Is Donald Trump New Thought’s Frankenstein’s Monster
By HARV BISHOP
Did New Thought create Donald Trump?
Check your blood pressure right now. Hear me out. Take some deep breaths while we unpack the premises for this question, which is critical for the future of New Thought and social justice.
This week I had a thought-provoking dialogue with New Thought minister Gaylon McDowell on his Truth Transforms program on Unity Radio. Rev. McDowell made a crucial distinction between true New Thought and surface New Thought. That is, shallow thinking devoid of ethics. Surface New Thought does not focus on the deeper mysteries, but rather is content with manifesting parking spaces.
The Norman Vincent Peale Connection
Later, I watched award-winning New Thought historian Mitch Horowitz’s Digital Void Virtual Salon interview where he was asked about Trump and New Thought. Mitch related the Trump family’s history with Marble Collegiate church and Rev. Norman Vincent Peale. Peale, who was influenced by Science of Mind founder Dr. Ernest Holmes, was a magnet for, and was attracted to, the rich and powerful.
Asked if Trump’s improbable success was the result of an inherent weakness in New Thought, Mitch demurred. He said he could effectively argue that Trump’s amoral pursuit of power isn’t intrinsic to New Thought, but he preferred to keep the question open for each person, including himself, to explore. Peale’s The Power of Positive Thinking is said to be the only book Trump has ever read.
Two weeks ago, I argued vigorously with a Facebook curmudgeon that Trump wasn’t representative of New Thought. Now, I had to sit with Mitch’s challenge. It’s one thing to say he isn’t representative, but is there something deeper, intrinsic to the practice that could create someone like Trump?
We can easily see the countless lies and ridiculous excuses over small things.
Trump’s Power of Positive Thinking
But the obvious flubs can conceal the influence of Positive Thinking/New Thought on Trump. In the face of all evidence to the contrary, Trump has claimed to be a great president, a popular president, and recently the president who has done the most for African-Americans since Abraham Lincoln.
Calling June 5 “a great day” for George Floyd and equality in America may be his most offensive, unhinged declaration to date.
People say it’s more lies or wishful thinking. But what are these examples other than an affirmation, a denial of conditions, and a clear statement of a desired vision? Can we say this combination of narcissism, will and mind power is not having an effect? He has stayed afloat and sidestepped consequences that have brought down politicians who have done far less.
Is Donald Trump New Thought’s Frankenstein’s monster?
He also has been the beneficiary of the appropriation of mind power practices by his Alt-Right and white nationalist supporters who have adapted the techniques of Neville Goddard among others for their own ends.
This brings me back to Rev. McDowell’s distinction between surface New Thought and deep New Thought with ethical guardrails. I don’t think even Trump’s most ardent supporters would regard him as a paragon of ethics.
What is deep New Thought?
The late Religious Science minister Dr. Nirvana Reginald Gayle once told me “I am not an individualized self . . . separate from other people, other races, classes, species, separate from the air, sky or wind! All of this is me.” Dr. Gayle had a deep mystical awareness. This wasn’t feel-good platitudes for him. It was something he experienced.
What is New Thought’s Ethical Compass?
Deeply we are One means if we harm another, we harm ourselves. But Oneness doesn’t mean sameness in the world. The One manifests in unique and diverse cultural expressions. “New Thought shouldn’t be color blind,” Rev. McDowell told me. “We should be color honoring.”
I see “Deeply we are One” and honoring diversity as the core of New Thought ethics. It echoes the Golden Rule, variants of which are found in many major faith traditions. That core value creates a responsibility to treat others with respect, support and equality. There is also an impulse in New Thought to support people in pushing past social conventions and limits to reach their highest potential.
The three tent poles beliefs of New Thought are 1) The mind can influence reality; 2) Each person is a unique manifestation of the Divine; and 3) Everyone should be free to reach their highest potential as they define it.
If the tent poles get out of balance there can be trouble. If either mind power or disregarding ethical limits to pursue goals come unmoored from the core ethic of seeing the God in every single person regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, then yes, New Thought can create Frankenstein’s monsters.
And dealing with that isn’t easy in a laissez-faire New Thought “do your own thing” cultural environment that encourages people to find their own truth and relationship to the teachings. Understand I don’t want that individual freedom to go away. It has great value, but there are also real risks. Two New Thought ministers recently spread or supported racist and anti-Semitic conspiracy memes on Facebook. One was vigorously challenged by other New Thought folks, one to date has not been challenged.
In the past it was a given that people were initially drawn to surface New Thought and parking spaces. That was the training wheels. Sooner or later, the conventional wisdom went, they would tire of the superficial, get their worldly life together and then dive into the deeper, mystical aspects of the teachings. But is that assumption true?
With every fiber of my being I believe in, and try to live from New Thought’s core ethic based on the G-d in all. Yet, I also can’t deny that elements of New Thought pried loose from ethics can be dangerous and, in the case of the current president, disastrous.
People often respond, “You must understand spiritual laws are neutral. They create anything you put into them whether good or bad.” I do understand. But that response is an easy evasion, sort of like “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
With power comes responsibility. And the mind is powerful, especially collectively. It’s one reason mind power knowledge was traditionally carefully passed to trained initiates in Occult traditions. If the use of mind power is a major tent pole of our teachings we need to think long and hard about this. We can’t brush it off with an, “Oh, well.”
I don’t have easy answers. But I will say absolutely hold Mitch’s question and knowledge of the risks always before us.
Oh my, YES! Enjoyed the perspectives as well as the questions engendered. As a former pulpit New Thought minister, I appreciate the thoughtful, user-friendly approach and explanation.(And it made me miss brother, Nirvana?) Thanks
Thank you for your kind words Duchess. We miss Nirvana as well. He had a powerful impact on both Diane and I.
Great article, Harv. I think the idea of “surface New Thought and deep New Thought” is a good way of understanding how principles get lived out. It’s a distinction that can be applied to every religion or philosophical movement. When you’re at the surface level not much needs to change and there’s very little you have to release.
Most people are in the “surface” area. That’s why white evangelical Christianity is less a religion than a social and political movement — in essence it looks like a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. The same can be said for New Thought. Rather than the principles transforming adherents and creating something new, it becomes a facade that is applied over already existing prejudices and world views. As long as all I want to do is manifest parking spaces then there’s no need to seek a deeper understanding of life and creation.
Thank you Randy. I also appreciated your comment on the Facebook that people of any denomination can use religious beliefs tor rationalize and justify the status quo and their social and economic position.
Wonderful insights on a topic that has troubled me for some time. An Atlantic (?) article early in the tenure of the latest occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave pointed out his reliance on the “prosperity gospel” which is what many people seek out in New Thought. I felt then – and still feel – that to ignore this is folly. New Thought will be tied to this administration more than we want to be if we don’t take action to differentiate what we teach from his “creed”. This is one reason I foam at the mouth every time I hear someone in a leadership position push for struggling Centers to teach prosperity, but that’s another rabbit hole for another day.
Randy is spot on that any religious denomination can be twisted to rationalize bad behavior and a world view that suits one side or another, but it doesn’t take a PhD in theology to see that 2 opposing world views around a single theological perspective can spell disaster (Methodists, anyone?).
So the hard question (not in Physics, but spirituality) is this: what *is* (organized) New Thought today?
Is it social justice? Or is it every person for themselves, based on their consciousness? Is it a world that works for everyone by way of our work toward that better world, or is it done unto each of us as we believe? Which means if I believe bigger than you,… oh well.
I am continually amazed and disheartened to see Practitioners posting on social media that White privilege is not real, and that anyone who feels impacted negatively by someone else’s privilege doesn’t have the right consciousness. This always (ALWAYS!) descends into 2 opposite sides of the issue and no resolution – and it must make those on the outside looking in wonder if we’re all nuts (or lost!).
I truly don’t see how these divergent views are compatible under one organizational “roof” if for no other reason than the risk of offending one side or another at a time when EVERYONE is already polarized is a strategic (think financial) threat. New Thought isn’t big enough as an organized movement to sustain a split like that… which means that the likely forward trajectory will be not much commentary from the core leadership on one side or the other; and a muddled message to the world as to who/what New Thought stands for in the world.
If we are, as a movement, to claim an ethical compass, the window is closing.
Can/should we support Practitioners and ministers who believe that People of Color who claim they have been discriminated against are wrong because pointing out White privilege caused the separation – not the existence of it? Can/should we continue to claim Practitioners and ministers who want to argue that Oneness means “All Lives Matter” – and that supporting Black Lives Matter supports separation and is antithetical to the teaching (an intentional and dismissive pivot away from the issues around systemic and institutionalized racism)? Can we look the other way as unethical behavior is held up as the ultimate example of using the principles of positive thinking?
This will not be an easy reckoning; but the day is coming.
Bravo Rebecca. Thank you for this thoughtful and well argued reflection. I think you are spot in describing the divergent poles of New Thought. How do we negotiate this? Much to chew on.
Thank you Rebecca. You have laid our the organizational dilemma and issues involved with great clarity.
As a Minister in New thought with a seein leaning toward Earnest Homes ideas, I also have a deep personal awareness of the two sides of these dilemma. Everytime, I own my mouth or write something it is my desire and intuition to hold both in perspective. Organizationally it may be an “either or” situation, but personally and as a teacher/ leader the call for “both and” is paramount and where I spend much of my thought.
This calls us to a “higher order” of thinking and understanding which so far for me is a very slippery place to get my footing.
As soon as you attack someone… and say this or that about them… you will not get anywhere. The door closes. That is the problem of accusing people of privilege. It doesn’t work.
When you are angry at me for whatever reason… I can no longer hear you. You can attack me… and I might appease you… but in my heart you will not win me over and I will not change. It’s a false feeling of power.
As long as we tear down monuments and scream and fight… most people will not accept it in their hearts. They may be quiet… but in their hearts they will not accept and it will continue… no matter how much you protest and burn things down. The most powerful position anyone can take is to step out of the ego… out of the fight and the anger.
Love is really the only answer. Love is coming… but it is slow… because it cannot be forced.
I am delighted to see this post in multiple ways!
Of course there is the message itself. The lack of an ethical anchor is one reason I drifted away from formal affiliation with New Thought communities years ago. It is wonderful to see this discussion emerging in recognition of both the radiant vision New Thought principles can inspire and the ethical guidelines that we still need to honor for healthy psyches, relationships, and societies.
There are the comments. Every one I’ve seen adds important insights. I’m pleased that this message is resonating so well with others.
There’s the discovery that Harv is on Facebook, and I can follow him there!
There’s the added plus of seeing the first comment up there being authored by Duchess Dale. Duchess doesn’t know me, but I attended her church for a short time way back when; seeing her name brings back a few memories, as well as some pleasure in discovering she remains active in this movement.
Thank you for this essay, Harv. I hope it receives a lot of attention.
I found this essay as the result of a Google search. I was wondering what the connection could be between the former president and New Thought. What gave rise to this question was the portion of Mary Trump’s book where the former president’s father used to call him “The Great I Am” – which, as you might know, was the first sentence of the definition of God in the Christian Science textbook by Mary Baker Eddy. I was raised a Christian Scientist, and am aware that there is a connection between New Thought, and Quimby-ism, Christian Science, and Unity, but not quite sure of all the details. I do know that some of the things the former president said were reflective of the advice given by CS practitioners – Denial and Affirmation ; Deny the Error of the Claim of Disease, Affirm the Eternal Truth. Since I reached adulthood (a looooong time ago) I have not been a Christian Scientist, but do recognize it, in many of its forms, when I see it. Thanks for the article.