Parlor Wit

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com

The Theocons: Damon Linker

Among the Authoritarian groups comprising the modern Republican Party, the largest and most vocal has been the faction of Christian Nationalists – those who wish to remake our nation into one that is pleasing unto their version of the Christian God. Author Damon Linker calls them “The Theocons”, in his book of that title [Doubleday, 2006]. In order to oppose them, it is necessary first to understand their worldview.

Linker does us a great service by spelling out the major premises of the Theocon ideology:

• “…for most of its history the United States has been a thoroughly Christian nation founded on absolute moral principles that make no sense outside of a religious context;

• “…the liberal and secular drift of American culture since the 1960s is the result of an organized effort by liberal and secular elites in the nation’s education and media establishments to impose their corrupt views on the nation through antidemocratic means [especially through the courts];

• “…the practical consequences of secularization are a sex-saturated popular culture, the collapse of crucially important social institutions [such as traditional marriage], a general separation of law from religiously based moral principles, and the rise of a ‘culture of death’ in which abortion and euthanasia are widely permitted and practiced;

• “…the solution to secularization is to bring modern America [back] into line with the moral strictures of biblical religion; and

• “…this revision can be accomplished by allowing the country’s Christian essence to reassert itself democratically – primarily by citizens voting for conservative Christian politicians…but also by proposing popular referenda...which frustrate the tyrannical ambitions of secularists.” [p. 4]

This ideology informs the Theocon worldview, in which they see themselves as being the popular majority of Americans, dismissed and persecuted by a liberal secularist elite, struggling to restore what was begun, not as a social contract, but as a national covenant under God. Their goal, as indicated by Linker, is to cure America’s “spiritual malaise” and generate “a unifying source of meaning” for Americans. Linker believes that a Theocon America would outwardly appear much as it does now, but it would be organized so that it injected “Christian values into every aspect of their lives.” Being authoritarian, its core expectation would be that Americans “Believe and obey.”

There are many fallacies in the premises of Theocon ideology, and Linker discusses them at length. I will note only that the Founders did not set out to establish a “Christian” nation, for they well knew all of the problems in Europe that were created by competing “Christian” churches. A number of the Founders were not even “Christians” in the traditional sense, but “Deists.” And while a majority of Americans might describe themselves as “Christian”, they are not at all unanimous in their beliefs and values.

Parlor Wit

Bush discovers girl with kittens

George W. Bush and a secret service agent are taking a stroll when they come upon a little girl carrying a basket with a blanket over it. Curious, Bush asks the girl, "What's in the basket?"

She replies, "New baby kittens," and she opens the basket to show him.

"How nice," says Bush. "What kind are they?"

The little girl says, "Republicans."

Bush smiles, pats the little girl on the head and continues on.

Three weeks later, Bush is taking another stroll, this time with Karl Rove. They see the little girl again with the same basket. Bush says, "Watch this, Karl, it's really cute." They approach the little girl.

Bush greets her and asks how the kittens are doing, and she says, "Fine." Then, smirking, he nudges Rove with his elbow and asks the little girl, "And can you tell us what kind of kittens they are?"

She replies, "Democrats."

Aghast, Bush says, "But three weeks ago you said they were Republicans!"

"I know," she says. "But now their eyes are open."

http://www.topplebush.com/joke75.shtml

A Vision of the Democratic Process: Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton talks about common good
[Excerpts from his speech at Georgetown University, 10/18/06]

In the context of late 1991, I defined the common good as a new covenant for equal opportunity, shared responsibility, an inclusive community and an aggressive approach to try to create those values throughout the world at the end of the Cold War. It was what I thought America should do to advance the common good, really just a restatement of what our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor to, to form a more perfect union…..

Given the nature of the political debate today, I think it's important to point out that that 18th-century construct in 21st- century language meant the following: we are not perfect, we never will be perfect, no one has the whole truth, but we can always do better. That's what a more perfect union meant. It is a permanent mission for America designed to make America a permanent work in progress....

Now, this sort of politics -- striving for the common good -- for me, stands in stark contrast to both the political and governing philosophy of the leadership in Washington today and for the last six years….We believe in mutual responsibility. They believe that in large measure people make or break their own lives, and you're on your own. We believe in striving, at least, to cooperate with others, because we think that there are very few problems in the world we can solve on our own. They favor unilateralism whenever possible and cooperation when it's unavoidable.

I think the central challenge to American politics today is that what I would call the "uncommon good" approach has been so successful. May not be in three weeks, but it has been. We believe in a politics -- us "common good" folks -- dominated by evidence and argument. There is a big difference between a philosophy and an ideology on the right or the left. If you have a philosophy, it generally pushes you in a certain direction or another. But like all philosophers, you want to engage in discussion and argument. You are open to evidence, to new learning. And you are certainly open to debate the practical applications of your philosophy. There are, you might wind up making a principled agreement with someone with a different philosophy.

I long for the day when Republicans and Democrats will sit around and have these raucous, exciting arguments and actually love learning from one another, and when we create the common good out of a dynamic center. It works. You can just look at the evidence and compare it to what went before and what happened after. Ideological, divisive, demonizing, distracting politics, they may be very good for an election, particularly when people feel unsettled and insecure, but they don't do much to advance the common good. So whatever your politics are, I hope that throughout your life, you will try to advance it, because that's what our Founders told us to do, and they turned out to be pretty smart. They figured it out more than two centuries before the scientists discovered that we are 99.9 percent the same.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bill_Clinton_talks_about_common_good_1018.html

Former President Clinton's vision of the democratic process presents us with the ideal. However, Democrats and Republicans can argue, learn from one another, and arrive at the common good only when they agree that their common objective is a truly democratic nation. So long as the Republican Party is led and pushed by people pursuing authoritarian objectives, such dialogue is impossible. The goals of the two parties are then in conflict, and authoritarians do not believe in compromise. They will say you are either with them or against them.