What Should We Watch For?

Hello again,

Well now, that was certainly entertaining, if not altogether productive.

When people started calling and e-mailing last Wednesday, I really only had only four words for them:  "Beam Me Up, Scotty."  Like most of you, I was really at a loss, literally and figuratively.  I could not even fathom how the Red Sox vanquishing of 86 years of World Series futility will compensate for the prospect of just four more years of George W. Bush.

Nor am I'm getting much satisfaction from the notion that now that he's been re-elected, George W. Bush will have to clean up his own mess, because -- given his new sense of a "mandate" -- I harbor serious doubts about his ability to clean up the existing mess  without creating an even bigger mess first.

So I figured I'd wait a few days for some of the post-election dust to settle, to see what informed perspective I could arrive at rather than simply jumping to the conclusion in that phony Time magazine cover that said "We're Fucked."

Speaking of magazine covers, I do think the essence of this past week was pretty well captured in that not-so-phony cover of the London Daily Mirror that asked the question, "How can 59,087,045 people be so DUMB?"

But the Mirror doesn't ask the really important question, which is:  Who's dumber? The 59-some-million people who voted for Bush, or the 58-some-million who could not persuade another 2-some-million not to?

Oh, well.  I guess I was right about one thing:  calling everybody "stupid" was not the best way to win friends and influence swing voters.

* * *

Wuz we robbed? Did we back the wrong horse?  Did we misjudge our opponent?  Or was the whole election hacked before a single vote was cast?

For the past 5 days, stories have been floating across my desktop about "irregularities" in the voting, or, more precisely, in how the votes were counted -- particularly those entered in some sort of electronic voting machine.  This story was first reported by Greg Palast among others, and the cause has been picked up by Beverly Harris the author of Black Box Voting: Ballot-Tampering in the 21st Century.  After a flurry of Internet reports on the subject, even the mainstream press is beginning to take notice of the story.

Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that these stories are going to gain enough traction to become an issue before the Electoral College actually casts its votes on December 13. So, assuming the current results stand -- and I'm not betting against that likelihood -- then we have to confront the awful question: 

"How did we lose?" 

How is it even remotely possible that the Democrats could mobilize their base to a level unseen since the 1960s... and still lose the election to a blustery, arrogant, incompetent, inarticulate, half-wit?

* * *

Near as I can tell,we lost because we made the mistake of thinking that in these emotional times -- amid the frenzy and hysteria "framed"   by the incumbent and his puppeteer Karl Rove -- that people would vote with their rational, thinking minds.  Instead, it appears they voted with their more emotionally charged "lizard brains."

But, by far, the most startling revelation of the past week has got to be the emergence of "moral values" as the number one determining factor in how people voted in this election. "Moral Values" scored higher on the list of determining issues than the war on terror, the war in Iraq, health care, and the economy. Go figger.

And so it has come to this: the nation formed around the brilliant, revolutionary concept of "secular public institutions" is now threatened by an electorate that revolves around "moral values" at the center of its political universe. 

But make no mistake: "moral values," like "faith based" before it, is just another euphemism for "religion," and, specifically -- as it pertains in this country -- to the institutions that have grown up around myth of a certain carpenter from long long ago in a galaxy far far away called "Nazareth."   

I think the bottom line was best expressed in a short essay by Nashville writer Ed Morris:

"We’ve got to face the fact —- and the danger -— that most Americans are anti-science, anti-art, anti-abortion, anti-due process, anti-tax and anti-gay. They define themselves by gradations of hate. They are stupid, of course, because they are ultimately anti-human. "Fuck me over, but give me Jesus" is their battle cry." 

The irony, of course, is that religion is, in too many cases, it's own euphemism for the worst sort of moral hypocrisy. Ever heard of the Crusades, or the Inquisistion? And how is it exactly that abortion is a sin but the death penalty is not? 

And what about fiscal responsibility?  If you want national security and a couple of foreign wars to boot, don't you think we've got some obligation to actually pay for all that? Isn't there something in Scriptures about "neither a lender nor a borrower be" ?  Shouldn't that apply to a nation as well as an individual or a family?

When I hear the expression "moral values," what I hear is a thinly veiled expression of discrimination against homosexuals and lesbians, resistance to the advances of science, and dictations regading a woman's decisions over the cellular processes taking place within her own body. 

Or, as Maureen Dowd so eloquently asks, where exactly is the "moral value" in launching a war on false pretenses, and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians as a consquence?

And when I see all the "Red States" lining up south of the Mason Dixon line,  I can't help but wonder, if this was 50 years ago, if "moral values" wouldn't translate as "keepin' the niggras out of our schools..."

But  just as surprising as the emergence of "moral values" is the sudden scramble for Democrats and liberals to somehow make this issue their own. 

For example, one of the first calls I had on Wednesday was from Bob, whose said "We Democrats need a 'come to Jesus' meeting." Forgive me Bob, if I sit that one out.  Howzabout we hold a "Come to Jefferson" meeting instead?

I've seen similar sentiments echoed around the politishphere.  There is for example Rabbi Michael Lerner, who writes "The Democrats Need a Spiritual Left"

Perhaps there is a way that -- after another four years of lies, incompetence, and moral turpitude in the Oval Office --  we can begin to show our moral-values motivated Red-State brethren that the Republicans are not in fact offering a path to salvation. 

But first, we've got to put our infra-red bullshit detectors on.

* * *

The question that we must face in the 1454 days between now and the next election is  "are we really descending into a proto-Christian, corporate police state?" 

If you are gay or lesbian, if you're a scientist contemplating stem cell research, or a frightened, pregnant woman trying to sort out your alternatives, the answer to that question might be a bit more obvious and disturbing to you than it is to the rest of us. 

The rest of us common folk have been living in a corporate state for over 100 years; We're pretty much used to it, and have learned to live in the world where, as George Carlin points out, so long as our "leaders" are chosen from among the ranks of Skull & Bones, our only real choices boil down to "paper or plastic?"

Besides our republican form of government,the greatest legacy of our Founding Fathers is the infinite wisdom embodied in the First Amendment, in particular the clause that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The Founders were not that far removed from the tyranny of religious persecution that they could not recall its atrocities:  The American Revolution was not that much further removed from the last days of the Inquisition than we are today removed from the last days of slavery and the Civi War.  As our lives are still in some measure formed by the last vestiges of that "peculiar institution," so were the thought processes of the Enlightenment formed by the legacies of religious persecution of prior centuries.

The men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights understood that a modern  society would only flourish once it was free of the yoke of religious repression.  Consequently, the nation was formed around a framework of  what Thomas Jefferson called "secular public institutions." The growth and prosperity of the United States in the ensuing 200+ years is clear testimony to their wisdom.

Nevertheless, it's easy to forget that the concept of "sepration of church and state" was a novel and radical idea in its day; Nor is it particularly suprising to see the short shrift the concept gets these days, considering the deep draw that religious supersition continuous to hold on a nervous populace.

Indeed, aside from the partisan political considerations, if there is any fundamental lesson to be gained from this election, it is that what Jefferson called "the wall of separation" is now endangered as never before in our nation's history.  And so we must be vigilant as we watch for any signs that that sacred barrier is further eroding, for therein will lie the roots of our unraveling as a free nation.

Over the past few months, there have been lots of jokes about leaving the country in the event Bush was re-elected. There have also been lots of references to Europe in the early 1930s, and suggestions that we might someday be forced to make the kinds of choices that were forced upon those German Jews who had the means to leave their native land before those left behind were forced onto railroad boxcars. 

I really don't know if the United States is going to come to that.  It's too early to really tell if events are indeed catapulting toward the sort of cusp where those kinds of choices will have to be made, like whether to stand and fight or relocate to some saner part of the globe.

But I do think that this election is a warning that we have to start thinking about the landmarks along the road ahead that will tell us exactly what course we're on.  What I want to know now is "what should we watch for?"  What events or developments will tip us off that the nightmare is unfolding?

Ann and I have joked (not really) about the need to read William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."  We may yet decide to do just that.  In the meantime, I've got one pending event in my crosshairs.

Sometime next year, we will learn whether or not the U.S. Supreme court is capable of preserving the sacred trusts that this president ignores when the Court weighs in  on the thorny issue of displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings.


What am I talking about?  "Thorny issue" my ass.  This one should be a no-brainer.  What does the first commandment say? It says, "I am the Lord thy God and thou shalt have no other gods before me."  A statement like that has no place being displayed anywhere in a "secular public institution."  In the context of that debate, there could be no clearer conflict than the one between the First Amendment and the first commandment.

The Supreme Court may yet find a way to weasel out of that one, like they did with the question of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (and tell me, just what is wrong with "one nation.... indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" ?).  They may say it's something that could be left to the states to decide; Indeed the dis-establishment clause of the First Amendment only dictates what the Federal Government can't do. Fact is, if Alabama or Mississippi or even Massachusetts wants to declare a state religion, there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that forbids that.

But the day I walk into any U.S.-operated building -- a courthouse, a post office, or a social-security office -- and see the Ten Commandments posted, that's the day I start spending more time online exploring some of the wonderful world travel opportunities offered on Expedia.com.

I would like very much to hear from readers what other landmarks or developments you think we should be on the look out for that will tip us off that things are going from bad to worse.  If you've got any suggestions, please post them to the comments section of the blog.  Absent those developments, perhaps we can rest a little easier that, while things are not exactly going the way we might like, they are not going to hell in Hummer either. 

I really don't want to have to leave beautiful, bucolic Pegram, Tennessee for some remote locale that might be safe from a cloud of nuclear fallout (New Zealand, maybe?), but as the Jews in Germany discovered, where matters of escape and survival are concerned, better a year early than a week late.

In the meantime, that's my opinion, and it should be yours, too.

-- PS

* * *

I suspect you have just read the last "Weekly Screed," for a while. I need to take take a hiatus of indeterminate duration.

As most of you know, I have been researching a new book, and I've come to the conclusion that that book is not going to get written unless I devote 100% of my attention to it over the next however-many-months it takes. 

In terms of the time available each week, it's really amazing how long it takes to whip each one of these things up.  Well, no, actually... seeing how long they tend to be, it's not really not amazing at all.

Some hack philospher named "Goethe" said "Be bold and great forces will come to your aid."  Over the course of the past year, some great, unseen forces have been offering me their help,  but I have been keeping that help at arms length, in part by dissipating  my energy into these "Weekly Screeds."

Now I am hoping they will return if I put this aside for a time and devote 100% of my energy to this story - which has its own special bearing on the issues I have addressed in this space. 

Thanks to all of you -- especially those who have managed to read through every one of these endless diatribes. I am honored that there really are quite a few of you. I hope I have kept you at least modestly entertained, or, failing that, reasonably informed.  Should I pick up where I left off, I can only hope that any future efforts will be half as long and twice as funny. 

In the meantime, I've got a short e-mail list that I use to FWD the intereting or amusing stuff that comes my desktop without much additional effort on my part.  Some of you are already on that list, but if there are any other "Weekly Screed" subscribers who aren't getting enough e-mail forwarded to their inbox, let me know and I'll add you to that list, too.

That's all for now... stay vigilant.

--PS

Comments

[Alex]

Interesting article and discussion at:
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002316.html

[Bill Butler]

Paul,

I too enjoyed the piece. I states very clearly a 'hunch' that I have been formulating. The fact that we arrived at the same conclusion independently gives me some faith in my political gut.

I have an idea for another potential landmark that could be an indicator for future right-wing progress. Hitler became all-powerful once he eliminated the possibiliy of being replaced. He created a dictatorship. I doubt seriously that Bush will have inculcated the masses to the point where he could make that move in just 4 years. He could, however, endorse his brother Jeb for the Presidency and create a dynasty that would create a lulling effect. If Jeb were to remain president for 2 terms, this would create a situation where a single family had run this nation for 20 years out of 236 years of existence. Hitler was successful because of his ability to successfully influence a generation of mindless followers. Since Florida is such a key battleground state, I don't believe that this reasoning is too far fetched.

[Sharon Cobb]

Paul,
While I have enjoyed all of your Screeds, your last (for now) is my favorite. Mainly, you are saying what so many in the Democratic party believe, but are now terrified to express they agree with you. (publicly) That, of course, is the irony of your piece and the Democratic Party.
I hope you will continue to write a Screed at least once a month. The Revolution is here, and we need people like you.
Please stay involved. If not...thanks for the memories.
Sharon

[Charles Sumner]

I have appreciated your "weekly" screeds. Thanks. It is apparent from the vote that we all need to explain to the right the reasons for and the value of separation of church and state.

Let me also comment on your statement that the First Amendment applies only to Congress. That IS the way it was written, and the religious right likes to say that "original intent" is the correct interpretaion, without regard for the fact that the Constitution is a living document whose meaning and interpretation has changed over the centuries.

The Doctrine of Incorporation and the 14th Amendment have been interpreted to mean that NO GOVERNMENT entity (not restricted to Congress) may make any law leading toward establishment of religion (any religion) or restricting free exercise.

Therefore states may NOT establish religion. The last establishment was ceased in 1833. The recent trend of Republican administrations has been leading us to violate a basic American principle.

www.Nashville-AU.org President@Nashville-AU.org