Secret Agenda? Another Inane Conspiracy Theory

For years, many of the elite conservatives were happy to harvest the votes of devout Christians and gun owners by waging a phony class war against “liberal elitists” and “leftist intellectuals.” Suddenly, the conservative writers are discovering that the very anti-intellectualism their side courted and encouraged has begun to consume their movement.

I have a hard time believing that conservative intellectuals are surprised that the above situation is happening. This conservative intellectual criticism has been a building trend this election with one after another coming out of the closet to either endorse Obama, criticize Palin, and/or question McCain.

Conspiracy Theory Alert Ahead …

The fear of the Republicans this election year was that the base wouldn’t come out to vote because of their deep suspicion of McCain. I think that was an empty fear when, while they may hate McCain, no way would they stand for an Obama presidency either. So there was no need to pander to the base with the Sarah Palin pick. As long as they stayed away from Lieberman, any of the other picks would have been fine and the social conservatives would have come out in the end.

But the independents had already started turning towards Obama during the Democratic primary season. Conservative intellectuals started to smell defeat. Their candidate was old and had eight years of mucking up his record on the national stage. The social conservatives weren’t playing along but any attempt to oust them from the party at this stage would be too obvious. So throw Palin in the mix and the social conservatives are mollified once again that they’re the true base of the Republican Party.

But what if it was all a trick? A strategy to schism the party and return the GOP to its economic conservative roots?

Like my earlier crackpot theory about Sarah Palin as the tool to discredit women, this one rests on the premise that the Republicans know they are going to lose this election and so decided some good must come of it, for them. By picking a member of the religious right wing as the VP, McCain seems to be acknowledging the religious conservatives’ crucial role in the Republican Party, but perhaps it’s just to set them up as a handy scapegoat when he loses. Was this plan all along?

If McCain loses (and today’s projections are more dismal for him than ever with Obama polling at 354-375—depending on which electoral vote mapping site you use), conservative intellectuals will blame the Palin pick. The social/religious conservatives will blame McCain and the conservatives who tanked Palin in the op-eds and endorsements. With the Democrats in control of the executive and legislative branches of government, the Republicans could actually have the breathing room to fix what’s gone wrong in their party. And they need to.

It’s already happening, the RNC is pulling out of races where hardcore social conservative candidates are having trouble (Bachman and Musgrave—far right conservatives—most notably) and the social conservatives are threatening to pull money from the RNC. They should. The Republican Party has done nothing to reward this group for the 2000 and 2004 elections. If Obama wins, Roe v. Wade will not even be in play for another 30-40 years. What will they run on then? The Republican Party does not need, in a post-Obama administration, the rabble rousing over abortion and gay marriage. They need to hunker down to the ideological roots of their party, fiscal conservative economics.

It does not say good things about our country that the race for the leadership of the free world devolves into such petty attacks as we have seen. We need to expunge the fringe politics from our executive branch and put them where they belong, in the Congress.

Green Party members, Libertarians, and extreme social conservatives take note. You are never going to win the executive branch and actually enact your policies while under the umbrella of a major party (what’s George W. Bush done for you lately?). Far-left liberals, Nader is never going to win the White House. The better bet would be for all these other movements to disengage from the two major parties and start actively supporting candidates for Congress under their own label. Let the two major parties continue to duke it out for Senate and the White House, start infiltrating the House. The House is supposed to be the party of the people and should have all the bickering, fighting, compromise, and deal-making that people do. Start building the foundations of your own parties in the House of Representatives and make the House truly represent the people.

Naturally these smaller parties would caucus with one of the two larger parties. Or even, gasp, with each other on certain issues that they can agree upon from time to time. From that stage, under their own labels, they could have a larger voice than the position they are now in, buried under the umbrella of the major two parties. But these groups must be realistic and know that the White House, or even the Senate, is not in play and won’t be for decades or centuries to come.

In the meantime, I will happily sit back and watch the fighting happen starting November 5. Coming up next, my virtual shopping spree where I try to come up with a $150,000 wish list at Neiman Marcus.

My God's Bigger Than Your God!

It’s Sunday so it’s a good time to talk religion. Particularly since anyone who might be offended is probably at church and this will probably roll off their Facebook news feed before they get back.

I am not, as anyone who knows me, religious in any way. I don’t subscribe to any documented faith-based doctrine or cult. I tend to go after Catholicism the most, because I was initially raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools, and summarily shook off any belief in the system before I got my driver’s license. By extension, I am usually dismissive of Christianity overall in part thanks to the unwelcome influence it has played in my constitutionally guaranteed secular life. So that is why, without defending or advocating any other religion, I’m disgusted by the opening prayer at a recent McCain campaign stop in Iowa. It went:

"There are millions of people around this world praying to their God -- whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah -- that [McCain's] opponent wins for a variety of reasons," Pastor Arnold Conrad said. "And, Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens."

The message is simple: Don’t vote for the black guy with the funny name or some people might think a four-armed Lakshmi, a three-eyed Shiva, or a fat guy staring at his belly button is bigger than the white-bearded snoozer in the sky and his zombie son.

That’s a whole new level of ridiculous. I was under the impression that these various doctrines didn’t acknowledge the existence of other gods at all so at its face, the prayer makes no sense. Why would the Almighty need to guard his reputation against other gods that don’t exist? But it doesn’t matter whether it makes sense. It’s a fear tactic. The other, the different, the non-white/non-Christian aspect of this country might actually count (never mind that the candidate is a half-white Christian). Facts and doctrine don’t matter in this culture war. Anything different is too scary. Forget that current day-to-day life these days is terrifying in and of itself. Change it to something other than more of the same is scarier.

It is at times like this I wish I had something to pray to, to make it all stop. But even the act of finding a god of logic, rationality, and reason is in itself an act of irrationality. My brain hurts. Because as soon as I read this I realized that this pastor is comparing gods the way men compare the size of their dicks. I was already appalled that MILF had made it into presidential discourse, now opening prayers are barely disguised penis competitions?

Freedom of Speech: Is It Pay to Play?

Just the thing that caught my eye today. Been on vacation and not much for updating.

I am a huge proponent of free speech, often (borrowing the line from The American President) to the point of "acknowledg[ing] a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

So my initial reaction to this Pulpit Initiative is to back them. At first glance, they are correct in that "The bottom line is that no enforcement agency of the federal government should be telling a pastor what he can or cannot say from his pulpit about the Bible and his church's teaching on the issues of the hour - even if the pastor's sermon applies Scripture and church teaching to candidates and elections."

Until they get to "Such agencies certainly cannot condition tax-exempt status--a status churches have always been constitutionally guaranteed since our founding--on the surrender of cherished First Amendment rights."

Where is this Constitutional right to be exempt from taxation? In fact, aren't these very churches getting the special rights so many conservatives deride by being exempt because they believe in some old man in the sky? If they want to interject themselves into the political process, why not then voluntarily give up their tax-exempt status?

I'm honestly confused by why churches have this status at all anymore. I actually think the whole charity/church tax-exempt status should be tossed out the window. Perhaps tax credits for adherence to stated goals would be a better program than the Catholic Church not having to pay god-only knows millions in taxes on their incredibly valuable properties throughout the country.

I will admit it's not a clear-cut issue for me. Freedom of Speech does trump most everything in this country as a core right. But I don't see why churches are given a tax exempt status and then asked to be treated differently from other organizations with tax exempt status. But I have a core visceral issue with the First Amendment being a pay to play situation.