Onward Christian Soldiers.....

There is a fascinating article by Michelle Goldberg on the Alternet, "The Tyranny of the Religious Right." Goldberg discusses the growing power and influence of evangelical Christianity:

Whenever I talk about the growing power of the evangelical right with friends, they always ask the same question: What can we do? Usually I reply with a joke: Keep a bag packed and your passport current.

I don't really mean it, but my anxiety is genuine. It's one thing to have a government that shows contempt for civil liberties; America has survived such men before. It's quite another to have a mass movement -- the largest and most powerful mass movement in the nation -- rise up in opposition to the rights of its fellow citizens. The Constitution protects minorities, but that protection is not absolute; with a sufficiently sympathetic or apathetic majority, a tightly organized faction can get around it.

The mass movement I've described aims to supplant Enlightenment rationalism with what it calls the "Christian worldview." The phrase is based on the conviction that true Christianity must govern every aspect of public and private life, and that all -- government, science, history and culture -- must be understood according to the dictates of scripture. There are biblically correct positions on every issue, from gay marriage to income tax rates, and only those with the right worldview can discern them. This is Christianity as a total ideology -- I call it Christian nationalism. (Read the rest)

One of the very troubling developments of the past several decades has been the emergence if not the explosion of Christian fundamentalism and evangelicalism. I say "troubling" not because I'm anti-religious although I am unabashedly areligious. However, the forces that are afoot across the land are not the benign Christians of our sunday school days or even the strict, no-nonsense nuns of my parochial school days.

These are fire-breathing, take-no-prisoners zealots who have set their sights on taking over the USA and changing it into a "Christian nation." One can only speculate that their vision has not yet happened because most of the people in the US are simply not interested in their style of living. However, the "Dominionists" and the "Reconstructionists" both proclaim their goal to be taking over the USA "for Jesus."

So if the majority of the population is not willing to jump on the bandwagon and join these fanatics in launching a "Christian nation," then one can only conclude that once they take over, conversions will be at gun-point, knife-point or by whatever means of intimidation and coercion works.

We've already seen a glimpse of this totalitarianism at the Air Force Academy. A Jewish cadet complained to his father that he was coming under increasing criticism for his religion. The criticism was coming from evangelical "Christian" cadets and the officer corps. One article that I read even implicated the Academy commandant in the move to intimidate non-Christians.

My first thought at reading about the Air Force Academy was that they were packing the officer corps with "Christian" soldiers. Then I wondered if this same scenario was playing out at West Point and Annapolis. What a perfect scheme, to infiltrate the officers' corps of the various branches. Enlisted troops do what they're told. If an officer orders them to take part in a coup d'etat, it would be hard to refuse as an individual.

All I can tell any readers that may happen along and read this is, keep your eyes open. If you see things moving in ways that you find uncomfortable, jump in and become active. These "Christians" are not just motivated, they are fanatical and literally will stop at nothing to implement their agenda. Also, I put "Christians" in quotes because that is how they describe themselves. I personally find very little similarity between 21st Century fundamentalists and evangelicals and anything that I've ever read in the New Testament. They're entire movement is about as far from anything that we hear from or see of Jesus Christ in the gospels.

The Enron Elite Meet the Street

So Ole Jeffrey Skilling and Kenny-boy Lay couldn't put one over on the jury. I would imagine that champagne corks would be popping around the nation if Enron's victims could still afford champagne.

There is no part of me that feels sorry for these two. The destruction of lives that they apparently set in motion makes them very special thugs. Their victims may number in the tens (hundreds?) of thousands and include simple workaday stiffs like you and me who only wanted to save for their retirement and now have nothing.

To me the most distasteful part has been how Skilling and Lay have been making themselves out to be the victims. How they have tried to paint their prosecution as persecution. It sounds a lot like the gang in the White House. They always have someone else to blame for their failures. It's always them who are the victims.

What a pack of despicable scum. And I don't have any more to say about these two.

Remarkable Capitulation

Senate Democrats have again jumped into their role as Bush enablers. Four Democrats on the Senate Intelligence (?) Committee voted to confirm Michael Hayden as Director of the CIA. They included my own Senator, Diane Feinstein (see separate posting). To get a full discussion on this topic (including links), see Glenn Greenwald's, Unclaimed Territory.

Feinstein Totally Blows It!

Senator Feinstein, what in God's name were you thinking??!!

How could you even think about voting to approve the nomination of Gen Michael Hayden as the Director of the CIA? This is the man who not only oversaw the illegal and unconstitutional eavesdropping on millions of Americans' phone conversation, but who designed, promoted and implemented it. He is the focal point of the whole program.

Senator Feinstein, are you prepared to guarantee your constituents that this program will never be used for partisan political purposes? Because if your beltway blindness obscures that line of thinking from view, that's what a lot of people out in the real world feel that this is all about. This administration's leaders are committed idealogues who have demonstrated time and again that nothing stands in the way of their implementing their agenda...that has included the laws of the United States and even the Constitution of the United States. And many see eavesdropping as a further example of their grab for power.

I can't understand how you could vote for this man and still look yourself in the mirror and say that you are not violating your oath to uphold the Constitution. This nomination for most progressive Americans was a no-brainer. This guy is simply unacceptable.

So Senator Feinstein, the impact on me as your constituent is total. Quite simply, I will never vote for you again...and to visualize that, know that I have voted for you repeatedly going back to your days as a San Francisco Supervisor and later for mayor. Whatever mindless partisan the California Republican Party decides to run against you next time (and it will be a mindless partisan, I have no doubt), I will simply leave the ballot blank or vote for a Green or Peace and Freedom candidate. However, I will never vote for you again.

This action tells me that you "don't get it." You don't understand the idealogical nature of this administration and you don't understand their agenda to promote the interests of the Corporate Elites, the fanatical religious fringes and the paranoid militarists over the vast multitude of middle class citizens.

Real Men are...Republicans?

Francis Wilkinson, in the online American Prospect (tip of the hat to Donkey Rising) has a long discussion about how the Republicans have styled themselves as the "testosterone party." His central example is George W alighting on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in his crotch revealing flight suit. That particular example has gone down as a mix of arrogance and pandering.

This is a fairly long article, but well worth your time.

The Real Problem with NSA Surveillance

Annalee Newitz has a great article on Alternet about the NSA phone eavesdropping episode. She wonders why the polls are finding only 53% of the population who have a problem with their telephone conversations being recorded and stored by the US Government.

Here's what disturbs me: in light of recent revelations that the National Security Agency has been illegally collecting vast databases of information about every single phone call made in the United States since late 2001, only 53 percent of US citizens polled by Newsweek think the government has gone too far in its efforts to stop terrorism.

That's a majority, but not a very large one. And in the same poll, 41 percent said they thought spying on phone calls made to and from everyone in the country was necessary.

This arouses the same sinking feeling I got many years ago when I was a young graduate student at UC Berkeley, grading my very first set of papers. From that sample, and many others in subsequent courses, I learned that 70 percent of college students in an upper-division English course at a top university cannot construct a coherent argument using evidence taken from books they've read.

That's what convinced me that most people, even highly educated ones, go through their lives without ever examining the way rhetoric works, and the way evidence is used (or abused) in its service.

I can't disagree with anything that she writes. However, I was not surprised by the percentages of approval/disapproval. I've long since abandoned any hopes that my fellow citizens will do any work to inform themselves about the compelling issues of the day.

While I'm in full agreement with Ms Newitz about the complacency and/or cluelessness of 47% of the population, I have an even worse fear about this additional "crossing of the line" by the Bush crew. Two of the possible outcomes of this arrogant and illegal tactic include this type of surveillance becoming routine and commonplace, or on the other hand, for us to overreact and pass draconian legislation which hampers legitimate and legal attempts to pursue intelligence.

Whatever else we know, we must acknowledge that Planet Earth is a dangerous and a challenging place. The most powerful nation on earth is a natural target for all sorts of terrorists, loose cannons, opportunists and bad people. No one in their right mind would suggest that intelligence gathering is not vital to our security. However, the very people whose security is at stake should not be the subject of the surveillance or should the act of gathering this surveillance be done in violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

Intelligence gathering must be done with due respect for our laws and our lives as well as those of law-abiding citizens everywhere. What I don't buy is that "if people do get stepped on, they're just collateral damage" in the War on Terra. BS!

The final thought on this topic is that we have no guarantee that the Bushoviks are really gathering intelligence on Al Qaida. Given their track record and their M.O. in many past capers, they may well be using this data to spy on political enemies. These are idealogues, remember, and they have consistently demonstrated in the past that they are willing to desecrate the Constitution, violate the law and otherwise trash our national integrity and whatever mores and other long-standing customs that might get in the way of them advancing their agenda.

More Molly

Molly Ivins has two new posts that provide good information and are (as always) good reading. To see click here and here.

Mollie Gets It Right Again

There are few things or people in this world that you can count on. Molly Ivins is one of the people that always come through with valuable insight. Click on this link to be cybernetically transported to Molly-land and read what she has to say about Dear Leader and his Partei.

Five Points About High Oil Prices

Bob Higgins at http://agonist.org talks about Tyson Slocum of The Public Citizen appearing on Stephen Colbert's Comedy Central program. Click this link to go see. You'll be glad you did.

Molehill or Mt Everest?

I apologize in advance, but I just can't get worked up over the "undocumented worker" crisis in this country. Yes, our borders should be secure. Yes, foreign citizens of any stripe should not be sneaking across our borders. Yes, "amnesty" is "not fair." I "kinda" agree with everybody and also disagree with everybody.

My take: First of all, this is not a law enforcement problem. It is an economic imbalance problem. If Mexico were a country with a real economy, a real government and real political parties, then it would most certainly solve its own problems. However, Mexico is none of those things. I remember a Senator (I believe it was Daniel Patrick Moynihan) opposing NAFTA because Mexican courts were neither impartial nor honest and getting a fair judgement relies heavily on how well the palms are greased.

My own impression (however uneducated) is that Mexico, along with much of Latin America has a stark "have/have not" problem. Enhancing that problem is the "haves" unwillingness or inability to figure out how to bring more of their population into the mainstream economic process. If you are born poor in Mexico, you are likely to remain poor unless you stumble on a very lucky break, are inordinately good looking/beautiful or are a frigging genius. Otherwise, get used to tortillas and beans and perhaps a couple of grains of rice on holidays. With prospects like those, who would want to stick around?

You can extrapolate that description to much of Central and even South America. An individual not "to the manor born" can either fall in love with manual labor (when they can find it), and enjoy the rigors of hunger and the challenge of disease without viable health care. It sounds like a regular paradise.

Now that might have flown 50 years ago, but now, whatever else the poor in Mexico may lack, they do see television and movies. Also, likely many of the same gringos now bleating loudest about the "illegal problem" have built resorts along the Mexican coasts. Now the Mexican poor may view the "other side" as they luxuriate within walking distance of desperate slums. Now the poor camposinos can clearly see what they're missing and want some of it too.

The answer to the US illegal immigration problem is not to erect an iron curtain between Mexico and the USA. That didn't even work too well for the USSR. And yes, the iron curtain was installed to keep their people in, our wall would be to keep the barbarians out. However you slice and dice, a wall will become a symbol of failure for both countries, for both societies. For Mexico it will symbolize a failed economy, a failed political system and a failed society which can't or won't provide for its citizens and from all appearances, doesn't care. For the US it will mean a failure of vision, a failure as a neighbor and perhaps worst of all, a triumph of mean-spiritedness.

The Right has shown us the ugliness of intolerance and xenophobia. It has shown us the triumph of hyper-chauvinism and the embarassment of affluent paranoia. I have heard numerous Anglos spitting nails over the "wetbacks" and not one that I've met can show any evidence that they have themselves been personally injured by an illegal alien.

What we're seeing, I believe, is what was historically called "know nothing-ism." This is a blanket hatred of the group du jour. It could be Catholics, Jews, Blacks, Irish, Italians, Poles and the list goes on. It's like the survivors in a lifeboat pulling in the life savers before anyone else can climb in. They made it, screw the rest.

Unfortunately, for a country with a very short event horizon, this will not be solved in a year. And it will not be solved ever with the steps being taken so far. The only solution I can see is for Mexican society to evolve to where it can take care of its own.

It is a total and complete disgrace for a country, as rich and as blessed by nature with resources as Mexico, to keep its citizens in such abject poverty. The US needs to start using some of its resources to help Mexico find its way toward being a viable modern state.

Short term, I don't think that anything will work. This problem has been long in the making and will likely take long to resolve.

NSA Spying Scandal

BobcatJH at Democratic Underground has another posting that asks THE big question...are they really listening for Al Qaeda or is this really just domestic political spying. You know, with this crowd anything is not just possible, but probable. Read his posting for a lot more.

Lions and Tigers and Bears!! OH MY!!

Another visit to Democratic Underground to see what BobcatJH wants to ask the administration. He's afraid that George W and minions may have some "shock and awe" up their sleeve to help get their groove back.

I sure hope not, but with this crowd, I've learned to expect not just the worst, but the worst imaginable and beyond.

Wow!! You Gotta Read This One!!

Democratic Underground has a real champagne cork popper at this URL. I've been hoping for this article for a very long time.

Update: The posting that this links to has been called into question. It hasn't been totally discredited, but obviously the predicted events have not as yet transpired, and until they do, caveat lector!

Second Update: This issue is continuing to evolve. Click here and here for the latest.

How to Start a War

This is a fascinating (and too true) post which gets right into the NeoCon game plan.

The Colbert Effect

What is left to say about Stephen Colbert's tour de force at the White House Correspondent's and Stenographer's Association black tie dinner? The outraged Right appears to be so tongue tied that only raspy barking is coming from their pet carriers.

Most of the outrage that I have read about is coming from the Press. A good overview is presented in the Chicago Sun Times (thanks to AmericaBlog for the link) I guess that they are the one with the most to be ashamed of. Bush is just being Bush and his minions are just being good storm troopers, but the press is supposed to be (dare I say it?) fair and balanced. Well, as we all have known since early in the Clinton Administration, they are anything but.

So all in all, I would like to extend my profound gratitude and hearty salutation to Stephen Colbert, for his courageous and ballsy performance (click for video) (thanks to Crooks and Liars for the link to Google Video). I encourage all to watch it.

The Repug spin seems to revolve around it "not being funny." Well, maybe not, but I know that I wasn't looking for "funny" as much as "effective." Let's be real clear, Stephen Colbert stood feet away from George W Bush and proceeded to skewer him and his pack of jackals and their long trail of misdeeds every way but loose. In short, he did what the news media should have been doing all the while, but haven't.

Again, thanks to Stephen Colbert for speaking up for all of us...where it counts and to whom it counts.

Another Fine Mess

Well, you'd never know it by reading the daily newspaper or listening to the broadcast news or (gag) cable news, but the Bush era is exploding in a dizzying array of scandal. It's hard to know where to begin, so I won't. I'll add some links to other blogs who cover it much better than I possibly could such as Talking Points Memo, Glenn Greenwald, and Hullabaloo. There are many, many more, but I'll let you find those.

The first cynical thought that jumps into my mind, harking back to the (wink wink, elbow in the ribs) Clinton "bimbo eruptions," is "scandal eruptions." And the word on the street is that you ain't seen nuthin yet! Couldn't happen to a nicer group of creeps.

This now seems to involve the entire Repugnican experience...Congress, the Executive and of course the owners of the above, the Corporate Elites. I thought that I was pretty well jaded after living though the JFK assassination, Vietnam, Watergate, Iran hostages, Reaganomics and the right wing rabies epidemic during the Clinton administration, but I stand humbled. I am daily flabbergasted by the latest news from the front lines.

There appears to be no depth to which they won't descend. The chutzpah of Rumsfeld staring into the camera lens saying, "I'm not a liar," harks back to Nixon's, "I'm not a crook." Now we find out after Goss resigned from the CIA this week, that we've got "Hookergate." Apparently "the Dukestir's" defense contractor friends provided limousines, prostitutes and suites in (where else?) the Watergate complex in Washington. I've read that for these paragons of the anti-gay Right even may have enjoyed the services of male prostitutes. Just when you thought that this bunch had hit bottom, something else comes along that blows that bar away.

So fasten your seat belt, stow your tray tables in their original upright position and enjoy the turbulence.

I'm Back!!

I sort of rolled up and stayed out of sight after last year's disappointing election results. My greatest disappointment came from knowing that when such a huge number of my fellow countrymen look at George W. Bush, they see something different than I do. To me it's so obvious what a deceitful, self-promoting, spoiled little-rich kid that GWB is that I guess I can't understand why everyone doesn't see him as I do.

However, they don't and it's time for me to get over it. Events have almost overtaken my disappointment in any case. The Bush Administration appears to be in a state of rapid disintegration even as we speak. And if I might indulge myself for a moment, it couldn't happen to a nicer group of assholes.

Anyway, none of it portends a Democratic sweep in the next election. I think that the Democrats lately would be losing elections even if they were running unopposed. This party needs some fresh ideas and some fresh leaders. The Congressional group appears to want to hold on to power as long as they possibly can no matter what the price. They certainly have raised ineptitude to an art form.

I'm still, however, of the belief that the family dog could run this country with more imagination and honesty than the Bush administration has demonstrated so far. So I will continue to support anyone opposing the usual array of right-wing fanatics that the Republicans are seeing fit to put up for election, no matter who their opponent is. As I said to anyone who asked during the past year's election: I'd vote for a pile of horse shit before I'd vote for George W. Bush or any of his ilk.

And I still feel the same way.

How did all this get started?(Part 3)

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

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

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"