It Can't Happen Here

Just as many on the Right see Obama as the head of a spear of radical, left-wing ideologues, poised to destroy the liberties granted by the Constitution, those of us on the Left see the Tea Party and Santorum, Bachmann, et al, as the tip of a spear of a radical evangelical movement that seeks to break down the separation of church and state and impose a Totalitarian Theocracy here in the US.

Recent examples include Santorum's queasiness with JFK's statements about separation of Church and State and the radical, evangelical pastor who introduced him last week, ranting about the US as a Christian Nation.

If Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" has provided a guiding cautionary tale for the GOP's brand of small-government libertarianism, then Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" is an equally important text for those of us on the Left who see the emerging threat of an Authoritarian Theocratic regime here in the US. The Nazis seemed civilized, as they sipped fine Rieslings and listened to Beethoven while committing unspeakable atrocity. We should remember that many Germans, including my great-grandfather, a German Jew who fought for Germany in WW I, never believed the Nazis could implement the Final Solution.

A friend of mine on Facebook, Robert Chandler, likes to write that "the impulse of the Left is totalitarian," which ignores the fact that the impulse of any extremist ideology is either totalitarian or authoritarian. The Right fears the collectivist/socialist ideology that underpinned Nazism, and the Left fears the nationalistic, white-supremacist side of the Nazis.

Thus, Chandler's description of Obamacare and Obama as part of a totalitarian takeover plot is not that different from saying US Evangelicals = Islamo-fascism/radicalism. Each description is driven by an assumption that: either; 1)  there is a radical, extreme version of the Left embodied by Obama; or, 2) there is a radical, extreme version of the Right embodied by the Tea Party.

Just as the Right is spooked by Jeremiah Wright, and believes that Obama is the embodiment of the most extreme statements his pastor uttered over the past 40 years, those of us on the Left are spooked by the likes of the Louisiana pastor who introduced Rick Santorum. As the Tea Party sees a Jeremiah Wright, anti-white form of Socialism embodied in the US Presidency, I see the threat of Totalitarian Theocracy in the Tea Party controlled GOP Congress and right-wing militias.

The main difference, of course, is that Obama has not implemented or recommended a single policy that is socialist or statist. While he has, disappointingly, extended many of the authoritarian positions Bush/Cheney implemented with the Patriot Act and the AUMF, he also removed Single Payer and embraced the Heritage Foundation/Mitt Romney approach to health care reform, and he allowed for expanded drilling, oil production and pipeline construction.

So, Obama is a bi-partisan, moderate. But the Tea Party has transformed the GOP into a party driven primarily by extremist social conservatives, embodied in the recent rash of Right Wing state legislatures passing pre-abortion ultrasound bills with "shaming rooms" and the racial-targeting of voter ID laws. Obamacare is not part of a War on Religion, but the Tea Party and its leading candidates and GOP-controlled State Legislatures have initiated a War on Women. While the current US Evangelical movements have merely burned Korans, not beheaded hostages, that does not mean "It Can't Happen Here."

There's a Bill Maher video where he shows that Islamist extremists are much worse than US ones. And that’s true, based on post-KKK US history. But, at the end of the video, he explains that those differences rest on the foundation of a government and politicians that honor the separation of church and state and rights for women.

Those are the rights now under attack by the leading GOP candidates and by the US Congress and GOP-controlled State Legislatures nationally. And that is why Left-wing fears are not unrealistic or absurd, but instead based on evidence, data and recent history -- not the hysterical exaggerations, caricatures and ranting of Fox News and right-wing talk radio.

The poster that could launch a thousand 3rd party candidates...

The "Texas Miracle"

Racist Underbelly of Anti-Health Care Movement Rears Its Ugly Head

In her most recent New York Times column, Maureen Dowd calls South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson a racist. In his interview with Fox News yesterday, Wilson defended himself as non-racist by saying that his family is from the next town over from Michelle Obama's family in South Carolina. He said that is why he has "great respect for the Obama family." Why? Because her ancestors used to be his ancestors' slaves? Because he actually has something in common with her, even though she's black?

Wilson's commitment to the Old South is further displayed when he says that he was not wrong to call Obama a liar. Wilson said that although the House bill specified that health benefits are intended only for US citizens, because the bill did not contain ID verification provisions, the language was meaningless, implying that Obama and Democrats secretly intend to offer public health care to illegal immigrants. This is an absurd leap, similar to most of the lies and claims being hurled by the exteme Right at health care reform.

Wilson should be rebuked at every level. And so should Republican politicians who stoke the claims of Birthers, Palin and other liars about health care reform. I agree with Dowd: the false assertions about the bill including Wilson's outburst are racially motivated. Whether it is Tea Party anti-government rhetoric, Birthers' lies or Palin's "death panels" the point is the same as it was 30 years ago when Lee Atwater and the RNC devised their Southern Strategy: promote low taxes and smaller government as a way to deprive "welfare queens" and other minorities of their uppity new laws and benefits -- a policy and agenda that exploits the racist hatred of mostly poorer, southern white Americans and lines the pockets of industrial titans who benefited from the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind: a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the richest 1% in America.

Obama should start work on a new speech as a follow-up to last week's fine presentation on health care and to his first race speech last year. If Obama can marginalize the racists instead of letting them dominate the debate, perhaps he stands a chance of getting health care reform passed. By continuing to attack the lies and hatred of the extreme Right, we might finally enjoy policies that are in the public interest. Policies that balance markets and government for the benefit of a majority, instead of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush era policies that mainly helped the privileged few.

Why Obama

1. He understands that complex problems like global terrorism demand nuanced, thoughtful and comprehensive solutions, not cowboy rhetoric, lies, torture, unilateralism and military occupations funded by foreign debt.

2. He will invest in healthcare and education by reversing the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 and by closing tax loopholes for corporations. Also, by cutting military spending and getting us out of Iraq. We used to call this fiscal conservatism. Even Reagan raised taxes several times after his initial cuts.

3. He has raised most of his money from small individual donations, not from lobbyists and wealthy donors. He is much more likely to make independent decisions free from special interests -- unlike McCain, who has 7 former lobbyists in top advisory positions in his campaign. Obama was smart to opt out of public financing, because he can raise more money on his own, which he will need to fight back all the Republican lies and smears.

4. He has been a leader in the Senate for increased veterans benefits, while McCain has consistently opposed them.

5. His platform represents a real change from the policy of the past 28 years. We've now had the luxury of enjoying nearly 30 straight years of the Republican revolution (Clinton implemented welfare-to-work, NAFTA, and signed banking de-regulation -- he was easily the most conservative democratic president of the 20th century), and our country is poorer, less educated, less healthy and has more people in jail than the rest of the western world. I think it's high time we let go of the myth that government has no role to play in helping to promote the public good. Unfettered, unregulated free markets have been a huge boon to those who are already powerful and wealthy, and who then use their power to take advantage of the little guy...ie Enron and the mortgage crisis. If supply-side economics worked, we would have seen its benefits by now.

6. Obama is pro-choice.

7. Obama will promote the development of alternative energy, McCain has consistently voted against all legislation to promote alternative energy.

8. Obama has an experienced running mate, who complements his candidacy. McCain has an inexperienced running mate who has repeatedly lied about her experience as a reformer. Did you hear she charged the state of Alaska per diem charges for 300 nights she spent staying in her own house? And, she promoted the "bridge to nowhere" as part of her campaign for Governor. She only said "thanks, but no thanks" after the Alaska legislature voted to de-fund it and then she went ahead and took the earmark for the bridge and spent it on other pet projects. Reform? No, more of the same.

Spiritual Advisor Politics

Recent opinion by Bob Herbert in The New York Times implies that in a decent world, Wright showing up and making his speeches this past week would have been a small paragraph on page 9. But, we live in a world where Republican smear tactics are the norm and blend in perfectly with a pornographic tableau of the entire culture. As long as media companies rely on the generation of fear, hysteria and disbelief in order to generate maximum revenue, it is unlikely that mainstream journalism will be able to ask the tough questions necessary to move past pornography. Even reputable journalists like MSNBC's Chris Matthews participated in the endless echo chamber of the Rev. Wright "controversy" last week.

There is hope in this opinion by Frank Rich, which suggests that Obama will be able to refute Rev. Wright-based swift-boat style attacks from Republicans. Herbert shows that while everyone is giving McCain a free pass and focused on Hillary's mad wind-up to defeat, McCain is vulnerable to associations with white televangelist Rev. John Hagee. And, McCain recently praised Jerry Falwell, whose kooky comments about the 9/11 attacks make Rev. Wright look normal.

I wonder if the Obama campaign will draw attention to the fact that Billy Graham spewed anti-Semitic comments and gave advise to Nixon, and yet even with this being in the public record, Hillary Clinton took solace in Graham's words during the Lewinsky scandal.

Obama should use all this -- exposing a double-standard and defusing Wright-inspired "swift-boat" style bombs being hurled by Clinton, Republicans and most mainstream media.

Obama Leverages Word-of-Mouth

The lead article in Newsweek reveals that Barack Obama's win in Iowa is partly attributable to a strong reliance on traditional word-of-mouth. According to the article, Obama's campaign has been recruiting hairdressers in South Carolina and used high-school students in Iowa to help spread the word about Obama. He has also bucked conventional campaign wisdom and run an entirely positive campaign, never deigning to go negative on his opponents. While the low-tech methods have served him well, Obama's campaign has also leveraged Facebook, as shown by this graph:

Based on Obama's recent, convincing win in Iowa yesterday, a win leveraged largely on an unusually strong turn-out of pro-Obama voters under age 25, we can certainly conclude that not only is Obama's positive message a winning one, but that his ability to leverage both traditional and online social networking is undoubtedly one of the key drivers of his current success.