Barry Goldwater Was Right

I recall my dad’s quips about Barry Goldwater – laced with profanity and superlative, he had some pretty harsh things to say about a man he though betrayed the country. My dad wasn’t what you’d call a hardcore Republican, but he definitely sympathized with “the cause.” Which is weird because my dad was also an atheist. But I digress. Imagine my surprise as I grew into adulthood to find that although Barry wasn’t the more statesmanlike of statesmen, he had some pretty insightful things to say about the Radical Right.

A set of them comes from a speech he gave in 1981, summarized in the New York Times, September 16, 1981. In this first clip, he despairs over the Radical Right’s unwillingness to compromise. Tell me if you think this sounds familiar:

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.

In the same speech, he goes on to decry how they control the political dialog:

I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

This is 1981, mind you; the very apex of the movement that Jerry Falwell dubbed the “Moral Majority” and that Pat Robertson tried to appropriate for his own presidential bid in 1988. Although Falwell and Robertson did not have compatible views on Christianity, they were in lock step where governance was concerned. They envisioned a CHRISTIAN United States of America. That’s probably why Goldwater rankled at the pressure he and other “old school” Republicans had to endure for political and financial support.

I’m sure that as he saw the closing years approach, Goldwater became somewhat bitter about how he was thrown aside by the Radical Right. That bitterness comes out in this well-trod, oft-cited Goldwater gem from John Dean’s book Conservatives Without Conscience (2006):

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.

Yet, there’s a better, more prophetic view from an interview published in the Washington Post, July 29, 1994.

When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

Given all of the evidence – the vitriol that has surrounded Obama since Day One of his administration, the hateful things that the Radical Right has committed against Hillary Clinton and other Democrats (and even several Republicans) that the soul of the Republican Party is no longer has the best interest of America and for Americans?

The Latest GOP Furor

I have always wondered how so many Germans could fall for Hitler’s hateful drivel. After watching GOP presidential candidates, and in particular, Herr Donald, now I understand. Now I know. It’s shocking how a highly evolved society like America can devolve into such utter hateful ideas. They can’t win on pure ideology: Trickle Down obviously does not work. The Christian divide is only making things worse (e.g., Gays, Abortion, Education). Obamacare has proven to be a better alternative over what Americans had before. The science for Global Warming and Climate Change is accepted by everyone except the GOP/Tea Party. The Hitler gambit is the only option. In Germany, they blamed the Jews. Now they want to blame Muslims.

The Artful Blogger

Clayton Thomas Kelly is back in the news. In May 2014, Kelly was involved with a nefarious cabal of political thugs who wanted to replace Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran (R) with Tea Party favorite State Sen Chris McDaniel. June 14, 2015 he was sentenced for 2.5 years for a stunt that reveals much about the Tea Party and the Neocons who run it.

I say nefarious on account that what this little group pulled was not only socially unacceptable, it was illegal.

Court records and news outlets have reported that Clayton Kelly (28), who labored under the name “Constitutional Clayton”, was an ambitious blogger who wanted to get noticed. Kelly got the attention he dreampt about. He connected with a handful of McDaniel’s ardent supporters and was commissioned to break into a nursing home and shoot video of Thad Cochran’s ailing wife who was suffering from dementia – all in an effort to spin up a rumor that Cochran had a mistress.

Why, you ask, would anyone want pull a stupid stunt like this? Enter Richard Sager – school teacher, raging Tea Party boy – and John Bert (aka John Mary) – a former radio talk show host and local Tea Party leader. Apparently, John Bert was the main inspirator, along with cohorts Mark Mayfield (who committed suicide after his arrest in the case) and Elaine Vechorik, a died-in-the-wool fan of McDaniel’s. Richard Sager was the handler.

As of today, there are still some lingering questions about Chris McDaniel’s involvement. Apparently, McDaniel’s campaign manager, Melanie Sojourner, knew about Kelly’s arrest well before the story broke.

If you want details, check out the sources:

The Clarion-Ledger, Jun 16 ’15: Cochran Photo Case Messages: “Chris not happy. Delete everything” 

The Clarion-Ledger, Jun 16 ’15: Kelly gets 2.5 years in Cochran photo case

Talking Points Memo, May 21 ’14: Meet The Blogger Who Risked it all For A Mississippi Tea Party Candidate

Slate, May 18 ’14: Arrest of Blogger for Taking Pictures of Senator’s Ill Wife Rattles Republican Party

Is Barack Obama a RACIST??

Obama with VetsHe is if you believe some bloggers and a handful of anonymous email.

Here are the facts. Obama attends Trinity United Church of Christ which adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. They identify “12 precepts and covenantal statements” that reflect on “Black Ethics” which “must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered.”

The concepts of “Black Ethics”:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

Now to return to the claim that Obama’s church (and by association Obama himself) are racists. Obviously not. Clearly the sources of this claim are ultracon groups and race-driven derivatives of the soon to be late Bush era who are a bit upset that the last 8 years has produced such a backlash that their most dear enemy, Hillary, and their worst nightmare, a black presidential candidate, are poised to take over the Executive branch. These points alone draw serious doubt on any validity, but on the point of fact, it is fallacious.

First off, black communities and churches were formed because of Jim Crow and subsequent social conditioning. The conditioning came in the form of total segregation and subjugation that lasted more than 100 years. White communities viciously conspired against blacks and forced them to live separate lives. It is no surprise to sociologists that the social barrier lingers. It took what I consider the Second Civil War of 1963 to FORCE white communities to cease the subduction of the black community. But we were too late; the damage was done.

Deep problems continue to plague many black Americans and this church is simply recognizing them as community borne and a communal burden. By stating “Black Ethics” they are taking making an honest attempt to repair the social damage caused by a lack of identity and security. Everything in this mission statement is an intelligent distillation of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – creating togetherness, collective membership, and support through Christian fellowship. And they have done this hand-in-hand with the spirit of God of mercy and love. Clearly, statements like ‘black community,’ ‘black family,’ and ‘black leadership’ are constructs for self-improvement and self-motivation, not ambitions toward racial supremacy.

Which leads me to my second point. There have never been nor is there likely ever going to be roving black church death squads killing whitey. Hit the buzzer, ain’t going to happen. Nor will the greater Black Community ever condone any action that aims to marginalize any other ethic community. Personally, I think the long lesson of communal suffering has made black leaders stronger that way; they are quicker in sniffing out the stench of racial injustice in all its insidious forms.
The wording of this mission statement may be jarring to some, but I think non-whites feel threatened being around blacks because of background social guilt over the centuries of injustice against Blacks. But it is entirely likely that a white person could walk into that church and worship Jesus right alongside the rest of the parishioners – and receive the Lord’s blessing just the same. But what would happen if a black person walked into a church somewhere in the Deep South?

In fact, is it not true that portions of the White Community are still active in promoting “White Ethics” ala KKK? Are there not churches throughout the country continue to marginalize and discriminate against non-whites? Not only do they spread hate for black people, but they also heap up Jews and any body else who doesn’t measure up to their brand of whiteness. But what is really scary is that you don’t even need the KKK to seed racial terrorism: America did it to the American Indians from the colonial times and right through the 1800’s. Then they did it to Chinese immigrants who slaved to build the railroads and man the factories and mines during the 1800’s. The Japanese took a good strong turn during and after WWII. And now they’re doing it to the Latinos – this time under the guise of national security.

There is no practicable argument that can successfully equate a black Christian church making an honest attempt to address social problems in their community with KKK White churches that created the terrorism of racial “ethics.” I can only conclude that this position is seeded by an appalling ignorance and is mere slander.

UPDATE: “Pastor Gate” doesn’t change a whit. But this time I suspect other politico machination at work (e.g., White Dems who may fear Obama’s strength with independent voters). Sadly, the populace is responding in predictable ways.

Failure of Ministry: You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it (Part II)

In my previous post, I brought up a quote from the late Dr Adrian Pierce Rogers – known primarily by this snip: “You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” In the previous post, demonstrated how Dr Rogers’ well known quote failed on two points. The first failure was how he chooses to define “socialism.” The United States, along with ALL successful industrialized nations, has a long history of supporting a healthy mix of capitalism and socialism. In fact, isn’t is true that the two economic systems appear to support one another? Of course it is.

Second point of failure: Ministry

It is odd that Dr Rogers would try to redefine how public policy ought to serve the lower classes – the “poor” as he called it. He errs on so many levels – chief among them, his attempt to draw a line between capitalism and socialism; a line that ceased to exist (at least in this country) for nearly a century. But economics aside, his greatest failure is his contradiction against the Christian faith.

For those who are not familiar with his ministry, Dr. Rogers served three terms as president of the Southern Baptist Convention, was a Southern Baptist pastor, and an author of several works well-known among Christian conservatives.  Rogers graduated from Stetson University and New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He eventually became the senior pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, a church with a membership of 29,000 by the time he retired in March 2005.

One would believe that a man of such esteemed pastoral credentials would follow scriptural examples of charitable giving. Instead, this man chose to tell a nation that “you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” We know by other writings that his intent was purely political – to defame “liberals” who support welfare policies designed to help poor. But in the process, he makes a terrible, egregious error of faith.

Having read many of his sermons, I know that he had a penchant for quoting the Old Testament. I wonder if he ever got to Deuteronomy 14:28-29:

At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.”

And Deuteronomy 15:7

If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.

There are dozens of passages like that throughout the OT, but I prefer the New Testament where God leaves us with his most lasting lessons. For instance, Matthew 25:34-40, where Jesus Christ said:

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Clearly, when Jesus instructs us to give to the poor, he asks that we do so willingly. Let’s give Dr. Rogers the benefit of the doubt and say that his point was that charity should not be legislated (“Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” – 1 Cor 13:3). And yet, should we all be so cheerful in our giving that there would be any poor left to help? The sad truth is, the free market is not free because greedy humans behave badly and taxes are required by law because selfish humans would never give government a dime.

I will go so far as to say that this unfortunate quote by Dr Rogers attempts to change Christian teaching into something more convenient; something more marketable to Christian conservatives. Moreover, by the example of the feeding of the 5,000, isn’t Jesus Christ demonstrating to us that indeed you CAN multiply wealth by dividing it?

I’ll leave you with my favorite quote today:

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.
– 1 Timothy 6:17-18

Farewell Tom

Tom DeLayPoor Tom DeLay. His legacy is a certain brand of ultraconservative Texan politico, susceptible to pitiable insight, arrogant oversight, near-sighted ambitions, and general myopia. I’m certain he sees his accomplishment worthy of praise. I’m sure that there are quite a few fellow ultracons who share that view. But as these gadflies of history die off, what will fill the void? Compromise? Willingness to reach across ideological boundaries? OMG… statemanship?

UPDATE – Wikipedia’s first paragraph says it all:

Thomas Dale “Tom” DeLay (born April 8, 1947) is a former member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Texas’s 22nd congressional district from 1984 until 2006. He was Republican Party (GOP) House Majority Leader from 2003 to 2005, when he resigned because of money laundering charges in connection with a campaign finance investigation. He was convicted in January 2011 and sentenced to three years in prison but is free on bail while appealing his conviction.