WASHINGTON – On the first Thursday of every February, religious dignitaries, politicians, and other guests are invited to Washington, D.C. to attend the annual National Prayer Breakfast. It is sponsored by the Christian organization called The Fellowship Foundation and has been an American tradition since 1953.
This year was no exception. On Feb, 2. President Trump attended his first breakfast, held at the Washington Hilton. During that morning event, Trump addressed the crowd, saying: “America is a nation of believers. In towns all across our land, it’s plain to see what we easily forget — so easily we forget this, that the quality of our lives is not defined by our material success, but by our spiritual success.” [i]
[Photo Credit: unknown / public domain]
Together with the embedded religious rhetoric, which is exemplified in Trump’s words noted above, the administration’s marketing campaign has created a uniquely American cocktail containing a mixture of religion and nationalism with a hearty splash of undefined romantic nostalgia.
In the prayer breakfast speech, Trump suggests that, as Americans, we must remember a time when religious pursuits preempted the consumerist impulse. While many may agree with this feel-good statement, it can appear ironic coming from an American real estate tycoon who, during the same annual religious event, asked for prayers to boost the ratings of a reality television program of which he’s still listed as the executive producer.
That aside, it is this very style of religious rhetoric that is thriving in the current political scene, and even tipping the balance of power.
Later in that same speech, Trump talks about the importance of religious freedom and its enemies. He says: “We have seen peace-loving Muslims brutalized, victimized, murdered and oppressed by ISIS killers. We have seen threats of extermination against the Jewish people. We have seen a campaign of ISIS and genocide against Christians, where they cut off heads.”
In these sentences, he acknowledges the multi-faith world more than in other speeches and tweets, and he even hints at the complexities of religious politics with regard to global terrorism. However, at the end of his speech, he returns to the idea of America being defined as a “nation of believers” using an even more specific religious framework. He says:
America will thrive, as long as we continue to have faith in each other and faith in God. It’s that faith that sent the pilgrims across the oceans, the pioneers across the plains and the young people all across America, to chase their dreams. They are chasing their dreams. We are going to bring those dreams back. As long as we have God, we are never, ever alone. Whether it’s the soldier on the night watch, or the single parent on the night shift, God will always give us solace and strength, and comfort. We need to carry on and to keep carrying on.
President Trump’s words draw on romantic notions of Americana as defined within culturally-specific and idealized notions of religiosity, saying “we will bring those dreams back” again. This is where that splash of nostalgia is evident.
Religious revival
At the end of his speech, Trump says: “For us here in Washington, we must never, ever stop asking God for the wisdom to serve the public, according to his will.” That final statement flirts dangerously close to the establishment clause, begging the question as to whether it is actually a violation.
But Trump is not alone in that danger zone. Since the inception of the National Prayer Breakfast, presidents have had to walk an uneasy line between religious expression (personal or otherwise) and the establishment clause in their annual talk. It has been questioned whether the breakfast tradition itself, supported by an evangelical organization, is even constitutional at all.
However, it is important to note that the First Amendment doesn’t forbid public religious practice. As TWH columnist Clio Ajana said, “To say that one prays does not mean that an individual is a monotheist and that prayer is the dominion of such traditions. Prayer is for all of us.” However, that inclusive ideal and its actual manifestation in American political culture may not always line up.
![[Courtesy H. Emore] Pagan Prayer Service in Charleston 2015](https://wildhunt.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/11536480_10153477890297859_1004734042204956249_o-500x281.jpg)
[Courtesy H. Emore] Pagan Prayer Service in Charleston 2015
It is […] most reasonable in itself that men who are made capable of social acts and relations, who owe their improvements to the social state, and who derive their enjoyments from it, should, as a society, make their acknowledgments of dependence and obligation to Him who hath endowed them with these capacities and elevated them in the scale of existence by these distinctions. [ii]
President Adams’ dream of a National Day of Prayer didn’t last; nor did the second attempt by Abraham Lincoln in 1863. It wasn’t until 1952 that the current National Day of Prayer was formally signed into law under the Truman administration.
One year later, the National Prayer Breakfast was established. Like the newly-created day of prayer, the breakfast was one of the more visible outcroppings of the intersection between religion, specifically Abrahamic in nature, and American politics.
The birth of the Presidential Prayer Breakfast, as it was called then, was actually part of a larger religious revival propelled by newly-elected president Dwight D. Eisenhower. In a Smithsonian Magazine article titled “History of the National Prayer Breakfast,” journalist Diane Winston writes, “Soon after his election in 1952, Eisenhower told [famed Southern Baptist minister and evangelist Billy Graham] that the country needed a spiritual renewal. For Eisenhower, faith, patriotism and free enterprise were the fundamentals of a strong nation. But of the three, faith came first.”
Eisenhower was the first president to attend the breakfast established by The Fellowship Foundation. According to Winston, Eisenhower was initially wary about attending, but he was reportedly convinced to go by Rev. Graham. In his 1953 speech at that breakfast, Eisenhower concluded, “All free government is firmly founded in a deeply-felt religious faith.”
With this in mind, it is not surprising that, two years later in 1954, the words “under God” were added to the pledge of allegiance. And, two years after that, the 84th Congress backed by President Einsenhower made “in God we trust” the national motto.
Of cocktails and witch-hunts
While political shifts are always complicated and rife with ideological competition manifesting in changing legislation, historians often attribute this so-called spiritual revival to the coming Cold War and the growing fear of communism. It was in 1950 at a celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday that Joseph McCarthy gave his famous Wheeling Speech. McCarthy defined the U.S. in religious terms:
Can there be anyone who fails to realize that the communist world has said, “The time is now” – – that this is the time for the showdown between the democratic Christian world and the communist atheistic world? Unless we face this fact, we shall pay the price that must be paid by those who wait too long. [iii]
While the the term “God” used by Eisenhower’s legislation can be justified as being generally Abrahamic, McCarthy employed far more specific religious language. Capitalizing on a social fear, he dangerously defines political lines of “good and bad” within religious terms; thereby tying global politics to a deeply personal experience. He deftly equates nationalism to religious belief in order to influence political opinion and the general population. On the side of good was Christianity, America, and democracy. On the side of evil was atheism, the Soviet Union, and communism.
![Sen. Joseophy McCarthy at 1954 hearings [Public Domain / US Senate]](https://wildhunt.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Welch-McCarthy-Hearings-500x335.jpg)
Sen. Joseph McCarthy at 1954 hearings [Public Domain / US Senate]
The reaction of the American people to this would have made the heart of Abraham Lincoln happy. When this pompous diplomat in striped pants, with a phony British accent, proclaimed to the American people that Christ on the Mount endorsed communism, high treason, and betrayal of a sacred trust, the blasphemy was so great that it awakened the dormant indignation of the American people.
The spark of morality, as he said, was rekindled. This is, once again, an appeal to nostalgia. It recalls time when America was supposedly “the most powerful,” “the strongest nation,” the smartest, and the most moral.
During the trials, McCarthy went on to assert himself as a key part of the solution to the presented social problem. As seen in the Wheeling speech, he made claims that he alone possessed proof of “57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy.”
While McCarthy’s work eventually proved to be inaccurate and what we might now call ‘fake news,’ it did lead to several years of HUAC hearings and the famous political witch-hunts. Interestingly, the final hearings in 1954 were televised, which reportedly led to a public outrage against McCarthy and his methods. It can be speculated that the popularization of this new visual medium, and the resulting wide availability of source material as it were, helped to end of the HUAC trials and hunts.
As a side note, it was near the end of those trials that the recently debated Johnson Amendment was enacted changing the tax codes to prevent nonprofit organizations from influencing legislation and election processes. Lyndon B. Johnson, then a senator from Texas, was allegedly concerned about the above-mentioned growing conservatism, the anti-communist sentiment, and the rise of McCarthyism.
Some historians speculate that Johnson’s push for the tax code change was simply a personal political move, targeting his own opponents who had backed the HUAC hearings; others say it was an attempt to silence any nonprofit organizations participating in anti-communist political war mongering and ‘cold war’ propaganda. It may have been both.
Either way, most agree that Johnson’s proposal of the code change was not meant as a move against religious bodies or so-called attempts at a religious revival. In other words, the enactment of the code was not a result of religious freedom concerns.
The morning after hangover
During this not-so-distant past, there were many politicians who, like McCarthy, were advocating for a strong nationalism as a means of protection from foreign enemies during a time of growing global fear, and this surge of nationalism was neatly wrapped in religious rhetoric attributed to America’s great past. It is a cocktail from which America has still not fully recovered.
The tradition of the National Prayer Breakfast comes out of that time, as do the other religious components still resident in our contemporary American cultural experience, such as the pledge of allegiance and the motto.
![[Pixabay]](https://wildhunt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/american-flag-795303_1920-500x375.jpg)
[Pixabay]
“IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of February, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-first.”[iv]
Much of this religious language is so well embedded into America’s systems and cultures that it is largely accepted and ignored, being challenged only periodically by religious freedom organizations.
Making America something again
Beyond words and the draperies of yesteryear, religion-based rhetoric continues to provide momentum for the newly-elected administration, stirring controversy from the cabinet selections to the executive orders. The immigration ban, for example, is now called “the Muslim ban” and is being challenged in court on the premise that it violates the establishment clause.
While Trump has claimed that the ban is regional and not religious, he has also reportedly been quoted by the The Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) saying that he would prioritize Christian refugees: “We are going to help them. They’ve been horribly treated.” As such, political lines of good and bad are being defined along religious lines, connecting global politics to the deeply personal.
Trump’s pre-election talks and speeches only serve to support that point. In spring 2015, Trump told CBN journalist David Brody: “Believe me: If I … win, I will be the greatest representative of the Christians that they’ve had in a long time.” Later that October, he reportedly told Iowa supporters,“I’m a good Christian […] If I become president, we’re gonna be saying merry Christmas at every store …you can leave happy holidays at the corner.”
Furthermore, in his book Crippled America, published that same year, Trump illustrates the overall concept with the statement:“The belief in the lessons of the Bible has had a lot to do with our growth and success.That’s our tradition, and for more than 200 years it has worked very well.” (p. 132)
In contemporary America, it is a fear of terrorism or maybe something else entirely different, rather than communism, that is fueling the connection being made between nostalgic greatness, nationalism, and religion; in this case, Christianity.
However, similar to McCarthy, Trump is setting himself up as the great protector with the solution. In the Feb. 2 prayer breakfast speech, Trump says, “The world is in trouble, but we’re going to straighten it out. Okay? That’s what I do. I fix things. We’re going to straighten it out. (Applause.) Believe me. When you hear about the tough phone calls I’m having, don’t worry about it. Just don’t worry about it.”
![[Photo Credit: Alan Strakey]](https://wildhunt.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/5759023343_6e5606ef2b_b-500x335.jpg)
[Photo Credit: Alan Strakey]
It is under this marketing banner that President Trump hangs his hat, and even created his hat if you will, to serve up that unique and powerful cocktail of nationalism, religion and nostalgia.
Who drinks the cocktail, and how it will affect the future of American politics is still yet to be seen? How will the resultant actions, based upon the binding of those elements, resonate and manifest at the grass roots level in terms of true religious freedom for all, including and especially those Americans who do not fit the “nation of believers” model being touted?
NOTES:
[i] The entire speech is available on the White House web site.
[ii] Adams, John. Proclamation—Recommending a National Day of Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer. The American Presidency Project.
[iii] The entire text of the Wheeling Speech is available at Digital History.com.
[iv] Quote pulled from President Donald J. Trump Proclaims February as American Heart Month <www.whitehouse.gov>. All presidential proclamations end with these words dating back as far as the mid 1800s.
[v] “2016 Exit Polls.”The New York Times <www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/exit-polls>
The Wild Hunt is not responsible for links to external content.
To join a conversation on this post:
Visit our The Wild Hunt subreddit! Point your favorite browser to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Wild_Hunt_News/, then click “JOIN”. Make sure to click the bell, too, to be notified of new articles posted to our subreddit.
Thank you for this historical review. Having been born in 1941, I experienced not exactly nostalgia but certainly a remembrance of things past; I recall falling silent at the new words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance at high school assemblies and getting brief stares from other students.A small point: “Muslim ban” was not an ex post facto label put on the travel ban. Trump called for a Muslim ban on the campaign trail. The travel ban was not that — it omitted, eg, Indonesia — but was so clearly inspired by his rhetoric that it’s been called that. Unless the Administration drops its legal defense of the ban, some federal court will parse whether it can, under the Constitution, look at the political history of an executive order as it would look at the legislative history of a law or the political history of a successful popular initiative, to determine its constitutionality. Stay tuned.I hope no-one questions whether this is appropriate for TWH. This is this American history in which American Pagans operate today, and the more well-informed we are, the better.
Thank you, Heather! Deft and tactful — and important to articulatel
Heather a question, are editors allowed to actually know history and do proper research any more? I hardly see it any more.[Grin]
I must have missed that memo. :>
Good thing you did, for our sakes.
We get it, Heather, you hate Trump. He is literally Satan, or Hitler, or whatever.
However, I agree it is right to be concerned about true religious freedoms. If and when Trump ever poses a threat to the religious freedoms of witches and goddess worshipers in America I will happily condemn him. In the meantime, it is tiresome to see hard left political rhetoric wrapped in a deceptive, pious mantle and offered as spirituality.
You obviously hadn’t read the article. Never once was such an analogy implied.
I find it ironic, in the same morning, to chide the same correspondent for being too alarmist over Europe and too naïve about America, but that’s life.As a rule, oppressive activity begins at the margins, with minority groups, particularly those in some measure of disfavor with the majority; and it behooves such people to be habitually vigilant. Witches, Goddess worshippers and other religious minorities certainly fit that category, and the current post is a great backgrounder in any circumstance. With Trump hammering the margins regarding Mexicans and Muslims, it is very prudent.I do not expect Pagans to be a primary early target of this administration because we have no utility at present as red meat to keep Trump’s base agitated. That, however, depends on circumstances, which can change rapidly. There’s an apt aphorism by a German Christian which begins, “When they came for the Jews I did not speak up because I was not a Jew” and ends “When they came for me there was no-one left to speak up.”
“Minority groups”? There are 1.2 billion Muslims on this earth. They have numerous Muslim-majority countries in which to live. Non-Muslim countries in which they settle tend to become Muslim countries over a relatively short period of time. This is a verifiable fact. Muslims are incredibly good at advocating for themselves. Why do you, as a pagan, characterize them as an oppressed minority group? Muslims are a very powerful world majority.
They are a minority here in the U.S. Please, let’s not feign obtuseness in an attempt to score a point.
At no point did I refer to Muslims as an oppressed minority group. You are either misreading what is written or deceitfully changing the subject again. I get enough of the latter from Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer; I don’t have to take it from you.Islam, like Christianity, had a period of conversion by outright conquest. One may hope that this is past history for both of them.It is btw noteworthy that, in a Sunni Muslim majority country, Shi’ite Muslims are a religious minority, and it’s not unheard of for them to be treated that way; and, of course, vice versa.
Gee you mean the Right never does that? Since when.Meanwhile Trump is about the complete opposite of what Jesus taught as well. Some of the Christians ministers have said that publicly and as Christians, no less.
It’s interesting to read this article in light of Trump’s behavior during a religious service being dissected on various Youtube channels. As he has ghost writers, he doesn’t write books, in fact, he may be very close to being illiterate. He certainly is not familiar with aspects of xtianity, including the singing or hymns or expected behavior during sermons or responsive readings. In short, Trump’s behavior is nothing but a pander to a subsection of voters who have had an outsized influence on politics for 40 years. The xtian voter who once saw themselves as a bastion against godless communism has embraced Trump and, by extension, his close ally and business partner, authoritarian Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Surely, Repub saint Reagan is spinning in his grave.
For goodness sake! The only “subsection of voters who have had an outsized influence on politics for 40 years” are leftists! The leftist narrative is hegemonic in academia, in network news, in local, state and national politics, and most definitely on social media. It takes zero courage to have leftist, progressive or SJW views. Sharing leftist ideas and sentiments is NOT brave! Any and all leftist statements are welcomed warmly, everywhere. Globalist corporate leftism IS the hegemonic power.
Do I think Trump is perfect? Far from it. But I DO understand why leftists hate him so deeply. I notice you describe that “subsection of Trump voters” in euphemistic terms. Why is there so much antiWhite bigotry in leftist circles? I thought leftists were compassionate and caring and ethical.
The reason why we “leftists” (as you derogatorily call us) is that 1) the man is a classic narcissist, 2) he tells people what they want to hear, 3) from his actions in these first few weeks of his presidency, he obviously has absolutely NO CLUE as to how our system of government is supposed to work, 4) the fact that he has replaced military and intelligence community persons on the security council advisory committee with ultra-right wing Bannon who, as it turns out, managed to give himself an extremely high security clearance, 5) the fact that Trump admitted that he signed an order *without reading it(!!!!), 6) he’s attacked the judiciary of the US and doesn’t understand about checks and balances… I could list more but it would be tedious to read.
All of these ACTIONS say that there’s something *seriously WRONG* with the President. Either he’s stupid, or a just a puppet for the extreme right.
What disturbs me is 1) that folks in the US were taken in by his comments (as P.T. Barnum said, “there’s a sucker born every minute”.) and that folks don’t see the potential danger that has reared its head.
Personally, I have felt that Trump is a Manchurian candidate and if you don’t know what that is, I suggest you watch the full movie.https: // http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+manchurian+candidate+1962+full+movie
As George Santayana said: “The one who does not remember history is bound to live through it again.”
Do we really want to live through an American version of fascism? If you’re answer is no, that I would suggest you educate yourself on the history of the rise of fascism in Italy and Spain in the 20th Century.
End of Conversation.
Pardon, but why when Obama did the things you listed, it was OK but when Trump does it it’s time to panic?
What, exactly, has Trump done that repeats what Obama did, and gotten a panic reaction? Citations, please.
Okay, that “citations, please” was porky. I don’t have the power to impose a new standard on TWH discussions. I was grumped, having just been interrupted by a “Heather from Customer Services” cold call. Just tell me what you think fits your frame.I’ll jump the gun with two possible examples. Obama did single out Trump’s seven banned countries, but for a much milder measure. They were taken off “visa-waiver” status. For a number of countries one does not need a visa to travel to the US, eg, Western Europe. Obama’s action was nothing like the Trump travel ban.The recent immigration round-ups are reported by the immigrants themselves to be ramped up in scope and harshness, and I choose to believe them until it’s proved otherwise. Also, trusted (by me) news sources report that the round-up is not just of convicted criminals but of people accused but not convicted. Again, it’s not the same thing.
1). Obama mentioned himself in speeches many more times than any of his predecessors.
2). Politicos tell people what they want to hear.
3). “We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward…” – Barak Obama in January 2014.
4). The military and intelligence advisors are chosen by the President and serve at the pleasure of the President. Obama chose his, Bush the Younger chose his, Clinton chose his, Bush the Elder was Reagan’s, and so on. 5) ties into this one, so I am combining them.
6). Obama criticized the Supreme Court in his 2010 State of the Union address. He also criticized the Citizens United decision.
So again, why was it OK for Obama but not OK for Trump?
1) I’m not upset by how often Trump mentions himself. No one lacking an ego becomes President.2) Serious lack of specifics.3) The upset at Trump’s executive orders is their content, not their number. (And he lacks the excuse of an obstructionist Congress in the hands of the other party.)4) Again, it’s not the fact that Trump did his presidential duty but the quality, duplicity and alt-right radicalism of his choices.5) Not clear what your point is.6) Obama did not refer to a “so-called” Supreme Court, nor challenge the legitimacy of their decisions.
I got the numbering and the items from Tauri1 above.
I don’t like Trump. I don’t trust Trump. I am not defending Trump.
In this specific case, I’m pointing out the sheer hypocrisy in calling out Trump when people overlooked Obama for doing very similar things. In some cases they were cheering for it because the “right guy” was doing it for the “right reasons.”
And now that their guy isn’t in charge, they want to circumvent the rule of law and replace him by force.
Meanwhile a great many people who for the last decade or so have been deliberately overlooked and told that their ideas are unacceptable have something to believe in again.
Like it or not, these are your neighbors. They are better armed. If people start dying for this anti-Trump crusade (assuming it can be maintained), you’re going to lose. You won’t be able to use the law to contain the neighbors. You won’t be able to take the moral high ground and denounce the neighbors. You going to have to live with the neighbors, you’re going to have to convince the neighbors, and you’re going to have to do it without well-funded black masked mercenaries doing the dirty work so you have plausible deniability
I think I have adequately demonstrated that the charges of calling out Trump for things accepted from Obama are apples-to-oranges comparisons, ie, not hypocrisy.Much of the rest of what you say I actually, somewhat, agree with. I’ve been telling my fellow Democrats that they need to pay more heed to marginalized whites, Rustbelt and rural, and to rebut protest from other constituencies that this is white nationalism.I don’t expect my differences with Trump voters to come to a clash at arms.
But you haven’t demonstrated it to Trump voters. For more than a decade, whenever they dissented Democrats called them racist, misogamist, and homophobic. Now Democrats call them fascists and Nazis (NOT the same thing). They saw Obama bending and warping the rule of law for his agenda and they resented it.
Now where there is dissent from the progressive agenda, protesters are bussed in. If that’s not enough or if the story can be made bigger, armed thugs are bussed in. And those bills are not being paid by conservatives. It’s astroturfing.
People need to talk. That means finding common ground. That means acknowledging that Obama may have been as big a threat to them that you believe Trump is to you.
I’d add that may mean that the real problem is government and not specific politicos, but that is me.
I’m not trying to demonstrate anything to Trump voters at large. I’m in a discussion with you.What they call bending and warping the law, Obama supporters call governing in the face of a partisan, obstructionist Congress. This may be a matter of perception; the challenge is talking with people of different perceptions.The meme of bused-in protesters is a Republican fabrication without a shred of evidence. Common ground does not mean embracing alternative facts.I don’t need to acknowledge that Obama was a threat to anyone. I need to acknowledge that some folks saw him that way. Common ground is not found by rehashing the past, but charting a path to take from here.
Surely you jest, since when has the corprate word been leftist, and it is the corporations that control the media. Obama left virtually all of the Bush policies in place, despite his promises for change and Hillary bragged about still being a Goldwater Girl. Like Trump, she was only interested in the wealthy that could line her pockets and throw everyone under the bus. Look how the entire Democratic Party treated their only leftist Bernie Sanders, they did everything they could to wreck his campaign. The Democrats are no more leftist then the Republicans and have not been for most of my 71 year long life. So what leftists are you talking about? Even the Republican Party is far right of President Reagan, and still farther right of President Eisenhower.
Google, Disney, Apple, Microsoft, Sears-Kmart, Black & Decker, Visa, and US Bank. Not to mention nearly every major paper. I can name dozens more.
For starters, she might have avoided creating her own fake news by having read M. Stanton Evans’s “Blacklisted by History: the Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s America’s Enemies,” the best book on America’s great Red-hunting patriot. It would be too much to ask to read McCarthy’s own “The Fight for America” and “Retreat from Victory.”
57 commies in the State Department? That’s right. And there were a lot more before and after McCarthy’s Wheeling speech being flushed out by Senator McCarran’s committee and the Representative Dies’ House Committee on Un-American Activities.
The record shows McCarthy’s 1950’s committee was right in its accusations about hundreds of Soviet agents of influence living off the US government payroll all the way up the White House. Many of the big fish had even been promoted despite FBI protests. Friends in high places.
The saga of the Red moles at Fort Monmouth complex brought incredible pressure on Washington’s cover-up artists. President Eisenhower, an Establishment darling, thought more of the Army leadership’s reputation than the truth.
Eisenhower finally did in McCarthy with the help of a feckless mass media and vast liberal network. No internet help back then. The establishment pretty much re-wrote much of what went out of the capitol when it suited its purposes.
Interestingly, renowned defense attorney Edward Bennett Williams had all the Senate kangaroo court charges thrown out except one, a laughable “conduct unbecoming,” for McCarthy defending himself against vicious liberal Democrats in the Senate.