November 21st, 2004
As to what I found fascinating and puzzling about the poll, which has been conducted yearly since 1976, with pretty much the same results, are the following:
- 34% of those polled (and, thereby, of the U.S. population) belive that “the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.”
- 25% of those polled (and, thereby, of the U.S. population) is considered to be biblical literalists and believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago.
These two percentages are simply incredible to me. The presence of such significant percentages of the U.S. population that hold such an alternate and un-factually based understanding of the natural and modern world creates conditions that ripe for exploitation.
November 4th, 2004
How disappointing… some in the Democratic party are suggesting that we have to make our message “more mainstream.” This sort post-eleciton analysis is precisely what many are afraid of in the progressive/Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
Here’s what we do know from this past election: all of the following self-identified ideological groups, liberals, moderates, independents and progressives, voted for Kerry in greater numbers then they voted for Bush. The only ideological group that voted for Bush in much greater numbers were ideological conservatives. Now, here’s one more thing that we know, in 2000 conservatives/Evangelical Christians composed about 20-25% of voters, in 2004 conservatives/Evangelical Christians represented about 30-35% of voters. Conclusion, Bush carried only one ideological group, conservatives/Evangelical Christians, and more of them came out to vote in 2004. Now, how one can jump to the conclusion that They (Republicans) somehow represent the “mainstream,” I frankly don’t know. Clearly Bush received nearly 4 million votes more than Kerry; however, in a nation with 217,767,000 citizens of voting age, and where 114,324,228 (52.5%) turned out to vote, I think it’s defeatist for Democratic supporters to conclude: Oh, we got to be more like Republicans if we want to win. No, that’s the wrong conclusion, and the sort of thinking that does not earn respect from anybody. We, Democrats, liberals, progressives, moderates, independents (whatever you want to call yourself), have got to be more like Us and less like Them, and make sure that We present clear distinctions between Us and Them.
Here’s something I presented elsewhere, which I’ll post again, because it’s something that We have to keep in mind as We build up to for the next fight:
“In 1964, Lyndon Johnson (Democrat) beat Barry Goldwater (Republican) by 23% points. Goldwater managed to carry just 6 states and Johnson won the electoral college 486-52. But the conservatives didn’t give up. They didn’t spend a lot of time wringing their hands. They regrouped and fought back. By 1968, Nixon (Republican) crushed Humphrey (Democrat) in the electoral college 301-191 and won the popular vote by a million votes. If you oppose Bush, now isn’t the time to feel sorry for yourself. Now is the time to get to work.”
It took the Right wing 30+ years to get to where they are — We’ve taken the first step, and We must now follow up with action. Please, if you support Democratic/Progressive values, find local groups that will point in the right direction.
I’d recommend to start here:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/
And don’t compromise your core convictions and moral values of Hope over Fear, and of Tolerance as a Family Value.
—————————————————–
“Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more!”
- William Shakespeare, Henry V
October 5th, 2004
If one is really offended about the contemporary notion/misconception that devout Christians are somehow aligned with the “conservative right-wing” and with the Republican party, then, one should direct one’s ire against the leadership of the Republican party and its public mouth pieces (i.e., Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, the 700 club, the Christian Coalition, and others).
Unfortunately, the Republican party has mounted a blatant and concerted effort to court born-again Evangelical Christians, and have thereby equated being “Christian” with being aligned with the Republican party (and, rightly or wrongly, with the conservative right-wing). By way of example, about a month ago the Republican National Committee (RNC) urged Evangelical pastors to actively recruit members of their congregation for the Republican party and, too, the RNC requested that pastors forward to the party contact information on their congregation. By making such a self-serving request, the RNC actually placed the churches that responded in jeopardy; because those churches could’ve have lost their (557) tax-exempt status with the IRS — whereby non-profit, including religious organizations, receive certain tax benefits as long as they don’t directly advocate for a political party.
Again, if there’s anyone that should rightfully be the recipient of one’s ire for exploiting and mischaracterizing people of the Christian faith, its the Republican party and its cohorts. In the first presidential debate, for example, Mr. Bush resorted to his religious crutch once again. In his closing statement Mr. Bush clearly invoked biblical imagery when he uttered:
Bush: We’ve climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it’s a valley of peace.
Once again, if there’s anyone to blame for the contemporary notion that devout “Christians” are somehow aligned with a particular party, it’s the Republican party and those that do not stand up for their faith’s core values: tolerance, love of neighbor, charity and forgiveness.
September 10th, 2004
1. The so-called liberal media are just a bunch of fucking wimps that are just scared shitless about being labeled “liberal,” so they never expose the factual conservative dominance of our media industry.
2. Let me explain what I mean by “factual conservative dominance of our media industry.”
Basically, the conservative movement (through its various think-tanks, foundations, wealthy donors, etc.) learned to game the system/media some 30 years ago, when the conservative movement began its re-ascendance in our country (culminating in Mr. Reagan’s election and continuing to the present). (As reference, look up: The American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute — there are others, but these are the principal ones, specially the American Enterprise Institute.)
Furthermore, conservatives of the 1950s and 1960s knew the following: A) They no longer belonged in the (Southern) Democratic party, as the party advocated Civil Rights and the enfranchisement of African Americans; B) They needed to jump ship, so they essentially hijacked the Republican party (note the lack of so-called Northern Rockefeller Republicans in today’s GOP); C) Conservatives of the period devised a strategy to flame the embers of White-male resentment against the politics of the late 1950s and 1960s, accordingly the Southern Strategy was born.
And this, essentially, is the genesis of the modern Republican party. Note how today’s Republican power base is contingent on these two factors: A) The South, and; B) Let’ say, the subtle, encouragement of White-male resentment against a popular culture that many of them feel rejects the White-male iconography.
Of course the preceding brushes over the past 40/50 years in very broad strokes, but I had to provide it as background to support how the “factual conservative dominance of our media industry” has occurred.
i. The conservative movement has laid down a well disciplined, and well funded, infrastructure that’s geared to challenge (and dismantle) the legitimacy of: academia, the news media and a certain brand of popular culture.
ii. To compete against academia, conservatives established think tanks and funded conservative intellectuals. Moreover, to challenge the news media conservative created what was, at the time, new media outlets: talk radio and direct mail (note that Republicans were the first to set up what still is the most extensive and sophisticated voter data-base in the country). Thirdly, popular culture is often used by conservatives to drive wedge issues among the electorate (i.e., homosexuality, feminism, guns, etc.).
iii. Its taken about three decades, but the combination of the factors I listed above have lead to what I referred to as Mr. Brock’s Republican Noise Machine model:
a. Talk radio is dominated by conservatives, which is where many of these stories originate. Accordingly, they give some buzz to whatever story they want to play up that day.
b. A network of quasi-news organizations (including right-wing blogs) provide some ink, to put some meat on the story and get things boiling.
c. Cable Network talking heads (i.e., Hardball, O’Rielly Factor, Sean Hannity, Scarborough, Miller, et al.) then pick up the story, once there’s enough of buzz behind it.
d. At this point the mainstream media is forced to run the story, since by now the item is “newsworthy.”
Now, the key part about the preceding model is this: After 30 years of a concerted and well organized effort to convince the public that the so-called liberal media cannot be trusted, journalists and the public have complete internalized this notion, and don’t even challenge the assumption. Furthermore, it is under these conditions that “Liberal” has become a “dirty word” and, conversely, “Conservative” has become the preferred ideological label for a significant segment of the public, specially White-males. So, finally, we have a system wherein American journalists are afraid to be perceived as having a liberal-bias, for fear of proving the myth true; and, the general public simply assumes that they know what they know, and simply assume that the so-called liberal media must have a liberal bias.
3. Because strong ideological conservatives in the media know that what I have described is true, they know that the wimpy mainstream media journalist will not mount a direct and frontal challenge on the conservative modus operandi. And, if such a challenge were to be raised, conservatives in the media (and the public) would simply charge such journalists as being liberals, thus proving the myth; and, unfortunately, a lot of members of the public would simply accept the charge without questioning it.
Now, here’s what I wrote in another post about the true media bias:
“[T]he media is driven by “commercial” and “sensationalistic” interests, and not by a so-called liberal bias. All of us — all U.S. citizens — have much to complain about regarding the media, and the terrible job they’re doing of covering substantive issues.”
I also offered the following as sources for further reading, and to provide an alternative view-point on what we think we already know:
