Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The GOP's Honeymoon Is So Over
Voters want an annulment.
Republicans swept last year's elections. The GOP captured more than 675 state legislative seats, flipped 10 governor's mansions, gained control of over 20 state legislative chambers, and won more than 60 seats in Congress previously occupied by Democrats.
Elections this lopsided have consequences for the victors and vanquished alike. Usually these consequences come in the form of a honeymoon, with the winning party able to pursue its ideological agenda.
But now, almost before it started, the honeymoon is over. Voters — Democrats, independents, and yes, growing numbers of Republicans — are concerned about tax breaks for corporations and the wealthiest Americans while working and middle-income Americans struggle to make ends meet.
In Florida, police officers in Broward County are planning a mass rally on July 16 to officially switch their party registration from Republican to Democrat. They are tired of Gov. Rick Scott's attacks on workers.
In Maine, Democrats and some Republican legislators are pushing back against an overreaching tea party governor who has insulted labor and minorities and signed bills rolling back health care reform and eliminating the state’s 38-year-old law allowing people to register to vote on Election Day. In New Hampshire, after the Democratic governor vetoed an anti-union, anti-worker bill, Republicans are working furiously to try to corral the two-thirds majority needed for an override.
In Arizona, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer has pushed back against Republican efforts to deny benefits to unemployed workers. "You don't balance the federal budget by turning your back on Arizonans in their time of need," she said. "That's not principled fiscal conservatism. It's just cruel. And we are better than this."
And in a number of key electoral battleground states, GOP governors are suffering from dismal approval ratings. Florida's Scott stands at 29 percent. Michigan's Rick Snyder and Ohio's John Kasich each top out at 33 percent. Wisconsin's Scott Walker's 43 percent, while slightly higher, is still lackluster and incredibly polarized. His approval rating from Republicans is 87 percent and just 9 percent from Democrats.
So why has the public lost that loving feeling? And where do we go from here?
The reason behind the disenchantment is clear. The GOP has not only attacked essential services popular with the public, like public education, Medicare, and Medicaid. Republican politicians have also made scapegoats of the public employees who provide these services. Yet every one of us knows someone who works in the public sector — the police officer or firefighter risking his life to protect us, the schoolteacher grappling with crowded classrooms, the public nurse in fear of losing her job. And we don't like seeing our family, friends, and neighbors attacked. Voters across the country are demanding an annulment from the GOP.
The good news? Across the country, people are fighting back. This July, activists are organizing more than 1,000 "house meetings" that will focus attention on the economy and the need for job creation. These "Rebuild the Dream" house meetings are being organized by national groups like Center for Community Change, MoveOn, and USAction. But the force driving them will be local, in places from Peoria, Illinois to Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Other activists plan to mark the July 30th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid and to attend congressional recess town hall events in August. Still others will turn out for a nationwide "jobs tour" sponsored by ProgressiveCongress.org.
To be sure, we face difficult choices as we figure out how to rebuild our economy, spread the necessary burden of taxation, and avoid debilitating cuts to the important services our families and communities depend on.
But Americans of all ideologies and political parties know the way forward. Instead of rewarding companies for shipping good jobs overseas, Americans want to close corporate loopholes and invest in good jobs right here in the USA. Instead of slashing Medicare and Medicaid, Americans want the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. Instead of attacking and scapegoating workers, Americans want working and middle-income families to be able to bargain for good American wages and benefits.
That's what we're organizing for this summer. This is a fight to take back our country and rebuild the American dream — good jobs and strong communities, with liberty and justice for all. Our country deserves no less.
70 Comments so far
Show AllWhich explains why Obama continues his right wing swing, cutting Social Security and Medicare?
Yes, the 2006 and 2008 elections that gave Democrats control illuminated the Democrats' symbiotic relationship with Republicans wherein each party gives the other cover to move the agenda rapidly rightward and continue to deliver for Wall Street and the megacorporations (that fund both parties) at the expense of the rest of us.
Exactly, Ray Del Camino. You spelled out what I would have said... and did it well. Thank you. There truly is NO other explanation for what's so evidently underway in plain sight. With a Supreme Court prepared to rubber stamp ANY decision friendly to big business profits, with the media controlled by elites, with a president who daily increases his resemblance to The Manchurian Candidate, and with 98% of political reps on the dole and loyal to their sponsors... apart from morality, decency, justice, and a respect for law... what exactly is standing in the way of the rapacious robber-barons in their reach for endless supplies of more, regardless of the blood, sweat, and tears stolen from others? Where is the force, other than Nature imploding to cast a shadow over the current paradigm, capable of standing up to it?
Nicely stated again, Ray.
Gosh, David, you seem to think it matters that the GOP "honeymoon" is "so over."
That's . . . touching. Quaint, even.
Switch to Green Party.
I've voted Green several times, even back in 1996 before it was "fashionable". That year, I had to write in "Ralph Nader", as he wasn't even in the ballot here in PA.
But lately I've been thinking: say people migrate from the Democratic Party to the Green Party in droves. What would happen then? It seems to me that then the Republican Party would take over the Green Party just as it took over the Democratic Party, and we would, after a while, be talking about "the Green branch of the Green Party", just as today one often hears references about "the Democratic branch of the Democratic Party".
I hear you say: "Oh no, because we will be vigilant in the Green Party and not let that happen". I would agree, we better be vigilant. But then, what happens if we apply that "vigilance" within the Democratic Party? Might it not be possible to "take it back"?
I ask this question because I truly don't know the answer. What is more challenging, to exorcise the demon from the current Democratic Party, or to engage in the ginormous task of creating a viable third party? And then, if you succeed at the latter, you still have to worry about the demon not sneaking in.
If anybody has thoughts on the matter, please share. Since I can go either way on this question, all insights will be appreciated.
If any party, including the Green Party, stands for anything other than being pure anti-corporatist and anti-plutocrat, it will most likely be co-opted by the corporatist plutocrats. The corporatists can bend on virtually every other issue, or at least give the appearance of bending, and slowly win over the support of the party members. I think of it as the way an experienced sailor can take almost any wind, other than that directly opposite of the desired direction, and use it to advance.
As I have commented here before, I think the best chance to escape this swamp is if the left joins with the far right in supporting a constitutional amendment allowing for secession of the states by plebiscite. That would move us in the opposite direction of globalization and of empire and would allow the possibility of achieving more local control. Those on the left could migrate to certain states and vote to secede and create a sane society with a responsible government. Those on the right could do what they wish.
Creating a more diverse human population with a greater number of states with a larger variety of governments and laws has its drawbacks, but I doubt they could exceed the main drawback of continuing on the current course -- human extinction. If there were independent separate states, neither progressives nor conservatives would have as much ability to control or influence the behavior of those in other states, and so the notion of universal human rights may suffer a setback, but it appears that the acceptance of such a notion more often leads to a justification for self-serving interference, unconnected to stated goals, than it does to improving the human rights situation. And something should be said for allowing other human societies to evolve in their own ways to find their own life cycles, which must take care of the needs of most members of such societies if the societies are to be vibrant and enduring.
kivals, you didn't speak to my specific questions but I loved your perspective.
One little problem though:
"Those on the left could migrate to certain states and vote to secede and create a sane society with a responsible government. Those on the right could do what they wish."
I think those on the right would stay right in the Empire and and use its military might to squash whatever the seceding left-wing state or states might try to do, so your formula won't work unless it is accompanied by other changes which you left out. If you have written about this elsewhere just give me the link(s); no need to re-type it all in here.
Thanks again for sharing your perspective. I particularly like the idea that if a new party is wishy-washy in its anti-corporate stance, then it is doomed from the start.
I did leave out one unpleasant truth -- the leftwing states must have or develop nuclear weapons capability if they are to prevent invasion and subjugation.
and they must develop a massive enough military to conquer the empire instantly and almost bloodlessy because otherwise it will continue to emit CO2, destroy civilization and shortly thereafter cause the extinction of humans and 95% of all life on Earth.
Two variations on your theme, Kivals. You're such a balanced, decent person that I don't think you can even imagine the mindset that just might take up shop next door. I'm speaking euphemistically to suggest that some states with heavily right-leaning tendencies could enact exactly what you've related, with their well-armed militias, given the nod to exalt their guns. What would stop THAT state from declaring a resource war on its neighbor, so as to take by force, what its population felt they needed?
Many people cast their political analyses as if what's happening in and through the natural world held no bearing... it's quite feasible that all of our long-term predictions will be cut short. The people in Japan have witnessed their lives alter in a heartbeat. Do we own the hubris to presume that similar things could not happen here?
Rtdrury speaks a lot about localism in this forum. At some point necessity is apt to make that very adaptation so... and all our plans will probably become meaningless, as the metrics of the very systems of life alter immeasurably in the relative blink of an eye.
I just read your post, CICERO, and see that we reacted to the same probable event... which led to Kivals posting the "nuclear option" at 6:48.
Vote Socialist.
hehehe - yup, there you have it, Amerikans are PISSED at the GOP, who they put in power last time, so by God they are going to switch back to Pepsi next year! And when the Dims piss them off again, by God they are going to switch back to Coke the election after that! That'll show 'em! And then after that, when the Rethugs once more fuck all the little guys over, well, they are going to switch back to Pepsi yet again!
Idiots, most Americans. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result each time."
That's Einstein's definition of insanity and needs to be brought to the attention of USAn's constantly,thanks.
I will bet on the republicans especially with their brilliant strategy of suppressing the votes of blacks, students and other minorities. They will steal the white house in 2012 because the democrats are so stupid and slow to react that they will wait until it is too late to react.
Here we go again!
I recognize that CD feels obliged to publish repetitive half-baked articles excoriating the Republican Party-- "half-baked" insofar as they exclusively focus on the Evil Republicans without including any broader or deeper context, or even substantial reference to the collusion of its Silent Partner, the Democratic Party.
But after the thousandth such article, it begins to feel like the compulsive zeal of a neighborhood vigilante posting flyers everywhere in sight disclosing the particulars of a convicted sex offender who just moved in down the street.
This offering from Elliot fits a pattern I describe in a comment written the other day to "Republican Preachers: Believing What You Know Ain't True" by Brian Moench:
It's becoming tiresome to repeat, but it still needs to be pointed out:
Sounding off about the flamboyantly hypocritical and reprehensible Republican pseudo-evangelical con artists is well and good-- but it creates the false impression that the Democrats are more likely to be sober, respectable ministers of the Lord and faithful servants of We the People.
Months ago, I noticed that some of the regular liberal-lite moderate progressives published on CD, those who write from a wonky "inside-politics" perspective, had dialed down explicit support for Democrats.
That is, they would write articles exposing how wrong-headed, sinister, and treacherous Republicans are on a given issue. But instead of stating outright that Democrats were obviously more trustworthy and worthy of support, they would just leave the "Republicans Bad!" analysis hanging in mid-air, seemingly leaving the reader to draw their own conclusion.
It remains an open question whether this is a deliberate rhetorical strategy to garner support for Democrats without exposing the writer to skeptical criticism, aka "blowback", for openly advocating Dems, or whether the writer unconsciously didn't include references to Democrats because they seemed irrelevant to the "Republicans Bad!" topic.
But at this late date, any article exclusively focusing on the Republicans as the scurrilous Greater Evil without considering their Democratic enablers and tacit allies is half-baked at best.
Thank you and when I see Move on mentioned it makes, what hair I have left, stand up. Tony
"Obedient Servant"
Yes. Not only is it half-baked, but the ingredients are regurgitated.
Thoreau's assessment of the mass of men leading lives of "quiet desperation" keeps coming back to me, but it now seems a gross understatement.
I haven't seen an article here (perhaps I missed it) about how the democrat corporate tool governor of Illinois, Quinn, is enacting the much of the same sort of policies, with the support of the legislature and unions, that has caused so much uproar in Wisconsin.
When the writer of this article mentioned Peoria, Illinois (A strongly republican district and home of "Caterpillar"), I was puzzled by the inconsistency.
Obedient Servant,
Have you thought of starting your own blog, or news portal worthy of the label "independent"?
I would certainly be a supporter.
FYI, what is it that the 1,000,000 DHS]translated Gestapo]do at their 10,000 locations located nationwide, do? They monitor the internet. Revolutions and aging isn't for sissies, according to Betty Davis.
oops! double post deleted
So I take it these groups are all going to work steadfastly against another Obama term. No actually, these "progressive" groups are going to fall in line, and support Obama the first openly right wing Democratic president. They will fall in line and support someone far to the right of tricky Dick Nixon, AND castigate those of us who refuse to vote for Obama on principle as being Republican supporters and trolls.
You just gotta love the insanity of it all.
Yes indeedy. Because, donchaknow, "At least he's better than if a Republican were elected."
It's the old "gentle, slow rape is far better than brutal, fast rape" syndrome.
Rape is rape. Americans, apparently, just LOooooove being raped.
But slowly. Gently.
"The GOP has not only attacked essential services popular with the public, like public education, Medicare, and Medicaid. Republican politicians have also made scapegoats of the public employees who provide these services."
Uh, hello? They've been doing all of the above for years, if not decades. Are you claiming "the public" didn't understand who it was they were voting for? After two terms of George Bush and his rubber-stamp GOP Congress? Today's GOP is the same GOP I've been watching for 50 years - purged of its "moderates". And BTW, Republican voters - who supported Bush to the end - are still behind their leaders. If anything they're ready to double-down on crazy - which explains why Bachmann is leading their primary polling. If so-called "independents" are experiencing buyers remorse then they should probably wake up more than once every 4 years and try to understand what exactly it is they're voting for when they vote anyone with an R after their name. The current version of "centrists" - actually the former Republicans pushed out of the extreme right GOP - who make up the Democratic Party are sickening enough.
DRB: When chimps are trapped in a box, they keep pressing levers hoping for a door to open. Sound familiar? If ever there was history, or memory, of that door opening... they cannot stop trying.
My point is that a lot of the blame goes to a system that makes it SEEM that there are only 2 viable options. Many don't think a 3rd party can "do any good," or otherwise see it as a wasted vote. Therefore if there are only 2 apparent choices, the chimp will bounce from one side of the cage to the other in a vain attempt to find the way out! Or perhaps the mercy of an outside force... for all his futile efforts, at last lifting him out of his misery.
And then, since I feel so positive today (LOL) the rebellious chimp will face a firing squad. I'm in an Albert Camus... state of mind...
Yes, we know and agree that these Republican governors are horrid and dangerous, but in NY, Governor Cuomo might as well be a Republican in terms of his economic policies. He's holding on the the liberals through support for gay marriage, etc., but his tax policies will end up gutting education in coming years, and he coerced public workers into huge losses while refusing to tax the bonuses of Wall Street bankers. Let's not give a free pass to the pro-rich bastards of the Democratic Party while we rightly bash the Republicans. Neither party is on our side. They both work to defeat ordinary Americans in the war against the poor and middle class being waged by the rich and comfortable.
Oh, dream f***ing on!!! With every television in Amerika telling the couch potatoes that it is right and good to screw them and kiss the rich? And 65% of them will watch and believe it!!! This is the fault of a stupid, stupid, Amerikan public!!!
These liberal types don't seem to understand that the jig is up. The fat lady has sung. The party's over (Democrat and Republican).
That most D's and R's don't recognize this yet is not the issue.
I'm reminded of Wile E. Coyote marching along on thin air over a canyon, oblivious that he's about to plummet a thousand feet.
The system cannot be rehabilitated. It must be overthrown or supplanted, hopefully with non-violence, but keeping in mind that people have a right to defend themselves when being viciously attacked.
There is so much denial going on it's surreal. Liberals are desperately trying to convince themselves that going to a protest or sticking a piece of paper in a box every four years is somehow gonna do the trick.
MUST. REMAIN. COMFORTABLE. AT ALL COSTS.
MUST NOT BE A RADICAL.
YES. WE. CAN.
Meanwhile, we hear constant snickering about how "stupid" and "naive" and easily snookered are those crazy conservatives.
Or maybe there IS something to prophecy, a "troika" brought on by the compound impacts of piss poor climate management (via an ethos that's based on rape, pillage, and plunder of vital ecosystems), a fallacious economic system (with "finance," the art of lying to people about the worth of just about anything trumping all other measures; since, after all, assets are now hedged against relative casino style Wall Street betters and the sophisticated instruments they put in use to place a mask over the whole illegitimate enterprise), and War (the karmic blowback of which, is already underway).
In other words, what we're viewing is both inevitable, and being placed on display--as cautionary tale--for all the world to see... to demonstrate exactly how an empire dies. The trick, my friends is to try to get out of the way of toppling debris. Not all of it will be obvious for what it is, when the pieces start tumbling faster.
"Republicans swept last year's elections. The GOP captured more than 675 state legislative seats, flipped 10 governor's mansions, gained control of over 20 state legislative chambers, and won more than 60 seats in Congress previously occupied by Democrats."
This after the Bush/Republican holocaust. We may have been doomed by FOX, the sheeple and corporate Conservative Democrats.
Direct democracy
"How are you going to get us Christians who are indeed Bush sick and Republican sick to join you when you stand for things we simply cannot support because of our religious convictions."
If at this point in the decline of the fascist American empire, you "Christians" still think abortion and gay marriage rank up there in importance with the myriads of systemic problems we face then there's not much point in trying to placate you, is there really?
Maybe it would behoove you "Christians" to examine YOUR thinking and come back to all of us when you can demonstrate that you have a grasp of the concept of prioritization AND some wherewithal that due to "dog whistles" like abortion and gay marriage you have all been played like the dimmest of bulbs by leaders who exhibit anything but the values exposed by your so-called Savior, Jesus Christ.
Really.
Now you have opened up a can of worms here; many "Christians' claim they are against abortion, but are for the death penalty. Isn't military intervention imposing the death penalty on a massive scale--without even a trial?
Wasn't Jesus God's abortion, just post birth. The Catholic treatise on sex was concocted by St. Augustine in the 4th century. It was based on his study of the animal kingdom's sexual behavior, which is strictly for reproductive purposes. However, many species are able to stop or prevent fetal development based on the host mothers determination that conditions are right for a successful birth and livelihood for the offspring. Just a few examples of the God given rights for the host mother to determine if food supplies and weather conditions are adequate to care for the offspring; bears, wolverines, elephants and this is all inclusive. Human sexuality is different than that of the animal kingdom, except for the physical act involved. Only human and orangutangs have sex face to fact, from what I've observed. Knight of Columbus, means that you are male and can't have an abortion but somehow you thin k you have a dog in the fight.how papal of you.
"My leaders have taught the values of Jesus Christ for centuries."
Values of Jesus Christ? Are they the same "values" that were taught to the indigenous people of Central and South America?
Obviously, there were some lives which weren't respected, way back then.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Hey, Christian nutjob, care to explain to us why many, many animals eat their young?
Hmmm, sure seems as if animals believe in abortion, too, huh?
Let's see, and I'll go slow so that you can understand:
Throughout nature many, many animal species have been known to eat their young due to environmental restraints placed upon the ability of the parents to provide for a group of offspring that will survive.
Gee, that would be a "reasonable" analogy to abortion would it not?
Conversely, what animals DON'T do is engage in the massive systematic killing of members of their own species aka warfare, so war is pretty much a distinctly human activity. Yes, there is territorial dispute but nothing like the senseless killing we engage in.
Thus, war is something I can be against - as it is a conscious, human phenomenon and thus can be stopped by humans - whereas abortion - as it is an intrinsic part of nature is something which - although unpleasant - does have precedent in animals of all orders of development.
I ask, who is usually the animal who kills and eats the offspring?
Gee, I guess that would be the mother, wouldn't it?
Hmmm, why would that be?
Maybe because the mother has the best idea how much care and resources her offspring will need to survive?
See, how it's not a slippery slope, you fool?
Or am I being too "mouthy" for you.
But I bet you go and picket the zoo and hurl insults when mother animals engage in "filial cannibalism", too, right?
In addition, abortion has been practiced long before your Christ came to this world and - oops, NOT SAY A SINGLE SPECIFIC WORD - about abortion.
Hmmm, funny that we can document abortion back to 1500 BCE yet nary a word about it the ENTIRE BIBLE.
History of abortion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion
Yet another elision in the Word of God, I guess, right?
I mean, he was so specific as to ban shellfish and tell his followers exactly how to dress but he just managed to skip over the single issue that has been used to turn all of you into mindless robots voting against your own self-interest for a half a century, huh?
Why he even SUPPOSEDLY said don't be gay, right?
Gee, why no specific mention of abortion if it's the GENOCIDE that you tell us it is?
But thank "God", modern Christians are here to tell us what God really meant/means all the time.
Just face the facts that you pro-lifers don't have an answer to the point I made which is:
Abortion is a natural part of the animal world. We are animals. Therefore abortion is a natural part of our world.
End of story. Save all your moralistic horsesh*t for your brainwashed comrades.
But then again - as stated by your belief in our "betterness" as humans - you as a good Christian more than likely believe we're too good for evolution as well for how could we be descended from "dirty apes", right?
If you do believe in evolution, why not then tell us where the line between instinct and reason is clearly drawn as this question has puzzled science, art and philosophy since the dawn of civilization.
I'd just love to hear how you've "figured it all out" with the help from your heavenly advisors?
BTW, where does believing in spirits and other worlds like heaven and hell fall? Into reason? Or is that instinct?
Could you help me out there?
Maybe you should just use the tangible world around you for better help in ascertaining truth.
See, like I have with abortion.
I noticed that it is a natural documented part of animal life and I am an animal according to science.
Does that make it cool or fun?
No, just as sickness and death are considered "uglier" parts of the natural world so may we can consider abortion as an "ugly" fact of existence as part of the animal world.
Easy isn't it. Using reason.
Not that I should continue to comment as you've wasted enough of our time already, but I also really really love how you Christians use the two parts of the Bible - the OT and the NT - whenever it is convenient to do so no matter that the two books are COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE AND CONTRADICTORY.
Let's see, you hate gays - or at least think they should have less rights than other humans - and that's OT.
But somehow you ignore JC's message of inclusiveness and love which is NT.
I know enough about the Bible to get me into trouble, huh?
With who?
Why, would Christians not follow the teachings of their own God, JC, and ever hate someone who wasn't a "believer"? No way.
Why, would Christians not follow the teachings of their own God, JC, and be intolerant towards another person? I just don't believe it.
I don't need a f*cking book to tell me what's right and wrong like some people.
I don't need a f*cking book to tell me to respect people and the lives they lead.
What's your excuse?
Oh that's right.
You HAVE a book.
And you think that book gives you the right to pass judgement on others even though your very own book tells you that that is the domain of your God ONLY to do so.
So, enjoy the rest of your cognitively dissonant life.
Enjoy the continued manipulation at the hands of your unscrupulous cohorts and leaders who play upon your binary views of the world like a fiddle.
Enjoy looking forward to the day you're called into a paradise of the blessed.
Just get out of the way of all of us others who actually do give a damn about "the least among us" who ever they may be.
And don't act so surprised and hurt when we call you on the bullsh*t you try and cram down our throats.
Knights of Colombus
Not sure at whom your tirade was directed but I'll try to address some of your your concerns --
"Wasteful and fraudulent tax spending on social programs that feature putting pictures of Christ in a bucket of pee are not going to aid your cause."
Arts benefit society. That is obvious. It is instructive that out of all the government programs you could have seized upon as an example of waste, you chose the arts; this despite the meager funds currently allocated to symphonies, murals, sculptures and so forth.
Authorities have always considered artists dangerous. So it is natural that they want to eliminate funding for the arts. You may want to consider the possibility that you were manipulated into supporting this position by the cherry picking and highlighting of one inflammatory piece. Some artists are provocateurs. You can't simply say, "only non-offensive art is allowed" as different things offend different people. For example, Hitler outlawed what he called "degenerate art".
"You need to find better answers to a woman's crisis pregnancy that don't involve killing a living being en utero."
Since you're clearly a Christian fundamentalist, you might be interested in the Church's historical position on abortion. The term is not actually mentioned in the Bible. There are a few Biblical passages which may refer negatively to abortion, but not even Christian scholars are in agreement on this.
Abortion did not become a great taboo until after the Black Death, when it became necessary to repopulate Europe. Thus, in this review of "Caliban and the Witch" --
"From the 1580s to the 1630s we see the onset of severe population decline. Markets shrink, trade stops: this is the first international economic crisis. The new leaders of mercantile capitalism agree that the number of citizens determine a nation’s wealth. A fanatical desire to replenish the population –- expressed by writers like Jean Bodin — is reflected in new policies. Infanticide becomes a capital offense. Pregnancies must be registered with the authorities. Marriage is encouraged, and illegitimacy is criminalized. More women are executed for infanticide in 16th- and 17th -century Europe than for any other crime except witchcraft. Midwives are enlisted as spies for the authorities, and doctors begin to replace them in the birthing room, as they are suspected of infanticide.
At the same time that women are being deprived of their traditional means of contraception and abortion – in short, their reproductive autonomy –- they are losing their role as workers. The assumption is gaining ground that women should not be working outside the home. Female work is being redefined as housekeeping. Craft workers begin to exclude women from the late 15th century, and those who fail to comply are labeled shrews, whores, and witches. A wave of misogyny focuses on the disobedient wife, and the ground is laid for what Federici terms “the patriarchy of the wage.”
Even if we put aside the ethical issues, the main problem with outlawing abortions is that it doesn't stop them; it just make them more dangerous. If you would like to try and convince women to stop having them that is of course within your right, but outlawing the practice won't help. Probably the best way of reducing abortions is to introduce more socialistic policies in which children are actually taken care of in their communities, and where single mothers are not forced to live on starvation wages.
Next, you express your anger over gay marriage.
Again, you may want to consider the idea that you have been manipulated into thinking that this is an extremely important issue, unlike, say, the dying of our oceans. I highly doubt that many of the political leaders who call themselves "Christian conservatives" actually care about gay marriage. It's what we call a "wedge issue". Politicians love using religion to divide people. Indeed many of these figures are probably gay themselves. Studies show that the most stridently anti-gay types become far more turned on by homosexual pornography than people who don't give a shit.
If you're interested in abolishing homosexuality you may also be in trouble, as it has exited in every human society on record. The reason homosexuality became a taboo in some societies has to do with the evolution of agriculture and the domestication of animals; you can read about it in the "prehistory of sex".
Finally, you state that Americans don't want socialism; actually, unlike Marxism (I'm not a Marxist either), socialist policies are favored by most Americans; numerous polls demonstrate this. The problem is when you actually use the word "socialism", then favor falls off dramatically. This has to do with behavioral conditioning; you have been conditioned to believe that "socialism is evil", even when socialist policies make a lot more sense than their capitalist counterparts. The powerful are trying to convince you that when the government helps the majority, it's bad, but when the government helps the rich, it's good. Simple as that.
DURRU: I applaud your efforts, but I have a feeling Knights is just here to pontificate, and has no inclination or wish to change his already made-up mind. Hey, when you go by faith, what has reason got to do with anything?
You might also have added that some might consider the military a form of socialism, since payments extend into later life, and often cover medical bills. Or that public workers like firemen and police operate in a system that has similarities with socialism, as does the National Parks System.
You're probably right about the poster, but one mustn't give up hope ;)
I'm not sure I could ever apply the word "socialist" to a military apparatus, but yes I understand the analogy. One of the great ironies of the Cold War was that the Pentagon -- which is largely a Keynesian mechanism designed to transfer public wealth to private industry -- was used to wage war against any government which rejected free market orthodoxy. The same is true today.
That's the trouble with this kind of 'mind religion,' while it will admit 'feelings,' it often disregards deeper perceptions, and is unwilling to admit anything that already goes against its deeply ingrained beliefs.
Thanks for that selective ordering of belief KofC.The document you speak was a response against other Christian voices that did not hold to the norms upheld in the Didache. Here is a brief history: In 323 AD, Christianity morphed into the organizational and judicial structure of the Roman Empire seeking to undermine the Christian movement with its emphasis on what Jesus of Nazareth taught as a spiritual teacher of a subversive wisdom. This against what hierarchal forces later wanted people to believe in so to maintain exclusive and authoritative control over the message, story, and life of Jesus. The difference, of course, is to emasculate the movement’s populist and inclusive message in favor of power over from above; this unfolded when Constantine fearful of increased numbers of Christians causing trouble in the Empire, used his rather creative political insight to reign in a bottom-down Christian movement, by assimilating it into his own organizational structure which had the effect of neutralizing its political impact.
This unfolded largely thanks to the Council of Nicaea. The Council was responsible for creating creedal formulas intended to expunge other marginal Christian voices including competing texts that voiced radically different views of the meaning of Jesus' life and death. The Council essentially voted on which texts would be included in the canon and those that were not. But the invitees into the Council were stacked in favor of an ideology supported and advanced by Constantine. A text made it into the canon because it represented an ideology in conformity to hierarchical mandates of belief. The disquieting effect that essentially rendered competing and diverse Christian voices silent because they were driven underground against the power and might of the Roman Empire’s legal mandates.
You mention “Church Fathers” but fail to assert how their power was manifest by stronger political forces in the Roman Empire. Factually, other leaders including the “Desert Fathers” strongly rebelled against the episcopes of the time. These men and woman withdrew into the desert founding monastic communities as a rejection of the norms of power, privilege of Bishops who sold themselves to the highest bidder: and in this case accepted the strings attached to Constantine’s building program.
Of course, you must know that the Emperor Constantine himself only converted to Christianity on his death bed. While in prior years he had one of his wife roasted alive, and murdered two of his own son’s even as he endorsed publically the Christian movement; but it is also well known that many pagan rituals morphed into the Christian liturgy.
Essentially, you are using selective writings from the apostolic tradition to augment your own ideology while not fully acknowledging that the early Christian communities held competing and diverse view points on Jesus life and praxis. The existence of the ancient texts discovered at Nag Hammadi tell a very different story than one finds in the accepted canon.
Excellent post, EKOBE. The only thing missing from the discussion is the full scale misogyny of the Catholic Church. "Mr. Knight" takes for granted that the female body belongs to the church, and thus its life-giving potentials, as well. The covert disrespect for women as sovereign human beings free to determine their own destinies, remains the subtext of such an ethos. And so long as ANY church sanctions killing, under the allged law of war, or any other HUMAN construct, the premise to the sanctity of life is laid bare for the base hypocrisy that it reflects.
A mind like "Mr. Knight's" is so locked into its own limited paradigm, that its entire claim to wisdom and reason rests on arguing inside the box that its own ancient faith rests upon. A flat-lander if ever there was one!
The Catholic Church had NO problem with the BRUTAL torture of alleged heretics. Enjoyed burning women disobedient to its harsh, life-negating (nature-denying) creeds. Slaughtered countless numbers of the Indigenous under the guise of saving their souls (death, the price of their noncompliance with conversion to the oh, so loving religion placed before them).
Few institutions have as MUCH blood on their hands, as much to apologize for insofar as destroying the very life it purports to defend.
So, Knight of C... take your inane proslytizing and shove it where the sun don't shine.
DURRUTIX: Now do you see what I mean?
.sioux, the word "heretic" is essentially an invention. It gave the authorities a context under which they could consolidate control over their ideology against those who disagreed. Another attribute found in the Didache with KofC did not mention is that the document advocated for slaves and the submission by slaves to their masters. Much like any fundamentalism that we currently find in culture, one can selectively extract assertions from any document to augment their position. This is especially egregious in the political use of scripture today to argue their point. Some scholars assert that the Catholic Church killed more woman in the Middle Ages, than Jews were murdered by the Nazi's. Despite all of this, the good ought to be included in any historic critique. There are many religious orders in the Catholic Church that do great work on behalf of the poor and other marginal populations. Those running the church are due their criminal culpability, not unlike those in the US Senate and Congress and the presidency today; but that does not make everyone who is Amerikan a criminal, anymore than every Catholic represented by criminal leadership
@ KofC
I noticed you ignored my references to the Didache which upheld slavery and told slaves to obey their masters. It is also pretty clear from you reply to souix that you would have us ignore the blood thirsty history of the Catholic Church which murdered woman in the hundreds of thousands during the purges of the Middle Ages; or perhaps you can provide us with enlightened commentary on why (under the infallability principle that you advocate on behalf of) so many pedophile priests were given carte blanche access to children - even after they were identified with charges against them? Bishops simply shipped these criminals off to other states to continue their abuse of the innocent. It is difficult to argue on behalf of "infallibility" given the stain of criminality as a solid legacy of those running the church.
With regards the concept of "history" it is pretty clear that you don't understand the meaning and value of primary sources and what they tell us. Regardless of an ancient manuscript point of view, they tell us something about the life and views of ancient people writing those documents.
Further, you challenge my credentials for making such a statement, and I might ask you what yours are other than belonging to a conservative fraternal association? But to your question, I hold an M.A. in Historic Theology from the GTU in Berkeley, and a M.A. in Ancient languages and literature; additionally I earned a Th.M from a Catholic Seminary earned under full scholar ship, although I no longer identify myself as “Catholic.”
Moreover, I am wondering if in your missive you are repudiating the existence of the papyrus texts discovered in Nag Hammadi, or just the point of view they express. Any legitimate historian uses primary texts to understand the 'voice" of those (in this case) ancient people’s writing about what Jesus of Nazareth meant to them. When you note a ludicrous statement that tells us, "The same thing happened approximately 100+ years later when the Church met to determine which of the books floating around were really from God's inspiration and which were spurious efforts by people who wanted fame." what you are telling me is a point of view scripted entirely based on Catholic dogma and theology: or to put it more accurately, Catholic propaganda. Catholic propaganda is not – nor has it anything to do with – historic methodology. I am not disputing what you believe to be 'theology or Catholic dogma, but rather disputing your 'historic' view point. You are FREE to believe whatever you want about Catholic Theology and Dogma.
Essentially you are arguing for a point of view that shares the same political overtones one can find by Islamic fundamentalist's. As we have seen these contexts are based on narrow and egregious interpretations of the Koran. In this sense, you have more in common with them (i.e., an interepretation based on very narrow understandings of the theologies they truthfully represent), than with any legitimate understanding of academic historical methods.
My advise is to do some research on brainwashing and its methods and principles so to extract yourself to THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Again, anyone can parrot Catholic orthodoxy: it takes something else to think for one self.
I hear you. You are saying that the social/cultural issues should not be part of the consensus of the group or party that is formed to oppose the corporatists. The progressives here respond that you should just accept their positions and not worry about it. I can see a conservative telling progressives that they should just accept the conservative positions and not worry about it. The problem is that the plutocrats have pushed those issues to the point that most of those on both sides, whether they admit it or not, require agreement on those issues. That is what keeps the social/cultural conservatives and the progressives apart and ensures continuing and increasing plutocratic control.
And since I do not see either side giving in on these issues, I believe the only hope is in legalizing secession, as I discussed in an earlier comment on this thread.
Kivals,
To whom is this posted directed at?
Re secession -- I think it's a great idea, and should be discussed far more often on the left.
That was not directed to any individual in particular, just my feeling from reading dozens (possibly hundreds?) of comments over the years on this site with regard to this or related issues. I find it regrettable that so few on either side are willing to put those issues aside and accept that we will have to agree to disagree while we join together to fight against the plutocrats. As I wrote, I have pretty much given up on that and see secession as the best alternative left.