The Social World

Category: Politics

  • Charlie Kirk and the fifth great awakening

    Charlie Kirk and the fifth great awakening

    Political Islam is a powerful global force. Wahhabism, the Muslim Brotherhood and Shia theocracy are different yet successful strands of the same impulse to govern according to the will of Allah. 

    Political Christianity, by contrast, has in recent decades, even centuries, taken a back seat when it comes to public affairs. With some exceptions, Christians have broadly interpreted Jesus’s message to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” as an injunction not to muddy the holy pursuit of justice with the worldly pursuit of power. 

    At Charlie Kirk’s memorial yesterday, the world witnessed something different: not just a Christian politics but a political Christianity. Republican party campaigns have long had a strong evangelical dimension. But the Make America Great Again movement is producing something new: a spiritualized politics that is far less apologetic, much more strident and nationalist, and as syncretic as it is militant. 

    It’s a multi-faith army for Jesus, unashamed of its contradictions and adamant in its defense of hybridized conservative values. (For more on this see our latest “Angels & Demons” edition of The Spectator World.) 

    Kirk’s memorial, held in a vast and packed football stadium in Arizona, was a profoundly religious event, and an explicit attempt to proselytize. We saw the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence all lionize Charlie as a warrior for God. J.D. Vance, a Catholic, called him “a martyr” for the faith. Pete Hegseth, a Protestant veteran, quoted his own pastor saying “the devil overplayed his hand” in killing Kirk. He urged the audience: “arm yourself with truth, with prayer, with unapologetic boldness.” DNI director Tulsi Gabbard, a Hindu, added that the Trump movement should “take shelter in God, to draw strength and fearlessness from the Lord.” Stephen Miller, the Jewish White House Deputy Chief of Staff, talked in faintly pagan terms about how Kirk had been “immortalized” and said “we will prevail over the forces of wickedness.” 

    Tucker Carlson, the Episcopalian media star, compared Kirk’s killing to the crucifixion of Christ. He said he could feel “the Holy Spirit humming like a tuning fork” throughout the stadium. Rob McCoy, Charlie’s co-chair at Turning Point USA, said that Kirk saw “politics as an on-ramp for Jesus’.” Andrew Kolvet, the producer of Charlie Kirk’s show and TPUSA’s comms director, said: “Charlie was a prophet… not the fortune-telling kind but the Biblical kind. He confronted evil and proclaimed the truth.”

    Erika Kirk, the grieving window, delivered the most powerful Christian message of all. She forgave her husband’s murderer. “Charlie wanted to save young men just like him,” she said. “Lost, angry, deceived by the world. Pray for him. Pray for his soul. And pray that God breaks his shackles.”

    The theme which the speakers had clearly agreed upon was “revival” – not revenge. President Trump called it “a great spiritual awakening.”

    Since its founding, America has been convulsed by at least four “great awakenings,” which have bound American faith in God to the nation’s sense of manifest destiny. What we could be seeing now is a Fifth Great Awakening, but one that is more nakedly political, coming as it does from the White House down, and less explicitly Protestant, mixing as it does Catholic messages with the passionate convictions of other faiths. 

    At the very end of the 19th century Pope Leo XIII warned against the “heresy of Americanism,” with its emphasis on individual liberty and embrace of the spirit of the age.  As chance would have it, there is now a new American Pope, also called Leo. How might he respond to this MAGA-spiritual revival? 

    Pope Leo might note that a new religious fervor is beginning to envelop the right in Europe, too. In Britain, a Christian warrior ethos is taking hold on certain parts of the right. It is in some ways in reaction to political Islam in the United Kingdom. In others, it is inspired by the overt Christianity of the Trump movement. We saw crosses and crusader costumes at the “Unite the Kingdom” rally in London the weekend before last. The political Christian revival may have a strong American influence. But it could also be much bigger than just American politics.

  • Is the Democratic party over the hill?

    Is the Democratic party over the hill?

    Call it a dilemma, quandary, or Catch-22 – just pray the aging Democratic party doesn’t pull a muscle trying to argue that it is in anything other than an unenviable position.

    Eighty-eight-year-old Eleanor Holmes Norton, Washington, D.C.’s longtime representative in Congress, has repeatedly stated that she will seek yet another term in office. The only trouble is that every time she does, her staff scrambles to assure the world that isn’t actually the case.

    One must sympathize with their impulse. Norton has been absent from her day job even as the district dominates national headlines, and struggled through what few public appearances she’s made. The situation is dire enough that Norton’s self-described “dear friend” Donna Brazile took to The Washington Post to urge her to step aside.

    “There are a lot of talented Democrats in D.C.,” wrote Brazile. “If Norton decides not to run for reelection, there will be a very competitive race for the seat.”

    And besides, the stakes are low should Norton ride off into the sunset, given the fact that Democrats have a stranglehold on her seat.

    But Norton is no outlier. Across the country, the party is staring down the barrel of a much more difficult choice between aged incompetence and unpopular extremism.

    The divide between these two factions – a stale establishment and radical insurgency – was only deepened by Joe Biden’s failed presidency, and the ongoing debate over who ought to bear the blame for it. On the one hand, Biden, then 78-year-old, was the most conservative viable Democrat to run in 2020. On the other, he governed far to the left of where he campaigned; and Vice President Kamala Harris lost her bid to succeed him in large part thanks to the unpopular, progressive positions she staked out in 2020.

    The story of how the party came to be stuck between a rock and a hard place begins, ironically enough, begins with the presidential campaign of geriatric socialist Bernie Sanders.

    In 2016, Sanders’s overperformance in the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the general election, and Donald Trump’s presidency all inspired a leftward shift – or sprint – within the party. And in the years since, progressives such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Chicago’s Brandon Johnson, and New York City’s Zohran Mamdani have risen to prominence.

    After Mamdani defeated establishment scion Andrew Cuomo in the Democrats’ Big Apple mayoral primary, the left turned the pressure up on party leadership to endorse Mamdani, who will face off against Cuomo once again come November.

    Axios recently reported that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is facing a “revolt” over his failure to throw his weight behind the upstart.

    The Democratic Party is plagued by two afflictions exemplified by each of its competing cohorts. One need only watch a half-minute of a Jeffries or Chuck Schumer speech to agree with their critics’ evaluation of them. Their plodding, low-energy delivery – occasionally interrupted by shrill outbursts – underlines their lack of conviction. The pair represent a kind of empty suit, go-along-to-get-along politics that voters have emphatically rejected in both parties for the better part of a decade now.

    And that’s to say nothing of the fact that this wing is quite literally dying out. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) passed away in May after beating out Ocasio-Cortez to serve as the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee just a few months prior. He was the eighth federal legislator to expire in office since November 2022; all eight were Democrats.

    Biden is long gone. Schumer is 74 years old. Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), the 85-year-old who made Biden king back in 2020, finally left House leadership this year. He endorsed Cuomo in the NYC primary, but has since come around and endorsed Mamdani in the general. The symbolism isn’t all that difficult to wrap one’s head around.

    But then again, there’s little evidence that the far-left can find its footing outside of insular enclaves. Sanders came the closest to building a national movement in his mold, but his grumpy, grandfatherly affect has always softened the blow of his policy agenda. No one else is a proven entity anywhere but in large, ideologically uniform cities.

    And for good reason. While Democratic voters are making googly eyes at socialism, it’s still a dirty word with the rest of the electorate. Among the former group, it boasts a +36 percent net approval rating; among the latter, it stands at a dismal -18 percent, according to Gallup.

    Biden already test-drove the radicals’ laissez-faire immigration policy, while Harris took their social policies for a spin. They both ended up in the dustbin of American history, at once national jokes and villains.

    The grass, at least for the elderly Democrat party, may not be greener on the other side.

  • America pays tribute to Charlie Kirk

    America pays tribute to Charlie Kirk

    In an exhilarating, often exhausting and unprecedented moment in American history, hundreds of thousands of people gathered in an Arizona football stadium on Sunday afternoon to honor slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Attendees included dozens of members of Congress, half the Cabinet, President Trump, Vice-President Vance and the former shadow President, Elon Musk.

    They remembered Kirk as a husband, a father, a friend, a true believer in the American way, a devotee of freedom of speech and civil discourse, a lover of classical Greek and Roman philosophy, and, perhaps most significantly, a warrior for the Christian God, belief in whom animated Kirk’s every utterance and every action.

    Kirk’s memorial, or, as many speakers, including Vance, called it, “revival,” was perhaps the most Christian event in American history to take place outside a church setting. Devotional music augmented every minute of the proceedings, with many members of the passionate crowd singing along. In one of the most stunning and beautiful moments of grace in memory, Kirk’s widow, Erika, fought back tears as she said that Kirk wanted “to save young men, just like the one who took his life. I forgive him, I forgive him because it’s what Christ did and it’s what Charlie would do.”

    Erika Kirk’s redemptive words and composure, somewhat muted a few minutes later when President Trump implied he would seek the federal death penalty for Charlie Kirk’s accused killer Tyler Robinson, stood in direct contrast to the cruel, graceless left-wing celebrations that occurred online in the days after Kirk’s death.

    The revival proceedings included a predictably unhinged, vengeful rant by Trump advisor Stephen Miller, a rambling address by Tucker Carlson, combative MAGA thumping from the extremely online Jack Posobiec, and classy remarks from Tulsi Gabbard and a clearly grieving Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. As always, though, President Trump’s appearance, which came at nearly the five-hour mark of a very long ceremony, was the highlight.

    Trump appeared on stage surrounded by sparklers as an aged Lee Greenwood, facing him like a lover in a duet, crooned “I’m Proud To Be An American.” The President, never one to stay entirely on message, talked about sending federal troops into Chicago, about declaring war on Antifa, and called Jimmy Kimmel an “anchor with no talent and low ratings.” He also reiterated that he was going to be awarding Kirk a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom and called the assassination “an assault on our most sacred God-given liberties and God-given rights. The gun was pointed at him but the bullet was aimed at all of us…The assassin failed in this quest because Charlie’s message has not been silenced, and now is bigger and better and stronger than ever before.”

    It was a vintage Trump performance with something for everyone, unless you are a “radical left lunatic.” On political violence and freedom of speech, he had this to say: “No side has a monopoly on disturbed or misguided people, but there’s one part of our political community which believes they have a monopoly on truth…If speech is violence, then some are bound to conclude that violence is justified to stop speech.”

    When it came to religion, Trump said, “We have to bring back religion to America because without borders, law and order and religion you really don’t have a country anymore.” But though Trump invoked God a number of times, and expressed admiration for the Christian faith of the Kirk family, his presentation was not overtly religious. In fact, at one point he said Kirk “did not hate his opponents, he wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagree with Charlie. I hate my opponents and I don’t want what’s best for them. I’m sorry, I am sorry Erika.” That was very non-Christian of Trump, but you cannot say the same thing for the Kirk revival as a whole.

    It’s one thing if Charlie Kirk’s pastor, coworkers, friends, widow, or Benny Johnson say things like “Charlie looked at politics as an onramp to Jesus” or “Charlie was a prophet…not the fortunetelling kind, but the Biblical kind.” It’s another when the Secretary of State publicly preaches the Gospel truth about Christ’s resurrection in an event broadcast to countless millions around the world, as Marco Rubio did. JD Vance called Kirk a “martyr for the Christian faith”, as did many other speakers. He said, “The assassin expected us to have a funeral but instead we have had a revival in the celebration of Charlie Kirk and his Lord Jesus Christ.”

    Vance also said, “Charlie brought the truth that Jesus Christ was the King of Kings and all things flowed from that,” while also calling Kirk a lover of history, defender of the West, and the foremost practitioner of the Socratic method. “I have talked more about Jesus Christ the past two weeks than I have my entire time in public life,” Vance said.

    He’s not the only one. This is the most Christian moment in America that I can recall, and I’ve been alive since the Nixon Presidency. On the one hand, Charlie Kirk was a devoted Christian, and is obviously a hugely influential figure in modern American political history; you can’t ignore the reality. And when you look at the shining, optimistic faces in the arena, or at the many spontaneous prayer gatherings that have sprung up since his murder, it’s far preferable to the bitter, angry, mendacious violent woke race Communism or whatever it is that modern progressives are offering. Kirk offered a message of faith, family, patriotism, and love, and a soul-sick nation, thirsty for optimism, responded.

    On the other hand, some of us will never accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior. I’m Jewish, so that’s right out for me, and there are other religious and non-religious people who sit in the same kettle. Not every spiritual journey ends with “He Is Risen.”

    The Kirk assassination is going to have deep reverberations throughout American history for a generation, and possibly beyond. I just hope that free and open dialogue and turning the other cheek end up being part of those reverberations.

  • Erika Kirk is no handmaiden

    Erika Kirk is no handmaiden

    Contrary to the claims of his critics, Charlie Kirk did not marry a handmaiden. A 2012 Miss Arizona USA, NCAA basketball player and current doctoral student, Erika Kirk also has her own ministry, podcast and clothing line. And now Turning Point USA has named her as its new CEO.

    Fighting the caricature of the left, Erika, like so many strong conservative women whom Charlie championed, is highly educated, accomplished and articulate. A veritable army of these women, including Riley Gaines, Candace Owens and Alex Clark, has spoken out in the days since Charlie’s assassination to describe his impact on their lives and leadership trajectories. Charlie Kirk was no misogynist; he supported conservative women just as he inspired conservative men.

    At Charlie’s memorial service on Sunday, Erika took to the stage not only to remember her fallen husband, but also to assure an anxious nation she was more than ready to take up the reins of his organization. She spoke of the horror of having to identify his body, the loving collaboration of their marriage and her passion for carrying on her martyred husband’s mission. Most of all, she spoke of their shared Christian faith that carried her even when her voice fell to a whisper. She exhorted the more than 200,000 people who flooded the State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, and countless millions watching on television.

    “My husband, Charlie. He wanted to save young men, just like the one who took his life. Our Savior said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ That man. That young man. I forgive him. I forgive him because it was what Christ did… What Charlie would do. The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the gospel is love and always love.”

    Erika Kirk’s ability to forgive the gravest sin committed against her family, to show grace to the undeserving and to speak out courageously just eleven days after the greatest shock of her young life tells us everything we need to know about her strength, her vision and most of all, her character. Through Erika, we also have come to learn so much more about her beloved Charlie, the husband who truly saw this remarkable woman as an equal partner.

    In the days after Charlie’s murder, at least half of a deeply polarized nation asked who would take up his mantle. He was the voice of a generation and a born leader who roused conservative young people all across America into political action. Forty-eight hours after his shocking assassination on a college campus in Orem, Utah, Erika stood in the gap for her slain husband. Delivering a powerful speech, she said the “evildoers responsible for my husband’s assassination have no idea what they have done. They killed Charlie because he preached a message of patriotism, faith and of God’s merciful love. They should all know this: If you thought that my husband’s mission was powerful before… You had no idea what you have just unleashed across this entire country, in this world.”

    America responded to Erika in full force. The organization Charlie founded at age 18, Turning Point USA, was flooded with 18,000 new chapter requests in the 24 hours after she spoke. By week’s end, that number had risen to 62,000. Supporters raised nearly $5 million for Erika and the two young Kirk children. Notably, no riots ensued in the aftermath of the assassination. Instead, inspired by his stoic widow, Americans held prayer vigils.

    Against the relentless noise of the cancel culture, Charlie Kirk taught us how to live in the land of the free. In the face of unfathomable evil, Erika Kirk is teaching us how to respond to death in the home of the brave.

  • Crimes that aren’t crimes in New York

    Crimes that aren’t crimes in New York

    There were lots of shocked people when state terrorism charges against Luigi Mangione – the man accused of murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson – were dismissed on Tuesday. I wasn’t one of them.

    As the partner of a homicide victim and an advocate for victims for more than 20 years, I’ve seen firsthand how New York’s penal code is a disaster. It doesn’t just fail victims; it rewards predators. It protects the violent. It gives them loopholes and light slaps on the wrist. And then we all act surprised when killers like Mangione benefit.

    Here’s a reality check that most people don’t know: punching someone in the face is not considered assault in New York. It’s classified as “harassment” – not even aggravated harassment. Stabbing someone isn’t attempted murder. It’s “assault.” Let that sink in. A fist to your face? Harassment. A knife in your gut? Assault. The absurdity writes itself.

    And the list goes on.

    Take strangulation and choking – one of the clearest predictors of homicide in domestic violence cases. For years, choking someone unconscious was only a misdemeanor unless there was visible injury. Bruises fade, but the trauma is permanent. New York eventually patched this embarrassment with a strangulation statute, but prosecutors still find ways to plead it down.

    Child abuse is just as bad. Kids with broken bones, brain injuries, or who are beaten within an inch of their lives often see their abusers charged with misdemeanors – unless the child dies. So in New York, a dead child finally gets justice. A brutalized but living child? Sorry, that’s not serious enough.

    And let’s not forget sexual assault. For decades, New York required proof of “forcible compulsion.” Translation: if you were too drunk, drugged, or coerced to fight back, your rape didn’t “count.” Prosecutors would downgrade or toss cases because the victim couldn’t prove physical force. That isn’t justice. That’s state-sanctioned humiliation.

    This is the real problem. Instead of lawmakers fixing these grotesque loopholes and making charges fit the crime, we’ve spent the last decade on so-called “social justice reforms.” What do these reforms actually do? They close prisons, release violent repeat offenders, and unleash the hell George Soros envisions upon society. They put the rights of criminals before the lives of victims.

    And don’t expect this to change under one-party Democrat rule in New York. Why would it? These are the same “progressives” who can’t bring themselves to stand with victims, who bend over backwards to excuse predators, and who look the other way when mobs of New Yorkers actually protest in support of Mangione and donate millions to his legal defense. Yes, you read that right: in today’s upside-down culture, terrorists and murderers get sympathy marches while grieving families are told to move on.

    Raise the Age. Bail Reform. HALT (Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act). Less Is More. Each of these social justice experiments has one thing in common: they serve offenders, not the innocent. The victims – people like me, like Brian Thompson’s family, like countless others – are an afterthought.

    This is a depraved indifference to human life.

    But here’s the good news: all hope is not lost. Thank God federal charges are in play. Thank God President Trump’s Department of Justice still believes in protecting the innocent and fighting for real justice. If it were left to Albany, Mangione would be treated like a misunderstood soul rather than a cold-blooded killer.

    The path forward is obvious. Lawmakers need to stop writing laws that coddle predators and start rewriting penal codes and sentencing guidelines. That’s exactly what our Victims Rights Reform Agenda calls for: charges that fit the crime, penalties that fit the damage done, and a justice system that remembers its purpose is to defend the innocent, not excuse the guilty.

    New Yorkers are living in a nightmare created by their own politicians. The only question is: how many more families have to be destroyed before voters wake up and demand justice? And is there any hope of that happening when crowds are actually protesting to free Mangione and pouring millions into his legal defense?

  • Doha attack was a blast from the past

    Doha attack was a blast from the past

    Israel’s audacious strike against the leaders of the Hamas terrorist organization in Qatar exemplifies the Jewish state’s new security doctrine – one of boldness and risk-readiness. The Hamas massacre on October 7, 2023, was a watershed moment that reset security calculations in Israel in a significant way. The results are Iran’s proxy network defanged, and a Tehran shaken after its own 12-Day War with Israel. Many observers believe that Israel’s strikes in Qatar risk unraveling the Abraham Accords and undermining U.S. interests. But as past episodes have demonstrated, there is likely to be immediate outrage followed by a reversion to the status quo.

    On September 9, Israel shocked the world by launching a military operation to kill senior Hamas leaders who were gathering for a meeting at their longtime refuge in Qatar. Preliminary reports suggested that among the targets were senior officials Khalil al-Hayya, Zaher Jabarin, Muhammad Darwish, and Khaled Mashal. The strike took place on the territory of Qatar, which has long played both sides of the fence. It has created the impression it is a key U.S. partner in hosting an American airbase despite providing funding for Hamas, a U.S.-sanctioned terrorist organization with the blood of U.S. citizens on its hands and providing financial resources to media networks which incite hatred against Israel, putting Jewish Americans at risk.

    Public reporting indicates the strike was not successful in eliminating the top rung of Hamas leadership. There has also been handwringing that Israel’s daring attack – while tactically sensible – is nevertheless strategically unwise as it risks alienating the very Arab partners that Israel has been courting as a part of the Abraham Accords to counter the shared threat from Iran. Yet Israeli officials have been reframing it as achieving one objective in signaling that Qatar will no longer be immune from consequences in harboring terrorists.

    But history counsels that the initial alarmist reactions from Israel’s Qatar strike should be treated warily. This episode was reminiscent of two botched targeted killings in Israel’s history: in 1997 against then Hamas Political Leader Khaled Mashal in Jordan and in 2010 against Mahmoud Mabhouh in Dubai. In 1997, Netanyahu was prime minister as he is today. In that year, he ordered the assassination of Mashal in Amman. The timing of this decision came only three years after the Israel-Jordan peace treaty of 1994 – which is similar to the state of play in the current context with the Abraham Accords in force, even though Qatar is not a member.

    News accounts at the time reported that Israel’s prime minister authorized the operation against Mashal after a Hamas suicide bombing in Jerusalem. Fast-forward to today, Netanyahu similarly greenlit the strike on Hamas in Qatar following a shooting on Jerusalem’s Ramot Junction that killed six civilians and wounded 12 others.

    Then, as now, there was also sensitive diplomacy under way as Israel mounted a daring counterterrorism operation. In 1997, Jordan reportedly sent to Israel an offer for it to mediate a suspension of suicide bombings from Hamas. In 2025, Hamas was considering a U.S. proposal for a ceasefire in Gaza and the release of hostages.

    Nevertheless, there were some differences. In 1997, Israel acted through the Mossad in fomenting a covert assassination plot. Today, the Mossad reportedly opposed the strike in Qatar, and it was instead done through the Israel Defense Forces, which resulted in it being a military attack.

    In the immediate aftermath of the Mashal poisoning, there were angry recriminations. King Hussein conditioned the release of two Israeli agents who were captured on Israel identifying the drug it used on Mashal so that his life could be saved. King Hussein had threatened to close the Israeli embassy in Jordan and hold a public trial for imprisoned Israeli operatives if Mashal died. There were fears about the future of Israeli-Jordan relations, damage it could do to the 1994 peace treaty, part of then-President Clinton’s legacy, as well as intelligence ties between Israel and Jordan.

    Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan observed in 1997, “I think it is an act of gross stupidity. We are always reminded that Israel is the only democratic state in the region… and yet you find the only democratic state in the region being associated with an act of terror.” Similarly, Qatar’s foreign minister in 2025 labeled the Israeli military strike on the Hamas compound “state terrorism.” Multiple news reports citing anonymous Arab diplomats have been warning that Israel’s attack against Hamas in Qatar risks making the Jewish state a pariah in the region, as opposed to Iran, and undercuts the spirit of the Abraham Accords, which is President Trump’s legacy as well as U.S. security guarantees.

    In the end, despite all the predictions of doom, the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty survived despite a temporary strain in relations.

    A similar dynamic played out in 2010 when Israel, with Netanyahu as prime minister again, killed Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, a co-founder of Hamas’s military wing, in a Dubai hotel. The local police then published CCTV footage which revealed embarrassing details about Israeli tradecraft and caused a rift in its relations with a few countries after non-Israeli passports were used in the operation. The killing took place just as the United Arab Emirates and Israel were engaged in sensitive and covert diplomacy to improve relations. Despite the warnings of rupturing relations, an Israeli cabinet minister visited Dubai in 2014 and the United Arab Emirates joined the Abraham Accords a decade later.

    It is true that the current geopolitical context is different from the previous episodes of Israeli targeted killings – especially with Israel increasingly isolated internationally over Gaza. However, this history of absorbable diplomatic fallout from Israeli targeted killings likely motivated Israeli decision-makers to take a gamble in the strike on Hamas in Qatar. While there are loud denunciations of Israel, skepticism should prevail over dramatic, substantive fallout. The Middle East has seen a version of this movie before.



  • Robert Munsch’s license to die

    Robert Munsch’s license to die

    Once upon a time, there was a hugely successful children’s author named Robert Munsch. His books (more than 70!) sold in many, many copies; he became famous, and people gave him top awards like the Juno and the Order of Canada. They even named schools after him.

    More gloriously yet, he became the most stolen author in the Toronto Public Library.

    He was in high demand as a storyteller, and children from everywhere used to write him letters. And he would write back, often with personalized stories (which they loved) featuring them and their classmates.

    Like all of us, he had his sorrows. He and his wife lost two children, which led him to write one of his best-known works, Love You Forever. Eventually they became adoptive parents of three. And when he told people about the hard things he had survived, he mentioned his efforts to cope with mental health issues, suicidal thoughts and addiction – all things that had become manageable with the right medication and the right support. Through it all, he told stories, wrote stories, lived stories.

    Then, one day, he began to feel his mind wasn’t working as sharply as it once had. He kept falling off his bicycle, and had trouble parking his car. He went to the doctor and the doctor told him he had dementia. He had a harder and harder time telling stories.

    Now at this point in the story we should mention that Munsch, though he was born in the US, now lived in Canada. And Canada, sadly, is a country where discouraged, lonely, or frightened people can legally be killed, if they get permission from the government. It’s called MAiD – medical assistance in dying.

    We don’t know exactly what Robert was thinking at this stage, but it seems a safe bet that he was sad at the loss of his storytelling abilities, which had brought him such joy, such artistic connection to the world, such professional success. It seems likely too that he was afraid as he wondered what a future with dementia would hold.

    And there’s a chance that he felt very lonely. Without his unique artistic abilities, with gradually decreasing control over his mind and body, who would he be? Who could he be? Would he be able to love anyone, and would anyone be able to love him?

    The author of Love You Forever should have known the answer to that question. And yet, in the eleventh hour of a life most people would see as successful and happy, he did something terrible (though perhaps, as he lived in Canada where this practice was becoming more and more common, he didn’t realize quite how terrible it was).

    He applied for MAiD, to get authorization to be killed by a doctor – and he got it. But he didn’t use it right away. He let everyone know that he’d tucked it away in a drawer, a wicked little insurance policy, to be gotten out if ever he felt too sad or too afraid. In the meantime, life has gone on. According to his daughter, he is doing well and doesn’t expect to die any time soon. Perhaps he’ll even live out his days peacefully to the end.

    But he has done something terrible, whether he realizes it or not. In making all this public, he is letting his fame be used to normalise, even promote assisted suicide.

    Because of his example, people who yesterday were enduring pain in hopes of happier times, may choose today to give up.

    Because of him, vulnerable elderly people will be subjected to even more pressure to see themselves as burdens, rather than beloved and precious human beings.

    Because of him, disabled and incapacitated people will be treated with a little more contempt, a little less patience – perhaps even dismissed as the “turnip” or “lump” Munsch jokes he may one day become.

    It is ironic that a man whose life was storytelling is now – deliberately or not – suggesting people should burn the book because they’re afraid to read the last chapter.

    Many years ago, Munsch studied for the priesthood. He abandoned his Catholic faith around the same time that he left his studies – sadly, in the religion he left behind, he could have learned what he has clearly not yet understood:

    That the weak and incapacitated are worth just as much to God as the healthy; that those who patiently endure suffering, in the nursing home as on the cross, hold the golden key to changing everything: hearts, minds, the world.

  • How Princess Kate and Melania Trump bonded

    How Princess Kate and Melania Trump bonded

    President Trump arrives back in the United States today, and Keir Starmer will have returned to 10 Downing Street breathing a sigh of relief that this unprecedented second state visit went about as well as it could have done. However, there may be different feelings in Buckingham Palace and the other royal residences. Certainly, Trump’s open admiration – even obsequiousness – for King Charles, who he described as “a great gentleman [and] a great king” – would have been received well. But the King himself maintained a poker face throughout the visit, with his only pointed remarks at the state banquet about the need for a lasting peace in Ukraine giving anything away about his own thoughts.

    Trump’s typically unorthodox and free-association speech at the same dinner, however, contained one surprising touch, when he remarked about how the Princess of Wales was “so radiant and so healthy and so beautiful.” On the one hand, the implicit nod to her having gone into remission after her cancer treatment might be seen as a thoughtful, even humane allusion. On the other, the president’s obvious admiration for Catherine, whom he sat next to during the banquet, might be seen as tipping over into straightforward infatuation. In one of the pictures released of the event, she is looking at Trump with a mixture of amusement and slight bafflement; he, meanwhile, is grinning as if he is the luckiest man in the room, if not the world.

    Entertaining visiting dignitaries is par for the course for the Princess of Wales, however, and a little gallantry from the 79-year-old American is to be expected. A more unexpected offshoot of the trip, however, is the genuine rapport that appears to have grown up between Catherine and Melania Trump. It might have been expected that the bulk of the hosting duties would have gone to the Queen. But Camilla is recovering from a bout of sinusitis, and so it was the Princess of Wales and the First Lady who headed to meet a bunch of scouts in the grounds of Frogmore House, which proved a surprisingly auspicious event.

    Dwayne Fields, the aptly named chief scout, told the Times that:

    From what I’ve seen, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were to go away and collaborate on something in the US…I would love to see the Squirrels section exported to the US and I wouldn’t be surprised if Mrs Trump goes back and talks about what she’s seen, what she’s experienced and what she saw others gaining from the experience.

    Fields also observed that the First Lady and Catherine found “a lot to talk about.” Certainly, in pictures released of the event, the often stern-looking Melania seemed as relaxed and cheery as she has ever been in public, telling the scouts that her favorite insect was a “ladybug” – “the first ladybug!”, one child quipped, showing a future as a raconteur – and thoroughly enjoying the opportunity to bounce balls around a parachute with the children.

    There were many reasons to be relieved that the trip went so well. As one palace source recounted:

    The visiting party was very easy to deal with and very appreciative of the hospitality. All elements of the pomp and pageantry created an awesome spectacle. You can tell from the expression of the principals how much they appreciated it.

    Full credit will, of course, be given to the King and Queen, as it should be, but a great deal of kudos should also go to Catherine, whose re-emergence into public life and the spotlight this year has demonstrated how much she was missed last year. Charming both the Trumps, in wholly separate ways, is a tough gig, but she managed it with flying colors. Radiant, healthy and beautiful, she might very well be, but a savvy operator, too. And if a “womance” of sorts beckons with the First Lady, that might end up being the most special relationship of all.

  • Has Trump changed Britain’s stance on Palestinian statehood?

    Has Trump changed Britain’s stance on Palestinian statehood?

    As Donald Trump visited the United Kingdom this week, the press seized the opportunity to confront both him and Prime Minister Keir Starmer about the issue of Hamas and Britain’s posture towards Palestinian statehood. In a rare moment of lucidity, and perhaps influenced by the firm presence of the President, Starmer appeared, briefly, to align his moral compass. Faced with questions over why his government was proceeding with the recognition of a Palestinian state in the wake of the October 7th atrocities, Starmer delivered what may be his most unequivocal statement to date:

    “Let me be really clear about Hamas: They’re a terrorist organization who can have no part in any future governance in Palestine. What happened on October 7th was the worst attack since the Holocaust. We have extended family in Israel. I understand first-hand the psychological impact that that had across Israel. So I know exactly where I stand in relation to Hamas. Hamas of course don’t want a two-state solution. They don’t want peace. They don’t want a ceasefire. I’m very clear where I stand on Hamas.”

    It was also strikingly convenient that, at this critical juncture, Starmer suddenly remembered his extended family in Israel. One wonders how reassured they feel about his use of them in such a moment – deployed as a sort of bauble to decorate a policy that is not only contradictory but potentially dangerous. If they are to serve as moral ballast for his position, they deserve more than to be name-dropped in the midst of strategic incoherence.

    Had Starmer stopped there, one might have mistaken him for a leader with conviction. But in the next breath, he returned to form, assuring the press that his decision to recognize a Palestinian state had been set out in July and had “nothing to do with this state visit.” He insisted that the matter had been discussed with president Trump “as you would expect among two leaders who respect each other and like each other and want to bring about a better solution in the best way we can.”

    The irony, of course, is that just as Starmer found the fortitude to call Hamas what it is, the group was issuing yet another declaration of grotesque barbarism. In a statement released by its al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas promised to turn Gaza into a “graveyard” for Israeli soldiers, to use hostages as human shields, and to ensure that not a single captive would be recovered alive. They referenced Ron Arad, the long-lost Israeli airman abducted by Iran-backed terrorists in Lebanon, as a model for how future hostages would disappear without trace.

    “We have prepared for you an army of martyrs,” they declared. “Your prisoners are scattered throughout Gaza City’s neighborhoods, and we will not spare their lives… you will not recover a single prisoner, neither dead nor alive, and their fate will be the same as that of Ron Arad.”

    So when Starmer finally managed to utter the truth about Hamas, it was as though he had been coaxed into it by the magnetic clarity of the man standing beside him. Trump, sensing the moment, actually grinned with approval and gave him a pat on the back – like a dog that had finally learned to sit when commanded. It is said the two spent around thirty minutes alone before the press conference, with no aides present. One can only imagine what was said, but it would not be a stretch to presume that Trump reminded him of the basics: do not reward genocidal jihadists with the trappings of statehood.

    Yet, despite the bluster, Starmer still intends to confer symbolic recognition upon a Palestinian entity that does not exist in any coherent, lawful or democratic form. He has mouthed the words of moral clarity, but he cannot follow them through with coherent policy. This is the essence of his weakness: he learns to say the lines but not to dance the dance. For all the talk of opposing Hamas, his government is giving succor to its cause by validating the fantasy of a state that Hamas itself openly defines through martyrdom, bloodshed, and the annihilation of Jews.

    Starmer’s rhetoric on Hamas is thus at odds with every other aspect of his posture. He decries their atrocities, then gestures toward recognition of a statehood project that would reward them. He acknowledges they do not want peace, then backs a policy that empowers them. He understands their strategy of hostage warfare, then gestures towards concessions that would only embolden it. And he said nothing of the failures of literally all other mainstream Palestinian leaders and political movements to act with decency, respect for humanity or international law, or indeed any ambition of peaceful coexistence with the Jewish state. If not Hamas, Sir Keir, then who? It is not biased or racist to state these facts, however distressing and undesirable: it is merely looking a hard truth in the eye. Without that, how else can the situation be improved?

    Starmer’s position makes Britain appear rudderless. If the leader of His Majesty’s Government cannot translate his apparent convictions into action, if he cannot resist the theater of international appeasement even in the face of Islamist terror, then he diminishes not only himself but the standing of the nation he represents. One hopes that Trump, in those thirty private minutes, managed to plant a seed of realism. But there is, as yet, no sign that it has taken root.

  • Donald Trump and Keir Starmer make an interesting pair

    Donald Trump and Keir Starmer make an interesting pair

    There is just something innately funny about seeing Keir Starmer and Donald Trump together. Two men so obviously different; in character, interests, ability and shape, forced together by circumstance. Watching them at the press conference today was no exception. They put me in mind of Bialystock and Bloom from The Producers: the bombastic Broadway shyster and his hapless sinusitis-suffering goon.

    First, for their “business roundtable,” they sat together behind a comically small table inside a marquee, which made them look like an unlikely scoring partnership at a village cricket match or as if they were signing the registers at a low-budget gay wedding. Alternatively, they looked a bit like they were appearing on a British panel show. I can think of a title: Don’t Mention Mandy! Two statesmen have to get through an Anglo-American bilateral summit without mentioning the sacking of a certain ambassador just last week for high-profile nonce-adjacency!

    Sir Keir spoke first, about the substance of the deal that they were about to sign, but also gave himself a series of pats on the back for having achieved it. “It comes down to leaders who respect each other, to leaders who genuinely like each other.” At this point the Prime Minister gave the President a weird sort of tap on his shoulder which I think was meant to be affectionate. Donald smiled a smile which might have been a Cheshire Cat grin or could have been the sort of smile a Mafia boss gives when he makes a note to have someone killed for a minor slight.

    When it came to his turn, Trump repeated that it was the first time there had been a second state visit, three times, which was numerically quite confusing. Then again, so much of how the President operates comes down to his truly bizarre use of the English language. It’s almost hypnotic. Again the contrast with Sir Keir couldn’t be clearer. Starmer speaks in robotic, staccato sentences. Everything. Is. Designed. To. Sound. Like. A. Safety. Briefing. In contrast Mr Trump embarks on long sweeping sentences, beautiful sentences, often with an aside about something that a lot of people don’t realize, which is OK, before ending up on a subject completely different from where he started.

    Certain words were used by Trump again and again – “beautiful,” in particular. Things the President believed were beautiful varied from Her Majesty Queen Camilla, Sir Keir Starmer’s renovation of Chequers and the British aerospace industry. He did speak briefly about the deal before going into one of his meandering concertos of consciousness about the things that made America the “hottest country in the world.” Awkwardly for Sir Keir, one of these was getting the border under control. As he did so, the PM sat there, going both pink and grey at once, like a condemned tin of luncheon meat. Still, Donald eventually came into land with a final nod to Britain and, as if by magic, folders appeared for the men to sign, the Prime Minister with the Parker pen which he doubtless got for free for just enquiring and the President with a massive Sharpie.

    After lunch, the unlikely duo hosted a press conference in front of a Jacobean fireplace and enough national flags to make Emily Thornberry squirm. The President thanked British subjects for their condolences following Charlie Kirk’s murder, and spoke of Vladimir Putin as if he were a philandering ex: “He’s let me down. He’s really let me down.”

    Bev Turner of GB News asked the Prime Minister a question about Christianity – which in fairness is one of the few beliefs Sir Keir has never professed to hold. But perhaps not for much longer; the avowed atheist spoke of being christened and the importance of the Church of England throughout his life. Given how desperate his domestic situation is, perhaps a conversion is on the cards. To paraphrase Voltaire on his deathbed when asked to denounce the devil: “Now is not the time to be making enemies.”

    Turner also asked a question about the free speech situation in Britain – a subject which triggers palpable discomfort in the PM, who always reaches for the same identically-worded answer. “We have had free speech in Britain for a long time,” he droned, inevitably, through his nose. For what it’s worth, I don’t think this is quite the defense Sir Keir perceives it to be, especially coming from him. After all, we’ve had agriculture since probably the Bronze age and he seems pretty determined to destroy that.

    Finally a reporter invoked the Mandy-shaped elephant in the room. President Trump having denied ever knowing his former ambassador, the question passed to Sir Keir, who shuffled his notes and gave another answer that sounded like it had been dictated by a solicitor or crisis-comms team. “New information came to light,” he snapped. “It’s very straightforward!” Luckily for him, there were no supplementary questions.

    It was all smiles, but I suspect the Donald knows that next time he comes to visit his favorite foreign country, it might well be someone else meeting him off the plane.