Eric Swalwell’s resignation caps an up-and-down history with secular humanism
The progressive star’s career began with an attack on church/state separation and ended in part due to pressure from a godless colleague
This newsletter is free and goes out to over 24,000 subscribers, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can subscribe via Patreon or the Subscribe button below! You can also make one-time donations through Venmo or PayPal.
By now, you’ve probably seen the news about Congressman Eric Swalwell. The outspoken Democrat stood a good chance of becoming California’s next governor but he suspended his campaign and resigned from Congress in the span of a day after credible allegations of sexual assault against multiple women were published by CNN and the San Francisco Chronicle. (And after online influencers like Arielle Fodor and Cheyenne Hunt used their platforms to call attention to the accusations.)
For people who only knew Swalwell through his constant media appearances where he came across as a liberal bulldog—and, to be clear, he voted that way as well—that might come as a shock.
But there have been plenty of hints over the years that his actions didn’t always match his public rhetoric.
I’ve alluded to one of those stories in many of my public talks over the years, but I’ll mention it here.
In 2007, Congressman Pete Stark made history when, at the urging of the Secular Coalition for America, he went public about being a non-theistic Unitarian, making him the only member of Congress willing to say he didn’t believe in a higher power. It was a courageous thing to do especially because it wasn’t clear if the announcement would affect his future campaigns. Thankfully, it didn’t. Stark had been in Congress since 1973, his constituents knew him well, and he was comfortably re-elected in 2008 and 2010, both times with over 70% of the vote.
In 2012, however, Stark was challenged in the Democratic primary by an upstart city council member from the town of Dublin: Eric Swalwell. It was the young energetic lawyer versus the older, stale, liberal “firebrand.” Ironically, the San Francisco Chronicle endorsed Swalwell at the time saying Stark’s “hyper-partisanship and boorish antics… have grown old. He is, to put it bluntly, an embarrassment to the district.”
Swalwell knew Stark was vehemently liberal. The sort of guy who, in 2001, voted “present” on a resolution wishing former president Ronald Reagan a happy birthday. The sort of guy who, in 2011, voted against reauthorizing a voucher program that would have given students money to attend private religious schools.
And the sort of guy who, in 2011, voted against a resolution reaffirming "In God We Trust" as our national motto.
One of the ways Swalwell tried to attack Stark during their campaign was to denounce him over that motto vote.
Yesterday, the U.S. Congress voted 398-9 to re-affirm our national motto, “In God We Trust.” Since 1864, the phrase, “In God We Trust” has appeared on U.S. currency and in 1956 it was recognized as our national motto. Since the Civil War this inspirational motto has captured the spirit of our country and guided its people through world wars and the attacks of September 11.
“It seems like too often these days Congress can’t agree on anything. Yesterday, 398 Members agreed to re-affirm our national motto,” said Eric Swalwell, Dublin City Councilmember and candidate for Congress (CA-15). “Congressman Stark was one of nine members of Congress who disagreed. The Fifteenth Congressional District deserves a Member of Congress who is in touch with its people, can work well with others, and can honor our national motto.”
The idea that Stark was out of touch because he refused to honor a Christian Nationalist motto might seem jarring to people who seen Swalwell advocate for progressive legislation during his time in office, but Swalwell was perfectly willing to throw the open atheist under the bus if it meant boosting his own campaign.
That attack, along with everything else Swalwell said, did the trick.
Both men were on the ballot in the general election because of the state’s top-two jungle primaries, and Swalwell beat Stark that November 52% to 48%, ending the career of one of the most courageous liberals to ever be elected.
Given all that, it’s a bit ironic that Swalwell later joined the Congressional Freethought Caucus.
Here’s another interesting twist to the story: Pete Stark’s son, Fish Stark, is now the executive director of the American Humanist Association, a group that works to make life easier for people with no religious faith. Fish lived through that whole campaign in 2012 and watched Swalwell trash his father for reasons that went well beyond politics.
Yesterday, before Swalwell announced his resignation but after he suspended his gubernatorial campaign, Fish posted his own thread reminding people that his father nailed his criticism of Swalwell when they were competing against each other:
AIPAC bankrolled Eric Swalwell's campaign to push my dad, Pete Stark, out of Congress.
Fourteen years *to the day* before the allegations, at a debate, Dad called Swalwell a "slimeball," a "crook," & said "you're going to jail."
He was right about everything.The press called it an embarrassing outburst.
I'd call it the most accurate character assessment anyone ever made of Eric Swalwell.
People knew Eric was shady. It didn't matter. AIPAC, Big Pharma, and corporate Democrats wanted someone they could control. And they got him.People knew Eric Swalwell took illegal $ from developers who later went to jail. Google "James Tong Swalwell".
People knew he faked being part of an MTV film crew so he could film + judge swimsuit competitions over Spring Break in Mexico.
His character was obvious even in 2012.Swalwell's clear ethical issues didn't matter. Pete Stark was voting for conditions on aid to Israel and calling out Democrats for being anti-Medicare For All before it was cool, so he had to go.
As long as the Democratic Party is afraid of Pete Starks, we'll get Eric Swalwells.
(Quick correction: While AIPAC only began donating money to candidates in 2021, pro-Israel lobbying groups were among Swalwell’s donors in 2012.)
It’s also worth pointing out that politicians are often accused of varying degrees of bad behavior, but it takes courage for someone in your own party to call for your resignation. It’s a lot easier to do it after others have already taken that step.
Who was the first member of Congress to call for Swalwell’s resignation?
Rep. Jared Huffman, the only current openly Humanist member of Congress, and in many ways the heir to Pete Stark’s secular legacy.
Huffman didn’t just call for someone in his party to resign; it meant booting out someone who’s a member of the Freethought Caucus he co-founded.
That right there is godless morality in action.
Meanwhile, virtually no evangelical Christian Republicans publicly demanded the resignation of Rep. Tony Gonzalez, who had an affair with an aide who later died by suicide. (Last night, Gonzalez announced he would also be leaving Congress before his term was up.) And that’s to say nothing of Donald Trump, whose affairs and sexual assaults are well-documented.
So Eric Swalwell is gone. I’ll admit there were plenty of times during his congressional career when I was actively rooting for him, but he can always be replaced by someone whose values actually align with their positions. It’s not a loss. I’m grateful, though, that the pressure for him to step away from public life came from other Democrats who understand that principles matter far more than the person claiming to represent them.
I thought Swalwell was one of the good guys, and I’m disappointed to say the least. That said, I won’t make excuses for him, that’s a Republican thing. Swalwell did this to himself and I will reserve my sympathies for his family he has hurt so deeply.
Great, now get rid of the child rapist and adjudicated sex offender at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.