RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Single-Payer Health Care Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=15102"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Thursday, 24 December 2015 11:53

Sanders writes: "I want to talk with you about one of the very real differences between Secretary Clinton and me that surfaced during last weekend's debate, and that is our approach to health care in this country."

Bernie Sanders. (photo: Arun Chaudhary)
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Arun Chaudhary)


Single-Payer Health Care

By Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News

24 December 15

 

want to talk with you about one of the very real differences between Secretary Clinton and me that surfaced during last weekend's debate, and that is our approach to health care in this country.

I was, and all progressives should be, deeply disappointed in some of her attacks on a Medicare-for-all, single-payer health care system. The health insurance lobbyists and big pharmaceutical companies try to make "national health care" sound scary. It is not.

In fact, a large single-payer system already exists in the United States. It's called Medicare and the people enrolled give it high marks. More importantly, it has succeeded in providing near-universal coverage to Americans over age 65 in a very cost-effective manner.

So I want to go over some facts with you and ask that you take action on this important issue:

Right now, because of the gains made under the Affordable Care Act, 17 million people have health care who did not before the law was passed. This is a good start, and something we should be proud of. But we can do better.

The truth is, it is a national disgrace that the United States is the only major country that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right. Today, 29 million of our sisters and brothers are without care. Not only are deductibles rising, but the cost of prescription drugs is skyrocketing as well. There is a major crisis in primary health care in the United States.

So I start my approach to health care from two very simple premises:

  1. Health care must be recognized as a right, not a privilege -- every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access quality care regardless of their income.

  2. We must create a national system to provide care for every single American in the most cost-effective way possible.

I expected to take some heat on these fundamental beliefs during a general election, but since it is already happening in the Democratic primary, I want to address some of the critiques made by Secretary Clinton and Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal directly:

Under my plan, we will lower the cost of health care for the average family making $50,000 a year by nearly $5,000 a year. It is unfair to say simply how much more a program will cost without letting people know we are doing away with the cost of private insurance and that the middle class will be paying substantially less for health care under a single-payer system than Hillary Clinton's program. Attacking the cost of the plan without acknowledging the bottom-line savings is the way Republicans have attacked this idea for decades. Taking that approach in a Democratic Primary undermines the hard work of so many who have fought to guarantee health care as a right in this country, and it hurts our prospects for achieving that goal in the near future. I hope that it stops.

Let me also be clear that a Medicare-for-all, single-payer health care system will expand employment by lifting a major financial weight off of the businesses burdened by employee health expenses. And for the millions of Americans who are currently in jobs they don't like but must stay put because of health care access, they would be free to explore more productive opportunities as they desire.

So, what is stopping us from guaranteeing free, quality health care as a basic fundamental right for all Americans? I believe the answer ties into campaign finance reform.

The truth is, the insurance companies and the drug companies are bribing the United States Congress.

I want to make health care a right for every American. The health care industry doesn't like that very much, so they're flooding my opponents with cash. Fight back against those who want to stop a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system with a contribution to our campaign.

Now, I don't go around asking millionaires and billionaires for money. You know that. I don't think I'm going to get a whole lot of contributions from the health care and pharmaceutical industries. I don't like to kick a man when he is down, but when some bad actors have tried to contribute to our campaign, like the pharmaceutical CEO Martin Shkreli who jacked up the price of a life saving drug for AIDS patients, I donated his contribution to an AIDS clinic in Washington, D.C.

Secretary Clinton, on the other hand, has received millions of dollars from the health care and pharmaceutical industries, a number that is sure to rise as time goes on. Since 1998, there are no industries that have spent more money to influence legislators than these two. Billions of dollars! An absolutely obscene amount of money. And in this election cycle alone, Secretary Clinton has raised more money from the health care industry than did the top 3 Republicans -- combined.

Now, and let's not be naive about this, maybe they are dumb and don't know what they are going to get? But I don't think that's the case, and I don't believe you do either.

So, what can we do about it?

Changing the health care laws in this country in such a way that guarantees health care as a right and not a privilege will require nothing short of a political revolution. That's what this campaign is about and it is work we must continue long after I am elected the next President of the United States.

And because of the success we have enjoyed so far, I am more convinced today than ever before that universal quality health care as a right for all Americans will eventually become the law of the land.

It is the only way forward.

Thank you for standing with me on this important issue.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
My Very Muslim Christmas Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=33264"><span class="small">Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, TIME</span></a>   
Thursday, 24 December 2015 09:35

Abdul-Jabbar writes: "Although I am Muslim, I have a deep affection and respect for Christmas. Affection because I was raised Catholic and the holiday season is a nostalgic hug as comforting as a warm crackling fire and hot apple cider."

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (photo: Andrew D. Bernstein/NBAE/Getty Images)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (photo: Andrew D. Bernstein/NBAE/Getty Images)


My Very Muslim Christmas

By Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, TIME

24 December 15

 

'The campaign against Muslim Americans spits in the face of everything Christmas stands for'

lthough I am Muslim, I have a deep affection and respect for Christmas. Affection because I was raised Catholic and the holiday season is a nostalgic hug as comforting as a warm crackling fire and hot apple cider. Respect because praising the significance of the birth of Jesus is an important part of the Muslim faith. The Quran, Islam’s holy book, reveres Jesus as a great messenger of God, describes his virgin birth, and acknowledges the miracles he performed: “I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. I make for you the shape of a bird out of clay, I breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by God’s permission. I heal the blind from birth and the leper. And I bring the dead to life by God’s permission. And I tell you what you eat and what you store in your houses.” (Quran, 3:49).

Christmas time is a wave of good cheer that washes over most people, regardless of their religious affiliations or lack of one. It’s the time when we imagine the best person we could be—and then try to be that person. We hold more doors open for others, let people pull in front of us in traffic, pick up the lunch tab for co-workers. We feel good knowing that such a kind and gentle person lurks within us. And each year we try to coax that lovely person to stay a little longer past the season. Because without that person, baby, it’s cold outside.

However, recent events, from terrorist attacks to police killings of unarmed African Americans, have heightened public awareness that America is in the midst of an identity crisis. On the one hand, Americans see themselves as the great international melting pot that welcomes huddled masses of all religions and ethnic backgrounds. On the other hand, they’re terrified that too much diversity mixed in the pot will dilute our white Christian majority. The resulting American stew might be a little darker in appearance and a little less likely to display a nativity scene at Christmas. Statistics support this perception: over the last 50 years, the percentage of Christians and Jews in almost every denomination have decreased while the number of Muslims has increased to make Islam the third-largest religion in the U.S. At the same time, the number of non-religious people has increased to about 23%.

Our cultural identity is transitioning from a large white majority to a more mocha-shaded complexion. The non-Latino white majority (63% in 2012) has been decreasing every year. Four states—Hawaii, New Mexico, California and Texas—already have non-white majorities. By 2050, more than 25% of the population will be Latino. The African-American population, currently at about 13%, or 42 million, is also increasing faster than the white population. The fastest-growing ethnic group is of Asian descent, which increased from 10.2 million to 16 million from 2000 to 2013. By 2050, it will likely increase to 34.3 million. In true melting-pot tradition, America is becoming less white and less Eurocentric. According to the U.S. Census, by 2044 the white population will be in the minority.

The speed of change is disorienting for many Americans and makes them fearful that someday they, too, will be marginalized. This fear is, in part, behind the rising anti-Muslim sentiment in the country. A California State University research group, the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, has reported alarming increases in hate crimes against Muslims in America, including physical assault on the streets, arson and vandalism at mosques, and shootings and death threats targeting Islamic-owned businesses. Since the Paris attacks of Nov. 13, the average of 12.6 monthly suspected hate crimes against Muslims in America has tripled. A Muslim cab driver was shot in the back. A hijab-wearing student was attacked and punched. A Muslim woman at a car wash was threatened by a man with a knife. Mosques have been vandalized. A bullet-riddled copy of the Quran was left outside an Islamic store. This is not the religious tolerance that Thomas Jefferson envisioned for America when he said: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

It’s difficult to sustain outrage at the sad individuals conducting these attacks because they clearly aren’t intelligent enough to understand the impotence of their contradictory behavior. They don’t realize that each attack is like donating money to ISIS because it helps them recruit more followers while harming the people here who are just as opposed to the terrorists. To attack Muslim Americans for the actions of ISIS or any other terrorist would be like leaving bullet-riddled Bibles outside churches because Jim David Adkisson, a devout Christian, shotgunned a group of children in a Knoxville church, killing two and wounding seven, because of the church’s “liberal teachings.” Or vandalizing churches because Dylann Storm Roof, a member of the local Lutheran church, slaughtered nine African-Americans during a church service in 2015. Or bullying Christian children because Anders Breivik massacred 77 people in 2011 in Norway, defending his actions in his anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and pro-“Christian Europe” manifesto. Like ISIS followers, these murderers have concocted a fantasy scenario in which they can be glorified through violence but which has nothing to do with the religion they pretend to follow.

These escalating attacks on Muslim Americans are not only un-American but they are also un-Christian. The people who perform these acts of violence and vandalism follow neither the Constitution nor the Bible, but they do represent the distillation of the anti-Muslim sentiment that is flowing across America like steaming lava, vaporizing our Christmas cheer.

The real villains here are the ones who knowingly create an atmosphere of fear and hate without taking responsibility for the inevitable violence that ensues. Private evangelical Christian Wheaton College, for example, is an institution of higher learning that should symbolize the sacred pursuit of knowledge. But when political science professor (and devout Christian) Larycia Hawkins wore a headscarf to show solidarity with Muslims because, as she said on Facebook, they share the same God as Christians, she was suspended. A New Jersey Muslim-American high school teacher claims she was fired for showing a film about Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai, even though a non-Muslim teacher had shown the same film several years earlier. She also alleges she was told not to mention Islam or the Middle East in class. So much for educating our children to think rationally.

The worst perpetrators are also the ones who hope to benefit most from amping up the paranoia level to DEFCON 1. The politicians’ alchemy is to transform fear into votes. Donald Trump has said he wants to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. and register those already here. Ben Carson, who has said he doesn’t think a Muslim should be president, has said he supports registering Muslim Americans. Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush have said they want only Christian Syrian refugees allowed into the country. And dozens of governors announced they would refuse Syrian refugees in their states. It’s like the country has a bruised rib and politicians keep poking the bruise while claiming only they can make the pain stop. They’ve gotten the country so riled up that a recent poll showed 30% of Republican voters want to bomb Agrabah, the fictional kingdom in the Disney movie Aladdin. In the same poll, 54% agreed with banning Muslims from entering the U.S., and 46% agreed with registering Muslims in the U.S. Both proposals are so unconstitutional that they actually do more harm to the country than the actual terrorists.

This campaign against Muslim Americans spits in the face of everything Christmas stands for. Peace on Earth. Good will toward others. Being the best person we can be. Fortunately, there are many Christian organizations that still live by their religious principles as a guide to what Christmas, and Christianity, stands for. World Relief, a non-profit organization started by group of evangelical churches, is helping relocate Syrian refugees in the U.S. “Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors,” Amy Rowell, director of the Moline, Ill., office of World Relief, told Quartz. “The parable of the good Samaritan comes to mind, making it absolutely clear that our neighbors cannot be limited to those of our same ethnicity or religious traditions.” The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans also discussed his church’s support for the refugees: “Today, we face new challenges as we answer the Gospel call to welcome the stranger and care for the vulnerable…. Catholic Charities is a grantee agency that receives refugees from many parts of the world, including the Middle East.” Pope Francis even warned U.S. politicians that: “To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.”

Last Sunday, a group of 200 Muslims, Jews and Christians in Washington, D.C., walked together in what they called “Faith Over Fear: Choosing Unity Over Extremism.” Led by Imam Lyndon Bilal, Rabbi M. Bruce Lustig and the Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the head of the Archdiocese of Washington, the group walked from Washington Hebrew Congregation to Washington National Cathedral to the Islamic Center, stopping at each to offer prayers for interfaith unity: “Compassionate God, free us to love.” These faithful remind us all of our spiritual—and patriotic—duty.

Muslims, Christians and Jews worship the same God, just in different ways. Those differences can make each group wary of the other, until they realize that a fundamental teaching in all three religions is to co-exist in peace with others. True, we can all dig into each other’s holy texts for isolated quotes that seem to contradict this, and we can all air each other’s historical dirty laundry when each acted contrary to this teaching. But Christmas reminds us all that what really matters is how we behave here and now toward each other.

One popular Christmas song that best embodies the spirit of the season is “Christmas Time Is Here,” from the 1965 TV special, A Charlie Brown Christmas. The final lyrics are “Oh, that we could always see/Such spirit through the year.”

Now, that would be a Christmas miracle.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Plutocrats Are Winning. Don't Let Them! Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11385"><span class="small">Bill Moyers, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 23 December 2015 15:25

Moyers writes: "Did any voter in any district or state in the last Congressional election vote to give that billion dollar loophole to a handful of billionaires? To allow corporations to hide their political contributions? To add $1.4 trillion to the national debt? Of course not."

Bill Moyers. (photo: AP)
Bill Moyers. (photo: AP)


The Plutocrats Are Winning. Don't Let Them!

By Bill Moyers, Reader Supported News

23 December 15

 

ear Readers:

In the fall of 2001, in the aftermath of 9/11, as families grieved and the nation mourned, Washington swarmed with locusts of the human kind: wartime opportunists, lobbyists, lawyers, ex-members of Congress, bagmen for big donors: all of them determined to grab what they could for their corporate clients and rich donors while no one was looking.

Across the land, the faces of Americans of every stripe were stained with tears. Here in New York, we still were attending memorial services for our firemen and police. But in the nation's capital, within sight of a smoldering Pentagon that had been struck by one of the hijacked planes, the predator class was hard at work pursuing private plunder at public expense, gold-diggers in the ashes of tragedy exploiting our fear, sorrow, and loss.

What did they want? The usual: tax cuts for the wealthy and big breaks for corporations. They even made an effort to repeal the alternative minimum tax that for fifteen years had prevented companies from taking so many credits and deductions that they owed little if any taxes. And it wasn't only repeal the mercenaries sought; they wanted those corporations to get back all the minimum tax they had ever been assessed.

They sought a special tax break for mighty General Electric, although you would never have heard about it if you were watching GE's news divisions -- NBC News, CNBC, or MSNBC, all made sure to look the other way. They wanted to give coal producers more freedom to pollute, open the Alaskan wilderness to drilling, empower the president to keep trade favors for corporations a secret while enabling many of those same corporations to run roughshod over local communities trying the protect the environment and their citizens' health.

It was a disgusting bipartisan spectacle. With words reminding us of Harry Truman's description of the GOP as "guardians of privilege," the Republican majority leader of the House dared to declare that "it wouldn't be commensurate with the American spirit" to provide unemployment and other benefits to laid-off airline workers. As for post 9/11 Democrats, their national committee used the crisis to call for widening the soft-money loophole in our election laws.

America had just endured a sneak attack that killed thousands of our citizens, was about to go to war against terror, and would soon send an invading army to the Middle East. If ever there was a moment for shared sacrifice, for putting patriotism over profits, this was it. But that fall, operating deep within the shadows of Washington's Beltway, American business and political mercenaries wrapped themselves in red, white and blue and went about ripping off a country in crisis.

H.L. Mencken got it right: "Whenever you hear a man speak of his love for his country, it is a sign that he expects to be paid for it."

Fourteen years later, we can see more clearly the implications. After three decades of engineering a winner-take-all economy, and buying the political power to consummate their hold on the wealth created by the system they had rigged in their favor, they were taking the final and irrevocable step of separating themselves permanently from the common course of American life. They would occupy a gated stratosphere far above the madding crowd while their political hirelings below look after their earthly interests.

The $1.15 trillion spending bill passed by Congress last Friday and quickly signed by President Obama is just the latest triumph in the plutocratic management of politics that has accelerated since 9/11. As Michael Winship and I described here last Thursday, the bill is a bonanza for the donor class - that powerful combine of corporate executives and superrich individuals whose money drives our electoral process. Within minutes of its passage, congressional leaders of both parties and the president rushed to the television cameras to praise each other for a bipartisan bill that they claimed signaled the end of dysfunction; proof that Washington can work. Mainstream media (including public television and radio), especially the networks and cable channels owned and operated by the conglomerates, didn't stop to ask: "Yes, but work for whom?" Instead, the anchors acted as amplifiers for official spin -- repeating the mantra-of-the-hour that while this is not "a perfect bill," it does a lot of good things. "But for whom? At what price?" went unasked.

Now we're learning. Like the drip-drip-drip of a faucet, over the weekend other provisions in the more than 2000-page bill began to leak. Many of the bad ones we mentioned on Thursday are there -- those extended tax breaks for big business, more gratuities to the fossil fuel industry, the provision to forbid the Securities & Exchange Commission from requiring corporations to disclose their political spending, even to their own shareholders. That one's a slap in the face even to Anthony Kennedy, the justice who wrote the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Citizens United. He said: "With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions."

Over our dead body, Congress declared last Friday, proclaiming instead: Secrecy today. Secrecy tomorrow. Secrecy forever. They are determined that we not know who owns them.

The horrors mount. As Eric Lipton and Liz Moyer reported for The New York Times on Sunday, in the last days before the bill's passage "lobbyists swooped in" to save, at least for now, a loophole worth more than $1 billion to Wall Street investors and the hotel, restaurant and gambling industries. Lobbyists even helped draft crucial language that the Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid furtively inserted into the bill. Lipton and Moyer wrote that, "The small changes, and the enormous windfall they generated, show the power of connected corporate lobbyists to alter a huge bill that is being put together with little time for lawmakers to consider. Throughout the legislation, there were thousands of other add-ons and hard to decipher tax changes."

No surprise to read that "some executives at companies with the most at stake are also big campaign donors." The Times reports that "the family of David Bonderman, a co-founder of TPG Capital, has donated $1.2 million since 2014 to the Senate Majority PAC, a campaign fund with close ties to Mr. Reid and other Senate Democrats." Senator Reid, lest we forget, is from Nevada. As he approaches retirement at the end of 2016, perhaps he's hedging his bets at taxpayer expense.

Consider just two other provisions: One, insisted upon by Republican Senator Thad Cochran, directs the Coast Guard to build a $640 million National Security Cutter in Cochran's home state of Mississippi, a ship that the Coast Guard says it does not need. The other: A demand by Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins for an extra $1 billion for a Navy destroyer that probably will be built at her state's Bath Iron Works - again, a vessel our military says is unnecessary.

So it goes: The selling off of the Republic, piece by piece. What was it Mark Twain said? "There is no distinctive native American criminal class except Congress."

Can we at least face the truth? The plutocrats and oligarchs are winning. The vast inequality they are creating is a death sentence for government by consent of the people at large. Did any voter in any district or state in the last Congressional election vote to give that billion dollar loophole to a handful of billionaires? To allow corporations to hide their political contributions? To add $1.4 trillion to the national debt? Of course not. It is now the game: Candidates ask citizens for their votes, then go to Washington to do the bidding of their donors. And since one expectation is that they will cut the taxes of those donors, we now have a permanent class that is afforded representation without taxation.

A plutocracy, says my old friend, the historian Bernard Weisberger, "has a natural instinct to perpetuate and enlarge its own powers and by doing so slams the door of opportunity to challengers and reduces elections to theatrical duels between politicians who are marionettes worked by invisible strings."

Where does it end?

By coincidence, this past weekend I watched the final episode of the British television series Secret State, a 2012 remake of an earlier version based on the popular novel A Very British Coup. This is white-knuckle political drama. Gabriel Byrne plays an accidental prime minister - thrust into office by the death of the incumbent, only to discover himself facing something he never imagined: a shadowy coalition of forces, some within his own government, working against him. With some of his own ministers secretly in the service of powerful corporations and bankers, his own party falling away from him, press lords daily maligning him, the opposition emboldened, and a public confused by misinformation, deceit, and vicious political rhetoric, the prime minister is told by Parliament to immediately invade Iran (on unproven, even false premises) or resign.

In the climactic scene, he defies the "Secret State" that is manipulating all this and confronts Parliament with this challenge:

"Let's forget party allegiance, forget vested interests, forget votes of confidence. Let each and every one of us think only of this: Is this war justified? Is it what the people of this country want? Is it going to achieve what we want it to achieve? And if not, then what next?

"Well, I tell you what I think we should do. We should represent the people of this country. Not the lobby companies that wine and dine us. Or the banks and the big businesses that tell us how the world goes 'round. Or the trade unions that try and call the shots. Not the civil servants nor the war-mongering generals or the security chiefs. Not the press magnates and multibillion dollar donors... [We must return] democracy to this House and the country it represents.

Do they? The movie doesn't tell us. We are left to imagine how the crisis -- the struggle for democracy -- will end.

As we are reminded by this season, there is more to life than politics. There are families, friends, music, worship, sports, the arts, reading, conversation, laughter, celebrations of love and fellowship and partridges in pear trees. But without healthy democratic politics serving a moral order, all these are imperiled by the ferocious appetites of private power and greed.

So enjoy the holidays, including Star Wars. Then come back after New Year's and find a place for yourself, at whatever level, wherever you are, in the struggle for democracy. This is the fight of our lives and how it ends is up to us.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The War on Christmas, or How to Build Mass Support for Right-Wing Ideology Print
Wednesday, 23 December 2015 15:19

Excerpt: "The war on Christmas is more than a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, it is a gateway into a conservative politics that exalts capitalism, racism, and nativism while attacking the Left."

Bill O'Reilly. (photo: Fox News)
Bill O'Reilly. (photo: Fox News)


The War on Christmas, or How to Build Mass Support for Right-Wing Ideology

By Mary Anne Henderson and Brian Platt, CounterPunch

23 December 15

 

omplaints about Starbucks cups this October ushered us into the annual conservative panic about the “war on Christmas.” Fox News serves as a perennial megaphone blaming “secular progressives” for undermining Christian values as part of a grander scheme to lead the United States down the path of sin and collectivism. Liberal pundits respond to Fox’s “Christmas Under Siege” segments by mocking conservatives and getting cheap laughs at the general silliness of it all. Few however, have addressed or taken seriously the broader politics of which this phenomenon is a part. The war on Christmas is more than a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, it is a gateway into a conservative politics that exalts capitalism, racism, and nativism while attacking the Left.

Antisemitic Origins of the War on Christmas

The first reference to a war on Christmas appeared in an article in Henry Ford’s The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem—a collection of antisemitic articles published in Ford’s personal newspaper The Dearborn Independent in the early 1920s. Ford’s editorial staff warned that “The Jew considers any public expression of Christian character as being derogatory to his religion.” They reported—in a story that might seem familiar to today’s Fox News audience—that “Last Christmas most people had a hard time finding Christmas cards that indicated in any way that Christmas commemorated Someone’s Birth.” Going on to warn, “People sometimes ask why 3,000,000 Jews can control the affairs of 100,000,000 Americans. In the same way that ten Jewish students can abolish the mention of Christmas and Easter out of schools containing 3,000 children.”

Ford’s conspiratorial rants were more than crude antisemitism, they were part of a broader politics that he actively tried to inculcate in his workers who were given copies of The Dearborn Independent as a condition of employment. Latching on to current trends in racism Ford turned Jews into a boogeyman designed to garner greater compliance among his workforce. In Ford’s editorials workers who sought a better life through union organizing or who dared to dream of alternatives to capitalism were merely the dupes of diabolical Jews “who sought to destroy the world” by controlling the labor movement and promoting communism. A pro-capitalist/anti-labor Protestant Christianity served as a bulwark against the Jewish-Bolshevik plot to “destroy America” and create a one world government. Thus Ford warned of Jewish efforts to “secularize” public schools in order to “prepare the soil” for the teaching of “Jewish revolutionary ideas” by “red professors” at the college level.

The worldview that Ford created was entirely self-serving, framing the unions that he struggled against in order to maximize his personal profit as part of a shadowy Jewish conspiracy. When workers at his Rouge River plant in 1939 threatened to unionize he had signs posted reading “Jews Teach Communism, Jews Teach Atheism, Jews Destroy Christianity, Jews Control the Press, Jews Produce Filthy Movies, Jews Control Money.”

As the Great Depression escalated the conflict between capital and labor others followed Ford’s lead melding pro-business politics with racist conspiracy theories. Most importantly several influential religious leaders took up Ford’s call to turn American Christianity into a bulwark against labor. Baptist Reverend Gerald Winrod traveled the country warning of Jewish conspiracies from the pulpit. When a lawsuit in 1927 forced Ford to stop reprinting antisemitic editorials in his paper, Winrod used his own press to begin reprinting sections of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion alongside editorials hewing close to the Ford mold. As Nazism violently expanded its influence in Europe Father Charles Coughlin brought American Catholics into the racist conspiricist fold declaring the need for a “Christian Front which will not fear to be called ‘anti-Semitic’” in order to oppose the Jewish-Bolshevik menace.

Still the presence of a strong Left led by radical political parties like the Communist Party USA and the Socialist Party and bolstered by radical trade unions engaging in the largest strike wave in American history held the rightist politics of Ford, Winrod, and Coughlin at bay. The social base was still far too radical for conspiracy theories like the war on Christmas to gain mass appeal.

The Cold War Years

The unprecedented labor activism that brought about the New Deal terrified the business community. In 1947 National Association of Manufacturers president H.W. Prentis warned of the “ominous rise of class consciousness, engendered by legalized labor union activity.” Luckily for business the Cold War with its anticommunist fervor and red baiting brought the full power of the state to bear on the American Left.

With this new realignment of class forces right wing ideology again became ascendant. Church leaders fought to put Christian identity at the forefront of the struggle against communism. Reverend Billy Graham warned that “Communism is… masterminded by Satan.” The Christian Freedom Foundation was created in 1950—with generous covert funding from Sun Oil—to halt “creeping socialism, state socialism, government controlled agriculture, government subsidies for schools, price and wage fixing” and all other “steps toward collectivism.” The American Council of Christian Laymen and the Spiritual Mobilization—Protestant organizations secretly funded by the business community—red baited clergy that supported the New Deal with publications like How Red is the Federal Council of Churches?

In this heightened atmosphere the John Birch Society, an activist organization which sought to move the Republican Party to the Right, stepped in. Picking up on many of the themes espoused by Ford the John Birch Society argued that the United States was being moved toward socialism as part of a plot to create a one world government. In 1959 they issued the pamphlet There Goes Chrismas?!, a warning about the “Reds’” efforts to “weaken the pillar of religion in our country” by driving “to take Christ out of Christmas—to denude the event of its religious meaning.” The Birchers war on Christmas followed the same pattern as Ford’s with one significant change, in the post-Holocaust world antisemitism became a poison pill inviting comparison with the recently defeated Nazi regime. Birchers replaced conspiratorial Jewish bankers with the United Nations, a move that invoked nativist sentiment while quietly invoking racist themes in the mind of the reader. Essentially they created a “dog whistle,” by wording this idea in way that invoked racist themes while maintaining plausible deniability on the part of the author.

In the 1960s the Civil Rights Movement rejuvenated the American Left. On college campuses students fought red baiting by openly handing out Mao’s little red book, an unthinkable act in the 1950s. Organizers against the war in Vietnam called out American imperialism by name and sided with Third World struggles to break from capitalism. Such actions rejuvenated the labor movement as members began to push back against the conservative leadership forced upon them in the previous decade.

The Neoliberal Turn

The re-emergence of the Left blunted the influence of the crypto-fascist John Birch Society on the general population, but there was one critical area where the Birchers maintained an outsized influence. The growing Christian nationalist movement became increasingly entangled with the John Birch Society and their pro-business ideology. Intellectual architect of the modern Christian Right Rousas Rushdoony was a Birch member along with the influential director of Summit Ministries David Noebel. Billy Graham’s father-in-law Dr. Nelson Bell headed up the John Birch chapter in Chicago while Graham himself contributed articles to William Huie’s The American Mercury—a magazine that reproduced Bircher conspiracy theories while leaving in the antisemitism of the pre-war years.

Christian nationalism formed the popular base on which the right wing reaction that began in the 1970s and still dominates the country today was built. Evangelicals mustered popular support in the South by resisting racial integration in public schools. Elsewhere they promoted “family values” in contraposition to the “tangle of pathology” that was the black family according to the Moynihan Report or the challenge to heterosexual dominance posed by women’s and gay liberation. The new Christian it was understood was to be white, male, heterosexual, and most importantly pro-business.

During the Reagan (counter)Revolution megachurches started to sprout up in America’s suburbs. Their ministers began promoting the “prosperity gospel” which equated the accumulation of personal wealth with spiritual righteousness and poverty with sin. San Antonio megachurch leader John Hagee is typical when he warns that “America has rewarded laziness and we’ve called it welfare” while admonishing the poor to get “their nasty self off the couch and go get a job.” New Christian libertarian think tanks like the Acton Institute began preaching that capitalism is a Christian creation while others sought out pro-capitalist statements in the Bible.

Taking on a particularly Christian identity American capitalism was again ready for the war on Christmas. While working as a writer for Fortune Magazine in the 1990s Peter Brimelow began to resurrect the idea of the war on Christmas arguing that it served to weaken America’s white Christian ethnic core. Brimelow would later create the openly racist website VDare.com which made the war on Christmas an annual event with headlines like “Yes, Virginia, There IS a War on Christmas—And on America.” But the real victory for the Right came with the rise of Fox News. Fox News brought right wing conspiracies from the margins and imbued them with legitimacy (Glenn Beck’s tendency to borrow liberally from libertarian radio nut Alex Jones for example).

Bill O’Reilly and his show The O’Reilly Factor quickly became the official mouthpiece for the war on Christmas. O’Reilly summarized the modern version of the story in a 2004 episode of his show:

Secular progressives realize that America as it is now will never approve of gay marriage, partial birth abortion, euthanasia, legalized drugs, income redistribution through taxation and many other progressive visions because of religious opposition. But if secularists can destroy religion in the public arena, the brave new progressive world is a possibility.

The new conspiracy varied little from the old conspiracy. The war on Christmas was vehicle by which shadowy figures sought to destroy America by challenging racism and sexism while ending income inequality—a nightmare for the country’s business leaders. Who constituted this shadowy cabal? According to Pastor John Hagee it is the United Nations, the “Eastern Establishment,” and “international financiers” all working toward the goal of a one world government. Glenn Beck and Alex Jones further worked to popularize the conspiracy of a looming New World Order propagated by the Illuminati or the Freemasons. In all cases the shadowy conspirator—be it Jews, the UN, or the Illuminati—is a McGuffin used by conservative pundits to cast fear and doubt on any effort to alter the status quo. This is why the villain can change over time but the story—and politics behind it— remains the same.

Liberal writers and pundits mock the new conspiratorial mood among conservatives. John Stewart’s The Daily Show looked forward to the annual low-hanging fruit provided by O’Reilly’s “Christmas Under Siege” segments. He and several others jumped on the opportunity to lampoon Fox’s The Kelly File last year when anchor Megyn Kelly went into meltdown demanding that people admit Santa Claus and Jesus are white. Liberal web magazines like Salon, Slate, and the Huffington Post write think pieces joking about conservatives’ sudden concern for crass materialism, their lack of knowledge of religious history, or their general nuttiness in believing Christianity is under attack in America. Some even dig deep and expose the unseemly origin of the war on Christmas in Henry Ford’s publications. While frequently smug in their rebuttals few if any of these pieces take seriously the political ideology of which the war on Christmas is a part.

Far from a harmless bit of holiday nonsense the war on Christmas is part of a racist, pro-capitalist ideology supported by corporate America and doled out in churches and on Fox News. Its ability to raise racist hackles through dog whistles is even clearer in Kelly’s ‘apology’ for her comments on Jesus and Santa. While insisting her comments in the segment were a joke, Kelly lambasts those “humorless” viewers who have the “knee-jerk instinct by so many to race-bait.” Critics called out her behavior as racist. They discussed the ways her comments showed the continued racial divide, but did not explore the use of this dog-whistle—“humorless” meaning liberal, non-white, critical of capitalism—as a part of a larger project to solidify anti-Left mass sentiment.  Created to combat the challenge the American Left posed in the 1930s and 1960s this ideology is so hostile to any idea believed to threaten the power of corporations and the wealthy that today even the most modest liberal reforms are met with cries of “Socialism!”

Challenging the War on Christmas

In the past radical political parties, labor unions, and radical activist groups resisted efforts by business to shape the social conscious. Today the union movement is a shell of its former self, there are no radical political parties of any influence, and the activist groups fracture their power and focus along identity lines reducing their influence. Succumbing to decades of police attacks from COINTELPRO to the war on drugs, red baiting on issues of economic importance (who can forget the pathetic display of Democratic presidential candidates fumbling to explain their pro-capitalist credentials during the first Democratic debate?), and the constant promotion of “lesser-evilism” that demands support for the Democratic Party the Left has largely lost the influence it formerly had over the American public. In this vacuum corporate America pays good money to provide people with a worldview amenable to their interests. This is the importance of the war on Christmas.

The war on Christmas is more than just an annual parade of nonsense for the purpose of inflating ratings. It represents the victory of pro-business/anti-labor ideology in the public mind. If capitalist ideology is leprosy then the war on Christmas is simply the numbness in your fingers that reminds you that your body is rotting from the inside out. In the past a strong, organized, and vigorous Left has kept this ideology at bay. They were able to do this not simply by critiquing the problems of American capitalism, but by offering viable alternatives for organizing society. From radical labor organizing to the height of the Civil Rights Movements, the winning Left legacy was one that empowered masses to rise up for a new vision of the world. Today we need a Left challenge to the Right’s politics more than ever.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Poll: Against Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump Would Get 'Schlonged' Print
Wednesday, 23 December 2015 12:52

Dickinson writes: "A new national poll finds Sanders would beat Trump if they went head-to-head in the general election."

Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Reuters)
Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Reuters)


Poll: Against Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump Would Get 'Schlonged'

By Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone

23 December 15

 

A new national poll finds Sanders would beat Trump if they went head-to-head in the general election

ernie Sanders would beat Donald Trump 51-38 in a general-election match-up, according to the latest poll from Quinnipiac University. Or — to put it in the course vernacular that Trump introduced to America this week — the billionaire would get "schlonged" by the democratic socialist.

"Sen. Bernie Sanders hammers him," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac poll. Hillary Clinton, the poll suggests, would also put Trump in his place — "Hillary Clinton tops him," added Malloy — though by a more modest 47-40.

That wasn't the only bad news for Trump, and by extension the GOP, to come out of the national poll: 61 percent of Americans say the Republican frontrunner "does not share their values," 58 percent believe he "is not honest and trustworthy,"and 57 percent say he "does not care about their needs and problems."

Most striking is the disconnect between GOP voters and the rest of the electorate of Trump's viability as a general-election candidate. Fully 70 percent of GOP voters are convinced Trump would have a good chance of winning in November 2016. Just 41 percent of Americans at large hold the same view, with a majority (51 percent) holding that Trump "does not have a good chance of winning."

In the race for the Republican nomination, the poll shows Trump still leading a divided field. With 28 percent support, Trump bests Texas Sen. Ted Cruz by 4 points, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio by 14 points. The poll finds that both Cruz and Rubio would prove more formidable general-election competitors. Against either Clinton or Sanders, both Cruz and Rubio make the 2016 election, effectively, a tossup.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 Next > End >>

Page 2212 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN