As we move towards the next election, something I’ve been thinking about a great deal lately is the concept of political redemption. Where do you draw the line and say “alright, you’re forgiven, you can have my vote/donation?” This is especially hard to draw because power can be extremely motivating, and people are often willing to be dishonest or curate a particular appearance just to gain power, without actually having an integrity or a true change of heart. 

Both political parties seem to have different answers to this question. Let’s take a look at some examples.

If you happen to be chronically online, there’s a good chance you’ve seen snippets of the J.K. Rowling controversy, which blew up when she tweeted the following on June 6 2020: 

If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.

The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women – ie, to male violence – ‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences – is a nonsense.

I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so.

Emma Watson, famous for playing Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter movies, responded:

Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned or told they aren’t who they say they are. I want my trans followers to know that I and so many other people around the world see you, respect you, and love you for who you are. 

Many of her fans, a seeming plurality of her outspoken fans at least, have come out strongly against the author. This one tweet from MemeForHire sums it up pretty well:

in memory of jk rowling. she ain’t dead, but she killed her own career by proudly hating trans people & no one would really miss her that much anyway #ripjkrowling

Despite the controversy’s origins of over four years ago, and her former—and continued—support for liberal issues such as feminism, neither forgiving nor forgetting has taken place, and it is doubtful that either will happen any time soon.

This is only one example among many, but redemption does not seem to come easily—if at all—to this side of the political aisle.

Conservatives seem much more accepting of a plurality of opinions, but even they struggle. For example, Kyle Rittenhouse, a former darling of the right, said, “A lot of people are upset that I said I’m going to be writing in Ron Paul for president of the United States, and that is true. I will be writing in Ron Paul. Unfortunately, Donald Trump had bad advisers making him bad on the Second Amendment, and that is my issue.”

The backlash was immediate and unforgiving. From Kylie Jane Kremer:

This is a WILD take. Do you not understand that by writing in a candidate you are giving a vote to Kamala? It is very clear she and Democrats wants to strip every American of their gun rights. You sound like a child throwing a temper tantrum because they aren’t getting their way

And again, from Joey Mannarino:

Just unfollowed you. If not for MAGA, you would be rotting in a prison bending over for Bubba. MAGA raised unbelievable sums of money for you. Trump welcome you into his home. This is how you thank him and the MAGA movement after all those years of support? **** YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!

Less than a day later, Rittenhouse did a 180, posting on X:

Over the past 12 hours, I’ve had a series of productive conversations with members of the Trump’s team and I am confident he will be the strong ally gun owners need to defend our Second Amendment rights. My comments made last night were ill-informed and unproductive. I’m 100% behind Donald Trump and encourage every gun owner to join me in helping send him back to the White House.

The response has been torn between derisive and welcoming. One of the more kind derisive comments is from Kaylan_TX, who said:

“No compromise means I’ll compromise once the grift money gets cut off”

Of the opposing reaction is Matt Couch, who wrote:

They say it takes a bigger man to apologize.. welcome back.

Perhaps forgiveness is possible, but it’s likely going to be a while before trust is completely regained, and perhaps it will never be. But with barely a week since the controversy, it’s impossible to call either way.

All of that is fine and well, but can we find examples to the contrary? Maybe some sins are beyond redemption, while others aren’t.

Eric Swalwell, first elected to the House of Representatives in 2012, has served on the Committee of Homeland Security (https://clerk.house.gov/members/S001193) as well as a variety of other leadership positions. He was involved with a suspected Chinese spy, Christine Fang, who assisted with campaign fundraising, interacted with him multiple times over the course of two years, and placed an intern in his office (https://www.axios.com/2020/12/08/china-spy-california-politicians). When Axios broke the story, the response was divided pretty evenly on party lines.

Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat and then Speaker of the House, said she had “full confidence in Congressman Swalwell’s service in the Congress and on the Intelligence Committee. (https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Eric-Swalwell-China-spy-Fang-Fang-Axios-explained-15788671.php)” 

Meanwhile, House MInority Leader Kevin McCarthy called him a “national security liability” (https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Eric-Swalwell-China-spy-Fang-Fang-Axios-explained-15788671.php). 

Four years later, the Swalwell scandal has been all but forgotten. Some sins are redeemable. Or perhaps, it was never an issue in the first place.

On the other side of the aisle, let us consider Elon Musk. Until buying Twitter, Musk was viewed favorably by Democrats, but since buying Twitter, now dubbed X, he has been the darling of the right.

Previously, Elon Musk said, “I think long term there will need to be a universal basic income (https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-universal-basic-income-physical-work-choice-2021-8?op=1).” Tesla also has many financial ties to China, and Musk has had to walk a delicate—and overwhelmingly favorable—line in managing Tesla’s relationship with China (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/musk-china-politics-tesla-twitter-rcna87378). 

He has seemingly made a political about-face. Soon after the assassination attempt against Trump, he tweeted:

I fully endorse President Trump and hope for his rapid recovery.

The response was… predictable. Some raging against the endorsement, others excited, and a few skeptical. But according to a YouGov poll, 74% of Republicans have a “very” or “somewhat” favorable opinion of Musk, as opposed to 40% of Democrats (https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/45745-views-elon-musk-ron-desantis-yougov-poll).

So perhaps Elon Musk’s interesting political past is forgivable. But part of me wonders if they are too forgiving—I remain skeptical of him.

From these examples it is tempting to say that Republicans are much more forgiving of political sin than Democrats, that redemption is possible to one party but not the other. However, I am hesitant to make that claim.

What I gather from this (admittedly limited) data is that political redemption is possible when one falls in line with a political agenda. It does not seem to be about true change of heart, the alignment of words and deeds, or even about the test of time.

This is a very cynical take on politics, but it is also understandable. Power is a game, and many of its players are willing to say or do whatever it takes to acquire and maintain power.

Perhaps the question of political redemption, then, is best left to the inquisitive mind of the individual. The line between forgiving and holding an accounting is a difficult one to navigate, and I’m still struggling to discover it myself.

But as I’ve been researching and pondering this topic, I’ve come to a beautifully simple conclusion: change is in our nature. It always has been. Power corrupts. It always has.

But the solution has always been the same: loyalty is best given to principles, not personalities or parties. No matter who says it, people will always have inherent worth. Political trends will come and go, but there will always be god-given rights. Nations may rise and fall, but at the end of the day, God will judge each of us for our actions and intentions. And as we keep that perspective and center our loyalty on the things that last, we don’t need to stress the details.