Broken Congress: I call 'em as I schism

Sara Robinson tells us that within authoritarian leadership:

...schisms are so frequent as to be almost comic. Jealousy between leaders runs high, egos are prickly, tempers volatile, emotional intelligence not much in evidence. The more followers they get, the less stable alliances become. This internal instability is predictable...

Sara's analysis explains Kristol's criticism within the blood-thirsty neocon camp and his potshots at Rumsfeld. Under the weight of the disaster in Iraq, even William F. Buckley, "the father of modern conservatism," recently characterized the war as a failure and rejected Bush's interventionist foreign policy:

"If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign."

I never thought I would agree with a quote from Buckley so Earth's missing glaciers must be on holiday in Hell. Last fall, Brent Scowcroft, Poppy Bush's personal friend and the former president's national security advisor, broke his silence to go on the record with his dissatisfaction in the Bush II Administration and the "revolutionary utopianism" of neocons in power. From Jane Hamsher I learned that Scowcroft had publicly called Junior a buffoon. Most of the right-wing rhetoric has centered around Bush, his failures, and that's plenty to wag about. But what of the legislative branch, the rubber-stamp Republicans who have followed the Bush WH in lockstep as if they had enlisted in a partisan army?

A new book, Broken Branch, co-authored by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, reverberates with the clanging of an alarm bell. Congress is broken. Very broken. Dysfunctional and ineffective. Admittedly, I don't know Norman Ornstein to assume if he has been a leading contender in the con-apparatchiki but I tag him as part of the conservative wing that's awake, e.g., Kevin Phillips and John Dean. My reservation is that Ornstein hails from the American Enterprise Institute, a GOP spin tank. His cohort, Thomas Mann, comes from the Brookings Institution as a scholar of Governance Studies and may best be described as centrist. Alan Wolfe at WaMo distinguished both as "fair-minded." To his credit, Ornstein joined former Reagan deputy attorney general Bruce Fein in portraying Bush's NSA wiretapping program as an impeachable offense. Perhaps he's migrated out of the swamp of Republican radicalism if ever he were stuck in its mire. I dunno. One thing for certain, Mann and Ornstein excoriate the Republican-dominated Congress among others. A CNN interview with Ornstein and Mann (with emphasis):

PILGRIM: You know, I think we have a quote from the book that really sums up a lot. And let's take a look at it. In your book you say, "Congress has had its ups and downs in realizing the intentions of the framers. Sadly, today it is down, very much the broken branch of government."

Now, how is this Congress failing the American public?

NORMAN ORNSTEIN, AUTHOR: Well, it's failing it in a lot of ways. One is in the process. The regular order is something we call the kind of web of rules and norms that govern any institution. Now they're stretched beyond belief. Votes that are supposed to take 15 minutes take three hours. There's no sense of bringing a bill to the floor after people have taken a look at it, 1,000, 2,000-page bills come up in the middle of the night [under the Vampire Congress] with nobody having examined them beforehand.

There's no oversight of what the executive branch does. And bad process in this case leads to bad policy, whether it's the Medicare prescription drug bill, the bankruptcy bill, or the Congress operates in protecting Americans in a variety of places.

PILGRIM: It does on occasion seem quite chaotic. Why is this? Why suddenly?

MANN: Well, it didn't develop overnight. The seeds of the problems of the broken branch were planted decades ago. Certainly near the end of the democratic reign in the House, many of these same problems were emerging, but they took on a sort of special form when we had the first united Republican government since Dwight Eisenhower.

The focus was on passing the president's program and nothing else mattered. So the major leaders in Congress saw themselves as lieutenants of the president, not as custodians of the first branch of government, the lynch pin of American democracy, and so they didn't look out for how that process ought to operate, how they ought to stand up to the executive.

PILGRIM: So we can clearly blame our elected officials for not representing the American people?

ORNSTEIN: You can certainly blame them, you bet. This is not a way to operate. And what Congress has done is to in this year in particular, we have the smallest number of days in session. Every day on this show you talk about the important problems facing this country: the squeeze on the middle class, immigration. We've got Iraq, we have the war in the Middle East. Less than 100 days in session out of the 365. Here in most of those days for only a couple of hours, they don't do deliberation. They don't do debate. They're not addressing the policies that matter for the country.

PILGRIM: You know, it's -- what should the American public do? They can't just throw up their hands and say what can you do with these people, can they?

MANN: Well, it all begins with the American voters because we can talk about rules changes, procedural changes in Congress and we have a lot to suggest. But in order to get the attention of the leaders in Congress and the members, you have to have a public that's energized, that's angry, that threatens to throw the rascals out if they don't act in a responsible and accountable fashion.

It all has to start with the voters. But it's not just this populist attack on the institution. We love the Congress. It is an institution we've admired for years. We need the public to be nuanced to say, "We don't want you back here all the time campaigning or raising money. We want to you spend some time doing serious work. Talk about policy and grapple with these problems. Don't engage in these games with us."

PILGRIM: Well you certainly have spent enough time looking at the system to know that some shifting could be done in terms of rules. Is there anything that you can suggest?

ORNSTEIN: Well, there are a lot of things. We need ethics and lobbying reform desperately. And Congress has just given the back of the hand to that. We need to have a series of clear rules when it comes to earmarks, which have just careened out of control and frankly create a corrupting atmosphere, waste an enormous amount of money and don't set priorities.

Even starting with disclosure of who is sponsoring these things and where the money is going and even resistance to that. We've got to get back to doing some oversight. But just as much as we need these kinds of rules, reforms, we have got to have members of Congress who will say that we're going to abide by the rules that we have. Frankly, we need a press corps that is even more vigilant that holds them to account, their feet to the fire. We haven't had as much as we need, in the last few years.

PILGRIM: Do you believe that's true that the press has not done their job?

MANN: I think that's right. Listen, local reporters in some cases have done quite a good job. Look at those in California who uncovered Randy "Duke" Cunningham's real estate transactions. Just looking at the core real estate documents back home, which set in motion a whole series of further investigations.

So the press needs to be tough, not just scandal-mongering, but holding Congress to account to see that it runs and conducts its own business in a way that's faithful to its rules and to the grand design of the framers of our constitution to have this really be the core of our democratic system.

ORNSTEIN: Kitty, the most important point here is this is not just something for wonks like us who have been immersed in Congress for a very long time. This is of vital interest to every American. Every day there are policies that shape our lives. For older people who have to go and get pharmaceuticals, for people who are concerned about the borders, for issues whether we're actually going to be able to deal with Iraq, for the spending that we do, all of us are affected. And if Congress doesn't operate, if it's dysfunctional, as it is now, deeply dysfunctional, then it is not just something that affects the two of us. It affects everybody.

Tell us something the liberal Netroots hasn't already articulated. Welcome aboard the blogofascist bandwagon. Better late than never, I suppose, although the book releases at an opportune time as we head toward the midterm elections.

So let me sum up. Voters must throw the bums out and remain involved in political life. Check. Effective ethics and meaningful lobby reform. Check. Oversight and accountability. Check. Respect the separation of powers and quit kowtowing to the executive branch. Exclamation point! Replace the lapdog press with pitbull publishers. Uh-hm. Now what's missing? I can't quite scratch the itch in my brain. But it's something important. Hmmm. Anyone?

Katrina wake-up call

The evil that men do. Gaia's gonna git you.

Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.

Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.

Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.

Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.

The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.

More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.

I'm glad I'm on good terms with the Goddess.

The return of the authoritarians

Continuing her series on authoritarians at Orcinus, Sara Robinson, in Tunnels and Bridges, Part I: Divide and Conquer, reminds us through the words of our founding fathers that democracies must:

...[re-create themselves] continuously as each generation reasserts its freedom against fresh generations of would-be rulers. It's an ongoing conversation about liberty, equality, and power that's re-negotiated – sometimes more peacefully, sometimes less -- every day.

...High-social-dominance (SDO) authoritarian leaders are always among us, always pushing, always scheming, always looking for their next chance. There is no opportunity to take control, legally or illegally, that they won't fail to exploit, as long as the gains promise to outweigh the costs. As Edmund Burke did not say (but usually gets the attribution for anyway): all that's required for them to succeed in this endless quest for power is for the rest of us to do nothing.

We can't sit on our laurels lest:

the day comes when you've got a fundamentalist school board trying to teach your kids young-earth creationism; or militia guys jackbooting up Main Street at noon and performing blitz redecorating on the local synagogue at midnight; or a born-again president trying to bring on Armageddon for the profit of the oil companies and the acclaim of his Rapture-minded followers.

We have witnessed the above come to pass. Now what do we do? Sara proposes we understand the three classes of authoritarians.

First, (1) SDO leaders are virtually all male in ruthless pursuit of their own goals. They never change or relent in using all possible means including the thwarting or changing of law and decisions that kill people, e.g., the Iraq War. What's the best counter-measure remedy besides recognizing who they are? Isolate them.

Next, (2) hard-core right-wing authoritarian (RWA) followers reared in "authoritarian homes" or brainwashed with a lengthy adult indoctrination rarely give up their ways. Don't expect them to change. Just move on.

Last, (3) “soft-core” RWA followers:

...[they] probably came to authoritarianism during an episode of major life stress, or were seduced into it with heavy propaganda from friends and right-wing media. This group may form as much as half of the current authoritarian voter pool in America. These people usually weren't always authoritarians; and they're the ones we have the greatest hope of bringing back around to a full embrace of democratic principles.

Now for the game plan. Sara navigates us through approaches to all three types. For (1) SDO authoritarian leaders, it's best to "identify and isolate" them. Sara recommends books such as John's Dean's, Conservative Without Conscience, to heighten one's skill at spotting traits and modus operandi. To isolate them, expose them publicly with proof. Luckily, the

predictable amorality of high-SDO authoritarian leaders means they've got piles of bones buried in their back yards -- many of which can be dug up with surprisingly little effort, especially in these days of electronic public records and global Web access.

These guys leave victims behind, people who can testify, laws that have been broken. Document it.

Second, exploit schisms:

In most authoritarian groups, whether religious or political, schisms are so frequent as to be almost comic. Jealousy between leaders runs high, egos are prickly, tempers volatile, emotional intelligence not much in evidence. The more followers they get, the less stable alliances become. This internal instability is predictable -- and exploitable, in the hands of a smart opposition. (According to one experienced activist, if you've got good dirt on one leader, make sure it first gets into the hands of his most ambitious co-consipirator – then sit back and watch the fun begin.)

All we need to do is stick together better than they do. For some of us, that's not always easy; but victory belongs to the last team standing. Sometimes, with these guys, it's just a matter of waiting for their own hubris to finish the job for you.

For (2) the RWA follower, don't "count on their outrage" when their leaders have been discredited although they "usually just fade away quietly into the woodwork."

However, be sure you get their names before they go: the odds are good that you'll see them again, years later, emerging under the banner of another charismatic leader....

...This is the group most likely to commit political violence. As these followers move away from their discredited leaders, it's especially important that strong community voices make it absolutely clear that aggression will not be tolerated -- and will be prosecuted, either in the court of law or the court of public opinion. In particular, they need to be told in no uncertain terms that, in the larger community, there is no such a thing as a righteous or acceptable violent act. We know who they are; we regard them as troublemakers; and they will not enjoy our support or mercy if they continue to create problems within our community.

For the last group, (3) “soft-core” RWA followers, arrives the best news-- they are "more likely to be sensitive to public embarrassment." When their leaders become discredited, they can feel betrayed.

Their leader has exposed them to the jeers of their peers, and made them look personally ridiculous. For people who believe in their deepest hearts that they are more moral and righteous than others, the public and humiliating loss of moral authority within the community can lead to a moment of re-direction.

During that shift, many of them will be looking for stronger, more stable authority to lean on. Remember that RWA followers respond to legitimate authority -- and for most of the soft-care, that usually still includes the cops, courts, and clergy. It's critical to have these authorities standing by to provide the rules and structure these followers crave, and who can model constructive behavior.

Sara's excellent work does not end here. In Tunnels and Bridges, Part II: Nothing to Fear But Fear Itself, she examines the need to minimize fear:

Taking fear reduction to the community and national scale is pretty much the same process. The ground rules are: find and build from our common ground; appeal to authorities they're bound to respect; and speak from strength, always avoiding weak and ambiguous language.

Click the link for a detailed breakdown about family, moral common ground, credible authorities, passionate speech, and other tactics.

In Tunnels and Bridges, Part III: A Bigger World, we learn about the abysmal state of civics knowledge among high school graduates, the lack of liberal education, cultural isolationism, and the failure of the Democratic Party for its rural flight from small-town America.

Sara's series will continue with Landing Zones. So stay tuned or visit Orcinus for the next installment.

PREVIOUSLY on this series at RealSpiel:
Authoritarians: who are they?
John Dean on authoritarians
Recovering from authoritarianism
Authoritarian follow-up
Helping authoritarians change

Urbanization explosion

BBC News provides an interesting interactive map on urban growth around the world. By moving a slide bar along a dateline, you can graphically compare urban population from 1955 to the projected density for 2015. Mouse over a plum-colored dot and a box pops up with the population statistic by city. I grabbed two charts. The first from 1985 (above) shows:

In the 1980s Asia sees a resurgence of growth in cities as urbanisation gathers pace again in China. Growth rates have slowed globally, however, particularly in Latin America, although they remain high in Africa. There are now [2 billion] urban dwellers worldwide. The worlds' biggest city, Tokyo, has reached [30 million].

Fast forward 20 years later to 2015 and the map looks like this...

The world's urban population is expected to hit [4 billion] between 2015 and 2020, about the same time as China becomes more than 50% urbanised. Most of the growth will happen in Africa and Asia, with Africa's urban population growing fastest in percentage terms and Asia seeing the biggest volume of growth.
SOURCE:UN DESA(2005)

Holy cow, people. Within 20-25 years, about one generation, the urban population doubles. Think of the implications: economics, transportation, real estate, health care, infrastructure such as water and energy, and more. What are we going to do with all the people?

Media and GOP talking point parrots

...[E]ach new suggestion ...had filled up a patch of emptiness and become absolute truth, and when two and two could have been three as easily as five, if that were what was needed. ... --George Orwell, 1984
Media Matters reported:

On the August 24 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer again left unchallenged Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Ken Mehlman's false assertion that the American public does not support a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Moments after asking Mehlman about a CNN poll [PDF] conducted August 18-20 that showed that 52 percent of respondents believe the Iraq war is a "distraction," Blitzer allowed Mehlman to assert that the American people "understand the last thing we want to do is cut and run on a political timetable, which would give a huge victory for the enemy." However, the only two polls to ask a question about withdrawing troops from Iraq in August found that a majority of Americans support a timetable for withdrawal. [click for poll links].

That was on Thursday, Aug. 24. Then on Sunday:

An August 27 article by Washington Post staff writers Jim VandeHei and Zachary A. Goldfarb misrepresented recent polling to depict the American public as "evenly split" on the issue of withdrawal from Iraq. Similarly, National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne falsely claimed on the August 27 edition of NBC's Meet the Press that the public does "not support leaving prematurely, and a timetable to do so." In fact, several recent polls have found that a majority of Americans support setting a timetable for withdrawal.

So the American public supports Democratic proposals--a timetable for troop withdrawal. Well, can't have that! Out fly parrots squawking the same line to propagandize the GOP position and to obscure the facts. Someone's faxed GOP talking points to the con-apparatchiki again. Just follow the cracker-crumb trail. Ha!

Have the so-called liberal media always been a figment of "manufactured reality" like those mythical creatures--unicorns and fairy godmothers? *Sigh.* When will media quit acting as the coordinated mouthpieces for conservatives? Perhaps hoping for a free press might be wishful thinking in these days of media consolidation. Two + two = three. Or five. Depends on the RNC talking point memo du jour.

Katherine Harris: Separation of church and state is a lie

Conservative U.S. Rep Katherine Harris, who as former Florida Secretary of State helped deliver the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, leaps back into the headlines. CNN/Jack Cafferty just aired a segment on her based on an interview she granted to the Florida Baptist Witness. A few days ago, the Sun-Sentinel quoted the interview in which Harris says that the separation of church and state is a lie:

...God did not intend for the United States to be a "nation of secular laws" and that a failure to elect Christians to political office will allow lawmaking bodies to "legislate sin."

How does Harris know God's intentions for America and who can say definitively what is sin? The "sin" concept is a matter of freedom of religion. My beliefs, I daresay, differ greatly from Harris' and other Christians of her ilk. Did she get an email announcement from God, your God, my God, everybody's God on her revelation? What of atheists' non-god? There's more:

In an interview with the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention, Harris described her faith, saying it animates "everything I do," including her votes in Congress.

She warned that if voters do not send Christians to office, they risk creating a government that is doomed to fail.

"If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," she told interviewers, citing abortion and gay marriage as two examples of that sin.

We have a Congress full of Christians and yet that doesn't seem to protect Americans from corruption and bribery schemes. Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham, anyone? Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed know a lot about "sin" as well. The Republican-dominated Congress, many of whom are Christians, defeated the anti-gay marriage amendment. And what is sin? The Quakers thought the Iraq resolution passed in Congress was a horrific sin. And that's the bigger point. In Harris' specific religious denomination, gay marriage is a sin. Other Christians do not agree. According to my Creator, gay marriage is a blessing being denied to America's lesbian and gay couples and that's a sin! Also, abortion may be a mistake for some, but not for all, and it certainly isn't the hellfire and brimstone idea of sin that Harris believes in. But that's my religious belief as protected under the Constitution.

Doing so, she said, "will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don't know better, we are leading them astray and it's wrong..."

Ha! She really needs to catch up on some reading. World opinion polls cite America as a bigger problem to world peace than Iran. U.S. credibility and image needs a comeback after Bush's disastrous misadventures in Iraq. Check with American opinion about Bush's standing with foreign leaders too. And then there's a matter of the president's poor approval ratings. Bush says he believes in God and certainly makes a lot noise about it. So, Ms. Harris, your point about U.S. world leadership would be? Are you trying to say George is a hypocrite and that's why the world and most Americans don't approve of him?

Harris said that Americans "have internalized" the "lie" that church and state must not be mixed. In reality, she said, "we have to have the faithful in government" because that is God's will.

Separating religion and politics is "so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers," Harris said. "And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women," then "we're going to have a nation of secular laws. That's not what our founding fathers intended and that's (sic) certainly isn't what God intended."

Well, perhaps Ms. Harris' and the SCOTUS' role in choosing Bush in 2000 was an act of God in her mind. But I wonder if Ms. Harris has ever read the Constitution that the founding fathers wrote. In a democracy, we elect representatives, not rulers, and they are accountable to the people. Ever heard of impeachment? Cornell Law School explains (with emphasis):

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion.

Favoring Christians over Jews or Muslims or Wiccans is not what the founders scribed or intended if one reads the Federalist Papers. Frankly, I think Harris has lost her mind and is one of those wannabe SDO authoritarians infused with religiosity and demagoguery that Sara Robinson has written about. Good news is she lags far behind in polling so her chances of being elected in the GOP Senate primary grow dim. Let me pause and give thanks to the Goddess!

Real wage failure

In the November midterm elections, I hope Democrats can capitalize on the war against the middle-class. If you're a millionaire, you probably love Bushian voodoo economics. However, Republicans have failed as stewards of the economy for the overwhelming majority of Americans (with emphasis):

With the economy beginning to slow, the current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers.

[..]

The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period.

As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as “the golden era of profitability.”

[..]

Economists offer various reasons for the stagnation of wages. Although the economy continues to add jobs, global trade, immigration, layoffs and technology — as well as the insecurity caused by them — appear to have eroded workers’ bargaining power.

Trade unions are much weaker than they once were, while the buying power of the minimum wage is at a 50-year low. And health care is far more expensive than it was a decade ago, causing companies to spend more on benefits at the expense of wages.

Together, these forces have caused a growing share of the economy to go to companies instead of workers’ paychecks. In the first quarter of 2006, wages and salaries represented 45 percent of gross domestic product, down from almost 50 percent in the first quarter of 2001 and a record 53.6 percent in the first quarter of 1970, according to the Commerce Department. Each percentage point now equals about $132 billion.

Total employee compensation — wages plus benefits — has fared a little better. Its share was briefly lower than its current level of 56.1 percent in the mid-1990’s and otherwise has not been so low since 1966.

Over the last year, the value of employee benefits has risen only 3.4 percent, while inflation has exceeded 4 percent, according to the Labor Department.

In Europe and Japan, the profit share of economic output is also at or near record levels, noted Larry Hatheway, chief economist for UBS Investment Bank, who said that this highlighted the pressures of globalization on wages. Many Americans, be they apparel workers or software programmers, are facing more comptition from China and India.

In another recent report on the boom in profits, economists at Goldman Sachs wrote, “The most important contributor to higher profit margins over the past five years has been a decline in labor’s share of national income.” Low interest rates and the moderate cost of capital goods, like computers, have also played a role, though economists note that an economic slowdown could hurt profits in coming months.

For most of the last century, wages and productivity — the key measure of the economy’s efficiency — have risen together, increasing rapidly through the 1950’s and 60’s and far more slowly in the 1970’s and 80’s.

But in recent years, the productivity gains have continued while the pay increases have not kept up. Worker productivity rose 16.6 percent from 2000 to 2005, while total compensation for the median worker rose 7.2 percent, according to Labor Department statistics analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group. Benefits accounted for most of the increase.

“If I had to sum it up,” said Jared Bernstein, a senior economist at the institute, “it comes down to bargaining power and the lack of ability of many in the work force to claim their fair share of growth.”

Nominal wages have accelerated in the last year, but the spike in oil costs has eaten up the gains. Now the job market appears to be weakening, after a protracted series of interest-rate increases by the Federal Reserve.

Unless these trends reverse, the current expansion may lack even an extended period of modest wage growth like one that occurred in the mid-1980’s.

The most recent recession ended in late 2001. Hourly wages continued to rise in 2002 and peaked in early 2003, largely on the lingering strength of the 1990’s boom.

Average family income, adjusted for inflation, has continued to advance at a good clip, a fact Mr. Bush has cited when speaking about the economy. But these gains are a result mainly of increases at the top of the income spectrum that pull up the overall numbers. Even for workers at the 90th percentile of earners — making about $80,000 a year — inflation has outpaced their pay increases over the last three years, according to the Labor Department.

“There are two economies out there,” Mr. Cook, the political analyst, said. “One has been just white hot, going great guns. Those are the people who have benefited from globalization, technology, greater productivity and higher corporate earnings.

“And then there’s the working stiffs,’’ he added, “who just don’t feel like they’re getting ahead despite the fact that they’re working very hard. And there are a lot more people in that group than the other group.”

In 2004, the top 1 percent of earners — a group that includes many chief executives — received 11.2 percent of all wage income, up from 8.7 percent a decade earlier and less than 6 percent three decades ago, according to Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, economists who analyzed the tax data.

Yeah, folks we turned the corner headed toward a redux of the Gilded Age. Middle-class workers must fend for themselves--YOYO Republican style.

Now for a bit of propaganda from the right-wing side:

Republicans counter that the tax cuts passed during Mr. Bush’s first term helped lifted the economy out of recession. Unless the cuts are extended, a move many Democrats oppose, the economy will suffer, and so will wages, Republicans say.

Oh, sure. The Republican cult of corruption has a vested interest in keeping the gravy train rollin' via the top 1-percent-ers. Republicans have been scamming the public by advertising that tax cuts would pay for themselves, another propaganda ploy to tamp down objections to Bushian voodoo economics. How come Republicans aren't fessin' up to the facts? As Dana Milbank revealed, "groups such as the Congressional Budget Office have reported that the Bush tax cuts have shifted the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class."

Of course, wages will suffer. But whose wages? CEOs? As if middle-class earnings haven't already been strangled! The Bush Administration and congressional Republicans put a choke hold on a minimum wage increase, attacked overtime pay, eroded working class jobs with outsourcing, lax immigration, you name it. Corporate masters have been handed a carte blanche billy club to bludgeon labor costs sending jobs to cheap labor markets overseas, kicking pension plans to the curb, cutting health care benefits, and to gouge consumers by goosing prescription drugs into the stratosphere, deriving historical profits on oil and gasoline. In the "golden era of profitability," who's your daddy, Mr. CEO? Bush and his Rubber-stamp Republicans are. Whose side were Republicans on when Bush's prescription drug bill prohibited government from securing the most competitive drug prices possible? And who handed out billions of dollars to Big Pharma, corporate welfare subsidized by American taxpayers? As far as the economy's alleged lift, how much ignition was gained from big federal government borrow-and-spending courtesy Republicans and Bush? War profiteers have nearly printed money for themselves with no-bid contracts and negligible accountability. You've got to appreciate real con man genius: The tab for Bush comes after he leaves office brought to you by congressional Republicans who stamped every appropriation with a crooked smile.

So naturally, Republicans never met a Big Lie they didn't like. Rally the troops quick before Americans catch on to dubious economic flim-flammery:

But in a sign that Republicans may be growing concerned about the public’s mood, the new Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., adopted a somewhat different tone from Mr. Bush in his first major speech, delivered early this month.

“Many aren’t seeing significant increases in their take-home pay,” Mr. Paulson said. “Their increases in wages are being eaten up by high energy prices and rising health care costs, among others.”

At the same time, he said that the Bush administration was not responsible for the situation, pointing out that inequality had been increasing for many years. “It is neither fair nor useful,” Mr. Paulson said, “to blame any political party.”

Ha! Fair? How fair is it to have had a Clinton budget surplus obliterated by Republicans who campaigned as fiscal conservatives? Give me a break. Pull out the miniature violin quartet and play Paulson a tune. Go cry me a river and then clean up the mess Republicans have made. Better yet, let Democrats clean up the mess. They know how to use a mop and a broom in understanding America's working class.

Hate speech of the week

Sexism alert! Back in 1885-90, before discrimination and sexual harassment against women became U.S. law, the term, hysterectomy, was invented. Through the eyes of men, women were perceived as too emotional. So male doctors removed the uterus to alleviate female hysteria. To this day, the medical misnomer based on the male-conceived misdiagnosis continues to be used in our language but the surgery has nothing to do with hysterics. Permit me to don my sarcasm cap for a moment: Perhaps I could understand the word's current usage if overwrought women were to commit hysterical acts by invading countries over WMDs when none were there. Or wringing their hands over fictional Nigerian uranium asserted to have been bought by Saddam to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear program. Who has hyped terror, terror, 9/11, and more terror? Tell me, who shakes in his boots over gays in the military?

I have had enough of negative stereotyping of "emotional" women by men. This week's hate speech designation goes to a man arrogant enough to viciously nip at an antiwar female protester who underwent a hysterectomy. The recipient? James Taranto:

In his August 24 "Best of the Web Today" column, Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto used reports of anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's recent hysterectomy to joke that Sheehan underwent the procedure as a cure for hysteria.

Taranto wrote:

It's All Ova but the Shouting

OK, I'm already offended by the title of Taranto's post. Callous, adolescent, and crass spring to mind. This is the WSJ, folks, an allegedly (and I'm using the adverb allegedly with exclamation marks!!!) esteemed national business journal. You would think the newspaper would know about best practices in the workplace and get a clue that women, you know, now work, are CEOs, senior and middle managers of companies, and might be subscribers. What is the WSJ? Is it a corporate chauvinistic locker room where snickering sexist tripe gets rewarded with a byline? Here's the rest of Taranto's toxic sexism courtesy Media Matters of America:

"Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was recovering Wednesday at Providence Health Center in Waco after undergoing a hysterectomy on Tuesday," reports Waco, Texas' KWTX-TV.

In an article titled "Atrocities Performed Upon Women in the Name of Science," Dr. John R. Christopher observes: "The hysterectomy was originally performed upon women to cure them of hysteria." It seems some people still have backward ideas about women's health.

OK, first of all, the KWTX-TV news report made no reference whatsoever about hysteria and hysterectomies. Zero. The addition of the link to the doctor's article was a James Taranto concoction. Are you understanding the belittling slant he attached to the Sheehan story and to women in general who have had the surgical procedure? From the linked article with additional sentences Mr. Taranto left out (with emphasis added):

The hysterectomy was originally performed upon women to cure them of hysteria. So the word for the operation was not uterectomy or ovariectomy, but hysterectomy. Truly a male chauvinist term.

Taranto stretches this story to dubiously claim that "some people still have backward ideas about women's health." Still? This term originated in the 19th century and has been disavowed so speak for yourself, Mr. Taranto. What is the value of James' malicious absurdity in linking the women's issues column to Cindy Sheehan? Nothing but male chauvinism implicitly attempting to ankle-bite a vocal ("shouting") antiwar, anti-Bush activist by maligning her for being a hysterical woman in need of having her uterus removed. Sexism in the form of Bush-ism runs amok.

I want Taranto fired. Pronto. If I worked at the WSJ, I would file a sexual harassment complaint immediately. How do the women who work for the WSJ feel about sexist innuendo? Do you think there are any women at the WSJ who have had hysterectomies? How do they feel to read a colleague's sexist piffle approved as worthy to publish? I don't like Taranto's un-funny joke one bit and I will voice my disdain not only to the contacts that Media Matters provides (see below), but to the WSJ's human resource department as well. I encourage all women and female-affirming men to do the same.

I'm so outraged I am ready to write WSJ advertisers especially their employment classified advertisers. Just try running an ad that states, Women who haven't had hysterectomies may still be considered hysterical by backward people. Applicants beware. The advertising veep would refuse to run such an ad. I would bet big money on it. What makes the WSJ's editorial board think its online op/ed pages can eviscerate women verbally and that it's OK? So what's next? Racist watermelon insults aimed at African-Americans who oppose the Iraq War or Bush?

Here's the contact info at the WSJ. Give me some time to locate the human resource department contact in an update. For now, write and express your objections:

Wall Street Journal
WSJ Editorial Staff: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
WSJ Feedback: wsjcontact@dowjones.com

Anybody have any ideas on symbolic "gifts" we can mail to the WSJ in protest? Leave suggestions in comments or email me. Please, think of a cheap item to communicate the shoddiness of the WSJ's lax stewardship. Maybe sanitary napkins would hint how Taranto is no longer necessary, ought to be shed, and what a "rag" the WSJ has become for allowing such insidious hate speech.

Swing the labrys, women! I want to promote a Fire Taranto campaign until he has been given the axe. Cancel your subscriptions until the WSJ cleans up its editorial staff. Suggestions are welcome. Stay tuned.

The crucifixion of Madonna

When I saw the news reports about Madonna's mock crucifixion, I had to smile. She has some moxie. Sure, I have some quibbles about the Material Girl but her faux crucifixion isn't one of them. Overall, I admire Madonna. She's one helluva of an entertainer and I love her provocative style. She makes people think as artists should.

When religious critics denounced her for Christ-bashing and "an act of bad taste," I thought how odd. On any given Easter, someone with a beard climbs up on a cross to play Jesus in Christian pageants across America. So what's the problem? Do people really think that Jesus was the only person in history to have been crucified? Can't they appreciate the metaphor that symbolizes who's been nailed to the cross of scorn and condemnation? I can think of some groups of people who have been persecuted, scourged, and murdered just for being who they are. Can't you?

As Madonna hung from the fake cross during her concert, she performed the song, Live To Tell, which contains some appropriate lyrics, a tribute of sorts to the downtrodden, to victims of hate crimes, and to martyred innocents:

The light that you could never see
It shines inside, you can't take that from me

But then I read a disturbing report about Russian mobsters who were planning to kidnap Madonna and her kids allegedly over her "controversial mock crucifixion, in which she wears a crown of fake thorns while performing on a mirrored cross." Whoa! When folks take religion so seriously that they react violently and criminally with threats of bodily harm, their intimidation is reminiscent of fanatical extremists, or dare I say, religious terrorists. Life imitates art when zealous thugs menace Madonna and her children over a staged drama. Who has condemned these mobsters?

Hunting in the right blogosphere for voices who defended the Danish cartoons that set the Muslim world on fire with outrage at westerners, Digby found hardly a word uttered in Madonna's defense. When Muslims vehemently protested and condemned the cartoons, on the conservative side...

They all agreed that free speech and a free press were fundamental western values and that simply because certain religious people somewhere might be offended by certain images, it was no reason to withhold them. Indeed, it was reason to publish them, which many of these right wing bloggers did, with no compunction about offending the muslims in their own communities or around the world.

But strangely, I saw nothing about this Madonna thing. Perhaps they just haven't heard about this affront to liberal western values yet. But then, they have some rather strange ideas about what political speech should be defended and what should be condemned, don't they? They went crazy when Jane Hamsher posted a satirical image of Joe Lieberman in blackface and didn't even blink an eye at their own intellectual inconsistency. At the time I looked around for some of their stirring defenses of the Danish cartoons and found many. It was a certifiable cause in the right blogosphere, all done in the name of western liberal values.

Jeff Goldstein, for instance, wrote this:

This battle over the Danish cartoons highlights all of these philosophical dilemmas (which I have argued previously are the result of certain linguistic misunderstandings that are either cynically or idealistically perpetuated); and so we are brought to the point where this clash of civilizations—which in one important sense is a clash between theocratic Islamism and the west, but in another, more crucial sense, is a clash between the west and its own structural thinking, brought on by years of insinuation into our philosophy of what is, at root, collectivist thought that privileges the interpreter of an action over the necessary primacy of intent and agency and personal responsibility to the communicative chain—could conceivably become manifest over something so seemingly trivial as the right to satirize.

Digby had more to say about the controversy Jane Hamsher ignited over a blackfaced Lieberman. But let me pick up on the salient point (with emphasis):

The hysterical rightwing response to the graphic, however, was a laughable exercise in rank hypocrisy. The same people who ranted for weeks about the Danish cartoons and the principle of free speech even when it is offensive were the first ones to wring their lacy designer dew rags about leftist racism and bad taste when the opportunity came along.

I actually partially agree with Goldstein (hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day) when he says some of this intolerance of controversial speech comes from the mistaken notion that the feelings of an interpreter of an action take primacy over the intent. (Hate crimes, for instance, are all about intent, although I doubt seriously that Goldstein agrees with me on that.) But the idea that it is the sole province of "collectivist" or liberal philosophy is ludicrous. It's the province of dogmatic thinkers everywhere, but it occurs far more often on the right, I'm afraid, and particularly among religious fanatics of all stripes who seek to silence anyone who doesn't adhere to their beliefs.

So true. And that, my dear friends, is one of the reasons I write narratives about my queer Christ iconography--not as an apologia but for clarification of my intent--not to wound, but to include, inspire, and heal those marginalized by blind religiosity. Artistically, a few critics have ridiculed me for leading the viewer to a particular understanding of a painting or drawing rather than letting them experience the artwork for themselves. Well, viewers still can and do. Far more people look at the pictures than read the narratives. But in these days of character assassinations and death threats from religious militants, creating a record preemptively declares my intention behind the artwork although such statements may not protect me from risk. At least I have articulated an objective--not to take the Bible literally--but to seek inclusiveness in a quintessential ministry about love. Truthfully, in the case of the historical Jesus, no one can factually prove with absolute precision if he was hetero, bisexual, gay, celibate, married, asexual or a hermaphrodite. All we have are assumptions, theories, and stories, some of which aren't too accurate. I, for one, believe it's time for new stories. People have gotten too hung up on who Jesus was rather than what he had to say.

As an artist, I can't control the reactionary impulses of threatened homophobes and narrow-minded traditionalists who have an idealized image of Jesus based on what is--sorry to point it out--mythology. We have no videotape, no live interviews, no reputable documentaries for examination to validate institutional presumptions. But some people will grab up torches and microphones to scorch anyone who dares to interpret a story differently. And when they do, they abandon free speech and freedom of religion to impose their versions of faith sometimes harshly and unfairly upon others who disagree. Wasn't this country founded on the principle of freedom of religion by people who desired to express their faith and speak freely without fear? Are western liberal values to be shared or hoarded by the religious right? Sometimes I wonder. Madonna's Live To Tell lyrics ask:

How will they hear
When will they learn
How will they know

Based on the malignant absurdity and derogatory tongue-wagging over Madonna's mock crucifixion, the answer is not now but hopefully soon.

Bits and pieces

As if many of us didn't already think it, Iraq is in a state of civil war.

Is conservatism over? A few weeks ago, E.J. Dionne and others made the case. I think the Bush II presidency has debunked the myth of GOP supremacy, don't you?

FDL Book Salon has Part II on 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Fight the Right.

On the business scene, corporations may need to rethink teamwork versus innovation:

Firms that focus on individual employee achievement and uniqueness are more conducive to generating innovative ideas than companies that emphasize a more team-based culture, according to Barry Staw, a professor of leadership and communication at the University of California-Berkeley's Haas School of Business.

Scientists find brain evolution gene. Wouldn't it be nice if this gene could, oh, I don't know, evolve a bit faster!

Jill at Feministe writes about right-wing virginity from an org entitled, Tradition, Family and Property. No, it's not a joke!

And egads! Digby curses the Ole Perfesser, that would be Insta... um, I'll be nice and just point you to Roy Edroso. Someone has the gawd-awful idea that singularity could very well fulfill the Christian idea of The Rapture.

Coming up this week, Katrina comes back to haunt the Bush Administration when Spike Lee's four-hour film on our nation's worst natural disaster and the heckuva job FEMA did airs Monday and Tuesday nights on HBO. Some real heart-breaking stories. Jeralyn at TalkLeft suggests an action alert:

Help water the bushes for the anniversary of Katrina.

Please send a bottle of water to:

President George Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Put your return address as:

Ernest N. Morial Convention Center
900 Convention Center Boulevard
New Orleans, LA 70130

Ha!

Women's lib crib

You've come a long way, baby, and then you fell into the trap:

Living with a person may still be considered to be an alternative lifestyle, but as a new study shows, most couples who live together outside the bounds of matrimony are about as conventional as married couples when it comes to their relationship, pursuing careers and household chores.

...most still comply with traditional patterns throughout their relationships, including the initiation of the first date, moving in together and discussing marriage.

What else is the same old story?

[Sociologist Sharon] Sassler also found that most couples are not egalitarian in pursuing careers or doing housework.

"Our results indicate that the institution of gender is so pervasive and entrenched that it shapes even the behaviors of individuals in such alternative living arrangements as cohabitation," said Sassler.

Tsk, tsk, anti-gay marriage legislation that has swept across the nation also eliminated protections for domestic partnerships. So what's left for especially women is all the drudgery of marriage without any of the legal benefits. There must be exceptions and for those women who have a more balanced relationship, count your blessings. Yes, there are enlightened men and I suspect they hail mostly from Generation Y. Unfortunately, they seem to be in the minority. But doesn't the "institution of gender" sound frighteningly rigid and oppressive? Whew, pinch me! I thought we had entered the 21st century. I may not enjoy legal benefits but my "marriage" offers far more egalitarian advantages. Thank you, God, for making me lesbian!

Lieberman and Farrakhan

What's Lieberman got to do with Louis Farrakhan? Jane Hamsher reports Lieberman's latest campaign tricks and Joe Conason connects the history. Jane also reminds us via Joe Klein:

Rove has shown a positive genius for organizing campaigns around poisonous trivia. He will question the patriotism of Democrats (and, once again, be aided by those on the noisome left who believe that the U.S. is a malignant, imperialistic force in the world). He will deploy an ugly, stone-throwing distortion of Christian "values," especially against those Democrats who choose not to discriminate against homosexuals. And if things get really desperate, he will play the race card, as Republicans have ever since they sided against the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

Well, we knew Lieberman was one of Bush's favorite Republican Lites. Click the links if your stomach can stand the hypocrisy. What a world.

Security moms prefer Democrats by 12 points

When I read Sara Robinson's Part III about authoritarians and how to help them recover, I wondered if women would take the first steps up the ladder to escape over the wall. As Sara wrote:

Women, whose worldview tends to be more nurturant and relationship-oriented, may be more open than men to liberal points of view. Even those who've spent their entire lives in authoritarian systems get frustrated at times with their lack of power and privilege, the unfairness of the men who outrank them, and the overt bullying. In addition, women are generally less conforming than men, and more likely to reject one-size-fits-all moral systems in favor of ones they see as more just and fair.

People who are under stress without a support system -- college students, single mothers, travelers, prisoners -- are often open to anyone offering ideas for how they can increase their sense of security and connectedness. While this drives many of them straight into waiting authoritarian arms, it could just as easily become an opportunity for them to learn to trust their own inner authority instead.

Today's WaPo announced that Republicans are losing security moms:

Married women with children, the "security moms" whose concerns about terrorism made them an essential part of Republican victories in 2002 and 2004, are taking flight from GOP politicians this year in ways that appear likely to provide a major boost for Democrats in the midterm elections, according to polls and interviews.

This critical group of swing voters -- who are an especially significant factor in many of the most competitive suburban districts on which control of Congress will hinge -- is more inclined to vote Democratic than at any point since Sept. 11, 2001, according to data compiled for The Washington Post by the Pew Research Center.

Married mothers said in interviews here that they remain concerned about national security and the ability of Democrats to keep them safe from terrorist strikes. But surveys indicate Republicans are not benefiting from this phenomenon as they have before.

Disaffection with President Bush, the Iraq war, and other concerns such as rising gasoline prices and economic anxiety are proving more powerful in shaping voter attitudes.

The study, which examined the views of married women with children from April through this week, found that they support Democrats for Congress by a 12-point margin, 50 percent to 38 percent. That is nearly a mirror-image reversal from a similar period in 2002, when this group backed Republicans 53 percent to 36 percent. In 2004, exit polls showed, Bush won a second term in part because 56 percent of married women with children supported him.

Pew "found little or no advantage for Republicans in the aftermath of last week's foiled terrorist plot in London" and the fiasco in Iraq has damaged President Bush and Republicans at large. And there are more cracks:

In its latest poll of the general public, conducted after the news from London broke, Pew found a majority voicing concerns that Democrats were too weak on terrorism, the precise charge Republicans have made over the past 10 days. Yet an even larger majority said they fear Republicans would involve the United States in too many military operations.

The result is a public that is essentially split over which party can best defeat terrorists. Washington Post-ABC News surveys found the Republicans held a 30-point average on the issue of terrorism in 2002-2004. But in the past two years, the GOP advantage has evaporated.

I hope Democrats heed the news in this Pew survey. Now that we can see that solid law enforcement and intelligence uncovered the British terror plot--something John Kerry advocated in 2004--makes many of us wonder what on earth was Iraq about? Security moms have become disgusted with the Iraq War and

terrorism does not have the salience as a political issue it did two years ago. In the latest Pew survey, only 2 percent of respondents cited it as the top issue they want to hear candidates discuss -- and that was after the news from London. Voters are less moved by sudden scares like that episode than they might have been two years ago, Kohut [who directs the Pew poll] said.

A poignant quote comes from a mom with three kids, a 42-year Republican who voted for Bush and thought according to the GOP campaign spin that Kerry "would weaken the nation." Not anymore.

"I was dumb," she said. "Now, granted, they came here and rammed bombs into us, but I am afraid we have gotten into something full scale which perhaps did not have to be."

Let's reach out to these security moms and affirm how right they are. Who feels safe when it's terror, terror, terror, 24/7? It's enough to make a security mom tune out. And Iraq? What a nightmare!

Hate speech of the week

With so many choices for hate speech of the week, I decided to offer a roundup of some the wackiest as well as some of the more egregious punditry from the mouths of those whose obvious cluelessness earns them special recognition.

I fail to understand how Chris Matthews rates his own TV show on MSNBC. I guess they aren't picky. Maybe his ties to the Republican Party make him soooo special. His brother Jim is the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor in Pennsylvania after all. But with as much objectivity as a partisan storm trooper, Matthews offered this can of sludge:

On the August 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews conflated Islamic terrorists with those "who may be politically on the left," and presented a false choice between "honoring civil rights" and "tap[ping]" terrorists' "phones," suggesting that "honoring civil rights" could lead to "the deaths of thousands of people."

And it gets worse. Or better depending on your loyalty oath.

Discussing airport security measures with [former Homeland Security Secretary] Ridge, Matthews asked: "[H]ow do you identify someone who may be politically on the left or radical?" and added:

MATTHEWS: They may go to a couple meetings at mosques, whatever -- or I shouldn't say mosques, but meetings that are associated with -- with their background. They come from other countries, Arab countries, and they are in Newark somewhere. If a person is politically involved and they are anti-Israeli, for example, or anti-Western even, how do you stop them, even if you know all of that, from getting on an airplane?

You can read more wingnuttery here and a compilation of more oiliness here. Hey, maybe Matthews could join the NASCAR circuit. He's got the enough grease to go around.

Next, this makes you want to scream or cry depending on whether your hope is that women would act and speak more intelligently than a Barbie doll. Janet Rowland fails on informed comment (she may have flunked science) and carries water for homophobic hate speech that compares gay and lesbian unions to marrying sheep. Gawd! I just wonder how her marriage is at risk due to gay marriage? Hmmm, maybe she knows something about her husband that we don't. Colorado Media Matters:

On the March 17 broadcast of Rocky Mountain PBS' Colorado State of Mind, during a discussion of a referendum to allow domestic partnerships, Rowland said: "But I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle, that doesn't make it a marriage. Some people have group sex -- should we allow two men and three women to marry? Should we allow polygamy with one man and five wives? For some people, the alternative lifestyle is bestiality -- do we allow a man to marry a sheep? ... What if somebody wants to marry a cousin or an aunt or an uncle? What if it's an adult with a child? Why do we say you have to be 18 to get married; why can't 11-year-olds?"

....I, obviously, I don't support gay marriage, and I think it's because it's going to take us down the road that we don't want to go, and I know some of you are outraged that I would compare bestiality to this -- 40 or 50 years ago, people would be outraged that we were talking about gay marriage, and it's just going to -- and so it does affect my marriage, because if marriage becomes about everything, then marriage is about nothing.

Ha! Malignant absurdity strikes again.

If you think that was nutso hate speech, enter George "macaca" Allen. Sara Robinson summed up Allen's attempt to bully an outsider:

Make no mistake: this was an aggressive act of social dominance, an intentional effort to humiliate and degrade a person based on his race and ethnic background, and his position on the other side of the political fence. Allen didn't appear to think twice about publicly insulting S.J. Sidarth, a native-born Indo-American traveling with Allen's campaign to tape events for his Democratic opponent. (Allen had similarly embedded one of his staffers with Jim Webb's campaign.) Sidarth was a kid with a camera -- just another part of the crew, hardly above the attention threshold of a senatorial candidate who's spending his days mingling with the rich and powerful. So what on earth inspired Allen to call him out, in the middle of his campaign speech, to the assembled crowd?

You have to wonder where Allen, who grew up in California, got this idea. By the mid-60s, not even George Wallace or Strom Thurmond would dare say stuff like this in front of the cameras (though we know that Nixon, among others, wasn't shy about saying it in private). They knew better. Everybody in politics, in both parties, knows better. How did George Allen fail to get the message?

Salon's Michael Scherer has a very well researched, thoughtful article up this morning (Salon Premium subscription may be required). While Allen's been acting like the word "macaca" just fell out of his mouth -- "as if he had suddenly been taken over by an evil spirit and spoken in tongues," Scherer says -- he presents the etymology of the word "macaca," (or "macaque"), a North African word for "monkey" that's long been used by Europeans in Africa as an alternative to the n-word. Scherer points out that Allen's mother was raised in Algiers and speaks five languages; she almost certainly knew the word.

Scherer lays the blame squarely on high social dominance gone wild:

To understand the full import of Allen's gaffe, it is worth taking another look at the video, which will live for eternity on the Internet and in political attack ads. It is not just a matter of what Allen says, but very much a matter of how he says it. He has singled out one member of the audience, a 20-year-old volunteer whose ethnicity already distinguishes him in a former bastion of the Confederacy. Allen is smiling. He is enjoying himself. It is exceedingly difficult to see Allen as doing anything other than connecting with the crowd by attempting to humiliate another human being -- to make him feel like an outsider, like he doesn't belong, like he will never belong. "Let's give a welcome to macaca, here," the senator crows. "Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."

The performance strongly suggests Sheriff's definition of "interpersonal domination" at work. Allen is being a bully.

Yup. But there's more to Allen than just this gaffe:

Scherer goes on to lay out Allen's resume as a bully, charting a typical path that begins in a family of wealth and privilege, rough-and-tumble play with siblings, "alpha jock" status as a high school football player, and his early (and apparently continuing) affection for the Confederate cause. According to Scherer, Ryan Lizza, a reporter for The New Republic,

asked Allen about the Confederate flag pin he wore in his senior photo at a tony California high school. Allen responded by mentioning the funding he is seeking in Congress for historically black colleges. Lizza asked about Allen's initial opposition to Martin Luther King Day, the noose he once hung on a ficus tree in his law office, and Allen's support of a Confederate History and Heritage Month that did not mention slavery. Allen deflected all the questions, while hinting that he was a changed man. He said he recently went on a "civil rights pilgrimage." He cares about genocide. He recently passed an anti-lynching resolution....

This new person is the one Allen wants America to see. But it is far from clear if that is the person he is. Political scientist Larry Sabato, who remembers Allen as a tough-guy jock back when they were undergraduates at the University of Virginia, said he thinks the gaffe last week shows the real candidate. "In these unguarded moments, Allen does show his true self."

My, my. The late Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott must be waving their stars and bars with pride. Media Matters has more.

Not to be outdone, Bill O'Reilly weighs in with his usual hostile brand of phlegm-specked spittle. Attacking George Soros once again:

On the August 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly attacked billionaire philanthropist George Soros for an op-ed Soros wrote, published that same day in The Wall Street Journal, on the "counterproductive and self-defeating policies" inspired by the "war on terror." O'Reilly called Soros an "incredible imbecile, with all due respect," and went on to clarify his attack, saying: "I didn't mean to call him a name, but I have to put some kind of descriptive adjective on his analysis." After dismissing Soros's commentary as "gobbly-gook," O'Reilly claimed that "Soros is a guy who doesn't understand evil, doesn't really even acknowledge it," despite the fact that Soros is "a guy who fled the Holocaust."

Bill doesn't have any limits to his wacky doodle diss-gracefulness. The next day...

On the August 16 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly argued extensively for "profiling of Muslims" at airports, arguing that detaining all "Muslims between the ages of 16 and 45" for questioning "isn't racial profiling," but "criminal profiling."

Discussing the August 16 rerouting of a flight from London to Washington, D.C., due to a passenger disturbance, O'Reilly posed the question: "Is profiling Muslims the answer?" Apparently answering in the affirmative, O'Reilly declared, "[I]t's long past time for the USA to stop the nonsense and institute profiling at airports" because "[w]e're not at war with Granny Fricken. We're at war with Muslim fanatics. So, all young Muslims should be subjected to more scrutiny than Granny." Yet, despite advocating for profiling all "Muslims between the ages of 16 and 45," O'Reilly declared that such profiling "isn't racial profiling," but rather "criminal profiling" or, as he later termed it, "[t]error profiling."

You just can't make this stuff up!

Who can defend Ann Coulter's hate speech attacking the 9/11 widows by accusing them of enjoying their husbands deaths? Well, an enabler like Mary Matalin can.

On the June 9 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, Republican strategist Mary Matalin joined other Republican strategists and media figures in defending Ann Coulter's attacks on the widows of the victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- articulated in her book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006), and in media appearances promoting the book. Asked by host Don Imus to comment on Coulter's remarks that the 9-11 widows who criticized President Bush were "reveling in their status as celebrities" and "enjoying their husbands' deaths," Matalin expressed agreement with Coulter's "larger point." When Imus challenged Matalin to condemn Coulter for her "repugnant attacks," including "calling these women harpies," Matalin refused, saying: "That's completely not her point," and that such remarks are Coulter's "stock in trade." She added that she would not condemn Coulter because "I don't know her" and "I haven't read the book."

Echoing Coulter, Matalin stated that "in the absence of being able to make persuasive arguments," liberals "roll out messengers" that it is "politically incorrect to argue with." Additionally, Matalin asserted: "You lefty crazy people run around, calling us 'extra chromosome' and 'Hitlers' and 'Nazis' and everything, and nobody says anything. She calls somebody a 'harpy' and you'd think that, you know, the whole world was on fire."

Sheesh. Inexcusable. Mary Matalin just earned her creds in joining the WOTPP.

Don Imus may have defended the 9/11 widows against Matalin and Coulter, but he also has his tendency to go off the deep end. He may have called Coulter's spew "repugnant" but he didn't object to smearing Hillary Clinton:

On the July 24 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, Newsweek senior editor Jonathan Alter characterized Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as having "more baggage than Paris Hilton on the Riviera." Suggesting that "calling her [Clinton] the front-runner is silly at this point," Alter instead touted two potential Republican candidates -- Massachusetts Gov. Mitt [tar baby] Romney and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Earlier in the show, during an interview with an impersonator of former President Bill Clinton, host Don Imus echoed his recent attacks on Sen. Clinton [in which he called Hillary "that buck-tooted witch, Satan."]. Imus asked, "[h]ow's Satan doing? Your wife." The impersonator responded: "Oh, she's fine. Bitch."

But when did we expect truth from Don Imus. Did he set the record straight when Tony Snow announced that "President Bush never linked the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the regime of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein." No. Since when is Imus in the business of telling the truth? More egregiously and insidiously, his producer showed him how it's done by sliming Lamont:

On the August 17 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, executive producer Bernard McGuirk said that John Mark Karr, the man who reportedly admitted to killing 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey in 1996, "looks like Ned Lamont, actually." McGuirk then asked: "Is that who you want representing you, Connecticut?"

I have to admit, I never watch NBC or MSNBC. Too shrill. Too full of... well, you know, hot air.

Check back next Friday. There's always plenty of right-wing hate speech to report.

Props to Media Matters and Sara Robinson at Orcinus for making this week's roundup especially poignant.

UPDATE: Imus repeated his producer's smear, "...we thought [John Mark Karr] was Ned Lamont, the guy running against Lieberman.... ...we're supporting Lieberman, if you did not know that."

Helping authoritarians change

To continue with Sara Robinson's brilliant series on authoritarian leaders and followers (see my previous post for all the series links), the rise of evangelicals as a political force has steadily grown over the past 30 years. But there are other reasons:

Good political organizing, coupled with the fulsome noise of the Mighty Wurlitzer, have indeed added former liberal constituencies -- blue-collar workers, Catholics, and so on -- to the Republican column. Many of these former moderates were drawn into the far-right fold by targeted political messaging that played up their fears and activated (to at least some degree) the fear-and-submission response characteristic of right-wing followers, as well as expansion-oriented conservative religious groups that replaced fraying community, family, social, recreational, and personal support networks.

Fear, as I have said previously, is a driving force in creating SDO (social dominance oriented) personalities or authoritarians. What are those fears?

• "American middle-class prosperity peaked in 1972" and has been declining.
• "[T]he richest, the dollars (in real terms) are fewer, and they don't go as far as they used to."
• "...decades of misbegotten foreign policy in the Middle East came home to roost, shattering a sense of American invulnerability that had already been severely dented by Vietnam."
• "9/11, of course, put whole new factions of the country into a fear-induced malaise."
• "Republican messaging since the mid-70s has kept all these threats uppermost in the American imagination, creating a climate of fear that supports authoritarian thinking even in people who should know better."
• "Republican hostility to any kind of investment in social capital has left these people a) enraged at the foreclosure of opportunities their parents took for granted and b) left with nowhere to turn but churches."

Now comes the fearmongering:

All these issues, and others, provided ripe openings for the disciplined organizers of the authoritarian right. It's like they've slapped stick-on hot buttons onto all of us -- and now keep pushing them for all they were worth to activate a Pavolvian fear response. ("Abortion! Faggots! Affirmative action! Brown people! Flag-burning!") There has always been -- and probably always will be -- a hard core of natural authoritarian leaders and followers in any society. But their numbers have almost certainly been swelled (my non-supportable guess is that it's been at least doubled) by tens of millions of "soft-core" authoritarians who've been shanghaied onto the authoritarian bandwagon over the past three decades.

Changing the minds of authoritarian leaders and their hard-core indoctrinated followers may be a lost cause. But maybe there's hope for those "who got swept up in the right-wing hysteria of the past three decades" and "bringing a good slice of this group back may not be as hard as we've been prone to think." Some SDO followers have left and recovered, and that is where Sara shines in offering some viable tactics to help those pacing at "the wall" as they consider how to escape.

First, some just won't listen, so realistically, "save your breath." But...

there are a few groups of people who are more likely to be open to change. Women, whose worldview tends to be more nurturant and relationship-oriented, may be more open than men to liberal points of view. Even those who've spent their entire lives in authoritarian systems get frustrated at times with their lack of power and privilege, the unfairness of the men who outrank them, and the overt bullying. In addition, women are generally less conforming than men, and more likely to reject one-size-fits-all moral systems in favor of ones they see as more just and fair.

People who are under stress without a support system -- college students, single mothers, travelers, prisoners -- are often open to anyone offering ideas for how they can increase their sense of security and connectedness. While this drives many of them straight into waiting authoritarian arms, it could just as easily become an opportunity for them to learn to trust their own inner authority instead.

Those undergoing major life transitions may be similarly receptive: the newly married, new parents, the recently relocated, career or job-changers, the newly divorced or widowed, people who've just lost a parent, and the recently retired are all in positions where the old answers are up for questioning, and the prospect of the larger world outside the wall may look very welcoming. And, of course, people undergoing major self re-creations -- emerging gays and lesbians, new immigrants, and those in the midst of large-scale socioeconomic change -- are likely to be very open to new way of strengthening their confidence, and learning to navigate their brave new worlds.

Sara rightfully points out that "fear is the mind killer" so "in talking to right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) -- in any situation -- the first and greatest challenge is to reduce the level of fear and increase the level of trust." With that said, Robinson offers practical approaches for liberals to undertake in talking to RWAs. I've paraphrased Sara's points and added some of her quotes:

• Despite the urge to disagree or argue, don't. Find common ground. Keep the conversation on things in which you can agree. Some conservatives may dislike Bush's "spending, foreign policy blunders, and neglect of important domestic infrastructure. (Small businesspeople, in particular, can give you a real earful.)" Avoid conflict to minimize the notion that you are a threat. Affirm, validate as neutrally as you can and keep it safe.
• Don't be a wishy-washy moral relativist. RWAs despise and distrust ambiguity so stick to black-and-white subjects, areas that you feel passionate about where you can express a moral position "in near-absolutes and with a certain amount of zeal. They're impressed by zeal, and are often surprised to find that we have our own share of it. If you can unambiguously and firmly state a principle that you share with the RWA (marriage, family, and community are great topics for this kind of commonality), you'll find them warming to you quickly."
• When RWAs articulate ambiguity in themselves, listen and validate. "You're so right. This world is a pretty complicated place, and the answers aren't always easy, are they?" Create a safe haven, "a comfortable, easy, give-and-take atmosphere in which reasonable people can reason together -- and remain friends even if they don't agree on the ultimate answer."
• Cite legitimate authorities. You can bet that Michael Moore isn't legit in the eyes of a RWA. Stick to sources in which a RWA can agree. Remember you're building trust so "support your points by finding and citing authorities they accept." As Sara recommends, "If you must quote an authority they're likely to regard as dubious, do what you can to establish that sources' bona fides. 'Did you know that Bill Moyers is a Southern Baptist minister?' It won't always work among the harder core -- Moyers isn't in the SBC now, and therefore has forfeited any authority he may have had -- but for the softer core, this at least puts a little grease on the ball. If you can't find a direct source they'll respect, at least try to find a source that's been vetted and given the Seal of Approval by someone they do trust." Don't forget the Bible--the ultimate authority for religious RWAs. If you know Scriptures well, try the verses that haven't been spoon fed to them by their church. Remember to avoid arguing over some of the RWA's favorites about gays, women, etc. The idea is to help the RWA to question the validity of their indoctrination. Be gentle in nurturing open-mindedness.
• Authoritarians don't think in abstracts so keep it literal and be specific. "While they can usually summon empathy for people in their own belief communities -- people who are very much like them -- they have a very hard time imagining themselves in the shoes of people who are different." RWAs can easily "demonize outsiders" and hunker down to protect themselves against perceived threats. So "keep any critiques of ideas and people as personal and literal as possible. You need to draw a clear, bright line connecting the negative personal harm that particular RWA has sustained as the direct result of a policy, and the specific leader who implemented it. As we know all too well, there's no limit to the amount or degree of abuse a determined RWA will forgive; but making people see the concrete damage their leaders are inflicting on them personally may in time re-direct their sense of persecution, and undermine the legitimacy of their accepted authorities." Sara offers a good example:

  Any time you can frame a point in terms of, "This person/policy/action has harmed you , this much and in this way," you're more likely (though still far from certain) to get your point across. If you can't say, with proof, that "Bush did this to you, you probably won't get through.

  It's important to note that positive attributes can also be presented this way. "We should do this because it's fair to minorities" cuts no ice at all with RWAs. "We should do this because it's in your own self-interest" will get you a lot farther. And don’t neglect to spell out every possible benefit, as clearly and specifically as possible. Don't assume they'll make the logical leaps to see those on their own. These are very concrete thinkers: leaping isn't their strong suit.

  Sometimes, keeping communication personal and literal can even short-circuit the guilt-evaporation mechanisms Dean discussed. God may have forgiven you, or you may have just been doing what you were told and following the rules, or the person who harmed you may merit forgiveness -- but the fact remains that your actions (or a third party's) have demonstrably harmed someone who matters to you, or created problems in your own life. Absolution may clear your conscience, but it doesn't clean up the mess. Associate personal actions with their direct results, and you may stand a chance of making them realize the full brunt of their behavior.

One of my intellectual mothers, world-acclaimed psychiatrist Alice Miller, writes about enlightened witnesses and I can testify that such loving adults were instrumental in helping me through my childhood. Sara cites from Miller:

"When I began to illustrate my thesis by drawing on the examples of Hitler and Stalin, when I tried to expose the social consequences of child abuse, I encountered fierce resistance. Repeatedly I was told, "I, too, was a battered child, but that didn't make me a criminal." When I asked for details about their childhood, I was always told of a person who loved them, but was unable to protect them. Yet through his or her presence, this person gave them a notion of trust, and of love.

"I call these persons helping witnesses. Dostoyevsky, for instance, had a brutal father, but a loving mother. She wasn't strong enough to protect him from his father, but she gave him a powerful conception of love, without which his novels would have been unimaginable. Many have also been lucky enough to find enlightened and courageous witnesses, people who helped them to recognize the injustices they suffered, to give vent to their feelings of rage, pain and indignation at what happened to them. These persons never became criminals."

Enlightened witnesses can affirm, validate, and act as a champion for a RWA by modeling healthy and respectful behavior. RWAs are human beings with feelings and legit needs and giving them permission to acknowledge their wants and needs makes you a support person for them. Because RWAs "are sadly accustomed to subordinating their own needs to those of their superiors; in fact, one of the struggles we often see in recovering fundies is a complete inability to even acknowledge that they have needs of their own, let alone identify them, let alone act to meet them. They simply don't know where to begin. Also, because their own authorities use guilt and shame to control them, they've seldom been allowed to see themselves as truly good and moral people."

The work of an enlightened witness is to remain non-judgmental, compassionate, and genuinely interested in them, a mission of touching hearts in offering unconditional regard for another human being albeit a RWA.

• Talk about family but beware. This subject leads to "disagreements on everything from abortion to homosexuality (and also answers our exasperated questions about how these particular issues became such hot political potatoes in the first place). At the same time, it also points up the places in which we have strong commonalities with RWAs that they don't typically see. For example, authoritarians typically don't believe that those of us who assemble families of choice feels as committed to those families as those who are bound to their kin by blood ties and birth. And they tend to view 'family' as a stage script, with set roles for mothers and fathers and grandparents. If you don't have people filling all the roles, it is, by definition, not a family." Realize RWA family values that can mirror our own. Expressing commitment to our families can forge common ground, help them understand that progressives aren't a threat to their families and "begin to acknowledge those fears directly, address them head-on, and perhaps begin to defuse one of their biggest sources of fear and mistrust."
• Reach out and expand their world. Getting RWAs to meet people outside their world--travel, community, education, and activities "that increase a sense of personal achievement and competence all enhance their ability to trust themselves and others, without having to rely on the rules of their system to maintain their fragile sense of safety." We gays and lesbians have known that relating to a RWA lets them see us as real human beings rather than the evil threat their leaders paint us. In other words..."Start by committing random acts of kindness (just to mess with their assumptions, if nothing else). They need to see us as trustworthy allies, valuable contributors to their own well-being -- and perhaps, in time, friends."
• Once a RWA breaks through the "wall," give them a safe landing. "While exiting fundies typically feel exhilarated with the freedom they feel in the first weeks after leaving; they've also got a huge new world to navigate, and acquiring the necessary skills takes time. They're often wobbly on their feet for a while until they get the hang of it." That's when being a support is so vital--encouragement, guidance, even something as practical as helping a RWA move to a new place. This will be a new world for them, and as ambassadors, we must make them feel at home with as much hospitality as possible.

Lastly, Sara advises to keep the conversation going:

...The more time we spend talking to soft-core authoritarian followers, the better we'll get at understanding their motivations, calming their fears, and framing our arguments in ways they can clearly understand.

However: as kum-bay-yah (and stereotypically liberal) as all this talk of "understanding" individual RWAs may be, it doesn't mean that we stop holding the authoritarians in our midst accountable for the misbehavior of their public figures and the recklessness of their policies. It doesn't mean that we stop correcting the media when it misrepresents our views, or aggressively fight for solutions that will ultimate break the cycle of right-wing authoritarianism that now dominates American politics. While the work of bringing these missing Americans back into the larger fold is gentle and slow (we may well spend a decade or more bringing the bulk of them back), the work of recovering America as we knew her requires a fierce energy that draws firm boundaries, demands an honest reckoning, and requires constant and determined assertion of our own good values.

What a great series. But guess what? There's a fourth installment coming as Sara examines how "authoritarians can be turned back at the community, state, and national level." Looking forward to it. Bravo, Sara Robinson. Encore!