Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:05]
A
It's Monday, November 10th, 2025. I'm Albert Mohler, and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. It was at 39 days, 21 hours and just under 10 minutes that the United States Senate finally passed a procedural vote which will allow a measure to continue funding and the United States government to move forward in the Senate. That took place late last night. And let's just put it into context. Number one, this is not the end of the issue. This does not mean the government is funded. This does not mean that a continuing resolution has now been adopted by both houses. First of all, the Senate has voted only as of last night on a procedural issue. And that means that the actual measure itself is going to have to be debated and then passed by the Senate. But at this point, as of late last night, several Democrats, enough Democrats, at least eight Democratic senators, had basically crossed the aisle to join with Republicans to bring at least a temporary funding measure for the federal government to get federal workers back at work, air traffic controllers and others back at work and paid, and furthermore, to get federal programs back into funding at at least the levels previously adopted by Congress. Now, let's just understand there are some big things going on here. We're still, I won't say a long way, but we're still some way from reopening the federal government. And that's for a couple reasons. Number one, it has been now the longest shutdown in American political history. So I'll just go back to the numbers. 39 days and 21 hours and just a little bit of change in terms of what has already been shut down in terms of the government before this procedural vote. So this doesn't reopen the government, but it took that long even for this procedural vote. And it basically is a surrender by at least a handful of Democrats in the Senate to the fact that the political cost of keeping the government shut down was just too great. This was a classic Western showdown. It was a showdown like in the OK Corral. You've got two opposing forces. You have the Democrats. And the lead Democrat in making so many of these arguments was Chuck Schumer, Democratic senator from New York, who is the Democratic leader, the minority leader in the United States Senate, and thus the crucial player on the Democratic side for the Senate vote. On the other side, you have President Donald Trump, obviously a Republican. You have the House with a very thin but real Republican majority. You also have a Republican majority in the United States Senate. But remember, given the filibuster rule, the necessity of reaching 60 votes. Something like 8 democratic votes are necessary for every one of these major measures. So we're gonna be watching what takes place today. We're gonna be watching what unfolds this week. I think now that the dam has broken, you're going to see both Houses and the White House try to come together as quickly as possible. The House and the Senate and the White House come together to get the government reopened. The political pain is just crushing right now on both sides. But there is no doubt that it was the Democrats who blinked. And just given the test of wills here, let's just understand that the math indicated that it would be the Democrats who would blink. And by the way, the Democrats were putting forth a demand that I'll just state right up front, was never honest. So it was over subsidies for Obamacare, for the Affordable Care act, and it was subsidies that had been increased with the argument that it was necessitated these increases in billions of dollars necessitated by the context of the COVID pandemic. And of course, like is always the case, once you have an expansion of the welfare state, once you have the expansion of an entitlement, you can say it's for a short duration, but the Democrats are coming back and saying no, because the cost for individuals going up in a spectacular fashion. Well, they knew that when they passed the legislation and they knew exactly what they were doing. And by the way, they probably, over the long term will be successful simply because the American people have demonstrated by their behavior that they're opposed to entitlement programs until they have them, and then they factor it into their family spending and they want them only to grow. That's just the way it works. That is one of the biggest problems with the government as it is now constructed. But let's look at the shutdown for a moment. This shutdown is very painful. My wife and I have been traveling. Let me just tell you that it's chaotic enough. But with the shutdowns and the slowdowns and the problems with having air traffic control towers adequately staffed, with the secretary of transportation telling the airlines they were going to have to cut back on flights of people openly changing their plans for Thanksgiving and for other holiday travel because they simply thought it probably isn't going to be practical to risk taking a flight. The airlines were hurting. Everyone was hurting in that respect. Let me just state about the shutdown. I think this particular political and to some degree constitutional measure is an embarrassment to a great power. I think it should be a political and moral embarrassment to the United States of America, this game that is played repeatedly. Now, let me give you the conservative Republican argument for not getting rid of this particular problem. You would get rid of it simply by adopting a funding mechanism that matches the budget you passed. That would be and with the other spending that is invoked in that budget. So the fact that you can have a spending authorization separate from the budget honestly makes no sense. It would make no sense for your family. It would make no sense for your business. It doesn't make sense for the most important democratic constitutional government on the planet. It is a political embarrassment. But Republicans will make the charge. They will make the argument it is necessary because it affords conservatives very rare political leverage. And at the same time, you will have Democrats who will argue that it needs to be done away with simply because they'll inevitably win in terms of incremental, if not even more radically incremental increases in federal spending without the necessity of having any special authorization for spending the funds. But I go back to the fact that the real fiscal discipline has to be in the budget process. If there is no fiscal discipline in the budget process of the United States government, if Congress and the White House and Congress has the lead responsibility here in terms of the power of the budget, if Congress will not exercise that with legislative maturity, frankly, this kind of thing is inevitable. It's a political show. It is. I will tell you, my wife and I were in Europe for a great deal of the time and we were all over Europe. And let me just tell you, this is a political embarrassment. Other democratic nations stand back in amazement that the United States government would shut itself down and subject itself to this humiliation. And I will tell you, we certainly felt the humiliation as we were in Europe. Citizens of other European democracies, they simply can't understand how something like this could happen. Now, of course, many of them are in big spending welfare states as well. But I think we've reached the point now where I would hope the American people might simply say we cannot continue to have these face offs on a regular basis. And you know, the last, longest government shutdown in American history took place in the first Trump administration. Now the longest as of now shutdown in American history, which as of this morning, isn't over. It's just maybe closer to being over. This has come with a real cost. It comes with a real cost in the economy. It comes with a real cost to families. It comes with a real cost to our military and others. It's just the kind of thing you can't afford. And we probably can only really make this argument with any kind of moral force at this kind of point, where Americans now know fundamentally what is at stake and they can see the price of this kind of government shutdown, we should not fund, or let's put it this way, we should not create a political incentive for political misbehavior. And so let's just say there's a bipartisan problem, and that is that the United States Congress has not acted effectively to control the power of the purse. And so a showdown between the White House and Congress, that's one thing. Constitutionally, that's probably inevitable. But when you talk about a government shutdown, which is a showdown like this, with basically no political gain for anyone to show for it, just an awful lot of embarrassment to the United States and not only that very real cost to the United States, a grown up constitutional republic shouldn't act this way. And I know there are some Republicans who are going to say, you know, it's one of the very few mechanisms we have for squeezing any kind of cost savings out of the federal budget. But the bottom line is if the budget's adopted, then basically one way or another, you are going to fund it. But I do think the Republicans in this particular showdown had the right game plan. They had the right argument, and that is just offer a clean continuing resolution. We'll debate other things later. And now what we really need are Republicans to have the moral fortitude to stare down the actual entitlement programs and the specific demands that the Democrats are making in this case and do a good job of telling the American people what is really at stake. The fact is that the Obamacare, the Affordable Care act, its provisions have never met the funding requirements that were necessary. And so we're looking at a continuing, and this is the problem with almost every major social program, the costs just spiral upwards. And that's exactly what is happening with the Affordable Care act is exactly what was predictable. But it's also predictable political behavior. When the Democrats, and it was President Biden at the time, President Biden at the time said, we need this emergency measure because of the situation related to Covid. And so we're going to put a deadline on it when Covid should not be a problem. And then at the end of the deadline, of course, the Democrats come back and say, we got to spend the money. It's going to hurt America and Americans if we don't spend this money. And of course, it'll be more money and even greater demands next year and the year after that. Propping up a federal program that is leaking like a net. And if we don't meet the problem here of ever expanding federal spending, particularly on entitlements, then none of the rest of this political theater really matters except to the politicians. And I think, as for the rest of Americans, we're, at least for now, pretty done with that. But all right. Speaking of politicians and politics, we have to note the big political news last week was the announcement by former speaker of the House, Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi, that she would not be running for another term. She's not going to run for reelection to her congressional seat in 2026. And thus, having begun her service in the house in 1987, one of the longest and most powerful careers in the United States, House of Representatives, is coming to an end now, especially on the Democratic side. If you want to have big congressional impact, and without a doubt, Nancy Pelosi has had that, you need two things going for you, at least two things that if you do possess, are going to put you in a pretty strong position, and that is a big political name, political family, political background, and secondly, money. And when it came to Nancy Pelosi, conveniently, she had both of those things. You have to know that she was born Nancy Patricia D'. Alessandro, and her father, who was Thomas D', Alessandro, served in Congress from 1939 to 1947. And then at that point, he was elected the mayor of the city of Baltimore, a Democratic bastion. And it was old big city East Coast Democratic politics. And you can pretty much do the search and see the headlines for yourself, all the kinds of big Democratic political machine issues there on the East Coast. Nancy d' Alessandro marries Paul Pelosi. They move to the west coast, where Paul Pelosi becomes a very influential and very rich financier and investor. And Nancy Pelosi, who was a housewife with just children in the home and all the rest, she wanted to get into politics. It was very much, of course, in the family tradition. She really began by working in campaigns in the Democratic arena there in California. And then she became chairman of the Democratic state party there in California, very powerful position. And then she catapulted herself into a race for Congress, a very interesting congressional seat there in the San Francisco area. She would hold that seat, as it was districted as the 5th, the 8th, the 11th, and the 12th congressional district there in California. Right now it is the 11th. The important point to make here is that we often talk about the fact that the two coasts are far more liberal than the heartland. And when you're looking at San Francisco and Baltimore, you're looking at two Democratic bastions, let's just say two clearly Democratic bastions and liberal bastions for that matter. Especially when you look at San Francisco and the progressivist and liberal issues in ideology coming out of places such as Berkeley there in Northern California, but also coming out of the alternative culture there. The LGBTQ movement really beginning there in a big way in political influence. Arguably, the movement began with the Stonewall riots that took place in New York City, but San Francisco very clearly became a the epicenter for so much of this activity. You could say New York and San Francisco together. San Francisco became kind of just a shorthand for what was called the gay rights movement, infamously with the bath houses there, homosexual male bath houses that became engines for the AIDS crisis. And the AIDS crisis hit very early in Nancy Pelosi's congressional tenure. It is interesting to see how there were people who tied Nancy Pelosi in terms of her support for the gay community at the time. The New York Times over the weekend ran a piece with a headline, pelosi Emerged as Early Ally in AIDS Crisis. The most important thing for us to recognize is that Nancy Pelosi arguably is about as liberal as her district. So that's one of the interesting things about the House of Representatives. You can compare it to the United States Senate. Of course, there are two senators, and they're elected to statewide for all 50 states. So 100 senators, two from each state elected statewide. Being elected statewide in most states means that you've got to at least reckon with people from both parties. Not so in some states. California is one of those states in which that apparently now really doesn't matter. But when you compare it to the House, House districts as they are apportioned, they can be far more volatile and far more extreme. So you can have really, really deep red congressional districts. Think in the Deep south, for example, you can also have incredibly blue districts. And if you're talking about blue and bluer and bluest, I think San Francisco is about as blue as you can get. Nancy Pelosi really skyrocketed, not only because of her district. And again, I'm going to say, I think when you look at the House of Representatives and the sad thing for America is that Nancy Pelosi probably did represent the congressional district voters who voted for her. I think you look at the liberalism, the leftism, the progressivism of San Francisco, and you come to understand when people said Nancy Pelosi, Democrats, they really do exist in large number. Nancy Pelosi, however, also wanted to work her way into leadership there in the House, particularly among Democrats. And of course, that resulted in the fact that she was elected the 52nd speaker of the House of Representatives. Remember that that is after only the Vice President of the United States in terms of the line of succession for the presidency. It's a constitutional office. And if you're looking at the speaker of the House, remember that all you have to do to be elected speaker is to have a majority. A sufficient number of members of the House vote for you. Which means that if your party's in the majority and you're the leader of that party, you're almost assuredly going to be speaker of the House. And that's what happened with Nancy Pelosi. The difference is it works a little bit opposite to how it works, say in the House of Commons. In Great Britain. In the House of Commons, if your party wins and you're the head of the party, you are the new prime minister. If indeed your party has a sufficient number of seats in the American system, you run for your party support for Speaker. And if you are elected and your party's in the majority thus, then you really become one of the major leaders of your party, certainly the leader of your party in the House. Nancy Pelosi is one of those who will go down in history as a very powerful speaker of the House. And there have been several. And their names are ensconced in history. Sam Rayburn, for example, the famous speaker midpoint of the 20th century. Democrat from Texas. These were Titanic figures. Tip O' Neill and also a Democrat. In the case of Tip o', Neill, an Irish Democrat from Boston. Old style politicians, Sam Rayburn and Tip o'. Neill. His official name was Thomas P. He became known as Tip. But those iconic speakers really also are now joined in that kind of hall of fame of speakers in terms of power and influence by Nancy Pelosi. She was speaker of the House. And Democrats had a majority first of all in 2007 to 2011 and then again in 2019 to 2023. Now let me just tell you how politics works, because this is really interesting. If you are the speaker of the House, you're a Democrat and you serve because the Democrats are in a majority from 2007 to 2011, and then you lose the majority generally, you become an ex speaker, you're also the ex leader of your party. There just aren't that many party leaders who can survive losing that kind of election. Nancy Pelosi did survive. Remember that that first term ended in 2011. She didn't become speaker again until 2019. That's several election cycles in which she was the leader of her party in the House, even when they were in a minority. To continue in that kind of role means you have a very rare political talent. And so even as I would see Nancy Pelosi as, I think one of the most lamentable political influences in the United States, given my own convictions, I have to say, with respect, she knew how to do the job. And in her party she kept very clear discipline. And that included the fact that she basically made a pledge. She would serve only four years in that second term as speaker. That may have been necessary because of the generational concerns, but in any event, she knew how to play the game. She learned it at home, and she learned how to play it well. She, as I said, came from a political family. She also was married to Paul Pelosi, a very wealthy investor and financier. And as a matter of fact, several critics have pointed out that Nancy Pelosi's personal worth increased by something like 100 to 130 million dollars during the time she was in Congress. So if you're talking about people who are talking about taxing the rich, Nancy Pelosi can send the bill right home. I think it's also really important to note that Nancy Pelosi is an indication of the giant swing towards leftism when it comes to moral issues in the Democratic Party. When she entered the United States House of Representatives, arguably there were still at least a couple of pro life Democrats in the House, maybe one or two in the Senate, but she was a part of bringing an end to that. And her leftist ideologies on moral issues flew in the face, just like with President Joe Biden, flew in the face of the fact that she continuously cited her Roman Catholic identity or Catholic identity, evidently did not match with Catholic convictions on those issues. And even to an extent greater than that of the former President in terms of Joe Biden, she was also assiduously pro abortion, and she didn't have any of the at least supposed reticence of Joe Biden on the issue. When Kamala Harris was elected with Joe Biden as his vice president, it was Kamala Harris who became the highest ranking woman in American constitutional history. But prior to that, it would have been Nancy Pelosi. So as we think about her retirement, again, she's not going to be missed by conservatives, she's not going to be missed by Republicans. But that is a testimony to how effective and powerful she has been. It's going to be interesting to see where the Democratic Party goes after her. In all likelihood, it is going to swerve even more markedly to the left. There is every indication that the coming generation intends to do just that. All right, while we're talking about the government shutdown, which may be now about to end, and we're talking about Nancy Pelosi, we're talking about politics, I guess it's okay to shift finally to the issue of art. And the New York Times had a headline, quote, gold toilet scenario unwinds at Sotheby. So one of the nation's most influential auction houses is, is auctioning off a solid gold 18 carat toilet. And therein is a parable about worldview and culture and the world of contemporary art, about so much of this contemporary art. The sweetest thing I can say about it is it needs to be flushed. All right, so there were actually two of these gold toilets. More on that in just a moment. They were created by the artist known as Maurizio Catalan and they were presented at an art gallery in 2017. It was bought by someone is now believed to be Steven Cohen, who is the billionaire financier who also owns the New York Mets, as the New York Times says, quote, Steve Cohen, the billionaire financier who also owns the New York Mets, is reported to have bought the gold toilet created as a sculpture by the conceptual artist. Don't you love that conceptual artist? Oh, it's a concept all right. His name again, Maurizio Catalan, from an art gallery in 2017, bought it in 2017. On November 18, it will be coming to auction. So you still have time if you want to get your bid in, just contact Sotheby's for the solid gold 18 karat toilet. The bidding is going to start at $10 million. So, you know, by the way, the New York Times points out, quote, for the cost of the Catalan sculpture, you could buy 100,000 single flush toilets at Home Depot. So if you're looking for economy of scale, let me just say not a thousand, not 10,000, but 100,000 flushing toilets made out of porcelain that actually works. Now, years ago in 2019, the sister toilet to this one was in Blenheim palace, that is the famed home of the Dukes of Marlborough. It is the only non royal residence in Britain that has the official legal title of palace. And I've been there several times. Let me tell you, it is a palace. And the current Duke of Marlborough was hosting the other gold toilet there in a bathroom in Blenheim Palace. And just days before, my wife and I were visiting there in 2019. It surprisingly enough, was stolen. By the time the police were on the chase, it was estimated that almost assuredly the toilet had been melted down. So let me just give you a little political parable here. Worldview parable. If your art is worth as much melted down as it was operational, what does that say about your art? But in this case you probably are looking at an inflated price and you're looking at modern art and you're looking at this particular artist, Maurizio Cattellon. Let me also point out that just a matter of a couple of years ago a record was reached when a piece of art, and I could just tell you put quotation marks around art when a piece of his art, which was a banana taped to a board, sold also for millions of dollars. 6.2 million. As a matter of fact, his duct taped banana was titled Comedian and seven bidders at Sotheby's bid on that. The winning bid against 6.2 million million for a banana taped to the wall with duct tape. I will do the same thing with a watermelon for a whole lot less than that. So much about modern art is that it celebrates being transgressive and non representational and symbolic of something. But I think it's mainly symbolic of the fact that there is a market for ugly, irrational and stupid. And evidently if you make it out of 14 karat gold stupid and it flushes, people will evidently pay millions of dollars for it. I also think there's another aspect to this parable which is when you are looking at much modern art, remember that a famous piece of modern art in the 20th century was another toilet. I think the parable is just too obvious. So when it comes to much modern art, I can simply say that this particular toilet probably is telling a sad truth about modern art. Tempting as it is, I'm not going to offer any more puns. The thing is simply a pun unto itself. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information go to my website@albertmohler.com you can follow me on Twitter by going to twitter.com Albert Moore for information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu. for information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.