Mediaboss Marketing

President Trump returned the military to the culture wars of recent decades Wednesday with a tweeted declaration that transgender people can no longer serve in any capacity in the armed forces.

Conservative allies cheered it as a step back from what they saw as an effort by the Obama administration to run a social engineering experiment in the military. Transgender people and their advocates denounced it as bigoted, and even some of Trumps fellow Republicans criticized it as shortsighted.

After a 20-year fight by LGBT activists and supporters to open the military to gays, lesbians and transgender people had seemingly been settled in their favor under former President Barack Obama, Trump returned to the battlefield with a series of early-morning tweets.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military, Trump tweeted. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.

Transgender people have been allowed to serve openly in the military since last July, when then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced a policy that allowed service members to transition gender in the military, set standards for medical care, and outlined responsibilities for military services and commanders to develop and implement guidance, training and other programs.

The White House was short on details for how Trump would implement his planned ban or how the military would go about removing the thousands of transgender people who are already in the services. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the presidents announcement is something that the Department of Defense and the White House will have to work together on as implementation takes place.

This was about military readiness; this was about unit cohesion; this was about resources within the military and nothing more, Sanders said.

LGBT activists and like-minded politicians promised to fight any ban, and said Trumps tweets sounded similar to earlier orders barring nonwhite and gay people from the military.

There is no resignation at all among us, said retired Navy Cmdr. Zoe Dunning of San Francisco, a lesbian who retired in 2007 and helped lead the fight to overturn the dont ask, dont tell policy that barred openly gay and lesbian service members. There is complete opposition. I hear nothing different in what Trump says from what was used to justify discrimination against African Americans and the LGBT community before the same old thing about disrupting cohesion and effectiveness.

Conservatives applauded the presidents move, saying transgender politics and medical costs they can bring with them small though they may be have no place in the militarys ranks or budgets.

Felicia Alvarado Elizondo served in the Navy during the Vietnam war.

Felicia Alvarado Elizondo served in the Navy during the Vietnam war.

Felicia Alvarado Elizondo serving in the Navy during the Vietnam war in 1966.

Felicia Alvarado Elizondo serving in the Navy during the Vietnam war in 1966.

Transgender effort reopens culture wars

Obviously, were very happy with this decision by the president, said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. Like many Americans, we believe its long overdue. President Trumps tweet says the military understand that the military is for fighting and winning wars, not engaging in a massive social experiment.

Brown said he hoped Trumps pronouncement was just the beginning of a larger rollback of LGBT presence in the military. The whole subject of homosexuals in the military needs to be readdressed, he said. Unfortunately what weve been seeing on the part of some Republicans is some weak knees addressing this, but were working on that.

For Felicia Flames Alvarado Elizondo, Trumps tweets provoked two reactions. One was anger. The other was a feeling of deja vu.

Elizondo, 71, was a Navy seaman named Felipe serving in Vietnam in 1967 when she told her commanding officer she was gay. After a quick stint in the brig, she was booted out of the service. Within a few years, she had transitioned into a woman and become a gender-rights activist but nothing, she said, made her any less proud of having served her country.

I was there to fight for my country, and it doesnt matter what your gender is as long as you believe in democracy and fighting for you country, said Elizondo, who lives in San Francisco. People join the military to defend our freedom, and what Trump is doing is horrible. He doesnt know us, or how we are.

Alexander McCoy, a Marine veteran who is now affiliated with anti-Trump, ex-service members, disputed the presidents assertion that the presence of transgender people in the ranks is disruptive. What is disruptive, he said, are military efforts to hunt down people who are in the closet because their sexual orientation or gender identification is banned.

The fact that Donald Trump is trying to return our military to (the dont ask, dont tell era) is disgraceful, said McCoy, spokesman for Common Defense, a national grassroots organization that has 15,000 members in California.

Reaction among politicians was quick, and not always predictable. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called Trumps statement unclear and said the panel would hold hearings on the issue of transgender people serving in the military.

There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military regardless of their gender identity, McCain said.

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Iowa National Guard, said anyone who is qualified and can meet the physical training standards to serve in the military should be allowed the opportunity. However, Ernst also believes that taxpayers shouldnt cover the costs associated with a gender reassignment surgery, a spokeswoman said.

Other Republicans strongly backed Trump, including Rep. Duncan Hunter of San Diego, a member of the House Armed Services Committee. He called for a restoration of warrior culture to allow the military to get back to business.

US President Donald Trump speaks to the American Legion Boys Nation and the American Legion Auxiliary Girls Nation in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, DC, July 26, 2017. / AFP PHOTO / SAUL LOEBSAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

US President Donald Trump speaks to the American Legion Boys Nation...

National security should trump social experimentation, always, Duncan said.

Probably the best-known transgender military veteran Chelsea Manning, who served in the Army as a man and was court-martialed and convicted under the Espionage Act for leaking classified information to Wikileaks tweeted that the presidents move sounds like cowardice. She said denying health care costs to transgender troops while supporting the $400 billion F-35 fighter jet program is further reason we should dismantle the bloated and dangerous military-intel-police state.

Shane Ortega, 30, of Los Angeles, is a transgender man who served in the Marine Corps from 2005 to 2009 and then in the Army from 2009 to 2016. He served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ortega began transitioning in 2010 while in the military. On Wednesday morning, he woke up to a phone call from a transgender person currently serving in the military who feared what will come next, and now, once again, feels compelled to hide his sexual orientation as much as possible.

Disruption is not something (the president) is qualified to quantify because Donald Trump has never served in a tactical position in his life, Ortega said. Bullets dont police gender. Bullets dont care if youre fat, green, purple or pink.

Estimates of the number of transgender people in the military range from 6,000, as measured by a Rand Corp. study, to over 15,000, as tallied by the National Center for Transgender Equality.

Rand found that the cost of gender-transition procedures related to health care treatment is relatively low.

The total cost of medical care for transgender troops would increase health care costs by $2.4 million to $8.4 million annually, representing a 0.04 percent to 0.13 percent increase in Pentagon health care expenditures, the nonprofit research group said.

Transgender reassignment surgery which not every trans person chooses to undergo can cost anywhere from a few thousand dollars to nearly $100,000, depending on how extensive it is, said Courtney DAllaird, founding coordinator for the Gender & Sexuality Resource Center at the University of Albany in New York.

A proposal in the House to eliminate transgender surgery funding for service members was defeated last week, with dozens of Republicans joining Democrats in voting against it.

Kevin Fagan and Sarah Ravani are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers. Email:KFagan@

sfchronicle.com, sravani@sfchronicle.com

See the original post:
Transgender effort reopens culture wars - San Francisco Chronicle

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

While the British government negotiates the greatest divorce settlement since Henry VIII took a fancy to young Anne Boleyn, the country seems paralyzed with indecision over its future.

Now that it is happening, should Britain go for a "soft" or "hard" Brexit? The former entails remaining in the single market, like Norway, and so having tariff-free access to a block that represents 46 percent of U.K. exports; the latter means going it alone on the world stage and trying to get free trade deals in time for 2019. Economic common sense only points in one direction, but the price of that is continuing free movement within the EU and the Vote Leave campaign last year won thanks largely to immigration.

That referendum turned into a bitter and ugly culture war, a marked sign of the shifting from the traditional left/right axis towards a conflict between globalism and nationalism. Yet it has had a huge unintended consequence, too: What started as a battle for Britain's soul between metropolitan liberals and conservatives seems to have left both sides exhausted and impotent and instead emboldened hardline socialists, viewed until recently as harmless relics of a bygone age. And they may be the ultimate victors of Brexit.

Seven years ago the hard left was dead and buried. Then after Labour lost the 2010 election to David Cameron's Tories, the party had a choice to make. In an alternative universe, Labour would have elected the suave centrist David Miliband to party leader. He might have gone on to narrowly defeat the Tories in 2015 to become prime minister and is somewhere in another dimension meeting President Hillary Clinton for talks.

In reality, though, David Miliband was challenged by his goofy younger brother Ed, a leftist with a funny nasal voice who had the habit of making awkward faces, especially while eating bacon sandwiches. And so confident was David of winning against his hapless sibling that he did not even bother ringing a number of Labour MPs for their support. The lefty Ed won an unexpected and narrow victory over his centrist brother, only to lose the 2015 election against the odds to an unpopular Tory-led government who by this stage had meanwhile promised a referendum on membership of the EU, in order to see off the challenge from the populist U.K. Independence Party.

Even better, Ed Miliband had helpfully changed the party leadership rules, giving the ordinary members more power, while also making it easier for anyone to join the party for just 3.

After Miliband stepped down in 2015, Labour MPs allowed the hard-left Jeremy Corbyn, until then a sort of harmless 1980s throwback, onto the ballot just to give members an alternative, almost as an afterthought he then swept to a landslide victory. The membership has now overwhelmingly changed with the arrival of new 3 joiners, to such an extent that at this year's election Labour got the official support of the Communist Party of Britain not to be confused with the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist), with whom they are at daggers drawn. Labour moderates, always keen on open borders, found themselves now outnumbered and strangers in their own home.

Ed Miliband was a sort of comic figure in charge with a nerdish quality, including the ability to do a Rubik's Cube in 90 seconds; a nebish, in the words of the Jewish Chronicle editor. Even his opponents quite liked him, and just as his shadow chancellor Ed Balls has gone onto become a star of Strictly Come Dancing so Miliband has remained a popular figure in the public eye.

His successor is a somewhat different character. A man of undoubted principle, Corbyn split up with one of his wives, an exile from Pinochet's Chile, because she wanted to send their sons to selective grammar schools while he insisted on the ideologically purer comprehensive (a state school that does not screen for achievement or abilities). People of Corbyn's politics usually get called "firebrands" but he comes across more as the aging hippie art teacher people remember from school who smoked weed, which only adds to his popularity; not that he would touch anything, of course, since he's a vegetarian, teetotaling cyclist the dark triad, so to speak.

He is also an out-an-out socialist who has expressed admiration for Chavez's Venezuela, although there is also something of the eccentric English nonconformist in him, perhaps Quakerism or one of those strange groups that arose during the English Civil War, like the Fifth Monarchists.

The most obvious parallel would be that he is Britain's Bernie Sanders, if Sanders had near-single digit support among Jews, who are perhaps somewhat put off by Corbyn describing Hezbollah and Hamas as his "friends."

Yet none of these quotes seems to get through to supporters, who, like Trump voters, regard them simply as slurs. The Labour leader also has well-publicized sympathy for the Irish Republican Army, while his shadow chancellor John McDonnell has appeared at May Day rallies with the Soviet hammer and sickle beside him. Again, these are all just slurs.

Corbyn was dismissed as a sort of fossil but he plays well to a generation who receive filtered news through social media sites, and have low levels of trust in the press generally. He is very popular among the young overwhelmingly so with young women and especially those who have gone through the university system.

He is a beneficiary of the "overproduction of the elites," and the excess numbers of college-educated young who cannot find the jobs or status they assumed their degrees would entitle them to and, more importantly, have no hope of ever buying a property in the country's absurdly overpriced housing market.

Yet a year ago he seemed to be leading his party to electoral suicide; they hovered in the mid-20s in the polls, and not a day went by without there being talk of a split. His followers never gave up hope, showing a devotion that is verging on the cult-like, and ignoring the fact that during the Brexit campaign the supposedly pro-Remain Labour leader was putting in all the effort of a Mariah Carey dance routine.

Corbyn in fact has always hated the European Union his record is unambiguous on that subject and by his inaction he probably helped to swing the referendum for Leave. Just as Thatcherites obsess with Europe holding back Britain with needless regulations and social democratic waffle, the hard-Left sees Brussels as a capitalist conspiracy, preventing governments from subsidizing failing industries and imposing other economic discipline. They disliked the Vote Leave crowd more, though, seeing them correctly as cultural conservatives who wished to turn the clock back.

Yet Leave's victory has been followed by a tremendously hapless government; a snap election supposed to destroy Corbyn led him to within a few thousand votes of reaching Downing Street. Theresa May's insistence on going for a hard Brexit damaged an unattractive party's only outstanding selling point, their economic management.

While polls now show public opinion in Britain moving in the direction of single-market membership over immigration controls, the Left-wing Labour leader has outflanked the Tories on the issue, telling the BBC on Sunday that under him there would no longer be "the wholesale importation of underpaid workers from central Europe in order to destroy conditions, particularly in the construction industry."

It was an old-fashioned Samuel Gompers-style argument for immigration controls, yet this despite Labour winning most of its new support at the election from the young, the university-educated, the cosmopolitan and metropolitan, most of all among Remain voters. They voted for him even though Corbyn is more eurosceptic than almost anyone in the Conservative Party, and has always been openly so. Why? Because he seems to have the ability to make people project their own fantasies onto him.

No one believes that Britain can have immigration restrictions and have the single market, but it doesn't matter; if leaving the EU proves to be an economic disaster, then even if Corbyn is in government the Tories will rightfully get much of the blame. Now Labour is 6 points ahead in the polls and could still yet come to power, using Brexit to mold the country in their own image, and joining a long-list of previously weak groups who have filled the void after the superpowers have exhausted themselves, from the Arab conquerors of Byzantium and Persia to the Bolsheviks in 1917.

Culture wars, like any other kind, have unintended consequences.

Follow this link:
Jeremy Corbyn's topsy-turvy culture war - The Week Magazine

President Trump's tweeted transgender military ban on July 26 drew immediate criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, who were caught unawares by the decision. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

In early 2016, when the controversy over North Carolina's transgender bathroom law was dominating the headlines, Donald Trump broke with others in his party, such as Sen. Ted Cruz. He suggested this particular culture war wasn't worth fighting.

North Carolina did something that was very strong. And they're paying a big price. There's a lot of problems, Trump said. He added: Leave it the way it is. North Carolina, what they're going through with all the business that's leaving, all of the strife and this is on both sides. Leave it the way it is.

That Trump looks a lot different than the one we saw Wednesday. He announced on Twitter that he would ban transgender people from serving in any capacity in the U.S. Military.

This is something even the Obama administration wrestled with, andthe Pentagonrescinded its ban on transgender service members only about a year ago. But Trump's decision is a bold one for a few reasons: 1) In any capacity sounds like an extremely broad ban, and 2) Trump's choice of words tremendous medical costs and disruption are likely to outragethe LGBT community. That's a community that had hoped Trump, whatever his other policies, would be something of an ally, or at least not an adversary.

President Trump announced that transgender troops won't be allowed to serve in the military on July 26, reversing the Pentagon's 2016 decision to lift the ban. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

It's not totally clear that Trump is preparing to go down the culture-warrior road here, but for an embattled president who seems to love controversy andis increasingly just trying to maintain his base, itwould seem an attractive and logical move.And that's a prospect that GOP leaders should be very concerned about.

I think Commentary's Noah Rothman put it well here, suggesting that the culture wars could be a kind of emergency fallback for Trump, who faces a broadening Russia investigation and a record-low approval rating for a new president:

There are few better ways to rally the socially conservative troops than to warn about things like the dangers of transgender people serving alongside U.S. troops or using the wrong bathrooms. A bathroom law debate in Houston in 2015 included some of the most brutal and suggestive campaign ads you'll ever see, with plenty of innuendo aboutsex offenders entering bathrooms with children.

Campaign for Houston released a video ad against a bathroom law in Houston in 2015. (Campaign for Houston)

But whilelocal and state Republicans have waged bathroom-bill fights, the national GOP has largely steered clear of them. And as the country has moved sharply in favor of same-sex marriage and LGBT rights, the national GOP has largely moved on from these issues. Rather than taking progressive positions, it has simply ignored them.More than a decade after values voters were supposed to have delivered George W. Bush his reelection win, the party has recognizedthat the country has moved past it on these issues.

And that's because it has seen the polls and it saw what happened in North Carolina. Even as Trump was carrying the state, Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, who defended the bathroom law, lost reelection. He was one of thevery few big-name Republicans who actually underperformed Trump, andthere are plenty who tied McCrory's loss directly to that bathroom bill.

[Trumps stance on LGBT rights has always been confusing]

But Trump's decision is already reigniting the culture wars, to some degree. An anonymous Trump administration official offered this hugely cynical quote to Axios's Jonathan Swan on Wednesday morning:

"This forces Democrats in Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, to take complete ownership of this issue. How will the blue collar voters in these states respond when senators up for re-election in 2018 like Debbie Stabenow are forced to make their opposition to this a key plank of their campaigns?"

In response to that quote, another White House official distanced the decision from that kind of political calculation. When I read that, I was like, what's wrong with whoever you are? the official told The Washington Post's Philip Rucker. This was not a political decision. It was a military readiness and military resource decision.

But then the official added: It will be fun to watch some of them [Democrats] have to defend this, but that was never an impetus.

Even that quote should terrify the GOP. The idea that anybody in the White House sees political gain from this decision either directly or indirectly suggests the culture wars are on the table.

Update: Shortly after this posted, Trump tweeted something else that suggests he might be wading into the culture wars.

Read the original here:
'It will be fun to watch [Democrats] have to defend this': Why Trump's transgender military ban should frighten GOP - Washington Post

Even though the economic tolls of restrictions that bar nonessential travel at taxpayer expense are unclear and may not be fully realized for years the bans have already helped both Democratic and Republican elected officials grandstand, galvanize supporters and reinforce the regional fault lines of American politics.

Our country has made great strides in dismantling prejudicial laws that have deprived too many of our fellow Americans of their precious rights, said Attorney General Xavier Becerra of California, whose state has most aggressively pursued the travel restrictions and has limited trips to Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas.

Sadly, that is not the case in all parts of our nation, even in the 21st century, Mr. Becerra said in a statement.

On the other hand, a spokesman for Kentuckys governor, Matt Bevin, a Republican, denounced West Coast liberals and far-left ideology. South Dakotas governor, Dennis Daugaard, sniped that such bans are political statements that have no discernible effect and are designed to generate publicity.

Proponents of the restrictions concede part of Mr. Daugaards argument: They say that publicity is precisely the point of the bans, which cover nonessential travel and do not block the personal activities of state workers.

Is this more symbolic than actually an economic driving force? Most certainly so, said Evan Low, a California assemblyman and the sponsor of a measure, approved last year with some Republican support, that provided for his states travel restrictions. But it allows the conversation to continue to occur to say, Wow, these states really dont value the basic, fundamental rights of all of its citizens?

Despite Mr. Lows forecast, it appears that the travel restrictions are having some effect. Mayor Greg Fischer of Louisville, Ky., said recently that two conventions had cited Californias restrictions when they abandoned their expected plans to visit the city.

Texas has more on the line than most places. Some 10 percent of the nations trade shows are held in the state, and its three largest cities Dallas, Houston and San Antonio are popular meeting sites. But Mr. Jones fears that Californias ban, and any others that might follow it, will force Texas to surrender some visitors and revenue to cities like Atlanta, Chicago, Las Vegas or New Orleans.

About two dozen groups have already suggested that they might pass over Dallas, Mr. Jones said, especially if lawmakers, who began a special session on Tuesday, approve a measure restricting restroom access for transgender people. Groups with large numbers of public employees are warning that it will be hard to justify holding meetings here when representatives of the countrys most populous state might be excluded.

Were very, very fearful of what the long-term consequences are, Mr. Jones said.

Some groups are, reluctantly, keeping their plans to meet in Dallas, including the National Communication Association, which considered moving its November convention. The group decided to stay, its president, Stephen J. Hartnett, said, for logistical reasons and because it was in the organizations ethical best interest to stay in Dallas and engage with Dallas and be on the ground so we could participate in those debates.

But he cautioned that the committee that selects convention sites could bypass Texas in the future.

Theyre going to be looking at travel bans like the one California put in place, said Mr. Hartnett, a professor at the University of Colorado, Denver, who noted that 8 percent of last years convention participants came from California.

For now, the bans have provoked a swirl of commentary and jabs on social media that could well pay political dividends for figures on both sides, campaign consultants said.

If anything, what it does provide is a great opportunity for political types in Alabama to have new fodder for a new commercial, said Angi Stalnaker, a Republican strategist in Alabama. I think youll see words like Hollywood liberal.

Although episodes of interstate political jousting are nothing new, the proliferation of travel bans among states seems to have little history behind it. The National Conference of State Legislatures said it knew of no similar, longstanding approach by states mired in policy disagreements with other states.

Still, supporters say the bans are roughly similar to the familiar idea of weaving nondiscrimination requirements and other mandates that reflect a governments goals into contracts.

The moves by California and other like-minded governments have so far done little to discourage some states from advancing, or retreating from, legislation that critics call bigoted. Rather, lawmakers in states so far cited by California have typically responded with shrugs, proposals of payback and digs they did not even try to disguise.

I think its nonsense, said State Representative Dustin Burrows of Texas, where lawmakers could consider a reciprocal ban. I think California should be free to determine its own culture, and Texas doesnt try to influence it. This seems to be something new and different where California wants to determine our culture and our laws, and were not going to have it.

Some critics of the bans, including State Senator Albert Robinson of Kentucky, said they believed California officials had misunderstood the state laws that drew rebukes.

I have never seen it as bad or as sad as it is now that people are losing respect for God and regard for man, said Mr. Robinson, the author of the legislation that drew Californias ire. When one state would try to punish another one, I think it speaks for itself. I find it hard to believe that everybody in California believes in what this person has done.

The restrictions include loopholes that can keep money flowing. New Yorks ban on North Carolina, for instance, exempts travel that is necessary for the enforcement of New York State law, to meet prior contractual obligations, or for the protection of public health, welfare and safety.

But the restrictions can derail, or at least complicate, plans for intercollegiate sporting events or athletic recruiting. Last year, the University at Albany, a branch of the State University of New York, did not play a game at Duke University, in Durham, N.C., after Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo restricted travel. And the N.C.A.A. has long used some of the restricted states as sites for major events; the Final Four for mens basketball is to be played in San Antonio next year.

The California attorney generals office is still considering whether the states restrictions apply to athletic team staffs at public universities, but some in the college sports-obsessed South have already wondered and joked, maybe, about the possible consequences for California.

I hope theres some California team that has an amazing year, which for them means being bowl-eligible, and ends up getting the Birmingham Bowl and they cant go, Ms. Stalnaker said.

Manny Fernandez contributed reporting from Houston.

A version of this article appears in print on July 20, 2017, on Page A11 of the New York edition with the headline: Tax Dollars Become Weapon on a New Front in the Culture Wars.

See more here:
Travel to Texas? Not on California's Dime, You Don't - New York Times

President Trump waved Monday after speaking at a national Boy Scout gathering in Glen Jean, W.Va.

NEW YORK A barrage of political remarks by President Trump delivered Monday to the Boy Scouts of America National Jamboree in West Virginia has enraged many parents and former Scouts, thrusting the Scouts once again into the middle of the nations culture wars and providing yet another example of the unusual and polarizing nature of the Trump presidency.

The Scouts, plainly sensing a new threat that supporters feared could undermine a movement still reeling from extended controversies over the appropriate role for gay boys and leaders in Scouting, said in a statement that the group was wholly nonpartisan and does not promote any one position, product, service, political candidate or philosophy. The organization added that its traditional speaking invitation to a sitting president was in no way an endorsement of any political party or specific policies.

Advertisement

It was far from clear whether the statement would curb the tide of skepticism, outrage, and division that began even before Trump concluded his 38-minute address in Glen Jean, West Virginia. Although Scouting offices were besieged with phone calls and some alumni were warning that they would withhold support for the group, others celebrated Trumps speech.

Glenn Elvig, an artist in Minnesota, said he was angered by the presidents speech and believed its contents deviated from the organizations stated values.

Get Political Happy Hour in your inbox:

Your afternoon shot of politics, sent straight from the desk of Joshua Miller.

I appreciate that the Scouts offer the invitation to the president of the United States, said Elvig, who fondly recalled receiving a letter from Richard Nixon congratulating him on achieving the Eagle rank decades ago. What I was angry about was that this president took it as an opportunity to criticize others, demean others, and not really speak to the concerns of 12- to 17-year-old kids who are looking for direction in life.

Elvig said he had been calling the Boy Scouts office for hours on Tuesday to express his dismay, but had been getting a busy signal.

I would like a public denouncement of what happened yesterday and reaffirmation of the values I think I learned in Scouts, Elvig said. If they cant do that, I will be returning my medal.

Advertisement

Either way, the firestorm was an unwelcome and surprising development during a gathering that is among Scoutings most important events, a quadrennial meeting that attracts tens of thousands of people and, very often, presidents, who in the past have spoken about service, values, or citizenship, not partisan politics.

Trumps appearance before an enthusiastic crowd of neckerchief-clad, saluting Scouts at a 14,000-acre compound was a distinct break from 80 years of presidential speeches to the nations Scouts.

In the speechs opening moments, it seemed that Trump, who was not a Boy Scout as a youth, would mostly avoid talking about the partisan clashes that have divided Washington.

I said, who the hell wants to speak about politics when Im in front of the Boy Scouts? Right? Trump said shortly before he extolled the Scouts as young people of character and integrity who will serve as leaders in our communities, and uphold the sacred values of our nation.

But the speech by Trump, the 19th occupant of the White House to also serve as the honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America, was ultimately punctuated by a brand of political oratory that proved startling at a Boy Scout gathering.

He recounted how he won last years presidential election: We won Florida. We won South Carolina. We won North Carolina. We won Pennsylvania. He said Hillary Clinton didnt work hard in Michigan, a state Trump won, and he resurfaced his grievances with fake news and fake polls. And when he landed on the second point of the Scout Law loyalty Trump interrupted himself to say, We could use some more loyalty, I will tell you that.

Presidents of both parties have been connected to the Boy Scouts: Their signatures have been affixed to Eagle Scout certificates, they have hosted boys and leaders in the Oval Office and many have appeared at jamborees.

In 2005, George W. Bush reminded the Scouts that Franklin Delano Roosevelt had appeared at a jamboree in 1937, and he spoke about themes that are familiar to Scouts, including service and character.

When you follow your conscience, and the ideals you have sworn as a Scout, there is no limit to what you can achieve for our country, Bush said.

Bill Clinton, who spoke in 1997, had made similar comments.

We need you to remain focused on the strong values you learned in Scouting, to remember that character counts and service counts, Clinton said. We need you if were going to build our communities and bring our people together across all the lines that divide us.

The organization has faced frustration and anger in recent decades for its policies about gay and transgender policy, and the issue even reached the US Supreme Court in 2000. Although the Scouts won that case, which involved the organizations expulsion of an openly gay adult leader, the group has struggled to cultivate cultural relevance and stem a collapse in membership.

The group said this year that it had more than 2.3 million youth participants. About a decade earlier, it had close to 2.9 million participants.

In January, the Boy Scouts announced that troops would accept transgender members. It had earlier ended bans on gay members and leaders.

Zach Wahls, a cofounder of Scouts for Equality, which pressured the Boy Scouts to allow gay and transgender members, said Trumps speech put the Scouts in a very difficult position that they didnt want to be in.

The Boy Scouts were not in the wrong here, said Wahls, 26, who became an Eagle Scout while growing up in Iowa. We should not be blaming the organization that always invites the president to speak. We should be talking about the president who took that opportunity and twisted it.

Read more:
Boy Scouts, in spotlight after Trump's speech, say they are 'wholly nonpartisan' - The Boston Globe