's where the Atlantic writer, I think, really is very honest. Listen to this quote. The thing to notice about that story is Hamilton tries to turn from pastor to lawmaker, is that the via media was not the road taken by Hamilton and the Methodists when the chips were down. There was no middle ground and now there are two denominations where there used to be one. End quote. Again, the conservatives left and had to form a new denomination. You have all of this discussion reassuringly with therapeutic pose and all the rest, nodding head. I appreciate the fact that the writer for the Atlantic notices how often he nods his head. He nods his head in agreement, but then he kicks you out of the denomination and he sides with the liberal side. That isn't moderate. And by the way, let me just say, there isn't a moderate position on those issues. You either believe that the Bible has full authority and the Bible's verdict on those issues is right and clear and to be respected, to be certainly obeyed when it comes to Christian churches, or you just decide that in the light of what you declare to be this, quote, larger gospel of inclusion and acceptance, you can just nullify scripture. That's what the liberals do. He opposed the conservatives. He sided with the liberals. And yes, as the Atlantic said, he had a leading role in basically kicking the conservatives out the door. There are some political issues in which you can have something of a moderate middle. You can think of some economic issues. Even those can get really tricky. You can think of issues, as I said, in foreign policy and trade policy. But again, the big policies in both of those areas are pretty much following one argument or the other. It's actually hard to mix these things. You had American political science for decades saying that the great center of this country was a moderate middle. Well, it has disappeared. Just look at the map, red and blue, election night, 2026. The people who tell you it's not true will still be talking. I don't mean to rhyme here, red and blue. Okay. As we have this opportunity with the midterm elections coming up, and of course, election cycles at the national level coming every two years, just think about headline in the New York Times, young voters pivot to Democrats worry country is at risk of failing. Runs another piece, headline poll takes look at young voters' preferences and motivations. Okay. So both of these are basically half page in the print edition, both of them looking at how younger voters are sizing all this up. And both of them are saying there's a shift to the Democrats away from the Republicans. But then as you look at the data, it's even more interesting because it turns out that only about one third of these young so-called voters actually vote. So about two thirds of them aren't even activated enough or interested. Enough to vote. They do have opinions. They just don't vote. The other third, the third that does vote it more often. Here's what's really interesting about younger voters. They more often vote against than for that's very interesting. So even as you look at the mainstream voters in the United States, let's just say voting for Kamala Harris or for Donald Trump, or at least for the democratic candidate and what that represents or for the Republican candidate, what that represents. We're being told that these young people basically say, I dislike that person more than the other. I dislike that platform more than the other. They really aren't making a personal commitment. Many of these young voters to these issues, rather they're just sizing up which party they like less. Okay. Here's what's interesting. Quote, across the most diverse generation in American history, one issue stood out, the economy. 94% said economic conditions were poor or only fair in the time CNN national poll, more than any other age group. And 86% disapproved of the way Mr. Trump has handled the economy. End quote. Well, that's interesting. And by the way, I'm not saying that these younger Americans aren't facing some financial headwinds. I'm just saying that every cycle, let me just ask you, I dare you go look at what's called the morgue of dead news articles. If you go back and look every two years, voters basically say the same thing. The economy is not good. Prices are too high. Wages are too low. Economic conditions are not good. How is the president doing managing the economy? In the sixth year, of a two-term presidency, the vast majority of Americans have pretty well decided the president has done what he can do, and he's not working anymore. And so that's just. a norm in terms of the American political pattern. But if you're going to ask 18-year-olds, what do you think? Well, they're 18, and they really weren't thinking about these issues two years before that, and two years before that, and two years before that. But it is interesting that nonetheless, there's a lot of attention to what they think. It's also clear, and I think this is really, really important, that their dislikes are more powerful than their likes. Now, that might be because of some of the, say, young adult cynicism, but it might also be about what we might call a level of political realism in which they recognize, I really don't think either of these candidates is going to be able to deliver on all these promises I hear. The New York Times piece also stated this, quote, young adults' dissatisfaction runs so deep that they are losing faith in the future of the country. Seventy-three percent of them said it was on the wrong track in our poll in September. Fifty-three percent fear the United States is in danger of failing as a nation. Two years ago, just 38 percent of voters in the age group said that, end quote. Now, again, we're talking about the failure of the nation. That's no small thing. That is, just to state the obvious, an absolute disaster. We're told here that a majority of these young voters, the majority of whom don't vote, that a majority nonetheless sees that the nation's in big trouble. Fifty-three percent said it's in danger of failing as a nation. I want you to note something else as you're processing all of this. Just notice, when young people, or for that matter, older people, people of any age are asked these questions, do you think the nation is in danger of failing? You'll notice it's pretty much a yes-no. And so, I really want to underline the fact that there is something evident in all these surveys and in all this polling, but you're not sure what's evident. In other words, how did the person understand the question? Did they even take it seriously? If they talk about failing, what do they define as failing? You're not going to get answers to those questions. What you are going to get are headlines saying, the majority of younger Americans think the nation's in danger of failing. And then they go home and play a video game. I'm not just pointing at younger adults who are those featured in this survey. I mean, quite frankly, I think any number of Americans, American adults of any age spectrum might say, yeah, I think if you ask me the question, the nation just might be in danger of failing. But then they go and check their 401k plan. In other words, if they really believed that, they would not just be responding to a pollster and then going on with their everyday lives. I think we need to take a significant step forward. I think we need to take a significant discount, even when we see the screaming headlines on so many of these so-called polls and surveys. That being said, what's interesting then, what's interesting are the questions asked. And yes, sometimes the response is given. There's no doubt about that. But what's really interesting is the deviation, the change pattern with the same question over time. That's what gets interesting. Because if you ask a question, then you ask it two years later, you ask it two years later, and you ask it two years later, you have a baseline, and then you have projections. And you're going to understand, how there are significant shifts. Just take an issue like abortion or sexual morality or same-sex marriage. The vast majority of Americans polled at one point in the early 21st century said that under no circumstances should same-sex marriage be legal. Within the period of about eight years, a similar, almost exact majority of Americans said that same-sex marriage should be constitutionally required. So again, you're talking about a very short amount of time and a very great amount of moral change. That's where Christians really do need to pay attention and understand that the vast moral transformation of the last several years has really put many Americans in a very different moral position. Now, they may not even recognize themselves to be in a very different moral position, or they may not even recognize themselves as being basically reflecting any moral position at all. But God made us as moral creatures. We're making moral judgments all the time. We also tend, even against our own self-discipline, to be more self-disciplined. Even against our own self-deception and our own laziness at times, we actually tend towards eventual consistency on these issues, which is to say, blue voters become more blue and red voters become more red. It's not just a habit. It is because the issues become more and more clear over time. As we bring this to a conclusion, let's just remind ourselves as Christians that values are not enough. We have to talk about genuine moral judgment, and we're talking about genuine, objective moral principles. We're also talking about a political crisis, and we're talking about a political spectrum with a landscape in which you do have increasingly issues that simply don't bend to moderation. And so, it's not just that somehow in moral terms or morale terms, fewer Americans really want to be identified as moderate. It is because on so many issues, there really is no moderate middle. That's where I so appreciated that Atlantic article, and just giving the fact that Adam Hamilton, that Senate candidate, the liberal Methodist pastor wants to be known as a moderate. But when you look at his actual record, you look at his record as a pastor and as a denominational leader, it's not moderate at all. He's moderate in the way he presents himself. If nothing else, Christians have better recognized the difference between moderation in personality and moderation when it comes to issues of moral urgency. Those are very different things. Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information, go to my website at albertmuller.com. You can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.com forward slash albertmuller. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to spts.edu. For information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com. I'm speaking to you from Jackson, Mississippi, and I'll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.