Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

One thing which can be said for JP is that he sure can write! The one hope I have is that when the economy tanks, the christian right will find its religion. That is to say, when shopping becomes more difficult, shall we say, in the next four years, they will be praying for mercy and forgiveness. They will wonder why their god has abandoned them. They too will demand change. They may not know it yet, but just like everyone else, present company included, their real religion is consumerism.

The hope that the churchies are going to come to their senses when certain events come to pass is a pipe dream. It misses the central fact about this group - that they are quite used to deciding and acting based on things which facts contradict. I see no reason to believe that they will at some point in the future suddenly fall in love with reason and empiricism. Their beliefs (and thus their moral decisions) are impervious to reason and factual analysis.

When they wonder why their god has abandoned them they'll simply answer: because of gays and liberals and the ACLU and NOW. The fact that this is utter nonsense will not phase them, I can assure you. It will not give them even a moment's pause as they move to criminalize homosexuality and codify other examples of hate and fear within the law of the (Jesus)land.

You'd do a lot better to focus on how you can work with the new majority. A case in point is Social Security reform. It will happen. It will involve private accounts for younger workers. No amount of John Kerry saying that private accounts are a $1 trillion payoff to W's buddies in Wall Street brokerages is going to change that. Demographics do not support doing anything but this. Believe me as a 34-year old who loves his parents and his grandparents... if 15 years from now, the payroll tax tops 25% just to pay benefits of then-current retirees, the system is done and it won't be pretty, and people my age and younger won't give a damn. You old people can all go back to work if you're going to be that much of a drain. If you think you're angry about Bush winning, just wait to see the anger over a Social Security crisis.

Now, swallow your Mesozoic pride in FDR's New Deal and start thinking how to act constructively in this new context. Red-state people distrust Washington's top-down solutions. Examples include hot button issues in MN like snowmobiles in federal parks or ANWAR drilling in Alaska. At the same time, they do not like that New York is the center of all things financial, nor that Hollywood is the center of all things cultural. They do understand that banks and S&L's are the fuel for their local economies. If they were given some sense that these private accounts would put capital into state and local economies through municipal bonds or high-grade corporate bonds and the like rather than high risk stocks manipulated by the bipartisan New York financial elite, they will be rally behind the reform.

It is not too late for the Democratic Party to cooperate and even take credit for the nuances of how private accounts will work, and do it in a non-paternalistic, market-friendly way that will regain some credibility with the electorate. No doubt the Republicans will figure out after a few stumbles that the key to privatization is decentralization of decision-making, both political and financial.

The founders wisely bequeathed us a political system that balances majority and minority interests, diffuses power and decentralizes decisionmaking. A renewal of federalism, and finding the right balance of power between the United States and the several states, is going to be key to our living together.

If the subject is foreign policy, then obviously the presidency is the only office that matters. For everything else, however, it's absurd to focus one's energies and aspirations exclusively on that one office.

It's also abundantly clear that limiting the role of government in general (libertarianism, if you insist) is the only way we're going to be able to achieve peaceful coexistence in a society of mutually uncomprehending factions.

Brad's post exemplifies a rational, thoughtful and practical approach -- dealing with specifics and not dwelling on the incompatible and irreconcilable.

I'm deeply saddened by Scott's post. It reflects precisely the sort of demonization, hatred, bigotry and profound ignorance of our fellow human beings that we must struggle to overcome.

I'm sorry it's not a happy message, bern. But I believe we are fighting a global war of epistemology. Some of us think we ought to base our knowledge off of the facts as we understand them and the proper use of reason and logic. Others insist that we rely on the old unreliable methods of authority, tradition and divine inspiration. We don't need to reach out and make compromises. We need to reject this kind of thinking altogether and call it out whenever we see it. I'm scared and I'm angry and I'm tired of being polite and "respecting" others beliefs. This kind of unreciprocated fair-mindedness will get us one place only: theocracy. Look at that funny map everyone's laughing about this last week - the "Jesusland" one. Isn't the humor in how true it is? How funny is it really?

Scott,

To use a biblical allusion, the evangelical movement has feet of clay. It may, in fact, have very little to do with Jesus after all. I agree with you that the churhies will continue to subscribe to their intolerant, whacky beliefs no matter what happens, and I agree with you that there is no chance that they will come to their senses. But what is that belief system really about? I think that it is undeniably part of the larger cultural trend that worships power and money and lusts to accumulate wealth and status. This was my own experience in the evangelical movement, and it was recently confirmed for me in an article I read in the New Yorker of all places about a Georgia preacher who goes by the name Treffelo Dollar (did anyone else out there read the article?). If we have anything in common with Jesusland it is our consumerist constructed, boutique identities, and whenever this is threatened, there will be a crisis of faith on all sides. There may even be some kind of odd coming together as a result.

I think it is important to consider that, sold to the American people like a box of soap flakes, voting for George W. Bush had to have been almost indistinguishable from choosing which truck you drive, which jeans you wear, which tobacco you chew, etc. If marketerts, in their zeal to construct a stong, resonating, identifiable masculine archetype, had been less successful, there likely would be no George Bush. But having so firmly established all of the tropes of male identity, one that is only second to pornography in appealing to a man's low brain, it is a simple matter to sell us power tools, trucks, barbeque grills, and yes, Iraq, God, country, and George W. Bush. George bush was able to very successfully ride this pre-exsisting construct, and by so doing, tapped in to a multi-billion dollar, psychologically overwhelming mind-control campaign that has largely defined male identity. The sophistication and appeal of this campaign is such that, frankly, men can even be excused for voting for George W. Bush.

I think that it is reasonable to argue that when the economy sours, and when it becomes difficult and impractical to sustain the consumerist choices upon which this constuct is established, we can expect to see it deflate. Marketers will, more quickly than most people realize, substitute a new contruct more in accordance with economic reality that some clever politician will hitch his fortune. So ask yourself, "If I were a marketer, and the economy took a dive, what would I do? Would it be easier to sell products using restraint instead of indulgence as the underlying message? Could male identity be bent to accept mini coopers over Excursions?" The answer to these sorts of questions is the answer to any question concerning what our next leader will look like.

I am not a politician. I will leave it to my democratic and Democratic representatives to figure out how to do most of what needs to be done. E.g., Brad, I know that Social Security is a mess that probably can't keep "working" as currently structured, but I have no worthwhile opinions about how to fix it. My representatives do, and they'll compromise as they see fit.

I am a citizen, not a politician. I recognize that there are lots of reasons why citizens vote the way they do. I'm happy to talk with anyone about that, and I'll explain why I voted the way I did. I doubt we'll change our minds, but that's not the only reason to talk with people.

But we - Democrats - also need to harden our spines. The Democratic Party 4 yrs ago tried playing nice with the Republicans, and it didn't work. IMO, we need to stand firm for what we believe, fight every inch of the way, and compromise only when we have to. There's too much at stake.

So, can we be polarizing at the political level and civil at the citizen level? Of course. And we will be. But, from my point of view, America has become an imperial state that is further down the slope towards totalitarianism than I would have imagined ten years ago. So, if I say things that offend people who think we're headed in the right direction, well, then in that instance I'm probably not talking to them. Our side - yes, sides - gets to talk amongst itself sometimes. It's a blog so you're more than welcome to listen and dispute what I say - please do - and I will treat you with respect, but in my blog I promise you that I am not always going to be nice.

If you're truly interested in facts and logic, you might check out David Brooks' column in today's New York Times. As have Andrew Kohut and others in recent days, Brooks debunks the myth that "throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top." Not that I'd expect any of you to let go of your irrational anger and fear just because it's based on a myth.

Indeed, I can't see that many facts or much reason are reflected in a lot of these comments, but enormous ignorance. You congratulate yourselves on your rationality, yet you're filled with contempt and hatred for people you don't know and know absolutely nothing about. I'm all for well-placed hyperbole, but when you blather on about "theocracy" and "totalitarianism" -- I'm sorry, at that point you've ventured into the realm of stark raving lunacy. It sounds like you spend entirely too much time talking to each other and reinforcing your own prejudices and myths.

By the way, as a matter of practical politics, have you stopped to consider that an awful lot of the "churchies" of whom you are so utterly contemptuous are African Americans or Latinos who furnish huge blocs of votes that Democrats take for granted? You better "pray" they don't start "voting their values," or the Democratic party will implode once and for all.

If I have misunderstood the purpose of this blog, my apologies and I'll bug out. As I do, I feel obliged in good conscience to call out bigotry by its name. Do you find blackface shows amusing? Bust a gut over swastikas on synagogue walls? That "Jesusland" map is every bit as repugnant a bit of juvenile bigotry. Sick, not funny.

Brooks debunks the myth that "throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top."

Perhaps he should inform the rest of the media who's busy reporting on the Morality Moms and other "value conservatives" who put Bush in office. Besides, whether the Evangelicals put him over or not isn't the entire point: I also read a study at pipa.org about how enormous numbers of Bush supporters misunderstood world events and - astonishingly - even misunderstood their candidate's own positions on a whole host of issues. So they a) weren't voting based on what's really going on in the world and b) were supporting a candidate without regard to his actual position on many issues. I turned to my wife and said "it's faith-based voting!" Church or not.

when you blather on about "theocracy" and "totalitarianism" -- I'm sorry, at that point you've ventured into the realm of stark raving lunacy.

So perhaps you were unaware that four years ago the government didn't have the ability to wiretap you and search your property without a judge's say so. You know, probable cause and such. Judicial oversight. Today the government doesn't have to operate under these constraints. You knew that, right? Four years ago organizations that proselytize and discriminate couldn't bid for government money to perform social services. Now they can. It further worries me that our president says quite plainly that God told him to strike Afghanistan and also Iraq. The last four years are replete with examples.

No, Bush isn't the ayatollah of America. But we're clearly taking steps toward totalitarianism and theocracy. Anyone who doesn't see that just isn't paying attention.

I don't hate religious fundamentalists because they believe things which I consider obvious nonsense. But I refuse to be polite when they try to reform our country in ways that are contrary to the secular and democratic values enshrined in our Constitution and our history.

Is it intolerant to refuse to tolerate the intolerant? I promise to reflect upon that deeply right after we deal them crushing defeats at every level of political contest.

Scott, When did W say that God told him to strike Afghanistan and Iraq? Please provide a link to the exact quote. Variations of your complaint are quite common with liberal ethnic Jews in the media, and perhaps I am assuming too much from your last name and vocal distrust of a person because he professes to be a Christian in assuming that you fall into that group. Please remember that most of the intellectual justification for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with the goal of bringing more democracy to the Middle East comes from a predominantly Jewish Neoconservative faction. I think all this "blame the religious guy" rhetoric is beyond stupid and ignorant anyway, but it seems to me that you risk a serious "glass houses" issue with wider audiences should you wish to popularize and perpetuate this particular myth.

Most of us (and perhaps, Scott, this is not your particular experience and you are having trouble identifying with it) have a range of inputs, from philosphical to religious to educational to traditional to political, that go into forming views on particular issues. If you choose to assume the President (or even all voters who pulled a lever for him) doesn't have a complex input structure to his decision making processes, you're choosing to be a loser in the political realm. It's fine with me, but I just thought I'd let you know :-).

So Bern,

The point of the Brook's column that you refer to was to remind everyone that Bush has the support of a majority of mainstream Americans. No argument here. But just because a majority might believe one thing or another doesn't give me much comfort. In fact, the implicit message of Brook's column is if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I say no thanks. To invoke a cliche, been there, done that. And, by the way, Bush does have the support of many, most people who believe homosexuality is a sin, that evolution is a secular tool of the devil, that armegeddon is right around the corner, that social security is very bad socialist idea, that the poor get what they deserve, (they will always be among us, scripture says) that the Arab world (not to mention most of the rest of the world) is doomed to hell for not accepting Jesus Christ as a personal savior, that the best way to improve our economics is to all but abolish taxes, etc. None of this unfairly characterizes this belief system that millions of Bush supporters subscribe to, and I defy you to tell me otherwise. I say it's extreme. You seem to be saying that by virtue of its wide acceptance it is not extreme. Again, just because a majority of people believe something, doesn't mean that that which they believe is not extreme.

But I ask you Bern, even if we are in the minority, even if we will never be electable again, I don't think it is a good idea to compromise on OUR belief system. As for me, I will never be tolerant of a belief system in which most of its adherents believe that everyone else is going to hell and that denies plain scientific evidence, or that denies people the expression of their immutable, congenital, sexual prefernce.

You write:

"By the way, as a matter of practical politics, have you stopped to consider that an awful lot of the "churchies" of whom you are so utterly contemptuous are African Americans or Latinos who furnish huge blocs of votes that Democrats take for granted?"

Well, wouldn't it be a form of racisim to assume that blacks and latinos were any different from whites in their capacity to be misled?

This isn't a popularity contest. Rather it is about good ideas vs. bad ideas. So I ask you, Bern, what are your ideas? Which of Bush's policies do you agree or disagree with? That is what I'm most interested in finding out.

As far as bush saying God told him to do it, a quick trip to Google gives us items like this. Not exactly as good as a video of the man speaking the words himself, but nobody has denied it, either. Anyway, there's your link.

As far as liberal ethnic Jews go, I really have no more idea what they might think as a group than anyone else. I was not raised religious, I am not an "ethnic Jew" and I am a staunch atheist besides. I'm quite aware, though, that both Christian and Jewish nutcases are influencing American policy in the middle east and I want it stopped in both cases. I'm equal opportunity in my opposition to religion. I don't think it's too much to ask that our policies be based on factual analysis and sane reasoning rather than on fairy tales that end in global cataclysm.

It seems that you're making some attempt to insult me by suggesting that I lack a "range of input" with regard to my decision-making. I really couldn't guess where you're getting that idea, but my position is simply this. Whatever "inputs" one draws upon for one's decision-making, they should be reality-based. As in, concerning things and people in the real world we live in rather than make-believe realms and supernatural beings. To do otherwise is very bad for us collectively. It worries me that people with the capacity to destroy humanity believe apocalyptic mythologies created by our ancient, barbaric and magical-thinking forebearers while ignoring the facts in front of their faces.

And yes, it bothers me that a large portion of American voters seem to be doing the same thing when making decisions about who our leaders ought to be. It's not that they don't have the right to make the decision any way they want to, it's just that they seem to be exercising it in a frightening way. I hope to do everything I can to oppose these ideas and the movements they have spawned in American politics.

"as related by Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas"

Scott, when you back away from your crack pipe, I'll pay attention to you again. This is friggin silly.

For a slightly less "silly" discussion of the matter, see Ira Chernus' essay also at commondreams.org. The byline says he's a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and makes no mention of crack addiction.

Whether you believe the president made such a comment or not my point still stands. The presidents religious views worry me. I suspect that the views of many of his supporters are equally worrisome. I find it disturbing that they seem to be skating pretty lightly across reality when it comes to important decision making. In the case of the president, we're talking WMDs, ties to al Quaeda, and the ignoring of scientific evidence on a number of environmental and public health issues. In the case of his supporters, they seem to utterly fail to understand world events and do not even perceive the policy positions of their own candidate accurately. In some cases these diversions from reality seem religion-fueled. In others I would simply suggest that people who are already used to making decisions based on religious faith while actively ignoring facts are probably all too ready to accept other non-religious things "on faith" as well.

And again Scott, Chernus' essay relies on what a Hebrew paper says that Bush supposedly told Palestinian leaders, as reported by these leaders. You know, the ones who have participated in every step of the peace process and in sending their own to blow up busses and markets in Israel. Credible source indeed...

Do the world a favor. Label your accusations "Michael Moore fantasies". It will save us all a lot of time.

Scott,

My advice is for you to ignore Brad because it is he who should not be taken seriously. So far you've presented plenty of solid evidence to back up your assertions, and all he has done is offer smug dismissals without offering any convincing reason for doing so. Referring to the churchies, you had early written, "I see no reason to believe that they will at some point in the future suddenly fall in love with reason and empiricism. Their beliefs (and thus their moral decisions) are impervious to reason and factual analysis." I think that applies here.

So Brad, I had early written, "And, by the way, Bush does have the support of many, most people who believe homosexuality is a sin, that evolution is a secular tool of the devil, that armegeddon is right around the corner, that social security is very bad socialist idea, that the poor get what they deserve, (they will always be among us, scripture says) that the Arab world (not to mention most of the rest of the world) is doomed to hell for not accepting Jesus Christ as a personal savior, that the best way to improve our economics is to all but abolish taxes, etc." And I could easily add more to this list. Do you dispute any of this? Does any of this seem reasonable to you? And just to let you know, Brad, from your early comments, I really don't expect a serious answer from you. Instead, I expect you claim that I'm smoking crack, that I'm a Bush hater, anything but addressing to the direct question I'm posting to you. Time to test your meddle

Excuse me. I'm in a bad mood.

I'm sick and tired of whinging American liberals analysing, dissecting, probing, questioning, etc. The right comprises radicals. These people are not dumb. They (especially the evangelicals) understand the cardinal rule of politics: "Speak politely but always carry a big stick."

Liberals need to understand the asymmetric beauty of power (some have it; others don't). Nobody wearing his or her heart on their sleeve ever reached the top. Speak nicely, but wield a big stick. Be polite, but be prepared to do whatever it takes. The right is. And does. And will continue to do so until liberals 'get it' and get with it.

Speak truth to power? I dunno. It's a clever saying used by those too timid to take power. Yup. Go out there, speak politely and, when they aren't looking, take it. Just don't (as so many do) leave the truth behind. Otherwise the consequences of your hypocrisy will turn around and bite you.

As they will the right.

Rant over. Sorry.

In defense of Brad I want to note that he makes a good point about viewing the source of the Bush quote (about how God told him to strike Afghanistan and Iraq with some skepticism). I myself am inclined to believe that Bush's mind isn't too far from this idea even if he didn't say it. (Though I in my heart of hearts I suspect he did.)

But there is plenty of other undisputed evidence that he, some of his cabinet, and a large portion of his supporters see the world distorted through the lens of its mythology at the expense of, well, reality. To say nothing of the fact that they seem to be bent on having religion play an ever larger role in American government. No crack smoking needed to see that. And one need not even take the words of a Palestinian at face value.

(Incidentally, I do not mean to suggest that all or even most liberals share my disdain for religion. I'm speaking for myself here.)

Mike: I'm reminded of the silly hand-wringing I knowingly engaged in after having seen fahrenheit 9/11. I worried publicly about how uncomfortable I felt with regard to it's "propagandistic methods" even though I largely agreed with his politics. Seems even more naive now than it did then.

Mike,

Excuse me, I'm in a bad mood too. Who ever said that evangelicals or people on the right of all stripes are dumb?

I don't know where to begin with your rant. The evangelicals understand the cardinal rule of politics? Speak politiely but always carry a big stick? The last time I saw an evangelical I was with my children at a park, and he was holding a big placard showing the mutilated flesh of aborted babies. I didn't get the impression that he was speaking too politely.

You write: "Nobody wearing his or her heart on their sleeve ever reached the top." That's not true. You're forgetting about Tiny Tim.

You also write: "Speak nicely, but wield a big stick. Be polite, but be prepared to do whatever it takes. The right is. And does. And will continue to do so until liberals 'get it' and get with it." Just because we lost doesn't mean they have better ideas than we do. Even if we are eternal losers, we should never waiver. How can we, anyway, without accepting the underlying beliefs which make modern conservatism what it is? I will never believe that homosexuality is a sin. I will always believe in evolution, and the middle class. I think privatizing social security will be disastrous. I will always believe in a woman's right to choose. I will always believe in the seperation of church and state. I will always oppose the death penalty. I will always belive that we should do somehting about global warming. There is nothing to negotiate, nothing to cede. If the Democrats ever lost their way, it is because power became the object instead of ideas. The point is not just to get elected, but to champion causes you believe in no matter what the outcome. By the way, power is easy enough to come by. Become a clerk at the local driver's license bureau, or become a parking meter attendant. You could even become a Republican, but what would be the point?

Lastly, the only thing that gives me comfort in all of this is that good ideas always eventually win even if their backers are mocked and riducled tortured, put to death, etc., and inferior ideas even with powerful backers always lose. The catholic church, with all its might, couldn't stop the dissemination of Galileo's truthful ideas. But God did they sure try.

Liberals certainly are fighting mad right now, but I'm not sure they will need to lift a finger for four years. At the end of that time, it should be painfully evident who is right, and who is wrong. For all the power the right has, they will never have the power to suspend reality indefinitely.

Scott, One meme that is catching on in the mainstream is Kling's Type M vs. Type C arguments. Not specifically with the terminology (lol), but the easy rebuttal to Michael Moore, for example, is "how can he know what Bush's motivations are?". From there, Moore's story unravels as one considers context.

Although I pretty much disagree across the board with Progressive politics, I would welcome the challenge of a reasonable, competitive debate. It's not to be had when critics want to think that W thinks he gets his marching orders from God (barring direct, reliable evidence).

Bipartisan cooperation on substantive issues - and the legitimate democratic debate about those issues - is well and good, but the recent election seems to have been about something more fundamental (no pun intended.) Thomas Friedman's column from a few days ago points this out:

But what troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just favor different policies than I do - they favor a whole different kind of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is. ... Mr. Bush's base is pushing so hard to legislate social issues and extend the boundaries of religion that it felt as if we were rewriting the Constitution, not electing a president. I felt as if I registered to vote, but when I showed up the Constitutional Convention broke out. ... It seemed as if people were not voting on his [Mr. Bush's] performance. It seemed as if they were voting for what team they were on.

Brad, I don't think anyone is saying (except via overstatement) that W hears voices in his head. But, doesn't it seem to you that W's religion influences his policies and his manner of governing? There's nothing necessarily wrong with that at all, but there can be something wrong with it. It depends. So, do you have an inkling of the role religion plays in W's political life? If so, what do you think that role is and how comfortable are you with it?

Mark, you put well what frightens many of us. The question is, to what extent are those "felt as if"'s are accurate. There's no precise answer to that question because people cast votes for so many different answers, but imprecise answers have value, too.

Daniel, my apologies for using the term 'evangelical' incorrectly and inappropriately. 'Right-wing Christian fundamentalists' would be more correct.

I agree with Daniel's point that "If the democrats ever lost their way, it is because power became the object rather than ideas".

If one (each of us one by one) decides to speak truth to power, I presume it is because we are objecting to their encroachment upon "owning" the truth and then forcing all the rest of us tolive their version.

I see nothing wrong with speaking truth to power AND not wanting to have to go and take the power ... except in situations where it begins to become apparent that a less-than-fully-reality-based version of truth is guiding the society in which we live.

That's what so worrisome about this situation ... seems clear that truth, facts, logic, character and such are only the props (to be moved about, painted, and so on), and not the main act. And the guys and gals who move it around are gloating in having the power, won't want to give it up, and know how to play the game.

That means conflict and strife if those who don't agree don't roll over to get their tummies scratched and a pat on the head.

Seems somewhat like past periods in US history regarding women voting, municipal corruption, civil rights, Vietnam protests ... uncomfortable and looking over the horizon to the place where it will get downright testy ...

Brad,

I posed a direct question to you, and I will not let you ignore it. Which of Bush's ideas do you agree with, and why? You said that you would welcoe the challenge of a reasonable competitive debate, so now you have one. I want to know which progressive ideas you think are bad.

Though it is fair to say his religious affiliation was nominal at best, the only fundamentalist to occupy the White House recently was Bill Clinton, a Southern Baptist.

President Bush is no more an evangelical nor a fundamentalist than Hillary Clinton is. They're both Methodists. Bush was brought up as an Episcopalian, about as far in the Protestant world as you can get from evangelicalism or fundamentalism. He became a Methodist because Laura is.

The Clintons made a point of being seen at Foundry United Methodist Church most Sundays. According to an article last month in The New Republic, President Bush does not attend services regularly, though "every so often he drops in" at the Episcopal church near the White House.

He's not a fundamentalist, not an evangelical, and most importantly as far as I tell there is not a shred of evidence to suggest he is a millenialist. He is a moderately observant mainline Protestant (a description that with a few notable exceptions applies to every U.S. President).

President Bush openly expresses his belief that faith can change lives, because it did his. And for this he is excoriated.

Perhaps someone has done a textual analysis to determine the relative frequency of religious allusions or references by President Bush compared to President Clinton. I'd be surprised if it is greater.

The mindless hatred of this man on the part of the far left, and the endless lies they tell themselves about him, is something the rest of us will never comprehend. I think what has given rise to so many myths concerning his faith is an apalling religious illiteracy on the part of media and academic elites. Too many are simply ignorant of religious language and practice, and they end up not knowing what the hell (pun intended) they're talking about.

"The mindless hatred of this man on the part of the far left, and the endless lies they tell themselves about him, is something the rest of us will never comprehend."

Ah, the old Bush hater frame. Quite familiar with that one. That's the one where liberals are the ones who are painted as irrational, unreasonable, propaganda-spreading, hate-filled fanatics because they have a powerful revulsion to GWB's IDEAS and policies. But in all fairness, I'm sure that plenty of people do hate George W. Bush just as there are many people who hate gays, liberals, etc., but is that relevant here? I don't think anyone has mentioned their hatred for GWB, so I don't think it's relevant. Anyway, If you think the readers of this blog are all "mindless haters" of Bush, why do you waste your time posting comments? We're all just imbeciles, right?

The fact is, just because we want(ed) to see Bush defeated, doesn't mean we hate Bush or his supporters. Republicans are largely good, well-intentioned people. I don't think anyone here would argue against that. Execution of strategy takes very careful judgement which hatred usually clouds. We will not accept the frame of "haters" just because we oppose Bush and the conservative movement. We are wise to this trick.

But let's, for a moment, talk about some of the ideas which inform the conservative right in this country, and of which Bush is the leader (obviously). If you want to take issue with something, take issue with my positions. Here are some:

I will never believe that homosexuality is a sin. I will always believe in evolution, and the middle class. I think privatizing social security will be disastrous. I will always believe in a woman's right to choose. I will always believe in the seperation of church and state. I will always oppose the death penalty. I will always belive that we should do somehting about global warming. I will always believe, concerning these beliefs that there is nothing to negotiate, nothing to cede.

From now on, Bern, as long as you are posting on the internet where a liberal like myself is not on unequal footing, I'm going to direct conversation, as much as I'm allowed, to talking about actual issues. I'm really not concerned with Bush haters, or liberal haters. I'm concerned with positions and ideas. Is it possible to engage you, or perhaps Brad on ISSUES??? What do you stand for? What do you believe, and why?

My head hurts and I'm lost. Let's rewind and take a breath.

The proposition is that theocracy (and/or totalitarianism?) is imminent. We have agreed to base our conclusions solely on the facts and the evidence. Here are the results so far:

1. President Bush supports faith-based initiatives, an idea he stole from Al Gore. (Note: Stealing is against the Ten Commandments.) Bush asserts there is a firewall against proselytizing. A contrary assertion has been made in this discussion but no evidence was offered.

2. White Evangelicals voted for Bush. When they voted for Jimmy Carter, theocracy ensued (albeit in Iran). From every indication theocracy did not result when they switched to Reagan. However, Bush was re-elected in the year marking the 25th anniversary of the Iranian revolution. Coincidence?

3. White Evangelicals want to establish a theocracy. No evidence is necessary, as this is common knowledge.

4. According to a serially-translated third-hand account of a non-English speaking Arafat crony quoting Bush out of context, Bush takes instructions directly from Allah.

5. Bush thinks faith has helped him in life.

6. Bush does not go to church.

Chilling! Based on this evidence, the theocracy alert level is being raised to CRIMSON and I'm provisioning the survival shelter.

Daniel,

Scroll up. I gave you an issue. Progressives and Democrats are lining up like Buckley-esque conservatives from the late 1950s to stand in front of the progression of history and yell "Stop!" on Social Security reform. Your Presidential candidate LIED about W's motivations for reform and private accounts on the day of the election. And David W. pretty much said he's not interested in the issue. That's an example issue. We can talk about a flat tax (or national sales tax or VAT) another day.

-Brad

Crimson Alert! Attention all my fundamentalists nutjob brethren! We mistakenly thought president Bush was one of us! How could they have gotten it so wrong? If only we could have Jimmy Carter back...

"It seems to me that we all have to become complex creatures - capable of believing deeply while tolerating contradiction - or we won't be able to live together. That's hard."

I don't know - there seems to be an abundance of deep belief, even in this conversation on all sides, but where is the sort of healthy skepticism vis a vis one's own limitations to apprehending the truths in which one believes? Is it possible to commit to action even as one remembers to doubt one's belief for the sake of openness to human error? Put another way: is it possible to tolerate the contradiction of deep believing and deeply doubting and still act?

Tom: Yes. That's what it's all about, isn't it? That and figuring out how one's openness to error should affect one's policies and stance. And I'm 100% certain of that! :)

Oh, G-d. Now even the Guardian is publishing theocratic disinformation.

Irony intended, of course. Actually, it's a hard-nosed debunking of the "values" narrative -- and more importantly, why the Democrats as well as Europeans need a reality-based approach to understanding what happened.

"Forty-five per cent of Bush's vote came from voters who classified themselves as 'moderate' or 'liberal'...

"Eighty-three per cent of [all] voters did not fall into [the "moral values"] camp at all [either giving a different top issue, or choosing moral values but voting for Kerry]...

"...the percentage of voters describing themselves as evangelical was the same as in 2000...

"A majority supported either gay marriage (which we do not have here in Britain, or in most countries in Europe) or of gay civil unions. In fact, among these latter, there was a 5 per cent lead for Bush...

"...those most scared by terrorism actually voted for Kerry [notwithstanding all the idiotic 'fearmongering' claims]...

"[Democrats and Europeans must] avoid the one fatal error that so many have fallen into. George W Bush and his voters are not dumb. Those who think so are the really dumb ones."

Amen, brother!

Jonah Goldberg: "What Maher, Raines, and Smiley fail to grasp is that all morality is based upon transcendence — or it is merely based on utilitarianism of one kind or another, and therefore it is not morality so much as, at best, an enlightened expediency or will-to-power. It is no more rational to vote based on a desire to do "good" than it is to vote based on a desire to do God's will. Indeed, for millions of people this is a distinction without a difference — as it was for so many of the abolitionists progressives and civil-rights leaders today's liberals love to invoke but never actually learn about.

"Love, in fact, is just as silly and superstitious a concept as God (and for those who believe God is Love, this too is a distinction without a difference). Chesterton's observation that the purely rational man will not marry is just as correct today, because science has done far more damage to the ideal of love than it has done to the notion of an awesome God beyond our ken. Genes, hormones, instincts, evolution: These are the cause for the effect of love in the purely rational man's textbook. But Maher would get few applause lines from his audience of sophisticated yokels if he mocked love as a silly superstition. This is, in part, because the crowd he plays to likes the idea of love while it dislikes the idea of God; and in part because these people feel love, so they think it exists. But such is the extent of their solipsism and narcissism that they not only reject the existence of God but go so far as to mock those who do not, simply because they don't feel Him themselves. And, alas, in elite America, feelings are the only recognized foundation of metaphysics.

"I didn't intend to get off on the tangent of religion. I'm not particularly religious myself, after all. Nevertheless, I think the great irony of this election is that for all the talk of how the bigoted Right won, the Left's loss has sparked far more bigotry. Their clever trick is to defend their hatred of the religious by calling it a hatred of bigotry itself — a rationalization no liberal would tolerate from any other kind of bigot."

Daniel wrote:

"I will never believe that homosexuality is a sin. I will always believe in evolution, and the middle class. I think privatizing social security will be disastrous. I will always believe in a woman's right to choose. I will always believe in the seperation of church and state. I will always oppose the death penalty. I will always belive that we should do somehting about global warming. I will always believe, concerning these beliefs that there is nothing to negotiate, nothing to cede."

Well said. I believe that this is a statement of the moderate left (in which I place myself). I hate no one because they have a different set of beliefs. I fear no rational discussion of my beliefs as they compare or contrast with another's.

The only thing I fear is the intolerance so typical of those who are not moderate (on either side) and willing to accept that others have the right to a contrarian opinion. It is this lack of consideration and respect for the different beliefs of another that has created the acrimony, name-calling, stereotyping, and distortion so evident in the recent election. It manifests itself throughout these comments from people on both sides of the conversation.

C'mon folks. You all seem to be pretty articulate, thoughtful people. Can you not discipline yourselves to count to ten before typing an emotional, angry screed in reply to someone's thoughts?. Can you not engage in a discussion without attacking the other person's right to their opinion? Can you not directly answer a question directly posed?

Remember the Greek admonition: "Moderation in all things. Nothing to excess."

Daniel... On the global warming thing... As an undergrad, I was very privileged to have a physical sciences breadth course partially taught by Sherwood Rowland and Ralph Cicerone, the former a Nobel Laureate and both involved in theorizing the connection of CFCs with ozone layer depletion.

Rowland gave very scientific lectures on the topic, dumbed down a little for the predominance of poets in our class. He emphasized that the data was open to many different interpretations. Cicerone (now Chancellor at UC Irvine) on the other hand, struck me as a friggin lunatic in this context. He was almost in tears telling us how we would all have skin cancer by age 50 if we dared walk outside now that man had destroyed the ozone layer, and that our lifestyle was destroying the planet and blah blah. This was a scientist lecturing a course in physical sciences, not an Earth First rally. You can thank the CFC hysteria for the demise of the Space Shuttle Columbia, BTW. Maybe on balance, eliminating CFC production and reducing usage has been a net positive, but in the case of main tank insulation, conversion to ozone friendly insulating compounds proved to be a disaster.

So, although I'm for all intents and purposes an atheist (I call myself and "ag-care-stic", meaning, I do not care whether God exists or not, and to each their own, whatever gets them through their day), my economic well being is tied to some people understanding the real world at the smallest level of detail, and I'm generally very happy with science in general...

On this little "exit poll" that was my undergrad physical science breadth course taught by two of the most distinguished voices in atmospheric science of our time, I would conclude many of the scientists in this field have an agenda that transcends the science. So when there is ongoing disagreement in the community as a whole as to the effect of man-produced CO2 on global warming (as opposed to solar activity, volcanic debris, etc.), I am not ready to feel guilt for having a Mustang GT (4.6L V8) and a small SUV (3.6L V6) in the garage. I am not ready to accept Kyoto. I do not care that or whether the rest of the world is jumping the gun and blaming America for the end of the world. Anyone who is ready to do such things is hedging on one side of the science. Hedging is OK if you admit that you're hedging. It is not OK if you declare that your iinterpretation is 100% correct, and then use that interpretation to subjugate fellow citizens through force of law. It is also not OK to ignore competing explanative theories of why the earth is warming in a political context, even if it's easier for the people to grasp that they must be doing something bad than it is for them to grasp that shit happens. It's a lot like (for example) wanting creationism in Biology books.

And you know what? The Bush administration generally agrees with my cautious and skeptical approach to this issue.

Brad,

I would say that, in general, I have little problem with the assessment you offer in your second to last paragraph. I don't wish to engage in a debate with you, as I'm fairly certain neither of us is likely to change our positions. But I would like to offer my assessment on another issue that largely parallels yours. Although there is an apples and oranges objection, I feel there are some legitimate parallels.

In the matter of what to do about Iraq, prior to the commencement of the Iraq war, I would conclude that many of the public officials and geo-political academics in this field had an agenda that transcended the lessons of history. Prior to 9/11 the consensus opinion of most people familiar with the issues in DOD and the Dept of State, was that Saddam Hussein retained little or no weapons of mass destruction, and that he had no active programs underway to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Shortly after the inauguration of the Bush administration, Colin Powell stated just this position. If you require a citation, I can, with some effort, find it. I don't have it readily at hand.

Following 9/11, those public officials and geo-political academics who had an agenda with respect to Iraq, saw an opportunity to advance that agenda. To that end, the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction was put to the American people as the principle justification for a preemptive war against Iraq. At some point after the so-called "end of major combat operations," Paul Wolfowitz, one of the principal architects of this idea, in a rare moment of candor, noted that it really didn't matter that Saddam didn't have WMD, WMD was just the rationale the administration used to sell the necessity of the war to the American people. Again, I can find you a citation if you desire one, but it's not readily at hand.

The case for WMD was built on analysis that was little more than reasoning backward from their conclusions, and relied on reports of questionable provenance.

Watching this case put before our country, many of us tried to express skepticism and urge a cautious and skeptical approach to taking on the daunting task of invading a country and re-making it into something we hope will be better than the status quo.

Instead, arguments urging skepticism and caution were ignored, or worse, ridiculed as being stupid, unpatriotic, or cowardly.

I agree it is not okay to ignore competing explanative theories of why the earth is warming for a political reason. I agree it is wrong to assert that one's interpretation of anything is 100% correct.

We argued that the consequences of war are so unpredictable, and the costs are so high, that it would have been better to pursue a more cautious, skeptical approach to the issue of Iraq.

We will never know if such an approach would have been effective in solving the problem of Iraq. We don't yet know if the American invasion will be judged as a success. I think it will probably be at least a decade before we can begin to have a clear idea of all the consequences of this war.

I think it is clear today that the planning for this war was deficient, and woefully so. That was also due to the agendas of certain public officials whose agendas transcended the knowledge and experience of military professionals like the Army Chief of Staff. There can be little argument on that score today.

I, for one, don't feel safer. While Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant, removing an evil tyrant for the sake of the Iraqi people was never put forth as a serious justification for the invasion. It was the "gathering danger" to the U.S.

Reasonable people may disagree, but I think it is at least within the realm of possibility that the Iraq war has spurred Iran to pursue its own nuclear capability to afford itself a measure of deterrence against U.S. military intervention. I think it is at least within the realm of possibility that North Korea acted similarly, although it is possible they may have already been in possession of one or two nuclear weapons before the Iraq war.

The images of the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib will be used as effective terrorist recruiting materials for decades to come. Fighting an insurgency is damn hard, and few countries, if any, have been successful at it. The insurgents don't have to win, they just have to "not lose." People have recently been pointing to El Salvador and its experience with democracy as a hopeful precedent. I hope they are right, but I think there are far too many differences between Iraq and El Salvador to lead one to feel very sanguine about the potential for a positive outcome in any sort of near-term time frame. I could be wrong, and I hope I am.

I don't believe 100K Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of the invasion, just as I was skeptical of the accounts of hundreds of thousands killed as a result of the sanctions regime. But I believe it is very likely on the order of 10K killed with some two to three times that number grievously injured. While it has been argued that Saddam had killed far more in his tenure, that blood was on his hands. This blood is on ours. Spilling innocent Iraqi blood for the sake of some illusory increase in my "security" is unacceptable to me. Having more than 1000 of our men and women killed in this effort, and two or three times that number grievously injured, for some illusory increase in my security is unacceptable to me. I'm far more likely to die an accidental death or a "natural" one related to lifestyle choices than I am from a terrorist act. I was prepared and willing to accept whatever unquantifiable risk Saddan Hussen represented than to ask so many people to suffer and die so I could enjoy the dignity of dying in an automobile accident, or of old age. But that's just me. Like you, I don't feel guilty driving an SUV. I do feel a little guilt, amidst a great deal of sadness, for all the blood being shed in something that is little more than an experiment; a characterization that I'm sure you will recall has been used to criticize the Kyoto accord.

I don't know how history will judge this effort. I fully expect those who supported it will find in the outcome as it unfolds sufficient justification for their support. Again, I believe that is little more than reasoning backward from their conclusions. But I don't expect any of them to admit the possibility they might have been wrong. They all seem quite convinced they were 100% right that this was the Right War at the Right Time against the Right Enemy.

I don't know what our Iraq experience means for the future of "preemptive wars." Where will we pursue regime change next? Iran? Pakistan? Syria? Sudan? If not, why not? I rather expect the people who envisioned this effort as a "cake walk" have significantly re-calibrated their expectations, and will be much more reticent about employing the use of force to effect political change in the future.

I'd like to think that if your knowledge of the region, its history, the practical realities of armed conflict, the limitations of the use of force, the competing theories of geo-political academics, and the agendas of public officials in this administration was equal to your knowledge of science, you too might have urged skepticism and caution before we embarked on this adventure.

I'm not sure if we'll ever know if it was "worth it" in our lifetime. I hope it will be worth it. I really do. I'm not sure how we'll measure that, but I hope it will be unequivocally worth it.

But I wish we had not chosen this path, and I believe we were badly led to do so. My teeth clench whenever the president says it's "hard work," as he did again today. That so understates the difficulty of what he has set out to achieve as to trivialize it.

That's about all I have to say on this, and I have no desire to argue with anyone about it. So I won't.

My feeling, and I could be wrong, is that you support Bush because he agrees with you on key issues, that are more important in your world view than others. Despite the fact that Bush or his supporters embarras you sometime, you are willing to overlook a great deal because he agrees with your core beliefs. So on eliminating taxation, reducing regulatory contraints, giving business a free reign to do almost whatever it wants you agree with Bush and are willing to turn a blind eye to things like the push for prayer in school, criminalizing abortion, introducing intelligent design in to the school curriculum, etx.

So my question for you is if this freemarket ideology that you so strongly believe in is so great, (if I'm correct in my assumptions) why are we so far behind Europe in so many categories? At the very least, considering the tremendous success of the welfare state, you have to admitt it is a competeing, viable model. They can and do compete. For example, why has Airbus, as much a government consortium as anything else over taken Boeing?

As far as the general issue of the environment that you bring up, you do believe in global warming, no? I do. I don't have a clue whether this means that the deserts will soon bloom, or whether it means we're headed for another ice age or something else. The point is it's happening, and because we as Americans adhere to this individualist ethos, we are no more prepared to deal with it than we are with all the other ills that plague our society: growing disparity between rich and poor, dwidling healthcare coverage, growing prison population, high infant mortality (even among white women!), high rate of poverty and homelessness. We are each an island. Very tragic if you ask me.

1. I am generally agnostic, but I memorized the 23d Psalm and we said the Lord's prayer every day in school, and no one was much harmed.

2. People believe things, sometimes very stupid things like Global Warming, with no serious understanding of the science (or lack thereof).

3. John F. Kerry lost bedause he is just a very bad man and politician. He cares for nothing but his own ambition.

Mike,

Do you think you would have been very much harmed if instead of the reciting the 23rd psalm you were asked everyday to make offerings to your deceased relatives, or were compelled to assume the lotus position and offer a chant to Buddha? I wonder how that would have made you feel if these things were against YOUR religion. See, once we allow religion to be introduced in to government, it will be difficult to restrict it to just one person’s religion. This will create distraction and conflict in an already beleaguered environment where the primary emphasis, many people would argue, should be on learning.

You write: "John F. Kerry lost because he is just a very bad man and politician. He cares for nothing but his own ambition."

Right. And Bush is a paragon of virtue who cares nothing about his own welfare, but only the welfare of the American people who he is so bravely defending. The privileged Kerry went to Vietnam and risked his own life when he didn't have to because at heart he is only a self-serving selfish phony. The swift boat bullshit may have helped turd blossom (Karl Rove) get Bush elected, but the incalculable damage it did to the Republican party in the lasting collective memory of the electorate will be lasting. It will never be forgotten or forgiven. Don't tell me up is down, or that black is white. Just because you have one frame or another stuck in your head doesn't mean the rest of us do.