Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign It's Tuesday, May 12, 2026. I'm Albert Mohler, and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. We often discuss the fact that political polarization in the United States is increasing. And I just want to remind us all that that political polarization is increasing because the issues are becoming more graphically clear and urgent. And it is because the issues are dividing Americans. The red blue division is not an illusion. And as a matter of fact, there is a decreasing percentage that can even be described as purple. And as Christians, we understand that that becomes more and more likely as the issues become more and more basic. And that's going to be a major theme of our consideration today. When the revolt reaches the most basic levels, the issues become ever more clear. All right, so about the polarization. Very interestingly, yesterday's front page of USA Today included a story by Susan Page, Washington bureau chief. She is a veteran reporter and analyst on American politics, and thus she's got a lot to say here. The headline, politics soon to get even More Polarized. Raging Redistricting Wars Enter New Territory. Okay, so number one, she's claiming that politics will soon get even more polarized in the United States. And you could just ask the question, well, how in the world could politics get more polarized? Well, just look at the future of the House of Representatives. We have been noticing a trend over the course of the last several decades, and it's at a marked distinction, for example, where the United States was in the year 1960. And so we're talking about going back to the 60s, just about, well, here's convenient math, about 60 years ago. And you look at that time, the two parties were divided mostly by issues of fiscal policy, some trade policy, some budgetary policy, and some military policy about how much to build up the military. But the bottom line is it was all marginal. All the differences were marginal. The great consensus was very, to use our color chart, very purple. But red and blue really began to become more red and more blue, and America became more polarized over the course of the 1970s. That resulted in genuinely red and genuinely blue America showing up in the 1980 presidential election. And thus red has become redder and blue has become bluer ever since 1980. Because even in 1980, when abortion was a huge issue and when the future of the family was a huge issue, same sex marriage wasn't even in the vocabulary. The transgender revolution wasn't even in the imagination. And so we're looking at the fact that red became red for a Reason. Blue has become blue for a reason, and red is becoming more red precisely because of the logic of conservative argument, the logic, by the way, of holding to principles that do not change. That's what we are conserving as in conservative. On the other hand, liberal. And especially in terms of progressivism, that kind of liberalism has absolutely no barrier moving leftward. It just moves on and on. And by the way, the new left eats the left before it. Oddly enough, that happened even to the radicals of the 60s. And now you have this headline story, USA Today Politics soon to get even more polarized. I said it's really about the House of Representatives. It's about the gerrymandering, as it's often called, the redistricting. And this has been a battle in the United States for a very, very long time. The word gerrymander is a very, very old word, which means coming up with a redistricting in order to apportion seats in the United States House to the maximum advantage of one party or the other. Okay, so now you had just weeks ago this decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States, striking down the use of race as a category to be used for this kind of gerrymandering. And instead the Court said that the legitimate use, basically, it's not the words that the Court said, it's just the inference of the logic that partisan considerations are not unconstitutional because they're not divisive on grounds of some immutable characteristic, et cetera, et cetera, so they're not in violation of that constitutional principle. And so now you have an outright shift, whereas you had people trying to redistrict to their partisan advantage years ago, who said, no, we're not doing this for our partisan advantage. Now they are saying, like in Tennessee's most recent debate, we're doing this for partisan advantage because the Supreme Court has said that's not unconstitutional. Now, by the way, just another footnote, the Supreme Court didn't say it was right. The Supreme Court isn't there to tell us in a political situation like that what is right and wrong. It judges about what is legal and illegal, what is most importantly constitutional and unconstitutional. And so it's a new world. And yes, the polarization is just going to become even more acute. Even going back in the course of the last several congressional rounds, the estimation on the part of most people, about how many of the total of the 435 House seats were actually up for grab. We're talking about very, very few by one count. And this comes from the Cook Political Report. We're down to about 18 after the redistricting, which has happened, and Republicans have done it in Republican states and Democrats have done it in Democratic states. They've involved voters, other mechanisms. The bottom line is it has happened. And the bottom line is you're not going to find even say 18 or 19 toss up seats after the course of what's going to take place in 2026. And so that means you're going to have red seats and blue seats. The political dynamic in the respective political primaries. If it's red America, basically the Republican primary is going to be where the seats decided. If it's blue America, basically it's going to be in the Democratic primary that the seat is decided. Okay, let's look at the math. You're talking about at this point, the Republicans having an advantage at the bottom line in terms of all the states that have taken action already. It looks like Republicans are coming out on top about 14 to 6. So that means if you take the 20 seats that will be affected by this redistricting, it is expected that 14 of those seats will be to the Republican advantage and six of those seats will be to the Democratic advantage. Okay. Things got really, really interesting just over the course of the last several days because the Virginia state, that is the state of Virginia's Supreme Court, struck down the measure that had been taken. And it came not only from the governor, Abigail Spanberger, it came from not only with impetus from the Democratic majority in the legislature, it also came from direct action that was presented to voters. Voters approved it. But guess what? The Democratic leadership pushing this had not gone through the necessary statutory steps, and they had not fulfilled the requirements of the constitutional system there in the state of Virginia. And the state Supreme Court said that it is therefore nullified. And there is no way the Democrats in Virginia can get that fixed, no way at all before the 2026 elections. And so that means that at this point, the Democrats in Virginia are absolutely scrambling. Now, you add to this. They're not only scrambling, they're not only desperate. And this means not only the Democrats in Virginia, but also the Democrats at the national level. Hakeem Jeffries, who is the minority leader, the Democratic leader in the House, there have been phone calls that have been leaked. And in one of those phone calls, Democratic strategists actually discussed basically getting rid of Virginia's Supreme Court. How might they do that? Well, it turns out that some of them are proposing the establishment of a maximum age before mandatory retirement. And in order to get the number they need. They're suggesting that that age of mandatory retirement should be 54. Just think about that for a moment. 54. They're suggesting that being 55 is too old to serve on Virginia Supreme Court. No one believes that's the issue. And that's why just about no one believes that's going to take place. But it does show you that when you have the stakes go so high, the arguments can go really, really crazy. Now, I, as I say, don't believe that Abigail Spanberger, the governor of Virginia, is going to go for that. I don't think Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader, the Democratic leader in the House, is actually going to go for that. But the very fact that they had such a matter of consideration on a phone call tells you the Democrats are scrambling fast. All that's picking up. But then we have some big things looming, of course, most urgently right before us, the 2026 congressional elections. Then after that, the 2028 general election, which includes the presidential election. President Trump cannot run for a third term. So President Trump will not be on the ballot. He will be, I assure you, a factor. He's not going to be on the ballot. And so that's a big looming issue. But then two years after that, the 2030 census, and that 2030 census will reapportion congressional seats. And in all likelihood, that's going to mean a significant shift from traditionally Democratic states to traditionally Republican states. And that's particularly because of people leaving more liberal Northeastern and West coast states, which have high taxation and other policies that a lot of conservatives oppose. And so it is likely that that at least the majority of those seats, in truth, all of those seats are going to show up in places more likely to be R than D. So when you're talking about this polarization, it's pretty clear that both parties are going to act in what the party sees as its best interest. Susan Page writes this quote, in all, eight states have redrawn their congressional districts over the past year in search of a political edge. Though some of the new maps still face court challenges, the new lines in six states are designed to imperil incumbent House Democrats. And this means the states of Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee and Texas. Susan Page writes, quote, the new map in California is intended to help defeat up to five Republican members. But an effort to redraw the congressional map in Virginia to flip up to four GOP held seats was rejected May 8 on procedural grounds by the state Supreme Court, a seismic setback for Democrats, end quote. Now, that's almost assuredly. Now, just yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States received an appeal from those who lost the case at the Virginia Supreme Court. But it is very unlikely that the Supreme Court's going to respond to it because there is not a constitutional issue in terms of the US Constitution at stake, and thus it's unlikely the US Supreme Court's going to take it up. Very interestingly and watch for this. The Supreme Court could acknowledge that it's an important question and that it might consider the question, but it will reschedule it for later consideration because the court's term is coming up and they take the summer off. And that would mean that the case could come up after the 2026 elections have happened. So that also would be very interesting. We'll take up the question, but on our own good time. There are some fascinating things coming out of this. The New York Times had a fascinating article, quote, ruling spins Candidates into a State of Disorientation. This is about the state of Virginia. This is how the story begins. It is fascinating. Quote, on Thursday night, this will be Last week, Dan Helmer received a shipment of boxes with 1,000 yard signs that read Dan Helmer for Congress. By late Friday morning, Mr. Helmer no longer had a seat to run for. In other words, the Virginia State Supreme Court's decision striking down the redistricting left him with no district. He has rather than a district and rather than an election, he has 1,000 yard signs. Mr. Helmer, who is a Democratic member of the House of Delegates there in Virginia, said, and there's wisdom to what he said, quote, there's no seat for me. He said that his yard signs, quote, are probably not as useful as they were yesterday, end quote. That's how fast politics can turn on a dime with a yard sign. Meanwhile, other fascinating developments include what is taking place in the state of California. So what's going on there? Well, in California, the Democrats are the ones who are worried. And all the Democrats have a vast majority, a vast majority. Democrats haven't lost a statewide election in California in a very long time. Republicans don't have much chance of even getting on the ballot in the general election because California's rules say that in an open primary, you don't have a Democrat versus a Republican in the general election. Instead, you have the number one candidate and the number two candidate in the vote count who face off against each other. But this year, there is no particularly exciting Democrat in the crowd and there are two fairly strong Republicans. And with the large Democratic crowd diluting The Democratic vote. Democrats are facing at least the very real possibility that rather than there being two Democrats facing off, given their primary rules, they can have two Republicans facing off in the general election and Democrats could be shut out even of the race. They had intended the opposite. Just as we think about this, Christians should always remember that sometimes when you take a step like this, the consequences are not what you expect. Politics isn't so simple as two plus two equals four. When you look at moving pieces on an electoral map, the pieces can move where you do not expect. One other issue here when it comes to California's primary system, again, it's not partisan such that it's Democrat versus Republican. It is instead number one and number two facing off against each other. That was considered by former Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger about 15 years ago. That was considered to be electoral reform. And Governor Schwarzenegger, former Governor Schwarzenegger, who was a liberal Republican. So again, something is not going to happen now. But it happened then. And especially due to his celebrity, Arnold Schwarzenegger is still defending the policy. But what you have here is California, basically, both parties now beginning to question all of these steps that were taken supposedly in the service of electoral equity. And it turns out, well, here's a surprise. Neither party actually wants that. I do appreciate the statement made by one Republican saying that in the old system it was vanilla running against chocolate just in terms of two very clear flavors. But he says now, given California system, all you end up with on the general election ballot is van vanilla or French vanilla. In other words, just more or less the same. It may be that in some cases, Republicans will come to rue the day they adopted these particular districting rules. But the fact is, already the Democrats are in the position of, at least in California, wondering was it so smart after all for us to put ourselves in the position of this primary system? And now they are set out to make certain what could happen this year could never happen again. All right. We will be continuing to follow these stories as they unfold. Meanwhile, I want to get to something just massive. Importance. Creation. Order. Importance. And I give you those words up front because I don't think there are many issues that could come close to this one, frankly, in terms of importance and urgency, much less eclipse it. And because we're talking about a basic confusion of the entirety of creation order when it comes to God's creation of human beings as male and female and giving us the assignment of marriage and also of raising children, of procreation and raising children, Nassau Public Radio chose Mother's day for this. And so on Sunday morning, National Public Radio ran a story with a headline, why Women are choosing to be Single Mothers. And so that was the headline. It was a huge story, really. And of course, it was radio. It was very well produced. It was absolutely shocking. Frankly, it's one of the most radical arguments that I think I've heard in a public context for a very long time. Alicia Roscoe, who is the host of Weekend Edition Sunday Edition for National Public Radio, not only moderated the story, she actually made herself a part of the story. Roscoe presented first two women, Savannah Lawrence and Bumi Akinosoto. We're told, quote, these moms, they're choosing to have families on their own. And and a third woman's, Christine Williams, identifies a former firefighter. The whole issue here is that there's a new trend. And by the way, NPR is reporting what is genuinely a new trend, particularly in women over age 30, and that is a skyrocketing number and percentage of women over 30 who are deciding to have children without having husbands. In other words, they are deciding that even if they're not going to be wives, they are going to be mothers. And we're not talking about a small trend here. We're talking about what now amounts to millions. This is absolutely massive. And again, this was broadcast on Mother's Day, and of course, not by accident. One of these women, Buni Akinosoto, said, quote, I don't remember who said it to me, but someone said, if you never get married, I think you're going to be okay, but if you never have a child, how will you feel about that? She said. And I remembered thinking I would regret that forever. All right. Alicia Roscoe then jumps into the story, quote, today on this Mother's Day, we'll explore why a growing number of single women are choosing to become parents, she says. I'm joined now by NPR's Paula Vigoi, who's been reporting on this growing trend. And according to this at NPR, quote, she's spoken to nearly 60 single moms around the country. And thus the conversation went on. The conversation began. Alicia Roscoe asks this person responsible for this story at npr, are you a mom? She says she is. And then Alicia Roscoe said, hopefully we're getting some rest today. It's interesting you are reporting on this topic because single motherhood for a long time in this country has carried stigma and shame. Okay? And then her NPR colleague said, quote, yeah, I mean, until recently, I think the stereotype was of a woman often very young who was trapped into motherhood because of poverty, abandonment, abuse, you name it. But Alicia, she said, quote, there's government data now that suggests single motherhood today looks very different than from those old stereotypes. So Alicia Roscoe asks, so what does single motherhood look like now? Here's the response from Paul Lavie. Quote, so let me start with a couple stats. These days, around 40% of American kids are born to unmarried mothers. And that's up from 5% in 1960. So a huge jump. Second stat. Unmarried women over the age of 30. That's the fastest growing group of single parents in this country. And this is a time when we know overall birth rates are declining. So as a business editor, I was really interested in exploring this completely contradictory phenomenon. What motivates these women. So Alicia, she said, I've been on this journey, and it's been so eye opening, end quote. Okay, I want us to look at the math for a moment. So National Public Radio is reporting that 40% of American children are now born to unmarried mothers. 40%. And there is the acknowledgment that that's up from 5% in 1960. Okay, we're not talking about just a big jump. We're talking about a social transformation. And so you go back to 1960. I was actually a baby at that time. And we're told that only 5% of children were born to unmarried mothers. Okay, that means 95% were born to married mothers. So we're talking about 95 and 5. Now, 40% are born to unmarried mothers. That leaves only 60% born to married moms. That's not just a change in numbers. That's not just a remarkable statistical contrast. That's the undoing of an entire civilization. Let's go back to 1960. When you look at that number, that percentage, say 95 and 5, that was not just because of some kind of social stigma. That was because of an understanding of marriage as absolutely central to civilization. Absolutely right. As a baseline moral expectation. Absolutely necessary. As a baseline adulthood expectation. But now, no, especially when it comes to children. That entire system, that entire worldview is gone. Paul Levi of NPR went on to say, these women are turning the single mom narrative on its head. In the past, that was something to be ashamed of, a stigma. But today, for a lot of women I spoke to, it's something to be proud of. They're not ashamed. They actually want it. Think about it. She said, when you become a mom at 30 or older, you've lived a little, worked a few years and have some stability. So a lot of these women that I've talked to, they have their lives together. They can do it themselves. End quote. They can do it themselves. They don't need a husband. And this doesn't come with moral stigma anymore, something to be ashamed of. No, this has been transformed in a moral revolution that has taken place in our society. This has become just another lifestyle choice and a lifestyle expectation for a growing number of women who don't really want to be married. And that becomes very clear where you have a woman say, you know, I have a choice between what will be the greater sense of loss, not being a wife or not being a mother. And the overwhelming sense of this article is that there are more women worried about not being a mother than not being a wife. And when you consider that these days, you have all kinds of options that do not require actually a biological man. They do require. Let me disappoint. A biological man is the source of the reproductive cell. But nonetheless, you can go online and get to a catalog, or you can just one way or another determine that you're going to inseminate yourself. And the next thing you know, you have a baby with no husband, no man in the picture, and no man wanted in the picture. Now, there's another thing that ends up being said in that article. They can do it themselves. In other words, they can have children themselves. By the time you get about two thirds of the way into this NPR report, it turns out things are a little more complicated. And as a matter of fact, after Alicia Roscoe identifies herself as a part of the story. So again, you have the NPR host of Weekend Edition Sunday who puts herself in the story saying she's a single mom with kids and she is living with another woman who's a single mom with kids. And they're actually doing this in order to make it easier for them to make everything work. It turns out when some of these people say women can do this themselves, well, it also turns out that the article reveals that turns out to be very, very difficult. It turns out, as some of these moms say, I don't have any opportunity even to take a shower because I bear all this responsibility. But let me just point out that there's no one in this article voicing any support for Creation order at all. I don't even mean a more secularized understanding of, say, natural law. No one's recognizing that without having a mother and a father, there's a problem. And by the way, these mothers, as interviewed on this program, were insistent that, for instance, boys don't need dads. What they need are parents. And here again, flying in the face of all evidence. And I'll just say, you talk about a revolt against creation order that's also a revolt against any kind of sane society. It just doesn't work that way. And by the way, it's not just boys who need dads, it's girls who need dads as well. It turns out that girls receive an awful lot of their self confidence because of the relationship with their father in the home. And again, that's creation order. That's to God's glory. It also turns out that boys without men, well, they show all kinds of behaviors, all kinds of patterns that are, let's just say, counterproductive for society. And all of that is just very, very sad. A boy needs to want to desire and hunger for the affirmation of his father. And his father needs to raise him in such a way that he has that admiration, he has that affirmation, he has that security, and he has a role model. I find all of this just astounding. I think, by the way, that there's no way an organization like National Public Radio could have run a report like this, even, say, 15 years ago. But in the aftermath of the sexual revolution, the moral revolution, the Obergefell decision legalizing same sex marriage, the creation of an entire biomedical catalog online in which you could buy sperm, eggs, or anything else with the removal of any moral judgment on the fact that there should be a family with a mother and a father and that children should be born into that context. On the other side of all of that, what you have is sheer chaos. There are a couple of other issues raised in the report. For one thing, when it comes to the reproductive revolution and the reproductive technologies, they're not cheap. And so you have complaints in this article about the fact that it's so expensive. And basically you now have many people calling for government to pay for this. Again, without reference to the family. This is one of the problems, I'll just say as a footnote here, is one of the problems with the approach taken or at least discussed by the Trump administration. Because even though there are many of us, and I'll put myself at the top of the list, who have grave concerns about IVF in the first place, it's also made infinitely more complicated by the fact that it's going to be very difficult for the federal government to say we're talking about married couples here. No, this logic is what's going to be represented. And I guarantee you, with a Democrat in the White House, it's going to be pushed with a vengeance. The second acknowledgment here is that age takes a toll on the body. And we are talking here about a phenomenon in which the numbers really go up, that is women having children without a husband, without marriage, intentionally. The numbers and percentages do go up after age 30, and that's why we're talking about 40% of all children are now born to mothers without fathers. But that statistic goes up considerably, especially by choice, when you look at women over the age of 30. Toward the end of the report, Alicia Roscoe, the host, said, quote, if you have the desire to be a mother, that's what I want to do. Then going after it and obtaining it and having that baby who's smiling and looking at you and eventually giving you that hug, there's nothing like it. There's nothing like it. If that is the path that you want to go on, even if it's not some fairy tale with the Prince Charming and the picket fence, even if your story doesn't look like that, it's still a blessing. It's still a dream fulfilled. End quote. I want to say that as Christians, we have to hope and pray that these children do very well and that they flourish and prosper. But we do have to also understand just the basic honesty of the fact that the reality is their situation is likely to be very complicated. We also understand that this is a revolt against creation order and thus it can't go well. It is not God's intention. And I know many people who would hear us saying this would just say, well, that's an extreme position. This is actually what was the position held by, oh, about 95% of Americans. By the way, it's right whether 95% of Americans acknowledged it or not. But it is interesting that what I just said would have been absolutely non controversial in the United States even just a matter of a few decades ago. We are talking about vast moral change happening very, very quickly and the consequences are becoming more and more clear, including what National Public Radio decided was its most important feature story to be scheduled. You get the irony for Mother's Day in days ahead, we'll be talking about even more of those consequences. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website@albertmuller.com you can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.comalbertmohler 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.