Don Swift : Dominionists and the 'Kingdom of God'

Image from The Last Crisis.
A threat to American liberties:
Dominionists and the 'Kingdom of God'

They want to take over government and create a theocracy. No wonder they see nothing wrong in playing politics from the pulpit.

By Don Swift / The Rag Blog / September 21, 2011

[This is the second in a series on Dominionism by Don Swift. See Part I here.]

Dominionists refuse to accept the separation of church and state. They want to take over government and other areas of society and create a theocracy. No wonder they see nothing wrong in playing politics from the pulpit.

Reverend Ed Kalnins, once Sarah Palin's pastor at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church, has consigned critics of George W. Bush to hell. He even denounced those who criticized Bush’s handling of Katrina. He doubted that people who voted for John Kerry in 2004 would be welcomed to heaven.

He said: "I'm not going tell you who to vote for, but if you vote for this particular person, I question your salvation. I'm sorry." Kalnins added: "If every Christian will vote righteously, it would be a landslide every time.

There are different forms of Dominionism. Christian Reconstructionism is one important form. These people believe that the Kingdom of God was established on earth at the time of the Resurrection and that it is their job to complete its work by taking control of society. Then Christ can return in the Second Coming. Scholars concerned with technicalities say this view is rooted in pre-suppositionism, meaning the kingdom must be in place before the Second Coming.

Calvinist theologian J.Rousas Rushdoony founded the movement Christian Reconstructionism back in the 1960s. Author of the three volume Institutes of Biblical Law, Rushdoony was a prolific writer, and he was a founder of the Christian home-schooling movement. He also defended American slavery. He appeared often on Pat Robertson's television program in the 1980s, but Robertson claims he does not understand what Dominionism is.

Rushdoomy hated the Federal Reserve and was revered by gold hoarders. He thought that American law should be replaced with the Old Testament. The irony is that some of his followers today are vociferous in denouncing shariah law. He wrote in 1982, “With the coming collapse of the humanistic state, the Christian must be prepared to take over...”

This rightist prophet led the Chalcedon Foundation, which carries on his work and is known for its virulent homophobia. His followers are bent on reconstructing “our fallen society,” and the recent efforts of the Tea Baggers to bring down the financial system is an indication of how far they will go.

They take seriously the extreme and harsh punishments in the Old Testament and would apply the death penalty to apostasy, homosexuality, and abortion. Many believe the Bible requires physical punishment of children. Some believe that seven years of slavery would be an acceptable punishment for some offenses today, but none believe that slavery now should be based on race.

The Christian Reconstructionists or Theonomists have influenced numerous Protestant leaders without necessarily making them Dominionists. Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy have supported Dominionist books.

They have a “kingdom-now theology.” In the George W. Bush White House, Marvin Olasky, a Christian Reconstructionist, had great influence.

George Grant, former executive director of Coral Ridge Ministry, said that "it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice ... It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time ... World conquest.” That organization is now called Truth in Action Ministries, and Rep. Michelle Bachmann has close ties to it.

She appeared in one of its documentaries that attacks socialism, and she has espoused the Dominionist position that government has no right to collect more than 10% of a person's earnings in taxes. She has also promoted Grant's book on Robert E. Lee, in which the godly Confederacy battled the godless North. It is a pro-slavery book, and Bachmann recommended it on her web site for some time.

Michelle Bachmann has admitted being strongly influenced by a Reconstructionist, John Eidsmore, a Dominionist teaching at Oral Roberts University, a Pentecostal school. Eidsmore spoke to Alabama secessionists last year and defended the right of a state to secede and explicitly endorsed the constitutional views of John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis.

Bachmann has also said that she was influenced by the writings of Dominionist Francis Schaeffer. Bachmann said she decided to become a politician after watching one of his films Three years before his death, Schaeffer warned that America would descend into a tyrannical state and that an authoritarian elite would scheme to bring about this terrible result. He believed that only true Christians should rule.

Bachmann has also had good things to say about Dominionist historian David Barton, whose website is WallBuilders. He had followed Rushdoony in defending American slavery. Barton teaches that the Bible provides clear guidance on all public policy matters.

[Don Swift, a retired history professor, also writes under the name Sherman DeBrosse. Read more articles by Don Swift on The Rag Blog.]

Also see:

• "Perry, Bachmann, and the Threat of Dominionism" by Don Swift / The Rag Blog / Sept. 14, 2011
• "Leap of Faith: The making of a Republican front-runner," by Ryan Lizza / The New Yorker / Aug. 15, 2011

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Don Swift : Perry, Bachmann, and the Threat of Dominionism

Image (without irony) from OpenAirSeattle.
A threat to American liberties:
Dominionism and the Republican Right

Both Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have clear ties to the Christian Dominionists, who do not believe in the separation of church and state.

By Don Swift / The Rag Blog / September 14, 2011

[This is the first in a series on Dominionism by Don Swift.]

In 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy, then a candidate for the presidency, found it necessary to explain to assembled Baptist ministers in Houston that he would respect the American principle of separation of church and state and that he would not let the Catholic bishops dictate policy to him.

In 2008, many were troubled by the views of Senator Barack Obama's pastor, the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright, who had a direct way of putting things and sometimes seemed too influenced by racial bitterness. Obama had to distance himself from his friend and leave the congregation.

In this presidential election cycle, two of the leading Republican candidates for the presidency, Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann, have clear ties to the Christian Dominionists, who do not believe in the separation of church and state. Should one of them become the Republican standard bearer, he or she should be required to answer some probing questions about the separation of church and state and the attitudes of his or her Dominionist friends.

These people are not friends of democracy. Sarah Palin, a very influential Republican who seems to be weighing the possibility of running for the nomination, also is tied to the Dominionists.

In addition, there is The Family or The Fellowship, a semi-secret religious organization comprised almost entirely of Republican politicians who work behind the scenes to translate their religious beliefs into public policy. By all accounts this secretive brotherhood possesses great power and has connections and influence throughout our society.

Although many have claimed these people are Dominionists, it is not at all clear that their ultimate goal is to exclude non-Christians from office. They seem perfectly content to guide others in exercising power. They might better be designated soft Dominionists, but their lust for autocratic power is no less frightening than the desires of the hard Dominionists. Like the hard Dominionists, they see themselves as a spiritual royalty or elite who have a special claim to the right to shape the nation's affairs.

Their clandestine operations and mingling of religion and politics are not a healthy development and are inconsistent with the separation of church and state.

Dominionism is an academic term that applies to the belief that the saved must battle to take over the world in God’s name and rule it according to Biblical principles and injunctions. It refers to a conservative Protestant movement that is both political and religious.

The basis for Dominionism is found in Genesis 1: 26-27, where God gave Adam dominion over all earthly things. Though Adam and his progeny lost that power through the fall, it is believed that baptism restored that power to true believers. They were meant to rule, and governance by people they consider non-Christians is a kind of sacrilege.

There is a tendency among them to delegitimate other Christian religions and to even hold that demons run some other churches. Some Dominionists hold that unbelievers can be compelled to accept salvation. They adhere to some unusual beliefs that many say are unbiblical. For example, they teach that some of their leaders can somehow incarnate Christ and exercise his power in this world.

In 1994, Frederick Clarkson wrote that Dominionism and Social Darwinism are of the same cloth. Social Darwinism is misnamed; it really goes back to Thomas Malthus, a misguided preacher who thought that intense competitiveness and self-interest were the essence of social evolution. Rejecting any compassion, he thought it right and natural that the strong benefit at the expense of the weak.

Charles Darwin did not think this way and wrote about how compassion and kindness were necessary and part of human nature. The Dominionists believe it is sinful for people in distress to look to government for help; God will provide. Like our Puritan ancestors, they thought that the rich were blessed by God, and the poor deserved their fate.

Scholars have noted that Social Darwinism is frequently associated with authoritarian mindsets and strong suspicion of others. In the case of the Dominionists, they use a distorted form of Christianity and Social Darwinism to define themselves as an elite and to define others in such a negative way that it is easy to generate considerable hostility toward them.

Clarkson added that they expect women to be submissive and stay at home. This outlook has changed because there are so many females among the Dominionist leadership. Even Michele Bachmann, who once defended submission, is now busy defining it away.

Dominionism always involves an element of elitism and more than a small dose of authoritarianism. These people think they have been selected by God to rule. Especially empowered in that way, they tend to think that whatever they do is justified. They see those who disagree as agents of the forces of evil.

The 75 year-old Family or Fellowship, based in the Washington, D.C. area, is an organization that reflects this elitism and authoritarian outlook. Its views smack heavily of theocracy, but a careful student of the cult could conclude that they worship power itself.

Image from a website called "7 Mountains: Fulfilling Your God Given Assignment."
Dominionists speak in terms of reclaiming the earth from Satan and capturing the seven mountains of church, family, education, arts and entertainment, business, media, and government. Each of the seven mountains should be ruled by Dominionists.

No one knows how many Dominionists there are in the United States. Some of them speak in terms numbering half of one percent of the population. Others claim a growth rate of 9 million a year, which is very unlikely. The number of people who would claim this label is probably small, but Dominionists' influence among conservative Christians is substantial and growing. They thoroughly understand the mindset of conservative Christians and are very adept at inserting their ideas into many parts of it.

This world of Dominionism can be assessed through television networks like GODTV, DayStar, and the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Dominionists are clearly active, zealous, and well organized, and their numbers appear to be growing among evangelical Protestant clergy. Their ideas are clearly cross-fertilizing with other forms of conservative Protestant Christianity.

Some see Dominionism as a sort of Christian Wahabism They all think that true Christians were given by God a right to rule all human institutions. If one doubts that these people lack influence, recall Senator Charles Grassley's efforts to look into six religious organizations that were accused of converting religious funds to personal use. He backed off, and his staff recommended that the IRS repeal the rule preventing churches from electioneering.

Dominionists have substantial influence among today's Tea Party Republican leaders. Recently there were several carefully researched articles on Dominionism, and CNN's Jack Cafferty even had an essay on it. There followed a stream of articles by right-wing publicists reassuring us that no Christians want to take over government, that they just want to have some influence in it.

Michael Gerson, one of the most capable Republican spokesmen, took the lead in distancing Tea Party leaders from Dominionism. He attributes fear of the Dominionists to the anti-religious attitudes of many liberals. Lisa Miller, Newsweek's religion editor, also said fear of the Dominionists is unwarranted. And Ralph Reed has said that the Dominionists do not exist: “The notion that Bachmann, Perry or other candidates secretly harbor ‘dominionist’ theology is a conspiracy theory largely confined to university faculty lounges and MSNBC studios.”

Recently, some Dominionist clergymen came forward to say that they really are not seeking a “theocracy.” On the other hand, more than a few respected evangelical spokesmen state that the fears are not unwarranted, and they distinguish between themselves and the Dominionists. Some of them must have read enough to realize that the Dominionists intend to take over their denominations.

Dominionists think God intervenes regularly in earthly matters. Some think that the terrible Japanese earthquake was God's punishment for not heeding one of God's decree. On the other hand, they say that God ended mad cow disease in Germany and a drought in Texas. It is said among them that Jezebel and three minor demons run the Democratic Party. In Texas, they have strange ceremonies with plumb lines and branding irons; and they are said to have driven inscribed stakes into the ground in every county.

Michele Bachmann half-joked that God might have sent Hurricane Irene to show his displeasure that Americans have not fixed their debt problem. She seems to think that God has very clear ideas about public policy. On a Truth in Action ministries video, she said that God taught that no tax money should be spent on social welfare. It should all come from charity.

Dominionists present a serious danger to the Republic because they do not believe in the separation of church and state and because they consider themselves a royal priesthood entitled to rule. People who think they are that special will do anything to gain power and will misuse it when they want.

Of course, there are other groups out there who also think they are that special. A problem is that the Dominionists, including the soft Dominionists in The Family or The Fellowship, have a way of allying with these other power-hungry groups such as the corporate elite and extremists in the intelligence and military communities.

[Don Swift, a retired history professor, also writes under the name Sherman DeBrosse. Read more articles by Don Swift on The Rag Blog.]

• Also see "Leap of Faith: The making of a Republican front-runner," by Ryan Lizza / The New Yorker / Aug. 15, 2011

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Dr. Stephen R. Keister : Health Care and the Congress from Bedlam

Birth of the Republican Congress: "The Interior of Bedlam" (Bethlem Royal Hospital), from A Rake's Progress by William Hogarth, 1763. Image from McCormick Library, Northwestern University / Wikimedia Commons.
The Congress from Bedlam:
Health care and American priorities

By Dr. Stephen R. Keister / The Rag Blog / March 30, 2011

"I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America." -- Alexis de Tocqueville.

One might conclude that the current Republican Congress was spawned in Bedlam.

The nation faces what could become the worst financial crisis since the creation of the republic, and a health care crisis second to none. Yet the legislative goals of the Republican Congress, encouraged by the fundamentalist Christian Right and the Tea Party movement, appear to be (1) abolishing Obama’s health care program, (2) curtailing abortion rights, (3) defunding Planned Parenthood, (4) defunding NPR, and (5) declaring English as America's official language.

I find the attack on the health care law beyond comprehension since it was negotiated in secret between the Obama administration and two of the industries that are financial keystones of the Republican Party -- the health insurance cartel and the pharmaceutical industry.

Not only does the legislation guarantee greatly increased profits to these corporate entities, but the entire plan is modeled on the Mitt Romney program under which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts still suffers from higher health costs and no decrease in the number of personal bankruptcies for those unable to pay their medical bills.

Recent information indicates that the insurance companies nationwide have been able to increase their rates by 20-60 percent since passage of the legislation. Little improvement has been made in providing coverage for those with pre-existing conditions because of excessive premium costs, while 50 million Americans are still uninsured and thousands still die from lack of health care.

What is it that creates such fury in Republicans that they wish to do away with the legislation? One might think we had enacted a low cost, inclusive, all-encompassing health care plan like those in most of the nations of the free world.

The near total failure of this legislation is discussed in detail by Kevin Zeese in a Truthout article entitled "One-Year Anniversary: The Incredible Shrinking Obama Health Care Law."

Our Republican friends should also gain great satisfaction in the fact that the personal physician, the traditional family doctor, will soon be replaced by hospital-based doctors, thus increasing the cost to the average citizen and concurrently increasing profits to the hospital industry.

For instance, a stress test may well increase in cost from $170 to $240, a study for sleep apnea will increase from $780 to $1,140, and a Caesarean Section from $2,700 to $3,420.

In my home, Erie, Pennsylvania, we have been watching the evolution of this phenomenon for some years. Here, most medical practices are now under the aegis of two traditional hospitals. As the older practitioners die or retire, options will be increasingly restricted.

This is pushing us further into a corporate structure that idealizes profits rather than professional medicine. This process is discussed in detail in an article at Smart Money, in entitled "Say Farewell to the Family Doctor."

The one bright spot on the horizon is the passage of a universal health care bill by the Vermont House -- The Vermont Health Care Authority -- by a vote of 89-47. The Governor has expressed his approval for the legislation, which still must pass the Senate. The law has been contested by all of the corporate interests that one would anticipate.

Much work is yet to be done, but there is cause for encouragement. The physicians are pleased as punch, and many other doctors may look to Vermont as a good site to move their practices.

Unhappily one can anticipate little movement from the American public in the direction of intelligent economic or health care policies. The average American, sadly, has little knowledge of the state of national affairs and the workings of government -- or what is really in his or her own interest.

Newsweek recently published a survey where 1,000 Americans were given the U.S. Citizenship test, a test taken by new immigrants at the time of naturalization, and 38 percent of current citizens failed it. European tourists with whom I talk know more about current affairs in the United States than do many of my neighbors.

One other bit of encouragement is Rep. Anthony Weiner's move to attach a "public option" to the current federal law. I feel that Rep.Weiner is one of a handful of honest elected representatives in Washington, and I admire his diligence and honor; however, I greatly fear that he is talking to the sea. The organization, Physicians for a National Health Program, continues its efforts and I would encourage those who can donate to do so. Hopefully, one day, it will be more than a voice in the wilderness.

Another positive note is the slowly increasing public attitude favoring the legalization of cannabis. A number of states have approved use of the plant for medical purposes, and many far-sighted individuals are beginning to see a bright side to decriminalization – like increased tax revenue in the billions of dollars, and the elimination of the tremendous expense of incarcerating those convicted for possession. Three more states, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, are close to arriving at rational decisions.

I tend to support the legalization course, as well as national laws permitting prescription cannabis, though I have never experienced the drug personally. Patients, and relatives of patients, have told me repeatedly that smoking a joint gives much more relief from pain caused by chronic or terminal illness, than prescription opiates.

My underlying fear is that the pharmaceutical industry will get on board the prescription cannabis train and at the same time lobby against legal, government-regulated, individual use of pot, leading to “prescriptions for profit” while individual use continues to be a felony.

I fear, as well, that the lobbies for the liquor industry will do their best to prevent sale of a drug much less physically and psychologically harmful than most alcoholic beverages. I would urge that all who have a rational Congressperson contact him/her and encourage the movement for national legalization.

[Dr. Stephen R. Keister lives in Erie, Pennsylvania. He is a retired physician who is active in health care reform and is a regular contributor to The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Ask Yourself, 'How Valuable Is My Health?'

Death Panels: Let Me Explain
By Bill Freeland / The Rag Blog / August 19, 2009

As regular readers of these pages are aware, we seek to be a resource for information about the health care debate from an industry perspective. So let me begin with a current hot topic: “Death Panels.”

Let me explain.

It should come as no surprise that here we recognize, to borrow Al Gore’s convenient term, “an inconvenient truth”: which is to say that, despite our best efforts, we have yet to achieve the goal of universal immortality for any of our citizens.

The rumored reappearances of Elvis notwithstanding, we must accept that at some point each of us will one day finally “leave the building.”

This is a difficult moment, not merely for the deceased, but for family and friends, among whom we, of course -- as providers of primary or secondary health care coverage -- count ourselves.

Of course, as in any family, differences arise about priorities in such a close relationship. Which helps to explain why we find it necessary on occasion to take a “tough love” approach when the loved one seeks an experimental treatment, an expensive joint replacement, or more than one night’s hospital stay after surgery.

All of which leads us to this so-called “death panel” option. Predictably, there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about what the industry is actually advocating here. It’s often said that no one can place a premium on human life. Indeed, our critics would have you believe that premiums are our entire life. Absurd! Premiums are in fact merely a society’s mechanism for keeping score in the game of who lives and who dies.

Ask yourself, how valuable is my health? Answer: simply check your monthly insurance statement. Nowhere in the Western world are insurance premiums as high as in this country. Which is as good a gauge as any of the value we place on your well being.

Of course, we would like to say that your life (and our premiums) could go on forever. But they can’t. Which is why we think it prudent from time to time to let us help you review your options.

Let me explain.

Remember that beloved goldfish your parents bought you for your sixth birthday which somehow survived until after you went away to college? Now, remember when it suddenly hit you: a teenage goldfish is a biological impossibility!? And remember how at that moment the crushing realization of mortality descended upon you? How many stand-ins were there for the original “Goldilocks,” you wondered? How could you ever trust your parents -- or anyone else for that matter -- ever again?

The idea of a “death panel” is in no way meant to balance the scales for that injury as you come to consider the circumstances of your parents’ passing. At least not on a conscious level. No, rather it is merely an attempt to lift that awesome responsibility from you and place it in the hands of a bureaucrat -- and I might point out -- not an insurance company bureaucrat but a government bureaucrat! That should satisfy the reformers -- and help you deal with an empty “family fish bowl.”

Of course, the whole idea is bound to create yet another firestorm of criticism from the other opposite side of the... grave site, so to speak. And we’ll have to accept strict regulation of everything, naturally.

For example, we’ll need special treatment for the few still able to pay for coverage, as distinct from the unfortunately underinsured many. No need to hurry anyone along if they can afford to be made comfortable in a first-class nursing home. And there should also be a sensitivity for facilities that maintain an around-the-clock medical team. Reducing the number of patients in such settings can only increase costs for those not yet at death’s door. Controlling costs must be a priority!

Clearly, we stand on the threshold of change for the living -- or as our actuarial specialists prefer, the dying.

Let me explain.

The "inconvenient" question: "when will I die?" would now be determined by an efficient cost-benefit formula: which is to say -- whenever the “death panel” says so.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Republicans Still Accusing Obama of Treachery

These guys just won't quit, eh? Republicans surely are the most insecure, fucked-up group of people on Earth. Mr. Broun's remarks say much more about him than they do about Barack Obama or the President-Elect's policies.

Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog

Rep. Paul Broun, left, says President-elect Obama's idea for a civilian force is "exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did."
Photo: AP /Getty Images.
Republican Compares Obama to Hitler
By Ben Evans / November 11, 2008

WASHINGTON - A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado in which he called for expanding the nation's foreign service.

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

The Obama transition team declined to comment on Broun's remarks. But spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama was referring in the speech to a proposal for a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure — an idea endorsed by the Bush administration.

Broun said he believes Obama would move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national security force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Source / America On Line

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Paul Krugman on the Republican Rump : Hard Right All That's Left

Anger from the Republican right: Gayle Quinnell who calls Barack Obama an Arab during town hall meeting, in Lakeville, Minn. on Oct. 10, 2008. Photo by Jim Money / AP.
'What will defeat do to the Republicans?'
By Paul Krugman / November 3, 2008

Maybe the polls are wrong, and John McCain is about to pull off the biggest election upset in American history. But right now the Democrats seem poised both to win the White House and to greatly expand their majorities in both houses of Congress.

Most of the post-election discussion will presumably be about what the Democrats should and will do with their mandate. But let me ask a different question that will also be important for the nation’s future: What will defeat do to the Republicans?

You might think, perhaps hope, that Republicans will engage in some soul-searching, that they’ll ask themselves whether and how they lost touch with the national mainstream. But my prediction is that this won’t happen any time soon.

Instead, the Republican rump, the party that’s left after the election, will be the party that attends Sarah Palin’s rallies, where crowds chant “Vote McCain, not Hussein!” It will be the party of Saxby Chambliss, the senator from Georgia, who, observing large-scale early voting by African-Americans, warns his supporters that “the other folks are voting.” It will be the party that harbors menacing fantasies about Barack Obama’s Marxist — or was that Islamic? — roots.

Why will the G.O.P. become more, not less, extreme? For one thing, projections suggest that this election will drive many of the remaining Republican moderates out of Congress, while leaving the hard right in place.

For example, Larry Sabato, the election forecaster, predicts that seven Senate seats currently held by Republicans will go Democratic on Tuesday. According to the liberal-conservative rankings of the political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, five of the soon-to-be-gone senators are more moderate than the median Republican senator — so the rump, the G.O.P. caucus that remains, will have shifted further to the right. The same thing seems set to happen in the House.

Also, the Republican base already seems to be gearing up to regard defeat not as a verdict on conservative policies, but as the result of an evil conspiracy. A recent Democracy Corps poll found that Republicans, by a margin of more than two to one, believe that Mr. McCain is losing “because the mainstream media is biased” rather than “because Americans are tired of George Bush.”

And Mr. McCain has laid the groundwork for feverish claims that the election was stolen, declaring that the community activist group Acorn — which, as Factcheck.org points out, has never “been found guilty of, or even charged with” causing fraudulent votes to be cast — “is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.” Needless to say, the potential voters Acorn tries to register are disproportionately “other folks,” as Mr. Chambliss might put it.

Anyway, the Republican base, egged on by the McCain-Palin campaign, thinks that elections should reflect the views of “real Americans” — and most of the people reading this column probably don’t qualify.

Thus, in the face of polls suggesting that Mr. Obama will win Virginia, a top McCain aide declared that the “real Virginia” — the southern part of the state, excluding the Washington, D.C., suburbs — favors Mr. McCain. A majority of Americans now live in big metropolitan areas, but while visiting a small town in North Carolina, Ms. Palin described it as “what I call the real America,” one of the “pro-America” parts of the nation. The real America, it seems, is small-town, mainly southern and, above all, white.

I’m not saying that the G.O.P. is about to become irrelevant. Republicans will still be in a position to block some Democratic initiatives, especially if the Democrats fail to achieve a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

And that blocking ability will ensure that the G.O.P. continues to receive plenty of corporate dollars: this year the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has poured money into the campaigns of Senate Republicans like Minnesota’s Norm Coleman, precisely in the hope of denying Democrats a majority large enough to pass pro-labor legislation.

But the G.O.P.’s long transformation into the party of the unreasonable right, a haven for racists and reactionaries, seems likely to accelerate as a result of the impending defeat.

This will pose a dilemma for moderate conservatives. Many of them spent the Bush years in denial, closing their eyes to the administration’s dishonesty and contempt for the rule of law. Some of them have tried to maintain that denial through this year’s election season, even as the McCain-Palin campaign’s tactics have grown ever uglier. But one of these days they’re going to have to realize that the G.O.P. has become the party of intolerance.

Source / The New York Times

Thanks to Ramsey Wiggins / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...