What Is Past Is Prologue - American Migration And The Current Political Climate

Recently, an article reminded me of a book I'd read almost twenty years ago - in it, historian David Fischer pointed out that there were four distinct migrations to the shores of America, and that each one laid the groundwork for the social structure which led to the Civil War and the cultural divide we have between the northern and southern states today.

Revisiting that book was an interesting experience this week, as I was compelled to view the material in a new light - a far darker and less-romantic vision of America, as the fundamentals of our makeup have led us to this pass - the reaction to 9/11; the ascendancy of the Right, and especially the all too real possibility of another civil conflict.

Fischer identifies these waves of migration as follows:
 

1. Puritans, who settled mainly in New England.
2. Cavaliers, who settled in Virginia.
3. Quakers, who settled mainly in the Delaware Valley and surrounding regions.
4. Borderers, who settled in the backcountry of the rural South.

While these weren't the only migrants - there were French Canadians and French who settled Louisiana, for example - these were minor migrations which did not materially affect the fabric of American society, save for their local influence.  It was the four major migratory 'waves' which literally created America.

In the 1770's-'80's, the Revolution was fought primarily due to a union between the Puritans of New England and surrounding northeastern states and their Cavalier counterparts in Virginia.   The American Civil War of the 1860's was more of a continuation of that conflict than a 'new' war - the Puritans, wanting an end to slavery, could not force the hand of the Cavalier culture in the South at the time the Constitution was written.  This happened when the two cultures turned on each other in the 1860's, settling with a Constitutional amendment the issue of human slavery, and settling (for the time being) the ideas of states rights and secession - more on that later.

Approaching the whole as a socio-anthropological study gives us the ability to detach much of the emotion from the thing, and look at our past from a very human standpoint, devoid of the twin concepts of politics and religion.  It's the aftermath of the Civil War period which gives credence to the concept, and gives us pause as we ponder our future as a nation - it also gives us the framework by which to answer a perplexing question - why is nearly half of the nation - made up almost exclusively of working-class people who are (or should be) at fundamental odds with the core tenets of, yet are supportive of, the political party of the 'ruling class'.

The startling thing about this map is that it almost exactly reflects the Borderer migrations pre and post Civil War.   While the Republican party has maintained some of the classic Cavalier philosophies of money and privilege, paradoxically the Republicans have also, in order to gain a broader base, adopted a Borderer culture with Borderer values.

Who are the Borderers?  

The Borderers are those peoples who resided on or near the borders between Scotland and England.   In a state of near-constant conflict since the 1100's, the border regions were finally 'pacified' (read: Militarily defeated) in the 1700's.   Many of them - in fact, entire regions along the borders were stripped of indigenous populations, these people suffering wholesale-deportation to America.

Capitalists from England came to the border regions to create estates from the newly-vacated land.  Not content with what they had, mass evictions of Scots and border-English families became common - the evicted took ship for America in droves.

These people were not like the Puritans, who aspired to education and who had loftier reasons for leaving England - religious and political freedom; the ability to speak one's mind without sufferance.   The Borderers came to America with one goal in mind - material improvement in their lives.

The lands to which they were relegated were in the backcountry of America at the time - the southern regions of the colonies and westward to what is now Kentucky and Tennessee.   These areas were already populated by First Nations peoples, and the Borderers wasted no time inflicting on them the same treatment they had suffered themselves.  

Borderer politics were rough-and-tumble; Andrew Jackson is probably the best example of this, along with John C. Calhoun.   Their religion was also far less structured, taking the form of field meetings and prayer-groups, with semiliterate preachers giving broad-ranging interpretations of the Bible and its meaning.   Living a hardscrabble life, these people were easy converts to the teachings of people like John Darby and the Dispensationalists; pre-millenial 'rapture' was prominent in their church culture, and the desire to hasten Christ's return (when, ostensibly, life would be better) was also a prominent feature.

Coming from a culture of definite superiors and inferiors based on material possessions (mainly land and cattle), which gave rise to an order based on social rank, the Borderers who came to America mimicked this structure in their New World lives.  Conservative to an extreme, they routinely ostracized people who didn't conform to the 'rules'.  Whereas they had well-defined notions of 'freedom', the freedom to dissent wasn't one of them.

Indeed, violence in Borderer culture was ingrained for a thousand years before any of them came to America.  The concepts of shooting trespassers; the beginnings of America's 'gun culture'; favoring property over civil or human rights - all are hallmarks of Borderer culture.

Fighting ability was valued highly - to the extent that favoring anything military (if you'll pardon the almost-pun here) bordered on worship.  

On the other hand, there were things which were not valued in Borderer culture - top of that list is education.   In England, education was only reserved for the most-promising or the most-wealthy; while schools were built in backcountry America, most adhered to the 'blab-school' concept, offering very little in the way of genuine education, save the little a child could learn by rote or repetition. 

Again paradoxically, early American backcountry sexuality was dominated by the twin concepts of promiscuity and Calvinism - the 'shotgun wedding' literally got its start in America's backcountry.   Girls became pregnant as teenagers; illegitimacy was rampant, and due to the low population both in English-Scottish Borderer country and America's backcountry-South, the population didn't draw such a fine-line regarding sexual congress between close relatives.

Always an insular culture brought on by the differences they brought and the remoteness of their location, Borderers were always quick to join-ranks against any outsiders - or outside ideas.  Their own peculiar brand of conservative activism prevented the dissolution of slavery during the Constitutional convention, and led to the Civil War in the 1860's.   American Backcountry xenophobia, wrapped up in a culture which predates the founding of the nation, exists to this day.

_________________________________

So, what of today?

Some of the dots are easy to connect - the Republican Party is the party of the conservative South and America's backcountry; it espouses much of what Borderer culture has become, and while it represents a fixed-point cultural anachronism in American society, it also has the benefit of great financial support from America's ruling class, and a ready-and-willing set of culturally-ingrained servants - a form of political servitude not much distanced from its 16th and 17th-century roots in the border-ridings of England and Scotland.

In fact, much of traditional Borderer values are present in recent headlines and conservative gatherings.  A quick look:

• Fear of religious persecution
• Promotion of a 'thugocracy' - beating-down the 'liberals'
• Shooting abortion providers
• Actively calling for a 'Christian revolution'
• Conservative activism, carried to extremes (assault-rifles at speeches; etc.)
• Defense of 'traditional marriage' at the expense of the civil-rights of others
• "Taking their country back" (through force of arms and a gun-culture, if necessary)

This 'culture-within-a-culture', while not unnoticed, has caused many a journalist, politician, and other pundit no small amount of alarm and confusion.    Until we examine its sociopolitical and anthropological roots, however, we can't begin to understand its meaning.

The polarizing effect of this culture is evident both religiously and politically.   With pastors calling for 'a new Christian revolutionary war', and with Congressmen like Joe Wilson shouting 'You lie!' from the floor of the House, it's not hard to see that there are highly-charged emotions running rampant over common sense.

This sort of thing, regrettably, isn't new to the American political scene.  Let's connect a few dots:

Borderer culture gave rise to John C. Calhoun, the firebrand of the senate during the years prior to the Civil War; it was Calhoun who advocated (as early as 1832) outright secession from the United States, and who later stated that slavery was a 'positive good' in America. 

We cannot forget another Borderer, Preston Brooks (who, like Calhoun, was also from South Carolina); Brooks beat fellow senator Charles Sumner almost to death with his cane, having disagreed with Sumner's recent speech vilifying the recent pro-slavery violence in Kansas.

It appears that Calhoun-style politics has raised its head again in America, thanks to the persistent Borderer culture.

We only have to look at the rhetoric of Michele Bachmann, who has called for a 'revolution in America' so that 'can't achieve their ends.', or the recent calls from Governor Rick Perry of Texas for outright secession.

Ignoring the media at this juncture is a mistake.   We only have to look at the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly to see the true nature of Borderer-culture-made-manifest in modern American politics.

Economic marginalization has always been part and parcel with Borderer culture.  It shouldn't be a surprise to see right-wing extremism - seated in 'red' states with heavy Borderer ancestries - on the increase.


The ranks of disaffected Americans are growing.   The recession has disrupted the plans of 1 in 3 Americans - a level not seen since the Great Depression.   Extreme philosophies; honed for decades by 'red' state residents, have greater appeal with the advent of a bad economy.

On one side, we have a philosophy which espouses property rights over human and civil; xenophobia over openness, and a culture of violence over a culture of peace.    On the other side, we have a philosophy of enlightened, educated reason. 

If I'm right, we have the rest of this year and the next to straighten things out.   If we don't, our own history and cultural differences suggest serious civil conflict - this time, as before, a cultural divide, but the stakes are actually far higher:   We'll be deciding whether we remain a republic which values property over people, or whether we become a true social democracy. 

The choice, I fear, will be made by those with the loudest voices.

In A World Without Religion....

 

Today, I had someone go off at me about my lack of belief in his imaginary-friend.

So, I thought I'd remind everyone about the core-problem with the world, and one of the recent events of the past ten years which would be vastly different if religion weren't poisoning our thinking.

Without religion:

1.     Yes - the Twin Towers would still be standing.


2.     National Socialism would never have existed.


3.     There would have never been an Inquisition.


4.     Joan-of-Arc wouldn't have been turned into barbecue.


5.     Most of humanity's wars would have never happened.


6.     Africa would be free of the results of colonialism.


7.     North and South America's indigenous populations would have remained free of the White Man's Burden.


8.     The Middle East would be a geography question for 12 year olds - not a constant source of worry and pain.


9.     The Crusades would have never occurred.


10.    The Dark Ages would never have happened.

Think about it....

A Conversation; on the Train....

I just returned from a couple of very uneventful weeks in Hawai'i (spent mostly face-down in the water, looking at fish and doing a lot of swimming).

Part of my return itinerary was a trip on the Amtrack Cascades (it was cheaper to fly out of Seattle than it was to fly from Portland, so I took the train both 'to' and 'from').

I like trains.

They're a peaceful means of transport; far more civilized and less jarring than the idea of taking off half my clothes for the metal detector while some thief employee from TSA paws through my luggage.

Trains move at a slower pace - but a business-class ticket allows me to sleep (something I can't do on a plane), and they let me see a lot of things which can't be seen from the 20,000 foot level (the altitude at which the commuter-flight between SEA and PDX operates).

It also, on occasion, gives me time to chat with some rather interesting people.

I noticed the fellow the moment he got on.

A bit overfed and overdressed, he was also very confident.  "Old-school salesman or preacher", I thought to myself.   I didn't have long to wait for the answer. 

Settling himself in next to a younger fellow in front of me, he said, "I notice the cross on your lapel!   What church do you attend?"   His seatmate answered, and asked what his new companion did.

"I'm the youth and activities minister at X Fellowship in Seattle," he replied.   Asked how he got to be a minister, he replied "My father was a minister before me.  I went to XYZ Seminary, where I obtained a double-masters' in Divinity and Church Management.   I also have several certificates in Youth Ministry."  

I was amazed, really.   They continued some pretty self-reinforcing conversation; discussing numbers of 'souls saved'; numbers of new converts and 'baptisms'; numbers of new members and other signs of church 'growth', such as building projects and the like.

"I make it a point to take the kids fishing every weekend when fishing season's on.  We have an intramural soccer-team and --"   I began to tune the guy out.



Later, after a nap, I went to the dining car.  It'd been since yesterday late afternoon that I'd had anything to eat, and I knew there was a turkey and ham with a cup o' chowder back there with my name on it.   I found a place to sit after collecting my comestibles, and was musing over my sandwich when guess-who walked up and said, "Mind if I sit here?  There's noplace else open."  

"Sure", I said, motioning to the seat in front of me.  There really wasn't any place else, and the conversation was sure to be interesting.   I wasn't disappointed.

"So, what brings you to Portland?", he said.

"I live there," says I

"Lived there long?"

"All my life, so far."

"Well, it's a good town.   I'm going there for a conference."

"Here it comes," I said to myself.   "I'm supposed to ask, 'What sort of conference?', so he can start talking religion.   Oh, well - I don't have anything else to do.  Besides, this can be interesting....."

"What sort of conference?"

"It's a youth conference for my church."

"Really?  What do you do?"  (Now, I was asking for it.)

"I'm the youth and activities pastor for -- "  He launched into the same explanation as earlier, maybe changing one or two words.   Clearly practiced.   I was noticing his professionally-laundered shirt; his tan; his tightly-woven wool jacket (complete with lapel pin) - in a land of backpacks and t-shirts, this guy liked to live large.

I decided to let him tell the whole story. "What got you into being a minister?"

Again, the same tale as before - maybe two words changed.

Now, it was my turn.

"But what do you do?", I said.

He looked confused; then repeated part of his 'resume'.

"Yes; I heard that - but what do you do?"

Asked what I meant, I defined my question further.   "You told me your resume - and you've 'grown' your church, but what has that accomplished, actually?"

"Well, we're saving souls!"

"I understand the concept - but what does that do for the new member - besides provide a membership?"

He launched into the whole 'salvation story' - I cut him off.

"I understand that whole concept.   What I'd like to know is what you do - what have you done for these people?  What do you do for the community?   How do you justify keeping the building open and the lights on with other people's money?   Have you fed anyone?  Clothed anyone?   Brought them a cup of cold water?   'For if you do this for the least of them, you do this unto me', remember?"

He paused.   I continued.

"The problem with American Christianity is that it's devolved into a country-club mentality.   I look at you, I see a game-show host; not a minister.   Do you know what 'minister' means?  'Servant of others'.   I've heard a lot about 'growth', and 'numbers' and the like - but unless you take those kids to the homeless shelter to do some work, rather than wasting your time fishing, you're not going to teach them anything of real value.   The way it sounds, you folks are 'Revelation-lukewarm'."

I'd clearly made him mad.   I could see it in his eyes.

"I will pray for you, brother," he said.

"Don't bother.   And, I'm not your brother.  We're not related."

He got up to leave.  Italian wool slacks; wing tips.   He'd get off in Portland, having shaken off the conversation, and bullshit with his other preacher-buddies like nothing had ever happened - like nothing was even wrong.

Wrong. 

The monstrous wrongness of what I'd just seen hit me.   Here I was - the guy who does go to the homeless-shelter and volunteer on occasion, because I think it's the Right Thing To Do.   I'm the guy who donates his old clothing not to a profit-making venture, but directly to two shelters in town.   I feed random strangers in Old Town.

Here he was - the Guy In The Wool Jacket - who should be doing these things, and encouraging others to do so.

"Life is funny," I thought to myself, as I finished my sandwich.

____________________________________

"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
-- Revelation 3:16

Subversives from Within - the Christian Right in America....

As you know by now, I'm not terribly fond of 'sandwich pieces' (posts where someone introduces, then comments on, another post - they're also called 'reposts').

Occasionally, however, I make exceptions.

Frank Schaeffer, one of a handful of 'thinking Christian' authors, describes in detail the problems we're facing here in America with Fundamentalist Christianity, and the dangers they represent - from their organization through their education system, Fundamentalists have created, as Dr. Schaeffer points out so well here, an alternate-America, right under the noses of everyone else.

I can't say this enough:   These people are dangerous.   If you don't believe me - read on....

Subversives From Within  (Francis Schaeffer; 2009)

Who are these people?! Where do they come from?! Ordinary Americans might wonder why anyone would stoop so low as to follow Glenn Beck, Fox News and Dick Armey (and their corporate sponsors masquerading as "FreedomWorks") as they organize their "9/12 March On Washington" to cynically exploit the 9/11 attack.

Patriotic Americans might question the organizer's aim to provide a media forum for dimwitted right wingers to scream "Liar!" "Socialist!" "Antichrist!" "Muslim!" "Death Panels!" "He's not an American!" and so on and on and on about the commander in chief charged with defending us from further attacks. And some people might even cry "shame on you!" to the more mainstream Republicans participating that include Dick Armey of FreedomWorks, as well as GOP Reps. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Mike Pence of Indiana, Tom Price of Georgia, and South Carolina GOP Sen. Jim DeMint.

Ordinary folks from Planet Earth may ask why the Republican Party, right-wing activists and members of the Religious Right seem so unreachable with mere facts let alone decency and decorum. (As the proud father of a US Marine who fought in Afghanistan, I'm particularly outraged that these people would exploit the 9/11 attacks after my son and others were prepared to give their lives in response to our enemies.)

As a former Religious Right leader, who was raised (and home-schooled by my Evangelical-leader parents, Francis and Edith Schaeffer) in the movement, let me explain just why the ordinary rules of decency don't apply to the right these days.

Let me also answer this question: Who are these people?

Protecting Your Children From Satan

A big part of the answer to understanding the heightened climate of outright hate and fear of the "other" is the home school and Christian school movement. It is a modern incarnation of the anti-federal government ideology of earlier firebrands such as John Calhoun who was the 7th Vice President and a Southern politician in the 19th century. Calhoun embraced slavery, states' rights, limited government, and said that Americans should secede from the union if it went against their wishes. (See: "Calhoun Conservatism Raises Its Ugly Head" by Mike Lux in the Huffington Post Sept 11/09.)

In the early 1970s the evangelicals like my late father and James Dobson decided that the our society had fallen so far "away from God" and so far from "America's Christian history" that it was time to metaphorically decamp to not just another country but to another planet:. In other words virtually unnoticed by the media and mainstream political operatives, a big chunk of American society seceded from the union in all but name.

What they did is turn the white race-based in "Christian school" movement of the 1950s into a countercultural phenomena. As tens of thousands of new Christian schools opened, it was no longer just about "protecting" white kids from minorities and African-Americans. It was about protecting your children from Satan in other words the United States government's long reach through the public school system.

To protect your children from Satan -- in other words mainstream, open patriotic and pluralistic America -- you either kept them at home where mom and dad could teach the children right from wrong or sent them to a cloistered private evangelical/fundamentalist school. At home or in school you used curriculum prepared by the likes of James--beat-your-child-and-dare-to-discipline-Dobson, RJ-slavery-was-a-good-thing-Rushdoony, or many and other right-wing anti-American activists. That curriculum presented "secular America" as downright evil. Hating the USA became next to godliness.

The Anti-American Home Schoolers Come Of Age

We are now several generations into this experiment of holier-than-thou withdrawal from our American mainstream culture. If you wonder who it is that's both running and underwriting organizations such as the Family Research Council, Focus On The Family, Freedom Works and other organizers of the 9/12 March and who are the most faithful followers the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh or viewers of Fox News your answer is: it's the home school/Christian school generation of men and women now hitting their thirties and even forties who might as well have been raised on a different planet.

What are these home school and Christian school children taught? Here's a quote from one of the far right's leading home school curricula creators:

"The political question is this: By what biblical standard is the pagan to be granted the right to bring political sanctions against God's people? We recognize that unbelievers are not to vote in Church elections. Why should they be allowed to vote in civil elections in a covenanted Christian nation? Which judicial standards will they impose? By what other standard than the Bible?"

(Gary North of Institute For Christian Economics)

The generation raised on the belief that the US government is illegitimate because it is trying to "impose" non-biblical laws on people has hit the streets. These are the people who grew up indoctrinated into an alternative reality. Today they are out there waving signs of Obama dressed as Hitler. They are buying weapons and ammunition. Some are in the growing and revived militia movement. They are Dick Armey's foot soldiers. People like Armey and Beck can count on the ignorance of their dupes. It's against their religion to read a real newspaper, watch anything but Fox or go to a real school.

Evangelical Red Guards

Over the last 30 years Evangelical fundamentalists have managed to do what Chairman Mao failed to do with his Red Guards: indoctrinate a whole generation of evangelical people to see their own society as the enemy and act like subversives from within the culture. These people are as anti-American as Al-Qaeda. The "Christian Reconstruction" movement is working for theocracy. Reconstructionism (of which Gary North is one leader) says that the law given for the political and legal ordering of ancient Israel is intended for all people at all times.

Reconstructionist leader David Barton gives a definition:

"The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God's law."

Who are Glenn Beck's foot soldiers? In effect what we have is a group of indoctrinated people who have never actually lived in America because they were brought up deliberately cloistered from it by their parents and churches. Because they are legally "Americans" they can move freely around our democracy trying to destroy it working within the United States. Today they are acting like a fifth column, no, they are a fifth column. Some of them have not just seceded metaphorically, there is even a growing movement for states to secede literally.

Today the right wing America haters actually are doing to America what no "illegal" immigrants ever do: work to overthrow our democracy and replace it with a theocracy. The home-schooled, privately educated brainwashed horde are an antidemocratic, fundamentally anti-American political movement. For a start they do not accept the results of the last election.

Liberal/Progressive Wishful Thinking and Blindness

Meanwhile those ordinary Americans including many Democrats, progressives and liberals who work within the system can hardly imagine that there are people so far outside the lines of what they regard as ordinary decent behavior that the progressives seem psychologically unequipped to deal with this reality.

President Obama is one such person. His talk of bipartisanship is a pipe dream. Why?

Bipartisan Pipe Dream

Because you can't be bipartisan with people who don't play by the same rules -- say accepting the will of the people -- as you do. Obama is not alone in his gentlemanly wishful thinking. For instance consider New York Times book review editor Sam Tanenhaus saying in his book (The Death of Conservatism) that the the conservative movement is over.

Tanenhaus rightly points out that the extremism of the right has driven away traditional Republicans. I ought to know! I, as a life-long Republican and former Religious Right activist helped create this situation. But Tanenhaus and others like him just don't get the fact that the far right is resurgent, in fact more dangerous than ever as a wounded animal is dangerous. They don't get it because kindly liberals also live in a bubble.

The kindly liberal reasonable bubble of an open free culture in which reason, argument in fact prevails is far removed from the other America, one of militia training camps, fundamentalist churches, parents who follow Dobson's "parenting" advice by "breaking" their children and whipping them (as Dobson tells them to do in his books) and thus raising the damaged and dangerous automatons of biblical vengeance and sadism.

The Last Chess Game You'll Ever Play

What reasonable people don't understand is this: if one person is playing chess abiding by the rules and their opponent is losing at the chess game it may appear that they have lost the match. But what if one person is willing to change the rules? For instance, if you're playing chess against someone who -- if they start losing -- takes a lead pipe out of their back pocket and smashes you over the head with it the "rules" change.

Serial Killers

The real story of the Religious Right and their power to destroy is told by Max Blumenthal in Republican Gomorrah, and Jeff Sharlet in The Family and by me in Crazy For God. What our books have in common is the understanding that you can lose in the political system but still "win" -- according to your destructive agenda -- if your agenda is non-political but rather religious and apocalyptic in nature.

To understand the Religious Right today and how dangerous they are don't think politics -- think serial killers who "win" by "getting even" with the society they perceive as having disrespected them. It isn't about facts. It isn't about election results. It isn't about truth. It's about victimhood and revenge on the "elite" in other words on everyone not like you. It is about the weird combination of sadism and masochism Blumenthal describes in his book.

Think Republicans who have no plan of their own for health care reform other than stopping Obama. Think "Deathers" and "Birthers" who are all about de-legitimizing our system as "evil" because it includes rights for gays.

New Rules: Anarchy and Scorched Earth

What those who think that the power of the Religious Right and/or the Republicans is ended don't understand is that it's only ended if you believe in the rules. When I say the rules I mean, for instance, that if you lose an election the other side gets to legislate. However if your opponent is not interested in the rules and is, A) waiting for Jesus to return and consume all the "infidels" or, B) you are just waiting to take that "lead pipe" out of your back pocket -- say go to public meetings and intimidate people by carrying loaded weapons to those meetings -- or worse, maybe even use them to shoot down someone -- all polite bets are off!

The fact of the matter is we now know what the experiment in raising children outside of the American mainstream means. It means that there's a whole subculture within American culture that mistrusts facts precisely because they are facts. They glory an alternative view of not just politics but of reality.

They frequent the creationist museum and look at dioramas of dinosaurs cavorting with humans. They believe that gay people choose to be gay just stick it to the rest of us and could change if they invite Jesus into their hearts. They believe that before you run for governor of Alaska, for instance, you should get a preacher specializing in "casting out the spirit of witchcraft" to anoint you so you can win against the demonic forces of secularism -- as was the case with Sarah Palin when she first ran for governor. They believe that the NRA was telling the truth when they claimed that Obama would "take away your guns" and so have loaded up with more guns and ammunition. They think the time has come to rise up and overthrow the government. And yes, most of them also believe that black people are inferior to whites, so to have a black man in the White House is itself "proof" of American's fall from grace.

There's no arguing with such people and no winning against them using mere elections. They are not playing by American rules. Their idea of winning is not fair elections but Armageddon.

Religious Right Growing Again

Those who say that the Religious Right and the far right have lost their power are looking through the lens of rule-obeying democratic liberalism. They don't understand that their opponents will always carry the proverbial lead pipe in his or her back pocket. To the progressives who think that the Religious Right and the right wing has lost its power I say this: You're correct when it comes to political facts (for the moment) of the last election, but you're dead wrong when it comes to the way revolutions work.

Second American "Tea Party" Revolution

Revolutionaries never have played by the rules. They don't have to win by the rules. They hate the rules. They don't live in a rule based or fact based universe.

They believe they are serving a "higher cause" so it makes the "mere human" rules unimportant. They're ready to shout down opponents, call out "liar" about someone telling the truth, undermine public meetings and/or commit physical violence. They are also willing to become the tools of cynical corporate lobbyists using them for ulterior purposes, say stalling health care reform.

In order to "win" -- in other words destroy our country as we know it -- the far right merely needs to be true to its own rule which is, to put it very mildly, that coloring outside the lines is not only perfectly okay but required.

Conclusion

Not only do the Religious Right distrust facts to them facts are evil. You are "satanic" if you believe in evolution. You're also satanic if you believe health-care reform is about anything but death panels and abortions. You're satanic if you don't believe that gay people are evil or if you think sex education is sensible. You're satanic if you don't believe in Satan!

The tactics that progressives develop for actually winning against the right have to involve far more than politics. They have to also involve ceaseless vigilance against an enemy that has now -- literally -- raised up an armed, paranoid and deluded alternative nation within our borders and created a fifth column to undermine the United States and our democracy. They need to be called out by the rest of us in no uncertain terms.

Long term, the Religious Right subculture has to be understood, then exposed for what it is: an anti-democracy movement built on willful lies with potentially violent underpinnings in the thrall of an apocalyptic cult of revenge on everyone not like "us." It is also the useful tool of corporate lobbyists. Who use these shock troops of the proudly ignorant for non-ideological reasons.

The Religious Right may have lost a round politically but they've still got a "lead pipe" in their back pocket. They can still "win" by making the rest of us lose our democracy by increments.

______________________________________

Folks, again - please don't say I didn't warn you.  

Lies; Damned Lies, and Statistics....

"Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

____________________

As one of my professors once said in my freshman year, there are three kinds of lies -- lies; damned lies; and statistics.

While some statistics are little more than pull-quotes, prepared for an author who wants to grind an axe, some are well-nigh-incontrovertible.
 

The statistics on health-care are damning to America - 46 million people have no health care at all and nearly a million bankruptcies per year based solely on unfunded health care costs - but this is somehow of no consequence to half of our lawmakers, who have been bought-and-paid-for by the pharmaceutical and hospital companies in America. 

Some lies are just lies -- "I went to the store", when you really went to see your boyfriend/girlfriend in 11th grade is a lie.   It's of no particular consequence; you did it so you wouldn't have to have an argument with your parents.   These are things which you laugh about over Thanksgiving dinner with the extended family ten years later when that person is now married to you and you're minding a two-year-old in a high-chair.

Damned lies are different.  

They're hurtful things - and sometimes the accusation of a lie, especially in politics, can be a lie itself.

Take Obama's speech the other day.

As the speech wound down, he recapped his health-care plan.   It's not perfect - in fact, there are some things which need serious work in order to be functional.   However, when Representative Wilson decided to half-jump out of his chair and yell "You lie!" to the President in the middle of a speech to Congress, he chose to do something which was not just poorly-reasoned and wrong - he chose to deliberately lie to the American people about the contents of the House bill on healthcare.

As you can see from Section 246, above, there will be no payments to people in-country without documents -- 'illegal aliens', if you will.   While this is counter to the programs in several other countries (even third-world nations), this section is important to many Americans, who don't want to see lettuce-pickers and dishwashers treated for life-threatening diseases on the national dime.

Why Mr. Wilson didn't see fit to do his own research (I'm assuming that's what the people of South Carolina elected him to do, among other things) is quite beyond me.   Instead, he decided to reach down beyond his considerable experience to dark areas more-visceral, and pull out a spontaneous rebuke.

By failing to do so, he perpetuated in turn the lies being disseminated by Corporate Medicine, which has the most to lose from this.   Perhaps it's the money he's taken from the pharmaceutical industry; perhaps it's his state-of-origin, which is one of the most-red of red states - but I'm willing to bet that the main culprit is his narrow-mindedness and his complete unwillingness to read anything coming from the White House.

As a result, he made a king-sized ass of himself.   Now, what's more amazing is that no one on his side of the fence called him on it - and several Republican apologists have actually applauded him for his abysmal ignorance.
Perhaps I haven't made this as starkly clear as I should -- he called the President a liar, and he was wrong.

Not just wrong, but he crossed a line which should never be crossed; not in the halls of Congress.   In so doing, he lied, himself.

Where was Mr. Wilson when President Bush lied?    Where were the constituents of Cletusville Beaufort, South Carolina when President Bush lied?   

Thousands of Americans are dead because Bush lied.

We have spent over a trillion dollars in the twin sandboxes of Iraq and Afghanistan, because Bush lied.

The Justice Department ran roughshod over the Constitution because Bush lied.

Where was Mr. Wilson?   Where were all of the members of the git-r-dun constituency he represents?

I'll say it here, as equally-plain as I can:    Right now, I'm not concerned with a country which is safe for my savings.    Frankly, it's too late for that.   I'm not concerned with having a country which is safe for my retirement -- thanks to the actions of all eight presidents from 1968-onward, it's too late for that, either.

I just want a country which is safe for those of us who stayed awake in class.

I want a country where such egregious comments are called-out by both sides of the aisle, and harshly, for what they really are.


I know -- that's too much to ask, also.


_____________________________________

Folks, as another friend of mine said today, if we screw up the next year, we will be responsible for destroying this country.   

It's time to get real -- starting with telling the truth.

Oops, She Did It Again (Orly Taitz and the New Kenyan Birth Certificate)

Orly Taitz, the Queen of Birthistan, has done it again.

She's produced another "Kenyan Birth Certificate" (the first one having been a fraud, and having been punked by some people who created a 'Kenyan Birth Certificate Generator' so you could punk all of your friends, too.)

What on earth did the woman expect?   As it turns out, one of the 'officials' on the first cert was a certain "E.F. Lavender" (they'd taken the name from a popular soap brand).

Not to be deterred, she's filed another lawsuit, this time presenting a cert from a mysterious emailer named "Mr Lucas".    This Lucas-fellow (apart from bearing the name of the electronics-company which made the fuel-pump in my MG which went bad so many years ago) has come up with the real deal - at least, according to Taitz and her followers, who are living for the day that someone proves Obama is Not Fit To Lead because his Momma decided to fly to Kenya when she was eight and half months pregnant (?) in order to give birth in a colonial hospital in Mombasa, Zanzibar Kenya.

Oops.  That's right.   Mombasa was part of Zanzibar in 1961.

Orly's latest birth-cert.  Click on image to zoom.

Some other problems with the cert are just as glaring - the date-formats are wrong (they're in U.S. format - MM/DD/YY, rather than the European convention of DD/MM/YY).

Also, most of the 'data' is typed using a space-justified font which was not available until around 1968, courtesy of the IBM Selectrics typewriter.

Dunno whose baby they got to donate the footprint - but that's a cool touch, I'll admit.

______________________________________

When are these people just going to give it a rest, and admit that they're wrong?   Not just misinformed, or not possessed of the right documents - but wrong?

Obama is a citizen.   If you don't want him in office, you've two routes to go that are legal:  Wait for something called an 'election' (that's how we select presidents in this country) in 2012, or ask your Congresscritter to initiate impeachment proceedings.

As to the Justice Department, there's no vast conspiracy - in fact, in refusing to hear these cases, they're doing everyone a favor - because filing a lawsuit isn't the proper venue for this sort of thing, as an individual cannot prove that he or she has been specifically damaged by this process.

Of course, it's a lot more fun for Ms. Taitz, and it certainly is entertaining in a Jerry Springer sort of way - but as I've pointed out in a prior post, it's starting to give the rest of the world the opinion that America is full-to-the-brim with batshit-crazy whackjobs who've nothing better to do with their time than read up on conspiracy theories and mutter incoherently to each other.

Give it a rest.  It's not doing anyone any good, and it's not funny any more.

Labor Day; 2009 (The Story of Bend, Oregon)

When BBC/America correspondent Adam Brookes decided to do a piece on America's economy from an 'everyman' perspective, he chose the town of Bend, from my home state of Oregon.

Most of us who live in Oregon have known Bend as a thriving community which had modest beginnings in the cattle and timber trade.   No less a publishing luminary as G.P. Putnam chose Bend, Oregon as the place to hone his journalistic skills before taking the reins of the family publishing empire; the combination of dry climate (over 300 days of sunshine per year); four definable seasons (great summers and some of the best skiing in the world) and the clearest air in the West (the Bend area is home to a world-class astronomical observatory) consistently ranked the place as one the Best Places to Live in America, by almost any yardstick.

This all came crashing down during the recession.


Some statistics:

When I first started going to the Bend area for recreation in the early '80's, the population was a sleepy 20,000, more or less.   In 2005, it has jumped to 80,000. 

The price of homes in Bend doubled during that time - something that was unsustainable - and with it came the construction of housing to accommodate the growing population.

As Brookes puts it, "In what had once been an isolated lumber and mill-town, high-end restaurants and brewhouses opened.  Shops selling expensive bric-a-brac bloomed.  Massage therapists and hairdressers proliferated Downtown Bend looks like a shrine to post-millenial bijou: pricey shoes, scented candles, fancy coffee."


Construction; Credit; Collapse -- 

When the credit markets collapsed, so did Bend.    Home prices dropped by 40%, and the 'official' unemployment rate jumped to a staggering 17% - depression-level rates by most measures. (Note:   The real rate is quite likely around 30%, if we consider not just those currently receiving benefits, but those for which benefits have run out, and those who simply quit looking.)

The story of Dan Hardt, a building-contractor in Bend, is typical.   He owned a thriving business, hanging drywall in new homes - he had a crew of twenty, and the usual 'toys' (multiple homes, cars, a boat, etc.) which accompanied this success.

Now, he lives in a homeless shelter - his business ruined; his accomplishments gone.  

That those who lived in this manner simply cannot cope is an understatement.   An average of four suicides per week in Bend is mute testimony to the failure of the American economy; a bankruptcy-write-large of the 'American dream'.    It's possible to build a life when things are stable - but today, all bets are off.  

In Bend, at least, the 'American dream', is a failure; an abject nightmare leading to ruin, and death.

As Mr. Brookes points out, things are very different here.   Lacking the culture of looking after each other, our social-services are limited in the extreme.    In his article, he states, "When you lose your job in America, you will receive financial aid from the government. But it is limited. Typically, an unemployed worker in Bend will get state benefits for a period of six months to a year. After that, as many in Bend are discovering, you are on your own.

In addition, the loss of a job frequently means the loss of health insurance and payments into retirement funds. This limited social safety net means unemployment in America can be devastating."

Or, as Dan Hardt puts it so well, "It's not just the job that stops.  Everything else stops with it." 

Labor Day in America. 

While it ought to be a time of backyard-grills and end-of-summer 'activities', in Bend this year Labor Day is going to be Poverty with a View; a return to Depression-era frugality and the certain knowledge that whatever comes after, things will never be as they were.

Bend, it would appear, is a microcosm of America, here on this Labor Day of 2009 - and we don't look good to the rest of the world.  

You Might NOT Be A Libertarian, If....

I've gotten some pretty incisive hate-mail recently due to my stand on health-care.

One person pointed out that as I'm an atheist, I 'wasn't capable of understanding the "real America." '

Another was polite in her suggestion that I would be 'better suited in another country where my beliefs were more in keeping with the majority.'

Yet another told me that the First Amendment didn't apply; that America was a "Christian nation", and that if I didn't like it, I should 'get the hell out and leave the place to real Americans.'

However, the one that really got me was from a gal who'd been a longtime reader (until she fell in-company with the Birthers and other Fundiewhacks) who told me that because I supported national health-care, I couldn't possibly be a Libertarian.

Y'see - I registered as a member of the Libertarian Party in 1988.   I was a delegate to their convention here in Portland a few years back.   I've been a Libertarian since before it was cool - and I can tell you that a lot of people who are calling themselves Libertarians are one step removed from being Fascists.

I know - I've explained this before - but I'll do it again, just so everyone here knows:   A Libertarian supports freedom and liberty; the responsible kind, which exists up to the point where those freedoms encroach on the freedoms of others.

I'm what's called a 'consequential Libertarian', if you're looking to split-hairs; I break with the 'classic' Libertarians who believe we could do without things like a national government, taxes, compulsory education, national defense, and things like that there.  

Those of us who are 'consequential' Libertarians believe that there are consequences for actions, both positive and negative - and that due to human nature being what it is, it's necessary to impose things like speed limits, ownership restrictions for firearms, and preventing twelve-year-olds from being able to go to the grocery-store and buy codeine.  

We don't, however, believe that it's necessary to tell responsible adults that they can't smoke marijuana.    We believe that the war on drugs is a joke, and has done nothing but increase the prison population (something, by the way, for which you and I pay, and pay dearly). 

We believe it's far cheaper to build an adequate education system at $12,000/student than to imprison the same person eighteen years later at $120,000/year.

We believe that it was a good idea, overall, to ban private ownership of machine-guns in the 1930's, what with organized crime using them to settle their differences.  

We believe that prohibition was the worst idea to come out of the depression-era (and that it contributed to a lot of that organized crime in the first place).

We don't see the logic in making multibillionaires out of people who turn around and thumb their noses at the rest of us - because with wealth comes responsibility for the common good; otherwise you don't have a country; you have a perverted sort of feudal-meritocracy where blind luck and cojones the size of basketballs rule over common sense and logic.

(What I just described, by the way, is where we're headed - in fact, we're well down the road toward that sort of thing; it's the sort of place that gave rise to armies which goose-step - but that's another topic, entirely).

True liberty involves responsibility for each other - but that seems to have failed the logic of the rightists in this country.

So, now that you know what we are - here's what we aren't:

1.    If you believe that the First Amendment guarantees that you can put the Ten Commandments on every courthouse in America, try every case by the Bible, and the phrase "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" applies to Buddhists, Atheists, Muslims, Wiccans, Native-Americans, Zoroastrians, and anyone else who isn't a Right-Wing Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christian - you're probably not a Libertarian.

2.     If you think Fox News really is 'fair and balanced' - you're probably not a Libertarian.

3.     If you believe that you should be entitled to keep everything you make without taxes or some other contribution to the common good, you'll make a great anarcho-capitalist - but you're not a Libertarian.

4.     If you believe you have an unalienable right to attend a Presidential town-hall meeting toting a loaded assault-rifle, there's a damn good chance you're a right-wing whackjob - but you're not a Libertarian.

5.     If you believe it's all right to pick a fight with someone outside a mosque and then cry 'freedom of speech!' when they call the police - there's a better-than-even chance you're a thug - but you're not a Libertarian.

6.     If you're a pastor, and call openly for the death of the President because he's "not an American", and "not a Christian" - then there are several classifications for you, some which ought to land you in the nuthatch or prison - but it's safe to say that you aren't now, nor have ever been, a Libertarian.

7.      If you think Chief Justice Roberts is a great man, you're probably a died-in-the-wool Bush Fundie - but you're definitely not a Libertarian.

8.     If you actually value a political leader who goes to war because "god told him to" - you're batshit-crazy, but you are definitely not a Libertarian.

9.     If you think Roe vs. Wade was a bad idea -- I might agree with you; the Supremes should likely never have even taken the case (it's not a Federal issue) -- but if you believe that a woman's body isn't her own, and that medical procedures should be banned because 'god doesn't like them', and 'Jesus isn't happy with it' - -then you've got a solid grip on your relationship with your imaginary-friends - but you're not a Libertarian.

10.     If you think that taxes are for huge armies and police forces to 'deal' with everyone who Doesn't Think Like You - then you're not a Libertarian.

11.     If you're in favor of bailouts, as long as they reinforce the status quo (and help your Uncle Cletus replace his 1989 Ford F-150) - you definitely have no grasp of economics, and you're definitely not a Libertarian.

12.     If you think printing up $5,000,000,000,000 in brand new $1 bills is a great way to get the economy working again, there's a damn good chance you failed eighth-grade math - and you're not a Libertarian.

13.     If you think taking citizens of other countries to government-run torture camps and waterboarding them is a great way to 'preserve our way of life' - it's a lead-pipe-cinch you haven't a clue what America is about - and you're definitely not a Libertarian.

14.     If you're in love with the idea of the death-penalty - regardless of the fact that it's unevenly applied to persons-of-color, the mentally-disadvantaged and the poor -- then you're no doubt a heartless and cruel moron - but you're not a Libertarian.

15.     If you think going to war with nations which have or had no beef with us is a great idea - then you have no sense of justice in the world - and you're not a Libertarian.

Lastly -- if you think that allowing the likes of Bush, Cheney, and their minions to run about free, spouting their lies and apologetics without answering for their crimes is a great idea - then here's some good news:   You probably take company with about half the country.   You have a lot of friends.   You're probably aching for the day that someone kills that black-assed son-of-a-bitch Leninist/usurper in the White House -- but you're no American.   And you're definitely not a Libertarian.