Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Where Victors Are Victims: Santorum and Republican 'Dissent'
Recently, while cavorting with a solemn band of pastors in McKinney, Texas, presidential hopeful Rick Santorum lashed out at the “secular left” as an atheist plague distilled into the human form of President Obama and his boosters. In doing so Santorum anted up what we might call a frothy mixture of religion and politics that is the byproduct of election-year hyperbole and Republican “dissent.”
While hobnobbing in the friendly company of religious conservatives in the Lone Star State—and doing his fair share of ostentatious praying for the cameras, too—Santorum found his groove: “The intolerance of the left, the intolerance of the secular ideology, it is a religion unto itself, it is just not a biblical based religion, and it is the most intolerant.”
He then went old-school, linking the US left to sickle-wielding Commies while putting forth religious conservatives as dissident citizens: “Just like we saw from the days of the atheists of the Soviet Union, it is completely intolerant of dissent. They fear dissent. Why? Because the dissent comes from folks who use reason, common sense, and divine revelation and they want no part of any of those things.” He went on to assert secular lefties “want their world view to be imposed without question, and if you question them, you’re haters, you’re bigots, and you should be as a result of that ostracized from the public square.”
Such aggrieved avowals are more than hyperbolic electioneering chatter. They chime with a longstanding trend among powerful social conservatives to reposition themselves as a persecuted minority.
Turns out Santorum was channeling his inner Himmelfarb. Gertrude Himmelfarb is a conservative icon who blended the seemingly incompatible “common sense” and “divine intervention” into a deafening specter of political persecution. Paul Krugman recently noted Himmelfarb’s penchant to decry the erosion of Victorian values and virtues. But her influence extends even further, to her skillful sleight-of-rhetoric inversions that make the powerful appear powerless and the exalted religious authorities appear to be victimized political marginalia.
In Himmelfarb’s book One Nation, Two Cultures, first published in 1999—spouse of neoconservative granaddaddy Irving Kristol and mother of right-wing powerhouse William Kristol—put forth many of the arguments Republican presidential candidates are proffering today: culture, rather than class, divides America; people in the US are transforming into European-style, moral zombies; academia is a perilous pit of liberal relativism where we’re discouraged from taking firm stands rooted in faith.
She also argued there is a “dissident culture” that eschews pre-marital sex, home-schools their kids, turns off their smut-laden televisions, and engages politics based on these principles and practices. This is all dog-whistle music for the Christian Right, and Santorum is now blowing that whistle with all the power in his lungs. So when he yammers about Obama’s “phony ideology,” as he did recently, he’s doggedly dog-whistling to the “dissident culture.”
For many, such a conception of dissent is compelling, and it may galvanize more social conservatives to head to the voting booth singing Santorum. In fact, the word “dissent” has religious roots, entering English in the late 16th century as both a general expression meaning disagreement in outlook and as a specific word meaning difference of opinion in regard to religious doctrine or worship. Dissent with a capital D refers to those who actively opposed the hegemony of the Church of England in the Seventeenth Century. These Dissenters were members of Protestant denominations—primarily the Baptists Presbyterians, Quakers, and the Independents—who eventually combined to overthrow King Charles I and organized the English Commonwealth.
When read through this historical frame where religion is in the foreground, Himmelfarb and Santorum’s vision of dissent has some merit. However, it also circumvents a central dimension of political dissent: contesting power. After all, these people have political and institutional power as well as privileged access to immense resources. And thus the victors are cloaked as victims.
Santorum is more interested in converting issues of fact into articles of faith. Thus, climate change is something you either believe in or don’t, not a phenomenon that can be detected and measured. Recently, Santorum has taken to habitually imitating the infamous global-warming denier Sen. James Inhofe, dismissing climate change as a “hoax.” While on the campaign trail in Colorado, Santorum attacked Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, essentially for taking physics and chemistry seriously, at least in previous political lives. He said his Republican rivals had “bought into the science of man-made global warming, and they bought into the remedy, both of which are bogus.” He declared, “I’ve never supported even the hoax of global warming.” Gulp.
This is how the slippery politicos take matters of scientific fact and contort them into political opinion. By channeling their precooked ‘beliefs’ through the filter of dissent, they can claim underdog status on the road to electoral shenaniganizing. Voters beware of pseudo-dissident citizenship designed to cull their political sympathy.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
60 Comments so far
Show AllReligious righties have a penchant for projection. They constantly project their own chicanery onto anyone who sees through it. Their disdain for education speaks for itself.
Incidentally, anyone who might think a theocracy sounds like a pretty good idea better make damned sure they know exactly whose theology, and what interpretation of it, will be used before they acquiesce.
And here's a little something for Santorum and all the right wing gasbags who like to make a show of praying:
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."
--Matthew 6:5
Of course, few of them seem to have any concept of the New Testament, but if they intend to continue this charade, they should perhaps familiarize themselves with it. They might be surprised to find how much Jesus has in common with the secular left.
Yes!
This is one of the best things I've read all month. Thank you!
Excellent post.
Here's a solid examination of Bible verses on the Republicans' culture war
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/what-bible-is-santorum-reading_b_1288094.html
Last night I was reading 1491 (thank you, dear CD poster, for the recommendation) when I came across this statement in a section about the beginnings of counting and writing in Mesoamerica and the cultural importance of adopting the concept of zero. "Regarding zero as a dangerous idea, the Catholic Church banned Hindu-Arabic numerals ---- the 0 through 9 used today ---- in much of Italy until the fourteenth century." At the rate we are slipping into the past, I urge anyone who gets near Santorum to test the "zero" waters.
Rick Santorum American Iatola lobs Ave Maria in White House bid. Elections and shooting your mouth off have consequences.
Ricky you got some 'splainin' to do. We know the devil makes you do it but, don't change the subject. "We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country, and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it," Santorum said. Is the Christian right even paying attention?
Hey Christian right you just got dissed by a Catholic! What happened to Catholics are not going to heaven because they are not born again? You going to put this Italian Catholic in the White House? Wake up Bubba! Protestants are disgruntled Catholics. All Non Catholic Christians are Protestants. The Pope works in mysterious ways.
(When Obama took office people in Idaho and CO were stockpiling ammo. If Santorum takes office will there be a run on rubbers? Santorum is going to take our condoms away! Pleasure is for the wealthy. Get back to my salt mines. Your reward will come in heaven my son.)
Once again, an article which unintentionally highlights how much Santorum and Obama (and the rest of the frauds) have in common.
Obama is also very proud to be (what I would label) a mainstream christian who puts his faith in biblical stories and the religion of so-called Free Market Capitalism before anything and everything which contradicts these beliefs.
The example of global warming is typical.
Global Warming is of little concern to any of these frauds. Obama pretended to be concerned about it before he was elected to the presidency and ever since he has worked to sabotage efforts to change our course.
Why? Because he believes in corporate profits and has faith in christianity. Both of these religions and the great majority of other religions depend upon subservience from the masses for the superiority of an extreme minority.
To these people, science mainly matters as it affect profits. At this point, they see oil and coal as being more easily profitable and global warming is probably what their god wants.
They would be lacking in "Faith" if they worried about it.
Agreed. The only real faith any of them have is in money. And even there their allegiances are only based on amount of return.
“The intolerance of the left, the intolerance of the secular ideology, it is a religion unto itself, it is just not a biblical based religion, and it is the most intolerant.”
That entire statement is double talk. Pure and simple. Break it apart anyway you like it makes no sense. He's simply trying to incite his base to hatred of anyone that disagrees with their superstitions. Like the emperor that proudly paraded naked, he wears no clothes.
Also this... secular lefties “want their world view to be imposed without question, and if you question them, you’re haters, you’re bigots, and you should be as a result of that ostracized from the public square.”
It really is amazing that they view the left/liberal/secular as being exactly as they themselves are. That's why I learned long ago you can't reason with folks like this. It's just going to take numerous generations to get the disease out of the system.
It's just going to take numerous generations to get the disease out of the system.
Unfortunately for us, we don't have that kind of time. The sheeple won't break the herd formation until the mass killings and die offs begin in earnest but it will be far too late by then.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Article 6 of the Constitution, paragraph 3.
What part of that don't the candidates for office understand? Shall we all explain it to them? Don't show me yours and I won't show you mine. I am frankly not interested.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600
Thank you, Gardener.
What's really striking, to the point of Twilight Zone-style bizarre, is that the more persons claim to be religious (in the U.S. that's mostly Christian), the more we see the following:
1. An acceptance of gas-guzzling, climate destroying vehicles
2. An expansion of the MIC in the form of the make-war state
3. A chasm between excessive wealth and the general pay scale of workers
4. A marked increase in depression, obesity, and addictions (added to a variety of self-medicating devices & similar coping strategies)
People are empty, cut off from nature and their own truth, and of late, taught to be fearful of anyone who doesn't march to their drummer (or attend their church, look like them, shop where they shop, and view the world as they do). The ensuing sense of isolation leaves persons empty, and thus people search for ways to fill the vacuum. Some consume lots of sugar and fast food, others gamble, focus on porn, video games, or shopping till they drop, etc. These are all dysfunctional behaviors.
Yesterday's article on the Buddhist monk and his recipe for LOVING the Earth was right on! Until people open their empathy channels and find the courage to face the truth, a truth that is painful in many respects, there can be no motivating collective force for change. Those called to the Occupy movement are the first to awaken, the First Responders to the global crisis in consciousness now underway. Civilization, as known, is pivoted on a gigantic paradigm shift. This phase holds prophetic roots in a diverse array of teachings. The cosmic clock is sounding. As before, the dinosaurs (like sanitarium a/k/a santorum) will be left behind.
It doesn't seem bizarre to me at all -
- Christianity says when we die we float up to heaven away from the earth - decoupling humans from the earth
- man has dominion over the earth to do with as we please adds up to pollute as much as you can -
Christians are the chosen ones so war waged upon those who hold other religions (aka muslims, communists, etc) is a grand thing
- if we 'repent' in the last second of life we're saved!
All ads up to a shit load of corruption, war and environmental destruction - and if we do happen to destroy the earth - well it's already a given (book of revelations)
I beleive (if there really was a Jesus) that true Christianity would have been closer to buddhism that the perversion it is today - and mary and the gnostics as the defacto leaders
No argument from me on the points you raised. I just wish more people "got it." But I think the church, especially in depressed pockets of the Deep South, represents the ONLY social outlet for thousands. People meet in church, get to dress up in their finest, and sing. Plus the power of song is real. The Blacks who were socialized into White Anglo culture by their "former masters," and took up Christianity found in some of its better ideals, the strength and hope to live by.
Religion in some ways is like money. It's not money itself that's evil, but the love of money. And I guess religion can bring out the Light in some--like Dr. Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day and others; while for too many, it leads to all sorts of twisted behavior and morality. When religion teaches love and inclusion, when it honors free will (which is rare), it doesn't do a major disservice to humanity. But just as power, especially absolute power, tends to become abused, the church in presuming its own Divine Authority certainly has been at the forefront of MAJOR abuses of power, and massive human rights violations. It owes a tremendous debt to humanity. Especially to Indigenous Tribes and WOMEN.
Hmm. Not a bad idea, gardenernorcal, kind of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on religion. No one will know whether a candidate is heteroreligious or homereligious. I like it!
A mehanism like projection does not quite explain the reasoning of Santorum but uncritical belief in received wisdom from a Higher power or Authority does. So the "reasoning" of santorum, such as it is would be something like this:
1. Humans have no method of using their own faculties to find out how to live a decent moral life. For that they must rely on a God to tell them what to do.
2. However this is no problem since all proper conduct for human beings have been proscribed in the scriptures.
3. Since this holds in the moral sphere it holds in the sphere of science also where man's attempt to understand his world is just as fallible.
4. Those who appeal to science as a method are therfore usurping the proper role of man's limited capacities and claiming a truth that can only come from God-- therefore science is a false religion.
5. Lucky for us we have pious men like himself who are anxious to restore the proper order of things. If we follow their instructions things will be better for all of us.
Although all the points that follow from premises 1 and 2 are routinely challenged and dismissed by those of us on the secular side of the argument, the first two premises are usually left alone as the proper province of religion. In my opinion the only way to combat this pernicious religious authoritarianism is to go after the starting premise and assert that we do have the capabilities of forming a moral science from what we do know about human behavior, culture, human biology and neuroscience. Instead we leave that part of the argument alone, saying that the Santorum's of the world are entitled to their religious beliefs. Then we are suprised at all the dismal consequences which follow. In the political world no one can stand up to Santorum and say, "Shut up--you don't know what you are talking about--I am an atheist but I feel completely capable of living by well recognised standards for conducting a moral life." I suppose I will never live to see that--what a dark time we are living in.
Your point number 1) is well taken, Tammons. It is based in the belief in original sin - or i should say, it is the result of that presumption. And Christianity is based in the idea that Jesus was crucified to wipe that sin clean. So, it was an insipid mythology to begin with and then another mythology was slapped on that one.
I am not a person who prescribes to organized religion but i was taught that without the crucifixion/resurrection story, Jesus would be a footnote. Too bad, because i think the man was really deep and powerful. However, since he was a total radical, he had to be co-opted to fit into the Constinianism which is what we have had as Christianity for a couple thousand years, more or less. Not to mention an infantile perspective of the nature of reality.
Tammons: Excellent post. And don't forget, there's a bit of political correctness involved here, too, in that it's considered impolite to criticize others' religions. That's why honoring the LEGAL LINE between church and state is so important; and it's precisely this necessary boundary that figures like Santorum are working to eviscerate. He no doubt sided with those who erased the Glass Steagall line set between Wall Street speculation and conventional banking, and we see where that erased boundary led.
Authoritarians are dangerous because there is no capacity for democracy possible within their worldview. Just as so many fundamentalist zealots clamor on about the Arabs' wish for a purported global caliphate, it's always been the Christian who's invaded foreign lands and demanded, at virtual bayonet point, the conversion of the local people. Christianity was not warmly or voluntarily embraced throughout Europe, either... conformity to its authoritarian ethos took place on threat of heresy, being burned at the stake, or otherwise tortured in a pogrom or Inquisition. Having remained intact down the centuries, it's recently resurrected into an insidious cult of intolerance. Therefore it's quite amusing--to the point of terrifying--to see yet another one of its pundits invert the obvious, and manage to project the threat of intolerance onto those who espouse LIBERAL views of tolerance! The authoritarian only permits HIS way... everyone MUST conform.
The thinking that posits the Left as the intolerant group mirrors that of right wing talk show hosts who have convinced many of their white male listeners that Affirmative Action programs represent a denial of THEIR rights. Of course if the pie were not cut in a manner that gave the elites 85% and left 15% for the rest... the scarcity premise that underlies these arguments would become effete.
This is the End of the Age of Deception; and if one looks around, they will see evidence that every sacred precept has become inverted, turned into what it is not. The most evident is the premise that we are a democratic society whose structure is founded on law. If a president can kill at will, if a citizen is no longer guaranteed a trial, and if the press is Captured by the same interests furthering these inroads into absolute control (of citizens), liberty is left empty... it becomes a brand name, a shell emptied of contents (or should I say, cannibalized).
For all their white washed sunny smiles, this group of Christian Zealots is dangerous! Note, too, how they bond with the most extreme fundamentalist sects of Jews, and together, bang the drums FOR war. What God of peace would condone such efforts? They are warriors for Mars... the only 'god' they identify with. And Mars is an intolerant god, to be sure.
Here's another problem with Santorum's rantorum: is ignores Christian radicals, in fact, he appears incapable of even acknowledging the possibility. What about "belivers" who DON'T agree with the religious Right on ANYthing in the political realm - who DO support woman's rights, indiginous freedoms, anti-corporatism, who call themselves progressives, anti-racists, pro-feminist, even anti-capitalists, AND Christian. There are millions of us. But, like the "mainstream Protestants", because they don't fit Santorum's particular doctrine, they are not "legitimate". Remind me again - WHO is being intolerant?
As a mainline PROTESTant myself, I'm thrilled to be "gone" from Santorum's version of Christianity.
Don't fool yourself. You're just splitting hairs if you think you're different from Santorum. He's just more open and honest about his hate.
I am forbidden from hating anyone and required to love everyone.
Just to be clear, there are somewhat more Catholics among influential figures in the radical-left than protestants - Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, Thomas Merton, the Berrigans, Kathy Kelly, Fr. Dear, Fr. Bourgois, Joan Chittser, Helen Prejean, the ploughshares movement Pax Christi, Close the SOA.
Of course, Jews beat out both groups - particularly amongst the "brainy" wing of the left.
And Protestants seem to adhere to somewhat more reactionary viewpoints than Catholics. They have even outlawed alchoholic beverages over vast swaths of the south.
Have you reviewed the positions of the United Church of Christ (UCC) and the United Methodist Church (UMC)? You'll find full equality for LGBTQ members in the UCC and a commitment to other forms of social justice in both. Both denominations have open communion and ordain women. Also Prohibition, which continues in reduced form today, was a product of the Progressive Era and an attempt to rein in the social abuses of the alcoholic beverage industry. I'm not a supporter of Prohibition, FWIW.
Black and white, black and white, be careful that you do not fall into the same hole as the conservatives. I consider myself to be a product of the UCC ( United Church of Christ) and whether or not my understanding of their doctrines is accurate I learned to reject god and embrace the message of Jesus Christ within that church. I have not attended the Church in over 35 years because of my beliefs but I miss the community in a way that is difficult to explain. Was it not Reverend Wright Minister to Barack Obama who said "God damn America" you know the guy that everyone got so pissed off with. I think he was a UCC minister.
I hope there ARE millions of you because the church these days sure speaks in the language of domination and expulsion--through war--of Muslims. It is hardly speaking in any idiom of peaceful inclusion!
Just as Stephen Riley brings a higher understanding to the Catholic Church, I would suppose you'd do likewise for your local church congregation.
I've always felt that the Unitarian Universalists and Unity have a much more holistic spiritual understanding, taking the Bible as a metaphorical guideline, and such.
Your post is truly right on. Have you read Chris Hedges' book, "American Fascists"? It delves into the political goals of a well-entrenched Christian Theocracy movement. So many don't see the dots that need to be connected to put the current religious-political circus into perspective. Seems the louder one's alleged identification with patriarchal religious ideology, the greater the odds said person will be FOR war, or the senseless slaughter of so many innocents. It's a grotesque obscenity in very slow motion, having managed to stain so many centuries in blood.
Pope John Paul II opposed the Iraq War, as did Benedict XVI.
Both popes made efforts to reach out to Muslims on many occasions, though John Paul II was better at it than Benedict XVI. The Vatican is happy to work with Muslim countries to block efforts to liberate women, for example at UN conferences.
The kind of Catholicism preached by Santorum is far to the right of the Church's mainstream, and seems more aligned with Evangelical Protestantism.
It still amazes me how it is accepted without hesitation that social/cultural conservatism and political/economic conservatism naturally go together. In many places in the world they do not, and at times in US history they have not (e.g., William Jennings Bryan's campaigns where he depended on Christian conservatives as he promoted policies to move the country to the left on political/economic issues, also the Social Darwinists of the 19th Century and early 20th were comparatively liberal on social/cultural issues). I suspect that the pairing developed during the Cold War, especially because of McCarthyism, where the Soviet Union's communism, along with China's communism, was depicted as being completely intertwined with its atheism (while Liberation Theology in Latin America was never fully explained in popular media).
The corporate media can always be counted on to conflate the two, as I believe they have at least since Nixon and Reagan won elections by doing so. I do not believe it is in the public's interest to continue that practice.
Kivals: There is an element you left out, and it's one that you always underplay. It's that of the women's movement. Because the entire essence of mainstream patriarchal religion rests on women's second-class status, the eruption of a mass movement for GENUINE equality represents a HUGE upset to the church. Without hierarchy, and hierarchy begins in the asymmetrical relationship laid out by the church in placing men above women, the whole institution collapses.
Just as the church was ready to slay Galileo for presenting evidence of a sun-based (rather than earth-based) cosmology, the equality of women presents an equal challenge and test to its logos (not to mention its alleged Divine Authority).
MUCH in the way of Christian fundamentalism is pivoted on the control of women's bodies. Many books tell women to "submit" to their husbands, and it's understood that if God is the head of the society, the father/male is the intended head of the household.
Many in this forum are up-to-date on their HIStory, and others on Marxism, but so few of you get it about the disequilibrium INSTITUTED between men and women for centuries and where it's led. Just because women can vote NOW, or own property NOW, or sometimes (this being seriously under sabotage) control their reproductive destinies NOW does not alter the fact that ALL of the metrics put in place to guide society to its present arrangement were designed by men, usually WASPS of privilege. Relegating this significant factor into irrelevance, because it's so inconvenient for most men to consider it... doesn't change the Truth, or where it's taken us.
I will credit Joe Hope, with whom I've had inflamed debates, with reminding me that society, being thus crippled, has also injured many men. And that is precisely why a more enlightened, gender-BALANCED society is so important to shifting the metrics we live by. The Christian theocrats are horrified at such an idea... for them, the Plantation System (and/or feudalism) remains adequate. Bless Jesus. Pass the collection plate!
Siouxrose,
I really enjoy your needling but do I have to enjoy it so often? When have I ever hinted or implied that women were unequal or that the Church was justified in treating them that way? Before I became agnostic at the age of 11, I was a good little Catholic boy going to Catholic schools and I distinctly remember asking my parents and even my schoolteacher nuns why nuns were not considered equal to priests. I always thought that was wrong. I not only thought less of the Church because of the inequality, but found such inequality disturbing when I encountered it in secular society -- I even wanted to change my name to include both my parents' last names because I thought it was unfair to only carry my father's name.
I just did not see a need to bring up such issues in the context of making my point above.
I have affection and respect for you, Kivals, so if you think I'm going too hard on you, I'll let up. After all, there are PLENTY of others who need consciousness-raising in this forum. I guess I have the memory of an elephant, as I happen to recall that you were the first one in this forum to bring up the examples of Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, Madeleine Albright, and Margaret Thatcher when I made my case for Venus (law-based values) versus Mars (war trumping all other priorities, given the Force First societal bias). Others have then used those exceptions to the rule to force me to endlessly lay out my case in greater detail.
LEEZASKY: I am no expert on the position of the Catholic Church, but I'd encourage you to read the side-bar article where Nancy Pelosi attempts to get some women's voices heard by the "Panel of NINE men." And you think this has nothing to do with the control of women? Would you like 9 nuns to tell you when you could and could not dance the old Chinga? For all your smarts, you also don't get it about Obama, either, so I may be talking to the intellectual equivalent of a very thick wall.
Once you understand Rick Santorum is a Christian Reconstructionist nothing he says is particularly surprising.
It has long seemed very strange to me how so many Christians truly inhabit a fantasyland way of thinking. Even leaving aside the whole idea of God-Christ, how can so many believers so studiously avoid Christ's teachings, and not only that, but live lives in direct conflict. Hmmm. Perhaps there's money to be made by selling a new version of the Bible. Keep the Old Testament, add in John3:16 for an abbreviated version of the Gospels, skip the boring letters, and of course keep the wondrous Revelations on the end where all good believers can truly give their imaginations free reign. Wouldn't it seem interesting if everyone followed in Christ's footsteps? Wandering about and telling stories.
Christianity is bult upon violence, murder and cannibalism......
And of course - Don't complain about the misery you experience here cause it'll be paradise up in the stars.....
Why be surprised by the words that shoot from the mouths of the 'true believers'
I think he is covertly running for the position of Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. The Vatican bank may well be part of his superpac, or couldn't that happen. I don't really know.
Santorum's Catholicism is too far to the right to appeal to the Vatican. Remember, both Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI stated their opposition to the Iraq War and have called for an end to the embargo of Cuba. And John Paul, like some of his predecessors, preached about social justice on many occasions. Of course he was closely aligned with the Polish trade union Solidarity as well.
But no doubt if he becomes president, the Pope will be glad that there's a Catholic in the White House, and will try to derive some benefit from that.
Oh My God - those pesky republicans are crazy! You hear me - Crazy!
I'm voting Obama - he really cares about a poor schmuck like me!
I mean he really does - just today he proposed lowering the Corporate Tax Rate so the job creators can find it in their mercy to be Saints and hire me to some shitty low paying job!
God Bless Obama - and God Bless the USA!
If I was interested in being a con man, the first thing I would do is become a right-wing, evangelical Bible thumper, because these close-minded, ignorant, people have to be the most vulnerable and the easiest to con in the world! And the fact that they follow someone like Santorum, is all the proof you need!
The most gullible people attract the biggest scam artists to prey on them. I suspect the shameless fiends drool when they see such low-hanging fruit.
That was Ron Hubbard's formula.
Good posts... don't forget to add those instant check-cashing places in low income neighborhoods to your list of abusers of the vulnerable and easily led.
There's a lot of truth in the old blues song saying, "Gonna become a Baptist preacher so I don't have to work."
If the Left is committed to mobilizing the people who are victimized by the 1% into a powerful movement for change, what place does calling so many of them "ignorant, close (sic) minded" etc have in our strategy?
If the Left is committed only to mobilizing aware, open minded people, what chance does it have of bringing about the kind of change that is urgently needed?
You can't appeal to people who are being screwed by con men, rich bastards, and other assorted 1 percenters by calling them names. That only angers them and lends resonance to the accusations that the Left is nothing but a bunch of elitist snobs.
As an atheist, I don't agree with people who are religious or superstitious. But i'm ready to work with them to get rid of the domination of the 1%.
Much of the effectiveness of right-wing Bible thumpers comes from the social services ("ministries") they provide to people who used to be able to depend on government provided services not available any more. They also offer a sense of community to many people who long for that. Both these issues arise in large part because of the unbridled capitalism that oppresses Americans.
In other words, many of the "ignorant" types are also victims of what we're fighting.. Isn't it time to try to figure out how to bring them on side, instead of mocking and abusing them?
here's the way that works: the only way to sway religious reactionaries towards a slightly more progressive view is to buy them off. Put in place elected leaders (FDR) who will build bridges, repair hwys, build and expand schools, lower college tuition, control health costs, i.e,. give these people something tangible in exchange for their grudging votes on election day. A certain, fairly large percentage of them are too far gone even to know when they are experiencing a material improvement in their lives so they will continue to resist. In fact, like the "militia movement" during Bill Clinton's first term, many will take up arms in opposition to a bunch of phantasmagorical "big govt" hobgoblins that never existed. But those with enough common sense to observe improvements in the economic security can be bought.
All of this assumes there are Democrats actually willing to use government to "provide for the general welfare" per the Constitution rather than providing corporate welfare per their campaign donors. Big assumption. Short of progressive political and economic policy success we will never get anywhere with the reactionaries. The independents and apathetic are likely to be better targets for progressive organizing.
Leezasky;
Thank you. Well said, Leezasky. You "speak my mind" on this subject. I call myself a person of faith, but I have very little in common with the vapid fundamentalists, and although I personally don't believe in the athiest position - who the hell cares if I can join with them to stand against our COMMON enemy, the corporate destruction of society? I totally agree with you that the Revolution will never come if the Left belittles and insults the masses who, now as always, experience the deepest things in life in many different ways and intrepret them from many different perspectives. If we can not unite around our common interests and instead focus on our personal differences, we have no hope whatsoever against the organized Powers That Be. Seriously, people. Talk to the poor factory worker about how his suffering grew out of the loss of his union. If you attack the things he clings to in order to make it through the day he will never join the movement.
I agree that they are just as much a part of the 99% as we are, it is just that they do not know it yet, but as someone who has gone to the Tea Party people many times and tried to reach them I would appreciate some information on how you would do it. Well said, Leezasky Mea culpa. Paul
Whenever I listen to someone like Santorum, it is just further proof that religious fundamentalists are the same regardless of the faith they claim to follow. All of them are tyrants at heart who want to force everyone to do as they wish.
Earthsattering news! Santorum stubbed his toe and said "gosh darnit".
War crimes, treason, corruption, kleptocracy, NDAA, torture, Prison Industrial Complex, election rigging, corporate media cartel propaganda....
These are not important issues.
Hey I heard that Romney is using a different brand of hair dye!