Scoop News http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0712/S00059.htm

Michael Collins: Mike Huckabee - Minister of Death

Tuesday, 4 December 2007, 10:47 am
Opinion: Michael Collins

Minister of Death
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0712/24155f91c4929b02150c.jpeg
Mike Huckabee – "Surging" Republican

By Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News
Washington, D.C.

Mike Huckabee is the "surging" candidate to watch in the Republican presidential primaries, at least for the moment. The former Arkansas governor is an ordained Southern Baptist minister and a believer in the "inerrancy" doctrine of Biblical scripture. Inerrancy means, quite simply, that the believer accepts every bit of the Bible as literal truth (Adam & Eve, an earth just 6,000 years old, etc.)

As governor, Huckabee was an enthusiastic death penalty supporter. He now supports World War III against Muslim "fascists" and he's taking his message of death on the road.

A panel of talking heads on Chris Matthews' "Hard Ball" conferred legitimacy on the Huckabee candidacy last week. A more professional group of journalists at the Pew Forum treated Huckabee with deference by avoiding any hard hitting questions. There was nothing about Huckabee's February declaration of World War III or his beliefs in a final judgment in our times and no mention of his tainted past in Arkansas. Only Kathy Kay of the BBC raised questions about the specter of the candidate's extreme views.

Let's see what the former Arkansas governor and minister has in store for the United States if he's selected to win the Presidency.

After becoming governor in 1997, Huckabee signed death warrants for 16 executions by lethal injection. This violates the clearly worded, but frequently forgotten commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." He must know that World War III means even more killing and death. But neither position seems to bother him. In fact, he recently used death imagery in estimating the reaction of fellow Republicans to his fund raising gains: "If I were some of these guys, I'd have to be sitting in a warm tub of water with razor blades,"

Selective Forgiveness as Governor

Charles Singleton was convicted of murder in Arkansas and executed by lethal injection during Huckabee's term as governor. Singleton was a diagnosed schizophrenic. Huckabee was unimpressed and issued the required death warrant.

Supreme Court decisions mandate prisoner mental competence prior to execution. Singleton was given (his lawyer says forced) antipsychotic medication to relieve his schizophrenia. As a result, the prisoner regained a grasp on reality. Singleton's successful treatment for a serious mental illness then became the vehicle that allowed the state to kill him.

Of the 16 Huckabee era executions, there is a pattern of dismissing or refusing to examine legitimate questions or claims concerning mental illness.

http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0712/71c60288b512d4b674ef.jpeg http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0712/190da09c5adb37358527.jpeg
Singleton and Dumond

Huckabee did find forgiveness in his heart for at least one Arkansas criminal. Wayne Dumond was convicted for raping a 17 year old girl in 1985. This fourth sexual assault conviction earned Dumond a sentence of life plus 20 years.

At the start of his first term, Huckabee took a special interest in the Dumond case and had plans to commute his sentence. When an irate public stopped that, the new governor effectively lobbied the pardon's board. Just four months after they'd denied a Dumond parole request, the board ruled favorably. These events and a broader narrative of the case were well documented by investigative journalist Murray Waas.

Dumond was released on parole in 1999. Just months after the parole, he bound, gagged, and suffocated a Missouri woman. He was convicted of that murder and a suspect in another by the time he was confined to a Missouri state prison where he died in his cell.

Huckabee continues to deny his role in the pardon despite the evidence amassed by Waas and others. On Aug. 31, 2007, Associated Press (AP) reported that the Wikipedia entry on Huckabee was edited to delete critical references to the Dumond pardon. AP traced the source of the edits to Arkansas state government computers.

First Arkansas, then the World – Better World War III than "Lose" in Iraq

Huckabee "shocked and awed" voters in his first campaign visit to New Hampshire. He announced that we're already in the midst of World War III with "Islamic fascism."

"We need to understand that this is, in fact, World War III. Unlike any other world war we've ever fought, this one is one we cannot afford to lose. Because losing it does not mean we lose some land or some geopolitical influence. It means we give up our own lives, because no less than that is the goal of the jihadists." AP, Feb. 10, 2007 Video

Just a few weeks ago he argued that his version of World War III is even more ominous than World War II: "I don't think we've ever faced a threat like we are facing now. I don't even think Germany is the threat that we're facing right now. We're facing, I believe, our possible annihilation as a country..." CNN Oct. 19, 2007

What is Huckabee talking about? Have we missed something?

One of his strongest supporters, millionaire TV preacher Rev. John Hagee, agrees with Huckabee on the urgency of fighting Islam. Hagee also offers a version of the "End Times" from the Book of Revelations, one shared by other Huckabee supporters on the religious right. These include the influential publisher of apocalyptic prophesy Strang Communications. The Strang newsletter, New Man, endorsed Huckabee saying, "When it comes to faith, he is truly one of our own."

The key action starts when Russia invades Israel. The United States fails to defend Israel and is punished by seeing both coasts nuked. A European anti-Christ emerges and does battle with the second coming of Jesus. There's death and destruction on a global scale. All but a very few are cast into Hell. Hagee's Jesus then rules a world of true believers in an earthly paradise despite the bi-coastal U.S. nuclear holocaust.

When asked about the "End Times" scenario, Huckabee indicated that "every generation" prepares for the End Times, which "could be" occurring right now.

The son of the late Jerry Falwell, Jerry Falwell Jr., Chancellor, Liberty University, offered the candidate his endorsement just days ago. Huckabee told Liberty's ultra right wing student body that divine intervention is behind his presidential campaign.

A student asked Huckabee to explain his recent "surge" in the race. His response indicated that he'd experienced nothing less than an apotheosis: “There’s only one explanation for it and it’s not a human one. It’s the same power that felt that … two fish and five loaves could feed a crowd of 5,000 people. … There literally are thousands of people across this country who are praying that little would become much and it has.” Liberty Journal Oct/Nov 2007 Matthew: 18: 17-19 ("two fish and five loaves")

The New Dark Ages

Does Huckabee really believe this nonsense? Probably. But he also has a record of killing mentally ill people by lethal injection, working diligently to free a rapist who murdered once freed then denying involvement, and a Giuliani-like record of taking liberties with government funds.

Perhaps he's ripe for an "all this can be yours" deal from the same donors that propelled Bush in the 2000 primaries. He campaigns as "the values guy" who is concerned about the workingman; a "just plain Huck" trying to help.

There's some reason to believe this deal may have been struck already with the corporate media's portrayal of him as a "Bush with brains" – a sincere and capable guy; religious but practical; a "humble" guy in touch with the people. Sound familiar? Corporate media may have tipped its hand with the focus on Giuliani's financial problems while ignoring Huckabee's even though they were both published in "Politico," Nov. 28 and 23 respectively.

With the talk of Huckabee the "humble", the reanimation of the weakly documented "values voters" from 2000 and 2004, and enough cash; we may get a replay of the phony red versus blue rationale which diverted attention from the unbelievable results of election 2004. We'll know if this is the plan if and when corporate contributions materialize in a big way.

A Huckabee led World War III against Islam would be a boon to the tentative financial state of some in corporate America. He'd enthusiastically continue the war in Iraq, that vital Washington subsidy for the post-2003 corporate welfare system. The widely expected "hard landing" for the economy could be avoided a bit longer. The stealth bailout could proceed for CitiCorp and other large financial instructions. They would have a "soft landing" instead of facing the real world consequences of poor business decisions. Record rake offs from no-bid Iraq war contracts would survive as well.

The tools for this political "perfect storm" are in place: deep pocket corporate donors; a compliant corporate media; plus computerized voting equipment produced and controlled by the same Republican leaning corporations in charge since 2000. The media will continue to talk of a divided nation by continuing to ignore the 65% of the nation that disproves of the war. Some will live happily for a few years until we begin our sharp descent ending up as the world's best armed debtor nation.

Should he be "chosen," we'll be lead to this promised land by President Huckabee who thinks that the world was created 6,000 years ago; that Adam & Eve were the first humans on earth; that evolution is a myth; and that we're all just biding time until our world is devastated and replaced by a paradise from which most of us will be excluded. What more could we expect from a corporate America that gave us Bush – Cheney and then did nothing about it.

ENDS

Permission to reproduce in whole or part with attribution of authorship and a link to this article

Link: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0712/S00059.htm

http://tinyurl.com/2u3e5v

Murray Waas wrote a great article for the alternative paper, "The Arkansas Times" on the Dumond pardon. He's updated that here http://tinyurl.com/2u3e5v .

His original article is here http://tinyurl.com/2m8mwv .

It's quite a story. I have to read the update, but the real question is why did olf "Huck" want to comunte Dumond's sentence. He was overruled by public outrage. What was the connection that propelled that strange desire.

Here's "Huck's" dopelganger

http://www.popmatters.com/images/film_art/f/face-in-the-crowd.jpg

Seriously, auto, how much different would his policy be than Hillary's? Not much I thinK, different window dressing, a few different "morality issues" which will come to nothing.

Huckabee could well surge here in SC, party leadership has been trying to shove Guiliani down the rank & files throats but it ain't working too well. Romney's religion freaks a lot of fundies, he'll not do well here. Wouldn't be surprised if the result of the primary is very inconclusive with Huckabee, Guilanio, Romney and Thompson all bunched up with Huckabee and Thompson in a fight for 1st but nowhere near a plurality.

Seriously, auto, how much different would his policy be than Hillary's? Not much I thinK, different window dressing, a few different "morality issues" which will come to nothing.

Huckabee could well surge here in SC, party leadership has been trying to shove Guiliani down the rank & files throats but it ain't working too well. Romney's religion freaks a lot of fundies, he'll not do well here. Wouldn't be surprised if the result of the primary is very inconclusive with Huckabee, Guilanio, Romney and Thompson all bunched up with Huckabee and Thompson in a fight for 1st but nowhere near a plurality.

I am not the least bit a fan of Hillary. I think she's headed to "victory" via biased polls and some "election magic" in the primaries as a "soft landing" for The Money Party's cash cow, Iraq war profits. Can't be any more blunt than that.

However, there is worse out there...and it's Huckabee. She'd continue the war but without the gusto that Huckabee has in mind. Check this 2.5 minutes of total strangeness out: http://tinyurl.com/3y5yvc

He wants to up sell the war in Iraq as part of a larger war against Islam, he digs it, he wants to "win," and all of our lives are on the line for this guy. A real scary dude. It's the difference between the gout and the most virulent of cancers.

The real weakness for Huckabee is a "Face in the Crowd" moment where he is exposed in all his ugliness. And that's started with this... Murray Waas: New Revelations on Huckabee Pardon of Serial Rapist http://tinyurl.com/23j5uq

Not that the corporate media would do anything with it. They know all this and are Huckabee boosters. But those other guys, the three charmers, already have an ops crew out on this terrible tale (essentially Huckabee let lose a serial rapist who went and murdered at least one woman within weeks of parole, which he now denies despite heavy duty proof). He'll be brought way down by that.

The selection process by The Money Party, having decided on Huckabee for the moment, is interrupted but the other three will deal, just not with a World War III take on Iraq.

Just when I think it can't get any worse, it does and I'm once again surprised. I have no doubt that Huckabee is just the first of the worst. We'll continue the slide until people decide that they've had entirely too much.

We need a pool here...who will be the biggest freakout of all.

I don't think there is any connection between the religiosity of the leaders and the policies and decisions that we associate with theocratic tendencies. Bush and Cheney are not serious Christians or fundies or dominionists by any stretch of the imagination. They are pandering to a certain group, that is all.

I don't think Christianity is the threat, and if I am reading you right that is your complaint against Huckabee. I think opposition to the right wing is weakened when we transmute it into a religious argument.

Would Jesse Jackson or Martin Luther King have been bad candidates because of their religious associations, which were no less than Huckabee's are? Would a candidate who held the exact same views as Huckabee, but did not talk about religion, be therefore OK?

Huckabee's popularity indicates to me that Republican voters are moving away from the religious right and are fed up with the Republican party leadership.

"He wants to up sell the war in Iraq as part of a larger war against Islam, he digs it, he wants to 'win'..."

Which candidates don't?

"Pardon of a serial rapist" reminds me of the Bush Willie Horton thing. Is there more to the story? That "probe" doesn't amount to much.

I don't think there is any connection between the religiosity of the leaders and the policies and decisions that we associate with theocratic tendencies. Bush and Cheney are not serious Christians or fundies or dominionists by any stretch of the imagination. They are pandering to a certain group, that is all.

I don't think Christianity is the threat, and if I am reading you right that is your complaint against Huckabee. I think opposition to the right wing is weakened when we transmute it into a religious argument.

Would Jesse Jackson or Martin Luther King have been bad candidates because of their religious associations, which were no less than Huckabee's are? Would a candidate who held the exact same views as Huckabee, but did not talk about religion, be therefore OK?

Huckabee's popularity indicates to me that Republican voters are moving away from the religious right and are fed up with the Republican party leadership.

"He wants to up sell the war in Iraq as part of a larger war against Islam, he digs it, he wants to 'win'..."

Which candidates don't?

"Pardon of a serial rapist" reminds me of the Bush Willie Horton thing. Is there more to the story? That "probe" doesn't amount to much.

It focused on this guys obsession with death - it's everywhere. He wants World War III - lots of death; he works like heck to get a serial rapist out of jail who goes right out and kills, twice, probably; he yucks it up with that very offensive suicide joke. He faovrs war and his only compassion is for a rapist allowed to murder due to his efforts. Click on World War III in the 2nd paragraph - it's chilling.

The relevance of Christianity is the Rev. Hagee and Rev. Fallwell Jr. tie ins. They're ministers and if they want to endorse presidential candidates, then they'll get a good look themselves. Hagee is a neocon ally who does everything he can to promote violence in the middle east. He even goes so far as to say, in a video, that Jesus was not sent as the savior. It fits into his political theory but this is hardly what anyone hears on Sunday or any other day.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of these neo fascist types taking very violent and unhelpful positions, then running behind their paranoia and saying they're being picked on. It's part of the doctrine, not of Christianity but of their cult, to think that everybody is after them. Huck thinks so, you can tell by reading and watching him. He'll have a giant meltdown and then the faction members who insist they're being persecuted will be reinforced.

If a person's religious beliefs make them say that it'w World War III is here and we better win it, then it's fair game. But it's not Christianity, it's a big load of nonsense that ignores the four Gospels. Find anything in common with those and Revelations and I'll pay for bandwidth for a month. You won't. But unlike the rest of the New Testament, Revelations has that stranger than anything theme that the violent, occult obsessed out there can grab onto and call Christianity.

This guy is a totally consistent, relentless activist for all of our deaths in a World War III which he'll make if he gets in, at least one he thinks he'll make (but we know better).

Read the Waas article and you'll see his faith.

As far as religion in npolitics goes, it should not be...mind your own business, I'll mind mine and I won't tell anybody what to think in any day they're thinking about it. Mouth off, portray yourself as a prophet - which he clearly does in that quote from Liberty University (last para of the "Arkansas - now the world" section:

"A student asked Huckabee to explain his recent "surge" in the race. His response indicated that he'd experienced nothing less than an apotheosis: "There's only one explanation for it and it's not a human one. It's the same power that felt that ... two fish and five loaves could feed a crowd of 5,000 people. ... There literally are thousands of people across this country who are praying that little would become much and it has." Liberty Journal Oct/Nov 2007 Matthew: 18: 17-19 ("two fish and five loaves")"

See what I mean. Besides, I've gotten a boatload of responses to this article and no one, the pros or the cons, has called it anti Christian. Just that I don't understand him, blablabla. I understand him. He's a huge danger if elected. We'll all be the random victims of one of his "Wayne Dumond" moves.

... "probe" doesn't amount to much."

I'm surprised you think I'd take an uninformed Willie Horton shot. Dukakis didn't know Willie Horton, nor was Horton politcally connected to Dukakis. Dukakis had nothing to do directly with the furlough of Horton. Huckabee met with Dumond's wife, with preachers advocating for Dumond, he lobbied for the parole after failing to get the guy released for "time served" (which caused a pubic outrage). Big differences. Plus, this was all well documented in 2002 (from the Waas link in the article).

You bet there's more from 2002 and 2007.

Here's the 2002 link, Murray Waas, meticulously researched and documented. Not one of his sources has retracted, despite considerable pressure: http://tinyurl.com/85a9r

Documents Expose Huckabee's Role In Serial Rapist's Release

December 4, 2007 11:18 PM
http://tinyurl.com/2u3e5v

Little Rock, Ark -- As governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee aggressively pushed for the early release of a convicted rapist despite being warned by numerous women that the convict had sexually assaulted them or their family members, and would likely strike again. The convict went on to rape and murder at least one other woman.

Confidential Arkansas state government records, including letters from these women, obtained by the Huffington Post and revealed publicly for the first time, directly contradict the version of events now being put forward by Huckabee.

While on the campaign trail, Huckabee has claimed that he supported the 1999 release of Wayne Dumond because, at the time, he had no good reason to believe that the man represented a further threat to the public. Thanks to Huckabee's intervention, conducted in concert with a right-wing tabloid campaign on Dumond's behalf, Dumond was let out of prison 25 years before his sentence would have ended.

"There's nothing any of us could ever do," Huckabee said Sunday on CNN when asked to reflect on the horrific outcome caused by the prisoner's release. "None of us could've predicted what [Dumond] could've done when he got out."

But the confidential files obtained by the Huffington Post show that Huckabee was provided letters from several women who had been sexually assaulted by Dumond and who indeed predicted that he would rape again - and perhaps murder - if released.

In a letter that has never before been made public, one of Dumond's victims warned: "I feel that if he is released it is only a matter of time before he commits another crime and fear that he will not leave a witness to testify against him the next time." Before Dumond was granted parole at Huckabee's urging, records show that Huckabee's office received a copy of this letter from Arkansas' parole board.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2007-12-05-lettertext.jpg

Snip

Dumond raped Ashley Stevens, Clinton's distant cousin, in 1984 when she was a 17-year-old high school student in Forest City, Arkansas.

He was convicted in 1985 and sentenced to life in prison, plus 20 years. In 1992, Jim Guy Tucker, who became governor of Arkansas after Clinton left office, reduced Dumond's sentence to 39.5 years.

Shortly after taking office in 1996, Huckabee announced his intention to commute Dumond's sentence to time served. A public outcry ensued.

Stevens, her father, and Fletcher Long, the Arkansas state prosecuting attorney who sent Dumond to prison, met with Huckabee to protest.

"'This is how close I was to Wayne Dumond,'" Stevens says she told Huckabee at the time. "'I will never forget his face. And now I don't want you ever to forget my face.'"

Stevens now says: "This isn't and was never about politics. This is about a rapist. This is about a murderer. ... I might never forget Dumond's face, but there are other women [for whom] Dumond's face was the last thing they ever saw on this earth... I would hope that Huckabee would remember the faces of his victims."

Snip

Huckabee and his aides have always denied that he secretly pressured the Arkansas parole board to free Dumond in an effort to hide his involvement and avoid political fallout.

But, in a 2002 story I wrote for the Arkansas Times about Huckabee's role in freeing Dumond, four board members -- three of who spoke on the record -- said that Huckabee lobbied and pressured board members on the matter. This included a 1996 executive meeting at which the board's recording secretary -- who ordinarily tapes the entire sessions -- was asked to leave the room. Several board members and members of the state legislature have said the secret session violated state law.

Huckabee, in turn, has said that all four parole board members have lied about his role in Dumond's release from prison.

For a full and detailed refutation of that claim, read the 2002 piece here.

More at link above.

Auto, I have a question about this Huckabee rapist thing. I've never seen the "meat" of the accusation -- ie what Huckabee's connection was with this guy that he wanted to free him. Or was this guy related to some one with influence or something?

Why so much interest in the case so high up? Why would Gov Tucker reduce the sentence of a serial rapist. It seems to me you guys are missing the "smoking gun" in this case..

I don’t know what to make of this and I tire of arguing about it.

For what it is worth, here is how I see it, my best guess.

There is a strong connection between the following things:


Anti-Christianity, especially the RCC
[/*:m:xzwih649]
Support for abortion, gun-grabbing, same sex marriage, and organic are seen as the core intractable positions that define the essence of liberalism, and therefore of the left
[/*:m:xzwih649]
Seeing the political divide and political battle in the country as being between the smart and the stupid people, and by extension between the winners and losers
[/*:m:xzwih649]
Resistance to any application of class analysis
[/*:m:xzwih649]
Being “open to” almost any sort of cockamamie spiritual ideas and lifestyle choices
[/*:m:xzwih649]
Unwillingness to challenge, and an insistence upon using, corporate commercial models for action and organization
[/*:m:xzwih649]
Promotion of voting as the ultimate political act, and arguing for the “lesser of two evils” and working within the system
[/*:m:xzwih649]
Unwitting identification with the ruling class as betrayed by their language—the unconscious use of the words “we” and “America” when they are talking about the actions, plans and history of the ruling class
[/*:m:xzwih649]
”Anti-war” and anti-military being as much about being against the rank and file soldiers as against the pentagon brass or politicians
[/*:m:xzwih649]
Seeing the political problems as having their roots in the hearts and minds of everyday little people—WalMart shoppers, TV watchers, etc.
[/*:m:xzwih649]
Ridicule of traditional values of duty, honor and self-sacrifice
[/*:m:xzwih649]
Strict and harsh attitudes about crime and punishment
[/*:m:xzwih649]
Giving deference and the benefit of the doubt to the financially successful while being suspicious and critical of the poor and "losers."
[/*:m:xzwih649]
Admiring the safe, the clever, the cautious, the pedantic and hostile to risk-taking, adventure, and eccentricity
[/*:m:xzwih649]
Valuing degrees more than education, credentials over achievement, status over productivity, authority over innovation, process over results, rhetoric over knowledge
[/*:m:xzwih649]
Acceptance of the concepts of the marketplace as the “true” or “reality based” way to look at social relationships and organizations
[/*:m:xzwih649]

There is a small group of people, maybe 10% of the population with another 10% following along and cheerleading. They are white, suburban and educated, and most of them are from, or associate with, identify with and emulate those with household incomes in the upper 10%. They don’t think of themselves as being in the upper 10%, they think they are in the “middle class” - the standard, the norm, the regular folks, blameless and featureless and benign. They don’t think of themselves as working class either, and imagine that they are as close to the super wealthy as they are to the poor. They control and dominate liberalism and the Democratic party and insist that their ideas are the only way to realistically and practically (they mean “sanely”) be on the left. Anywhere, any discussion, any organization where left wing political ideas might show up, they move in, elbowing any leftists out, shouting down and leftist ideas, and screeching and insisting that they are the left, the only possible left worth consideration. People from these households with incomes of $70,000-150,000 are much, much closer to the poorest families in the country, but they see themselves, think of themselves as being closer to the super wealthy without being fully aware of doing that.

I think that this group seeks an aristocracy—the preservation of privilege and status for themselves and the “like minded” ones. It certainly is not in any way politically to the left, in fact the left is a greater threat to their agenda than the right. But they need to disguise that—need to convince the field Negroes that they are on their side, because an attack on Maser would threaten their positions.

The blue collar people can sense this, and it is the reason why they don't vote, or vote Republican, and why they are opposed to, liberalism and the Democratic party. They are opposed—and this cannot be underestimated—to rule by the liberal aristocracy. The biggest problem with this, is that it causes blue collar people to reject consideration—if they can ever even hear it—of anything on the left.

I don’t imagine that much consideration or discussion about this can be generated, other than here occasionally. I have tried, but I am losing hope of succeeding. This is odd, because in the 60’s as activists showed up from the suburbs to join union activities and civil rights activities, the FIRST thing they were willing to consider and discuss were the ways in which their privileged white suburban backgrounds might be influencing their political views. Today that is off-limits and taboo, with those whites on the right who resist it and those liberals who do only differing in their style of resisting it.

I also think that so long as this subject is off-limits, that no intelligent or productive political discussion can happen. It is an exercise in futility, and we go around and around in the same circles, or take 2 steps forward and two backwards.

Attacks on Christianity are attacks on the African American community, on the ethnic communities, on the poor rural people, on any ideas or organizations that would interfere with the brave new technocratic "rational" rule of the privileged educated white liberals, and the march of scientism and atheism and New Age ideas. Promotion of abortion and same sex marriage are for the benefit of the few, to give them equality, at least in lifestyle choices, with the super-wealthy and with no consideration for and at the expense of the rest of the population. Organic is an assault of working farmers for the benefit of the few. Gun-grabbing is an attack against the rural people and the poor. “Anti-war” is an attack on the poor working people who are in national service, as is ridiculing duty and honor and self-sacrifice.

This is not a complex or even especially radical idea I am trying to explain here, it is a simple idea that is almost impossible to hear because of the intentional efforts by liberals to so confuse the issues, to so disguise their motives and agenda, and to so complicate and obfuscate reality that no one can ever tell what we are even talking about, let alone come to any understanding or have any intelligent discussions about the political decision.

As we get closer to the possibility of a Democratic presidency, probably Clinton, the liberals are showing their hands more and more. They are salivating at the possibility of getting after "them" and having opportunities for venting long pent up hostility and anger. The hostility and anger is not directed at the ruling class, nor will it benefit the working class. It will restore the liberal aristocracy.

There is an undeniable connection between the following things; the same people promote these ideas and do so with the same (remarkably strong) vehemence, intransigence and with the same appeals to emotion and illogical arguments:

It is impossible to discuss politics intelligently so long as we are strictly forbidden to discuss the role of the small but dominant group of people that represents the most potent and powerful and influential force for reaction in defense of the ruling class in the country - the bastion of white privilege and status—liberalism.

By “impossible to discuss intelligently” I don’t mean undesirable and I am not describing my preference or philosophy about it—I assert that it is literally impossible.




(Sigh. Just another rant that will mostly fall on deaf ears and be seen as my little attempt at having the final word rather than as the first word - an entreaty to consider, explore and discuss the most important political issue we face, and the one that is most taboo.)

I don’t know what to make of this and I tire of arguing about it.

For what it is worth, here is how I see it, my best guess.

There is a strong connection between the following things:


Anti-Christianity, especially the RCC
[/*:m:ylg9tzzt]
Support for abortion, gun-grabbing, same sex marriage, and organic are seen as the core intractable positions that define the essence of liberalism, and therefore of the left
[/*:m:ylg9tzzt]
Seeing the political divide and political battle in the country as being between the smart and the stupid people, and by extension between the winners and losers
[/*:m:ylg9tzzt]
Resistance to any application of class analysis
[/*:m:ylg9tzzt]
Being “open to” almost any sort of cockamamie spiritual ideas and lifestyle choices
[/*:m:ylg9tzzt]
Unwillingness to challenge, and an insistence upon using, corporate commercial models for action and organization
[/*:m:ylg9tzzt]
Promotion of voting as the ultimate political act, and arguing for the “lesser of two evils” and working within the system
[/*:m:ylg9tzzt]
Unwitting identification with the ruling class as betrayed by their language—the unconscious use of the words “we” and “America” when they are talking about the actions, plans and history of the ruling class
[/*:m:ylg9tzzt]
”Anti-war” and anti-military being as much about being against the rank and file soldiers as against the pentagon brass or politicians
[/*:m:ylg9tzzt]
Seeing the political problems as having their roots in the hearts and minds of everyday little people—WalMart shoppers, TV watchers, etc.
[/*:m:ylg9tzzt]
Ridicule of traditional values of duty, honor and self-sacrifice
[/*:m:ylg9tzzt]
Strict and harsh attitudes about crime and punishment
[/*:m:ylg9tzzt]
Giving deference and the benefit of the doubt to the financially successful while being suspicious and critical of the poor and "losers."
[/*:m:ylg9tzzt]
Admiring the safe, the clever, the cautious, the pedantic and hostile to risk-taking, adventure, and eccentricity
[/*:m:ylg9tzzt]
Valuing degrees more than education, credentials over achievement, status over productivity, authority over innovation, process over results, rhetoric over knowledge
[/*:m:ylg9tzzt]
Acceptance of the concepts of the marketplace as the “true” or “reality based” way to look at social relationships and organizations
[/*:m:ylg9tzzt]

There is a small group of people, maybe 10% of the population with another 10% following along and cheerleading. They are white, suburban and educated, and most of them are from, or associate with, identify with and emulate those with household incomes in the upper 10%. They don’t think of themselves as being in the upper 10%, they think they are in the “middle class” - the standard, the norm, the regular folks, blameless and featureless and benign. They don’t think of themselves as working class either, and imagine that they are as close to the super wealthy as they are to the poor. They control and dominate liberalism and the Democratic party and insist that their ideas are the only way to realistically and practically (they mean “sanely”) be on the left. Anywhere, any discussion, any organization where left wing political ideas might show up, they move in, elbowing any leftists out, shouting down and leftist ideas, and screeching and insisting that they are the left, the only possible left worth consideration. People from these households with incomes of $70,000-150,000 are much, much closer to the poorest families in the country, but they see themselves, think of themselves as being closer to the super wealthy without being fully aware of doing that.

I think that this group seeks an aristocracy—the preservation of privilege and status for themselves and the “like minded” ones. It certainly is not in any way politically to the left, in fact the left is a greater threat to their agenda than the right. But they need to disguise that—need to convince the field Negroes that they are on their side, because an attack on Maser would threaten their positions.

The blue collar people can sense this, and it is the reason why they don't vote, or vote Republican, and why they are opposed to, liberalism and the Democratic party. They are opposed—and this cannot be underestimated—to rule by the liberal aristocracy. The biggest problem with this, is that it causes blue collar people to reject consideration—if they can ever even hear it—of anything on the left.

I don’t imagine that much consideration or discussion about this can be generated, other than here occasionally. I have tried, but I am losing hope of succeeding. This is odd, because in the 60’s as activists showed up from the suburbs to join union activities and civil rights activities, the FIRST thing they were willing to consider and discuss were the ways in which their privileged white suburban backgrounds might be influencing their political views. Today that is off-limits and taboo, with those whites on the right who resist it and those liberals who do only differing in their style of resisting it.

I also think that so long as this subject is off-limits, that no intelligent or productive political discussion can happen. It is an exercise in futility, and we go around and around in the same circles, or take 2 steps forward and two backwards.

Attacks on Christianity are attacks on the African American community, on the ethnic communities, on the poor rural people, on any ideas or organizations that would interfere with the brave new technocratic "rational" rule of the privileged educated white liberals, and the march of scientism and atheism and New Age ideas. Promotion of abortion and same sex marriage are for the benefit of the few, to give them equality, at least in lifestyle choices, with the super-wealthy and with no consideration for and at the expense of the rest of the population. Organic is an assault of working farmers for the benefit of the few. Gun-grabbing is an attack against the rural people and the poor. “Anti-war” is an attack on the poor working people who are in national service, as is ridiculing duty and honor and self-sacrifice.

This is not a complex or even especially radical idea I am trying to explain here, it is a simple idea that is almost impossible to hear because of the intentional efforts by liberals to so confuse the issues, to so disguise their motives and agenda, and to so complicate and obfuscate reality that no one can ever tell what we are even talking about, let alone come to any understanding or have any intelligent discussions about the political decision.

As we get closer to the possibility of a Democratic presidency, probably Clinton, the liberals are showing their hands more and more. They are salivating at the possibility of getting after "them" and having opportunities for venting long pent up hostility and anger. The hostility and anger is not directed at the ruling class, nor will it benefit the working class. It will restore the liberal aristocracy.

There is an undeniable connection between the following things; the same people promote these ideas and do so with the same (remarkably strong) vehemence, intransigence and with the same appeals to emotion and illogical arguments:

It is impossible to discuss politics intelligently so long as we are strictly forbidden to discuss the role of the small but dominant group of people that represents the most potent and powerful and influential force for reaction in defense of the ruling class in the country - the bastion of white privilege and status—liberalism.

By “impossible to discuss intelligently” I don’t mean undesirable and I am not describing my preference or philosophy about it—I assert that it is literally impossible.




(Sigh. Just another rant that will mostly fall on deaf ears and be seen as my little attempt at having the final word rather than as the first word - an entreaty to consider, explore and discuss the most important political issue we face, and the one that is most taboo.)

Y'know whats funny? If you cast this in reverse, its surreal. Liberals laugh it up at "the yokels" who are scared shitless of Islamofascists (while of course acknowledging that Islamic terrorism is a real threat and must be stamped out). But on the flip side, they are just as terrorized of religious fanatics like Huckabee. So while they viciously attack the opposition for jumping at shadows they have plenty of boogiemen of their own.

"OMG, Bush wants to start WWIII. Or..since that looks unlikely now, Huckabee surely will!"

Both sides might as well be watching cartoons, not just of the opposition, but of the real world. Each side is convinced that the reality -- which only they see natch -- is going to quickly and decisively engulf us unless action is taken. And since only they're aware of it, only they have the prescription to save themselves, us, the country, the Constitution, the righteous, Christianity, whatever.

Its impossible to talk politics with these people because what they're calling politics is a made for TV soap opera.

In a different paralance, they're Bubble Boys.

I might as well break all of the eggs so long as I have decided to make an omelet.

On the subject of white suburban privilege, some to the most assertive and vociferous advocates of the positions and sentiments I listed above are themselves not white. Understanding that is key to understanding the entire phenomenon.

We rarely here the word "tokenism" anymore, but clearly tokenism is at work in society as never before. A small and strictly limited number of people of color are permitted conditionally into the circle of white privilege, but only if they are willing to embrace and promote the values of white suburban privilege and with much more work and sacrifice and denial and suppression of their own identities and cultural connections.

To be a liberal is to be in a continual state of conflict with oneself, as living any house Negro position is. The tension arising from that internal conflict is what animated all of the anger and hostility, and that anger and hostility needs to be directed at some scapegoats, preferably exaggerated straw men —Huckabee in our thread here. The more of this tension, the more likely a person is to strongly advocate modern liberalism so as to shut out the thoughts and feelings that are contradictory to modern liberalism. Since people’s very identities are wrapped up in this—the survival as who they consider themselves to be—they will fought to the death any suggestion that they have embraced and based their lives on a fraudulent or counterfeit set of ideas.

That is one argument my thesis is met with—that there are people who are not white arguing against me, so therefore it can’t be about white privilege - one poster once told me once “my black ass tells me you are full of shit.” Among liberals, therefore, having a Black ass is a valid rebuttal and trumps anything you might say. Liberals are supposed to be nice to people of color, and are very happy to let people of color take the lead on defending white privilege. For the person making the argument, it solidifies their acceptance in the circle of white privilege.

Another argument will be the “human nature” argument. According to that argument, everyone wants to be a successful suburbanite, so those who have “made it” are not to be faulted, and critics are merely jealous of their success.

Y'know whats funny? If you cast this in reverse, its surreal. Liberals laugh it up at "the yokels" who are scared shitless of Islamofascists (while of course acknowledging that Islamic terrorism is a real threat and must be stamped out). But on the flip side, they are just as terrorized of religious fanatics like Huckabee. So while they viciously attack the opposition for jumping at shadows they have plenty of boogiemen of their own.

"OMG, Bush wants to start WWIII. Or..since that looks unlikely now, Huckabee surely will!"

Both sides might as well be watching cartoons, not just of the opposition, but of the real world. Each side is convinced that the reality -- which only they see natch -- is going to quickly and decisively engulf us unless action is taken. And since only they're aware of it, only they have the prescription to save themselves, us, the country, the Constitution, the righteous, Christianity, whatever.

Its impossible to talk politics with these people because what they're calling politics is a made for TV soap opera.

In a different paralance, they're Bubble Boys.

My point, though, is not to merely beat up on or ridicule liberals.

I am trying to get us to see the potent practical political force that liberalism represents. Otherwise, I don't care if people have whacky ideas, or are hypocrites, nor do I care about whatever their "personal belief systems" may be, you know?

See what I am driving at?

And I am not so much frustrated by it being "impossible to talk to these people" because they are not listening, but rather in our weakness and ineffectiveness in what we are saying. This has nothing to do with converting or convincing liberals. It is about burying liberalism, not pleading or reasoning with it. It is about successfully talking past them to the general public strongly and effectively. We must move ahead without that being contingent upon convincing or converting liberals.

Be honest with me kid—here is what I hear you saying—they are all a bunch of whack jobs, what a whacky world we live in, and we try to talk to them but get nowhere, so what can we do? (sigh, shrug, end of story, etc.)

I might as well break all of the eggs so long as I have decided to make an omelet.

On the subject of white suburban privilege, some to the most assertive and vociferous advocates of the positions and sentiments I listed above are themselves not white. Understanding that is key to understanding the entire phenomenon.

We rarely here the word "tokenism" anymore, but clearly tokenism is at work in society as never before. A small and strictly limited number of people of color are permitted conditionally into the circle of white privilege, but only if they are willing to embrace and promote the values of white suburban privilege and with much more work and sacrifice and denial and suppression of their own identities and cultural connections.

To be a liberal is to be in a continual state of conflict with oneself, as living any house Negro position is. The tension arising from that internal conflict is what animated all of the anger and hostility, and that anger and hostility needs to be directed at some scapegoats, preferably exaggerated straw men —Huckabee in our thread here. The more of this tension, the more likely a person is to strongly advocate modern liberalism so as to shut out the thoughts and feelings that are contradictory to modern liberalism. Since people’s very identities are wrapped up in this—the survival as who they consider themselves to be—they will fought to the death any suggestion that they have embraced and based their lives on a fraudulent or counterfeit set of ideas.

That is one argument my thesis is met with—that there are people who are not white arguing against me, so therefore it can’t be about white privilege - one poster once told me once “my black ass tells me you are full of shit.” Among liberals, therefore, having a Black ass is a valid rebuttal and trumps anything you might say. Liberals are supposed to be nice to people of color, and are very happy to let people of color take the lead on defending white privilege. For the person making the argument, it solidifies their acceptance in the circle of white privilege.

Another argument will be the “human nature” argument. According to that argument, everyone wants to be a successful suburbanite, so those who have “made it” are not to be faulted, and critics are merely jealous of their success.

I have a name for the Blacks that have "made it" and defend the upper class without having really been let into the club. There are plenty of them around if looks. I call then Hydros, short for Hydrox..an inferior Oreo substitute.

Anax is going to go from wanting to smack me to want to pulverize me BUT:

Another cherished tactic is using any bad science fiction -- suitably gussied up in the apparel and garments of "hard science" -- so long as it suits their agenda. Of course, science is in their purview by default -- those others guys don't even believe in evolution. Imagine!

My point, though, is not to merely beat up on or ridicule liberals.

I am trying to get us to see the potent practical political force that liberalism represents. Otherwise, I don't care if people have whacky ideas, you know?

I know and I agree, but to some extent they aren't even aware of their own motivations or what they're doing. The leadership certainly is, but to a large extent you have a potent political force that doesn't even know itself, except through the cracks in those revealing moments when their real, underlying ideology is challenged.


And I am not so much frustrated by it being "impossible to talk to these people" because they are not listening, but rather in our weakness and ineffectiveness in what we are saying. This has nothing to do with converting or convincing liberals. It is about burying liberalism, not pleading or reasponse you'd gotten. And, yes, I'd say that is largely hopeless.oning with it. It is about successfully talking past them to the general public strongly and effectively. We must move ahead without that being contingent upon convincing or converting liberals.

Be honest with me kid—here is what I hear you saying—they are all a bunch of whack jobs, what a whacky world we live in, and we try to talk to them but get nowhere, so what can we do? (sigh, shrug, end of story, etc.)

No, I thought you were meant you were trying to talk to liberals and presenting the response you'd gotten. And, yes, I'd say that is largely pointless. Beyond that I wasn't really saying anything.


It is about burying liberalism, not pleading or reasoning with it. It is about successfully talking past them to the general public strongly and effectively. We must move ahead without that being contingent upon convincing or converting liberals.

Doesn't that also involve burying (neo) liberal representative democracy? I don't really see how they're separable here. That is the form of capitalism in just about industrialized country in the world and it also the belief system of the majority of citizens in the world, including the overwhelming majority of the well-off. What is all the talk of "fairness" and "trustworthy elections", open markets and freedom, justice, rule of law, and so on?

I have a name for the Blacks that have "made it" and defend the upper class without having really been let into the club. There are plenty of them around if looks. I call then Hydros, short for Hydrox..an inferior Oreo substitute.

Anax is going to go from wanting to smack me to want to pulverize me BUT:

Another cherished tactic is using any bad science fiction -- suitably gussied up in the apparel and garments of "hard science" -- so long as it suits their agenda. Of course, science is in their purview by default -- those others guys don't even believe in evolution. Imagine!

I am going to try to light a fire under you. If you were royally pissed off it would be better than this. (Sounding like anaxarchos here lol.)

I am talking about politics. I am not talking about stances, personalities, trends, fads, beliefs, preferences, philosophies, prejudices or any of the rest of the garbage that passes for "politics" on the discussion boards.

I have a name for the Blacks that have "made it" and defend the upper class without having really been let into the club. There are plenty of them around if looks. I call then Hydros, short for Hydrox..an inferior Oreo substitute.

Anax is going to go from wanting to smack me to want to pulverize me BUT:

Another cherished tactic is using any bad science fiction -- suitably gussied up in the apparel and garments of "hard science" -- so long as it suits their agenda. Of course, science is in their purview by default -- those others guys don't even believe in evolution. Imagine!

I am going to try to light a fire under you. If you were royally pissed off it would be better than this. (Sounding like anaxarchos here lol.)

I am talking about politics. I am not talking about stances, personalities, trends, fads, beliefs, preferences, philosophies, prejudices or any of the rest of the garbage that passes for "politics" on the discussion boards.

What do they have to do with politics? All they do is yak endlessly (about stances, personalities, trends and the rest of your laundry list), vote, and ruthlessly take advantage of a system that is rigged in their favor.

What do they have to do with politics? All they do is yak endlessly (about stances, personalities, trends and the rest of your laundry list), vote, and ruthlessly take advantage of a system that is rigged in their favor.

Power.

Breaking their power depends upon breaking the hold their rhetoric has on the intellectuals. We aren't doing that consistently and effectively and clearly yet. We have barely scratched the surface in discussing it and have no strong consensus about the problem and the need to aggressively tackle it.

What do they have to do with politics? All they do is yak endlessly (about stances, personalities, trends and the rest of your laundry list), vote, and ruthlessly take advantage of a system that is rigged in their favor.

Power.

Breaking their power depends upon breaking the hold their rhetoric has on the intellectuals. We aren't doing that consistently and effectively and clearly yet. We have barely scratched the surface in discussing it and have no strong consensus about the problem and the need to aggressively tackle it.

OK sp what power do the intellectuals have? Also who has this rhetorical power over the intellectuals? I understand your theory I think, but doesn't it assume that there is no rhetorical hold over the rest of the working class or that the intellectuals can somehow break such a hold?

Further, RHETORICAL? Is it really just talk? Aren't they bought off in innumerable ways every day?

I might as well break all of the eggs so long as I have decided to make an omelet.

On the subject of white suburban privilege, some to the most assertive and vociferous advocates of the positions and sentiments I listed above are themselves not white. Understanding that is key to understanding the entire phenomenon.

We rarely here the word "tokenism" anymore, but clearly tokenism is at work in society as never before. A small and strictly limited number of people of color are permitted conditionally into the circle of white privilege, but only if they are willing to embrace and promote the values of white suburban privilege and with much more work and sacrifice and denial and suppression of their own identities and cultural connections.

To be a liberal is to be in a continual state of conflict with oneself, as living any house Negro position is. The tension arising from that internal conflict is what animated all of the anger and hostility, and that anger and hostility needs to be directed at some scapegoats, preferably exaggerated straw men —Huckabee in our thread here. The more of this tension, the more likely a person is to strongly advocate modern liberalism so as to shut out the thoughts and feelings that are contradictory to modern liberalism. Since people’s very identities are wrapped up in this—the survival as who they consider themselves to be—they will fought to the death any suggestion that they have embraced and based their lives on a fraudulent or counterfeit set of ideas.

That is one argument my thesis is met with—that there are people who are not white arguing against me, so therefore it can’t be about white privilege - one poster once told me once “my black ass tells me you are full of shit.” Among liberals, therefore, having a Black ass is a valid rebuttal and trumps anything you might say. Liberals are supposed to be nice to people of color, and are very happy to let people of color take the lead on defending white privilege. For the person making the argument, it solidifies their acceptance in the circle of white privilege.

Another argument will be the “human nature” argument. According to that argument, everyone wants to be a successful suburbanite, so those who have “made it” are not to be faulted, and critics are merely jealous of their success.

I have a name for the Blacks that have "made it" and defend the upper class without having really been let into the club. There are plenty of them around if looks. I call then Hydros, short for Hydrox..an inferior Oreo substitute.

Anax is going to go from wanting to smack me to want to pulverize me BUT:

Another cherished tactic is using any bad science fiction -- suitably gussied up in the apparel and garments of "hard science" -- so long as it suits their agenda. Of course, science is in their purview by default -- those others guys don't even believe in evolution. Imagine!

I'll go ya one better, Kid. Call 'em Cosbys. More illustrative I think, it references not so much a source as a vector of the sickness.

The motivation which drives middle class liberals to their foolishness and hypocrisy is fear of loss, loss of privilege, loss of bling, loss of status. The notions of hierarchy are deeply ingrained, people are compelled by the full court propaganda blitz and the base doctrines of Calvin to look to their "betters" for clues to proper behavior. If the elect on earth are doing it then it must be OK.

Of course, the notions which Calvin codified as theology had been around forever. Makes me wonder if he had a network of rich dudes to promote his self serving nonsense, like the libertarians.

It is this same fear of loss of position and bling which motivates many of the working class. Liberals are constantly astonished and dismayed that working class folks "vote against their best interest". Such is their arrogance, they cannot see that those folks are doing the same thing they are, because their means are so much greater, drunk on their bling and privilege. The message that there is no middle class destroys their world, thus their resistance to it.

Which brings me to wonder if an "end around" can be executed on the middle class, if they can be cut out of the conversation. Righteous class resentment is dismissed as envy, and nobody wants to be pegged with that. It's a neat racket. It's been written a million times that things must get "bad enough" before people will "wake up", I think orthodox Marxism's historical perspective agrees with that(right here on the chin, anax), but the goal posts are repositioned with cheap entertainments and the fuzzy doctrines of self improvement.

Ideally we should build our own communities within the belly of the beast. a variation on the Mayan peoples abandonment of the cities and hierarchy. Recent history has shown that efforts to this end will be crushed, our masters will call that reality. In any case, I don't think we've got time for a generation long process.

Enough of my babbling.

The motivation which drives middle class liberals to their foolishness and hypocrisy is fear of loss, loss of privilege, loss of bling, loss of status. The notions of hierarchy are deeply ingrained, people are compelled by the full court propaganda blitz and the base doctrines of Calvin to look to their "betters" for clues to proper behavior. If the elect on earth are doing it then it must be OK.

Of course, the notions which Calvin codified as theology had been around forever. Makes me wonder if he had a network of rich dudes to promote his self serving nonsense, like the libertarians.

It is this same fear of loss of position and bling which motivates many of the working class. Liberals are constantly astonished and dismayed that working class folks "vote against their best interest". Such is their arrogance, they cannot see that those folks are doing the same thing they are, because their means are so much greater, drunk on their bling and privilege. The message that there is no middle class destroys their world, thus their resistance to it.

Which brings me to wonder if an "end around" can be executed on the middle class, if they can be cut out of the conversation. Righteous class resentment is dismissed as envy, and nobody wants to be pegged with that. It's a neat racket. It's been written a million times that things must get "bad enough" before people will "wake up", I think orthodox Marxism's historical perspective agrees with that(right here on the chin, anax), but the goal posts are repositioned with cheap entertainments and the fuzzy doctrines of self improvement.

Ideally we should build our own communities within the belly of the beast. a variation on the Mayan peoples abandonment of the cities and hierarchy. Recent history has shown that efforts to this end will be crushed, our masters will call that reality. In any case, I don't think we've got time for a generation long process.

Enough of my babbling.

I'll bounce this off you BP, because I think I need a third perspective. Mike is leveling a great many critiques at liberalism, but distinguishes this from mocking their personal ideas and beliefs in some way. I don't exactly see the distinction but don't doubt there is one. He feels that it is liberalism that silenced the "voice" of the working class, the intellectual workers. That would be the internal voice, that rallies the working class as a class and tells them who they are and puts into words the graphic violence that they experience and internalize everyday.

What you call an end run makes more sense to me. How are we expecting to dispel the power of the boojies over the intellectuals who are completely beholden to them? Wouldn't it require simultaneously breaking the spell the ruling class holds over everybody? In which case, the whole thing seems jumbled to me.

I think it is probably me not understanding this, but it seems like the stronger point is that middle class thinking and values and belief systems are tatooed onto EVERYTHING we consume -- and that includes the way we talk and all of the media we absorb -- be it in print or digital or whatever. THAT seems like the rhetorical power in question and its certainly not surprising. That group has traditionally been labeled the petit bourgeoisie, the ones who are parceled out the sparest bits of "bling" (normally property) and who thus dutifully give their allegiance to the fat cats in return.

To say it is a failure unique to intellectual workers or endemic only to them is a misnomer. I think what Mike believes is that they are the group that can see through the ensorcelment in a particular but vital way and are therefore tasked with casting the disease out of the body politic (ie the workers). BUT, is that a realistic expectation? -- that the most staunchly entrenched will ever become allies and compatriots?

Mike has, better than anyone, captured the culture divide cultivated between the two groups. What is there beyond that?

Little slow to respond here. Work is starting to pick up for me (finally) and had couple of seminars and workshops this week, too. As you know I took unpaid leave and have been scrambling to put some projects together and make a fresh start. All good news and I will keep you guys posted.


OK sp what power do the intellectuals have?

The power to control the discussion and the information flow by setting the agenda, by steering where people look, what they consider, and what conclusions they reach. This is enforced by social pressure - being thrown off the team or dismissed from the social circle when one disagrees - and by advancement in work situations: given a job or not, given an opportunity or not, promoted or not. It is strange that you would ask, since this is visible every day and everyone is intensely concerned with it.


Also who has this rhetorical power over the intellectuals?

The alpha dogs, and that increasingly means the most aggressive, the biggest bullies, the most unscrupulous.


I understand your theory I think, but doesn't it assume that there is no rhetorical hold over the rest of the working class or that the intellectuals can somehow break such a hold?

Not a theory. I am not creating or promoting a theory here, kid. This is observation. You are looking for a theory and trying to fit reality to a theory. I am talking about reality. I don’t have a very coherent theory about it yet—just a guess.


Further, RHETORICAL? Is it really just talk? Aren't they bought off in innumerable ways every day?

Yes. It is all talk. Politics—and therefore power—is all talk, all communication.

What you are expressing here is part of the white suburban privilege mindset—”they have the guns, they have the money, so there is nothing we can do but deal with that reality.” That is a lie—a big lie. And then we have “oh that is just talk and has no effect on anything. We need to doooooooo something!!!!”

The pen is mightier than the sword—jeez do I have to remind educated intellectuals and wordsmiths and rhetoricians about that?

Come on, you live in the real world. It is the rap the boss has when he fires you, the rap the professor has when he hassles you—in every single thing that happens in your life you are being out-talked. It all happens in the discussion—that is all politics is, that is all that power is. Now, it is true that what you say is influenced by your idea that you are powerless—the authority figure has the bucks, has the gun, has the power over you. But it is the idea in your head that stops you not the gun, not the money, not the position or status of your opponent. Sure those things stop you from being able to do things—you don’t have the money, the other guy does. You don’t have the gun and the badge, you don't have the authority. That goes without saying. What I am talking about is what that is doing to your thinking and your communication. That is where YOU are armed, YOU have authority, YOU have power—everyday with every person in every discussion—and those discussions are where power lies, where it all starts.

Fuck, Kid, I dunno.

Considering working class intellectuals, I don't think the failure is unique or endemic, it is a failure to perform their duty, and given that they are better positioned to comprehend and explain the horrible situation we find ourselves in they are all the more reprehensible. I think that Mike cast a wide net with that terminology, in agreement with the idea that there is no middle class. I've got some difficulty with that, on a gut rather than intellectual level, I'll get over it.

Got no idea of how it is to be done, I think that's what Mike is wrestling with now. Maybe it's like shucking an oyster, once the proper angle of approach is found it's all over but the slurping.

Given the direness of these times it is tempting to say just start busting shit up and trust the people to sort out the carnage. I suspect that is not an optimal solution but it may be the only one left us.

Shit, and I wanted to retire in 12 years, oh well.

Wouldn't it require simultaneously breaking the spell the ruling class holds over everybody?

Backwards kid.

We are now contributing to weaving the spell the ruling class holds over everybody.

This is where all of the confusion lies. It is insane - "well, I agree with you that people being murdered is bad, and if you don't want me to keep murdering people, what is your alternative if you are so smart?" Would we start developing and arguing about "not murder" theories and keep murdering people while we are "working on" an alternative??

If a few of us can see that, and see how we are doing that, it starts to unravel. The spell does not need to be broken - it would collapse quickly on its own were not for the fact that all of us working so hard to prop it back up every day. It is a lie - and a lie takes a lot more work than the truth, especially such an absurd and outrageous lie as the one we are actively promoting.

Liberalism is not based on some individual idiocy or personality flaws in the people who espouse it, it doesn't make them bad people. The people espousing liberalism think that they have no choice but to do so, and cannot see the practical function of it, cannot see the consequences, cannot see whom it serves.

You are agreeing with them that they have no choice but to espouse liberalism, because you keep saying there is no alternative.

Whether or not you agree with me, the problem is that you are not following what I am saying. The fault for that could be with me as much as with you. Before you decide whether or not you agree with me, or whether or not what I am saying has any power or value, you do need to understand it. We can reach that understanding by hanging in there and going over this point by point, objection by objection, rather than trying to guess at what is being said and hear it or not based on that superficial surface guess.

I have seen tens of thousands of people come to the boards over the last four years - the Kucinich boards, the DFA, Commonground, the various candidate boards, Kos and DU, myleftwing, and all of the splinter boards - PI, PFC, BFN, RI and many others that have come and gone or that I am forgetting.

Those people are all gone.

They did not come to sit in a political science classroom - and either did I. Maybe that is why so many lurkers and leavers - hundreds over the years - have seen me as approachable and have pm-ed or emailed me with their feelings and frustrations, especially minority people and blue collar people. And no, I do not have the "links" or "documentation" to "prove" that.

They came looking for these things:

1. A reality check. Things look really fucked up to them, and the people around them are denying that they are and are not willing to listen to their worries and observations.

2. Comrades and allies.

3. A better understanding of what is happening.

Those things are not available on these boards. Those who are seeking them will be frustrated and will be abused.

Mike,

To talk about what we can do, we should understand what our role is, and what we can and can't do. There are literal impossibilites. The working class is never going to unite under capitalism. That cannot happen. Further, our size is not such that we could attempt to steer the working class in the direction of uniting on such a basis. A force of socialists 50 million strong could not do this. Competitivenes is intrinsic to the working class and built-in strata are defined on this basis and many others. Instead, understanding this, we fight to win workers over to the cause of socialism.

Our political goal is to unify the leadership of the working class. But the leadership is not a Party or any other type of political apparatus per se. The great many will follow in concert with the leadership as it comes into motion. History is our best teacher in this regard because it is a fact that NO working class has ever been revolutionary as an entire class. Of course there are going to be ongoing reformist battles, because the working class is always embedded in the order as it exists in the here and now. Reflecting on this in terms of whether it is good, bad, or indifferent makes no sense -- that is the playing field we are presented with, the one that (revolutionary) class struggle will play out on.

Marxists and communists and socialists have always pushed for this the revolutionary struggle in this way, and from outside of the established political framework. History can be traced out from shifts in the dominant mode of production -- qualitative shifts. It is then that the staid, entrenched classes ossify and new classes enter the scene. It is also the point when the countervailing interests of old new and clash in a burst of inexorable revolutionary emergence.

Was Emancipation won on a swelling tide of backlash against racism? Did the majority of workers stand behind this struggle? Was Jim Crow abolished in this way? Were Civil Rights won on the grounds of tolerance and harmonious coexistence?

All the talk of uniting workers of all stripes and colors is a load of shit.

We fight to win hearts and minds

Mike,

To talk about what we can do, we should understand what our role is, and what we can and can't do. There are literal impossibilites. The working class is never going to unite under capitalism. That cannot happen. Further, our size is not such that we could attempt to steer the working class in the direction of uniting on such a basis. A force of socialists 50 million strong could not do this. Competitivenes is intrinsic to the working class and built-in strata are defined on this basis and many others. Instead, understanding this, we fight to win workers over to the cause of socialism.

Our political goal is to unify the leadership of the working class. But the leadership is not a Party or any other type of political apparatus per se. The great many will follow in concert with the leadership as it comes into motion. History is our best teacher in this regard because it is a fact that NO working class has ever been revolutionary as an entire class. Of course there are going to be ongoing reformist battles, because the working class is always embedded in the order as it exists in the here and now. Reflecting on this in terms of whether it is good, bad, or indifferent makes no sense -- that is the playing field we are presented with, the one that (revolutionary) class struggle will play out on.

Marxists and communists and socialists have always pushed for this the revolutionary struggle in this way, and from outside of the established political framework. History can be traced out from shifts in the dominant mode of production -- qualitative shifts. It is then that the staid, entrenched classes ossify and new classes enter the scene. It is also the point when the countervailing interests of old new and clash in a burst of inexorable revolutionary emergence.

Was Emancipation won on a swelling tide of backlash against racism? Did the majority of workers stand behind this struggle? Was Jim Crow abolished in this way? Were Civil Rights won on the grounds of tolerance and harmonious coexistence?

All the talk of uniting workers of all stripes and colors is a load of shit.

We fight to win hearts and minds

Not sure what you are saying or responding to.

Mike,

To talk about what we can do, we should understand what our role is, and what we can and can't do. There are literal impossibilites. The working class is never going to unite under capitalism. That cannot happen. Further, our size is not such that we could attempt to steer the working class in the direction of uniting on such a basis. A force of socialists 50 million strong could not do this. Competitivenes is intrinsic to the working class and built-in strata are defined on this basis and many others. Instead, understanding this, we fight to win workers over to the cause of socialism.

Our political goal is to unify the leadership of the working class. But the leadership is not a Party or any other type of political apparatus per se. The great many will follow in concert with the leadership as it comes into motion. History is our best teacher in this regard because it is a fact that NO working class has ever been revolutionary as an entire class. Of course there are going to be ongoing reformist battles, because the working class is always embedded in the order as it exists in the here and now. Reflecting on this in terms of whether it is good, bad, or indifferent makes no sense -- that is the playing field we are presented with, the one that (revolutionary) class struggle will play out on.

Marxists and communists and socialists have always pushed for this the revolutionary struggle in this way, and from outside of the established political framework. History can be traced out from shifts in the dominant mode of production -- qualitative shifts. It is then that the staid, entrenched classes ossify and new classes enter the scene. It is also the point when the countervailing interests of old new and clash in a burst of inexorable revolutionary emergence.

Was Emancipation won on a swelling tide of backlash against racism? Did the majority of workers stand behind this struggle? Was Jim Crow abolished in this way? Were Civil Rights won on the grounds of tolerance and harmonious coexistence?

All the talk of uniting workers of all stripes and colors is a load of shit.

We fight to win hearts and minds

Not sure what you are saying or responding to.

You keep saying socialism isn't an abstract or ideological thing. Chlamor's made it into one sentence -- No rent-free medicine-free food

What greater conception do we need? That's both a rhetorical offering AND a challenge to answer.

Auto, I have a question about this Huckabee rapist thing. I've never seen the "meat" of the accusation -- ie what Huckabee's connection was with this guy that he wanted to free him. Or was this guy related to some one with influence or something?

Why so much interest in the case so high up? Why would Gov Tucker reduce the sentence of a serial rapist. It seems to me you guys are missing the "smoking gun" in this case..

The article linked in my reply to the OP provides the details. Waas reported on this in 2002 then released documents last week, with the cooperation of those who provided them previously. The perp had three prior rapes to his credit and this was known. Serial sex offenders are a tererible bet to release because of the recidivism rate. But one of Huck's minister buddies was a strong advocate and there you have it. The Guv was warned by a victim and a prosecutor that it was going to turn out badly; with the victim saying, he will kill! Well he did, within weeks, twice (he was about to be indicted for a seconde murder before he died in prison).

Now there's this...


Family of victims react
http://tinyurl.com/29tlea

Another bad risk released
http://tinyurl.com/yudnqo

More families pissed off, worried for their own safety
http://tinyurl.com/yrow3u

Don't know what the influences are on the second parole but here's what he did:


Gov. Huckabee probably never read the confession of a demented killer named Glen Green before he made the monster eligible for parole.

Green's confession is so depraved, its sadistic details so scary that no sane, responsible adult would consider him for parole.

If the governor didn't read the confession, he is guilty of dereliction of duty.

But if he read the confession and still considers Green deserving of parole, he's certainly unfit to hold office. Who would free a madman who beat an 18-year-old woman with Chinese martial-arts sticks, raped her as she barely clung to life, ran over her with his car, then umped her in the bayou, her hand reaching up, as if begging for mercy?


Damn, and "The Leader" of the Little Rock area, small paper, is investigating all the commutations and pardons.

That's a good question on Guy Tucker. But for me the issue is over when it fails to deal with the presidency and Tucker's not involved. That's for the people of Arkansas.

The fact is that Huckabee is a dangerous guy with incredibly bad judgment that gets people killed. Exactly why I wrote about that and the World War III vision he has - it reflects a casual attitude toward life and death (in his WWIII, we're all going to Hell...& that means you;)

Auto, I have a question about this Huckabee rapist thing. I've never seen the "meat" of the accusation -- ie what Huckabee's connection was with this guy that he wanted to free him. Or was this guy related to some one with influence or something?

Why so much interest in the case so high up? Why would Gov Tucker reduce the sentence of a serial rapist. It seems to me you guys are missing the "smoking gun" in this case..

I just left you a replay, went off to get this and it's gone...must have done something.

Here's the deal. There's another creep this Huck character has paroled. As far as Guy Tucker's reduction of the sentence, that is of interest, but not for my purposes which is to look at what the corporate media is trying to make palatable as a president. Huckabee has horrible judgment (regardless of what Tucker did). He let another violent type loose - look at his M.O.:

Why parole a monster like Green

____Gov. Huckabee probably never read the confession of a demented killer named Glen Green before he made the monster eligible for parole.
___ Green's confession is so depraved, its sadistic details so scary that no sane, responsible adult would consider him for parole.
___ If the governor didn't read the confession, he is guilty of dereliction of duty.
___ But if he read the confession and still considers Green deserving of parole, he's certainly unfit to hold office. Who would free a madman who beat an 18-year-old woman with Chinese martial-arts sticks, raped her as she barely clung to life, ran over her with his car, then dumped her in the bayou, her hand reaching up, as if begging for mercy?
----------------------------

To me, this is all about how someone like this can even begin to run given that he:

(a) wants to have a World War III';

(b) believes we're all toast anyway because of his "End Times" theories;and

(c) lets psychos out of the prison who do what's expected, kill and maim.

Here's the new stuff. In the meantime, Huck is denying any involvement in the parole of Dumond, even though he's on public record as having wanted to commute the sentence entirely. He's got people on the board and others stating that he was on them like Cheney was on the CIA before Iraq;) That will end it. They'll find another monster to foist upon an unsuspecting public.

I'll find out what the deal was with Tucker. Good question.

MORE:

Why Parole a Monster Like This
http://tinyurl.com/2jp6wy

Kin Against Clemency
http://tinyurl.com/yudnqo

Mothers of Murder Victims Outraged
http://tinyurl.com/yrow3u

That's pretty bizarre and seems a little out of character (or out of image more like) for a "tough on crime" Republican. I'm assuming he is one..they all are after all..

I don't know auto.

Where are you going with this? No one here was supporting Huckabee. Why the obsession over this one release? Maybe it was a mistake?

I don't know auto.

Where are you going with this? No one here was supporting Huckabee. Why the obsession over this one release? Maybe it was a mistake?

Let auto be auto dude :)

Auto is more with the politics of this site than at odds with it, and his prodigious reporting skills are a valuable and essential tool.

Yes, I agree that Presidential politics is not germane to much of anything right now, but its a good find to stash away, especially to hit people with as an expose of what our political process is really like. Not just the Huckabee story but how it is told, what gets omitted, who gets skewered, who gets a pass, etc

Let auto be auto dude :)

Auto is more with the politics of this site than at odds with it, and his prodigious reporting skills are a valuable and essential tool.

Yes, I agree that Presidential politics is not germane to much of anything right now, but its a good find to stash away, especially to hit people with as an expose of what our political process is really like. Not just the Huckabee story but how it is told, what gets omitted, who gets skewered, who gets a pass, etc

Yeah OK, I will. I'm cool with auto. He is doing great work. This latest just seems a little weak and off-target to me, especially compared to his other work.

From the first time I heard Huckabee speak I was overjoyed and have been pulling for him to get the nomination ever since.

The success of the Republican party has depended upon an unlikely alliance between between two groups, big business interests and blue collar people who are tradition-oriented. I don't think they are "values" voters, nor do I think it has much to do with Christianity - "old time religion" is just a stand-in for old time everything. The notion that Cheney is representative of evangelical Christians, or any kind of Christian, is absurd. Bush himself may be the least religious president in recent history. The big money folks, more than happy to get the support of blue collar people by pandering to religious ideas or whatever works, are not interested in the agenda of the religious right. Blue collar people are not interested in supporting big business interests, and if there were the slightest hint that the Democrats were opposed to big business interests I believe there would be a mass defection from the Republican party. But so long as the Democratic party figureheads and spokespeople represent the liberal wing of the ruling class and talk mostly about cultural issues, blue collar people are low hanging fruit for the Republicans.

Keeping that alliance together depended upon not letting either group focus on the other one very much or look too closely at them. Reagan was perfect - he looked like a friend to big business to one group and a friend to blue collar "all's I know is" people to the other group.

The future of the Democratic party depends upon splitting those two groups, and what was needed was someone who truly represented one of the two groups and not the other.

I can't understand why some liberals are flipping out over Huckabee. They need to get out more, I think. Yes, by supporting him blue collar people are not yet voting Democratic, and for some upscale and atheistic liberals he seems to be the antithesis of everything we supposedly stand for, but they are moving and that is good because they are moving away from the alliance that has kept the Republicans in power. That means they are fed up with the alliance, they are seeking and thinking, and they are unraveling 30 years of careful work by the Republicans.

Do we want the Reagan Democrats back? Is it OK if they clomp into our elegant meeting rooms with their muddy boots? Can they keep their "old time religion?" Can they define patriotism differently than we do - as duty to community rather than as allegiance to the rulers - and still be welcome? Can they keep their guns? Their small farms?

We are moving towards the flip flop of the two parties that I have been predicting - Clinton representing big business and the upper class while Huckabee represents populism and the working class.

Huckabee, in the eyes of many conservatives is to the left from Clinton on economics.

Here are some comments from conservatives:

Huckabee Left Of Hillary On Economic Issues (http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/12/huckabee_left_o.php)
Huckabee's economics is discussed in "Conservatives Assail Huckabee's Liberal Economics - Larry Kudlow's panel discuss Mike Huckabee's economics.

Huckabee is the leader of the religious Left - not a member of the religious Right. Like Bob Novak's model, Huckabee may pass the litmus test of social conservatives on abortion, gay marriage and gun control but he's is far removed from the conservative-libertarian model of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

Huckabee, The Leader Of The Christian Left (http://glendean.blogspot.com/2007/11/huckabee-leader-of-christian-left.html)

Finally, a conservative pundit is attacking the campaign of Mike Huckabee.
Bob Novak writes:


Who would respond to criticism from the Club for Growth by calling the conservative, free-market campaign organization the "Club for Greed"? That sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, all Democrats preaching the class struggle. In fact, the rejoinder comes from Mike Huckabee, who has broken out of the pack of second-tier Republican presidential candidates to become a serious contender -- definitely in Iowa and perhaps nationally. Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.

Novak is right. Huckabee is no conservative. He is a big spending, bleeding heart liberal. Sure he may be "socially conservative", but that term is an oxymoron.

In fact, anytime the word social is put in front of the word conservative, just go ahead and cross out the conservative part, because the politician in question surely isn't one. Huckabee is a disaster. In fact he is even less conservative than George Bush, the President who expanded government even more than Lyndon Johnson.

As one of those conservative-libertarian, Goldwater/Reagan types, who also happens to be an evangelical, that truth breaks my heart. Regardless of the way the media covers most church types, they are actually more in line with modern liberalism than conservatism. Most are not really that conservative at all, but part of that group once called Reagan Democrats. If you don't believe me, ask the average Baptist what he or she (especially she) thinks of TennCare? Why do you think we have TennCare in this Bible Belt state?

Huckabee Rides a Wave of Economic Populism

Huckabee's stills short on funds. And he's despised by the establishment -- the economic royalists at the Club for Growth are running an attack campaign against him while the National Right to Life Committee just endorsed former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, despite the fact that Huckabee's a far more consistent social conservative.

So why is Huckabee rising?

In tenuous economic times -- characterized by foreclosures, high gas prices and fears of recession -- the Arkansan is campaigning as a populist who criticizes corporations, talks about the need to change our trade policies and promises to tip the balance away from Wall Street and toward Main Street.

Huckabee's actually secured the endorsement of the Machinists union with that kind of talk. But the real breakthrough is with working-class socially conservative Republicans in Iowa. He's giving them an alternative to Tom Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas?" scenario -- in which low- and middle-income Americans vote against their class interests in order to advance their "moral values."

No, Huckabee is not a perfect player -- his populism has serious limits, as does his approach to foreign policy, and his stances on abortion rights and gay rights are throwbacks. But Huckabee might just be the perfect foil to the corporate slickness of Mitt Romney. And that makes him the most fascinating figure on the campaign trail this week.

original text at The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=252282)

Huckabee wins on economics
excerpted from On What Matters (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:2ZnRGJDXD7MJ:onwhatmatters.blogspot.com/2007/10/huckabee-wins-on-economics.html+huckabee+economics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us)

According to MikeHuckabee.com:

Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post had this to say about Mike Huckabee on the economics debate on CNBC the other night:

Judged by who can offer a serious approach to economic policy, the hands-down winner in the Republican race so far is Huckabee, who combines intelligence, candor and comfortable familiarity with the issues and a practical approach anchored in solid conservative beliefs.

If only the political press were as impressed with the quality of a candidate's program as with his name recognition, it would be Huckabee, not Thompson, who was energizing the Republican contest.

Huckabee offered up sensible policy ideas on energy and terrorism. He also scored major points among many of us in the Rustbelt -- and anyone concerned about the downward economic pressure on the Middle Class -- when he pointed out the future need for unionism.

When American CEO's are making 500 times what the average U.S. employee does, Huckabee said, it "creates a level of discontent" ... he added that we would see a huge union growth in the future.

Mike Huckabee's Growing Appeal: Populist Economics May Limit His Support Among Republicans

Q: With less than two months ago before the Iowa caucus, former Arkansas governor Huckabee is moving up in the polls. He is now running second behind Romney in Iowa caucuses.

Part of his appeal -- a part -- popular economic platform. Heidi, welcome back to the show. You were on the road recently. You sat down and had a chance to talk with Mike Huckabee. Start by giving us a little background on him and how it is that he comes to this -- he comes across as a true, a compassionate conservative. What is his background?

A: If you go back to his time as governor of Arkansas, you see a consistent line of supporting some of these policies that a little bit out of the Republican economic mainstream, like increasing the minimum wage, more spending on health care, increasing taxes, which has drawn some scorn from some of the leading economic conservative groups, but cigarette taxes, gasoline taxes, alcohol taxes. Policies like that, which you also see going into the campaign translating into some of his rhetoric and the campaign for his policies as president. At the same time, he is anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, and he has a very strong, solid, a social conservative foundation.

Q: In terms of who he is, you could ask yourself if this is just a way to get attention, to stand out from the Republican pack. Is this genuine? Is this a campaign ploy, or is this really to he is? If so, why?

A: My impression is that it is genuine and very strongly rooted in his evangelical background. He is a former baptist minister, and you hear him talk a lot about these things, and there is a lot of interweaving, and his strong, moral religious grounding. I was talking with him on the issue of trade. He asked if it is really morally responsible to enjoy a fair price when he knows that a nine year-old work a 20 hour day yesterday to give that to him. You see a bit of that fusion between orientation -- the moral orientation and the economic views he holds.

Q: Is there any constituency within the Republican party? Even the more conservative Republicans who would support him on these social issues, to support this kind of platform, the Club for Growth has derided him as a tax hiker. A libertarian group gives him an "F" on taxes and spending. It has got him up in the Iowa caucuses and those polls, but longer-term, is this a recipe for disaster for him?

A: It has gotten him somewhere because like you said, he is second in the Iowa polls, but longer-term, it could be more of a problem. I would tell you from my talks that some of these individuals -- they do not just slightly this like some of these policies and some of the things that he has said. For example, when he was in here talking with us a couple of months ago, he referred to the Club for Growth as the Club for Grief.

I think you have a constituency that is the same constituency that speaks and identifies with folks like Pat Buchanan, who talks about protecting U.S. jobs and fair trade and penalizing countries like China that cannot play fair.

Q: You raise the possibility in your story of a vice presidential candidacy for Mike Huckabee. What are the odds of that? You watch the race very closely. You talked a lot of people in the Republican party. Is he too far to the right on social issues and too far to the left on some of the economic issues?

A: It is interesting you should ask that. I was just at lunch with a very influential Republican lobbyist, who is close with the Giuliani campaign. As it is starting to look like Rudy Giuliani has a strong lead in national polls, people are starting to talk about vp candidates. Wouldn' t that be a nice match?

Transcript of Bloomberg Report broadcast (http://www.clipsyndicate.com/publish/video/443531/mike_huckabee_s_growing_appeal_populist_economics_may_limit_his_support_among_republicans)

Keep an Eye on Huckabee
Harvard College Democrats

So I've been putting off writing about Mike Huckabee's strong showing in the Ames Straw Poll, for two reasons. One, because it makes me a little nervous, as I'll explain below; but mostly because I've been waiting for online video of Huckabee's speech from Ames. Alas, it doesn't look like it's going to appear, which is a shame -- because it was a remarkably good speech. It had me open-mouthed, that's for sure.

(Yes, I watched the Iowa Straw Poll. Live on C-SPAN. What, like you were doing something so cool with YOUR time, big shot.)

Mike Huckabee -- and if you think his name is funny, bear in mind that the man who succeeded him as Governor of Arkansas is called "Beebe" -- is a very different kind of Republican, especially as compared to the rest of the GOP field. On social issues, he's as hard-right as you'd expect from an Baptist minister-turned-politician, and on foreign policy he's undistinguished; but on economics (a.k.a. the real issues) it's a whole different kettle of fish. Huckabee is a populist, the ramifications of which should not be underestimated.

Huckabee's Iowa speech opened with a startling line about "giving America back to the people on Main Street, not the people on Wall Street," which could just as easily have come from a John Edwards or a Jim Webb. And check out this much-quoted bit:

"I can't buy you. I don't have the money. I can't even rent you. But today, the straw poll is a day that changes all of that. The straw poll is not about electing a straw man. It's giving the voters of Iowa a chance to prove that they are mature voters."

It's funny, yes; but notice how he emphasizes both 1) his own financial weakness and 2) the power/"maturity" of regular voters. He is emphasizing that agency is in the hands of the mass, not the candidate. That's a classic populist mode. Add in his references to a rural low-income background (John Edwards was the first in his family to go to college? Yeah, well, Mike Huckabee was the first male in his family to graduate high school, beat that) and the point becomes clear: we are looking at a you-have-the-power rabble-rouser.

And it seems like that may have been just what powered him to his unexpected 2nd place finish (behind of course the unstoppable "Moneybags" Romney); having been out-organized by not just Mitt but Sam Brownback and even Tom Tancredo, it appears that swing voters who came undecided were the ones that put Huckabee over the top. (It has also been rumored that Huckabee had tacit support from Giuliani organizers, and more believably the FairTax campaign, but there's no evidence for that.) So it was, presumably, his performance there in Ames that pulled these uncommitteds his way. And having seen the speech, that doesn't surprise me at all. Hell, it made me want to vote for him.

And not just me. After all, as has been exhaustively accounted at this point by every major pundit, economic populism is suddenly a winning formula. (Insert the usual spiel about 2006 and Jon Tester and office parks, bla bla bla.) John Edwards brought it to the forefront of the '08 campaign, Obama's jumping on the bandwagon, and even the uber-insider Hillary is now making ads that namecheck David Shipler. But it didn't seem to occur to anybody that the same stuff would pop up on the Republican side, in a shiny FOX-compatible conservative suit.

Well, guess what.

David Sirota has a very complete look at Huckabee's populist record; it's a mixed bag. He did raise the minimum wage in Arkansas, he supports fair trade, and has vaguely called for universal health care, -- but on the other hand he supports the insane regressive FairTax, and has few real policy ideas that don't boil down to the old Republican playbook. Still, as Sirota understands, it's less the substance than the message that's important; Huckabee's choice to articulate a conservative populism is radically different, especially in contrast to the authoritarian cult-of-personality conservatism you get from frontrunners Romney and Giulaini (as well as well as George bush for that matter).

In fact this is a tone unseen among Republicans for quite a while now, presumably because it involves stepping on the business interests that have been driving the party since the 1980s. Huckabee's in dangerous territory. And you know he's doing something right, because those same business interests are training their guns on him.

In fact the Club for Growth has gone so far as to run legit TV ads against Huckabee, something normally reserved for a Chafee or a Specter in the heat of a primary campaign.

Most people aren't too worried about the possibility that Huckabee could pull a Clinton and roar out of nowhere to take the nomination. (Especially at Harvard, which as Garrett pointed out last week has an uber-elitist ideology that doesn't grasp Huckabee's economic progressivism or his social conservatism. God this place sucks.) Even I admit it's a long shot -- both because today's GOP is driven by business interests, who find the populist message terrifying, and because frankly I don't think Republicans have the courage or the energy to remake their party this cycle. But if, as one of Marc Ambinder's friends suggests, an imploding economy comes to the forefront of the campaign this fall or winter, and all these big-city Republicans have to defend their support for more hedge-fund tax cuts (along with their friend Sellout Schumer), suddenly Uncle Mike from Arkansas might start looking better and better to the Republican rank-and-file.

As well as swing voters; and of course Reagan Democrats, who would be Huckabee Democrats in all of five minutes, and there goes Ohio and the general election. The threat posed by this ideological recipe is massive. And while I'd rather see Huckabee in the White House than any of these other Republican twerps, his election would nevertheless set the United States back 20 or 30 years, for obvious reasons. If there is anything that will indicate to you stubborn Harvard elitists that we need to tap into America's building populist fervor, it's this: if we don't, they will. We are staring their opportunity in the face right now. And the consequences are dire.

----Not to be too much of a downer. Hell, it's summer vacation, let's just stick to the New York Times version of the thing for a while, which'll certainly be more comfortable for us Harvard liberals. Gosh, that Huckabee sure is funny, isn't he? And he plays the guitar! What an amusing yokel, sure to liven up a dull campaign with his crazy antics! Hey, did you hear what Tucker Carlson said about... etc., etc., etc..... etc...

Huckabee Rides a Wave of Economic Populism
..He's giving them an alternative to Tom Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas?" scenario -- in which low- and middle-income Americans vote against their class interests in order to advance their "moral values."...
original text at The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=252282)

Coupla amusing comments after this piece too:


Interesting point, Mr Nichols...but here's a question

If Huckabee can overcome the "royalists" in the GOP and start to rise in the polls, maybe threaten Romney....

why can't Dennis Kucinich overcome the "anti-impeachment" guys among the Dems (or the "anti-single payer" guys), and atleast threaten Edwards, if not Obama or Her Nibs?

Posted by MASK 11/16/2007 @ 11:46am | ignore this person


maybe it's because the rrrrrrrrr's feel they've nothing to lose.

or maybe it's because the dddddd's are going with a sure thing in order to safely end the bush dilemma.

or maybe the ddddddddd's are just more superficial.

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/16/2007 @ 12:12pm | ignore this person


Huckabee as the "GOP Bill Clinton"? Pulling them to the center (on economics) while holding up the old social con paradigm?....maybe.

Democrats?!??!...superficial?!?!?!?.....I'm shocked! Shocked! That you would make such an allegation!

Posted by MASK 11/16/2007 @ 12:47pm | ignore this person

why can't Dennis Kucinich overcome the "anti-impeachment" guys among the Dems (or the "anti-single payer" guys), and atleast threaten Edwards, if not Obama or Her Nibs?

Yes! Why is that?

Why is that?

I was never sure why I was banned from DU, but right about that time I posted an essay - "Most people are in the wrong party" predicting the split in both parties that we are seeing right now.

The gun control, pro-abortion, anti-war, pro-organic (and "personal responsibility" and "socially responsible investing" and pro "free market" and pro "free trade) liberals went absoluetely berserk.

The Republicans successfully cobbled together a coalition of blue collar people and ruling class interests.

The Democrats have been unsuccessfully trying to cobble together an coalition of New Age suburbanites and ruling class interests.

Edwards by the way is supporting RKBA.

Clinton by the way is supporting "free trade."

Economic and class are back in the discussion for the first time in 30 years.

What we are seeing is that Democrats are every bit as resistant to this as the Republicans are, if not more so.

And The Republican Economic Debate Winner is...Huckabee? (http://blog.inc.com/the-entrepreneurial-agenda/2007/10/and_the_republican_economic_de.html)
from the Entrepreneurial Agenda

excerpts

The Republican Economic Debate, held Tuesday afternoon in Dearborn, MI, was mostly a predictable contest -- almost as predictable as when the Democrats talk economics.

*Said Fred Thompson: "I think there is no reason to believe that we're headed for a recession.We're enjoying low inflation. We're enjoying low unemployment. The stock market seems to be doing pretty well. But we are spending money we do not have."

*Said Mitt Romney, of himself and rival Rudy Giuliani: "We both agree with the need to cut taxes and have fought to do so.We both believe in cutting back on spending as well."

*Said Rudy Giuliani: "The four trade deals that are in front of Congress right now, which the Democrats are trying to block, would be good deals for the United States. In three of the four of them, we would actually get to export more than we're importing. We're a country that depends on exports. And we're also an entrepreneurial country. We should think about all these people that are coming out of poverty in China and India and elsewhere¦as new customers. We should be thinking about, what can we sell to them: energy independence, health care? There's so much we can sell to them."

What's changed, though, is that polls show that even most Republicans, let alone most Americans, don't see it the way the nine candidates who stood on the stage in Dearborn do. As moderator Maria Bartiromo pointed out to Thompson in her very first question, two-thirds of Americans believe the country is headed toward recession. On Tuesday, as the GOP candidates gathered in Michigan, the Wall Street Journal reported that nearly six in ten Republicans agree that "foreign trade has been bad for the U.S. economy."

A third (of Republicans) support tax hikes on the wealthiest "to help reduce the federal deficit and to pay for expanding health care programs to cover the uninsured."

(Of course, those who oppose free trade aren't likely to find relief with the Democrats either, who tend to talk one way and vote another. It was Bill Clinton, after all, who delivered NAFTA.)

There were exceptions.

Mike Huckabee is turning out to be the William Jennings Bryan of our time, combining in equal measure fundamentalist theology and economic populism. "For many people on this stage the economy's doing terrifically well, but for a lot of Americans it's not doing so well," Huckabee said. "The people who handle the bags and make the beds at our hotels and serve the food, many of them are having to work two jobs. And that's barely paying the rent.They don't think that they can afford for their kids to go to college. They're pretty sure they're not going to be able to afford health insurance."

Mike, all of that populist stuff might be well and good but I think that here in SC Huck"s SB creds carry a lot more weight..Not agruing with your thesis in general, mebbe that works, but round here it's gonna take a little more time for that sort of community to evolve. Too many self satisfied Calvinists.

Mike, all of that populist stuff might be well and good but I think that here in SC Huck"s SB creds carry a lot more weight..Not agruing with your thesis in general, mebbe that works, but round here it's gonna take a little more time for that sort of community to evolve. Too many self satisfied Calvinists.

First, I hope that you don't think I am lauding or promoting the man.

Here are my points -

- WTF is going on that a Republican can steal the haves versus have nots thunder from the Dems?

- What does it tell us about the every day Republican voters that an economic leftist (by pathetic modern standards) has so much popularity?

- WTF is going on that Dems destroy their own candidates who talk about economic justice?

- The religious right is not strong enough to win any elections by itself, and Huckabee is splitting the right wing coalition in two.

- His candidacy is also shaking up the Dems

Listen, the Huckabee candidacy is driving the people who control the discussion on the right - snotty nose male libertarian assholes - nuts, and it is driving the people who control the discussion on the left - uh....snotty nose male libertarian assholes with New Age beliefs and their gun-grabbing gals - nuts as well, and I am overjoyed to see this happening.

The Huckabee candidacy is the agent that is breaking apart the unstable colloidal suspensions that we know as the Republican and Democratic parties.

Can't you see it happening? Never mind culture war issues and religion and all of that nonsense. That stuff isn't abut politics anyway. Leave all of that out of your thinking. What is happening is that the leading candidate in the Democratic party is to the right of the soon-to-be leading candidate in the Republican party.

The DLC Dems are losing their grip, the Reagan libertarians are losing their grip, the Falwell fundamentalists are losing their grip. This has to all be good, bp. Things are breaking apart after decades of being locked in stone.

Mike, all of that populist stuff might be well and good but I think that here in SC Huck"s SB creds carry a lot more weight..Not agruing with your thesis in general, mebbe that works, but round here it's gonna take a little more time for that sort of community to evolve. Too many self satisfied Calvinists.


First, I hope that you don't think I am lauding or promoting the man.

Naw, I know better.

Here are my points -

- WTF is going on that a Republican can steal the haves versus have nots thunder from the Dems?

- What does it tell us about the every day Republican voters that an economic leftist (by pathetic modern standards) has so much popularity?

- WTF is going on that Dems destroy their own candidates who talk about economic justice?

- The religious right is not strong enough to win any elections by itself, and Huckabee is splitting the right wing coalition in two.

- His candidacy is also shaking up the Dems

Listen, the Huckabee candidacy is driving the people who control the discussion on the right - snotty nose male libertarian assholes - nuts, and it is driving the people who control the discussion on the left - uh....snotty nose male libertarian assholes with New Age beliefs and their gun-grabbing gals - nuts as well, and I am overjoyed to see this happening.

The Huckabee candidacy is the agent that is breaking apart the unstable colloidal suspensions that we know as the Republican and Democratic parties.

Can't you see it happening? Never mind culture war issues and religion and all of that nonsense. That stuff isn't abut politics anyway. Leave all of that out of your thinking. What is happening is that the leading candidate in the Democratic party is to the right of the soon-to-be leading candidate in the Republican party.

The DLC Dems are losing their grip, the Reagan libertarians are losing their grip, the Falwell fundamentalists are losing their grip. This has to all be good, bp. Things are breaking apart after decades of being locked in stone.

I must admit, I haven't been paying him much attention. The primary predictions I made to Auto seem to me coming true, at least according to a poll in yesterday's paper. That was based on gut feeling.

Your take on this makes you one hopeful dude but I think you might be on to something. The other nite I participated in an telephone town meeting with my House rep, Ingilese.. He's a bit strange for a Repub, I think he's repositioning himself as a post-Bush Republican. Anyway, all of the calls coming in(I never could get on) were of a decidely populist bent, mostly health care nitemares, and he flubbed it badly. The callers were definitely not from the burbs, good ole boys, they brought it all home, and all he could do was flip & flop like a crippled minnow. Lot's of callers wanting out of Iraq of the same demographic, he resorted to obviously canned response on that. Yeah, you might be on to something.

We should start calling "populist" by the words "working class" when it comes up. Lots of raw material over there in "populist" world we can use.

Marriage on the Rocks
Ian Watson
December 11, 2007

A brief history of the political marriage between the Religious Right and the Republican Party, what it's done to American Christianity, how it produced George W. Bush, and where it could be going next

A few years ago I was rummaging through some old books, post cards and the like from an estate sale in Beaumont, Texas. I scored an old copy of Huckleberry Finn, a tattered encyclopedia from the 1850s, and a pamphlet on understanding "our domestic enemy the communists" from the McCarthy era. I also found a few old and yellowed religious handouts – those things street proselytizers offer passersby in the hope of saving their souls. One particularly fascinating postcard-sized handout I grabbed portrayed Greed as a snake constricting a poor woman, and warned against getting caught up with material desire.

My, things have changed. Exhortations against this particular deadly sin do not exist in the mainstream of Evangelical Christianity today, not since the strange political marriage of convenience between the Religious Right and the corporate robber-barons - the very champions of greed - that began a half-century ago under the Republican Party.

It was an awkward arrangement from the beginning to be sure. Until then, and ever since the first Republican President Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves and presided over the defeat of the Confederacy, the Democratic Party had enjoyed a reliable voting block in the South for its deep-seated racism and stubborn grudge over losing the war. This racism and Confederate tradition were sometimes intertwined and always concurrent with a deep and pious Christianity, which extended beyond the South far into Middle America.

While the Democratic Party could rely on the electoral support of the South for such dark and superficial reasons, it also delivered real benefits for this demographic of poor and working class whites with progressive economic policies that were a welcome alternative to the Republican Party's tradition of serving the interests of the wealthy at the expense of all others. The Democratic Party's agenda of economic justice could also be considered a very Christian one, what with the Gospel's pronouncements of helping the poor and shunning material wealth, ideals enunciated by Christ himself.

But then came the betrayal of desegregation and civil rights and with it the beginning of the great political shift of the twentieth century. At the Democratic National Convention in 1948 Mayor Hubert Humphrey urged his party to adopt a platform in support of racial desegregation, which it did. In response, thirty-five southern delegates walked out of the convention and formed the States' Rights Democratic Party under Strom Thurmond, more popularly known as the Dixiecrats. While Democrat Harry Truman managed to win the 1948 election with the support of rural America, he lost the Deep South from Louisiana to South Carolina to Thurmond's third party, keeping only Georgia. The Dixiecrats also took a solitary electoral vote from my neck of the woods here in East Tennessee.

The Dixiecrats all but vanished as a party afterward, but their voters remained. The following two presidential elections were nearly identical to each other. In 1952 and 1956 the Deep South stood alone and voted for Democrat Adlai Stevenson and got trounced by Dwight Eisenhower who carried the rest of the country. But these roles would soon be reversed. Democrat John F. Kennedy kept the support of the South while appealing to Americans all over the country in 1960 with only Mississippi rebelling to vote for Democrat Harry Byrd. But by 1964 the pattern of ‘52 and ‘56 was back with the Deep South standing alone and losing in a landslide, but this time reversed in party affiliation. The great shift was at hand, and the marriage between the Democratic Party and the Deep South was in turmoil.

Soon after Kennedy's election, Freedom Riders started canvassing the South registering black voters. Then in a climax of racial desegregation in 1963, President Kennedy sent federal marshals to force the attendance of black students at the University of Alabama, removing Governor George Wallace from the front door in the process. After Kennedy's assassination, the agenda of civil rights and voting rights continued uninterrupted under Lyndon Johnson.

That was it. The Democratic Party and the southern white voter had finally reached irreconcilable differences. In 1964 the Deep South and Arizona went to Barry Goldwater while Lyndon Johnson took the rest of the country. And while this was yet another electoral defeat for the Deep South, Johnson feared that he had, in his own words, "delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come." In 1968, the break-up was all but final. A disaffected South voted for president none other than George Wallace, the man who had tried to block desegregation with his body.

With the push for racial justice under the changing Democratic Party, the deeply religious and racist white voters of the South had a choice: continue to support economic justice and the progressive redistribution of wealth for their own benefit, or walk away from the betrayal of civil rights. The choice was made. The Democratic Party splintered. Their racism had triumphed over their economic interest and their religion. Fear of the college-educated black man at the voting booth was dealt against the Sermon on the Mount, and Fear won the hand.

The South was officially on the rebound and the Republican Party was there to catch it. Like a man who had lusted over his neighbor's wife, the Republicans swooped in after the divorce with flowers and a ring. The "southern strategy" took root to excite the prejudices of the rural white voter, most eloquently expressed by Richard Nixon's political strategist Kevin Philips in 1970:


"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that ... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

The wedding bells of this new political union resounded across the country in 1972 as the Republican Party with Nixon as its groom won every state in the nation except Massachusetts and Washington D.C. The birth of the new Republican Party was at hand, financed as always with wealth from the wealthy but now bolstered with the political loyalty of a single-minded voting block in the South that was willing to vote against their own economic interest to spite their former spouse. And just as the racism of the South existed alongside its faith, so too would the southern strategy of race-baiting go hand-in-hand with appeals to religious piety.

The South once more flirted with the Democratic Party in its election of Jimmy Carter, a Southern Baptist himself. But in a briefer version of the original transgression Carter proved a disappointment. He delivered on economic justice, but offended the prejudices of the southern white voter. The Reagan election soon afterward was a rerun of Nixon's landslide, and also a rerun of the southern strategy.

But all was not as rosy as it appeared. The Republican Party had become after LBJ a house occupied by vastly different and mutually disdainful spouses. For the southern white voter it was a marriage on the rebound, and for the wealthy it was one of convenience sustained with manipulation and lies. A relationship based on such unstable foundations is doomed to fail sooner or later.

This newlywed couple had significant differences in philosophy. How could this marriage work when the party elite, the wealthy and corporations, made it their daily business to corrupt the government, rob the public, harm them through environmental pollution, and sell any assortment of superficial consumer goods with a constant promotion of material desire? If the bride was pious Christianity, then the groom was the antithesis, best expressed by the character Gordon Gecko in the movie Wall Street: "Greed is good."

But for a while it worked, its sustainability based on the dominance of one spouse over the other. Like a traditional Christian marriage, the groom called the shots and the bride obeyed.

The wealthy elite learned they could have their cake and eat it too, and for that matter eat everyone else's. They learned they could transform the apparatus of government into a mechanism to increase their already copious wealth, pummel the rights of the worker, and strip the poor of its economic safety net while the very people damaged by this agenda cheered them on. All they had to do was throw out a few Bible verses, invoke God, and appeal with coded language to the racism of the South and the voters would shut their minds and do their bidding.

Perhaps the best example of racially-loaded terminology popular among candidates using the southern strategy was "states' rights." Before being exposed for what it was, this phrase was perhaps harmless and unnoticeable to northerners. But to the South "states' rights" is clear language meaning their right to be free from the meddling of outsiders and the federal government in affairs such as racial desegregation and black voter registration, not to mention being a reference by name to Strom Thurmond's rebellious and failed political party.

The wealthy party elite would also find that wrapping their political candidates in the cloak of godliness, a tactic they would later master, facilitated unquestioning loyalty from millions of evangelical voters who considered the religious piety of a politician more important than any policy positions they might have, as "a good Christian man" became the most important qualification necessary to achieve high office. The Republican Party has since been characterized by two basic pillars: serve the agenda of the wealthy, and retain power by exploiting the prejudices and faith of the working class white voter.

With the wealthy elite so dominant in this relationship and so skilled at manipulation both deliberate and incidental, it didn't take long for their Greed is Good philosophy to nudge its way into the very heart of American Christianity itself. Churches would preach less and less of caring for the poor and the evils of greed and wealth, and reach an inevitable and predictable result: the current phenomenon of so-called "prosperity preachers" – rich men in expensive suits and jewelry, living in mansions and proclaiming that Christians should pray for riches, for which God will respond with divine infusions of material wealth. The inescapable conclusion of this new gospel is that rich people are more favored in the eyes of God than the poor, an absolute poison on the true word of Christ who more than once excoriated the evils of materialism and greed in no uncertain terms.


"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
- Matthew 19:21

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
- Matthew 19:23-24

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
- Matthew 6:24

This phenomenon is nothing less than a New Evangelical Christianity, a religion twisted to better coexist with the proclivities of the wealthy, in a sense to "serve two masters" as Jesus warned. Economic policies favoring the rich at the expense of all others that could once be considered contrary to the Gospel are now accepted and proclaimed by the new emerging leaders of American Evangelicalism. In this regard the wife was bending her will to that of her husband, becoming more like him in the ways he found most important. The husband's belief that the poor deserved to be poor for their various inferiorities found a kinder and gentler expression through the wife that "God helps those who help themselves."

This common mantra among many of today's evangelical broadcasters means of course that those who are poor must not be helping themselves and are therefore unworthy of God's attention or charity, an inescapable implication of the so-called "prosperity gospel" despite their tortured explanations to the contrary. Charity is hence twisted into the belief, traditionally held by only the rich, that it is nothing more than doling out hard-earned money to lazy freeloaders who are unworthy in the eyes of God.

The manipulation of rural Christian voters and the very transformation of their religion itself into one of greed have served the rich very well. Working class Evangelicals have ever since been the "useful idiots" of the Republican Party, certain to vote themselves and their children bankrupt and jobless in order to enrich the wealthy if only they're told that one political candidate is holier than another.

And after thirty years this poisonous concoction finally produced bitter fruit in the form of a president who embodies with perfection the worst of both bride and groom: a charismatic and "born again" evangelical Christian with delusions of a divine mandate, invoking the name of Jesus Christ, guaranteed to inspire unthinking adoration among the faithful; wealthy and privileged, and dim enough to accept whatever his moneyed handlers prescribe; vetoing healthcare for children while eviscerating corporate oversight; lusting for divinely-inspired war and delivering the spoils to the wealthy; bankrupting the public treasury, suffocating public education, and dismantling environmental protection while shifting swaths of wealth from the working class to the elite; and most astonishingly, claiming unlimited power to rule by decree, ignoring Congress, the Judiciary, and the Constitution.

The child of this marriage is the administration of George W. Bush, quite possibly the worst president in the history of the United States. And he never could've been otherwise, for his very existence as a politician is the product of greed and lies on one hand and religious certainty and absolutism on the other.

Infallible and righteous as only "a good Christian man" can be, Bush is an enticing preview of what Evangelicals believe will be their rapturous utopia: a supreme and divine ruler as foretold by the Book of Revelations. When God establishes his kingdom on earth, he will not be subject to a constitution or courts of law, nor will he be submitting himself for reelection every four years. The unaccountable and untouchable rule of George W. Bush excites their greatest desire for a divine absolute ruler. And so the erosion of freedom is a trifling concern for a people who don't truly desire it in the first place. The more rights Bush chips away, the louder they cheer and the harder they pray. And all the while the wealthy elite laugh at their useful idiots as they fulfill their prescribed role.

Bush's father, George H.W., privately poked fun at them, calling them the "extra chromosome crowd." And some officials in the presidential administration of his son deride them as "nuts" and "goofy." But all the while the true benefactors of the Republican Party know how vital they are to the party's power.


"{Bush White House strategists} knew 'the nuts' were politically invaluable, but that was the extent of their usefulness ... National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous' and 'out of control.' "
- David Kuo, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction

The New American Evangelicalism, tainted with greed and adoration for the wealthy, might have facilitated a stable and long lasting marriage. But the bride would soon be asserting her own authority in ways the groom would not find convenient. Awash with money and power, evangelical leaders found themselves with a megaphone unto the nation, commanding the opinions of millions as their doctrine snaked its way though car radios and televisions from Atlantic to Pacific, then pushed its way into mainstream news with the birth of Fox. Once taking marching orders from their contacts in Washington to rally the faithful, more and more they began to deliver their own demands back at the politicians.

The teaching of evolution shall be replaced with religious doctrine, they declared. Christian texts and decorations shall be displayed in schools and courthouses. Abortion shall be criminalized. Stem cell research shall be eliminated. Israel shall be supported no matter the issue. And perhaps most divisively, homosexuals shall not be granted equal rights.

In response, the Republican Party simply adopted new rhetoric to appease their idiots as they always had, moving more toward religious pronouncements and away from race-baiting. They would never actually amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage as the Evangelicals demanded. They would simply announce their intention to do so whenever an election year came around as a means to whip the base into its useful frenzy. But this tactic is losing its effectiveness. The useful idiots are smart enough to know that they're being used, and are focusing their energies more than ever on achieving tangible results from the people they elect. Useful idiots no more.

For many of these issues, the wealthy couldn't care less. If the nuts want to post the Ten Commandments in public school hallways that was fine with them as long as the same nuts kept voting down property taxes that fund public schools. But when they withhold funding from stem cell research, which could yield cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's, that's when the elite can longer appease them. Not to mention, there are plenty of rich gay Republicans who probably don't find it particularly convenient for their political counterparts to proclaim them as bound for Hell and undeserving of equal rights and privileges under law.

Watching the current Republican primary campaign is like watching a campaign for the president of the Southern Baptist Convention with more references to God and Jesus than a church youth camp. More than ever the candidates are bending over backwards to pay tribute to the Religious Right, their very own Frankenstein monster now free of its chains and cornering the party elite with its wrath.

This is where we are today. The marriage between the Religious Right and the Republican Party is in danger because an empowered bride is making demands on a husband unaccustomed to his authority in dispute. Evangelical opinion leaders have threatened recently to support a third party if a displeasing candidate such as Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination. But their support of a third party is a remote possibility. Since the 1990s, with painful memories of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader forefront, Republicans and Democrats have worked in concert to all but eliminate the ability of a third party to threaten their shared rule.

Far more likely than supporting a third party, the Religious Right will further solidify its hold on the Republican Party as the opinion leaders of its electoral base. The wife has packed her husband's bags and set them outside the house. The house is the Republican Party, and it belongs to her now. For many of the party elite, the base has become intolerable. And President Bush, even after serving them so well, has proved an embarrassment they'd prefer to forget. This time it's the wealthy elite that will be on the rebound. And who will be there to catch it? You guessed it: the Democratic Party.

Corporations and the rich are donating more heavily now to the Democratic Party than the Republicans, and for them it's not such a bad place to go. They've pushed the Democrats and the rest of the nation further and further to the right ever since the economically progressive tenure of FDR, which was certainly the most loathsome presidential administration for them in over a century, if not ever. But the wealthy elite will remain where they always have been - in a seat of unthreatened privilege and power, but this time in a different house with a new wife. And like the previous marriage, this one will be tumultuous. Such marital strife is unavoidable for the rich no matter who they wed, because inseparable from their husbandly duties is the constant manipulation of their spouse whom they despise as inferior, and whose very existence is only as necessary as it is loathsome.

Liberal Democrats might enjoy some brief schadenfreude at the break-up of their political nemeses, but they'll soon realize that a new man has moved into their house, and he brings with him significant differences in philosophy which will one day prove irreconcilable.

You said:

"I don’t know what to make of this and I tire of arguing about it.

For what it is worth, here is how I see it, my best guess.

There is a strong connection between the following things:"

...and theln you list anti Christianity. WTF? The artile is about what the guy believes and what he does, which I argue are one in the same and show a profound preoccupation with death. This is a point nobody is making because the dialog is more on the level of inside base ball. He's not real, he's from Arkansas, he's an ignoramus.

I don't care about that. I do care about the obvious - 1) he's all about WWIII against the 'infidels' as a means to realize his apocalyptic vision based on just one book in the New Testament, and an interpretation that's clearly way out there; and 2) he's more than happy to let the foulest of the foul out if they belong to his club, certified members of his niche in his religious group.

The rest of the commentary has nothing to do with the article, nothing at all. By bringing up the distinction between the various groups when it's irrelevant, you just decliam on a topic that is not at hand. The topic was/is a very strange and dangrous guy. Read more about him. It's upsetting that he could get this far without questions from corporate media.

That's pretty bizarre and seems a little out of character (or out of image more like) for a "tough on crime" Republican. I'm assuming he is one..they all are after all..

He's not one, tough on crime, when a particularly vicious murder/rapist happens to be a friend of a friend. That's the strange thing. These paroles, and there are more than a few ultra violent killers that he's supported going free, are not only dangerous they''re entirely counter-intuitive. Anybody could look at the crimes and priors and say, shit, this guy is just waiting to do it again. Yet Huck lets 'em go. Go figure? But the tie in to WWIII for a massive conflagration and death festival is the give away. The pardons are the End Times plot writ small.

You said:

"I don’t know what to make of this and I tire of arguing about it.

For what it is worth, here is how I see it, my best guess.

There is a strong connection between the following things:"

...and theln you list anti Christianity. WTF? The artile is about what the guy believes and what he does, which I argue are one in the same and show a profound preoccupation with death. This is a point nobody is making because the dialog is more on the level of inside base ball. He's not real, he's from Arkansas, he's an ignoramus.

I don't care about that. I do care about the obvious - 1) he's all about WWIII against the 'infidels' as a means to realize his apocalyptic vision based on just one book in the New Testament, and an interpretation that's clearly way out there; and 2) he's more than happy to let the foulest of the foul out if they belong to his club, certified members of his niche in his religious group.

The rest of the commentary has nothing to do with the article, nothing at all. By bringing up the distinction between the various groups when it's irrelevant, you just decliam on a topic that is not at hand. The topic was/is a very strange and dangrous guy. Read more about him. It's upsetting that he could get this far without questions from corporate media.

I don't care about the man. I don't support him, I don't suggest that anyone support him.

At issue is what the significance of his campaign may be. You say it is his religious beliefs, or his psychology. I say the significance of the candidacy is that it threatens to split the right wing, and also that it demonstrates that millions of people who have been supporting the Republicans are ready to leave and are up for grabs.

I don't care about his psychology nor his religious beliefs, and don't think they are particularly meaningful or even interesting.

You said:

"I don’t know what to make of this and I tire of arguing about it.

For what it is worth, here is how I see it, my best guess.

There is a strong connection between the following things:"

...and theln you list anti Christianity. WTF? The artile is about what the guy believes and what he does, which I argue are one in the same and show a profound preoccupation with death. This is a point nobody is making because the dialog is more on the level of inside base ball. He's not real, he's from Arkansas, he's an ignoramus.

I don't care about that. I do care about the obvious - 1) he's all about WWIII against the 'infidels' as a means to realize his apocalyptic vision based on just one book in the New Testament, and an interpretation that's clearly way out there; and 2) he's more than happy to let the foulest of the foul out if they belong to his club, certified members of his niche in his religious group.

The rest of the commentary has nothing to do with the article, nothing at all. By bringing up the distinction between the various groups when it's irrelevant, you just decliam on a topic that is not at hand. The topic was/is a very strange and dangrous guy. Read more about him. It's upsetting that he could get this far without questions from corporate media.

Auto, it almost seems like Huck and co are gearing up for one Clash Of Civilizations and you're beating the drums for another. What does is mean for a fringe group on the margin (far religious right) to be such a domineering force and, indeed, a spectre over the Middle East (sic)?

Surface analysis -- like saying that "this is unbelievable, even for the corporate media" -- isn't helping really.