The Downward Spiral toward Theocracy
John in Phoenix provided a copy of a Barbara Ehrenreich comment in the November 29, 2004 edition of The Nation. Barbara was one of the panelists mentioned in my Divided We Stand post which can be found in the archive for the week of October 31.
Barbara points out how the right-leaning evangelical churches are offering social services to persons in need, laced with shameless religious proselytizing. The plan seems to be to continue to dismantle government provided social welfare programs and appropriate that funding for the so-called faith based programs that are run by these churches. Taxpayer money would be spent making religious converts who in turn would politically support the right wing church agenda.
Progressives, liberals, Democrats, seculars and all who are repulsed by the spiral should, according to Barbara, take a lesson from the early Christians who stood against Rome with their bodies, hearts and souls. The first step is to re-claim Jesus on the true side of the issues, such as in opposition to pre-emptive war and upward redistribution of wealth. Secondly, spiral stoppers should re-embrace their own social service outreach programs as an antidote to the church based ones and as a springboard to revitalizing taxpayer funded programs free from religious preaching.
Barbara points out how the right-leaning evangelical churches are offering social services to persons in need, laced with shameless religious proselytizing. The plan seems to be to continue to dismantle government provided social welfare programs and appropriate that funding for the so-called faith based programs that are run by these churches. Taxpayer money would be spent making religious converts who in turn would politically support the right wing church agenda.
Progressives, liberals, Democrats, seculars and all who are repulsed by the spiral should, according to Barbara, take a lesson from the early Christians who stood against Rome with their bodies, hearts and souls. The first step is to re-claim Jesus on the true side of the issues, such as in opposition to pre-emptive war and upward redistribution of wealth. Secondly, spiral stoppers should re-embrace their own social service outreach programs as an antidote to the church based ones and as a springboard to revitalizing taxpayer funded programs free from religious preaching.
posted by Tom Blake | 1:41 PM
9 Comments:
This article made a strong impression on me, and that is why I sent it to Tom. First, it said that the religious right that dominates the Republican Party today is entrenched and will only get stronger. Second, maybe they are really doing some good. Maybe they are accomplishing what the Democrat's welfare state did (but I doubt it). But most of all, if the Democrats want to win elections they have got to get candidates who will preach the gospel of Christ. I can imagine Howard Dean doing that. Bill Clinton did that. Imagine a Howard Dean type thundering about the morality of our invasion of Iraq. Or our sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners of war. Or the burden we are placing on our children by the huge war deficit.
I admit I was turned off by Dean's excesses and wanted Wes to be the candidate. But today's electorate is no longer rational. It demands some emotion and a lot of religious rhetoric.
John from Phoenix
A truly compassionate commitment to work with all members of the community for the good of the whole community and especially for those with the least economic and political power is what is needed. That is the true philosophy of the Democratic Party. Compassion is inherent in the Democratic Party, though the harsh rhetoric from the right has lately caused Democrats to forget about listening to and empathizing with those who have swallowed that rhetoric.
It is hard to listen to and empathize with people who are just repeating the right wing garbage they have absorbed, but Democrats need to learn how to discern what are the underlying hopes and fears of these people and then dialogue with them about how the agenda of the Democrats will actually address those concerns better than the Republicans can. To do this effectively, Democrats are going to have to be willing to really listen to these people - not just read reports about them from pollsters and pundits. This is what Howard Dean has been saying all along.
I think Dean might be just what the Democrats need as National Party Chair. When he said the southernors with pick-up trucks, guns and confederate flags should be voting for Democrats, he was correct, but as the reaction he got when he said it shows, there is lots of groundwork to do before the message can sound as clear as it should.
Tom,
Your comment about the "true philosophy of the Democratic Party" amuses me. The rhetoric is the same as the Christian writers who tell us what God thinks or what God wants. Assuming a personal God exists, how can a mere mortal know what He is thinking? And assuming a true Democratic Party exists, how can you speak for it?
Then to say that the philosophy is "A truly compassionate commitment to work with all members of the community for the good of the whole community and especially for those with the least economic and political power is what is needed. That is the true philosophy of the Democratic Party. Compassion is inherent in the Democratic Party ..." is incredible, and of course untrue.
In fact, the philosophy of the Democratic Party is what it is at the time you look for it. Clinton understood the meaning of "is".
If you look at the philosophy of the founders of the Democratic Party, you get an interesting picture. Jefferson is responsible (or gets credit) for starting the party. He wanted a weak central government, but, one that was expansive. So he purchased Louisiana. He was not compassionate in his private life (consider Sally Hemmings and their children). He was not compassionate in his public life - he publicly supported all of the Democratic iniatives to expand slavery.
Now let's go to Jackson. His policies regarding slavery were the same as Jefferson's. But he furthered Jefferson's expansionist views by his Indian policies. He forcibly removed Indians to "unwanted" land east of the Mississippi even though those Indians had adopted the white man's life style; i.e., they were civilized. Do you call that compassionate?? He also wanted a weak central government. In fact he spent most of his political capital killing th US Bank. A weak central government means one that is not going to help the underprivileged members of society.
Now let's go to Polk. He made Jackson's treatment of the Indians look compassionate. And he invaded Mexico to complete Manifest Destiny. Also wanted a weak central government. Polk would be shocked by the welfare programs of the 20th century that we have instituted.
Now fast forward to FDR. His New Deal appears compassionate, and I think it was. But his motivation could have been to keep the country from anarchy, or, at least communism. That's a good thing, but not quite the same as compassion. In any case, he reversed Democratic traditions by significantly strengthening the central government by his New Deal.
Lyndon Johnson extended the FDR initiatives with programs that I think were compassionate. They didn't last and probably couldn't. Human nature, in my opinion, is not compassionate.
But the point is: the true philosophy of the Democratic Party has changed radically (180 degrees)and will continue to change. We not only have to change with it, but attempt to assist in the change - or quit the party. I quit the party because I think it is dead or at least in shambles. I'm hoping in a very small way to reduce the right wing radicalism of the Republican Party. I'd like it to return to the philosophies of Lincoln and T. Roosevelt just as Tom would like the Democratic party to return to the philosophies of LBJ.
John from Phoenix
John, you question how a mere mortal can claim to know what God is thinking. Christians supposedly try to discern that by reading the Bible, though as Jim Wallis points out in his book, "Who Speaks for God", the religious right doesn't seem to be reading with honest discernment. As a "fallen away" Christian I still admire the biblical message discerned by the true Christians, but I do not claim to speak for them.
You question how I can speak for the Democratic Party. You must admit that claiming to speak for a political party is a little less pompous than claiming to speak for God. Though I have never claimed to be a spokesman for the Democratic Party, nevertheless I did attend my local Democratic caucus in 2004 and signed on the paperwork saying I am a Democrat, so I believe that gives me as much a right as any other Democrat to say what I believe the true philosophy of the Party is, certainly more so than you do as a "fallen away" Democrat.
Without getting too bogged down in details of American History, let me speak briefly to a few of your specific comments. In a federated form of government, whether to have a weak or strong central government is not inherently an issue of compassion. You seem to be assuming that a strong central government will always help the underprivileged, but that is not necessarily so. Take now for example, where your right wing radical Republicans, as you refer to them, are in control of the central government and have been using their power to benefit the wealthy and powerful on the backs of the poor and middle class.
Jefferson and Jackson certainly were for the rights of individuals and sought to protect them from powerful special interests. Jefferson did not purchase Louisiana on behalf of the rich and powerful, it was done for the benefit of all Americans and expanded the opportunites for Americans to be able to acquire frontier land at reasonable cost. Jackson's fear of the central bank was that powerful financial interests would use it to the detriment of the little man.
To criticize 19th century leaders with 20th century standards is specious. They were all products of their times and did not have the advantage of foresight into the 20th century. Lincoln made many disparaging remarks about blacks, even when he was President, and the Emancipation Proclamation from a moral point of view was too little and too late and arguably driven primarily by the desire to use freed slaves in the armed forces. My post, to the extent it implied a historical aspect, was intended more in the context of 20th Century politics.
Jim Wallis defines compassion as "to empathize with" not just "to do for". By that definition, I believe Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts and LBJ all had compassion. I don't know about Polk. In today's politics I expect all would be Democrats, though again I don't know much about Polk. I am compassionate and so are you, John. Bush called himself a compassionate conservative, as part of his strategy of appearing to pre-empt the mission of his opponent while in fact having exactly the opposite mission. You do not belong in the same party as Bush. Instead of trying "in a very small way to reduce the right wing Radicalism of the Republican Party", why don't you come back to the Democrats where you belong? The Republican Party is not going to go back to the philosophy of Lincoln or T. Roosevelt. Lincoln, as one of the original Republicans, was immediately embroiled in the Civil War and did not live long enough to develop a party philosophy. Teddy Roosevelt, was never a good fit with the Republicans and ended up starting a third party.
Instead of debating whether or not it is human nature to be compassionate, I advocate that all who believe in free will exercise that free will to choose to live lives of compassion and to encourage others to do the same.
"But most of all, if the Democrats want to win elections they have got to get candidates who will preach the gospel of Christ"
So sad!
Tom,
OK, I'll give you that speaking for God is a bigger stretch than speaking for a political party. But knowing you, I would not pay very close attention if you started speaking for God. You did say that those who do speak for God with some authority are doing it based on their interpretation of scripture. That is the Protestant rationale and you seem to be turning your back on your own background by referencing it. Catholic theology was never based solely on scripture, and our professors stressed that fact. Church traditions were on the same plane as scripture. I can understand that you are not religious now, but when you reference religious views, why don't you reference the ones that you are most familiar with?
First, let me say I am John from Phoenix and I just posted a comment about Tom's ignoring his Catholic upbringing without signing it.
Second, I'd like to comment on the anonymous comment about how sad that a Democratic candidate has to invoke the gospel of Christ to win.
What's wrong with that? Christ had a lot of good things to say. And most of them apply to what Tom calls the true meaning of the Democratic Party more than what W is esposing. Someone who looks like Kerry and has his intellectual persona but adds a religious appeal applied to the morality of aggression, to the importance of telling the truth to the American people and the world, to fiscal responsibility. But I'm just wishing for another Bill Clinton.
We need someone who has the charisma and the rhetoric to show that W is truly immoral as a President while Clinton was merely sinful as a husband.
The Catholic Church preaches a gospel of Christian social justice, starting from the Vatican and including the Cardinals and Bishops in the US. As with a lot of preachers though, the actions have not always matched the words. Nevertheless, Catholic theologians and the American Bishops have continued to speak for a wider social justice ethic in America based on what Jesus taught. Many Catholics are mentioned as panel participants in "Who Speaks for God?", and they seem to have had no difficulty agreeing with the Protestants on the Christian message of social justice.
Kerry was only the third Catholic major Presidential candidate. Al Smith lost to Hoover, but then JFK's charisma defeated a swarmy Nixon, supposedly putting the Catholic issue behind us - but not really. I think most white Protestant voters are still quite reluctant to vote for a Catholic President. Bush pandered to the Catholic voter with a photo-op with the Pope and the promise of financial benefits from funding of faith based initiatives and school vouchers. Catholic voters ignored the fact the Pope told George the War in Iraq is immoral, and they foolishly bit on the financial bait, without thinking about how it is the religious right that will monopolize initiative money and how vouchers may come with or later develop doctrinal strings.
More Catholics voted for Bush than for Kerry - obviously Catholics believe the religious affilaition of a Presidential candidate should not be an issue. Since the only Catholic Presidential candidates so far have all been Democrats (which is further indication of alignment between social justice, Democrats and Catholicism), I won't even start to consider religion is not an issue until the Republicans put up a Catholic Presidential candidate. They do have one in the wings, but they need a Constitutional Amendment to enable him to run. Remeber, Arnold is not just a naturalized citizen, but also a Catholic.
Here is a link to an article on the percentage of Catholic vote Bush received: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/155/story_15598_1.html
No argument from me - religion is an issue. The issue is different for Kerry than for Kennedy. I don't remember Kerry having to say that he would be his own man and would not take direction from the Vatican. Kenedy said words to that effect in a major campaign speech. But Kennedy ran in a more secular time. All he had to do was back away from his religion. Kerry ran at a time that being religious can win a lot of votes, if you espouse the right religious values - and the right religion. It's odd that the Catholic Church's religious values agree in many ways with conservative Protestantism, but, and I think I'm agreeing with Tom, the Catholic religion is the wrong one to win votes in the red states.
John from Phoenix
Post a Comment
<< Home