Color Commentary

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)


To continue The Chart Project, despite all those rightwing charges about a “liberal media,” it seems fairly rare to see true “liberals” on mainstream television. It’s pretty common to see a strident, hardcore rightwinger paired with a moderate and relatively civil, measured Democrat. This may be partially due to most news outlets’ corporate ownership, which tends by its nature to be establishment or bourgeois (to resurrect a seldom-used term in the States). This also may be because the United States has grown more conservative in bent in the last fifty years or so, at least in self-perception and by self-identification (although on actual policy issues, Americans tend to lean liberal). There’s also no major socialist party in the United States, unlike many other industrialized nations, but more to the point, America lacks programs such as universal health care that are common in many foreign major players on the world stage.

Of course labels such as “liberal” and “progressive” are contentious, and can mean different things to different people, even in a single country. Plus the “hawk” versus “dove” divide, as contentious as those terms are as well, is probably a more important dichotomy than any other currently in American politics, even though it’s often ignored, obscured, or just poorly covered by most of the mainstream media, who think almost exclusively in Democrat-Republican terms (as covered in ”The Chart That Explains It All!” ).

There’s also an inherent flaw with a spectrum like this, even though it gives more nuance to the normal binary oppositions of Democrat-Republican and liberal- conservative. For example, a one-dimensional scale like this doesn’t allow the flexibility of a two-dimensional grid that considers both social and economic liberalism/conservatism:


But that’s beyond the scope of this post, since breaking down where the many contemporary Republican and Democrat constituencies fall on that grid is a project all on its own. This post deals more with our two political parties and their representation in the mainstream news. (Plus, this is partially just to have a little fun.)

With all those caveats in mind, let us continue. Let’s take this spectrum bar:


And let’s say this represents the spectrum of political position from conservative to liberal, ironically moving from left to right. (This is very loose, mind you!)

(Fascist – off the chart)
Authoritarian Conservative
Conservative Republican
Moderate Republican
Centrist Republican
Centrist Independent
Centrist Democrat
Moderate Democrat
Liberal Democrat
Social Democrat
(Socialist – off the chart)

Most of the mainstream media purport to give us this sort of balance in their political coverage:


They also purport to give us a balanced, even-handed understanding of a given issue, which we can depict as so:


In reality, strongly conservative Republicans are normally played off relatively moderate Democrats:


And the media gives us something closer to this:


Really bad coverage will pair a hard-line, authoritarian conservative (“Democrats are traitors”) with a moderate, civil-to-a-fault Democrat:


Leaving us with this:


(And yes, I think it’s funny to depict the party of homophobia in hot pink.)

Meanwhile, Fox News typically pairs a hard-line, authoritarian conservative (“Democrats are traitors”) with a Faux News Democrat (“I’m not a liberal, but I play one on TV”), who acts as Centrist Democrat (if not a Centrist Republican):


Bill O’Reilly likes to pick Faux News Democrats who will agree with him, and hardcore rightwingers even further to the right than he is, so he can appear reasonable in comparison. The end result is that O’Reilly, who in his mind is always right, gives us something this:


At his most moderate, that is. Meanwhile, when a Fox News segment involves Ann Coulter, especially when Sean Hannity is involved, we normally receive something like this:


That’s all, folks! See you for the next installment!

The Religion-in-Society Charts

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Continuing The Chart Project, this third installment looks at religion in society. In the past month or so, religion has been a hotter topic than usual in the liberal blogosphere. (My own feelings and beliefs regarding religion are pretty irrelevant to this post, but perhaps I’ll get to them at some later point.)

Of course, there is a difference between people who are simply religious and authoritarians with a religious bent. Obviously not all religious conservatives share the extreme authoritarianism that characterizes “the religious right” as a political and social force (and most religious liberals and moderates do not). I imagine most readers of this post will be familiar with the tenor and actions of the religious right in America, and to a lesser degree the authoritarian branch of the religious left in America. If that’s not the case, or a refresher is desired, let me provide some links.

Here’s a key Talk to Action post on Democrat Jim Wallis, who does care about social justice, but also works in the Counter-Enlightenment tradition. In this sense, he’s the same as most of the religious right, with whom he shares many policy goals, such as a total ban on all abortions. Here’s the Talk to Action home page; they follow the political activism of religious groups quite closely.

Here’s a recent post by Digby, ”The Screaming Minority,” that gives a taste of the hypocrisy and ambition of James Dobson, one of the leading figures of the religious right. (Digby and Tristero have many great posts on the religious right.)

If you look through the Mike’s Blog Round-Up archive for his “Holy Crap” entries, you’ll find a wealth of links.

Here’s Blue Herald’s wealth of material on everyone’s favorite reformed homosexual evangelical, Ted Haggard.

Here’s a piece by Orcinus’ Dave Neiwert on the ”Bigotry and Subversion” of Bill Donohue and his far right Catholic League. Meanwhile, if you want a real scare, Sara at Orcinus linked a piece about geocentric Christians. Yes, these people are not only “young earth creationists,” they actually believe the sun and all planets circle the Earth. They’ve even built mechanical models for it. Holy crap, indeed.

Here’s a Media Matters post on Bill Donohue of the far right Catholic League defending some of his anti-Semitic remarks. Here’s the Crooks and Liars archive on Donohue.

One of Atrios’ posts from his series on religion is here (from 2/10/07).

Finally, how can we overlook the divine Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I know there’s much, much more out there. But let’s get started.

As noted in ”The Chart That Explains It All!” a great deal of political discourse is hampered by false dichotomies. A favorite one of the religious right may be graphically depicted like so:


Of course, this dichotomy is silly and inaccurate. Pitching it works to rile up the religious base or play politics, but there are relatively few “anti-religious” people out there. Instead, there are plenty of “non-religious” people out there, but that’s not at all the same thing, as much as James Dobson and his ilk claim otherwise. Furthermore, religious and non-religious groups are not truly oppositional. As we discussed in ”The Social Tolerance Charts,” one group, the religious activists, is attacking those not in their group, while those not in their group primarily just want to be left alone. (Considering they’re the aggressors, it’s highly ironic that the religious right still preach a persecution complex as a central tenet.)

On this note, a more subtle false dichotomy deployed by religious activists is this one:


Democrat Jim Wallis employs this false and misleading dichotomy, as do many on the religious right (“secularists” is a favorite epithet). Here, they’re trying to classify non-religion as a religion. Of course, it’s not. This move is not only a political ploy, it’s also deeply narcissistic. Not everyone needs or wants religion or a belief in divinities in their lives. This is a false dichotomy on a few levels. For one, when figures such as James Dobson speak about "religious people," they're not talking about or fighting for the rights of Hindus and Muslims. More importantly, this dichotomy also suggests that everyone who doesn’t believe in a god — or let’s be real, in their god — shares the same set of beliefs. Actually, it's not so much that Dobson and his ilk truly think everyone outside their group literally shares the same beliefs, but this is operationally the case because they treat all belief sets besides theirs as having the same value — little to none. The rhetoric and actions of the religious right betray a classic “Us versus the Other” mentality, where everyone who is not part of the defining group is lumped together. Again, this is highly narcissistic. Furthermore, when religion, atheism and morality are discussed on television, it is horribly common for guests and hosts to equate religion with morality and posit implicitly or explicitly that atheists are amoral or immoral. It’s practically an article of faith, rarely questioned. Of course, morality is not dependent on religion in the slightest, and many immoral acts have been committed in the name of religion. As alluded to above, there’s heliocentrism, there’s geocentrism, but the religious groups that employ any of these false dichotomies are egocentrists and dogmacentrists.

What’s particularly amusing and ironic about this false characterization is that Wallis and others actually use the word “fundamentalist,” intending to use it as a pejorative! This silly maneuver of targeting “secularists” has been around since at least the 80s, only then religious activists labeled their opponents “secular humanists.” (I was amazed as a high school student to learn that Isaac Asimov and others had been so labeled by the religious right.) I imagine that, like “Democrat-ic,” “humanist” sounded too good, so they changed it. The “secularist” label is more polite than “anti-religious,” but it’s still a calculated mischaracterization, and we still hear claims of persecution from people who have organized aggression against people mostly just wanting to be left alone.

The egocentrism and narcissism of these groups appears in almost every issue they raise. Christian religious activists do not press school boards to teach the Sufi or Hindu creation myths in school, for instance. They create a false equivalency between the book of Genesis — to be taught as literal fact (in opposition to the practice of many Christians!) — and the scientific record of the planet Earth (the "Intelligent Design" camp is more subtle about this, but the agenda is the same). It’s also a false dichotomy because one can certainly believe in both science and the Bible. For that matter, these people would not want someone to take over their Sunday service to preach a physics lecture, yet they want Genesis taught in science classes. On a related note, no statutes outlaw prayer in school — try telling that to the many religious clubs across the nation. The statutes outlaw mandatory, teacher-directed prayer, as well they should. Authoritarians also never seem to have the imagination to conceive that they might be in the minority someday, or would be somewhere else. The religious right would be apoplectic if their children were forced to pray to Mecca in their public schools. I can imagine a religious right figure saying, ‘well, Iran is a Muslim nation and America is a Christian nation.’ However, this is false in the sense they mean it. America contains many religions, but can be fairly called a “Christian nation” on a descriptive, demographic level only. In terms of our Constitution, our government, our laws, we are most certainly not a Christian nation and were specifically and deliberately set up not to be one.

A far more accurate description of out government and society would be this:


(Click for a larger image)

Or, to take it one step further, to allow for those nasty “anti-religious” people, this:


(Click for a larger image)

In this chart, non-religious, religious and anti-religious people all have equal protection and rights under the law, as is the case in America. (I’ve used a right-hanging design partially for practical layout reasons and also for equality of religions.) Religious people are protected from anyone who is truly “anti-religious.” Different religious groups, and different sects within those religions, are all protected from one another. Most importantly, perhaps, the non-religious are protected from the religious folks. In some countries, Christians can still claim persecution, but in America, no Christians are being fed to the lions are anything approaching that. In fact, atheists and agnostics are far more persecuted, marginalized and ridiculed in the national political discourse (although they still possess legal rights, of course).

Combine the above system with both ”the chart that explains it all,” and the social tolerance charts, and we get something like this:


(Click for a larger image)

Here, “authority-driven” becomes specifically the push for a theocracy, in opposition to the American system outlined in the Constitution and other founding documents for Freedom of Religion and the Separation of Church and State. These are competing paradigms, more important than the faith (or supposed faith) of those supporting them. The members of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, for example, support the system on the right. Ah, but what of religious “principles”? As with our earlier charts, there’s nothing preventing a Christian from worshipping in the fashion he or she chooses in the system on the right (beyond other laws, of course), the American system. In contrast, while the dominant religion of a theocracy of course has “principles” and tenets, on a systemic level it is not principle-based in the same manner. Instead, it’s structured as a social and governmental hierarchy, where truth, justice and power are determined by those on top, who may or may not rule wisely. In a theocracy, other religious groups may or may not be more favored or persecuted than the non-religious, but anyone opposed to the dominant religion is clearly at the bottom. None of this is to say we have wise leaders now, but we’re speaking of the overall systemic design and what it allows (or even encourages). Put another way, the American system, pictured on the right, is neutral on the issue of religion and the relative merits or any given religion. Obviously, a theocracy is not, and is on a systemic level intolerant. In America, authoritarian Christian organizations are performing a diagonal attack against the foundations of our government and society.

Despite the attempts at historical revision by the religious right, America was not founded as a theocracy. The founding fathers were not all of one mind on anything, but they nonetheless reached a consensus on many essential issues, and among these were Freedom of Religion and the Separation of Church and State. For example, Thomas Jefferson was a deist, not a traditional Christian, and re-wrote the Bible to preserve its moral teachings while removing all supernatural aspects. Jefferson also worked with James Madison to remove religious tests in Virginia, and to craft the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, one of the three accomplishments mentioned on Jefferson’s tombstone (President is not one of them). This highly influential law helped shape First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which bans the establishment of a national religion by Congress.

Tristero outlines all of this very well in his short piece ”Faith and Reason”: “By conscious decision, the Founders of the United States intended that there be NO place for religious privilege or argumentation in the decision-making process of government. None. As in zero, zip, nada.” He follows this up with the post ”Cold Reason” quoting some thoughts of Lincoln’s on the essential role in government of “cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason” and “a reverence for the constitution and laws,” both of which serve as a bulwark against what Tristero calls “the lynch [mob] mentality.”

These principles are so central to American government (and covered in any average education) it raises the question: why the hell do these conflicts over religion in politics occur at all? One reason is that when religion is involved, people can get very emotional, and irrational. The other explanation is that the leaders of the religious right aren’t suffering from poor understanding, they’re simply acting in bad faith.

The essential point to remember is that the religious right and other theocrats are not seeking justice, fairness, or equality. They are seeking privilege and power. Furthermore, religious right leaders already possess privilege and power over their followers. They are seeking to expand that power over those not in their group, and over the government and society itself.

Anyone is free to take pride in their religion, beliefs, or community. Nothing prevents that. Meanwhile, authoritarians are free to preach to one another, or believe in their heart of hearts, that they are superior to those who do not share their beliefs. They may even believe that God views them as superior (doubtless some authoritarian Christians do, although it makes me question their understanding of Christianity). However, the realities of American society and political campaigns aside, on the legal level, claiming allegiance with a specific religion does not make one superior.

Let’s take a closer look at the left half of the chart above (based on the third of our social tolerance charts), and use an extreme example to do so. The dogma held by any such group is, on a systemic level, as arbitrary as it is absolute for them:


(Click for a larger image)

This oversimplifies life in the Soviet Union under Stalin, but there are clear systemic parallels, because the structure is hierarchical, with a high priest class or party leaders calling the shots. (Being a Trotskyite at one point was an advantage and represented a mostly complementary dogma, but later it became extremely dangerous. Artists’ stock with the party rose or fell under Stalin, but many of them tried to pursue their art separate from political pressures, with varying degrees of success. Meanwhile, anyone actually opposed to Stalin in even a remotely overt fashion was in a horribly dangerous position.)

The merits of the dogma, ideology or philosophy are completely irrelevant to the systemic structure. It also does not matter whether the leaders of the religious right are as bad as Stalinist leaders or not. Even if they’re mostly swell guys (or even gals), the system is inherently unjust, and prone to abuse.

In America, member of religious groups are of course free to vote, submit petitions and push for laws, but their religion does not give them greater standing on a legal level. As an article I read long ago argued, religious groups should remember that the sacred is best honored in greater society in a secular fashion. Christian groups are free to work on anti-poverty measures, for example, in accord with the Gospels. However, they are not free to require students to read the Bible in public schools or pray to their group’s conception of God. They are free to oppose the legality of abortion, but if they cite God as the basis for their opposition, then their religious belief is fair game for criticism, and criticizing it is not anti-religious (even if it’s wise to be sensitive). Many religious activists are certainly well-intentioned, just as are many proselytizers. Some are trying to be generous, — ‘I’ve found this thing that’s so wonderful, I want to share it.’ That’s fine, and they’re free to exercise their First Amendment rights. But those efforts must remain in the social versus the systemic realm. Handing out religious pamphlets is fine; requiring anyone to read them is not.

On this note, the authoritarians of the Christian religious right are not merely trying to share their faith. Their approach seeks to strip others of choice, even though this contradicts their own faith’s tenets about the primacy of human choice (choosing the good, choosing God, choosing to do good works, repentance, etc.). As noted in our social tolerance discussion, they feel people cannot be trusted to choose anything for themselves, because then they might choose something the authoritarians don’t want. Part of the social contract in America is that other people are allowed to do things you may not like, just as the reverse is true. Many of the religious right believe in American exceptionalism and would consider themselves patriots. The central lie of the religious right is that anyone who opposes them is anti-religious. In truth, on a systemic level, the religious right are anti-American.

One’s religion is completely irrelevant under the American legal system. Meanwhile, one’s religion can certainly play a rich, important role in one’s interactions in society and in one’s personal and inner life. The religious right would do well to understand the difference.

(Honestly, I really don’t think any of this should be news for anyone who’s had a basic education in civics and U.S. history. For that matter, one could argue to the religious authoritarians that the American system regarding religion is essentially the very embodiment of the Golden Rule — you don’t want to be oppressed, and you don’t get to oppress anyone else. The only crucial thing a religious person can’t do in America that they could do in a theocracy is decide how someone else should live his or her life. They can worship God all they like, but they don’t get to play God. Ironically, intolerant, religious authoritarians use their freedom to try to strip it from others, and seek to destroy the foundations of the very system that grants them freedom (as noted in ”The Social Tolerance Charts”). Again, when religion is involved, emotions cloud matters. Sadly, it seems most religious authoritarians have rejected all civics/history lessons and don’t practice the Golden Rule. “Bad faith” probably applies to them in more ways than one.)

This is one of those line-in-the-sand issues. The belief that America was founded as a theocracy is completely false, flatly inaccurate, wrong. The desire to make it one by the religious right has no bearing and no standing whatsoever on the conduct and constitution of our government and laws. While freedom of religion must be protected, no one is really attacking it. Instead, religious groups are attacking the separation of church and state that is a core, immutable, divine aspect of our laws and society. Liberals, independents and moderate conservatives are taking essential, defensive action. All theocrat activists are misguided at best, dangerous at worst, and must be vigorously challenged. Conservatives used to love to say, “America — love it, or leave it.” Religious activists seeking to undo our wonderful Constitution should either study it and learn to respect it or perhaps go off and found a theocracy for themselves on a remote island somewhere.

Update: After I wrote this piece, I was reading more posts at the Talk to Action site, which I’d only perused occasionally. I came across a few posts that directly speak to some of these issues. Here’s ”Secular Baiting: The Final Exam” and ”Meaning What We Say and Saying What We Mean: Taking a Vacation from Secular (Part 1 of 2)” both from the ”Demonizing Secularism” category.

Additionally, I wrote this post on Sunday to post today. On Monday, Poputonian wrote a post titled ”Free To Think” which quotes Susan Jacoby’s Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. Jacoby makes some great observations about the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom mentioned above, and touches on its influence on the United States Constitution. (And earlier today, Shakespeare’s Sister wrote a thoughtful piece ”On Christian as an Adjective.”) Good stuff.

Update II: While figures like James Dobson might present cleaned up, false dichotomies for political purposes such as "religious-anti-religious" or "religious people-secularists" (did you attend the latest "Secularist" meeting?) there's another dichotomy underneath that they observe, practice and seem to believe in their heart of hearts. While I've alluded to it above, it's worth making it explicit. That attitude can be summed up as:


"Heathen" and "pagan" are sometimes used interchangeably, and can have different meanings depending on the user, but at their essence they are pejorative. Sometimes "heathen" or "pagan" is used to refers to someone who does not practice any religion, sometimes it means someone who is not a Christian, Jew or Muslim, and sometimes it means anyone who doesn't share the user's specific religion. "Heretic" is sometimes employed as well, but that tends to be a pejorative for those not sufficiently zealous to "The Cause." Regardless, these are labels of "Otherness." "Pagan" especially is still a favorite epithet of the religious right, and although "secularist" is more polite (if still inaccurate), both are often spoken with the same dripping venom.

The website Religious Tolerance has a good, older post by B.A. Robinson on verbal attacks by the religious right in the aftermath of 9/11. As their true attitudes came out, "pagan" was pretty popular. The most infamous statement came from Jerry Falwell as a guest on Pat Robertson's 700 Club on 9/13/01:

On the TV program, Jerry Falwell initially said that the American Civil Liberties Union has "to take a lot of blame for" the tragedy. Pat Robertson agreed. Falwell then continued: "And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.' " Robertson responded: "Well, I totally concur..."

On 9/17/01, James Dobson said:

"I also pray that the Lord will bring a national revival that will sweep through our nation and pull us back from the wickedness and the Paganism that's engulfed us in recent years."

On 12/5/01, Pat Robertson had Caryl Matrisciana on his show to discuss the evils of letting kids read Harry Potter books in school. Robertson then revived the spirit of Falwell's 9/11 comments as he "made a list of the main reasons why a country like the U.S. could invoke divine displeasure," as post author Robinson puts it. Robertson concluded his list by saying:

"We're doing all the things that God said were so repugnant that the land itself would be repulsed and would vomit its inhabitants out. And, if there was ever a time that we need God's blessing, it's now. We don't need to bring in heathen, pagan practices to the United States of America. We need to call on God and ask him for revival."

Falwell did eventually apologize, although it's not as if that's the only time he's spouted such intolerance and bile. The same post also features some very intelligent dissections of Falwell and some very welcome dissents from other Christian leaders who rejected his message of hatred and irrational assigning of blame. Yet the examples of such intolerant or even eliminationist rhetoric could go on and on. This is not the language of people who just want to practice their faith and live their lives in peace.

The religious right may complain about rights for Christians, but they already have rights, the same rights as everyone else. Again, what they're really after is privilege and power. It would be a grave mistake to think these authoritarians are operating in a paradigm remotely similar to that of everyone else. For Americans defending the Separation of Church and State, these political struggles are about civil rights, justice for all, and preserving the freedoms explicitly designed into our Constitution. For the religious right, this is a Crusade, a holy war, to instill a hierarchy with themselves on top, and woe to all the heretics who dare oppose them.

The Social Tolerance Charts

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

(Welcome to the second installment of The Chart Project!)

I’m hardly the first person to observe the ironies surrounding intolerant, hate-filled people. Typically, they scream at relatively moderate people, then when they’re challenged, they scream about their intolerance not being tolerated.

(Needless to say, in the context of this discussion, “tolerance” refers to social tolerance of differences of culture, ethnicity, politics, ideology, religion, gender, sexuality... or anything else I’ve missed. It does not refer to permissiveness toward clearly criminal and destructive acts such as murder, corruption, etc.)

The easiest examples of intolerance are the religious right and other social conservatives, who constantly offer false equivalencies and traffic in hypocrisies. Let’s take Focus on the Family, for example. They insist that other people, not in their group, must live their lives the way Focus on the Family says they must live. Meanwhile, most of the people Focus on the Family target are not trying to get Focus on the Family to change the way they live, apart from wanting them to chill out and leave everybody else alone.

This is, of course, because authoritarians and zealots not only believe in one absolute truth, but they believe that they possess it and others do not. They view the world in highly hierarchical terms, which places them at the top of the hierarchy due to their superiority. For them, free will and choice are inconveniences or irrelevant — people cannot be trusted to choose anything for themselves, because then they might choose something the intolerant group doesn’t want. For the intolerant group, how you want to live your life and how they want you to live your life should carry equal weight, and if you don’t feel that way, you’re “intolerant” of them. Actually, that’s too generous, because they actually believe that how you want to live your life is much less important than how you they want you to live your life. This is the heart of the false equivalency and hypocrisy they practice, even if they’ve not consciously aware of it. They want control of your bodies, your behavior, your thoughts, your very beings. The tolerant people say, “You live your life the way you want, and we’ll live ours the way we want.” The intolerant people say, “We’ll live our lives the way we want, but you must also live your lives the way we want.”

This is why, legally, socially and morally, we need a tolerant society. If we look at this graphically, we might get something like this:


A tolerant society allows room for both intolerant people and tolerant people. However, the tolerant people are protected to some degree from the intolerant people. (Of course this chart is not proportionately representative, since in America more people are basically tolerant than not — although when if comes to anti-gay marriage laws, one could certainly argue this point.)

This chart doesn’t quite capture the dynamic of zealotry and intolerance, however. Let’s take a look at this one:


(Click for a larger image.)

This is more accurate, even if the groups are still not represented proportionately. It’s important to remember that intolerant groups are not all unified. They hate other intolerant groups as well. While different intolerant groups may join together on some issues for political gain (as would be the case for religious fundamentalists of different denominations or even faiths banding together to squash them homos, for example), in their natural state they are oppositional. Luckily, as a general rule in America, there are more socially tolerant people than all the people in intolerant groups combined.

It’s also important to note what strident, intolerant groups really want — a hierarchy with themselves at the top:


This is authoritarian rule, in whatever form it may come, be it an oppressive theocracy, Stalinism or some neocon/authoritarian conservative dystopia they would view as heaven on Earth. Everyone other than the dominant dogmatic party is miserable and/or severely restricted in an intolerant society. Again, intolerant people can live their lives just fine in a tolerant society. Who cares if they’re unhappy since they’re not allowed to meddle in everyone else’s life? These societal models are why the policies and goals of authoritarian conservatives are not equally as valid or valuable as those of liberals, moderates, and non-authoritarian conservatives. If we believe that society should benefit the majority of people, but also protect the rights of minorities (in any sense), there’s simply no question that a socially tolerant society is superior to an intolerant one. (Put another way, the American system of equality for all people is superior to an authoritarian hierarchy of superiority for a few.)

As the Declaration of Independence states, all men (and women) are created equal. Religious theocrats and other authoritarian conservatives wish to upend the core principles of our country’s founding to impose the rule of Animal Farm: Some are more equal than others. Let’s be honest — intolerant people can be extremely obnoxious. But tolerant people uphold the principle that ‘I may hate what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.’ (In contrast, intolerant people will fight for you to burn in hell.) Ironically, intolerant groups use their freedom to try to strip it from others, and seek to destroy the foundations of the very system that grants them freedom. Part of the price of a free society is that intolerant people must get their say — if they did not, their cause would win even if their individual group did not. However, the best way to oppose dangerous speech is to speak out one’s self. Authoritarian conservatives cannot be trusted with power, and must be challenged each and every time they speak or act.

None of this is particularly original or profound. However, it may be useful to rebut some of the usual bullshit flung about by authoritarians.

(Tomorrow, we take a look more specifically at religion.)

The Chart That Explains It All!

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)


Welcome to the Chart Project! This is the first and probably weightiest installment of a week-long series. All of these charts are works in progress, imperfect and perhaps dealing in gross overgeneralizations, but they result from my desire to try to visualize some of the dynamics at work in society and politics today.

Derrida and many post-structuralists would argue that Western civilization tends to see everything in terms of binary oppositions, and furthermore, that one half of the pair is seen as slightly superior: male-female, white-black, etc. Regardless, it’s certainly the case that much political reporting and commentary traffics in oversimplifications, false dichotomies and false equivalencies.

For instance, most media outlets will approach any political issue using this framework:


It's only natural to use a Republican-Democrat dichotomy as a launching point or frame of reference. However, this dichotomy breaks down in many instances. What about the conservative-liberal spectrum? Many Democratic politicians tend to be moderate, not nearly as liberal as the “liberals” in other nations, while the current movement conservatives who support George W. Bush are much further right than the Goldwater conservatives of a previous era.

American media coverage is full of over-simplified and misleading dichotomies. These days, race is a more complex issue than simply "black/white” because of our much more multicultural society (and even "white/non-white" often doesn't address important nuances). And while race is a serious issue in America, I’d contend that class in much more important, but is far more rarely discussed. What sort of diversity is there on a political program if both the Republican and the Democrat are backing corporate interests over the average citizen's, for example? Similarly, the problem with Meet the Press inviting John McCain and Joe Lieberman on after the November 2006 elections wasn’t just that Lieberman was technically no longer a Democrat. It was that he’s not a liberal. Most importantly, both he and McCain are diehard hawks on the Iraq war, the single most important political issue today, and the pivotal issue in the election! While “hawk” and “dove” are contentious terms as well, the hawk-dove divide is probably much more important currently than even liberal-conservative or Democrat-Republican. It’s unquestionable that most political coverage in 2002-2005 featured far more hawks than doves (and it’s still that way, in many cases). While some of this was due to a greater number of shrieking hawks during that period, it’s also true that they were over-represented beyond their numbers, and many intelligent, articulate doves were marginalized, derided or simply not booked.

(The only more important, ignored divide is accuracy-inaccuracy, partially because the false equivalency practiced by many media outlets presupposes Republicans and Democrats are equally credible and truthful on all issues. The exception is on the Iraq war, where as many have noted, even the stupidest hawks are presumed to be smarter and more “serious.”)

In any case, the main issue is that a simple Republican-Democrat dichotomy completely fails to address the dynamic at work with the current breed of authoritarian conservatives allied with George W. Bush. Rather than the chart above, it’d be more accurate to use something like this:


(Click for a larger image.)

Or even more accurately, this:


(Click for a larger image.)

It’s a mistake to presume that Bush, the neocons, the religious right and other authoritarian conservatives in the current movement share the same values or goals as the rest of society or even of conservatives past. They simply don’t. They are operating on a radically different paradigm. Law and order conservatives such as Alberto Mora may disagree with liberals on some issues, argue with them or vote against them. Still, Mora reveres the rule of law and believes in preserving (or improving) the judicial system, the military code of conduct, and the Geneva Conventions. John Dean’s recent book Conservatives Without Conscience offers a valuable glimpse into the current breed of authoritarians. As Glenn Greenwald puts it:

Dean contends, and amply documents, that the "conservative" movement has become, at its core, an authoritarian movement composed of those with a psychological and emotional need to follow a strong authority figure which provides them a sense of moral clarity and a feeling of individual power, the absence of which creates fear and insecurity in the individuals who crave it. By definition, its followers' devotion to authority and the movement's own power is supreme, thereby overriding the consciences of its individual members and removing any intellectual and moral limits on what will be justified in defense of their movement.

For authoritarian conservatives, truth derives from esteemed authority figures and generally not from principles, empirical data or any objective or non-partisan source. Ironically, even though they claim to believe in “absolute truth” and decry “relative truth,” they often deny or attack objective truth. As a rule, they are not part of the reality-based community. America was founded on Enlightenment ideals and what may be called “classic” liberalism, beliefs that “all men (and women) are created equal,” and that “they are endowed... with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” For all authoritarian conservatives’ proclamations about patriotism and condemnation of the patriotism of others, they aggressively attack the very foundations of our government and society. Rather than a fair society, with shared civil rights and equality of opportunity, they seek to install (or supplant, or worsen) a hierarchical system with themselves at the top (or otherwise privileged). They believe they are entitled to this position due to their clear superiority, just as others are clearly unworthy. Conformity is valued and can be aggressively pursued; for younger members, a sense of belonging is especially important. Identity is often not positively defined, but rather in opposition to perceived foes. Most authoritarian conservatives are socially intolerant, often not just social conservatives but social regressives, seeking to turn the clock back several decades or even centuries. Typically, they are xenophobic and radically change their response, sometimes instantaneously, toward any individual who strays from the pure party line (Katrina victims deserve no sympathy, for example, and even a Republican who questions Bush is summarily expelled from the club or attacked). While distrust, fear and hostility toward “the Other” is commonplace, at the extreme end of authoritarian conservatism, perceived foes are judged as sub-human. Thus we see the violent rhetoric of the rightwing blogosphere and other far right voices, who advocate killing liberals and moderates and any reporters who dare to report anything factual that makes the leader look bad. Obviously, fascism or totalitarianism is the ultimate political expression of unchecked authoritarian conservatism.

To return to the chart, generally speaking, liberals, independents, and moderate conservatives may fight, but these are horizontal attacks that do not intentionally seek to destroy the overall system above. Fights may be passionate, but they still exist within a basic framework of fairness and an equal opportunity to speak or otherwise participate in the system. In contrast, authoritarian conservatives do engage in horizontal attacks, but they also seek to undermine, destroy, or supplant the greater system itself. If we use the chart above as a guide, their hallmark is the diagonal attack. They don't just seek immediate advantage, they also seek to destroy greater principles that would prevent their permanent hierarchical power. Given this, it's hardly surprising that authoritarian conservatives rarely argue any issue on the merits. In some cases this may be due to inherent irrationality, but for figures who depend on bullying such as Ann Coulter, there's also a deep awareness that in a serious, fair discussion her position will lose. Consider the chart in terms of the following issues:

Surveillance: Both Democrats and Republicans want to eavesdrop on terrorists and suspects. However, Democrats have insisted that we follow the law, specifically the 4th Amendment of the Constitution and the 1978 FISA laws specifically drawn up for exactly these situations. Republicans have repeatedly insisted that Democrats are on the side of terrorists on this issue. This is utter bullshit, and these Republicans know it, because it’s been consistently pointed out to them. Nevertheless, they refuse to stop misrepresenting their perceived opposition. This is the hallmark of cowards, liars, and scoundrels. While at least some Republicans surely do seek to catch terrorists, this goal is secondary to the larger power-grab at play. Authoritarian conservatives are performing a diagonal attack, seeking to destroy the principle of the rule of law, and specifically, the clear requirement for a warrant intended by our founding fathers.

Torture: Everyone agrees on questioning prisoners. Yet authoritarian conservatives push this beyond the pale by advocating torture. They don’t seem to realize, or will not acknowledge, that besides torture being ineffective, immoral and anathema to American values, when America practices torture, it endangers our own troops and citizens. Some authoritarian conservatives surely do seek key information, but they are also performing a diagonal attack against human rights (and the rule of international and military law) that would protect everyone.

Habeas Corpus: One of the darkest days in recent memory was 9/28/06, when the GOP majority rammed through a new detainee bill that stripped prisoners of the “Great Writ” of habeas corpus, in clear violation of the United States Constitution, several centuries of law and basic common sense and moral decency. Stripping anyone of due process helps no one, and hurts the overall system. The general attitude towards prisoners by authoritarian conservatives is also striking. From the releases of prisoners to date, there’s a wealth of evidence showing the administration has arrested and held innocent people, often for years and without charge. Yet for authoritarian conservatives, it is simply inconceivable that the Bush administration has made a mistake. To them, everyone in Guantanamo is a terrorist. There are no terrorist suspects. And they cannot seem to even conceive that there are innocent people there, or remember the core American concept that one is innocent until proven guilty. The fact that the Bush administration or Pentagon says the prisoners are guilty means they’ve guilty, and how dare anyone suggest otherwise! There’s often some xenophobia at work here, but the issue goes deeper. While it may seem a harsh comparison, most authoritarian conservatives share one of the central traits of one of their most notorious members, Adolf Eichmann: a lack of imagination and its emotional equivalent, compassion. Authoritarian conservatives simply cannot conceive that they or someone they care for might ever be treated in the same way as a Guantanamo prisoner. They cannot extrapolate that if it would be wrong if it happened to them, it’s simply wrong and should not happen to anyone. Sub-humans and enemies just don’t deserve decent treatment, and who cares if five years of their lives, their health or sanity are lost? Authoritarian conservatives aren’t truly seeking to convict terrorists, otherwise they’d have brought charges sooner than 3-5 years after the arrests! Currently, the Bush administration asserts it’s able to eavesdrop without warrants, to arrest anyone at will, to hold them indefinitely without charges, to torture people, to use hearsay evidence obtained through torture against others, to hold trials denying the accused access to the evidence against them (thus undercutting any possible defense), and to execute those they find guilty. In short, they can arrest, hold and execute anyone they want. Surely a basically competent lawyer, especially in the more strict military courts, can convict an actual terrorist? The refusal of Condoleezza Rice and other Bush officials to apologize for their mistakes or even in some cases to release people already determined to be innocent is unconscionable. It’s also a familiar assertion of infallibility and a tactic to avoid responsibility. Authoritarian conservatives are performing a diagonal attack against the principles of due process, justice and humane treatment.

Checks and Balances: Most administrations have engaged in minor turf wars. Still, the federal government of America is predicated on the idea that while virtue and honor are great, they can’t be counted upon. Congress is expected to jealously guard its turf against the Executive Branch, as is the Judiciary. The “Rubber-Stamp Republican” 109th Congress abdicated its oversight responsibilities, valuing blind loyalty rather than challenging even the most reckless actions by the Bush administration. Pat Roberts deliberately stalling on his pre-war intel investigation is a prime example. Fixing a serious problem, and telling the public the truth, was not a remote possibility for Roberts because his own party’s dominance comes first, last and always. Authoritarian conservatives are performing a diagonal attack against any traditional checks and balances, and any restraint against their power.

Justice/The Rule of Law: As the recent story about attorneys being fired by the Bush administration for political reasons shows, for authoritarian conservatives, the legal system is not a tool for justice but instead one more political tool to abuse. Power moves eliminating honest brokers and oversight have been common under the Bush administration. Consider, for another example, the Bush administration discounting the advice of Justice Department lawyers who unanimously condemned Tom DeLay’s voter re-districting in Texas. The Bush administration followed up by changing the rules so that lawyers in those positions would not have any future input. Most of the issues considered above touch on justice and the rule of law in some fashion. The authoritarian conservative agenda is probably starkest on torture and habeas corpus because of the very grave consequences of their actions. Authoritarian conservatives seek to establish a hierarchy where imprisonment and punishment are meted out by unaccountable authority with unchecked power. It's a diagonal attack on Truth, Justice, and The American Way.

Science and Empirical Truth: Authoritarian conservatives have waged a well-documented war on science and empirical data. Global warming is a key example, but there's also battles over the FDA, Emergency Plan B, and pollution laws. Plus, they’ve had college dropouts rewriting NASA scientists for political purposes, and promoted the idea that the Bible's Great Flood created the Grand Canyon. Entire blogs are devoted to these issues (for a satirical look at this, see "Help Fight Math Illiteracy!" or the much pithier and funnier Tom Tomorrow). Authoritarian conservatives haven’t just fought for their policies, they’ve tried to make facts irrelevant to the decision-making process. Astoundingly, they are consistently performing a diagonal attack on the Scientific Method and empirical truth.

Class Warfare: Rank and file authoritarian conservatives will consistently vote against their economic self-interest. In some cases it’s because they buy BS arguments by their leaders and their leaders’ mouthpieces (see virtually every conservative think tank). Still, for some, social issues are simply more important to them. Keeping the homos at bay or stopping abortion is more critical than a decent living wage — and everything's the fault of those damn liberals, anyway. Rich authoritarian conservatives seek to increase their share of the pie and deny it to others, and are quite conscious of what they do. Wealth and power have been distributed with horrible unevenness throughout human history, even if the overall picture has improved (in some nations, at least). In this sense, it's not fully accurate to say that authoritarian conservatives are pushing to supplant the existing order, but they are trying to eliminate all attempts to shape a more just system (such as our progressive tax code). They favor policies that disproportionately (or only) favor the aristocracy, and fight to make the existing landscape even worse in terms of wealth distribution. Authoritarian conservatism, with its hierarchal nature, is the natural political match for a class system.

Fiscal Management: Spending their grandchildren’s inheritance like the proverbial drunken sailors is as close to military service as most of the Bush administration will ever get. Their atrocious fiscal mismanagement is also a stark reminder of the profound selfishness and recklessness of current movement conservatives. Since at least Reagan, a favorite authoritarian conservative trick is to run up the deficit, artificially creating a financial crisis, then using this manufactured crisis to justify cutting social spending. Reagan and George W. Bush also had the additional gall to pair these cuts for the needy with greater giveaways to the already ridiculously wealthy. The same crowd who inveigh so loudly against welfare for the poor always seem to heavily back corporate welfare (who hardly need such largess). In their view, government is a tool for giving out money and power to the already rich and powerful versus an entity representing the people and working for the common good. While some may view fiscal mismanagement as just politics, or another facet of class warfare, it’s been so severe it amounts to sabotage against all future administrations. Authoritarian conservatives are performing a diagonal attack against the very idea of an effective, efficient government, and to this end are trying to bankrupt it while simultaneously enriching themselves and their friends. It’s similar to a corporate raider engaging in a hostile takeover, then selling off the assets. Highly influential Republican Grover Norquist is famous for his psychopathic words, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Norquist deliberately pushes the false dichotomy of "big government versus small government," when of course the real issue is good, effective and representative government. Norquist is more a plunderer than many of authoritarian conservative brethren (such as close friend Karl Rove and VP Cheney), but it's undeniable that none of them want to reform or improve government. They want to destroy it where representative and effective, and exploit it where they can.

Media Coverage: The hostility of rightwing attacks on the media are well known in the liberal blogosphere, and even a few of the mainstream media have slowly clued in. For authoritarian conservatives, the real problem is never the problem. It’s reporting the problem that makes things messy. In their world, coverage of an unpleasant event that might make the leader look bad is solely due to a political agenda by the media. They seem to believe that all media coverage is arbitrary, with no relation to objective reality. It’s as if they think a negative report does not result from an actual negative event, or that bombings in Baghdad wouldn’t have actually occurred if only no one reported them. The Bush administration in particular believes a relentless public relations campaign is everything, and actual performance is all but irrelevant. Current movement conservatives subscribe to a magical, ostrich head-in-the-sand, delusional view of reality. Rush Limbaugh tells his dittoheads to enjoy themselves and not to bother reading the paper or watching the news this weekend, he’ll watch it for them and tell them the important stuff — and this appeals to them. They want to be told what to think versus informing themselves, questioning matters or joining a discussion. They do not add voices, only echoes. However, they also insist that everyone else must do the same. Authoritarian conservatives are performing a diagonal attack against objective sources of information and the principle of a free press.

Civil Rights and Dissent: At times, it seems the only amendment of the Constitution the Bush administration hasn't sought to overthrow is the 2nd. Complimenting their hostility toward the press, Bush's free speech zones and the recent revelations about the treatment of the Denver Three are further proof that this White House sees the 1st Amendment as an obstacle rather than a joy and treasure. No modern administration has ever demonstrated such hostility toward the right to dissent.

Meritocracy versus Cronyism: Whether it’s the recent politically-motivated U.S. attorney firings, the hiring of unqualified conservative loyalists for the CPA in Iraq, college dropouts without a science background editing NASA scientists, Mike Brown or a hundred other examples, the Bush administration has favored cronies, yes-men and loyalists over the competent and honest. This is in perfect line with the authoritarian tradition that advancement should be granted by an authority, a benefactor, a gatekeeper, as opposed to being earned through merit. This attitude dovetails into an assault on good management. In the Bush administration especially, honest brokers tend to be shunned and attacked. Bush's bubble is not solely a personality or character flaw. It's an intrinsic problem of the authoritarian model, because the White House under Bush has been authority-driven versus principle-driven. In Bush's case, he has granted enormous authority to Dick Cheney and his cabal. Cheney has driven almost every horrendous decision the administration has made, most notably the Iraq war, the failure to go after Al-Qaeda in early 2001, awful economic policies and a continuing war against transparency, oversight and accountability. As was Rumsfeld, Cheney is a vicious and unrelenting bureaucratic in-fighter. He’s used his large staff, many allies and every underhanded trick at his disposal to win almost every administration battle, aggressively subverting the process of vetting key information and using honest brokers. Either Cheney cares only about getting his way and nothing about what’s best for the country, and thus undermines the process, or he truly believes he is brilliant and infallible, and thus undermines the process. Even when disastrously wrong, which has been often, he seems not to care. He certainly hasn't apologized or even acknowledged his errors. Bush consistently makes horrible decisions because he and Cheney have chosen to undermine the apparatus that would aid good decision-making. (Wait, how many diagonal attacks is that, now?)

There are limitations to this chart, of course. For instance, even relatively moderate conservatives will often ally with authoritarian conservatives and will back disastrous Republican policies on the economy, taxes, foreign affairs and countless other issues. It's also possible to find some authoritarian Democrats, but they're certainly in the minority compared to Republicans. One could also certainly argue that many national politicians in both parties are beholden to corporations. On the other hand, there's really no such thing as an authoritarian liberal, because the essence of liberalism is equality (and I would add, meritocracy), in contrast to the artificial hierarchy favored by authoritarians.

On this note, it's important to note that authoritarian conservatives are part of the same continuum as monarchists, class elitists, defenders of wealth inequity and proponents of the ol’ boy network. The cosmetic details may change, but the consistent idea is that one’s merit should not be the determining factor for success. Rather, one’s standing should be determined almost exclusively by social ties and membership in the “club.” An unfair system must be preserved because those in power would lose much of it under a fair system. The privileged must keep their privilege, and sadly, authoritarian conservatives in positions of power seek to expand their privilege and deny it to others. Any programs that promote equality or equal opportunity must be opposed or crushed. The lower rung of authoritarian conservatives are often dupes, voting against their own self-interests in order to feel part of the club. Even though Communism under Stalin and "National Socialism" under the fascist rule of Hitler were in theory rival ideologies, both were totalitarian regimes. Both preached about worker's rights and such, but the reality was highly hierarchical systems based on obedience to authority and dogma.

America is not a fascist state as of yet — but it clearly possess what Dave Neiwert and others would call proto-fascist elements. Who could have guessed, ten years ago, that America would be where it is now? The Bush administration has gotten away with a great deal of their moves by exploiting cognitive dissonances — "Surely the Vice President would never do that if he knew…" "Surely if they're doing that there must be some good reason…" and so on. Who could believe they'd be so audacious? (Well, some of us, and others have come to realize it.)

Without giving way to the same sort of hysteria authoritarian conservatives stoke over Islamic extremists, it's important to note that authoritarian conservatives are dangerous and cannot be trusted with power. That's hardly a theoretical statement, as recent history shows us. It's fair to say that, ironically, authoritarian conservatives in America are profoundly anti-American and opposed to freedom.

Sadly, the current political struggle is not between conservatism and liberalism, it’s between a regressive authoritarianism and basic fairness. The damage done by the Bush administration to our international prestige, our national security, New Orleans, our finances, a host of agencies, the national political discourse and our judicial and legal systems will take years or even decades to reverse. But it can be done.

Anyway, it’s just a chart. But I find it useful for speaking about a consistent, dangerous pattern by authoritarian conservatives.

(Tomorrow will feature a much shorter piece on social tolerance.)

Richard Jeni Dead From Apparent Suicide

I was shocked and sad to see this news article about Richard Jeni, who was only 45. I've been a fan of stand-up comedy since I was a kid, and Jeni had some really great sets, strong material with sharp timing. He did land several specials for himself, but was one of those not terribly famous comics I'd recommend to people, and who people might not know by name but would say, "oh yeah, that guy." I remember catching a re-run of one of his specials late at night on a broadcast network, and marveling at how sharp he was. It's a shame and a waste.

I was a fan of Mitch Hedburg too, who had a unique, likable goofball style with some really witty material, and died in 2005 at the age of 37. Then there's Phil Hartman, Chris Farley, John Belushi... sigh.

Class Warfare

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)


(Marie Antoinette)

A Republican and a Democrat are sitting in bar, when Bill Gates walks in. “Yippie, I’m rich!” cries the Republican.

“What are you talking about?” says the Democrat.

“Well,” explains the Republican with some annoyance, “Bill Gates is worth 50 billion, right? Counting him, there are ten people in this bar. That means, the average wealth in this bar is 5 billion per person! I’m rich!”

“What are you talking about? Just because Bill Gates walked in the bar doesn’t mean you get 5 billion!”

The Republican rolls his eyes and says, “I see you’re still preaching discredited ideas about class warfare.”

One of the most hilarious, hypocritical, utter bullshit talking points you’ll hear from conservative pundits is that liberals pushing for some sort of equity or social justice are practicing class warfare. Bill Gates actually gives a phenomenal amount of money to charity, but needless to say, he’s not the norm. Class warfare waged by the rich and powerful against the poor and middle class is not only a current reality, it’s been the general rule for several millennia. That’s hardly a secret, although most of the chattering class apparently think it terribly uncivil to mention. The gross and growing disparity of wealth is a serious problem — unless you’re one of the rich and powerful.

You’d really think the super-wealthy who practice class warfare would have the “civility” and “class” to shut up, back off, and let the rest of us live our lives and pursue some modest prosperity of our own versus them stealing yet another piece of the pie when they already own a massively disproportionate portion. I’m not as much concerned about the rich and indifferent. I’m concerned about a handful of families, eighteen to be exact, actively working to make an already horribly unequal distribution of wealth in America even worse, the good of the country and the world be damned.

There is no major socialist party in America. There are no major figures in America urging the people to rise up and seize the monetary assets of Paris Hilton and re-distribute them to the masses. Under even the most taxing of progressive tax codes, say the 92% or so on the top bracket we had in the 1950s, the super-wealthy will remain super-wealthy. Barring mind-blowing stupidity and/or criminal acts on her part, Paris Hilton will never be poor. I know several rich couples, Republicans no less, who give significant amounts of money to charity every Christmas, bless ‘em. The rich are not inherently evil. But neither are they inherently virtuous, and that line about camels and needles comes to mind. Someone inheriting great wealth may or may not be a kind person, but they did not gain their wealth through inherent merit. There is virtually no situation anyone can face where being rich is not an advantage over being poor. Certain kidnapping-hostage situations, perhaps. And if you happen to be an aristocrat living in France in 1789, you’re probably pretty screwed. But apart from that, if you’re rich and/or powerful, you’re sitting quite pretty, you’ve been sitting even prettier thanks to Reagan and both Bushes, and your ass is about to get an even fluffier cushion.

I thought it would be useful to collect some relevant articles on the subject in one place. Don’t feel you have to read the whole thing, but I find these articles make for useful references.

While I’d take issue with some of his other charges in this piece (as Pauline Kael said, there’s a difference between what people want and what they’re willing to settle for), the guts of this Matt Taibbi piece are great:

[Senator Bernie] Sanders's office came up with some interesting numbers here. If the Estate Tax were to be repealed completely, the estimated savings to just one family -- the Walton family, the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune -- would be about $32.7 billion dollars over the next ten years.

The proposed reductions to Medicaid over the same time frame? $28 billion.

Or how about this: if the Estate Tax goes, the heirs to the Mars candy corporation -- some of the world's evilest scumbags, incidentally, routinely ripped by human rights organizations for trafficking in child labor to work cocoa farms in places like Cote D'Ivoire -- if the estate tax goes, those assholes will receive about $11.7 billion in tax breaks. That's more than three times the amount Bush wants to cut from the VA budget ($3.4 billion) over the same time period.

Some other notable estimate estate tax breaks, versus corresponding cuts:

• Cox family (Cox cable TV) receives $9.7 billion tax break while education would get $1.5 billion in cuts

• Nordstrom family (Nordstrom dept. stores) receives $826.5 million tax break while Community Service Block Grants would be eliminated, a $630 million cut

• Ernest Gallo family (shitty wines) receives a $468.4 million cut while LIHEAP (heating oil to poor) would get a $420 million cut

And so on and so on. Sanders additionally pointed out that the family of former Exxon/Mobil CEO Lee Raymond, who received a $400 million retirement package, would receive about $164 million in tax breaks.

Compare that to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which Bush proposes be completely eliminated, at a savings of $108 million over ten years. The program sent one bag of groceries per month to 480,000 seniors, mothers and newborn children.

Somehow, to me, that's the worst one on the list. Here you have the former CEO of a company that scored record profits even as it gouged consumers, with gas prices rising more than 70 percent since January of 2001. There is a direct correlation between the avarice of oil company executives and the increased demand for federal aid for heating oil programs like LIHEAP, and yet the federal government wants to reward these same executives for raising prices on the backs of consumers.

[...]

That's not only bad government, it's bad capitalism. It makes legalized bribery and political connections more important factors than performance and competition in the corporate marketplace.

Digby linked the same article, and also links this 4/25/06 Think Progress post, which reports (emphasis mine):

The 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax (aka the Paris Hilton Tax) on heirs of the super wealthy has been financed and coordinated by just 18 families, according to a new report by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy.

The families include “the candy magnate Mars family, Waltons of Wal-Mart fame, Kochs of Koch Industries and Dorrance family of the Campbell’s Soup Co.” Together, they are worth a total of $185.5 billion. The estate tax repeal would “collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion.”

[...]

Americans are about four times as likely to be hit by lightning than to have to pay estate taxes on small businesses or farms.

But keep buying them lotto tickets, with similar odds! Repeal the estate tax, ‘cause you might get really rich too!

In fact, as Think Progress notes, a majority of the public want to reform the estate tax or or just leave it alone (57%, while only 23% back repealing it), but the Republicans keep pushing to eliminate it. They always have, and they always will. Back in April 2005, Atrios, and Attaturk at Rising Hegemon in "The Paris Hilton Tax Relief Act" linked a Washington Post article, ”Erosion of Estate Tax Is a Lesson in Politics” that reported:

In 1992, when heirs to the Mars Inc. fortune joined a few other wealthy families to hire the law firm Patton Boggs LLP to lobby for estate tax repeal, the joke on K Street was that few Washington sightseers had paid so much for a fruitless tour of the Capitol.

Today, the House is expected to vote to permanently repeal the estate tax, moving the Mars candy, Gallo wine and Campbell soup fortunes one step closer to a goal that once seemed quixotic at best: ending all taxation on inheritances.

[...]

Last month, Graetz and Yale political scientist Ian Shapiro published "Death By A Thousand Cuts," chronicling the estate tax repeal movement as "a mystery about politics and persuasion."

"For almost a century, the estate tax affected only the richest 1 or 2 percent of citizens, encouraged charity, and placed no burden on the vast majority of Americans," they wrote. "A law that constituted the blandest kind of common sense for most of the twentieth century was transformed, in the space of little more than a decade, into the supposed enemy of hardworking citizens all over this country."

The best propaganda money can buy! For the past two or three decades at least, Republicans have aggressively worked for the super-wealthy and rich corporations at the expense of average citizens. As candidate George W. Bush told his patrons at a $800 per plate dinner back in October 2000, "This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base.” Check out any conservative think tank for dubious studies and unfounded assertions that raising the minimum wage, funding free pre-school and Medicare or asking the super-wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes will cause the fall of Western civilization. Meanwhile, The General delves into the bread-and-circuses-distract-the-masses angle of economic coverage.

Paul Krugman wrote a fantastic piece for Rolling Stone named "The Great Wealth Transfer":

The number of Americans in poverty has risen even in the face of an official economic recovery, as has the number of Americans without health insurance. Most Americans are little, if any, better off than they were last year and definitely worse off than they were in 2000.

But how is this possible? The economic pie is getting bigger -- how can it be true that most Americans are getting smaller slices? The answer, of course, is that a few people are getting much, much bigger slices. Although wages have stagnated since Bush took office, corporate profits have doubled. The gap between the nation's CEOs and average workers is now ten times greater than it was a generation ago. And while Bush's tax cuts shaved only a few hundred dollars off the tax bills of most Americans, they saved the richest one percent more than $44,000 on average. In fact, once all of Bush's tax cuts take effect, it is estimated that those with incomes of more than $200,000 a year -- the richest five percent of the population -- will pocket almost half of the money. Those who make less than $75,000 a year -- eighty percent of America -- will receive barely a quarter of the cuts. In the Bush era, economic inequality is on the rise.

[...]

The widening gulf between workers and executives is part of a stunning increase in inequality throughout the U.S. economy during the past thirty years. To get a sense of just how dramatic that shift has been, imagine a line of 1,000 people who represent the entire population of America. They are standing in ascending order of income, with the poorest person on the left and the richest person on the right. And their height is proportional to their income -- the richer they are, the taller they are.

Start with 1973. If you assume that a height of six feet represents the average income in that year, the person on the far left side of the line -- representing those Americans living in extreme poverty -- is only sixteen inches tall. By the time you get to the guy at the extreme right, he towers over the line at more than 113 feet.

Now take 2005. The average height has grown from six feet to eight feet, reflecting the modest growth in average incomes over the past generation. And the poorest people on the left side of the line have grown at about the same rate as those near the middle -- the gap between the middle class and the poor, in other words, hasn't changed. But people to the right must have been taking some kind of extreme steroids: The guy at the end of the line is now 560 feet tall, almost five times taller than his 1973 counterpart.

Meanwhile, in “Live At Your Own Risk,” David Moberg reviews several books on economics, and writes:

In All Together Now, Jared Bernstein, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, offers a trenchant critique of the economic, political and moral shortcomings of conservative social and economic policy that he dubs YOYO, or “you’re on your own.” He wittily contrasts them a progressive strategy that recognizes that “we’re in this together,”: WITT.

(Yet again, a hat tip to The Old Hippie's Groovy Blog, and Mike's Blog Round-Up for the Krugman and Moberg pieces.)

Ezra Klein brings up the issue of ”The Death of Fordism”:

David Leonhardt has a good piece in today's Times on the death of Fordism -- that oh-so-comforting economic philosophy that productive workers should be paid expansive wages and the middle class should drive the country's economic growth. As he notes, what we've seen is a shift towards what I'll call Hiltonism -- that the economy should be driven by growth at the top, and the middle class should be squeezed so the rich can amass ever more riches. This is trickle down economics, it started with Reagan, it continues today. It's why we pass things like the dividend tax cut:

Americans with annual incomes of $1 million or more, about one-tenth of 1 percent all taxpayers, reaped 43 percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003....The analyses show that more than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the top 2 percent, about 2.6 million taxpayers.

By contrast, few taxpayers with modest incomes benefited because most of them who own stocks held them in retirement accounts, which are not eligible for the investment income tax cuts. Money in these accounts is not taxed until withdrawal, when the higher rates on wages apply.

On the world front, United Nations University has a study published on 12/5/06, “The World Distribution of Household Wealth,” which found that the richest 2% in the world own half the world’s wealth.

A U.S. News & World Report from 2/21/00 called ”The Rich Get Richer” stated:

...Over the last two decades, an income gap in an absolute sense between the rich and the poor has risen significantly. In 1970, the average income of the richest 5% of Americans was 10 times greater than the average income of families in the bottom 20% bracket. By 1980, the ratio had increased to 16 to 1, and in 1999, it became 19 to 1. In terms of household wealth, in 1976, the wealthiest 1% of Americans possessed 19% of total household wealth, whereas at the turn of the twenty-first century, the same 1% enjoy 40% of all wealth. The inequity of income and wealth distribution in America is the highest among industrialized countries. In the past, the inequity of income was manifested in terms of an urban ghetto. In the year 2000, this inequity is reflected by the gated or walled residential communities of the rich.

Bringing this back to the November 2006 midterm elections, in ”Embracing Populism,” David Sirota quotes an op-ed by Jim Webb:

The most important—and unfortunately the least debated—issue in politics today is our society’s steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America’s top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. … The top 1 percent now takes in an astounding 16 percent of national income, up from 8 percent in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Still, Bill Moyers might have put it the most pointedly in his great keynote speech, ”This is the Fight of Our Lives,” at The Inequality Matters Forum at New York University on 6/3/04:

The middle class and working poor are told that what's happening to them is the consequence of Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand.' This is a lie. What's happening to them is the direct consequence of corporate activism, intellectual propaganda, the rise of a religious orthodoxy that in its hunger for government subsidies has made an idol of power, and a string of political decisions favoring the powerful and the privileged who bought the political system right out from under us."

Class warfare is a reality, but despite a classic maneuver of conservative projection, misdirection, and deception, it ain’t occurring in the direction they claim. Of course, why should anyone worry their pretty little head over such matters when the masses have plenty of cake to eat? Still, the next time a conservative squawks about “class warfare,” throw some stats his way — or ask him to buy you a drink out of his 5 billion.



Update: Fixed a few typos.

Rightwing Cartoon Watch #15 (3-2-07)

The latest installment of Rightwing Cartoon Watch is here, this time covering a two week period from 2/12/07 to 2/25/07. The hot topics include Bush’s troop escalation (the so-called “surge”) and the field of presidential candidates on the Democratic - and Republican! - sides. Plus, the "Bomb Iran!" campaign continues strong, there's an odd love for a "human sacrifice" metaphor, and you may well ask: for how many issues can a cartoonist still work in an Anna Nicole reference?