The Protestant Ethic, the Spirit of Capitalism and the Inherent Flaw in the American Dream and Why It Has Become a National Nightmare. (Part One)

I came across my college thesis a while back and it stirred up some old feelings I had harbored, not about my faith, but about the basic presuppositions about the true origins of the United States’ value system, particularly as it pertained to the accumulation of wealth and the endemic belief in self determination and self justification in matters of foreign policy. The paper was called “A Tale of Two Countries: A Comparative History of the United States and France.” I was interested in comparing the theories of Max Weber and Karl Marx with respect to the development of both countries, and where those theories intersected, so to speak. It is clear that both men had a lot to say about religion, particularly Weber who concluded it was the Protestant countries that made the most advances during the industrial revolution, primarily fueled by a belief system based on an inherent belief that God had pre-determined that they were blessed by God and therefore could do no wrong. Where I insert the paper, it will be in italics. All footnotes are taken verbatim from the paper. Part Two will follow shortly. Stay Tuned!

Martin Luther did not intend to start a revolution in the sixteenth century. His dissatisfactions with the workings of the Roman Catholic Church; to wit the obvious corruption of Papal indulgences and tithing, the retreat of monks into monasteries and the inability of the Church to reach out to the "common man," were not meant to be seen as divisive or disrespectful of Rome, even if they were interpreted as such. The Protestant Reformation which ensued Luther's excommunication by the Pope was to have a profound impact not only on the religious affairs of the European continent, but on its political and social affairs as well.

However, the Protestant revolution, which "swept" through Europe in the sixteenth century, was to have, in many respects, its most profound and lasting impression not on Europe, but in the American colonies. It was here that Pilgrim settlers, escaping from the religious and social persecutions they suffered in England, and longing for the freedom to worship God in their own way, first exhibited signs of what Max Weber would later refer to as the Protestant ethic. Those early Puritans forged an identity for themselves, which might be loosely described as opportunistic. Faced with illness and death, they met the odds with uncommon bravery and faith. It does not much matter for our purposes whether their faith was influenced by their circumstances or vice versa; such horse and cart sagas are better left for other theorists and other arguments. From an historical perspective, it is sufficient to say that how they lived and behaved was intrinsic to their way of life and the shaping of their belief systems, and, in turn, their belief systems shaped our history.

Central to Protestantism, especially Calvinism, of which the Puritans were an offshoot, was the doctrine of predestination. In the Westminster Confession of 1647, three pertinent points are worth noting about the doctrine: first, that man, by his fall into a state of sin, was unable to attain grace on his own merits; secondly, that since the beginning of time, God had predetermined who among men would be granted salvation and who would be condemned to hell; and lastly, that those whom God had chosen for eternal grace "before the foundation of the world was laid," would forever be in His favor and could never fall from it.[1]

Of principle concern to Calvinists was the matter of who was chosen for salvation and who wasn't. Since there was not only no magical means of attaining the grace of God for those to whom God had decided to deny it, but no means whatsoever,[2] it later became necessary to extract some sign of proof of grace. It was impossible, at least so far as the question of a man's own state of grace arose, to be satisfied with Calvin's trust in the testimony of the expectant faith resulting from grace;[3] his followers, therefore, looked for more tangible evidence.

The doctrine of proof that later Calvinists developed provided at least potential sources for such evidence. The first of these sources was based on conduct. To live as a saint through arduous times or to be frugal in matters of money was interpreted as a sign of God's grace. On the other hand, to succumb to the temptations of the flesh or to be wasteful in matters of money was seen as a sign of damnation. The second, and perhaps, most determinant source of evidence rested on one's personal wealth. To be successful and possess tremendous personal wealth was a necessary by-product of hard work and was evidence of God's favor. To be unsuccessful and poor, or to be unwilling to work hard was a sure sign of God's disfavor. It was this doctrine of proof among the Calvinists and Puritans that was to play a crucial role in the development of the philosophical approaches of the founding fathers, especially men like Benjamin Franklin.

In his autobiography, Franklin intimates a direct correlation to Calvinism when he discusses his thirteen virtues. Chief among these virtues was temperance and frugality. With respect to the latter, he wrote, "Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing."[4] In other writings, Franklin admonished his readers to work hard and to be seen as working hard, to pay back all debts punctually, and to not waste time idly as time was money.

Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address to the nation, likewise was influenced by this ethic when he referred to the United States as a "chosen country, enlightened by a benign religion," whose Providence "delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter." He further added, "With all these blessings, what more is necessary? Still one thing more, fellow citizens: a wise and frugal government . . . which shall leave [men] otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."[5]

Both of these men, to put it mildly, were instrumental in the building of the United States as a nation. Like the men of their time, they were well bred and well spoken. They were also Protestant and were beholden to an ethic, which had as its cornerstone an overriding belief in the superior man of wealth and stature being in the good graces of God. And since that grace was irrevocable, such a man could do no wrong.

It was this arrogance - this overriding belief that it could do no wrong and that Providence was on its side - which became the primary impetus behind the United States' imperialistic splurges in the nineteenth century. Manifest destiny was more than just a foreign policy of wanton thievery - though certainly such a charge would have been sufficient for most nations - it was born out of an innate need to justify not only the right of the United States to expand, but to provide the justification that such an expansion fulfilled the will of God.

Nor can this ethic be confined merely to the expansion of the United States westward. The expropriation of territories, which belonged to sovereign countries in Latin America, likewise, reiterated the inherent gall of such a mind set. The taking of Cuba from Spain and the supporting of a revolution against Colombia which gave the United States the right of way to build the Panama Canal are perhaps the most prevalent examples. Theodore Roosevelt, when asked years later about the Canal, boastfully declared, "I just took it!"[6]

The series of foreign policy successes, which the United States enjoyed only facilitated the justification of America's righteousness and, moreover, the belief that it could do no wrong. The spectacle of Teddy Roosevelt marching up San Juan Hill with the Rough Riders - so indelibly etched in the hearts of many Americans as representative of their nation's yearning for justice and equality - presented a far different image to the citizens of Puerto Rico. To them, America's actions were those of an imperialist nation bent, not on justice, but on colonization.

The life of the western settler in many ways paralleled the nation's beliefs, or perhaps it is better to say the government paralleled the beliefs of the settler. By the mid-1800s, the eastern United States was severely overcrowded. Not even the Gold Rush could ease the region's burden, though it undoubtedly provided the impetus for many an adventurer to risk the trip westward. The federal government needed to provide an incentive for its citizens to migrate westward, not only to reduce the overpopulated eastern half of the country, but to stimulate the growth of the western economy, which all agreed would hold the key to the nation's future.

With the secession of the South during the Civil War, northern Republicans in Congress were able to pass the Homestead Act. It provided 160 acres of free land to any settler who paid a small filing fee and resided on and improved the land for five years. If after six months of residency the settler wished to buy the land for $1.25 an acre, he could do so. Advocates of the Homestead Act believed that it would diminish the number of paupers or squatters and increase the proportion of working, independent, self-sufficient farmers in the region. In reality, however, the Act did little to spur migration for two reasons. First of all, speculators bought most of the good property at the below-market rates and held onto it until they could sell it at a profit, usually 100 to 150 percent of cost. More importantly, the government severely overestimated the value 160 acres had to a farmer in the West. Such an amount of land was simply not adequate for agricultural needs in the arid regions.[7]

In the late nineteenth century Congress attempted to face up to the problems that the West presented to farmers. But regardless of what measures were passed to aid in the producing of crops successfully on the Great Plains, on western deserts, and on heavily timbered lands, each proved to be instructive failures, revealing western environmental realities.[8]

Cattle Ranching proved a viable option to farming and, for a while, such ranchers enjoyed a boom. But the harsh winters of the late 1880s, combined with overgrazing, brought about both ecological and economic disasters, as countless thousands of cattle either starved or froze to death. With the country entering a depression and prices dropping, creditors, frightened by the losses, began calling in their loans. The ranchers, both to pay back their creditors and to reduce pressure on their denuded ranges, had to sell on a falling market. They succeeded only in driving prices down even lower and driving themselves into bankruptcy.[9]

Those farmers and cattle ranchers who did manage to survive the harsh western environment, were hardened by their experiences like no other American could possibly have imagined. Such people persevered in spite of the elements and with virtually little, if any, help from the federal government. When such help did arrive, it was either too little as in the Desert Land Act, which called for the irrigation of desert lands for the expressed purpose of aiding the farmer, or too late as in the bailouts of the cattle ranchers, who collectively lost over 50 percent of their herds.

Like the early Puritans of Plymouth, the settlers of the West endured hardships unique to the rest of the country. They lived in one room log cabins which offered little protection from the elements, relied on no one but themselves, and learned to adjust to the norms of their environment with uncommon alacrity. Above all, they were driven by a set of principles, which compelled them to persevere in the face of such hardships. While they may or may not have been cognizant of the role in history they were playing, they were, nonetheless, resolute in their belief that the land they were living on, indeed the lives they were living, were the gifts of divine Providence. Surely the hardships they were enduring were but a prelude to the greater joys, which would be found with God in eternal salvation.

The French experience was vastly different from the American. While the revolutionists of colonial America were well-educated Protestants, the revolutionary tradition of France was rooted in the egalitarian and primitivist communitarian ideals of the French peasantry and petty bourgeois artisans, most of whom were Catholic. The combination of its hatred for modernity and liberalism,[10] urban-industrial development and political centralization, was highly conducive to the conspiratorial, elitist and terrorist strategies characteristic of the revolutionary politics of the Jacobins. Despite the French Revolution and the beginnings of urbanization and industrialization in the nineteenth century, the peasant and artisan culture of eighteenth-century France survived.[11]

The distinguishing feature of liberalism as a world-view is the value placed upon individual freedom, whether defined as freedom from coercion, moral self-determination, or the right to individual happiness. Liberals have sought to defend individual freedom through a variety of idioms - for example, the doctrines of natural rights (Locke), Social Darwinism (Spencer) or moral idealism (Kant). Pluralists have maintained that individual freedom implies an institutional condition of competition and conflict. The gravest threat to freedom is monopoly and absolutism, which suppresses self-determination with external coercion; which suppresses competition and diversity in a regimented and uniform order; and which substitutes authoritarian means for conflict and consensus as the primary problem-solving mechanisms.[12]

Liberals in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries uniformly agreed that, given what they perceived as the voluntary, pluralistic and dynamic nature of capitalism, private property was a necessary condition of liberty. They failed to grasp what was to become the core of the socialist critique, namely that the other side to the voluntarism, competition and dynamism of capitalism was heteronomy for the laborers and the poor, and a developmental process towards monopoly and static hierarchy.[13] Because of the intellectual and political immaturity of the people of France, and the resistance to change by its propertied classes, conspiracy, terror and dictatorial means were considered legitimate vehicles of revolution.[14]

This differed from the American situation wherein revolution was seen as the agency of individual liberty. Such a revolutionist was thought of in terms of his individual accomplishments. Indeed, the great moments of the War for Independence seem to highlight the notable men who participated in it: Washington's crossing of the Delaware; Benedict Arnold's treason, etc. The French Revolution, on the other hand, is fraught with instances of the masses rioting against the established regime, at times in utter chaos.

Throughout the nineteenth century, the French locked horns with the dilemma of progressivism. Liberalism joined ranks with conservatism to thwart the socialism of Marx and Saint Simon. The constant seesawing back and forth between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie had less to do with fulfilling the will of the people than with the confusion of an illiterate populace.

But what of Catholicism? Was the chaos in France the by-product of Catholicism or is there another explanation? Certainly Protestantism was not unknown in that country. Since the days of Louis XIV, the Huguenots proselytized about the virtues of hard work and duty to God. Minorities in France, they behaved very much like their brethren in Germany, England and the American colonies. While the Catholics seemed content with the otherworldliness of their faith, the Protestants endeavored to acquire the materialistic joys of life. A famous proverb of the day seems to sum up the differences between the two quite nicely: "The Catholic is quieter, having less of the acquisitive impulse; he prefers a life of the greatest possible security, even with a smaller income, to a life of risk and excitement, even though it may bring the chance of gaining honor and riches. While the Protestant prefers to eat well, the Catholic prefers to sleep undisturbed."[15]

Despite its love/hate relationship with the Church, France remained throughout her turbulent years very much Catholic. At no time, even during the Jacobin era, was there a repudiation of the Pope; merely a renouncing of Papal authority. The French were, on the whole, loyal to Rome. The violence the nation witnessed throughout the latter part of the eighteenth century and most of the nineteenth century was not, at any rate, directed at the Pontiff, but rather at those who corrupted his authority: namely the clergy.

Nor is it conceivable that the lag France endured during the formative years of the Industrial Revolution could be attributed solely to the political upheavals of that time. Other nations have endured similar upheavals. What sets France apart is the fact that her population, in addition to being divided and polarized by economic tensions, was under the auspices of an ethic which, at a time when it ought to have been inspiring its people to reach new heights, was still extolling the virtues of caution and forbearance. Though France dabbled in feats of colonialism, particularly during the Napoleonic eras, the French as a people never thought of themselves as the rightful heirs to the world, at least not in the modern era. Providence, to the French Catholic, did not make the world a stage for him, it merely molded him into a good actor on it.

And France was not alone in this affliction. Spain, Portugal and Italy, where Catholicism was and still is prevalent, likewise showed a disparaging trend in both economic and political influence during the early period of the Industrial Revolution. Throughout these countries, indeed throughout Europe and America, the fact that the business leaders and owners of capital, as well as the higher grades of skilled labor, and even more the higher technically and commercially trained personnel of modern enterprises, were overwhelmingly Protestant was undeniable.[16] Even more striking was the fact that while Catholics tended to remain in their crafts and became master craftsmen, Protestants were much more likely to fill the upper ranks of skilled labor and administrative positions.[17] This latest fact might explain why France was so late in automating much of its textile industry, and why Germany, Belgium and England, all predominantly Protestant, enjoyed such an immense advantage in productive capabilities.

Race and Exploitation: A Marxist Perspective on Capital

Many explanations concerning the matter of racism have surfaced over the last few decades. Nearly all have ignored the connection with capitalism. For good reason is this done. To take a revealing look at the roots of racism, particularly in the United States, and to attempt a causal link with the development of capitalism, would be to unmask an unspeakable truth about western society; one which Marx wrote frequently about. That truth was simply that capitalism, to thrive, must inevitably pit one worker against another. In the United States, at least, that meant the white worker against the black.

Marx believed that capitalism must inevitably bring about three conditions in society: 1. Recurrent economic crises; 2. Alienation of the worker from the product of his labor; and 3. Exploitation of the worker at the hands of his employer. It is this last point which demands our attention here.

Up to the eleventh century, Christian Europe was hemmed in from the North, East and South by heathens and infidels; the Mediterranean was almost completely encircled by the Arabian Mohammedans, a people whose culture was superior to that of the northern Europeans.[18] Owing to a need for trade with the East, especially by the Italian, Spanish and Portuguese merchants, and its obstruction by the Mohammedans, the Crusades, with the blessing of Rome, commenced. Though not completely successful, the experience did nonetheless expose the Europeans to other cultures.

By the late 1400s, Portuguese traders had begun to feel their way down the African coast in the hopes of finding a yet faster route to the East Indies. At this point in time the white man still had no conception of himself as being superior to other men. Though they viewed the natives of Africa as heathens and inferior warriors, this had not led to any conclusions about racial superiority.[19] Of more significance still is the fact that there was as yet no belief in any cultural incapacity of these colored people.[20] It was believed, in fact, that their conversion to Christianity would make them the equals of all other Christians.

The Portuguese had no clear sense of racial antagonism, because its economic and rationalistic basis had not yet been developed among them.[21] The reason for this was that the Portuguese, like the Spaniards and Italians of southern Europe, were still endowed with the crusader spirit of the Church. They saw no exploitable value in the black man, and were far more concerned with the condition of his soul than with the services of his sweat. Once conquered and converted, blacks were quickly integrated into society. This ethic was to change abruptly, though, in 1492.

The discovery of America would usher in a new creed. Though Columbus initially found the natives of the West Indies[22] to be a "loving" and "docile" people capable of harming no one and offering nothing but unconditional love and friendship, the governments of Portugal and Spain were, nonetheless, unmoved. Pope Alexander VI's bull of demarcation issued under Spanish pressure on May 3, 1493, and its revision by the Treaty of Tordesillas on June 7, 1494, arrived at through diplomatic negotiations between Spain and Portugal, put all heathen peoples and their resources - that is to say, especially the colored peoples of the world - at the disposal of Spain and Portugal.[23]

The path was now cleared for the expropriation and subsequent exploitation of these lands by both countries. Gone were the mystical inhibitions of the Church to free exploitation of economic resources; developing was a sense of nationalism and a commitment to the consolidation of European nations by the rising mercantile class. The ensuing slave trade which was to develop was simply a way of recruiting labor for the purpose of exploiting the great natural resources of the new world. This trade did not develop because Indians and Negroes were red and black, or because their cranial capacity averaged a certain number of cubic centimeters; but simply because they were the best workers to be found for the heavy labor in the mines and plantations across the Atlantic.[24] Had there been a sufficient supply of white workers to dig the mines and plant the fields, they most assuredly would have been used as well.

This then was the catalyst of race prejudice in the West. It did not spring up by chance, nor was it a by-product of a built-in antipathy between various ethnic groups or cultures. Only the need for exploitable labor facilitated the rise of it, and its origins have no parallel anywhere else on the globe. It follows, logically, that all racial antagonism is essentially political-class conflict. The capitalist exploiter, being opportunistic and practical, will utilize any convenience to keep his labor and other resources freely exploitable; he will devise and employ race prejudice when that becomes convenient.[25] Hence, exploitation of peoples should not be construed as a moral deficiency, but rather as a necessary by-product of the need to increase production and compete for markets.

In Marxist terminology, classes are defined by their relationship to the means of production (i.e., the tools, machines and property used in production). In a capitalist society, the owners of the means of production are called the bourgeoisie. The proletariat, the workers, having no means of production, are thus "reduced to selling their labor power in order to live." For the transformation of money into capital, therefore, the owner of money must find the free worker available on the commodity-market; and this worker must be free in the double sense that as a free individual he can dispose of his labor power as his own commodity, and that, on the other hand, he has no other commodity for sale.[26]

The worker's place in the system has been primarily related to production, and he has been regarded as an item of cost - that is to say, as both a necessary and important factor of production and as an impediment to the entrepreneur in his basic urge to undersell his competitors.[27] In other words, the worker was worth only so much in wages as was necessary to keep him alive and allow him to reproduce so as to insure future working-class generations. This wage was referred to as a subsistence wage. The capitalist, further vilifying the relationship of exploitation, uses the labor of the worker above and beyond what is needed to compensate him for his production. If, for instance, it takes six hours to produce say 50 widgets at 50 cents per day, and the capitalist uses the labor of that worker for a duration of twelve hours without compensating him for the additional six hours, it can be said the worker has created surplus-value "which, for the capitalist, has all the charms of something created out of nothing."[28]

Slavery, then, was the ultimate windfall for the capitalist. At once, he had all of the advantages of exploitable labor without virtually any of the costs. Whereas, the working-class white man at least had his labor power to sell to the capitalist, the African slave did not possess even this measly commodity. He had only his life, and even that was owned by his master. Without disguise the master defined the slaves, the colored people, as chattel, and exploited them in production virtually on the same economic principle as that employed in the exploitation of beasts of burden.[29]

To justify their behavior the exploiters argued that the slave, by his inferior breeding and sub-human condition, merited such treatment. Hence, throughout the colonial South, and even after the War for Independence, plantation landowners and their brethren preachers extolled the incontrovertible superiority of the white man over the black. They relied for verification of their views not on the basis of superstition or mere gossip, but on the basis of "scientific" books, which stated unequivocally the incapacity of the black man to be assimilated into the white man's culture. Blackness was associated with filth, foulness and evil. Owing to these beliefs, the colonies passed laws banning sexual mixing and marriage. Children of mixed marriage were considered black. At the time of the War for Independence, a black man was considered only three fifths of a white man. No less a "patriot" than Thomas Jefferson had held these racist views; at the time of his death he had over 180 slaves on his plantation.

The treatment the American Indian received was hardly any better. Though never officially enslaved the way his African brethren were, America's native son, nevertheless, was subjected to much of the same discrimination. In the period between 1880 and 1930, over 65 percent of the 138 million acres of land previously held by Native Americans moved to white ownership. By the last decade of the nineteenth century, most of the indigenous populations were on reservations where they were forbidden to practice their religions and their children were forced to go to boarding schools run by whites where they had to learn to speak English. While this policy was publicly touted as essential in helping the Indians to assimilate into the "mainstream" culture, the facts were very different. Native Americans were excluded from citizenship and not allowed to vote until 1924; even as late as the 1930s, there was a feeling among some influential individuals that they were biologically inferior to white Anglo-Saxons.[30]

While the French had their share of racists tendencies, like the Spaniards and Portuguese before them, its economic and rationalistic basis had not yet been developed among them. Most of France's empire building after 1870 attested to the presence, but hardly the overwhelming dominance, of its economic factor.[31] The Third Republic had inherited a motley assortment of colonies from previous regimes. Unlike the British, who in principle aimed at ultimate self-government for many of their colonies, the French wavered between the policies of assimilation and association. Assimilation would hopefully result in the natives' total absorption of French culture and civilization ultimately resulting in their becoming full-fledged French citizens in a unitary French Empire. Association, on the other hand, was the policy of encouraging the subject peoples to evolve in their own culture under the direction of French appointees and a local elite that had acquired French attributes.[32]

Because of the political struggles of France's left- and right-wing factions over the issue of colonialism, the country lost valuable time in the achievement of a world presence. Only 10 percent of French "foreign" investment was placed in French colonial possessions. The trade of the colonies, too, was principally with other countries and not with France. Nor did the French merchant marine benefit from this commerce; most of the trade was carried in foreign ships.[33]

The Clergy, too, complicated matters and played a prominent role in French foreign policy. While the United States, Great Britain and other Protestant nations were exporting their brand of philosophy, France was extending its Catholicism throughout North Africa and Southeast Asia. Unfettered by any need to "save" these peoples' souls, the former were free to exploit them by any means necessary to both the advantage of the oppressor and the detriment of the conquered. While in the Caribbean and Latin America, capitalism was free to take the resources it needed to expand the American empire, France's wavering and missionary spirit would cost it dearly.

The differences between the United States and France are apparent both with respect to their religious beliefs and, more importantly, how those beliefs influenced their policies. The United States operated from a posture of self-righteousness. Its policy of manifest destiny was derived not from any ill-will towards those people who were directly and unfortunately exploited, but rather from divine Providence, whose good graces all real Americans were presumed to be under. It then parlayed that belief system into a racist, exploitative formula, wherein blacks were targeted as "inferior" to their white counter-parts.

France, still endowed with the crusader spirit of its Catholicism, did not fully reap the benefits of capitalistic exploitation. Its internal political division led to its economic malaise, which led still further to its decline as a world power at the hands of its Protestant neighbors.

Sociologists who have studied Marx and Weber have focused, understandably, on the differences between the two theorists. Most have chosen to ignore the fact that Weber, despite his apparent aversion of his counterpart's methodology, was nonetheless in constant dialogue with him. I suspect that most of the controversy surrounding this dialogue centered around the fact that both men were talking about opposite sides of the same coin. For Marx, history was driven by economics. In his deterministic view, humans defined their belief systems through their economic conditions. Weber turned this equation around. He believed that humanity defined its economic situation through its belief system. While it would be convenient to dismiss the argument both theorists had as merely a cart/horse dialogue, much of the histories of the United States and France support both men's views.

Whether one is an economic determinist or not, there is ample evidence to suggest that the economic prowess and developmental belief systems the United States procured throughout its formative years cannot be adequately explained by any available method other than Weber's Protestant ethic theory. While it is true that other nations besides the U.S. were predominantly Protestant, in no other nation was the Puritan spirit of Calvin so indelibly and undeniably etched.

Also true is Marx's theory of capitalistic exploitation within such countries. For, if it is true that capitalism developed most strongly in those nations with a strong Protestant work ethic, so was it equally true that a high incidence of racism developed, as well. The United States is both the most economically advanced and the most racially polarized nation on the globe. This cannot be a coincidence.


[1]Weber, pp. 99-100.
[2]ibid., p. 105.
[3]ibid., p. 111.
[4]Bellah, p. 39.
[5]ibid., p. 29.
[6]Mowry, p. 154.
[7]White, p. 143.
[8]ibid., p. 150.
[9]ibid., pp. 224-225.
[10]The use of the term liberalism in this context should not be construed in the same context as that which currently passes for liberalism in contemporary America. For our purposes, it is analagous to progressiv-ism, at least as it pertains to the tradition of Marx, Weber and Durkheim.
[11]Seidman, p. 71.
[12]ibid., p. 15.
[13]ibid., p. 15.
[14]ibid., pp. 69-70.
[15]Weber, pp. 39-41.
[16]ibid., p. 35.
[17]ibid., pp. 38-39.
[18]Cox, p. 326.
[19]While earlier societies often discriminated against different peoples (the Romas against the Christians, the Egyptians against the Jews), such discrimination was cultural, not racial.
[20]ibid., p. 327.
[21]ibid., p. 329.
[22]The term Indian was actually coined by Columbus himself who thought he had mistakenly stumbled upon the East Indies, thus the inappropriate usage.
[23]ibid., p. 332.
[24]ibid., p. 332.
[25]ibid., p. 333.
[26]Marx, 272.
[27]op.cit., pp. 338-339.
[28]op.cit., p. 325.
[29]op.cit., p. 357.
[30]Hurst, p. 89.
[31]Harvey, p. 155.
[32]ibid., pp. 156, 160.
[33]ibid., p. 155.

To Ayers is Human, To Incite Disgraceful.

Undecided Voters and the Bradley Affect, and How the McCain Campaign is Trying to Stir Up Hatred to Steal an Election.


In 1982, Tom Bradley, the long-time mayor of Los Angeles, California, ran as the Democratic Party's candidate for Governor of California against Republican candidate George Deukmejian, who was white. The polls in the final days before the election consistently showed Bradley with a lead. Based on exit polls, a number of media outlets projected Bradley as the winner; early editions of the next day's San Francisco Chronicle featured a headline proclaiming "Bradley Win Projected." However, Bradley narrowly lost the race. Post-election research indicated that a smaller percentage of white voters actually voted for Bradley than polls had predicted, and that previously "undecided" voters had voted for Deukmejian in statistically anomalous numbers.

A month prior to the election, Bill Roberts, Deukmejian's campaign manager, predicted that white voters would break for his candidate. He told reporters that he expected Deukmejian to receive approximately 5 percent more votes than polling numbers indicated because white voters were giving inaccurate polling responses to conceal the appearance of racial prejudice. Deukmejian disavowed Roberts's comments, and Roberts resigned his post as campaign manager.

Try as I can, 1982 looms large as life in my mind. The rather large number of, still, undecided voters in this election gives me pause. What is it that they are still undecided about? History has repeatedly revealed that undecided voters tend to break away from the incumbent party’s nominee when things are not going well. In deed almost 80% of likely voters believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction, with the current president at unprecedented low opinion polls. With those two things going for him, why do so many perspective voters confess that they are still not sold on Obama? In lieu of any reasonable and rational argument to the contrary, I can only conclude that most of this undecided vote is quite simply hesitant to vote for a black candidate.

And the McCain campaign is trying to capitalize on that hesitancy with repeated attacks, not on Obama’s economic plan or his seeming lack of experience, which would be fair game in any election, but on what New York Times columnist Frank Rich called the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

They can deny it all they want, but they are clearly playing to the race card, and what worries me most is that they might actually get away with it. They know they can’t win by talking about the economy – every poll shows that – so the only thing left to do is paint Obama as “risky” or “dangerous” or “not like us.” You don’t need a road map to see where they’re going. And while the imploding economy has dominated the landscape to such an extent that once Republican states like Virginia and North Carolina are now within reach of Obama, the margin or error in both mean that at the eleventh hour they could also swing away from him and back into the Republican column. In deed, with the exception of Pennsylvania, which now seems firmly in the grasp of Obama, most of these swing states that he has a lead in, including Ohio, fall within 2 to 4 points. Bradley affect proponents say that if these uncommitted voters break like they did in 1982, Obama could easily lose between 2 to 4 points on election day. In other words what could possibly be a landslide victory might actually be a very close loss. NBC predicted that McCain would, in all probability, need to sweep all swing states to get to 274 electoral votes. Loathe though I am to admit it, given what we know about racial bigotry in this country that is not out of the realm of possibility.

So, in the midst of the most important election this nation has held in 70 years, and with the economy teetering on a depression, John McCain, the former maverick, has now turned to inciter and enabler of racist rhetoric. Shouts of “terrorist” and “traitor” and “kill him” go unchallenged by his running mate, with only veiled protestations by the man himself when a woman referred to Obama as an Arab. Shameful, vile and disgusting, and totally beneath contempt. Regardless of whether McCain actually pulls this off and manages to win the election, he has forever tarnished what was once a distinguished career in Washington and, once more, pulled the nation backwards into a past it can’t seem to keep from reliving.

PALIN SHOVEL:

The pursuit of intellectual mediocrity in an ever-demanding and dangerous world.


I wonder what William F. Buckley would say about Sarah Palin’s performance last night in the vice presidential debate. Probably the same thing that George Will said about John McCain a couple of weeks ago.

“Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.”

That both McCain and Palin would try to steer the debate away from the last eight years of incompetence under Republican stewardship is of course to be expected. What else can they do? That they have done so not by reaching for the stars of hope, but by diving down to the lowest common denominator and “dummying up” as it were the whole process is beyond contempt. By appealing to the “average” person’s level of understanding they have, in actuality diminished the very offices for which they seek election to. Last night offered a stark contrast not just in styles, but in substance and temperament. On the one hand, you had Joe Biden, who brought with him 30 plus years of effective leadership in the Senate and answered each question posed to him by facts; on the other hand you had Sarah Palin, who for the first time in almost a month managed not to look like a deer caught in someone’s headlights, but who never directly answered the questions posed to her; in deed showing contempt even for moderator Gwen Ifill. When in doubt, blame the mainstream and elitist press. Joe Sixpack was her intended audience, anyway, not all us elitists.

Conservatives like Buckley and Will belong to a fast fading contingent of intellectual thinkers on the Right, who, while I disagreed with their view points, offered challenging and thought-provoking insight into topics that were of national importance. Buckley, in particular, never failed to provoke a visceral response in his opponents. You may have despised what he stood for, but you could never challenge the intelligence of the man. Today you would be hard-pressed to find any one of the caliber of a Buckley or even a Will within the Republican party. The Mitt Romney’s, the Rudy Giuliani’s (a noun, a verb and 9/11 is what Biden once called him), and now the Sarah Palin’s of the world have taken over the dialogue. Anyone caught using a vocabulary above a 6th grader has to stay after school and write 1,000 times on the blackboard, “Though shall keep it simple for the simpletons!”

When did the pursuit of intellectual mediocrity become a virtue? Why was the bar set so appallingly low for a vice-presidential candidate that the fact that she managed to get through an hour and a half debate without fainting is considered a victory? I don’t know about you, but I want the next president and vice president to be smarter than me. It’s nice that they can identify with people in my tax bracket, but it’s far more important that they be able to help people like me in my tax bracket. Big words have become a thing of the past. Our expectations, along with our aspirations, have become the stuff of stereotypes. College graduate? You must be an elitist! Work on an assembly line? You’re Joey sixpack! Don’t engage me in a stimulating conversation; that might be too confusing. Instead, send out a few sound bites. Maverick will do. What, you say you want some examples? I’ll get back to ya on that. Maybe you’ll forget the question and just focus on the sound bite. It’s all too confusing anyway. All that technical stuff is for egg heads. How 'bout I just give ya a wink and a smile?

What worries me most is that this disgusting strategy might just work. In my own line of work – sales – I have often found that the most successful sales people keep technical jargon out of their discussions about the product. Don’t confuse the customer, lest he leave with his wallet. The Republican party has a lot of good old-fashioned salesmen in its ranks. They have a lot of crap to sell the American public, most of it defective. They are good at marketing and selling this crap; they ought to be. The current president has managed to steal one election and hoodwink a nation into re-electing him in another. And all the while convincing them that he was “one of them.” The ultimate con job. The nation needs a doctor, so send in a bar tender and pour another round of drinks. What’s another four years on the tab anyway?

It was Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, who once said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Much as I think that is a grand statement, the one that comes to mind most and the one that I fear is most pertinent to what is going on in this nation, comes from William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.

Scene II, The Forum, after Brutus explains why Caesar had to be killed. Mark Antony is addressing the mob.

“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.The evil that men do lives after them;The good is oft interred with their bones;So let it be with Caesar. The noble BrutusHath told you Caesar was ambitious:If it were so, it was a grievous fault,And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest--For Brutus is an honourable man;So are they all, all honourable men--Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.He was my friend, faithful and just to me:But Brutus says he was ambitious;And Brutus is an honourable man.He hath brought many captives home to RomeWhose ransoms did the general coffers fill:Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;And Brutus is an honourable man.You all did see that on the LupercalI thrice presented him a kingly crown,Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;And, sure, he is an honourable man.I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,But here I am to speak what I do know.You all did love him once, not without cause:What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,And I must pause till it come back to me.”

We all know what happened next; the mob turned on Brutus, and what was once considered an act of bravery became an act of treason. I think Shakespeare nailed it; don’t you?

CAPTAIN McSAME GOES TO WASHINGTON:

In the face of calamity, a former maverick and a half-baked Alaskan lead the way. As Stevie Wonder once sang, “Heaven Help Us All.”

With the nation on the brink of economic chaos, the stock market teetering on the verge of free-fall, and banks failing left and right, John McCain made the supreme sacrifice on Tuesday and announced he was suspending his campaign for the presidency to concentrate totally on the proposed $700 billion bailout and asked that Friday’s presidential debate be postponed until a deal could be reached. He then waited 36 hours to fly down to Washington from New York – blowing off an appearance on David Letterman, but still managing to do an interview with CBS’s Katie Couric – only to arrive hours after a tentative agreement had been reached between Democrats and Republicans on the actual details of the bailout. Undaunted, he then spurred on angry House Republicans in time to gum up the works and stall the agreement, making demands that now threaten any chance of reaching an agreement in time for Monday morning.

Over the last ten days John McCain has gone from believing that the fundamentals of our economy were strong, to calling for the head of the SEC to be fired (apparently he was unaware that even the President cannot fire the head of the SEC), to being against the bailout of AIG, to then praising it as being necessary to the country’s best interests, and now, realizing how precarious a position the economy is in and fully able to read poll numbers, discovering that the ship is taking on water and listing badly to port. If this is any indication of how a McCain/Palin administration would govern were they to be elected, all I can say is this: I hope you all have your passports up to date; you’re going to be using them soon.

While I have never much believed in the altruism and principles that most politicians claim to have in abundance – I wasn’t born yesterday you know – I do have a right to expect some degree of consistency out of a candidate running for the highest office of the land. Even George Bush, for all the angst he has caused, has at least been consistent. Unfortunately for the nation, consistently wrong. The thing that has bothered me so much about John McCain is how much he has fallen from that maverick image he at least displayed in some small measure back in 2000 when he was running against then Texas Governor George Bush. Back then McCain stood up to the conservative base of his party. He called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson agents of intolerance, said he could not in good conscious vote for the Bush tax cuts, and said that offshore drilling was not the solution to America’s dependence on foreign oil. But that was a different John McCain. That McCain lost to George Bush in the South Carolina primary, after a viscous rumor was spread that he might be the father of an illegitimate black child. Soon after he dropped out of the race and the rest, as they say, was history.

The lesson John McCain learned was if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. And joined them he has. Over the last few months he has sucked up to the base of his party, shamelessly burying the old gothic maverick image he once treasured so much. He has called the war in Iraq the central fight in the war on terror, despite the fact that even senior pentagon officials have publicly stated that Afghanistan and not Iraq is the centerpiece in the war on terror; he courted the endorsement of pastor John Hegee, a man who compared Catholicism to the great whore of the book of Revelation; he has fully embraced the Bush tax cuts, calling for them to be made permanent; he now supports off-shore drilling for oil, this despite the fact that current oil refineries are at or near 100% of capacity as it is; and now for the piece de résistance, with the wheels coming off the economy, he actually supports less regulation of housing markets.

As if things weren’t bad enough for John McCain, his vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin continues to implode with each passing day. Every interview she does exposes her more and more to the light of day. The latest debacle came this Wednesday when Katie Couric, not once, not twice, but three times asked the Alaskan governor to list one thing John McCain did that made him a “maverick.” Palin’s answer was stunning. “I’ll get back to ya,” was all she could come up with. Evidently, she must have mixed up the cue cards. That was John McCain’s response a month ago when he was asked how many houses he owned. Any wonder the McCain campaign wanted to postpone Friday’s debate to next week. With any luck at all they might even manage to postpone the vice-presidential debate all the way to December!

Seriously, this dynamic duo is about as scary as scary can get. It’s one thing to have a politician who sold his soul to win a nomination; it is quite another to have a running mate who really does believe in her own self-righteous destiny. Whether it be her claim that the fact that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, or the fact that she lied when she said she had never supported the bridge to nowhere, as well as her claim that she never tried to ban books while mayor of Wasilla; or the fact that she continues to fight an on-going “troopergate” investigation into the firing of Walter Monegan for what many have said was his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, who it is alleged had made a death treat against the governor’s father. You can go on and on. The more I see of this woman the more fearful I become. Having John McCain as the next President of the United States is bad enough; knowing this neophyte is a heartbeat away from the Oval office is enough to induce nightmares.

Tonight Barack Obama has only one task. Drum in to the collective electorate just how frightening a specter it would be to have a McCain/Palin administration. The economic turmoil has given Obama the ball on the five-yard line, first and goal. Anything less than a touchdown may prove catastrophic for the nation. Events have given him what every candidate dreams of: a platform to carry him into office. The election is there for the taking. Now is the time for great leaders to stand up and lead. FDR buried Hoover; Kennedy outdid Nixon; and Clinton exposed Bush. (Sorry for the pun!) Obama has no excuses left. The nation, already thirsty for change, expects him to do well. The bloom has already fallen off the Palin nomination and once more McCain looks predictable, tired and worn out. The polls show Obama ahead nationally and in all the important swing states. He must go for the kill tonight. To let McCain up off the mat would be criminal. In my line of work – sales – the mark of excellence is how effective you are at closing the deal. There are less than 40 days left before this nation makes the most important decision it has made since 1932. It is a decision Barack Obama can make a whole lot easier starting tonight.

A CAMPAIGN TO NOWHERE: Be afraid; be VERY afraid!

In response to Steve's last post, I found this little tidbit in The New York Times today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/opinion/13sat1.html?hp

Barack Obama and Joe Biden have their work cut out for them. Four years ago it was Swift Boat Politics; now it is victim gate. Anyone who takes a swipe at the Alaskan senator is obviously a sexist.

If the democrats are to take back the White House they (the Obama campaign) will have to change the way they are going about things. Here are some suggestions:

1. Take the GOP seriously. Hillary Clinton has nothing on the Republicans. Any party that can tolerate the likes of Karl Rove has no scruples about getting down and dirty. While I agree that Obama can't afford to be seen as just another mud-slinging politician, he must wake up to the fact that allowing Republicans to hammer him is no way to win the White House.

2. KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid! I watched Obama on Countdown with Keith Obermann and almost threw something at the T.V. Obama is sounding more and more like John Kerry every day. While John McCain makes claims that are not substantiated by facts, he has done so with simple, easy to remember slogans, like: "Country First" and "The Original Maverick". He has even managed to co-opt Obama's Change message. Taking a sentence and turning it into a paragraph maybe the purview of college professors, but it is political suicide for a presidential candidate. Sadly, the minions still prefer someone they can have a beer with. If Obama can't lower himself to accept that, he will be the most eloquent footnote in political history.

3. Get Back on Message. It's time for Obama to remember what got him to this point. John McCain has successfully turned this campaign from the ineptitude of the Republicans to the "readiness" of Barack Obama. Obama needs to remind the country and then drive it home that the country has been going in the wrong direction for the last eight years. At their convention in Denver, the Democrats coined the slogan: "Eight is Enough!" We have not heard it since. The message has to be about McCain's vision against Obama's vision.

Obama has squandered a substantial lead and is now on the defensive. It is late in the fourth quater and, to use a football analogy, it is time for the 2-minute offense to take the field. The nation clearly wants change; now is the time for Barack Obama to convince them he is the agent of change.

A DAY TO REMEMBER: How the Bush Administration went to sleep BEFORE 9/11

Seven years ago today, in what can only be described as the worst day of an administration that has had more than its share of disasters, the infamous memo: "Bin Laden Determined To Strike America" made its way to the desk of President Bush and was roundly dismissed by him and his entire cabinet.

Yes, as difficult as it is to believe a memo, which outlined specific details on what and how Al Qaeda was planning on unleashing on America, was completely ignored by those who, had they heeded its warning, might well have foiled the dastardly plot.

And because of their tremendous blundering and arrogance, in about 36 days, the United States will be marking the 7th anniversary of the darkest day of its history. On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, 3000 of our people paid dearly for the Bush administration’s incompetence.

To those who still insist, blindly, that the right president was in the Oval office when this tragedy unfolded, remember this day, and pray that the next president, whoever he is, won’t be as foolish as this one has been. Pray that he has the brains and the vision to guide the U.S. forward instead of backward. Pray that he be more than just a self-professed man of God, but instead be God lead.

WHAT A REAL PATRIOT IS!

A real patriot isn't someone who just mindlessly waves a flag and puts his hand over his heart when reciting the pledge of allegiance.

A real patriot isn't someone who says he stands for freedom, yet challenges other peoples rights to expression when they respectfully disagree.

A real patriot doesn't smear the integrity of other ethnic groups simply because they are different or in the minority.

A real patriot doesn't challenge someone's courage or loyalty simply because the thought of occupying another nation is abhorrent to their beliefs and values.

And finally a real patriot isn't someone who for one day claims to love his country, yet the rest of the year does everything possible to embarrass it.

No, a real patriot would be the exact opposite of the above and on this Independence Day, let's celebrate the ideals of such individuals. They are not fictional; they were our founding fathers, and their spirit lives on not just on July 4th, but on every day of the year.

While you're hoisting down a brew or eating a hot dog, remember their sacrifice today and try always to remember that real patriots don't just love their country they challenge it!

SO MUCH FOR NON-ACTIVISTS: The Supreme Court Shows Its True Colors on the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

When I was in school, many, many years ago, before cell phones, or computers, or fancy remote controls, it was widely established as a rule of punctuation that commas, colons, semicolons, dashes and hyphens used in mid-sentence were meant to infer a continuation of the same chain of thought. In point of fact it had the same effect as implying an "and" statement, not an "or" statement. It would be over a decade before I was to find a practical application of such a rule.

"We admitted we were powerless - that our lives had become unmanageable."

Anyone who has ever attended a 12-step recovery group – be it Alcoholics Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous, Al-Anon, etc, knows full well that the words powerless and unmanageable are not mutually exclusive; they are meant to infer the same thing. Any addict not in denial will tell you it is impossible to accept the first part of that sentence without accepting the second part. They go hand in hand. To be powerless is the same as to be unmanageable.

Well, apparently Justice Antonin Scalia didn’t go to the same school I did, because when he read the 2nd Amendment, he evidently saw two distinct and separate points; one having to do with a well regulated Militia, which he ignored; the other having to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which he cited. What is particularly striking is that in writing his decision for the majority, if we are to believe that he saw the last fourteen words as being sufficient to survive on their own merits, he evidently never saw that in so doing he rendered the first thirteen hopelessly out in left field. For only someone either ignorant of the use of proper grammar; i.e. a fragment sentence [A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…], or ideologically predisposed to a fixated opinion, could miss the obvious: that the framers of the Constitution never meant to address the "right" of its citizens to bear arms apart from the militia. Had they intended to address those rights, they most assuredly would’ve written specifically about it and kept it separate and apart from any mention of "a well regulated Militia". The fact that the words militia, people and arms are mentioned in one sentence can and must mean only one logical thing: that they are all lumped together to form one coherent thought.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a compelling dissent, the five justices in the majority found no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms. They found no new evidence to overturn decades of court precedent. They have claimed, Stevens wrote, "a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th Centuries."

And therein lies what’s really behind the decision of the majority. The five justices who overturned the Washington D.C. gun ban are not ignorant of common English grammar. As legal scholars, all of them know full well how to read a complete sentence, and also know full well what a comma stands for. The reason for this unprecedented ruling is obvious. The majority was looking to "interpret" to their own philosophical inclination what the founding fathers meant rather than what was actually written. In essence they were actively "interpreting" the law rather than enforcing it.

Ironically the "non-activists" justices have been, by far, the most activist in their rulings. As I have stated before, conservatives’ calls for the nomination of so-called non-activist judges to the bench are bogus, primarily because it is not non-activism that they seek; rather it is conservative activism that they are truly after. Today it was the NRA that won a huge decision. In the future other landmark decisions will be rendered by this court that will belie the supposed purpose of the so-called non-activist ideal. If this decision is to be any indicator, the Republic and years of jurisprudence are in deep trouble.

The Broadcaster Freedom Act: The truth about what’s really behind the resistance to the Fairness Doctrine.

In 2007, Indiana congressman Mike Pence introduced a bill on the floor of the House of Representatives titled, "The Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007," which said in pertinent part that the FCC "shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’."

For those of you not up to speed on this important issue, conservatives have long been opposed to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, because, in their words, it would limit their right to free speech. The most vocal contingent out there has been the Christian Right, which has the most to lose over the doctrine’s reinstatement since it would require Christian-based broadcasts to allow for opposing viewpoints, something they are decidedly against. Another contingent, almost as vocal, are the typical conservative neo-cons, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the equally obtuse, but always entertaining, Ann Coulter. Basically, if the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated, every one of these gas bags would have to do one of two things: either stop spewing their hate-filled, erroneous diatribes, or give equal time to those who actually can offer up sobering and ACCURATE rebuttals.

But, of course, the Conservative Right isn’t interested in doing either of those two things, so instead what they have set out to do is re-write what the original doctrine actually said. The following is a synopsis of what the FCC was trying to do.

"The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues."

When misrepresentation didn’t work, The Conservative Right opted instead to miss-interpret the landmark 1969 Supreme Court case Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, which said the following:

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after his publication of Goldwater: Extremist of the Right was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, PA, sued arguing that the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks. The decision, contrary to what most Republicans keep telling their constituents, had nothing to do with First Amendment rights. In fact, the decision had no bearing whatsoever on the programming format of WGCB, or any other station, radio or television; it merely said that such stations that present heavily opinionated, and yes sometimes controversial, content must allow for or present a fair and balanced counter argument. It also pointed out, correctly I might add, that the airwaves are not the personal property of the broadcasters; instead the FCC leases those airwaves to the broadcasters with the explicit understanding that the public interest will be served in a fair and honorable way. Conversely, these licenses can be revoked if the FCC finds that broadcasters have violated that understanding.

In another landmark decision, nine years later, the Supreme Court upheld an FCC ruling that fined WBAI for its airing of a George Carlin comedy routine "Filthy Words" during the afternoon hours, see FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726. WBAI contended that its First Amendment rights had been violated, but the Court’s decision said that the FCC had the right to fine the station. The Court stated that the FCC had the authority to prohibit such broadcasts during hours when children were likely to be among the audience, and gave the FCC broad leeway to determine what constituted indecency in different contexts. Again the "rights" argument failed, because the Court agreed that the airwaves were not the property of the broadcaster, in this case WBAI, but rather belonged to the people, and that the FCC had the authority to determine what could or could not be said on the station. Had WBAI published a book highlighting the entire Carlin routine, it would’ve been well within its constitutional rights.

Not until the Reagan Administration did the Fairness Doctrine finally get rescinded, and since then attempts to reinstated it have been blocked. Over the last twenty years, conservative talk shows on both radio and TV (Did you think I would forget about you, Fox?) have taken off. Not bound by any fact checking or responsible contrary opinion, these ideologues have waged war on reason and hid behind their perceived constitutional rights, using the Constitution as both a shield and toilet paper to justify their hate-filled agendas.

And, worst of all, the Religious Right has joined in. People like Pat Robertson and James Dobson have taken advantage of the lack of checks and balances to basically run riot with their own opinions, which contrary to what their followers might say, are neither historically or politically accurate, nor biblically in keeping with their alleged ministries. Dobson, in particular, hides behind his Doctorate in Psychology to get away with his myopic stances and his intimidation of political candidates who don’t subscribe to his theology. Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would not, again contrary to what Dobson and his favorite conservative pet these days, Laura Ingraham, would say, prevent anybody’s opinion from being stated; all it would do is allow for the opportunity for a dissenting opinion to be aired. As so many conservatives are fond of saying whenever the ACLU gets involved in legal battles or tries to protect the rights of a unpopular group, "If you’ve got nothing to hide then why do you need your rights protected?"

The problem is they do have something to hide, and they know it. Aside from the minions of mindless and rudderless souls who tune in to these gutter-filled, intellectually devoid programs, the vast majority of Americans would not be caught dead either listening to or watching such rubbish. Imagine if the next time James Dobson went on his broadcast and ripped a political candidate for being pro-choice, he had to respond to someone who asked him why he has never questioned the Iraq war, or why he has never taken a "political" stand on world hunger. I would actually listen to that show; hell I might even buy it on i-Tunes. In deed I found it interesting that on one of his podcasts, he praised Tim Russert as someone who was tough, but fair-minded, and presented all opinions. He was quoted as saying, "I’ve been interviewed by many people over the past three decades, and few have demonstrated the mix of tenacity and warmth that was Tim’s calling card. He asked tough questions – but he asked them of everyone, on both sides of the political and ideological aisle – and he did so with a respectful demeanor." No doubt the irony was lost on Dobson.

Equally puzzling is this constant insistence among the Right that they need protection from the Fairness Doctrine, because they are the only "legitimate" outlets for conservative thought – now that’s an oxymoron if ever there was one! According to Dr. Jim and the gang, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and all the other networks, besides Fox of course, are all liberal-based and decidedly anti-conservative. In other words, they’re all against them. Now while I realize that even a paranoid person has some enemies, this has to be the most convoluted claim anyone has ever made to justify what can only be described as a self-fulfilling, self-aggrandizing, hypocritically arrogant stance. The very idea that the reason you can’t be fair is because you perceive everybody else as being unfair is the very essence of self-delusion, and only the truly gullible would buy into it.

This November, the nation will get a chance to chart the course for the next four, possibly, eight years. The Supreme Court, the Iraq War, the accumulation of wealth among the rich, soaring oil prices, global warming, and control of our airwaves. The choice is pretty self-evident. We need a leader who doesn’t back down to scandalous lies and intimidation from right-wing preachers and other conservative bullies. The Dobsons, the Robertsons, the Hannitys, and the Limbaughs of the world will say it comes down to freedom; theirs of course. Bull. It comes down to responsibility and accountability; two words rarely associated with such types.

The following info was sent to SignTheStatement@JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe.com:

Name: Peter Fegan
mailfrom: feego1@optonline.net
Religion: Charismatic
House of Worship: The Vineyard Christian Fellowship

Testimonial:

"It is obvious, and has been for quite some time, that James Dobson, and others like him, have uesed their position from the pulpit to advance a very narrow interpretation of scripture to fit their own political gains. It worked in 2000 and 2004, but by 2006, it began to wear off as more and more of the electorate, many of whom were Christians, grew wary of their motives. It is quite comforting to see many within the evangelical community wake up and realize that there is more to being a good Christian than just being against abortion and gay rights. Part of being a good steward means to care for one another as well as to care about the planet we inhabit. The Pharasees knew how to judge and divide, but Jesus exposed their hearts and, in so doing, called us all to love one another.

"Today the venom and hatred of the Pharisees is alive and well and living in the Christian Right. Only by, as Jesus did, exposing their hardened hearts can we begin the process of letting in the light of God and advancing His Kingdom on Earth."

I wrote the above due to the recent comments made by James Dobson in response to statements made by Barack Obama on his faith. I invite all of you to read them for yourselves and not take the word of somebody else.

If you agree with this point of view or would like to advance your own please visit this site and make your voice known.

http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com/

Outmaneuvering the Swift Boats: Obama learns from history.

OK, so you are probably thinking how can I vote for Barack Obama – the change candidate – when he has "flipped" on his pledge and opted out of public financing for the general election, becoming the first candidate to do so since the system was created in 1976. After all, don’t principles count, and, as Christians, aren’t we supposed to hold those we elect to a higher standard?

While it may seem that Obama has back-peddled on his "pledge" to stick with the public system, let’s review ALL of the facts, shall we. In pertinent order, they are as follows:

1. Yes, Obama did agree to accept public funding for the general election, but, missing from the criticisms of his decision to opt out is his carefully worded statement, addressed to the Federal Elections Commission, indicating that any agreement regarding accepting of public money be tied to an agreement between both presumptive nominees curtailing the spending of independent action groups or 527’s. At present, there is no limit on how much money such groups can raise or spend during the election. In a USA Today article published February 20, 2008, Obama said, "I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues." No such agreement was ever entered into by both candidates; in deed, McCain actively campaigned throughout the last two months of the Democratic primaries, taking full advantaged of the blood-letting between Obama and Hillary Clinton. With the memory of John Kerry being attacked by the swift boat ads in 2004 still fresh in everyone’s minds, Obama knows what’s coming. Only a fool would sit back and watch history repeat itself.

2. John McCain can hardly claim the moral high ground here. Throughout the primaries, McCain worked the public financing system like a magician working his magic wand. First, opting in, then, when he got big donors to contribute to his campaign, opting out. He waited until the last minute to accept the financing for the general election, no doubt an acknowledgement that he could not hope to raise sufficient funds on his own to compete in the general election. His refusal to reign in RNC attack dogs, and his tendencies toward running negative ads himself – this despite his "appeal" to Obama to host town-hall debates that concentrated on the "real" issues of the campaign - mean that once more we can expect more of the same mud-slinging throughout the summer and fall months.

3. Almost two thirds of Obama’s contributions come from small donors who contribute $200 or less, ostensibly making his campaign the first of its kind. This grass-roots movement is, as Obama succinctly put it, a form of public financing, as it were. As the New York Times correctly pointed out on June 20, "Ever since Watergate, the ideal of campaign finance reform has been to replace a system fueled by special interests and big money with either full public financing or a system of civic-minded small donors. The former is abhorred by much of the public while the latter looks remarkably like barackobama.com. In effect, the Obama campaign has come closer to achieving the ideals of campaign finance reform than 30-plus years of regulation. To condemn the campaign’s departure from the system is to elevate rules over the principle that gave birth to the rules in the first place."

Finally, a Democrat who doesn’t lie down in the middle of the street like road kill. Finally, a Democrat who has the resources to effectively combat and, hopefully, defeat the Republican attack machine. Finally, a Democrat who can actually win a general election.

Amen!

Post Script to the previous blog.

FROM THE FRYING PAN TO THE FIRE: Clinton Makes RFK Assassination Remark.

Just when you thought you’d heard everything possible in American politics and believed that there was nothing more that could scorch your sensibilities, the right honorable junior senator from New York went the proverbial extra mile and, in what can only be described as a meltdown of epic proportions, stuck her foot on the third rail of politics, then quickly into her own mouth by referencing the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 as a reason to stay in the Democratic primary race. She also, just to pile it on as it were, referred to her husband’s 1992 primary bid, stating that he had not wrapped up the nomination until mid-June.

As for the latter reference, the former first lady seems to be suffering from selective amnesia. While it is true that Bill Clinton did not "officially" wrap up the Democratic nomination until after the California primary, which for some strange reason was held in mid-June that year, the results of that contest were at best academic. He had a huge lead in delegates, and the contest had all but been decided months earlier. The California primary was the cherry on top of his nomination. Anyone with access to a computer or history book would know that.

As to the former statement, it can now be said of Hillary Clinton that she has completely lost her mind. Her campaign has now become the laughingstock of this nomination process. To even suggest, with a straight face, that you are staying in a race because of a potential assassination attempt on your rival goes above and beyond the limits of even gutter politics and enters into an arena that is within the purview of individuals who know neither decency nor are affected by conscious. That the Clintons, who have never tasted defeat in their political lives, would pull out all the stops to win the nomination is certainly not front-page news; anyone who has ever seen them in action has not been surprised by the tactics that they have employed. But that they would sink to this level is appalling and despicable, and is evidence of a campaign whose wheels are finally coming off, and to paraphrase a now infamous Dick Cheney quote, "Is in it’s death throws." If she can quote Karl Rove, I can quote Dick Cheney!

Even Clinton’s half-baked apology, if you can call it that, lacked even a trace of humility; not to mention the fact that the junior senator from New York didn’t even have the courtesy of including Barack Obama in her half-baked apology. In deed, her "apology" lacked even a trace of remorse for the damage her words might have done. Instead she only expressed "regret" that if her words were interpreted as offensive, that was not her intention. Please! Spare us! Her inability to connect the dots and realize that for millions of African Americans who have faced centuries of racism in this country, the word assassination is not merely a historical reference to the Kennedy family, as Clinton tried to pawn off; it is a frightening specter that they live with every day. They are painfully aware that there still exists within our society elements that cannot accept the candidacy, much less the presidency, of a black man in charge of the country. Such elements would revel in taking out such an individual. That Clinton could not muster the slightest empathy over those fears should be all the evidence anyone needs that she is oblivious to everything but her ambition. It is obvious that nothing seems to be able to shame her and her husband, not even when it’s painfully obvious to all but the most rank Clinton apologists.

Hopefully, now, the super delegates will step in and end this charade. What Hillary Clinton could not do on her own, namely bring to a civilized end a long, drawn out and bitter campaign, the super delegates will now bring to closure. No matter what she decides to do in the weeks and months ahead, she has severely damaged her standing within the Senate, and all I can say is it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving person.

Bon Appetite!

The following is a letter I submitted to Hillary Clinton through her website: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/


To Hillary Clinton,

It is very curious in deed that you seem to be redefining the rules of this primary contest. First you said that Florida and Michigan would NOT count, now they do. You then said that the total delegate count (both pledged and super) would be the determining factor, now it's popular vote count. And with regard to the delegate count, you agreed it would be 2025 (now 2026), now you have up'd it to 2210. Next you said that every vote counted, but now, apparently, only the votes in those swing states that you win seem to matter, and Obama's votes aren't as important. Now you are in Florida, citing a movie about the 2000 Florida recount that you haven't even seen yet. Your insistence on constantly moving the goal posts to serve your agenda would be humorous, if it weren’t so pathetic. Believing you are better than your opponent is one thing; asking rational people to undo a nine month process because you don't like the results is absurd.

Is there nothing you will not stoop to to capture this nomination? Your insistence that you be given all the Michigan votes - with none going to Obama because he was not on the ballot - is insulting to say the least. If every vote does in deed count, as you say, what about those people in Michigan who DIDN'T vote for you? Do you not think it logical to assume that had Obama been on the ballot that most if not all of them would’ve voted for him?

Face it, you have lost this race. There is no shame in admitting defeat, not when you've done the best you could. The only thing you can possibly accomplish by continuing this fight is to further polarize and divide an electorate going into the fall campaign. If you succeed at that you will forever have a footnote next to your name that will haunt you the rest of your days. Ask Ted Kennedy the next time you see him how he feels about the way he conducted himself in the 1980 Democratic primary. His actions severely compromised Jimmy Carter, making him even more vulnerable to Ronald Reagan in the general election.

I voted for you twice for senator; I even voted twice for your husband for president. But your continued irresponsible conduct over the last few days has given pause to many in the Democratic party and threatens to harm the party's chances in the fall. The fact that you are now quoting Karl Rove - an individual who clearly has no love loss for Democrats - only underscores the desperation of your candidacy. And as if that wasn’t bad enough, you are threatening to go all the way to Denver and force a brokered convention if your demands are not met. Enough is enough!

As someone who has seen enough of George Bush to last a lifetime, I am pleading with you to come to your senses and do what is right for the party you claim to love so much. If you act now, there will be plenty of time for healing the divisions within both camps. We need not fumble the ball on the one-yard line like we have so many times before!


Peter Fegan

INTOLERANCE COMES IN MANY FORMS.


“What do you call a Negro with a PhD? A nigger!”

- Malcolm X


The incendiary and provocative views of Reverend Jeremiah Wright regarding the treatment of African Americans at the hands of the U.S. government has sent political shockwaves through the Obama campaign that at its very least will cost the Illinois senator a few percentage points in opinion polls; polls that, like the weather in Florida, change by the hour it seems. At its worst, however, Wright’s views and Obama’s long-standing relationship to him, may well indeed undermine his presidential bid. If that happens, it would be a crying shame, especially in light of the fact that, for all its controversial tones and antagonistic overtures, a lot of what Wright said, however uncomfortable it might be for some to hear, was, at its heart, accurate.

The United States has never fully come to terms with, nor reconciled, its sorted and bloodied past. Whether it’s the wholesale slaughter of the American Indian during much of the 1800s, the formation of the Ku Klux Klan in the years after the Civil War: a period known by many blacks as the Jim Crow years, the anti-Semitism that aided and abetted the Nazi’s during World War II, or the atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam War, America has had its blood-stained hands full with acts of violence – both overt and covert – in its never-ending quest for, first, continental, then, global supremacy. A quest that, like the thirst of an alcoholic, knows no bounds or quenching.

Yes, we don’t openly call blacks “niggers’ anymore, and it is indeed rare when we hear of overt acts of violence like those that were committed in Mississippi and Alabama during the ‘60s. One could say that we have come a long way in the last three decades, and it would be tempting to even pronounce that the country has put its dark past behind itself. Such pronouncements, however comforting, are inherently wrong and dangerous, as Barack Obama courageously pointed out in his speech last week. The very fact that Reverend Wright’s words could illicit such an over the top reaction from most of white America proves that the nation still doesn’t get it. The analogy is that of the bully on the block who, having beaten to a pulp the puny kid several houses down, finally stopped the pummeling, magnanimously extended his hand and said, “Can’t we all just learn to live together,” only to be stunned to learn that the puny kid was still licking his wounds and wanted nothing to do with the empty gesture. No, “Gee, I’m terribly sorry; how can I make it up to you?” No, “I deeply regret the pain and suffering I inflicted on you.” Just a rather matter of fact, “Well at least we don’t string you up any more. What more do you want?” Even a dog that takes a crap on the carpet of your home shows more regret for his actions than most white Americans do when discussing their country’s atrocities against minorities. When forced to look at its ugly head even a little bit, the response usually goes something like this, “Ungrateful!” or “Today if you want to know who the real victim of racism is, it’s the white man!” or “If you don’t like the way you’ve been treated in America then get out!” Like a son or daughter that hasn’t come to terms with their parent’s drinking problem and reacts violently when confronted by it, most of white America simply doesn’t have the stomach to take a deep look into the abyss of three and a half centuries of racism and murder. Who would? To go back and examine it would be gut wrenching to say the least. So instead we suppress it and hope it goes away.

The problem though is that it doesn’t go away. It continues to fester deep within the races. Now and then someone comes along and picks the scab a bit and the centuries’ old wound bleeds a little as both sides come face to face with the staggering truth about their country. It is a truth that white America hopes will go away and one that black America knows all too well they can never escape from. Last year, Don Imus was made the poster boy for racial intolerance for his racist and insensitive remarks about the Rutgers Women’s basketball team. Finally, we were going to have a real adult conversation about race in this country and we owed it all to a 66 year old alcoholic loud mouth who made his living insulting just about every ethnic and racial group in America. Within weeks of Imus’ dismissal, however, both the issue and the opportunity vanished into the night, never to be heard from again. The bad guy got the boot, now we could all return to business as usual and be one happy family.

And then Jeremiah Wright’s comments surfaced. This time the scab was ripped right off and the blood flowed. Yet another opportunity has presented itself to have an intelligent discussion on race; instead all the media has wanted to focus on is Senator Obama’s lack of judgment and how it might hurt him in the general election. How could a prominent Presidential candidate associate himself with such a deplorable and, obviously, “divisive” individual? That became the topic of discussion in most white and even some black American homes. That Obama didn’t throw his “former” pastor under the bus is a tribute to his integrity. No matter how this plays out for him in the weeks and months ahead, my respect for him has grown tremendously.

But the greater issue, far more pressing than a mere presidential election, still awaits that ultimate reconciling. It is deeply rooted in our collective history and, whether we want to admit it or not, it defines our very existence. Denial only works for so long. Sooner or later the truth, like that proverbial 800-pound gorilla, will win out. We have passed laws that outlaw the deeds that were once a part of our every day lives as a nation, and that is good. But, like the addict in recovery who must now make an amends for past harms, in order to truly cleanse our souls, we must atone in our body politic for our nation’s sins. And we cannot do that until we first admit the heinous nature of the crimes for which we are guilty. We must stop lying to ourselves, stop blaming the victims of our actions, and stop hallucinating that somehow we are now the ones who are discriminated against merely because a black man got a promotion we thought we so richly deserved.

Reality is at hand, as is healing, if we truly desire it. We may not want to admit it publicly, but one day, hopefully, we may find, upon careful examination, that the words of Jeremiah Wright finally lead to a healthy debate that helped us along the path of true racial equality in America; an America where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s words finally came to fruition: “Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, we are free at last!”

EXIT STAGE LEFT AND RIGHT, ENTER CENTER STAGE or
M.O.R.: The Ultimate Four-Letter Word in Politics is Finally in Vogue.

A couple of weeks ago I was watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal was his guest. Stewart had an interesting thought regarding the candidates. He felt that “a McCain / Obama presidential election would be such a tonic for the country. Both are figures that seem not to be products of a pure political system.” Noonan agreed and added, “They don’t seem like (political) machine guys.”

No they do not, which might explain that while both have enjoyed huge success among likely voters, neither has gotten what can be reasonably called overly enthusiastic support from their respective party’s base. McCain, particularly, despite the political juggernaut he seems to be on, might as well be a leper as far as the conservative right is concerned. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, has publicly stated he would "never" vote for John McCain. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and basically the rest of the Rat pack of Right-Wing lunatics who seem intent on driving their ship into an iceberg, even with the prospect of a potential democratic win in November lurking over their heads, have gone out of their way to blast the Arizona senator for just about everything from being a luke-warm conservative to being the guy on the grassy knoll in Dallas in November of 1963. (Come to think of it, you’d think given what happened that day, McCain might actually be a hero had he actually been there). All kidding aside, despite his persistent support of the surge in Iraq, McCain is the ONLY Republican candidate who I would even consider voting for. And, on the Democratic side, Obama, likewise, has garnered a more than favorable stance among likely voters who have grown weary of the business as usual political chicanery. It certainly doesn’t hurt matters that his name isn’t Clinton, either.

What is even more fascinating, and uplifting all at the same time, is that the current front-runners seem to be polling very strong among voters who do not normally identify themselves with either political party. These middle of the roadies have come out in full bloom and are making their voices heard. In the ‘80s they were called Reagan Democrats, in the ‘90s they were called Clinton Republicans. But basically they are average people who have seen the divisiveness of the last seven and a half years and, like that famous 1970s movie, Network, they have stuck their heads out their collective windows and, at the top of their lungs, are screaming, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

It has always been my contention that one third of the nation is conservative, another is liberal and the remainder votes either way, depending on who makes the more convincing and persuasive argument. While political pundits on both sides of the aisle continue to miss the overall picture and insist that the nation is either conservative or liberal, the simple and undeniable truth is that, at least on a national level, voters usually vote for the guy, or girl as it might be, that they feel will be the best choice for the next four years. How else do you explain a dichotomy like Reagan in the ‘80s with Clinton in the ‘90s? Either the nation is schizophrenic or it’s just possible that despite their philosophical differences both men galvanized enough of a nation to land them in the white house, not once but twice.

Eight years ago the nation was on the verge of having a McCain / Bradley general election, which, had it happened, would’ve opened the door for a real debate on the issues. Who ever would’ve won that election would’ve been a breath of fresh air in a country used to stale leftovers. Instead what we got was Bush / Gore and, well you know what happened. I don’t need to drill that tooth again.

This time, my hope is we finally have a real chance to debate some real issues. Both Obama and McCain have different views on what the role of government should be and should both get the chance to debate each other this fall it would be most illuminating to witness. I can’t imagine a presidential election without mudslinging but I’d like to see one. I think the nation would like to see it also. Maybe that’s why both these men have done so well among voters who seem to cross over party lines. They are viewed as moderates by Democrats, sellouts by conservative Republicans, but this year they may well determine who the next president will be, and that makes them my new favorite group of people in the whole wide world, and I'm one of them!