The Reality
Last weekend in D.C., Robert Putnam commented that America might be in the midst of a new Great Awakening - a conservative Great Awakening - whose end is uncertain. But, he hinted, it will most likely end badly.
My
The First Great Awakening (1720-1760) resulted in missionary work among the Native Americans - a slight shift from the policy of wholesale slaughter. It also led to the founding of new educational institutions. It encouraged a democratic spirit in religion.
By the end of the 18th century, many educated Americans no longer professed traditional Christian beliefs. In reaction to the secularism of the age, and certain political leaders (ahem, I'm talking to you Jefferson, you too Franklin) a religious revival spread westward in the first half of the 19th century.
The Second Great Awakening (1830-1865) gave rise to “tent meetings” – huge revivals that took on a 'State Fair' feel. They gave great comfort to the loneliness of living on the frontier.
The social impact of this was twofold, one, on the right it was co-opted and manufactured into a pseudo-religious expansionist movement before the civil war dubbed Manifest Destiny which sought divine abeyance for genocide.
This Third Great Awakening began and fueled the Progressive movement, which died when Taft succeeded Theodore Roosevelt in the White House. We had a good run there though.
Christianity also saw a great deal of change during this period, particularly new forms of Evangelical Christianity which emphasized a nearly Madison Ave. storefront pitch of a "Personal Relationship with Jesus" and formed into a number of newly styled "non-denominational" mega-churches and Corporate structure emulating "community faith centers."
Perhaps in backlash to the hippy part of the Fourth Great Awakening, came the rise of nontraditional churches with conservative theology such as evangelical megachurches and a growth of parachurch organizations.
It is this backlash to the hippies which has had the more lasting political effect since the culture schism of 1969. I propose that it is this backlash to the Fourth Great Awakening which actually is the Fourth Great Awakening.
This Awakening’s conservative religio-political movement has elected our current President twice.
There is no precedent in
The Roundheads (Puritans) got into power after the execution of Charles I in 1649; they closed theatres and tried to impose a godly pattern of behavior on the 'unruly poor.' Oliver Cromwell led them.
As time passed this regime became increasingly dependent upon the army and became in effect a military dictatorship. Frustration with the puritanical excesses of the Protectorate and its military backers led to its collapse. Charles's son, Charles II, returned to restore the monarchy and a climate of liberal toleration in 1660.
The English grew utterly exhausted of the religious bigotry of the Civil War and never truly turned again to religion.
While I'm not suggesting that the neocons will reign for twenty years and outlaw women actors, it is important to take note of historical trends.
But I think and hope Putnam is wrong about the endtimes. A large percentage of the religious conservative base that props up Bush is no more than a cult of personality. And therefore lucky for us, his Administration can't get anything right. It's becoming common knowledge that Bush will go down as the worst two-term President ever and possible.
I think young religous people who have bought into the cult of personality around these failures will lose heart in politics not because like the English, they get tired of bloodshed or bigotry - no, they love bigotry, they'll tire of failure. They don't believe in failures - afterall, in the new corporate Republican understanding of Christianity, Jesus was a winner. As their politician puppets are revealed to be corrupt losers, they'll dump them for good.
Nothing good can really come around the cross until the Nazi-cum-Grand Inquisitor-cum-Pope Ratzinger, he who killed Liberation Theology, is himself dead. Can you guess the other Religion class I enjoyed?
¶ 3:12 PM 2 comments
A short synopsis: In 1971 a Chamber of Commerce official, cranky about the nation's course, asked a friend in Richmond, Va., to offer some advice on what Republican conservatives could do to loosen liberalism’s grip on the country. The friend, Lewis F. Powell Jr., whipped up a brilliant little memo that called for wealthy conservatives to invest millions over many years to create a collection of think tanks, permanent grassroots groups and media outlets that would dispense similar messages.
Thirty years later, that network has created a world in which Barry Goldwater's fire-breathing conservative ideology is now considered sane, rational and even normal. This was a man so regressive he lost the Republican nomination to that old liberal, Richard Nixon.
Stein’s argument is that progressives need our own silver bullet memo, though ours will most likely take a new form -- and could already exist. Perhaps our memo is within the letters of Paul Wellstone. Letters that inspired Camp Wellstone, a weekend-long training program to teach issue campaigning and election skills to progressives. No doubt, one of the e-mails or blog threads in liberal journals holds some parts of the key.
Most recently, some have said that the magic liberal memo is within the Rob Stein/Simon Rosenberg correspondence that birthed NDN's "Phoenix Group" -- a project to create long-term funding for a progressive movement akin to what the conservatives have built.
This is what worries me, because the "Phoenix Group" could damage our political system more than it fixes it.
Rob Stein calls the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy "perhaps the most potent, independent institutionalized apparatus ever assembled in a democracy to promote one belief system." It's a Conservative Message Machine.
But imagine if we successfully created his targeted counterbalance -- a network of well-funded liberal think tanks and policy action centers that would coordinate, grow a brazenly liberal media empire, spawn a perpetual fieldwork apparatus activating GOTV every election cycle, create hyper-partisan media moles and pundits, etc.
Before you say, "hells yeah," consider the long-term consequences: The result would be to effectively transform our political system into two distinct and continuously warring societies, complete with billion dollar economies.
Background on Heritage...
When they started Heritage and its spin-offs, Supreme-Court Justice Powell, Paul Weyrich and their fellows believed that they were setting up what they called "mirror organizations" that could match the media and organizational prowess of contemporary liberalism.
Funny thing is, the conservatives built the kind of machinery and infrastructure they thought they were up against ... but never were. As that has become clear by the lack of political "fight" (READ: political guerilla warfare) coming from the Democrats in the last four election cycles, the Right Wing machine has moved beyond policy ideas and messaging into the deadly realm of attack, lies and innuendo.
To pit two enormous guerilla armies one against another is suicide for both.
That Rob Stein has taken his Powerpoint Presentation and shared his unmatched knowledge of the Right's apparatus with party thinkers and, moreover, teamed up with one of the most successful liberal fundraisers in the country in Simon Rosenberg, might suggest that the above doomsday scenario is a possibility.
I hope I'm wrong, but I also think there is a better way.
Any kind of Democratic Phoenix project or Democratic Resurgence movement should not emulate what the Right has done. The larger the political unit, the smaller the significance of the individual member and the greater the controlling power at the center. Likewise, centralized power in any mass organization breeds its own interests, which inevitably conflict with the citizen interest. This is true not only of mass government but of any mass body, be it a political party, a church, a charity or a sports or any social organization.
What the monstrous conservative machine is too big to realize or amend at this point is that a community is a social unit in which the personal relationships of its members constitute the strongest force determining its pattern of life. There can be no politics without community.
The chink in the Right's armor as I see it would be the network of personal relationships among neighbors and the influence of friends rooted in shared communities. That would be my Powell Memo: We have to build a loose-knit network of local political communities, rooted in personal citizen interests, working on local issues.
We have to build homes for our meetings, our training sessions, spaces aside from work and home. We must invest our time and our work ino nurturing these spaces and the relationships that we form there. And we must do it in this generation. These might be the smooth stones liberals can pull from the stream to win. This might be our one shot.
With control of every branch of government, with centralized control over message, in many ways the right has gone fascist.
We must go local. Populist. Under the rader. For the jugular.
If we really prove that we are the party of the people against the party of oligarchy, then we will get to learn the most important lesson from conservatives, how good it feels to win elections. ¶ 5:27 PM 3 comments
Whoa. I apologize to President Carter.
I'm so stupid. I'm sorry.
That doesn't make any damn sense.
Maybe I was thinking Oil Crisis... I dunno, I'm back from the good long cry I had in my steaming shower. I've been pulling slips of paper from the Memory Hole to hit upon this:
John Kerry was another Al Smith.
The Dems don't know who our new FDR will be.
Go with me here.In 1928 Smith lost to Hoover who, for all intents and purposes was running for Coolidge's second term - Coolidge "chose not to run." He was a dolt. He was Shrub had 9/11 never happened.
Al Smith, a Northerner from New York (also Catholic) was labeled too liberal.
- Al Smith rejected the heavy-handed GOP foreign policy, specifically the invasion and colonization of the Philippines.
- He promised to reform Government to avoid the cronyism, corruption and scandals he tied to the GOP.
- He supported collective bargaining and Unions for American workers.
In a nutshell, the nation did not feel a compelling need to make a change in leadership in 1928. The fact that Smith was a Catholic, a "wet," a machine politician and sounded strange when he spoke made the decision of many voters an easy one.
In 1928, Hoover won and took the wheel.
In 1928 Congressional elections, Hoover and the Conservative Republicans widened their majority in Congress using Smith to illustrate a social wedge issue (much like the Gay Marriage of 2004) of upholding the Volstead Act: further prohibition of alcohol.
Results:
- In the House, GOP increased their majority to 62% of the seats.
- In the senate, GOP increased their majority by 8.
Results:
In the House, the Dems gained an amazing 52 seats.
In the Senate, the Dems pulled to within one of a majority.
Though Republicans were still in control, it was only by the skin of their teeth. For the lame-duck last two years of his Presidency, Hoover was still at the wheel and proceded to wrap the country around a tree.
[Which brings us now to the Presidential Election of 2008]
In 1932, Presidential Nominee FDR, also from New York, said essentially: 'Do over.' FDR said that what the Democrats campaigned on in 1928 might have saved the Nation from the Depression. 'America can't miss this opportunity again.' 'We have to fix this.' 'To stay the course is to commit suicide.' 'Don't fear change.' 'I have polio.' etc.
- In 1932, FDR called for reform of financial markets and regulation, a balanced budget, aid for farmers and the unemployed.
- FDR pledged to help the "forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid."
- In 1932, the GOP called for sharp cutbacks in Federal expenditures and curbs on immigration.
- Socially they doggedly stuck with the 18th Amendment, even though the populace had progressed enough to sour on the prohibition.
FDR shot back that free enterprise has brought us to crisis and collapse.
And FDR didn't blink when he said it. America solemnly nodded.
Results:
- In the Senate, the GOP lost 12 seats in the Senate and Control of the Chamber.
- In the House, the GOP lost over 100 seats and was utterly powerless.
- FDR became President.
Therefore, in the eight years after
- In the House, the Dems went from minority party of 36% to a majority of 76%. A gain of +40%
- The Democratic Party in the Senate went from a minority of 40% to majority of 65%. A gain of +25%.
This President will only grow more toxic if he lives and in 2008 The Restored United States' next New Deal will arrive, The Next Deal will throw Democrats back into the majority. The candidate who wins will have to run on an anti-oligarch, anti-poverty, pro-reform platform. Pulling out of the recession will be difficult but if we can do it like Clinton did in '93, then 2012 will be awesome. It will be the second time Conservativism collapsed in a century. Consider.
Talk about the longview. In 2012, I also believe future Bruins captain Carl Corazzini will win Stanley Cup MVP after netting a hat-trick to finish off the Devils in six games. Hell, I believe lotsa things about the future. Some of them good.
Who will this future President be? Judging from history, it won't be a centrist like Hillary despite what the campaign button might suggest (Clinton again). No, it will instead be a unencumbered genuinely liberal reformer. Ben Affleck.
[09-27-05 - Oh my god, I was kidding.]
[07-25-06 - No kidding, it's going to be Edwards.] ¶ 1:10 PM 3 comments
Are we trying to sway public opinion toward embracing a filibuster? That's suicide and the ultimate expenditure of the tattered remains of our political capital.Check this CBS poll:
"When the Senate votes on a Supreme Court nominee, should it consider only that person's legal qualifications and background, or along with legal background, should the Senate also consider how that nominee might vote on major issues the Supreme Court decides?"
Legal Only Issues Too Unsure
36 54 10
Feingold said the other eight on the bench answered questions during their own confirmation hearings. She read some passages of Ginsburg, and then asked:
"So I guess I want to know, why are you different? . . .[W]hy shouldn't the public have some idea of where you stand today on these crucial questions . . .? They know a great deal about how each of the other justices approach these issues. Why is your situation different?"Roberts:
"Judges are not politicians. They cannot promise to do certain things in exchange for votes."This is truly an unsatisfying answer, though clever. I would argue it treads very closely to contempt of Congress and contempt for the Constitutionally mandated advice and consent requirement of the Constitution.
Also, it's patently absurd.
But as evidenced by Thomas' infamous contempt of Congress during his confirmation hearing, when he said one thing about stare decisis and then did another when he became a Justice, it's understood that a statement in a confirmation hearing would not bind him. It's courtesy.
Schumer sums it up:
"There's a very good reason that you should state your views, because, as the founding fathers so constructed, this is the one time you go before an elected body before a lifetime appointment."The Constitution mandates it. No answers, no confirmation.
Believe it or not on this, Senate Leader Harry Reid, had a gameplan.
When this process began, Reid stood with Arlen Specter and they laid out the standard:
Reid:
"John Roberts must persuade the Senate and the American people that he is a worthy [to sit on the Supreme Court]."John Roberts has failed this test. His nomination should be rejected by the Senate. Now I don't know if they're going to fillibuster... but he might only get Lieberman's vote.
Here's where the politics comes in: While Republicans will vote for him based on the recommendation of the President, Democrats in '06 are going to take a page out of Rep. Ryan's book.
Voters want an Opposition Party that isn't spineless and stands up for what it believes in.
Sheridan is probably right, though - and this is something PFAW doesn't send out in PDFs - when he does get on the bench, there will be worse things coming for Americans.
Such as 80 years of progress flushed down the Yankee Stadium. Not just Roe, but shit as basic as minimum wage laws and Desegregation. And when it does get flushed, Democrats will need the "I told you so" card. If there is still a Republic left, the people will be pissed. They will want to know who to blame.
Here's to not having blood on our hands.
¶ 4:26 AM 4 comments
