God, Gays, Guns and Jezebel Fonda
As opposition to the Viet Nam war, the draft and the increasingly successful civil rights movement began gaining traction in the late Sixties, Middle America moved in the opposite direction. Richard Nixon called them the “Silent Majority” and claimed them as his own in his narrow defeat of Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Now we call their part of the country the “flyover states.” But back then all the rioting and marching on either coast pissed them off. Jane Fonda was widely regarded as a Jezebel, an enemy of America. And "liberal" started to become a dirty word.
Lyndon Johnson is said to have remarked after signing the Civil Rights Act in 1964 that “the Democratic Party had lost the South for a generation.” He turned out to be right. And just like clockwork, Richard Nixon launched his “Southern Strategy” during the 1968 election campaign which pandered to white Southerners and offered them a receptive ear. They bought in and have been Republicans ever since.
So briefly, the Democratic Party sacrificed its entire southern wing to support civil rights for Blacks which took the Democrats from a comfortable majority party to being on a rough parity with the Republicans. That is why I grind my teeth about people like Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice and J.C. Watts.
Now welcome Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich who founded the Moral Majority in 1979, a major milestone in the fundamentalist Christian journey from pure religion to full engagement in politics. The Religious Right that we have today emerged in opposition to the various “liberation movements” of the Sixties and the Seventies. My own cynical view is that a huge block of those roots go back to white southerners’ rage against the success of the civil rights movement. Fundamentalist- evangelical Christianity is deeply embedded in southern culture and segregationists often used the Bible to condemn racial integration.
However, Roe v Wade in 1972, as well as the emergence and sporadic acceptance of Gay rights plus the cultural fall out from the “Sexual Revolution” further energized fundamentalists and evangelical Christians to organize and struggle against those forces. Abortion especially fueled the politicization and the coalescence of the Religious Right. Not only did they condemn it as “baby killing” but they reviled its emergence from “forbidden” sexual liaisons which in origin and result strike at the very heart and soul of the uncompromising patriarchal social system from which Christianity springs.
Finally, the always aggressive and ever-aggrieved National Rifle Association brought its own brand of uber-fanaticism to an ever-fanaticizing Republican Party. In 1991 Wayne LaPierre took over control of the NRA and proceeded to bring it to new heights of hyperventilation. Laugh all you want but the NRA had not only some of the most extensive mailing lists around, but on the other end of those lists were a hair-trigger membership who would fire off pungent telegrams and make outraged calls to senators and congressmen when word came down from LaPierre. They were potent political warriors right out of the box.
Add all these folks up and you’ve got quite a party. And if they can only forget about all the things that they don’t like about each other and really learn to hate those God-denying liberals, then they got the whole enchilada.
Well guess what? The very man that could pull that off rode into town on a white horse and wearing a white hat. That man could only be Ronald Reagan. With a nod of the head, the promise of a smile and a hearty “there you go again,” he devastated an already devastated Jimmy Carter and rode the resulting electoral landslide right to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Him’n Nancy.
I guess what brought in the “Reagan Democrats” and the southern good ole boys and the western “straight-shooters” was that after all that female liberation and gay rights and nigras jumping off'n the plantation, n’shit...that it was again all right to be a real gol durned MAN for Christ-sakes. All that PC crap about not pinchin’ dollies' fannies and not beatin’ up a fag or two was reeeeversed. It’s not that Ron ever actually said anything about it, but you just knew that he would if he could. He gave a tacit seal of approval to being a gol durned MAN again and not being ashamed of it. And that brought them into the heart of the Grand Old (man’s) Party.
Reagan also pandered to the Religious Right. When called upon to do so, he could give one of those Academy Award performances that he never got an opportunity to give during his actual movie career and bring tears to Pat Robertson’s and Jerry Falwell’s and Gary Bauer’s eyes and condemn, well, whatever they were condemning that day, abortion, gays, secular humanists, who knows? Reagan’s bravura performances for the Religious Right had them baying in tongues, which is very scary.
However, it built the base and the base was everything. It could take the conservative movement into the 21st Century and perhaps return the USA to fabled pre-Roosevelt times when corporations were triumphant and when the business of America was business.
Next post: Bringing it all together
Saturday, November 20, 2004
How did all this get started?(Part 2)
Conservatives Reframe the Conversation
In Part 1 , I expressed the opinion that the primary fault-line in today’s politics lies in the competition between the corporate establishment and the Federal government. I do not mean to minimize the Religious Right’s aggressive agenda or the libertarians’ historic alienation from government. However, I believe that in politics when you say “primary fault line” you have to look for the biggest power source. That is unquestionably US corporations.
US companies held sway over the late 19th Century and despite Theodore Roosevelt’s trustbusting, managed to maintain their hegemony even after the onset of the Great Depression. With the defeat of Herbert Hoover in 1932 by Franklin Roosevelt, US companies and the conservative, laissez-faire attitude of the US Government were overwhelmed by the New Deal. Liberalism was the pre-eminent political philosophy for the next fifty years. Even Republican politicians began to embrace the New Deal and found it politically unwise to suggest undoing it.
Barry Goldwater was the first presidential candidate to campaign on a platform of trying to unravel the New Deal and its liberal legacy. But his 1964 bid failed for that and other reasons. The magnitude of his defeat appeared to ensure a continuation of the liberal dynasty for the foreseeable future.
In the trenches of Goldwater’s presidential campaign, however, were scores of energized, committed foot soldiers who were seriously determined to promote the conservative philosophy. There was a rudimentary infrastructure already in place including William Buckley’s National Review, a variety of efforts funded by H.L. Hunt’s money, the John Birch Society, and the American Enterprise Institute.
The importance of Goldwater’s defeat in 1964 is that supporters from all corners of the conservative movement rolled up their sleeves and began the long task of building a Movement that could win elections. They were soon attracting attention from Big Money. Richard Mellon Scaife, David and Charles Koch, Joseph Coors and other wealthy donors began funneling funds into conservative think tanks that were springing up including the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Independence Institute. Add to these, the Business Roundtable and the US Chamber of Commerce plus other corporate groups and you have very fertile soil to nurse a movement toward full maturity.
With the think tanks doing the intellectual and academic heavy lifting, the trade and corporate associations pumping in the cash and the Republican Party developing grassroots organizations, the conservative movement became a lean, mean machine.
Richard Nixon resigned the presidency and was succeeded by Gerald Ford who was unable to overcome the reaction to his pardoning Nixon and was defeated by Jimmy Carter. So now the Republicans were faced with a conservative southern Democrat. But Carter’s presidency was fraught with missteps and bad luck and as the 1980 election approached, the Republicans selected former California Governor Ronald Reagan to be their candidate.
I am no Reagan fan, but it is impossible to understate the important role he played in making conservatism again a powerful force in American politics. In fact, history may show that Reagan launched a new Conservative era in American politics.
The hard work and the relentless cultivation of ideas, candidates and voters all came together during the Reagan presidency. He selected his appointees from a vast network of conservative believers. The think tanks were endlessly supplying talking points and rationales for legislation and for opposing legislation.
During Reagan’s presidency, the entire focus of American politics was reframed. Preserving the New Deal, while still popular with a huge segment of the population, was now on the table. The Republicans knew they had to tread cautiously, but they also knew that Reagan’s rapport with the electorate gave them cover when they wanted to rewrite popular and sacrosanct legislation.
One of the most effective ways of cutting unwanted regulations was to appoint “friendlies” to oversight departments who simply failed to enforce the regulations. Even if there was an outcry, they would just brazen it out. The Reagan administration discovered an important tool in the short attention span and the short memory of the American electorate.
Next post: Guns and God Join the Party
In Part 1 , I expressed the opinion that the primary fault-line in today’s politics lies in the competition between the corporate establishment and the Federal government. I do not mean to minimize the Religious Right’s aggressive agenda or the libertarians’ historic alienation from government. However, I believe that in politics when you say “primary fault line” you have to look for the biggest power source. That is unquestionably US corporations.
US companies held sway over the late 19th Century and despite Theodore Roosevelt’s trustbusting, managed to maintain their hegemony even after the onset of the Great Depression. With the defeat of Herbert Hoover in 1932 by Franklin Roosevelt, US companies and the conservative, laissez-faire attitude of the US Government were overwhelmed by the New Deal. Liberalism was the pre-eminent political philosophy for the next fifty years. Even Republican politicians began to embrace the New Deal and found it politically unwise to suggest undoing it.
Barry Goldwater was the first presidential candidate to campaign on a platform of trying to unravel the New Deal and its liberal legacy. But his 1964 bid failed for that and other reasons. The magnitude of his defeat appeared to ensure a continuation of the liberal dynasty for the foreseeable future.
In the trenches of Goldwater’s presidential campaign, however, were scores of energized, committed foot soldiers who were seriously determined to promote the conservative philosophy. There was a rudimentary infrastructure already in place including William Buckley’s National Review, a variety of efforts funded by H.L. Hunt’s money, the John Birch Society, and the American Enterprise Institute.
The importance of Goldwater’s defeat in 1964 is that supporters from all corners of the conservative movement rolled up their sleeves and began the long task of building a Movement that could win elections. They were soon attracting attention from Big Money. Richard Mellon Scaife, David and Charles Koch, Joseph Coors and other wealthy donors began funneling funds into conservative think tanks that were springing up including the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Independence Institute. Add to these, the Business Roundtable and the US Chamber of Commerce plus other corporate groups and you have very fertile soil to nurse a movement toward full maturity.
With the think tanks doing the intellectual and academic heavy lifting, the trade and corporate associations pumping in the cash and the Republican Party developing grassroots organizations, the conservative movement became a lean, mean machine.
Richard Nixon resigned the presidency and was succeeded by Gerald Ford who was unable to overcome the reaction to his pardoning Nixon and was defeated by Jimmy Carter. So now the Republicans were faced with a conservative southern Democrat. But Carter’s presidency was fraught with missteps and bad luck and as the 1980 election approached, the Republicans selected former California Governor Ronald Reagan to be their candidate.
I am no Reagan fan, but it is impossible to understate the important role he played in making conservatism again a powerful force in American politics. In fact, history may show that Reagan launched a new Conservative era in American politics.
The hard work and the relentless cultivation of ideas, candidates and voters all came together during the Reagan presidency. He selected his appointees from a vast network of conservative believers. The think tanks were endlessly supplying talking points and rationales for legislation and for opposing legislation.
During Reagan’s presidency, the entire focus of American politics was reframed. Preserving the New Deal, while still popular with a huge segment of the population, was now on the table. The Republicans knew they had to tread cautiously, but they also knew that Reagan’s rapport with the electorate gave them cover when they wanted to rewrite popular and sacrosanct legislation.
One of the most effective ways of cutting unwanted regulations was to appoint “friendlies” to oversight departments who simply failed to enforce the regulations. Even if there was an outcry, they would just brazen it out. The Reagan administration discovered an important tool in the short attention span and the short memory of the American electorate.
Next post: Guns and God Join the Party
How did all this get started? (Part 1)
I think that the invective flying back and forth between the Right and Left completely misses the mark. The Right calls the Left "latte sipping, brie eating limousine liberals" and the Left calls the Right "religious fanatics and gun-toting red-neck morons."
All of the above may indeed be true, but it misplaces the true battle line.
What does sipping lattes or toting guns have to do with today's political issues? Such sticks and stones are red herrings meant to divert attention from the real division in the USA.
Recall what Deep Throat told Bob Woodward long ago on the cusp of another national nightmare: Follow the Money!! And as the old saying goes: Money equals power and that leads to the defining issue of our time: Who runs this country!!!
To find out, we have to follow the money.
No one, no thing in this world has more money than US Corporations. They have more money than ordinary mortals can imagine. So the operative equation is: money equals power and that is the primary axiom of politics.
Corporate money buys corporate political power which to a greater or lesser extent is beginning to control everything in our time. And the single-minded goal of the elite who wield that power is to keep it and expand it. Their purpose is to guarantee a friendly environment for their companies to operate, to be the master of their own destinies and to maximize profits come hell or high water.
And there is also only one institution in our society that can match that power in any credible way, the US Government.
The US Government has been developing a corporate regulatory structure since the time of Theodore Roosevelt and the corporate hierarchy is determined to stop it.
Only the Federal Government is able to knock on a CEO's front door and tell them that they are being bad boys and girls. Only the Federal Government has the clout to cause enough pain to control corporate behavior.
So whatever else you hear, whatever other issues roil the body politic these days, I submit that everything boils down to the ongoing struggle between the US corporate establishment on the one hand and the Federal Government on the other. The corporate strategy to win that struggle is to de-claw and co-opt the government's ability to tax and especially regulate.
The corporate elite also regard social programs, the "welfare state," as an unwarranted expropriation of THEIR money. They don't accept any responsibility for the poor, the infirm or the elderly because they are Darwinians and believe that only the strong will survive.
The Right Wing mantra since Ronald Reagan has been "tax relief" (it's YOUR money!). And that along with the whole mythology of "government waste," "welfare state" and "creeping socialism" has been constructed to erode the effectiveness of the government in exercising control over corporations. Since tax money is the lifeblood of any government, that is the Right Wing's prime target. Tax cuts cause burgeoning deficits which, they expect will promote cutting government programs.
The Reagan deficits were no accident. They just didn't create the level of civil turmoil that would have justified a wholesale cutting of programs. However, this is a multi-pronged attack. Industry-friendly cabinet officers were appointed who viewed regulation with a wink and a nod. Over the twelve years of the Reagan/Bush administrations, the regulatory structure was severely eroded.
But an embarassing episode intervened in the Right Wing effort to wrest the government back into the hands of the corporate elite and return to the "golden years" before Franklin Roosevelt. In 1992, Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush and became president.
From the very beginning of his term, Right Wing operatives were unleashed to spread rumors and disinformation, undermine Clinton's popularity and ultimately bring him down one way or another. However, not only did Bill Clinton prove to be adept at staying one step ahead, but his tax reform, passed soon after the start of his first term, resulted in closing the deficits and ushered in an era of unprecedented prosperity. Clearly Clinton had to go.
Early in Bill Clinton's Presidency, an extensive Right Wing infrastructure emerged. It consisted of a network of operatives from Matt Drudge on the internet, to Fox News to Rush Limbaugh and a legion of imitators across talk radio. The mainstream press was silenced with ever-present threats at intimidation. The epithet "Liberal Media" caused reporters and editors across the print and electronic media to cower under their desks.
A new and decidedly dangerous era had dawned in American politics. The Left found itself blindsighted and largely unprepared for the onslaught. The corporate elite had pumped money into think tanks, foundations and operatives to take up their cause and take back the government. They formed alliances with libertarians as well as the fanatic Religious Right. Each element of the coalition seemed ready to put its own ultimate agenda on hold until the hated liberals could be vanquished.
Next post "Reframing the Question"
All of the above may indeed be true, but it misplaces the true battle line.
What does sipping lattes or toting guns have to do with today's political issues? Such sticks and stones are red herrings meant to divert attention from the real division in the USA.
Recall what Deep Throat told Bob Woodward long ago on the cusp of another national nightmare: Follow the Money!! And as the old saying goes: Money equals power and that leads to the defining issue of our time: Who runs this country!!!
To find out, we have to follow the money.
No one, no thing in this world has more money than US Corporations. They have more money than ordinary mortals can imagine. So the operative equation is: money equals power and that is the primary axiom of politics.
Corporate money buys corporate political power which to a greater or lesser extent is beginning to control everything in our time. And the single-minded goal of the elite who wield that power is to keep it and expand it. Their purpose is to guarantee a friendly environment for their companies to operate, to be the master of their own destinies and to maximize profits come hell or high water.
And there is also only one institution in our society that can match that power in any credible way, the US Government.
The US Government has been developing a corporate regulatory structure since the time of Theodore Roosevelt and the corporate hierarchy is determined to stop it.
Only the Federal Government is able to knock on a CEO's front door and tell them that they are being bad boys and girls. Only the Federal Government has the clout to cause enough pain to control corporate behavior.
So whatever else you hear, whatever other issues roil the body politic these days, I submit that everything boils down to the ongoing struggle between the US corporate establishment on the one hand and the Federal Government on the other. The corporate strategy to win that struggle is to de-claw and co-opt the government's ability to tax and especially regulate.
The corporate elite also regard social programs, the "welfare state," as an unwarranted expropriation of THEIR money. They don't accept any responsibility for the poor, the infirm or the elderly because they are Darwinians and believe that only the strong will survive.
The Right Wing mantra since Ronald Reagan has been "tax relief" (it's YOUR money!). And that along with the whole mythology of "government waste," "welfare state" and "creeping socialism" has been constructed to erode the effectiveness of the government in exercising control over corporations. Since tax money is the lifeblood of any government, that is the Right Wing's prime target. Tax cuts cause burgeoning deficits which, they expect will promote cutting government programs.
The Reagan deficits were no accident. They just didn't create the level of civil turmoil that would have justified a wholesale cutting of programs. However, this is a multi-pronged attack. Industry-friendly cabinet officers were appointed who viewed regulation with a wink and a nod. Over the twelve years of the Reagan/Bush administrations, the regulatory structure was severely eroded.
But an embarassing episode intervened in the Right Wing effort to wrest the government back into the hands of the corporate elite and return to the "golden years" before Franklin Roosevelt. In 1992, Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush and became president.
From the very beginning of his term, Right Wing operatives were unleashed to spread rumors and disinformation, undermine Clinton's popularity and ultimately bring him down one way or another. However, not only did Bill Clinton prove to be adept at staying one step ahead, but his tax reform, passed soon after the start of his first term, resulted in closing the deficits and ushered in an era of unprecedented prosperity. Clearly Clinton had to go.
Early in Bill Clinton's Presidency, an extensive Right Wing infrastructure emerged. It consisted of a network of operatives from Matt Drudge on the internet, to Fox News to Rush Limbaugh and a legion of imitators across talk radio. The mainstream press was silenced with ever-present threats at intimidation. The epithet "Liberal Media" caused reporters and editors across the print and electronic media to cower under their desks.
A new and decidedly dangerous era had dawned in American politics. The Left found itself blindsighted and largely unprepared for the onslaught. The corporate elite had pumped money into think tanks, foundations and operatives to take up their cause and take back the government. They formed alliances with libertarians as well as the fanatic Religious Right. Each element of the coalition seemed ready to put its own ultimate agenda on hold until the hated liberals could be vanquished.
Next post "Reframing the Question"
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
The Religious Right Can Be So Wrong
The following is a Letter to the Editor of the San Jose Mercury News in response to an article, `God gap' blocks understanding of `moral values' phenomenon which appeared in last Sunday's Perspective section.
I read your Op Ed piece in the Sunday Mercury News Perspective section with great interest. I am one who views with disbelief and, yes, horror the elevation of right wing fundamentalism to a dominant political force now in our country. This is not a knee-jerk secular-humanist liberal revulsion for all them “Bible thumpers.” It is a concern born of the history of religious and political interaction. The results have never to my knowledge been pretty.
Our Founding Fathers included the separation clause in the Bill of Rights, because they were much closer historically to the horrors of the church/state combination. From the persecution of the Albigensians and Gnostics in the early Church to the blood baths of the Inquisition and later the witch trials across Europe and colonial America, the record of the religious state has been one of singular and horrific human suffering.
That is why the concept of the separation of Church and State is central to the United States of America. You write that:
I can only recoil in horror at that thought. “Traditional values” for one is often very different for another. That is why the government of the United States must be secular, must be operated outside the confines of any specific religion. This is a diverse country and it must accommodate the needs, beliefs and aspirations of Christians, Jews, Moslems and anyone of any faith or no faith who comes to live on these shores. By demanding primacy for their views and their beliefs, the Christian Right is in my view engaging in exceptionalism and some degree of arrogance.
The tone of your article I took to be suggesting that we on the left don’t “get it.” You write:
Unfortunately, many of us see very little to like in the Christian right. We see strident preachers condemning our lifestyles without sparing the pejoratives. We see open and aggressive intolerance for gays who are often upstanding citizens and even role models in their communities, for scientists whose theories and whose discoveries don’t pass biblical muster, and for artists whose works may provoke thoughts and feelings that may fall outside the permissible bounds.
So, far from welcoming “salvation” from the Religious Right, many of us see them as a retrograde force trying to undo the gains that have been made in social justice and the extension of equality to women, gays and minorities over the last century. Since the Religious Right has gone to no pains to make its message palatable or user friendly to those not of the flock, their message remains couched in a highly repellent envelope.
There are many issues that opponents of the Religious Right could find common ground with them on. The most contentious issue is of course abortion. In my view, the Religious Right has one answer to this question and that is to shut it off. As one raised in the Catholic Church, I too feel very uncomfortable with abortion, however, I feel that there are many ways to reduce if not eliminate abortion including sex education and contraceptives. However, for the Religious Right, none of that is on the table. It’s either “my way or the highway.” And while the argument will no doubt be that these are moral principles that can’t be compromised, I can only respond that this is planet earth…not the kingdom of heaven. One will seldom be granted perfect alternatives. In many cases, it is necessary to pick the lesser of two or more evils. And that is one of the areas where I feel that the Religious Right has displayed no imagination but has instead retreated into moral cowardice. Abortion is an extremely complex issue and just closing it down will result in a reversion to the world prior to Roe v Wade…where the pillars of religion can congratulate themselves on defeating evil, but the dirty deed is still being performed in filthy back-alley abortion mills anyway…resulting in a high risk of infection and death to the women involved. Not to my mind a very Christian outcome.
I regret that opponents have ridiculed evangelical Christians. That is never appropriate and I don’t believe that it represents the views of the majority of those outside the fold. As I’ve tried to point out above, however, many do view your co-religionists with alarm. I will admit that as the Religious Right is now constituted, I see no chance of rapprochement or dialogue. For apparent moderates like yourself who seem to maintain an open mind, that is a different story. However, with the likes of James Dobson, Lou Sheldon, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others, I expect to be in permanent opposition.
Thanks for a thought-provoking article.
Best Regards
Gene Eldridge
I read your Op Ed piece in the Sunday Mercury News Perspective section with great interest. I am one who views with disbelief and, yes, horror the elevation of right wing fundamentalism to a dominant political force now in our country. This is not a knee-jerk secular-humanist liberal revulsion for all them “Bible thumpers.” It is a concern born of the history of religious and political interaction. The results have never to my knowledge been pretty.
Our Founding Fathers included the separation clause in the Bill of Rights, because they were much closer historically to the horrors of the church/state combination. From the persecution of the Albigensians and Gnostics in the early Church to the blood baths of the Inquisition and later the witch trials across Europe and colonial America, the record of the religious state has been one of singular and horrific human suffering.
That is why the concept of the separation of Church and State is central to the United States of America. You write that:
The main point on which conservative evangelicals ram up against the rest of American society is the separation of church and state.
Many conservative evangelicals simply don't believe in such a divide when it comes to ``traditional values.''
I can only recoil in horror at that thought. “Traditional values” for one is often very different for another. That is why the government of the United States must be secular, must be operated outside the confines of any specific religion. This is a diverse country and it must accommodate the needs, beliefs and aspirations of Christians, Jews, Moslems and anyone of any faith or no faith who comes to live on these shores. By demanding primacy for their views and their beliefs, the Christian Right is in my view engaging in exceptionalism and some degree of arrogance.
The tone of your article I took to be suggesting that we on the left don’t “get it.” You write:
Many overlooked the political power of conservative evangelical churches largely because they could not imagine so many people could have such a different worldview. That kept them from understanding how the culture of evangelical churches -- set up, after all, to convert people -- can be an ideal political mobilizing machine. There's a regular time and place to meet, a sense of mission, small communities accustomed to teamwork, and leaders who are often strong communicators.Okay, they are a lean, mean, fighting machine, that does not in itself bestow legitimacy or validate their mission. I view that fact with an additional note of alarm. I see the Christian Right positioning itself to impose its belief system and its agenda on the rest of us whether we like it or not.
Unfortunately, many of us see very little to like in the Christian right. We see strident preachers condemning our lifestyles without sparing the pejoratives. We see open and aggressive intolerance for gays who are often upstanding citizens and even role models in their communities, for scientists whose theories and whose discoveries don’t pass biblical muster, and for artists whose works may provoke thoughts and feelings that may fall outside the permissible bounds.
So, far from welcoming “salvation” from the Religious Right, many of us see them as a retrograde force trying to undo the gains that have been made in social justice and the extension of equality to women, gays and minorities over the last century. Since the Religious Right has gone to no pains to make its message palatable or user friendly to those not of the flock, their message remains couched in a highly repellent envelope.
There are many issues that opponents of the Religious Right could find common ground with them on. The most contentious issue is of course abortion. In my view, the Religious Right has one answer to this question and that is to shut it off. As one raised in the Catholic Church, I too feel very uncomfortable with abortion, however, I feel that there are many ways to reduce if not eliminate abortion including sex education and contraceptives. However, for the Religious Right, none of that is on the table. It’s either “my way or the highway.” And while the argument will no doubt be that these are moral principles that can’t be compromised, I can only respond that this is planet earth…not the kingdom of heaven. One will seldom be granted perfect alternatives. In many cases, it is necessary to pick the lesser of two or more evils. And that is one of the areas where I feel that the Religious Right has displayed no imagination but has instead retreated into moral cowardice. Abortion is an extremely complex issue and just closing it down will result in a reversion to the world prior to Roe v Wade…where the pillars of religion can congratulate themselves on defeating evil, but the dirty deed is still being performed in filthy back-alley abortion mills anyway…resulting in a high risk of infection and death to the women involved. Not to my mind a very Christian outcome.
I regret that opponents have ridiculed evangelical Christians. That is never appropriate and I don’t believe that it represents the views of the majority of those outside the fold. As I’ve tried to point out above, however, many do view your co-religionists with alarm. I will admit that as the Religious Right is now constituted, I see no chance of rapprochement or dialogue. For apparent moderates like yourself who seem to maintain an open mind, that is a different story. However, with the likes of James Dobson, Lou Sheldon, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others, I expect to be in permanent opposition.
Thanks for a thought-provoking article.
Best Regards
Gene Eldridge
Friday, November 12, 2004
The Sorry Gallery
You've got to visit the Sorry Gallery where many, many people have sent in their pictures with a written apology for the extended reign of King George W. Click here and You too can join.
Tanks in LA???
This is scary. I guess King George W is going to jump start Bush II with some real kick-ass hard ball. Here's the link to AmericaBlog (thanks to TBogg for the heads up). Notice that the army says that they took a wrong turn. Was it from the Prague Spring or as TBogg suggests, Tiananmien Square?
Thursday, November 11, 2004
A Festive Coronation
King George W is apparently going to be crowned
in the fashion to which he has grown accostomed. Click the link to get full details.
A seating plan has already been prepared and may be viewed by clicking the link. Be sure to enlarge so that you can see all of the glittering attendees.
in the fashion to which he has grown accostomed. Click the link to get full details.
A seating plan has already been prepared and may be viewed by clicking the link. Be sure to enlarge so that you can see all of the glittering attendees.
Nader asking for recounts
Woohoo...Ralphie is getting into the act, asking for recounts in five states.
Good for him. I doubt that anything will come of it, but I'm really uncomfortable with the anecdotal evidence that I've been hearing. I've also heard some harsh words in the blogosphere about liberals "getting over it" and start working on figuring out how to prevail in 2006 and 2008. I kind of go along with that, but if there was hanky panky (and Rove's MO certainly includes some outrageous hanky panky), then we need to get to the bottom of it. I never felt like the true story of the 2000 election ever saw the light of day and there is still a serious stench about it.
So, I say, Go Ralph! If he can pry loose some of the glue that held whatever scheme came down, then that would certainly prime the pump for further investigation. I was surprised that there were no up-and-coming reporters willing to jump into investigating the 2000 election as a way to make a name for themselves. I guess Bernstein and Woodward had faded from memory by then.
It would definitely be traumatic to the country if fraud were uncovered as Watergate showed. However, if our electoral process has been tampered with, we must find out and the guilty severely punished. If we can't trust our electoral process, our country is headed down the road to a scary and undemocratic future.
Good for him. I doubt that anything will come of it, but I'm really uncomfortable with the anecdotal evidence that I've been hearing. I've also heard some harsh words in the blogosphere about liberals "getting over it" and start working on figuring out how to prevail in 2006 and 2008. I kind of go along with that, but if there was hanky panky (and Rove's MO certainly includes some outrageous hanky panky), then we need to get to the bottom of it. I never felt like the true story of the 2000 election ever saw the light of day and there is still a serious stench about it.
So, I say, Go Ralph! If he can pry loose some of the glue that held whatever scheme came down, then that would certainly prime the pump for further investigation. I was surprised that there were no up-and-coming reporters willing to jump into investigating the 2000 election as a way to make a name for themselves. I guess Bernstein and Woodward had faded from memory by then.
It would definitely be traumatic to the country if fraud were uncovered as Watergate showed. However, if our electoral process has been tampered with, we must find out and the guilty severely punished. If we can't trust our electoral process, our country is headed down the road to a scary and undemocratic future.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
A Profile in Selfishness
This week I was reminded why I was so fervently backing John Kerry for President. In a Washington Post article, Juliet Eilperin details how the Bush Administration is fighting off the scientists and their warnings about global warming.
So to grasp every loose nickel and dime for the energy industry, the Bush Administration is putting our (and their) children's inheritance at risk. There can be no other possible explanation, because we haven't seen the bar so high for evidentiary acceptability since the heyday of the tobacco industry.
And to super size their hypocrisy, the Administration claims that it opposes cutting carbon emissions "because it will cost jobs." Now the outsourcing apologists are "worrying" about jobs.
And of course this is another issue where Bush is way out of step with the rest of the world and doesn't seem to give a rat's ass.
And there's not a snowball in the arctic's chance of the Administration changing their attitudes about this issue as long as the energy industry is heavily funding Republican campaigns, as long as the top echelon of the Administration are energy industry veterans and likely returnees and as long as the American public is transfixed by gay marriage and school prayer and seemingly blind to the substantive issues facing the country.
I guess what bothers me most about this craven conduct is that it reflects such a sense of total self-absorption, such a reckless disregard for the future of humanity. Just to help their sponsors make their quarterly numbers, the Bush Administration is willing to fight tooth and nail against supplying any legitimacy to the relentless onslaught of global warming.
The English language simply lacks the ability to describe behavior that despicable.
State Department representatives have argued that the group, which has spent four years examining Arctic climate fluctuations, lacks the evidence to prepare detailed policy proposals.
So to grasp every loose nickel and dime for the energy industry, the Bush Administration is putting our (and their) children's inheritance at risk. There can be no other possible explanation, because we haven't seen the bar so high for evidentiary acceptability since the heyday of the tobacco industry.
And to super size their hypocrisy, the Administration claims that it opposes cutting carbon emissions "because it will cost jobs." Now the outsourcing apologists are "worrying" about jobs.
And of course this is another issue where Bush is way out of step with the rest of the world and doesn't seem to give a rat's ass.
Some council participants have begun to grumble about U.S. resistance to articulating a global climate policy. One European negotiator said the administration is trying to "sidetrack the whole process so it is not confronted with the question, 'Do you believe in climate change, or don't you?' " He added that while the other member nations will try to press the United States on the matter in the final talks, "I cannot see any solution to this unless [the administration] clearly changes its position."
And there's not a snowball in the arctic's chance of the Administration changing their attitudes about this issue as long as the energy industry is heavily funding Republican campaigns, as long as the top echelon of the Administration are energy industry veterans and likely returnees and as long as the American public is transfixed by gay marriage and school prayer and seemingly blind to the substantive issues facing the country.
I guess what bothers me most about this craven conduct is that it reflects such a sense of total self-absorption, such a reckless disregard for the future of humanity. Just to help their sponsors make their quarterly numbers, the Bush Administration is willing to fight tooth and nail against supplying any legitimacy to the relentless onslaught of global warming.
The English language simply lacks the ability to describe behavior that despicable.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Media Marmalade
The biggest spoiler in the ’04 Election next to Karl Rove was the MSM, which is blogspeak for “Main Stream Media,” both electronic and print. I’d like to see the blog lexicographers change that to the “Corporate Media.” Mainstream actually sounds respectable and gives them way too much credit.
Besides, “Corporate Media” more accurately establishes their pedigree. Electronic media are unabashedly owned by corporate behemoths: ABC by Disney; CBS by Viacom; CNN by Time Warner; NBC/CNBC/MSNBC by GE and Fox (Faux) “News” by Rupert Murdoch, the global media maggot, er magnate.
It is so easy to visualize a call from the Executive Suite to the VP-News, “Make sure that Bush looks good. And make Kerry look like an asshole.” Of course, there would never be a record of such a call and everyone would deny it, but it is certainly within the realm of Karl Rovian reality.
There has been a lot of discussion also about false equivalence. An example: In a speech, George Bush says, “John Kerry’s medical plan will be run by the government.” This is false, but when the “fact checking” is done by your network, local TV or newspaper, they will say that it’s false, but they will then cherry pick a comment from Kerry that is inaccurate. This would usually involve a whopper from George W. Bush and a minor misstatement by John Kerry. But they frame them as equivalent and say that both candidates are playing fast and loose with the truth.
This happened throughout the campaign on various levels. If there was any negative information about Bush, they had to dig up something negative about Kerry…and fabricate it if nothing appropriate could be found.
However, the media are sitting ducks for the Right Wing spinmeisters, cheer leaders, screechmasters and their well-stocked stable of assorted piranhas, barracudas and rabies carriers. For years, the Right has hurled “j’accuse” sticks and stones at the “Liberal Media.” They were probably right back twenty years ago and before. Not that the media was “liberal” through invidious intent, but the prevailing political regimen was forged in the (liberal) New Deal and for whatever reasons, reporters tended to self-identify as liberals, or at least that was the conventional wisdom.
But much changed with the accession of Ronald Reagan. A good master's thesis project for a journalism or history student would be on the evolution of media political spectrum identification over the last half of the twentieth century. Today, the “liberal media” has been fully transformed into what Eric Alterman has dubbed the SCLM (so-called liberal media) and it is dripping with invidious intent.
One more factor that has been discussed in various forums is called “working the ref.” Visualize a college basketball game. One side has a core group in the stands that lapses into a frenzy of boo’s, hisses and angry catcalls when a referee makes a call against their team. This is picked up by the team’s other fans and before long every call elicits a great chorus of remonstration. The intent is for the referee, hearing the reaction, to question his/her accuracy so that if there’s a close one, he/she may be reluctant to call it.
The Right does this all the time. They are ever-vigilant in watching the MSM and if they perceive that there is bias, they pull out the stops and the chorus sings. As you can imagine, no reporter likes bushel baskets of hate mail or to get clobbered with emails. I’ve posted comments on Right Wing blogs and I’ll tell you first hand that they get very abusive.
However, when a reporter writes something bad about the Left, there is little penalty to pay. They may get a letter to the editor or an email, calmly and rationally explaining the error of their ways, but nothing to cause fear for their life or that of their family.
Thus the Right controls the media from both ends. The corporate Executive Suite exercises influence if not outright pressure to bend copy to meet the party line. The consumer side rises up in a frenzy at any perceived slight.
Finally, several years ago I was listening to an NPR program with David Horowitz and an ineffectual “liberal” whose name I forget. David Horowitz is of course extremely voluble and very aggressive and the "liberal" was being eaten alive. However, one caller complained about having the liberal on the show. The moderator explained that they had Mr. Horowitz on to provide the conservative view as well. The caller said, “I just don’t care what a liberal says. I don’t know why you want to have him on the show.”
That incident rode around my head for some time and I finally concluded that people from the Right don’t want to hear both sides. They want to hear their side and to hell with the rest. I think that is the reason for the Right’s abiding criticism of media bias: They don’t want “fair and balanced,” they want outright advocacy. That’s why Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Fox News in general are embraced so fervently by the Right. They don’t present both sides, they present the Right side.
Besides, “Corporate Media” more accurately establishes their pedigree. Electronic media are unabashedly owned by corporate behemoths: ABC by Disney; CBS by Viacom; CNN by Time Warner; NBC/CNBC/MSNBC by GE and Fox (Faux) “News” by Rupert Murdoch, the global media maggot, er magnate.
It is so easy to visualize a call from the Executive Suite to the VP-News, “Make sure that Bush looks good. And make Kerry look like an asshole.” Of course, there would never be a record of such a call and everyone would deny it, but it is certainly within the realm of Karl Rovian reality.
There has been a lot of discussion also about false equivalence. An example: In a speech, George Bush says, “John Kerry’s medical plan will be run by the government.” This is false, but when the “fact checking” is done by your network, local TV or newspaper, they will say that it’s false, but they will then cherry pick a comment from Kerry that is inaccurate. This would usually involve a whopper from George W. Bush and a minor misstatement by John Kerry. But they frame them as equivalent and say that both candidates are playing fast and loose with the truth.
This happened throughout the campaign on various levels. If there was any negative information about Bush, they had to dig up something negative about Kerry…and fabricate it if nothing appropriate could be found.
However, the media are sitting ducks for the Right Wing spinmeisters, cheer leaders, screechmasters and their well-stocked stable of assorted piranhas, barracudas and rabies carriers. For years, the Right has hurled “j’accuse” sticks and stones at the “Liberal Media.” They were probably right back twenty years ago and before. Not that the media was “liberal” through invidious intent, but the prevailing political regimen was forged in the (liberal) New Deal and for whatever reasons, reporters tended to self-identify as liberals, or at least that was the conventional wisdom.
But much changed with the accession of Ronald Reagan. A good master's thesis project for a journalism or history student would be on the evolution of media political spectrum identification over the last half of the twentieth century. Today, the “liberal media” has been fully transformed into what Eric Alterman has dubbed the SCLM (so-called liberal media) and it is dripping with invidious intent.
One more factor that has been discussed in various forums is called “working the ref.” Visualize a college basketball game. One side has a core group in the stands that lapses into a frenzy of boo’s, hisses and angry catcalls when a referee makes a call against their team. This is picked up by the team’s other fans and before long every call elicits a great chorus of remonstration. The intent is for the referee, hearing the reaction, to question his/her accuracy so that if there’s a close one, he/she may be reluctant to call it.
The Right does this all the time. They are ever-vigilant in watching the MSM and if they perceive that there is bias, they pull out the stops and the chorus sings. As you can imagine, no reporter likes bushel baskets of hate mail or to get clobbered with emails. I’ve posted comments on Right Wing blogs and I’ll tell you first hand that they get very abusive.
However, when a reporter writes something bad about the Left, there is little penalty to pay. They may get a letter to the editor or an email, calmly and rationally explaining the error of their ways, but nothing to cause fear for their life or that of their family.
Thus the Right controls the media from both ends. The corporate Executive Suite exercises influence if not outright pressure to bend copy to meet the party line. The consumer side rises up in a frenzy at any perceived slight.
Finally, several years ago I was listening to an NPR program with David Horowitz and an ineffectual “liberal” whose name I forget. David Horowitz is of course extremely voluble and very aggressive and the "liberal" was being eaten alive. However, one caller complained about having the liberal on the show. The moderator explained that they had Mr. Horowitz on to provide the conservative view as well. The caller said, “I just don’t care what a liberal says. I don’t know why you want to have him on the show.”
That incident rode around my head for some time and I finally concluded that people from the Right don’t want to hear both sides. They want to hear their side and to hell with the rest. I think that is the reason for the Right’s abiding criticism of media bias: They don’t want “fair and balanced,” they want outright advocacy. That’s why Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Fox News in general are embraced so fervently by the Right. They don’t present both sides, they present the Right side.
Can we do business with these people?
In my previous post "The Morning After!" I quoted a comment to an article in "The Guardian" by Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos where a submitter, nin (probably European), takes Markos to task for suggesting that:
The comment writer asks Markos:
I cite this comment not because I in any way agree with it, but because it represents a position that must be considered. I've heard this position advanced in the media, "...the Democratic Party needs to learn how to speak to people of faith."
My problem is that people of faith don't give you any wiggle room. Their basic premise is by definition, “I and those who agree with me are absolutely right, and those who disagree are absolutely wrong.” That doesn't allow for any compromises or any tolerance around the edges.
So I'm very skeptical that any profitable discussions are possible between the Religious Right and a party of inclusion. I think that the more effective strategy is to wait for the Republican bloc to unravel. I can't imagine the three main segments of the Republican coalition (libertarians, corporatists and the religious right) coexisting indefinitely just because of the uncompromising attitude cited above.
Where the Religious Right gives no quarter, corporatists main focus is profit. Much-maligned Hollywood is owned and run by corporatists and they make money hand over fist from it. So right away there is a huge point of disagreement.
Also, libertarians are almost religiously averse to government intrusion. Yet the Religious Right would like to place a mullah, oh excuse me, a reverend to chase sin from every bedroom in America. In fact, if you consider the rules that the Religious Right would like to impose on the citizenry, you will find a rigid, stifling jailhouse in which I’m sure few Americans would choose to live.
The bottom line, I believe, is that it would profit the Democrats little to try to initiate a dialogue with the Religious Right. They are fully deployed in a rigid and uncompromising paradigm that would allow no room for tolerance or growth.
In that regard, I believe that it’s best to let the situation evolve and hope that rifts develop in what is a coalition of strange bedfellows.
The United States is a bitterly divided nation, at war with itself. Tuesday was merely one battle in a long-term war for the heart and soul of our nation. There will be the usual blather about unity and nonesuch, but the time for that is past. Bush has won himself four additional years to further inflict damage upon the world. Half of of the US public is not happy about that tonight.
The comment writer asks Markos:
Characterizing your effort as a "war" is the reason for your failure. How many Bush supporters has your blog converted? Do you think demonizing or ridiculing the people who disagree with you and the leaders they support is going to change their minds? Instead of fighting a war against your own people, why don't you Americans on the left start talking with them? Figure out "tactics" that get them to listen to what you have to say instead of tactics that alienate them.
I cite this comment not because I in any way agree with it, but because it represents a position that must be considered. I've heard this position advanced in the media, "...the Democratic Party needs to learn how to speak to people of faith."
My problem is that people of faith don't give you any wiggle room. Their basic premise is by definition, “I and those who agree with me are absolutely right, and those who disagree are absolutely wrong.” That doesn't allow for any compromises or any tolerance around the edges.
So I'm very skeptical that any profitable discussions are possible between the Religious Right and a party of inclusion. I think that the more effective strategy is to wait for the Republican bloc to unravel. I can't imagine the three main segments of the Republican coalition (libertarians, corporatists and the religious right) coexisting indefinitely just because of the uncompromising attitude cited above.
Where the Religious Right gives no quarter, corporatists main focus is profit. Much-maligned Hollywood is owned and run by corporatists and they make money hand over fist from it. So right away there is a huge point of disagreement.
Also, libertarians are almost religiously averse to government intrusion. Yet the Religious Right would like to place a mullah, oh excuse me, a reverend to chase sin from every bedroom in America. In fact, if you consider the rules that the Religious Right would like to impose on the citizenry, you will find a rigid, stifling jailhouse in which I’m sure few Americans would choose to live.
The bottom line, I believe, is that it would profit the Democrats little to try to initiate a dialogue with the Religious Right. They are fully deployed in a rigid and uncompromising paradigm that would allow no room for tolerance or growth.
In that regard, I believe that it’s best to let the situation evolve and hope that rifts develop in what is a coalition of strange bedfellows.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
The Morning After
I found this post on "The Guardian" web site. It is a comment appended to an article by Markos of Dailykos. It mentions some interesting points. I'll post later to explain where I differ:
The American left lost the election precisely because it relied on the attitudes and methods you are proposing in this article. You hope Bush's reelection will galvanize the left, better prepare it for battle. But characterizing your effort as a "war" is the reason for your failure. How many Bush supporters has your blog converted? Do you thing demonizing or ridiculing the people who disagree with you and the leaders they support is going to change their minds? Instead of fighting a war against your own people, why don't you Americans on the left start talking with them? Figure out "tactics" that get them to listen to what you have to say instead of tactics that alienate them. And if you expect them to listen you'll have to listen to them too. Unless you change the nature of the debate, from a battle (what people currently in power want it to be) into a dialog, your people and the rest of the world will continue to suffer at the hands of your Republican leadership.
Comments posted by: min at November 3, 2004 10:59 AM
The American left lost the election precisely because it relied on the attitudes and methods you are proposing in this article. You hope Bush's reelection will galvanize the left, better prepare it for battle. But characterizing your effort as a "war" is the reason for your failure. How many Bush supporters has your blog converted? Do you thing demonizing or ridiculing the people who disagree with you and the leaders they support is going to change their minds? Instead of fighting a war against your own people, why don't you Americans on the left start talking with them? Figure out "tactics" that get them to listen to what you have to say instead of tactics that alienate them. And if you expect them to listen you'll have to listen to them too. Unless you change the nature of the debate, from a battle (what people currently in power want it to be) into a dialog, your people and the rest of the world will continue to suffer at the hands of your Republican leadership.
Comments posted by: min at November 3, 2004 10:59 AM
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
What a world!!
Going into this Election Day I had expected a credible, if not decisive, Kerry win. However, as I turn off the TV at 10pm Pacific, NBC and Faux have called Ohio for Bush and it's looking meaner and meaner. So as I head for bed after a day of walking a precinct in San Jose, I'm going with the thought that we may not know the outcome until Ohio counts its provisional ballots in 10 days. Here we go again.
With George W. Bush getting as many votes as he has (and possibly really winning), I'm left wondering if 1) Bush/Rove are really that ingenious and ruthless in covering up their misdeeds, misfeasance and mistakes; 2) the Democratic Party and the Left are really that incompetent in spelling out and defining their positions and selling them to the American public; or 3) the American public is really that gullible, lazy, self-absorbed and incompetent at seeing its own self-interest. My feeling is that all of the above apply.
If it turns out that John Kerry must concede this election, I hope that he congratulates Bush, offers nominal cooperation and sternly warns that our principles remain and we will continue to fight for them. I also hope that he clearly draws the line in the sand: There is no free ride for George W. Bush. He will have to fight for every inch of his extreme Right Wing agenda.
The past four years the Democrats have been milquetoasts in allowing the Bushies to get by with as much as they have. It's time to take a chapter out of Karl Rove's playbook and swallow our restraint and stop trying to play well on the Sunday talk shows. It's past time to do what we have to do without expecting approval from the talking heads and emphatically without fearing condemnation from either the Right or the media.
With George W. Bush getting as many votes as he has (and possibly really winning), I'm left wondering if 1) Bush/Rove are really that ingenious and ruthless in covering up their misdeeds, misfeasance and mistakes; 2) the Democratic Party and the Left are really that incompetent in spelling out and defining their positions and selling them to the American public; or 3) the American public is really that gullible, lazy, self-absorbed and incompetent at seeing its own self-interest. My feeling is that all of the above apply.
If it turns out that John Kerry must concede this election, I hope that he congratulates Bush, offers nominal cooperation and sternly warns that our principles remain and we will continue to fight for them. I also hope that he clearly draws the line in the sand: There is no free ride for George W. Bush. He will have to fight for every inch of his extreme Right Wing agenda.
The past four years the Democrats have been milquetoasts in allowing the Bushies to get by with as much as they have. It's time to take a chapter out of Karl Rove's playbook and swallow our restraint and stop trying to play well on the Sunday talk shows. It's past time to do what we have to do without expecting approval from the talking heads and emphatically without fearing condemnation from either the Right or the media.
Monday, November 01, 2004
Right Wing Outrage
I was sitting in a typical Bay Area evening commute quagmire today and optimistically thinking, "The Kerry Administration HAS to be different from the Clinton Administration." We can't allow the Right Wing to grind them down the way they did the Clintons.
Democratic administrations have to face three main challenges these days: Right Wing ideologues, Corporate Media and insurrection and from within the party.
The first and the worst are the Right Wing idealogues. They are relentless and they are unprincipled. We got the picture during the Clinton years and we know they will stop at nothing to grind the opposition to dust. We know they will tell any lie and distort whatever distortions they need to advance their agenda and empower their base.
Their weapon is chutzpah. And do they have chutzpah!
George W. Bush, elected by the thinnest of margins in our most discredited election struts on stage and immediately appoints cabinet members from the Far Right Fringe with complete and total impunity.
And when criticized for being too Right Wing, the Bush Administration either didn't bother to listen or responded with outrage, Outrage! that anyone would be so rude as to say such a thing.
And yet the liberal side always seems too mellow and fuzzy by about three quarters. When Bush appointed Ashcroft, we heard a few muffled groans, and there was some "spirited" questioning at the confirmation hearings. But the very idea that the Democrats might have a problem with Ashcroft brought Orrin Hatch to his feet in outrage! (Orrin Hatch does outrage really well, and often.) And it worked! The Democrats in the Senate meekly allowed Ashcroft to be unleashed upon an unsuspecting citizenry.
There is no doubt that the Left needs to develop a sense of outrage and learn how to aim it. And learn to remain outraged despite calming voices and, well, facts. The Right never lets anything dampen their outrage.
Right Wing outrage scares the bejeezus out of the media. They will do anything to avoid an outraged Right Wingnut. But we'll talk about the media in the next post.
Democratic administrations have to face three main challenges these days: Right Wing ideologues, Corporate Media and insurrection and from within the party.
The first and the worst are the Right Wing idealogues. They are relentless and they are unprincipled. We got the picture during the Clinton years and we know they will stop at nothing to grind the opposition to dust. We know they will tell any lie and distort whatever distortions they need to advance their agenda and empower their base.
Their weapon is chutzpah. And do they have chutzpah!
George W. Bush, elected by the thinnest of margins in our most discredited election struts on stage and immediately appoints cabinet members from the Far Right Fringe with complete and total impunity.
And when criticized for being too Right Wing, the Bush Administration either didn't bother to listen or responded with outrage, Outrage! that anyone would be so rude as to say such a thing.
And yet the liberal side always seems too mellow and fuzzy by about three quarters. When Bush appointed Ashcroft, we heard a few muffled groans, and there was some "spirited" questioning at the confirmation hearings. But the very idea that the Democrats might have a problem with Ashcroft brought Orrin Hatch to his feet in outrage! (Orrin Hatch does outrage really well, and often.) And it worked! The Democrats in the Senate meekly allowed Ashcroft to be unleashed upon an unsuspecting citizenry.
There is no doubt that the Left needs to develop a sense of outrage and learn how to aim it. And learn to remain outraged despite calming voices and, well, facts. The Right never lets anything dampen their outrage.
Right Wing outrage scares the bejeezus out of the media. They will do anything to avoid an outraged Right Wingnut. But we'll talk about the media in the next post.
And Kerry wins?
It's Election Day eve and The Outcome is anybody's guess. My money is on a Kerry landslide. I've looked at the 5-hour lines in Florida and Ohio and other places and I agree with Randi Rhodes on Air America: People don't wait in line 5 hours to vote for the status quo. I think that George W. Bush burned his bridges too many times over the past four years with far too many people. It's okay to run roughshod over anyone who gets in the way, as long as you can afford to pay the price...and the price as it turn out is very high.
We say, “What goes around, comes around, George.”
That's why I think that today is the last full day of George W. Bush's sordid reign.
When even Conservatives are abandoning the ship, you know that the game is over.
We say, “What goes around, comes around, George.”
That's why I think that today is the last full day of George W. Bush's sordid reign.
When even Conservatives are abandoning the ship, you know that the game is over.
Friday, October 29, 2004
3 November--Then What?
We know it's coming...finally...Tuesday night we're glued to our TVs and CNN calls this state for ? and NBC calls that state for ? And finally it's far into the night and far from settled so we go to bed and hope that the morning paper will bring much-needed finality.
Maybe, maybe not.
I am on the one hand scared to death. The Corporate Media keep spinning the polls for Bush and present him as The Inevitability and dismissively maintain Kerry as the long shot. There's certainly been no attempt at balance in the reporting so far. David Brooks appeared hyper-giddy on The News Hours today, even for him. I don't know if he truly believes that Bush will prevail, or if he's programmed by the spin chip that Rove had installed in all Right Winger talking heads...the spin is to present Bush's victory as inevitable to pump up the Big MO! Kind of like they did in Florida in 2000.
On the other hand, my gut still whispers "landslide" to me in unguarded moments. I keep doing the math. The economic voters + minority voters + liberals + disenchanted military families + on and on and I just keep smelling a sea change coming. But my brain just can't deal with another four years of BushCo.
There are two possible outcomes as we all know. And how should the Liberal/Progressive community deal with either outcome?
If Kerry wins, there will be no time to celebrate. The Right Wing propaganda mill is probably building up steam as we speak. The Mighty Wurlitzer will begin blasting out discordant tunes as soon as the polls close on Election Day. The Progressive community will have to take the challenge and present a solid front. We can't let them disrupt another Democratic Presidency like they did Bill Clinton's. And to that extend, I recommend everyone read Sidney Blumenthal's The Clinton Wars. He gives a detailed account of how right wing operatives dogged the Clintons every step of the way. The Clintons were often not effective in fending off the attacks because at that time this type of political action was simply unthinkable and totally unprecedented. How could they have known? Now there is no excuse. We should expect an even worse assault on the comfortable world that we have all grown to know and love.
If Bush wins, the Progressive community will have to present an aggressive face to Bush's headlong rush to implement Right Wing policies and appoint Right Wing fanatics to the Federal bench. If this is the outcome, I would hope that Kerry is far less conciliatory to Bush than Al Gore was in 2000. I was deeply troubled at the ultimate results of that election, but I was horrified at Gore's capitulation and "gentlemanly" concession speech. Given the circumstances, I felt that he should have registered his disdain for the despicable intrusion of an egregiously partisan Supreme Court into a process where it had no constitutional business being. I further felt that Gore did himself and all of us on his side a disservice by completely vanishing from the scene and taking no part in monitoring Bush's actions after inauguration. I'm sure that he was emotionally and physically depleted, but after getting his bearings, he could have provided a useful service by becoming the voice of the shadow opposition.
Should John Kerry not prevail, I hope that he will remain out front and assume the mantle of The Opposition.
Maybe, maybe not.
I am on the one hand scared to death. The Corporate Media keep spinning the polls for Bush and present him as The Inevitability and dismissively maintain Kerry as the long shot. There's certainly been no attempt at balance in the reporting so far. David Brooks appeared hyper-giddy on The News Hours today, even for him. I don't know if he truly believes that Bush will prevail, or if he's programmed by the spin chip that Rove had installed in all Right Winger talking heads...the spin is to present Bush's victory as inevitable to pump up the Big MO! Kind of like they did in Florida in 2000.
On the other hand, my gut still whispers "landslide" to me in unguarded moments. I keep doing the math. The economic voters + minority voters + liberals + disenchanted military families + on and on and I just keep smelling a sea change coming. But my brain just can't deal with another four years of BushCo.
There are two possible outcomes as we all know. And how should the Liberal/Progressive community deal with either outcome?
If Kerry wins, there will be no time to celebrate. The Right Wing propaganda mill is probably building up steam as we speak. The Mighty Wurlitzer will begin blasting out discordant tunes as soon as the polls close on Election Day. The Progressive community will have to take the challenge and present a solid front. We can't let them disrupt another Democratic Presidency like they did Bill Clinton's. And to that extend, I recommend everyone read Sidney Blumenthal's The Clinton Wars. He gives a detailed account of how right wing operatives dogged the Clintons every step of the way. The Clintons were often not effective in fending off the attacks because at that time this type of political action was simply unthinkable and totally unprecedented. How could they have known? Now there is no excuse. We should expect an even worse assault on the comfortable world that we have all grown to know and love.
If Bush wins, the Progressive community will have to present an aggressive face to Bush's headlong rush to implement Right Wing policies and appoint Right Wing fanatics to the Federal bench. If this is the outcome, I would hope that Kerry is far less conciliatory to Bush than Al Gore was in 2000. I was deeply troubled at the ultimate results of that election, but I was horrified at Gore's capitulation and "gentlemanly" concession speech. Given the circumstances, I felt that he should have registered his disdain for the despicable intrusion of an egregiously partisan Supreme Court into a process where it had no constitutional business being. I further felt that Gore did himself and all of us on his side a disservice by completely vanishing from the scene and taking no part in monitoring Bush's actions after inauguration. I'm sure that he was emotionally and physically depleted, but after getting his bearings, he could have provided a useful service by becoming the voice of the shadow opposition.
Should John Kerry not prevail, I hope that he will remain out front and assume the mantle of The Opposition.
Osama to the Rescue?
It looks like Osama bin Laden jumped in to boost George W. Bush's stature once again. Without the catastrophic bin Laden-sponsored events of 9/11/2001, George W would have remained the trivial mediocrity that he certainly was.
He remains a trivial mediocrity to this day, but his hagiographers finally got the material they needed to pump up his stature. Judging by the polls, they have largely succeeded in taking the witless ne'er do well and transforming him into "The Commander-in-Chief." None of this would have been conceivable without Osama's assault on the World Trade Center.
Today the Corporate Media is telling us that Osama's latest video tape is a pre-election Bush support booster. We won't know if that's true until next Tuesday, but how the chickens come home to roost. I think that everyone will admit that OBL's latest shows a whole new side of Osama. He almost apologetically explains his decision to unleash his gang of hijackers. I haven't heard the whole tape yet, but if the rest of it is as weird as the part that I've already heard, then something is definitely new.
Now is that good or bad? I guess that if we get through the next several months/years without significant terrorist incidents, then it's good. However, to date, Osama's tapes have frequently been the prelude to some kind of attack.
So is this tape a signal to embedded cells to initiate an attack? I don't think any of us would put it past him. And with a heretofore wholly evil figure like bin Laden, I don't think that the US or the non-Islamic west would ever think to give him the benefit of any doubts.
The question remains, what will the impact on the Mother of all Elections be? Tune in Tuesday, 2 November for the exciting conclusion, or at least the beginning of the conclusion.
He remains a trivial mediocrity to this day, but his hagiographers finally got the material they needed to pump up his stature. Judging by the polls, they have largely succeeded in taking the witless ne'er do well and transforming him into "The Commander-in-Chief." None of this would have been conceivable without Osama's assault on the World Trade Center.
Today the Corporate Media is telling us that Osama's latest video tape is a pre-election Bush support booster. We won't know if that's true until next Tuesday, but how the chickens come home to roost. I think that everyone will admit that OBL's latest shows a whole new side of Osama. He almost apologetically explains his decision to unleash his gang of hijackers. I haven't heard the whole tape yet, but if the rest of it is as weird as the part that I've already heard, then something is definitely new.
Now is that good or bad? I guess that if we get through the next several months/years without significant terrorist incidents, then it's good. However, to date, Osama's tapes have frequently been the prelude to some kind of attack.
So is this tape a signal to embedded cells to initiate an attack? I don't think any of us would put it past him. And with a heretofore wholly evil figure like bin Laden, I don't think that the US or the non-Islamic west would ever think to give him the benefit of any doubts.
The question remains, what will the impact on the Mother of all Elections be? Tune in Tuesday, 2 November for the exciting conclusion, or at least the beginning of the conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)