June 04, 2006

Unity 08

I watched a Democrat, Gerald Rafshoon, and a Republican, Doug Bailey, on C-SPAN this morning talk about the organization they have helped to found, Unity 08, which seeks to nominate a unity ticket for President in 2008. What they mean by a unity ticket is either a Democrat for President and a Republican for Vice President, or vice versa. Or, for that matter, an Independent for either position combined with someone from either major party. Or maybe even two Independents.

It was heartwarming (snicker, snicker) to watch these two old political foes sitting in each other's laps and making nice while talking about the good old days when they were top political advisors for President Gerald Ford and Governor Jimmy Carter, battling it out for the Presidency 30 years ago (30 years ago!) in 1976. Each of them made it clear that, back then, there were no personal attacks as part of their campaigns. Rafshoon said the worst he got from Bailey was that Jimmy Carter was "untested." They both agreed that the worst the Carter campaign did was attack President Ford's actual record. As Candace Olson would say: "How divine." (If you don't know who she is, you don't watch enough Home and Garden TV.)

They and their organization want to bring back civility and "unity" to American politics, but I am afraid that they want to do it in a political environment that is far different from what it was 30 years ago. Even though the Republican Right and the Christian ideologues were beginning to forge an alliance that now dominates American politics, it was, then, not yet in control of the Republican Party. What is different today is that religion has blended so intimately with Republican politics that personal Christian beliefs make it impossible for compromise. True believers cannot compromise their personal Christian beliefs. And if one's personal political life is driven entirely by one's personal Christian beliefs, there can never be a political environment that allows for the kind of political civility and unity that Bailey and Rafshoon seek.

And what makes all this much worse than it was in 1976 is that we have a large and influential group of people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and John Gibson who daily spew the kind of lies and hatred that never allows for moderation or compromise. And they do so on behalf of the Republican Party as if they were official spokespeople for the Party, and not one Republican calls them on their bilious lies and distortion.

Worse, we have a press corps whose power to serve the public interest has been dramatically circumscribed and limited by a profit-driven corporatocracy. In 1976, how many of us could imagine an entire news network dedicated to worshipful partisan reporting and commentary on behalf of the Republican Party, 24 hours a day?

As the press has lost its way in American politics and no longer serves as a persistent and effective watchdog over government, Christian fundamentalism has intruded in government in ways we once could not imagine. Religious ideology has increasingly become the driving force of government service.

The icing on this ugly and bitter cake is how our political campaigns have become perverted by money in ways we were only beginning to see in 1976.

Doug Bailey and Gerald Rafshoon can't imagine having treated each other with the level of disrespect that reigns today, but they are not going to bring back the kind of civility and "unity" until three things happen:

1. Americans successfully oppose the unconstitutional impact of religion on our government;
2. the press takes back its independence and starts to serve the public interest once again;
3. and the devastatingly anti-democratic effect of money is removed from the political process.

7 comments:

Unknown said...

Oh what to do?
Maybe spending limits could be imposed at, say one dollar a head, as determined by the number of registered voters as of a certain date in whatever constituency is voting in the election.
A mayoral race then would be limited to one dollar for the registered voters voting in the last election. Here in my city that would be around $30,000. A very generous amount I would say!
A federal, state or local election board could collect the contributions and dole the money out, equally, to those deemd qualified to run in the particular election. Those contributing to the fund would have no say or knowledge of which candidate they would contribute to.
A candidate could qualify by paying a small fee and collecting a certain amount of signatures, at their own expense.

Mark Prime (tpm/Confession Zero) said...

The parties need be scrubbed and we need fresh ideas, people, checks and balances and a complete overhaul of the system. It is in disarray and the first step is impeachment and removal of the regime of Bush and then wipe the halls of congress and work our way to a start that has no resemblance what so ever of either Dem or rep. Period. Start fresh. Clean slate. Do away with oil reliant vehicles, the oil companies will survive, helkl, plastice is made from oil...everything is made from oil!

That is my proposal, rudimentary as it may be.... :>)

Stephen McArthur said...

I dare say George Orwell, whom you say you admire, would resent the intrusion of narrow-minded Christian bigotry into our government policies and practices. Don't try to put words in my mouth, or distort what I know is true about the US Constitution - namely that it allows for the people to pratcie their religion freely. I never said that the practice of religion is not protected by the US Constitution. I do believe that the intrusion of certain narrow Christian ideologies into what I believe should remain non-secular government programs works to undermine our Constitution.

You have every right to believe that journalism should serve the bottom line of newspaper and media holding companies. You also may believe that the tradition of journalism in the service of truth and justice is a silly notion, and that every writer and so-called journalist owes his or her entire allegiance to the finacial success of the corporation. Orwell would oppose you, in spite of your admiration of him.

And finally, you seem to believe the impact of money in politics is free speech, or in your words, "extremely democratic." There are distinct classes of democratic participation and you represent one of them well, whether you are rich or not. At the very least, you are an apologist for that class. One class, because it has so much more money, can speak louder than everyone else. There is a built-in mismatch. No matter how many thousands of people give contributions of $10, $25, or $50 to a candidate, they cannot compete with corporate money, corporate receptions, corporate events, $10,000-a-plate dinners, or the corporate-sponsored, information-gathering trips at exclusive golf resorts. Who gets more access and recognition? Five thousand campaign contributors who give $25 each, or twenty-seven high-level executives from one company who give $2000 each, along with their wives for $2000 more? The idea of “free” speech in this context becomes meaningless.

Money, as it is employed by corporate power in politics, is unequal speech and highly undemocratic no matter how you protest it's all just "exremely democratic."

Stephen McArthur said...

You confuse a Two Minute Hate with opposition. I don't think it would surprise you to know that I do defend their right to hold such beliefs. I just don't want them using the government to stuff their religious beliefs down my throat. I will call them on their bigotry and anti-democratic practices with every breath I have. And in that context, your use of the phrase "Sincerely held religious beliefs" worries me. Is that like "sincerely held racialist beliefs", something along the lines of a sincerely held religious belief that blacks are subhuman or that Jews are an inferior race? Where do you draw the line in your defense of "sincerely held beliefs?" Can it be that mere belief, for you, is the means that justifies the end?

Why am I not surprised that your sincerely held relativism sees no moral difference between the "sincerely held beliefs" of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi and those held by people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

Using the NAACP and the Southern Poverty Law Center as examples of
the equal exercise of the power of money is amusing. Weighing
their influence against that of corporate power on the issues that count most -- war, energy, health, the environment, education -- is pretty silly. If only it were true. Perhaps you have been spending too much time with your two billionaire friends.

I do support a completely secular state, devoid of religion. There are too many governments that have been run by religions and religious beliefs that have proven the awful nature of such rule.

By the way, I can read the subhead on your blog, but I feel the need
to inform you that my mother was pro choice. That a woman chooses to give birth says nothing about a woman's belief regarding the right of a woman to choose.

Stephen McArthur said...

I never said religion and democracy are incompatible. Democracy is what allows for the free practice of religion. Where I draw the line is when religion becomes part and parcel of a government; i.e., when dozens of Islamic countries have as their first clause in their constitutions that Islam is the religion of the state. This is a fairly simple distinction that I don't think needs more explaining, I hope.

As for the corporate power structure, I leave you to your sincere hero worship. In fact, I am not all that happy with much of the technology that has been developed which has destroyed community, family, and environment. True believers and catholic (not to be confused with Catholic) apologists for the corporatocracy will forgive any technology anything, I suppose. It's all progress and it's all sincere.

Anonymous said...

Great debate by pod and S.McA. They actually did a fine job of demonstrating the unity movement spirit. These are strong arguments followed by a partial resolution with room for further discourse and development by others.

Bruce Larson*Moore said...

Seems to*me that most of these issue's resolve to one thing, the current world system is out of balance, and the solution should be labeled "Relationship*08", as the term "unity" is a step and threat to far for those who hold fear as their guide. Once fear is overcome and ultimately defeated, unity will be the natural evolution of all states.

BL*M
The Last*War