Those Christians who are so certain they are being persecuted remind me of teenage girls who are endlessly worried about what other people think of them, and just POSITIVE that everyone is talking about them behind their backs. (The truth, in both cases, is considerably less exciting: most of the time, no one is thinking about them one way or the other, since most people have lives–or at least more interesting topics for discussion.)
I’ve been fascinated for several years by Christians’ assertions of victimization (evidently any erosion of absolute hegemony is destabilizing), and I am completely bemused by an emerging companion phenomenon —the war on white people.
The most recent example is here. I knew Dee Dee Benke “back in the day” and remember her as an enthusiastic Republican, but not a hateful one. If she actually tweeted that she was in the sun trying to “brown up” in order to get “free health care, food, pad, fiestas” either she’s changed or I didn’t really know her.
Then there’s Congressman Mo Brooks, who recently accused Democrats of waging war on white America. (I think that’s called projection…). He’s evidently not the only one. If you really want to get depressed, google “war on white people.” There are some terrifying nut cases out there, and they have internet access.
Maybe all the whining, self-pity and faux victimization is intended to distract the rest of us–to keep us from noticing the racism, sexism and overwhelming fear of modernity that has replaced reason, cognition and elementary humanity in the conservative movement.
Psst..guys…It’s not working. We can still see you.
Norm Ornstein has a recent column in the Atlantic, in which he considers what has happened to his–and my–former political party. Ornstein, for those unfamiliar with him, is a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, and a longtime and respected expert on Congress.
The most interesting, and important, dynamic in American politics today is the existential struggle going on in the Republican Party between the establishment and the insurgents—or to be more accurate, between the hard-line bedrock conservatives (there are only trace elements of the old-line center-right bloc, much less moderates) and the radicals…
As for the party leaders, consider some of the things that are now part of the official Texas Republican Party platform, as highlighted by The New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg:
That the Texas Legislature should “ignore, oppose, refuse, and nullify” federal laws it doesn’t like.
That when it comes to “unelected bureaucrats” (meaning, Hertzberg notes, almost the entire federal workforce), Congress should “defund and abolish these positions.”
That all federal “enforcement activities” in Texas “must be conducted under the auspices of the county sheriff with jurisdiction in that county.” (That would leave the FBI, air marshals, immigration officials, DEA personnel, and so on subordinate to the Texas versions of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.)
That “the Voting Rights Act of 1965, codified and updated in 1973, be repealed and not reauthorized.”
That the U.S. withdraw from the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the World Bank.
That governments at all levels should “ignore any plea for money to fund global climate change or ‘climate justice’ initiatives.”
That “all adult citizens should have the legal right to conscientiously choose which vaccines are administered to themselves, or their minor children, without penalty for refusing a vaccine.
That “no level of government shall regulate either the ownership or possession of firearms.” (Period, no exceptions.)
Texas, of course, may be an outlier. But the Maine Republican Party adopted a platform that called for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, called global warming a myth, and demanded an investigation of “collusion between government and industry” in perpetrating that myth. It also called for resistance to “efforts to create a one world government.” And the Benton County, Ark., Republican Party said in its newsletter, “The 2nd Amendment means nothing unless those in power believe you would have no problem simply walking up and shooting them if they got too far out of line and stopped responding as representatives.”
One might argue that these quotes are highly selective—but they are only a tiny sampling (not a single one from Michele Bachmann, only one from Gohmert!). Importantly, almost none were countered by party officials or legislative leaders, nor were the individuals quoted reprimanded in any way. What used to be widely seen as loony is now broadly accepted or tolerated.
There are all sorts of theories about why the Grand Old Party has lost its collective mind. I’ve offered a few on this blog. But whatever the reasons for the departure from reason and elementary common sense, the fact of that departure is beyond dispute.
I have been appalled by the heartless and ignorant rhetoric from our lawmakers about the refugee children who are in the U.S. seeking safety and asylum. It’s beyond ironic that most of it is being spewed by self-proclaimed pious “Christians.”
It’s bad enough that Indiana’s Governor–presumably playing to the GOP’s hysterically anti-immigrant base–wants these children returned immediately to their families. (Do not pass go, do not collect due process of law….) It’s beyond embarrassing that Republican members of Congress want the Administration to ignore the law, signed by President Bush, that sets out an orderly procedure for determining the children’s status– at the same time they are suing Obama for purportedly ignoring laws.
U.S. Rep. Todd Rokita, R-Ind., suggested Monday that immigrant children from Central America could be carrying the ebola virus that has killed some 800 people this year in West Africa.
West Africa. Right next door to Central America. You really know your geography, Representative Rokita. As the newspaper noted,
No human ebola illness ever has been contracted in the Western Hemisphere and none of the 30,340 unaccompanied minors released this year to relatives or sponsors, including the 245 children placed in Indiana homes, have ebola, according to the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement.
The refugee agency notes on its placement reporting website that all children receive vaccinations and medical screenings before being released to a relative or sponsor and no child is released who has a contagious condition.
Rokita said he doubts that claim and suggested the better course would be to keep all the children together in one place — ignoring the fact that infectious diseases spread fastest among large groups.
The story quoted Rokita as warning that “if more children are released to Hoosier relatives, they’ll soon enroll in school and “ultimately your property taxes are going to go up.”
Because god forbid you’d pay a few cents more in property taxes to shelter and educate a couple of hundred frightened, dislocated children.
Now that I think about it, didn’t Jesus say “Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come unto me–but only if their papers are in order, they can prove they don’t have ebola, and they won’t cost me any money”?
Yes, after listening to those good Christians Pence and Rokita, I’m sure that was the quote.
So says Nicholas Kristof, in a recent NYTimes column discussing the best-selling albeit not-so-well-read book on Inequality by Thomas Piketty. In recognition of the fact that few of those who’ve purchased Piketty’s tome have had the time or background to wade through 685 pages of graphs and charts, Kristof proposes to boil the subject down to five main points( a “Cliff Notes” version which should allow you to sound very erudite the next time you discuss economics at a cocktail party). They include the following four:
Inequality has significantly increased in the U.S.
The disparity is mostly not due to the hidden hand of the market, but to its corruption–to game-playing, manipulation, successful lobbying for “special” treatment and the like.
The rich aren’t necessarily happy, despite their greater wealth, because so many of them are caught up in a never-ending cycle of “can you top this?”
Progressives need to talk more about restoring genuine opportunity and less about plutocracy.
Hard to argue with any of these, but it is Kristof’s final point that is–at least in my view–the most important: inequality of this magnitude is profoundly socially destabilizing. As Kristof explains:
Some inequality is essential to create incentives, but we seem to have reached the point where inequality actually becomes an impediment to economic growth.
Certainly, the nation grew more quickly in periods when we were more equal, including in the golden decades after World War II when growth was strong and inequality actually diminished. Likewise, a major research paper from the International Monetary Fund in April found that more equitable societies tend to enjoy more rapid economic growth.
Indeed, even Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, warns that “too much … has gone to too few” and that inequality in America is now “very destabilizing.”
Inequality causes problems by creating fissures in societies, leaving those at the bottom feeling marginalized or disenfranchised. That has been a classic problem in “banana republic” countries in Latin America, and the United States now has a Gini coefficient (a standard measure of inequality) approaching some traditionally poor and dysfunctional Latin countries.
We are on our way to destroying the most beloved American myth: the belief that with grit and talent, anyone can be successful, can “make it.” That promise, more than any other, has brought immigrants to our shores, given poor parents fortitude because “the kids will be better off than we are,” and encouraged millions of poor and middle-class workers to submerge envy of the “haves” and substitute a belief that with just a bit more effort, they too can join the privileged class.
When that myth explodes, when that promise is no longer plausible, look out. It will get ugly.
First: In the wake of the Supreme Court’s poorly-thought-out Hobby Lobby decision, the Satanic Temple–based in New York, but evidently with congregations (covens?) elsewhere around the country–has sued for an exemption from “informed consent” laws.
According to ABC, Satanists believe in a woman’s right to get an abortion without having to listen to information its members see (correctly) as non-scientific. This is rooted in the group’s belief in a “scientific understanding of the world,” according to the press release.
Fair is fair–if devout Christian employers can’t be required to abide by neutral laws requiring them to provide their employees with birth control coverage, “devout” Satanists shouldn’t have to abide by laws that violate their beliefs.
Second: Texas has been the epicenter of “open carry” braggadocio. A group of inventive women–apparently tired of running into paranoid jerks carrying long guns on the streets and into the local Target–decided to make the point that just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
And it’s apparently legal to go topless in Austin, Texas.
So when Open Carry Texas did one of its many open-carry “events,” the gun nuts were met with middle aged, almost-bare-naked ladies shouting “Boobs for peace!” (One of them also carried a sign reading “You realize that everyone thinks you’re overcompensating for your teeny tiny ‘gun,’ right?”)
