For those of you that know anything about politics in the Bible Belt, you know that there is what can only be described as an odd dynamic regarding the role of government.  Most – even those who self-identify as Democrats – oppose the encroachment of the Federal government into their daily lives especially in matters that cross into the realm of religious-related content.  The odd dynamic comes into play in that many of these same individuals feel very passionately about their state doing just that on a “local” level.  Being a states’ rights guy myself, I applaud such efforts to elevate the 10th Amendment into a favorable light.  That said, I do believe that many of my fellow South of the Mason-Dixon(ers) overlook two fundamental points.

The first is that while the 10th Amendment did preserve the Right of States to reign sovereign in those areas not directly enumerated to the Federal Government, that preservation if you will, was not solely intended for the States.  The People were meant to play a role in those matters as well.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The second is that while states have a role to play in social matters in areas beyond that which the Federal government should enter into, there is a fine line between where 10th Amendment rights begin and 1st Amendment rights are violated.

That said, we will save that discussion for another day.  I inch close to the edge of the topic only as a point of reference because I have been struggling with my decision regarding who to support in the Tennessee governor’s race.  When I choose a candidate hoping to be my next Senator or Representative I go to my well of ideological formulations.  I see where the candidate stands and why he/she stands for those things.  Finding more agreement than frustration, my choice is simple.  I run into a particularly difficult situation however when I apply my typical process to state-level campaigns.

Myself being a bit of a journeyman at this young stage of my life, I have drifted away from and back to and then away from my Tennessee political origins many many times.  My philosophy, ideology, methodology have varied little, but my perspective on how they are received and how they differ from my fellow Tennesseans has ebbed and flowed greatly.

If you know anything about my take on conservatism at this point, you probably know the weight I place in the First Amendment.  I believe that among the many things it does and was intended to do was to protect religion and protect American citizens from religion.  While many see these as opposing forces, I see them as one and the same.  I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of my conflicts with my fellow Right-Wingers emanate from our opposing interpretations of this dynamic above all others (save for the occasional Sarah Palin feud).

This matter as it relates to candidates seeking federal positions is cut and dry to me.  I will not vote for a candidate that runs a campaign that encroaches on First Amendment liberties from either side of the issue.  The problem I face is when that First Amendment analysis blends blends itself with a 10th Amendment discussion.  As a fervent supporter of states’ rights, I do believe that there is a fair amount of freedom given to states to create laws and implement policy that protects a certain way of life; to preserve a social/moral code; to promote a public conscience.  When I used the word “fair” I did mean fair.  I do not mean that this freedom extends to encroaching upon ANY citizen’s First Amendment Rights, but I do believe that there is some wiggle room here.

If you have read any of my previous ramblings on this matter you undoubtedly know that while I put great stock in principle and virtue, I give very little weight in “religiousness” when choosing a political candidate.  I think one can be staged, faked, manipulated, and put on for a show while the other is telling of the core of a candidate.  This matter as it relates to political candidates is at the heart of my frustration with Tennessee politics.  Campaign ads boast of candidate’s participation in bible studies, prayer groups, mission trips, etc, etc to the point of redundancy.  While such messages tell me absolutely nothing, they must appeal to my fellow Volunteer State residents or they wouldn’t be out there.  As I already stated, they would be grounds for my selecting another candidate in a national election, but given that wonderful interplay between the First and Tenth, I am forced to take them with a fair of amount of deference to my neighbors.

The short of it is this.  I struggle greatly with my choice in races at the state level.  Every part of me wants a candidate who understands the differing roles of government at the state and federal level and I would love to find a candidate who articulates that point clearly on the campaign trail.  Having conceded that such a position would be far too politically volatile in a state like this, I am forced to go along and pick from that which stands before me rather than that which I wish was out there.

Monday night, I was fortunate enough to attend my third Tennessee Gubernatorial forum (debate) at David Lipscomb University.  In full disclosure, I had a very small hand in the planning for the event, but was merely a spectator as the candidates took the stage.  I have been trying for some time now to come to a decision on which candidate I would support – both with my vote and potentially with my time as a volunteer as we move toward August primaries.  Its no secret around here that Mike McWherter (D) was not in the running for either my vote or my time, but I can say with complete sincerity that he has no equal among the candidates in the department of being a great guy.  Never in my life have I seen a candidate – for any office – more genuinely attempt to meet every single member of an audience both before and after an event.  That said, I will not be voting for Mr. McWherter, but I think we already knew that much.  The inclusion of the (D) should have probably tipped you off to that one.

I went into the evening with a open mind – relatively speaking that is.  I say relative only because we all have – or at least I know that I do – presuppositions and gut feelings that tend to rule the day even when we are making every effort to remain objective.

Need an example?  Here’s one.  Every ounce of me would rather die a slow and horrible death than vote for a man that thinks winking at a camera while showing off his redneck boots and uttering the phrase “We’ll just givem the boot” (referring to the federal government) are good ideas or political strategies.   (Watch this video… or this one….)  That said, I went into the event not ruling out that slow and painful death – not with the notion that the Boot would win me over but that the possibility existed that the other Republican candidates could potentially drive me to THE BOOT and inevitable suffering out of an absolute lack of options pending a horrible performances on their parts.  Are we on the same page now?  See I can be objective.

Working on the forum I was able to meet the candidates before the event.  I do not; did not; and will not let a simple meet and greet impact my vote.  I fully understand that all of the candidates have met thousands of people through this process and frankly, they only have so much to give.  I was extremely turned off by one candidate through this interaction, but objective I remained as the candidates took the stage.

Having failed to mention this earlier – THE BOOT – worn by Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey was not in attendance.  Sadly, he was unable to attend as the Senate was in session across town.  I mention that only as a point of reference having already stated that both he and his BOOT could have only hurt their chances through their participation.  So his absence could only have worked in his favor.  He might have earned a few points in my book if he had sent the boot along in his stead, but failing to do so he remained in the negative column.

In full disclosure, I should probably also mention that I had been looking forward to this forum for some time largely because it would be the first time I would see Haslam in action.  He is the presumptive favorite to win the Republican nomination and I was looking forward to meeting the man I am likely going to have to vote for come November – like him or not.  Meeting a candidate or seeing him live is not a prerequisite for my vote, but Haslam has been more than reclusive and I wanted to make sure that the guy really existed.

I won’t bore you with the play-by-play of the evening.  If you want to see some footage of the event, you can see it here.

I will however share with you my general impressions of the candidates’ performances.  McWherter – the Dem – put on a show.  As I said earlier, he’s a likable guy – just not enough to get past the fact that he’s a Lefty.  Wamp was Wamp.  I have seen him live three times now and he is definitely coming into his own on the forum circuit.  I have been skeptical about his ability to serve as chief executive for THIS state because I was leery of his position on the role of the federal government in state matters, but he has slowly reassured me that my reservations may have been unwarranted.  I have not and will not get over or past his bailout vote in Congress, but I do believe that there will be a dramatic difference in his approach to governance as a governor than that which drove him as a Representative.  As I stated earlier, I firmly believe that the nature of Tennessee politics not only allows for such a dichotomy, but actually requires it.

Then there was Haslam.  As the presumptive pick of my party, I fully expected to be wowed and amazed by the man spending a fortune on television and print ads across the state.  I envisioned a polished speaker with a presence that would reassure me that the majority of my fellow Tennessee Republicans weren’t completely off the grid with this guy.  That said, I saw neither of those things in Mayor Haslam and now believe that a large portion of my Republican neighbors must be seeing something in this man that doesn’t even appear on my radar.  At no point (NO POINT) in the evening was I even remotely impressed with this candidate.  Each and every response to the moderator’s questions was incomplete and lacked even an ounce of conviction.  To make the matter worse, having worked on the event, I know/knew he had the questions beforehand.  Knowing that made the responses all the more unimpressive.  He may be a successful businessman and he may even be a fine mayor, but I fail to see how he has the bones necessary to be our state’s next governor.

Now in fairness, everyone can have a bad night.  I understand that and was forced to remind myself of that fact a number of times throughout the evening.  I have spent months doing my homework on these candidates trying to make an informed decision and I wasn’t ready to write Haslam off because of a few bad answers or even a bad night.  And then we came to the final question.

With Middle Tennessee still recovering from the worst flood in the history of the state, it was fitting that the final question was directed at the catastrophe and asked the candidates for their thoughts on the governor’s role in similar disasters before, during, and after.  I thought the wording of the question allowed the candidates a great deal of latitude in giving an appropriate response.  Wamp did just that.  McWherter did not.  Instead he spent his time talking about tadpoles swimming in his office around his desk.  Haslam did not.  For two minutes he rambled about speaking to the CEO of Gaylord and the owner of a funeral home.  He offered nothing in regards to recovery, the role of the governor, or even the relationship between the city and the state.  He did however say the words that I prayed no Tennessee Republican would ever utter.  FEMA and IMMEDIATELY – stating clearly that he would have turned to FEMA as his first response.

Reuters

When I gave my input regarding the final question to the forum committee I had hoped the language would be drafted in a manner which would allow the candidates to state on record their understanding of the relationship between the state and the federal government – generally and in a moment of crisis.  If I couldn’t get them to talk to these points in their campaigns, I would at least get one question before them that would make them address that relationship.  Each candidate had spoken to the issue in “good ole boy” fashion by tough talking about driving the federal government out of Tennessee or “giving them the BOOT” if you will, but none had addressed directly the issue as it relates to actual events or circumstances.  I thought this topic was the perfect way to get them to speak to the issue.  In full disclosure, I should also mention that I told the committee that any candidate (ANY CANDIDATE) who began their answer, incorporated into their answer, or even hinted in their answer at the idea of turning to FEMA or the federal government as the first step would not receive my vote.  I never thought that any candidate would be that foolish, that ignorant, or that Left of center, but boy was I wrong.

“The governor’s job here is to figure out what’s happening, what can the state do to help and immediately call on FEMA.”

I have said here and in many other forums that I don’t believe in litmus tests for political candidates.  I don’t like them, I don’t believe in them, and frankly I believe they lead to candidates playing to the test(s).  I do not believe a Republican candidate should have to align him/herself with any set of positions laid out by me or anyone else.  That said, I do believe that a Republican candidate for the governorship of THIS state should understand that the Federal government was never intended to be the first line of defense for any and all state matters – and especially not in a matter such as this.  FEMA and Washington have a role to play but it is secondary and in support of the role of the state government.  The front runner not understanding that role has forced me to now pull for an underdog.

Sorry Lt. Gov Ramsey.  You and your BOOT are a cheap-trick side show and your campaign is making a mockery of Tennessee politics.  McWherter I sincerely wish you well.  You seem like one hell of a guy.  Representative Wamp… I will see you along the campaign trail.  We only have a few months to turn this thing around so that I don’t have to vote for a man that doesn’t understand the appropriate role of the position which he seeks.  Mr. Haslam.  Bone up or bow out.  It will pain me to have to vote for you should you win this nomination.

Congressman Zach Wamp for Tennessee Governor 2010.

(December 5, 2003 - Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images News)

Justice Antonin Scalia made a public appearance Monday speaking to roughly 600 people at the First Baptist Church of Jackson, Mississippi.  The event was sponsored by the Mississippi College School of Law and the Mission First Legal Aid Office.  As is usually the case when Justice Scalia makes public appearances, he spoke largely off the cuff and provided yet another reminder why he’s the greatest Supreme Court Justice of this or any generation for that matter.  He spoke about a number of topics including the citation of foreign law in American courts, the ever-increasing caseload of the Highest Court, and the burden that the increased size of legislation places on the Justices… among other issues and topics posed to him by the audience.

In speaking about the current composition of the Court he chose not to delve into the radical nominee sent forth by President Obama or those that preceded her; but instead chose to use the opportunity to speak about the nomination process as a whole.  He told the crowd that there were essentially too many “judges” on the Supreme Court.  Now in fairness, he wasn’t taking potshots at any of the current members or even their backgrounds.  More accurately, he was referring to the recent preference for choosing nominees who are currently serving or have had a long history of serving as a judge at a different level of government.

Clarionledger:

Justice Scalia time and time again illustrates so plainly, yet so eloquently, everything that is fundamentally wrong with the political process of the 21st century and its interpretation of the intentions of our Founding Fathers.  Speaking candidly to a group of individuals, he in modestly answering one question, explained more than a career politician could hope to do in a lifetime.  He was simply reminding the audience that the political process has imposed restrictions, qualifications, and standards for the Highest Court that were simply not intended by those who drafted the Constitution.  Article Two, which gives the President the power to nominate justices with the advice and consent of the Senate, says nothing about the qualifications of said nominee.  His point… Politics – not the will or intent of the men that drafted the document determine that these individuals must come from a lifetime of service in a judicial post.

It should be noted, that I certainly do not believe that Justice Scalia is of the mindset that Justices should be plucked from the rank and file of the legal world.  He is still talking about the best and the brightest here – just not necessarily judges by prerequisite.  Lets just be honest.  He’s not scouting for law clerks at Mississippi College School of Law.  No offense Mississippi College of Law.

(December 5, 2003 - Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images News)

If that is the case then you might ask, why should any of this matter – as you said, he’s not advocating average Joe lawyers being nominated for positions on the Highest Court.  The answer lies not in this simple and perhaps meaningless debate, but in the process that led to his position.  The Constitution, when interpreted strictly as it was intended to be, paints a picture for government in America that looks drastically different than that which we gaze upon today.  That is precisely why any of this should matter.  Its about the political process and token political talking points of the two political parties continuously ignoring the Constitution as if it only guides them on the “big issues.”  The debate over health care reform or cap and trade appear dramatically different when the first question posed is “was this really an intended function of government at the federal level?” not “how we gonna pay for this?”

The brilliance of Scalia is often lost on so many because they disagree with his positions on so many “issues.”  They ignore the fact that to Scalia, it is the process of arriving at said positions that is fundamentally important – not agreeing when you get there.  The reality is that many on the far left who trumpet the talking points of liberalism would wholeheartedly agree with 99.9% of Scalia’s rationale on every “controversial” issue if said process led to a favorable result.  Conversely, many “conservatives” love love love Scalia because he comes down on their “side” on major “issues” having no idea how he got there.  Strict interpretation of the Constitution is so lost on this generation of “conservatives” that it frankly scares the hell out of me.  The only group that consistently gets even the idea of it are the “libertarians” and many of them would love to see the government stripped down to nothing to make sure its used… but at least they understand the origin of their most closely held beliefs.  I can’t say that for the vast majority of my conservative brethren.

Any “conservative” who truly thinks he/she has a role to play in the world of political persuasion should turn off Fox News for the afternoon, stop reading this crap, and cuddle up with a few of Scalia’s opinions.  Don’t just grab the big ones where he writes for the Majority.  Grab a few of his dissents and see how he distinguishes himself even from other “conservatives” on the bench.  I think it would do every “conservative” – hell even every liberal for that matter – a great deal of good to see strict interpretation truly at work.

The Mississippi College School of Law website posted a few of the Q&A responses…

REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE LOST THEIR WAY

For the next few days, you will undoubtedly be assaulted with endless compilations of year end lists, reviews, and highlight reels to commemorate the year 2009 and to send it off with a bang. I for one would like to burn the memories of this horrific 365 day saga from my memory for all of perpetuity, but before I begin that endeavor, I thought I would come up with a year end list of my own. For those of you that like that sort of thing, here is another one with a Republican Redefined twist. Instead of featuring the “many” proud achievements of Republicans in this calendar year, we will celebrate those who continue to dare to walk the center line or flirt with the evil Left.

The Bottom Ten has been rather stagnant for the last few months as many have only cemented their places on this list but there were a few over achievers that have managed to accomplish the feat however, and will crack the list for the first time in the year end review. For those of you unfamiliar with the Bottom Ten, lets just say its not exactly a badge of honor for a Republican to find his / her way here. I would have created a top ten list but lets just be honest, its a lot easier to create a list of the bottom dwellers than it is to find a list of ten Republicans that I actually think are doing a great job. So here it is. 2009’s Bottom Ten in review.

(September 30, 2009 - Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images North America)

1. Olympia Snowe (Maine Senator) – its been a rough year for the questionably “Republican” senator from Maine. She has been lost in the gray for much of the year and finds her way to the top of the list accordingly. She began her year siding with the Dems in voting for the stimulus bill that changed America; she voted to confirm Justice Sotomayor; she voted to break cloture on Cass Sunstein (Regulatory Czar); and she “courageously” voted for the Baucus Plan in the Senate Finance Committee giving Dems hope that their bill would eventually find bipartisan support. She claimed that she still had concerns about the bill, but she was willing to let it get out of committee. Newsflash…it was getting out either way genius. 14-9 doesn’t exactly make you a swing-vote, it makes you a supporter. In more recent news, she and her home-girl Susan Collins voted against the Nelson amendment that would have prevented federal money from funding abortion related services. To put it nicely, the only way that Snowe will ever find her way off of this list is if she someday pulls a Specter and officially heads over to the other side.

1A. Susan Collins (Maine Senator) – is attached to Senator Snowe at the hip so its only fair that she would join her in sharing the top spot here. She followed her pal Snowe off the Centrist cliff in a full blown march to the left by voting for both the stimulus bill and confirmation for Justice Sotomayor. She is also my leading contender for the Republican who will cave and eventually vote in favor of the health reform bill. Yes, my money is riding on her rather than Snowe – the odds are just too good to pass up. There’s no money in only betting on the favorite.

2. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina Senator) – “Tweedle Dumb,” as we like to call him around here, voted to confirm Justice Sotomayor as well and continues to personify the backwards and misguided centrist wing of the Republican Party. Unlike Snowe and Collins however, he attempts to play the role of a “conservative.” I don’t think you have to guess which I have the most disdain for. In case you’re wondering, new here, or absolutely blind to my hatred for phony conservatives, the choice would certainly be Graham and his little charade. Had he voted for the stimulus he would have firmly found himself in the top spot on this list, and still only narrowly escapes it. He voted to confirm Justice Sotomayor – only after spending two weeks railing about how terrible she was, but that pretty much sums up the man that is Lindsey Graham. He did have one great moment of glory this year worth mentioning. He provided the entertainment for the President’s address to a Joint Session of Congress with his inability to know when to clap. (Watch the video here) How bout next time you find yourself in such a venue choose your neighbor to your left and your right a little more carefully or maybe just grow a backbone before taking your chair. How many times did you have to get caught looking around for a cue as to when to clap? Seriously man? It should also be noted that he also pledged this year to join forces with Senator Kerry to find bipartisan agreement on “Cap and Trade” in the Senate until he realized that Americans universally oppose it, and that he was in fact supposed to be a Republican – great call. I am sure he will pick up that endeavor just after the new year.

July 25, 2009 - Photo by Eric Engman/Getty Images North America

3. Sarah Palin (Former Alaska Governor) – Palin, Palin, Palin… Oh how I love Sarah Palin. I loved her as my Vice-Presidential candidate and I love her, love her, love her now as the self anointed face of the populist conservative movement. The conservative anti-diva stepped down unceremoniously from her governorship … or perhaps more accurately without stating a rational or justifiable reason for doing so… and effortlessly loaded the rifles of her opponents if and when she decides to make her inevitable march to the Republican nomination in 2012 or thereafter. Perhaps we should be thanking her for this actually, but I digress. It did give her time to “write” her memoirs, so there was some good done for humanity with her departure from public office. Going Rogue: An American Life reached number one before it even hit bookstore shelves. Hundreds of thousands rushed to stores, found their way to Amazon, or gathered in malls to buy a book based solely on a cover and a promise of “conservative” content therein. Sound familiar to anyone? I actually think its classic. The woman that is famous for memorizing token conservative talking points, and infamous for being unable to explain them, sells hundreds of thousands of books based solely on her name and celebrity. Sell the books before anyone can read one… Brilliant. I think McCain tried a similar strategy last November – didn’t work out quite so well for him though. As to the year as a whole for Sarah Palin, you may have to call this a good one. She worked on her “credibility” problems and her image as a token conservative and a simpleton. She joined LinkedIn and now issues press releases via Facebook. I think that’s progress.

4. Mark Sanford (Governor South Carolina) – If Tiger Woods wasn’t the most famous athlete on the planet and an even bigger male whore than you could dream of being, I would say that you had one of the worst years out there. To say your 2009 was rough would do a great disservice to rough years everywhere, but when will you ever learn to just go away and stop talking? Take your medicine and realize that when Republicans fall…they fall extra hard. Its not fair, but that’s the price we pay for being running our campaigns on platforms of political guidance originating from a higher power. Another press conference and another press conference and another press conference? GO AWAY!! Your “soul-mate” is lonely. Find her and try not to speed along the way. Pay your ticket like the rest of us and tell your driver to hit the brakes occasionally when he sees a State Trooper. From potential GOP Presidential nominee to end of the year impeachment proceedings, I’d say that was a pretty bad swing.

September 30, 2008 - Photo by Steve Pope/Getty Images North America

5. John McCain (Arizona Senator) – For starters here, let me just be honest and say that there is and always will be a special place in Republican Hell reserved for John McCain – actually I think it would only be fitting for him to end up in Republican Purgatory but that’s a matter for another day. No list – bottom, top, best, or worst will ever be able to accurately place or rank this career politician. That is why it is only fitting that he come in at the middle of this one. Ever the “Maverick” and always pulling to the Center, John McCain or “Tweedle Dee” as I usually refer to him around here, could very easily rest at the top of this list, but I would hate to do him the honor. No, he belongs in the Center – Right where he always tries to remain. It has been a banner year for the ageless Senator from Arizona. On the heals of a mismanaged and ill-fated campaign – that will scar the Party for a generation and drove the nation into the arms of a President with socialist tendencies – he has put on a great show for the other side running his administration in exile every Sunday on the morning talk show circuit. If he can’t be president, at least he can play one on Sunday mornings. One final note on my least favorite Republican… it should be noted that we do owe McCain a great debt of gratitude even if his one contribution technically fell in the last calendar years – he is the man that brought us the Savior Sarah Palin. Without McCain and his maverick tactics, she’d still be huntin and hockey mommin it up in Alaska and where would we have been then? What would 2009 have been without the gift that he has given us? We wouldn’t live in a world where conservatives from all walks of life (even Ann Coulter) are afraid to admit that ripping into this woman scares them beyond reason, and makes them question their own conservative credentials based solely on the failed premise that she is “sooo conservative” and adored by so many. Thank you John McCain. I mean that sincerely.

6. Bobby Jindal (Governor Lousiana) – The man, the myth, the legend. This guy was going to take Washington by storm and coast to the White House in 2012… and then he opened his mouth. Lincoln once said it is better to be remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Bobby Jindal should have listened to our first Republican President. He was labeled – “The Future of the Republican Party” and with his first moment in the national spotlight reminded all of us that said future may be an unfavorable one. He was given the opportunity to offer the Republican response to President Obama’s first speech before a Joint Session of Congress, and lets just say it didn’t go so well. Perhaps a few less “son of an immigrant” references, and at least a token expression of an actual conservative agenda would have been more appropriate? Many were quick to blame those who “forced” him into the spotlight prematurely for ruining the future of this great potential candidate rather than seeing the truth for what it was and is – he lacks even an ounce of charisma or a hint of likability. Perhaps Republican Party heads over-thought the process a bit. If only they would have went with the original plan to hang a banner in the background that read “Republicans…Not just old White Guys anymore” he wouldn’t have had to try so hard to connect the dots for all the ignorant Americans out there who needed to be reminded that the Republican Party was a place for minorities too.

October 1, 2008 - Photo by None/Getty Images North America

7. Mitch McConnell (Senate Minority Leader – Kentucky) – Good ole Mitch McConnell. Let’s just say he’s had a bad year. If he didn’t want the job as Majority Leader his whole career I’d almost feel sorry for him, but he has proven undeniably inadequate as leader of the Party in the more “conservative” House. Under his leadership, his caucus has done little to nothing to stop rampant spending that will go down in the annuls of history as unprecedented and game changing. We all gawked at the size of the $787 billion stimulus bill and since that time we have altered our collective vocabulary to think “billions” were commonplace and “millions” were chump change. In the last month alone his caucus has gone quietly as the Senate signed off on a $680 billion defense bill riddled with pork and waste, passed a $1.1 trillion appropriations bill that increased budgets by nearly 10% much of the federal bureaucracy, raised the debt ceiling, and took steps toward allowing 1/6 the nation’s economy to be subjugated to federal control in the form of a nationalized system of health care. The short of it is this. I have no doubt that McConnell is a good guy, and he is a fine Republican when he is among the rank and file, but he has no place in a leadership role. His decision to cave to Harry Reid and head home for the holidays was absolutely unconscionable. If the Party intends to have any chance of returning to greatness, he simply cannot be among its “leaders” in the years to come. I am not saying that Kentucky should replace him, but I am saying that his role on the national scale must be scaled back immediately.

(May 28, 2009 - Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images North America)

8. George W. Bush (43rd President) – Sorry W. You’re gonna be on here a while. “Stimulus” is a Republican word thanks to you. Tee-ing it up for Obama to knock capitalism out of the park was not a good move for you. I have said repeatedly that I wholeheartedly believe your presidency will be viewed in a much more favorable light by future generations, but the stain of your out-of-control spending will surely not be the highlight of said improvement to your track record. We are reminded daily of your “failed policies” and programs by your successor; and with every day that passes, even this conservative who questioned your spending, would love to have it back at a moments’ notice for an ounce of the security that you helped to provided us – and frankly, your spending was small potatoes compared to this guy’s. You have handled your departure from the spotlight with the grace of a true gentleman and you should be commended for it accordingly. That being said, the legitimacy that you gave the spending efforts of this administration will for the foreseeable future secure your place on this list.

9. Michael Steele (Chairman RNC)– I have never been a fan of Steele. In fact, I think I have repeatedly referred to him as an idiot. I had intended to keep the list to only elected officials, but since he is “the face of the Party” I thought it was time to show him some respect. We will ignore his history of making ridiculous off the cuff remarks…. like when he said he was going to appeal to the “hip hop” generation by “waging an ‘off the hook’ PR campaign”… or his comment on how he was going to “take the Republican message directly to the streets” – ok so I didn’t ignore the history entirely, but his relentless efforts to inject himself into every single political discussion make him worthy of the list on their own merit. I have made myself pretty clear from day one with Steele. He was simply a bad choice. He may have been the right man for the job in another era, but he is simply not the right man for the party at the current hour when it is trying to reestablish even an ounce of credibility. Would it have been so hard to have chosen a pencil pushing campaign manager or a legitimate A-Lister that we didn’t have to disavow weekly? That would have been nice, but for now I suppose we are stuck with him. On a brighter note Mr. Steele, the new GOP website looks great by the way. (The Daily Show loved it) Its really nice how you told Liberals and Democrats to “fill it up” … and they did. Maybe you should try to get some Republicans to jump on there every once in a while. I hear rap music and awkward attempts to sound “new and hip” are a great recruiting tool. Maybe give that a shot.

Even if the sound of his voice didn’t make me cringe; and even if the very idea of Steel as the “Leader” of this Party didn’t make me want to vomit, he would have made the list for one reason alone. In one year, he has done more – as a Black Republican – to reaffirm the image of the Republican Party as a social club for the Good Ole Boys and Southern White Dudes than any individual in the last twenty years. For all of Lindsey Graham’s token conservative rhetoric and hillbilly twang; for all the countless hours of John McCain’s face being plastered on every network; for all the despicable attempts of the champions of the Left like the Great Reverend Jesse Jackson to frame every debate in a racial context; Michael Steele – as a Black Republican – has done more to drive our Party toward total homogeneity in the minds of Americans than any of it. He is the antithesis of a post racial politician and his position as the “leader” of our party makes me sick; and at times, he has made me embarrassed to share a party label with him. How he kept his job after this makes my head spin.

(June 8, 2009 - Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America)

10. Newt Gingrich (Former Speaker of the House) – Has anyone really ever lost their target audience more quickly than Newt Gingrich did this year with his endorsement of Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23 Congressional race? Right as he was about to pub a new book, he aligned himself with a candidate who eventually endorsed the Democrat – over an independent Conservative who opposed her. Even after weeks of opportunities to reverse course and redeem himself, the leader of the Republican Revolution stood firm on his endorsement and forever tarnished his reputation within the conservative community. I have to admit, Newt used to be one of my heroes. Ideologically speaking, he and I tend to come down on different sides of things regarding the justifications for his positions on issues, but we essentially agree on the big ones. He is a pragmatist and he is a realist, and I have no doubt that both of those traits played a role in his decision to endorse Scozzafava, but his inability to admit that he was wrong when her true colors were revealed made me lose a great deal of respect for the once proud leader. In the aftermath, I do believe he has sealed his fate as a political talking head relegated to the Sunday Circuit and an occasional appearance on Hannity. Sad yes, but much deserved all the same. He should have backed off when he realized how wrong he truly was with his choice of candidates. Blame it on an assistant. Blame it on bad information. Hell, just say “I was duped.”

Dishonorable Mention:

Former Senators Bob Dole and Bill Frist for trying to sell books and re-introduce themselves amidst the healthcare debate and muddying the waters for the already inept Republican leadership on Capitol Hill.

Tom Delay (The Hammer) for his choosing to appear on Dancing With the Stars – one word – awful!!

Charles Boustany (Congressman Louisiana) – For your wonderful rebuttal to the President’s address to the nation and a Joint Session of Congress. I mean Congressman Boustany – seriously? Im not sure whether to put you here or the morons that chose you. You weren’t worse than your fellow Cajun Bobby Jindal, but you were close. Did you even listen to the President’s speech before you started talking? Perhaps you could have mentioned something from the hour long diatribe that struck a note? Absolutely mind boggling how you ever got that gig.

The Six Republicans Who Voted YEA for Cloture on the radical Cass Sunstein (Regulatory Czar) – Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Bob Bennett (Utah), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Richard Lugar (Indiana), and Judd Gregg (New Hampshire). Some of you are already on here but the others are on your way to a spot of your own. Be patient. The stink from this one is still lingering and will be ever more apparent in the months to come.

Dede Scozzafava, Doug Hoffman, and All of NY-23 “Republican” leadership. You put on quite a show, but could you have just chosen a real Republican in the first place and saved us all the trouble? And to every Republican in that district, are you not a better candidate than Doug Hoffman? Have a little confidence in yourself folks, this guy got worse by the minute. If Scozzafava wasn’t such a heartbeat away from a genuinely flaming liberal I would have admonished you for ending up with Hoffman.

Arnold Schwarzenneger (Governor California) – you’re state is in economic ruin and your solution is selling pot? Come on man. Get it together.

The Six Republicans Who Voted to Confirm Justice Sotomayor – Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Christopher Bond (Missouri), Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Richard Lugar (Indiana), Mel Martinez (Florida), Judd Gregg (New Hampshire), George Voinovich (Ohio)

UPDATE: The United States just drew England for its first match in the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.  Our group consists of Algeria and Slovenia as well.  Let the chirping begin between the former colonial counterparts.  You can see the full draw here.

GROUP A

S. Africa, Mexico, Uraguay, France

GROUP B

England, United States, Algeria, Slovenia

GROUP C

Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Cameroon

GROUP D

Brazil, N. Korea, Ivory Coast, Portugal

GROUP E

Argentina, Nigeria, S. Korea, Greece

GROUP F

Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana

GROUP G

Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia

GROUP H

Spain, Switzerland, Honduras, Chile

More Coverage here…

UPDATE: The Pool has been seeded and the US finds itself joined with the rest of CONCACAF, and teams from ASIA and OCEANIA.

You can see the full seeding here.

World Cup 2010: President Obama’s Next Global Initiative

With the US Men’s Soccer Team clinching a birth in next summer’s World Cup, the attention of American soccer enthusiasts now turns to South Africa and the quadrennial competition; and in similarly enthusiastic fashion, the eye of our nation’s President will undoubtedly be fixated on the global competition as well. Friday, December 4th, the “draw” will be announced. For those of you unfamiliar with the soccer world and/or soccer parlance, this is where each of the 32 teams will find out who they will play in the “group round” of the tournament. While this may seem like a relatively mundane and meaningless event for many of you, let’s put it this way. It’s the World Cup equivalent to Selection Sunday for the NCAA tournament only it will be watched by more people than the Super Bowl last year. It is the official beginning to the final round of the World Cup which has been in the qualifying stages since just after the completion of the 2006 Cup. Lets just agree it’s a big deal.

So you may be asking yourself, why would President Obama have an eye on a soccer competition in South Africa when most Americans could care less about a soccer tournament even if their children are playing in it over the weekend? Well, we will get to his motivations in a moment, but let’s begin by looking at what he has already said about the event and what it could mean to an administration that continues to appear hell-bent on gaining foreign favor even at the detriment of similar sentiment stateside.

Obama has already accepted an invitation to attend the festivities that was sent personally to the White House by the president of soccer’s world governing body FIFA (Federation of International Football Associations), who said “The

World Cup in South Africa… will go well…and the man who said, ‘Yes we can,’ will be there.” Clearly, World Cup organizers are extremely enthusiastic about the possibility of Obama’s participation. This could be due to the President’s close ties to the African continent but it may also be a result, at least in part, of FIFA’s continued and concerted efforts to bring the world’s game to the states.

President Clinton was in attendance when the World Cup ventured to the United States in 1994, but other than that “expected” appearance, American Presidents have been reluctant to embrace the world’s game even as the sport has seeped into the nation’s consciousness through youth participation and the increased popularity of the growing contingency that is the “Soccer Mom.”

As for the venue of the 2010 gathering; it undoubtedly increases the attractiveness of the opportunity for President Obama to attend. South Africa, was for generations the embodiment of racial oppression, but with the fall of Apartheid in 1991, the nation became a symbol of hope and opportunity. Its greatest leader, Nelson Mandela, has even likened Obama to himself on numerous occasions; and on our nation’s 44^th President’s Inauguration Day Mandela sent a private letter to him which read, “Your election to this high office has inspired people as few other events in recent times.” In a 90^th birthday message, Obama returned the favor saying Mandela’s Long Walk to Freedom was the inspiration behind his decision to become politically active.

The return to Africa will be a second homecoming of sorts for the son of a native Kenyan – turned American President (3rd if you count his trip there as a US Senator in 2006). He will be cheered as he was in Ghana on his last visit to the continent- as a vision of hope and an iconic symbol of “change.” The parallels and the symbolism will be on display for even the most novice of political and sports enthusiasts. It will be as captivating as Ali’s “Rumble in the Jungle” and as symbolic as the day “President Mandela” donned a Springboks Rugby Jersey and exclaimed “One Team One Country.” When South Africa was struggling to find the fortitude to survive as a nation united, President Nelson Mandela had the vision to see that sports could serve as a uniting force. He called upon the spirit of sport and its uniting influence, and proudly wore a Jersey of a team that for generations represented segregation and apartheid. In doing so, he told his nation that even after all he had been through and all the injustices that were done unto him, he was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice and put the past in the past for the interest of moving his nation forward to a new and promising post-racial future.

Invictus Trailer

The market appeal of the World Cup is unmeasurable and the symbolism of his return to Africa is undeniable, but President Obama has truly embraced soccer even if his motivations for doing so are to this point indiscernible. He is a self-described “soccer dad” on weekends as Sasha and Malia play America’s most popular youth sport, and has adoringly said the Cup is about “inviting the world to gather in celebration of our common hopes and dreams.” He has joined forces with the World Cup USA 2018 and 2022 committees (GO USA BID) and has pledged to actively push for the world’s greatest tournament to return to the States.

As the summer of 2010 draws near, this president will prepare himself to take center stage at the world’s biggest gathering of sports enthusiasts. President Obama will embrace the “world’s game’” at the pinnacle of its spectacle, and will shine brightly as the biggest star at the world’s biggest game in its most unusual of settings. As the Cup ventures to Africa for the first time in the competition’s history, the first African-American President will take full advantage of the opportunity to share his message of a “changed America” with an audience of 700,000,000+ who will tune in for the Final and the more than 5 billion viewers who will watch the full slate of games. For a President committed to “restoring” America’s image in the global community, the World Cup will be his greatest moment. World-wide “apology tours” and UN speeches reach only a limited audience, but the pulpit that is the World Cup will be limitless.

So yes, he will go. He will go and the world will embrace him. He will take with him his message of hope, of change, and of a nation recast in the image of a new and refined face on the world’s stage. He will arrive in Johannesburg not as a conquering hero but as a returning son, and he will attempt to undue the atrocities envisioned in his own mind by bowing at the alter of the world’s greatest game. The only question is whether once the applause stop and the cheers go silent, will anyone truly listen to the Chosen One and his message? Africa embraced Ali because he was a smooth talker and promised big results, upon which he delivered.  South Africa rallied around Nelson Mandela because he personified much needed change and his very freedom generated hope, which has helped sustain the country’s march to actualized equality. Will President Obama finally find his moment of redemption where he will for the first time connect with citizens of the world and generate tangible results, or will this simply be another love, apology, and appeasement tour that will do little more than generate hype, big crowds, and adoring audiences but only succeed in diminishing further the nation’s position in the global community? Perhaps a more fitting question to be posed regarding our prognosticating Chief Executive would be – as he fills out his tournament bracket as he did with the NCAA Basketball tournament, will he bet on the United States when he picks a winner or will he think such a choice will represent exceptionalism and lead to yet another apology tour if we should win?

A Conservative Checklist for Republican Candidates: The Dumbest Idea I Have Ever Heard

I am rarely surprised when the group of conservatives that the mainstream media calls the “Far Right” decide to grab something and run with it, but this one really has my head shaking.  This group of “Right Wingers,” that clearly lacks the ability to set down their Going Rogue textbooks long enough to recognize that conservatism is not about a checklist of talking points and issues, has decided to draft a resolution to submit to the RNC that would force Republican candidates to adhere to a 10-point checklist of key issues / principles.  To be as kind as I can about the matter, and to avoid using the expletives I screamed out loud as I read about this (I am trying to clean up my potty mouth a bit), I will simply state that this is the dumbest Republican idea I have heard in my lifetime.  I understand that I may not be as old as some who may read this, but nearly three decades of stupid ideas and gimicks all pale in comparison to this one.  My only hope is that the idiots who drafted this resolution, and those who allowed it to leak to the press, are so fringe, so far out in “lala land”, that no one in the Party gives them even a moment of their time.  These people are not the “right wing” of the Party and they are not conservatives.  They think they are because they purport to stand for “conservative” issues and principles, but they lack any understanding of the fundamentals of True Conservatism.

When the mainstream media catches wind of this, and they will, it will undoubtedly be characterized as a “right wing” document, so I just want to add some clarity to that issue before we have to defend ourselves from being grouped with these morons.  True conservatism is about a principled and virtuous adherence to the fundamental intentions of our Founding Fathers expressed through our Founding Documents.  The principle and the virtue are individual in nature and are not derivative of any one religion or culture.  The intentions are strictly interpreted and rely primarily upon the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.  Conservatism is NOT about a laundry list of issues.  This is why many on the “far right” lose me.  They get so caught up in defending issues they deem to be “conservative” that they lose sight of the explanation and justification for their arguments.  This is where religion gets infused with conservatism on a compulsory level and discredits the message altogether.  The religion, or more accurately the principle or virtue, are supposed to be individual in nature.  Our Founding Documents which we as conservatives purport to protect make it so.  That is the very idea behind the 1st Amendment.

That being said, I will save that rant for another day, but I will simply add that lists such as these are counter productive as well as counter intuitive.  While this list may not be offensive or completely misguided in its content, what will the next one look like?  Will it take free will, free expression, and the freedom of religion out of the Republican Party platform altogether?  On a more practical level, does a national party really want a list of issues determining its candidates at every level of government?  What idiot with only a nominal understanding of political science cannot understand that such a list would stifle the party’s efforts across the 50 states and make the party appear rigid and closed minded to everyone not in strict adherence with these arbitrary lists?

There will be some that call me a moderate for taking this position, because that’s what these “right wing” nutbags do when other conservatives tell them that they’re actions border on lunacy and wreak of ignorance as to the true principles of conservatism.  To those people… I will say… enjoy your life in Palinville and let me know how it feels when you finally realize what an idiot you and everyone standing around you truly are.  For those that will call me a moderate, I will ask one question of you “super-conservatives” and “protectors of the true right.”  Where in the Constitution is that section that discusses compulsory inclusion or exclusion of candidates for political office; and where exactly did Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and Adams lay out the framework for stifling the Bill of Rights even before they had ratified it?  If such a section or group of sections cannot be found; then might I suggest that your simple little lists are absolutely, undeniably, and Fundamentally Misguided….?

No Surprise on this one…

I’m modestly a fan of Dick Armey and what he has been able to do with his new conservative movement even though I don’t always agree with his tactics.  I am not surprised that he is all over this idea, but I have to once again point out the obvious, if Armey had all the answers, perhaps he would still hold a public office???

Someone on the Right Who Agrees With Me

What is in it?

Wall Street Journal

Immediately after posting this, I received an email from a trusted friend and genuine conservative reminding me that the Republican Revolution of the 90’s and the Contract with America were byproducts of “lists.”  I will share with you my response.

I genuinely appreciate your timely feedback on my posting and always welcome your thoughts when you believe I have gone off the reservation.  That being said, I must firmly disagree with you.  The Contract with America was a list – but not one of stated principles.  Rather it was a list of actions that Republicans would take if they claimed a majority of both Houses.  It was a pledge to Americans that they would carry out their will through the legislative process.  I firmly support this type of list and this display of initiative and proactive reform.  I do not however view the list in question as having equal merit and /or substantive value.  It would effectively take the American voter out of the political process by allowing the RNC to choose a universal platform for all candidates.

You pointed to the race in NY-23 and I certainly understand your concern there, but I believe that steps such as these will only lead to more Dede Scozzafava’s.  The Party chose her – not the people.  Do you really want the Party choosing all of your candidates in a similar fashion, because I do not?

I cannot find one place in the Constitution or in my understanding of conservatism that allows me to believe in a rigid set of issues or talking points that I must pledge allegiance to in order to be a Republican or a good conservative.  I would venture to guess (because I admittedly do not know of one) that there is not one reference from the Constitutional Convention that would illustrate an intention of our Founding Fathers to allow political parties to cast such documents as impediments to political participation.  Knowing you, you will argue that a third party would be their solution, and to that point I will simply add that I cannot imagine a United States – as I believe our Founding Fathers envisioned it to be – that would embrace a notion such as this that would limit the freedoms of association, speech, and religion as this list would aim to do….  Conservatism is about protecting each and every aspect of our Founding Documents and a document that would require Republican candidates to agree to talking points is a threat to liberty and representative government.  This list may not be unusually offensive, but what if the next one requires adherence to provided standards for belief in God, a mutually agreed upon position on where life begins, a firm position on birth control, a religious preference, a position on the institution of marriage (not just same-sex marriage) – you have to understand that the contradictions of making such a rigid list would prove problematic and contradictory for the Party and would lead to its ultimate demise.  We have seen far too many Republicans fall from grace and be attacked viciously when Democrats behaving similarly are dismissed without notice.  Attempting to legislate, lead, and govern from a position of compulsory morality such as this could aim to do is simply counterproductive and counter to the intentions of our Founding Fathers.  Such positions were intended to be personal in nature – not institutionalized.  If Republicans want to vote for someone (as I do) who supports many of these positions, let them; but do not make them, and do not make our elected officials or political nominees pay homage to issues and policies which they are only paying lip service to in order to gain party favor (see Rudy Guiliani).  We have far too many phony conservatives already running rampant throughout the Party.

Conservative radio, Fox News, the administration, and an invested media in the 21st Century and the Internet Age…

The Popular Rule was in its infant stages with the birth of television and the love affair with the Kennedy presidency and it has grown dramatically through the presidencies of Carter and Clinton.  Many were of the belief that it peaked with the presidency of Clinton as his rise to power mirrored the growth of the internet age and the explosion of new political coverage and commentary; however, the emergence of Barack Obama to the political fold showed the nation that the Popular Rule was here to stay and stronger than ever.

So exactly what is the Popular Rule?  This is not the Jefferson / Hamilton view of popular rule; however, it would likely be a distant cousin in that it is an outgrowth of the discussion of preserving this nation from the oppressions of tyranny.  It is the idea that those who create the news, who control the messages conveyed to the general public, those who have influence with American youth, and generally those who control the conventional means of dissent are united in one common cause and have a vested interest in its success.  It is essentially a mandate to rule by shear force of popularity.  It is the antithesis of republican democratic government.  It is purely rule by the man who’s most popular.  It is the notion that all that the individual who wields this power would say or do would be above dissent or criticism simply because the most outspoken from all walks of life from Academia to Hollywood threw their political support behind him and controlled the means of communicating any and all information.  While this may seem like a simplistic characterization of the state of affairs; if viewed objectively, it is plain to see that politics and the generation of power are no different than any other walk of life.  Those who are able to generate the most support and the largest consensus are generally those who lead; and when that leadership is successful in silencing all opposition for fear of alienation then they have truly reached the pinnacle of power and control.  While the Popular Rule is characteristic of most modern Democratic presidents, The Popular Rule that brought President Obama to office was historic and will undoubtedly go down in the annuls of American history as truly game-changing if not nation-changing.

At the core of the Popular Rule is a group of control elements that help to manifest, perpetuate, and maintain its actual controlling force.  They include two mediums for spreading and manipulating the facts; “The Media” and “Academia” and the audiences through which these messages will be shared and carried on to others “Hollywood” and “The Masses.”

The Media and Academia: Provide credibility and a means to distribute and control the message.  Together they can shape the very history that they will later serve to write.  The interjection of Academiato the support structure gives the administration credibility and limitless power to act above criticism except from those who are clearly definable as partisan.  The role of The Media in subjectively covering the news in a biased and favorable manner allows actions of the administration to go unnoticed when they are harmful to it and heralded when they can gain it favor.

Hollywood and The Masses: Every major American election draws a fair amount of support from both sides of the aisle.  The aim of both parties is to capture those not politically inclined and bring them into the fold to serve as the tie breaker in a close election.  Hollywood makes no qualms about which side they favor and they are usually there trying to bring those uninformed individuals into the political arena by motivating them through their “profound” and “well-informed” endorsements.  When The Masses are reluctant the Hollywood crowd loses interest, but when The Masses are passionate the two entities feed off one another as momentum begins to build.  When an element of race and that passion are added to the mix in the form of racism and hypocrisy they are more like fuel and wood in a blazing fire.

While Hollywood may be the only measure of the four that is readily expendable, it does serve as the ultimate icing on the cake.  The other three coequally make up a ring of influence that would lose its value to the bearer of the power if one element were lost in that they are circularly united.  The media could not favorably report on the news if Academia was admonishing its coverage from all angles; and Academiawould have no audience or platform from which to gain their credentials without Masses of citizen “students” to profess to; and The Masses get the majority of their news from the media; then the circle can go the other way and assume that if they weren’t getting the kind of media coverage that they like they would turn to another source; perhaps a more academic one; which is largely supports the administration; who then supports the media.  Hollywood thrusts itself into the discussion because it fully understands and embraces the marketability of being involved in such a popular movement.  Additionally,Hollywood also adds a bit of JFK-Rat Pack glamour to the movement that gives it the “historic” and “unprecedented” effect as if it is truly history in the making.

While these four elements are the core of what brings rise to the Popular Rule, another factor that is only tangentially related to the rise of Barack Obama’s reign over the Popular Rule may have been the most troubling addition to the weapons cache.  As the Popular Rule was strengthened and supported by it, it may have been the greatest weapon at the Popular Ruler’s disposal.  This was obviously the majority control of both Houses of Congress when he entered the presidency.

By all accounts, the two of the most liberal or perhaps even socialist, presidents in American history were Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baynes Johnson.  Implementing the New Deal and the Great Society respectively, they brought about the most overreaching federal spending programs in American history.  The effects of these spending bills have persisted for generations in every aspect of federal entitlement programs.  What did these two presidents have in common – and what do they have in common with President Obama?  Both FDR and Johnson took the White House with their party controlling both Houses of Congress, and so too did President Obama.  Johnson enjoyed 5 years of total party control of the Federal Government where FDR had 12 years.  Upon taking office, he was only guaranteed two years of such wide control, but the first two months of the Obama administration’s reign over the Popular Rule may have been all that was needed to drastically alter the face of the nation and place him in their class.  Total control and the fervor generated by the economic crisis of ‘08 allowed him to sprint out of the gate and implement as much of his agenda in a few short months as the legislative docket would allow.  While support from his party was not expressly guaranteed, the strength of thePopular Rule would have been yielded against them as well, and even those who used to share a party caucus with the Senator from Illinois would not have been free from fear of retaliation or public scorn for opposing such a powerful movement.  Those who would have attempted to oppose him would have undoubtedly faced the same unfavorable treatment as Republicans across the aisle.

Another contributing factor to the sweeping power and danger of the Obama Popular Rule was the economic crisis that spilled into 2009 and beyond.  Riding the wave of an outcry for government salvation of a failing economy, we were truly in the midst of a momentous time in American history and many hardly noticed.  They realized the economic dilemma but they blindly ignored the actions of President Obama and his first Congress which may very well have shaped the role of government and the economic future of this nation for the next 40-60 years as did the New Deal and the Great Society of liberal’s past.  Reactionary policies and crisis exploitation during that time moved this nation closer to a future that only the most ambitious of big government sympathizers and apologists would have ever imagined.

The Popular Rule is one with few enemies, and when enemies emerge they are met by attempts to marginalize and to remove them from public view with swift force.  Even in the first days of the Obama administration, they set their sights on their first target in the form of conservative talk radio.  With endless support and a growing influence, conservative radio posed the only real threat to the Popular Rule at the dawn of the Obama regime, and while its first attempts to marginalize this core conservative contingency were brief and ill-fated, the cards were shown that President Obama and The Popular Rulewill stop at nothing to quiet dissent.

When cries for the Fairness Doctrine began to reemerge – ever so subtly as they always do – conservatives from all walks of life were made aware that the battle was truly upon them.  When the attacks began to try to silence the lone source of opposition, all conservatives began to take notice as the result of such efforts would be detrimental to the future of our nation.   It has always been easy to dismiss or to filter through liberal television or left wing print media and to flat out ignore or laugh at celebrity banter; but when the lone voices of dissent are silenced, who among us can really be able to distinguish between what is the Left and what is the Far Left?  The center can only be found if there remains a Far Right as well.

The Popular Rule’s reemergence always means tough times for Republicans and conservatives alike.  It means their message will be met with unfriendly looks and great opposition.  It is aided by an inescapable barrage of support from the mass media and it is given “credibility” by the endorsement of the “intellectual” community.  This ignorant and blind support for a president simply because he is not a Republican is championed by all those who dominate the entertainment industry.  As conservatives bunker down and find sanctuary in the fortress of AM radio and their usual rallying points, the battle will wage on.  As the Popular Rule never goes quietly or truly ever dies; it is the duty of every conservative to wage those battles on a daily basis.  The only way to avoid an oppressive government is to continuously engage in well-informed dissent.  The First Amendment gives us that power and there has been no more fitting time in American history to exercise that Right than the present.

The Popular Rule of President Obama is unusually resilient and uniquely invested.  A favorable media hedged its bets on the success of “their” president; to manipulate the masses that rode the wave of Obama affection to the voting booth.  Hollywood adores him and the academic crowd champions his causes in scholarly papers and in the classrooms where they help mold the minds of our impressionable youth.  The Popular Rule aims to silence dissent and ostracize those who attempt to disobey.  The “cool crowd” has finally found their man and no one shoudl dare to challenge what they label as righteous, historic, or transcendent.  Obama’s greatest weapon in his young administration was to yield this great power to manipulate the masses and he used it well with four prime time “press conferences” in his first seven months in office, behind the scenes looks into the confines of the White House, and daily interviews with mainstream media.

He has been given the support of those who teach and those who control the media.  He has been given a mandate not granted through the voting booth but through his incredible popularity.  It was a popularity that transcended race and economic demographics.  It was fanatical and it was delusional; however, it could not be ignored – not by anyone that cared about the future of this nation.  Some of the most oppressive leaders in history have risen to power on the coattails of similar popularity.  A great many tyrants were cheered in similar regards as they rose to power.  Those who wish to think of America in greater terms can only pray that the foundation of a similar movement wasn’t laid in the first few months of Obama’s reign over the Popular Rule.

In a world where everything seems so Left or Right; Black or White; or simply your way or my way; and in a nation debating, discussing, and disagreeing on any and everything healthcare related; I think it is necessary to remind ourselves from time to time that some matters are simply bigger than politics, and there can be places or issues that can unite us.  Saving the healthcare debate for another day, I thought it was simply necessary to focus some attention on the true heroes of our nation and the causes that support them.  As you probably know, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  Nearly 200,000 women in the United States are diagnosed with this unfortunate disease each year and more than 40,000 lives will be lost this year because of it.  There are a great many organizations that support breast cancer awareness programs across this country and it is through their efforts and the strength of those women affected, that the battle to find a cure for this disease will soon be won.

I encourage each of you to spend as much time today, or any day for that matter, looking into these organizations as you spend reading political banter – on this website or elsewhere.  Spend some time seeing how you can support these organizations with the same level of passion and conviction that you would support a political cause.  Regardless of where you may come down on the healthcare debate, I would encourage each of you to think of someone in your own life that has battled this disease, and to find a way that you can support the effort to eradicate this disease for future generations; for where would we be without our mothers and the future mothers of tomorrow?

“My Mother was the most beautiful woman I ever saw. I attribute all my success in my life to the moral, intellectual, and physical education I received from her.” — George Washington

“All that I am or hope to be, I owe to my angel mother.” – Abraham Lincoln

“No one in the world can take the place of your mother. Right or wrong, from her viewpoint you are always right. She may scold you for little things, but never for the big ones.” – Harry S. Truman

GET INVOLVED

You may be a runner. A volunteer. Or an activist. But however you choose to get involved, just know that everything you do makes a difference. After all, without the support of people like you, we know 10 million people could die of breast cancer in the next 25 years. Susan G. Komen for the Cure® strives to raise funds and educate people in the battle against breast cancer through global events and legislative actions each year. Breast cancer is still killing and impacting far too many of our loved ones. So, how will you get involved?

Watch CBS News Videos Online

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION AND FOR DONATION OPTIONS – Susan G. Komen or Breast Cancer Fund

President Obama and his wife, The First Lady, Michelle Obama have made Breast Cancer Awareness a priority for the administration.  Michelle will be making appearances throughout the month in an effort to increase knowledge and support for disease prevention.

Official White House Declaration of Breast Cancer Awareness Month

EVEN THE NFL HAS GOT IN ON THE EFFORT TO SUPPORT THIS GREAT CAUSE

Unless you live in a cave without television, you have seen various players and teams wearing pink shoes, gloves, wristbands, etc all to raise awareness of a disease that has impacted so many lives.

BREAST CANCER AWARENESS

The NFL has teamed up with the American Cancer Society
to fight breast cancer and save lives

Did you know?

» Because of inadequate federal funding of the breast and cervical cancer screening program, fewer than one in five eligible women get the lifesaving breast cancer screening and treatment they need.

» Breast cancer is the second-most common cancer among women in the United States, but with mammography, it can be found early when the chances of surviving it are high.

» You can help reduce your risk of having breast cancer with regular physical activity, maintaining a health weight, and limiting the amount of alcohol you drink.

» More women than ever are surviving breast cancer through early detection and improved treatments.

RESURRECTING A TRUE AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION

Downplaying the role of organized religion in the form of Southern Evangelical Christianity will facilitate the Republican Party’s climb back to relevance.  However, success in this endeavor will depend solely upon the Party’s ability to reunite its base around conservative principles.  Learning from the eight years of the Bush administration is essential in generating the necessary level of unification.  Regardless of one’s beliefs about the successes and /or failures of that administration, it is still possible to see that it was deeply effective in uniting the Southern Evangelical base for support.  While there may be debate as to whether Bush was the dog that wagged the tail or vice versa, it is easy to see how religion can drive political support for a candidate or an elected official.  However, and perhaps more importantly, it is also necessary to realize that limiting support to such a divisive and regional contingency is hardly an effective strategy for a party that intends to have a national reach.

Having distanced itself from said policies however, the Republican Party must find a way to generate equal or greater support to be successful in bringing conservatives to the forefront of the Party.  To accomplish this objective, it may be necessary to examine how our Founding Fathers would have approached such a public relations dilemma.

Irregardless of the outcome of the debate over whether this is a Christian nation or simply a nation founded on Christian principles, it is clear that our Founders intended to establish a government that embraced aspects of religion.  While they intended them to be subtle and barely noticed, they were certainly present in many aspects of our founding.  Additionally, they viewed religion as an effective tool for control and manipulation from a practical standpoint.  While they worked diligently to keep religion out of the realm of government directly, they repeatedly made biblical references and drew upon truisms that paralleled Christian dogma.   While their religious views were certainly not that of contemporary or even 19^th century Christians, they were extremely versed in religious doctrine as well as the intellectual works of the Age of Enlightenment.  Drawing upon parallels from each source was commonplace and is reflected throughout our founding documents.

The Founders were set on high ideals.  They weren’t simply trying to create a newer version of that which had already been tried and failed.  They envisioned themselves to be creators of a new nation which would set the standard for all that followed.  They intended to form a nation that would send a clear message to the rest of the world, that this was a new nation founded on the notion that the ultimate power was vested in the people.  This was unheard of and unimaginable at that time.  It was to be a nation not guided by tyrants or priests, but simply by the people.  However, in the absence of religion serving as a controlling force in government; where would this new nation turn for its unifying and moral motivations?  All of their predecessors had used religion to serve these ends.  Remembering that these were well-read men of the Enlightenment; they were well versed in the perils of pagan religious culture and the downfall of the Roman church.  After much deliberation and much debate, they balanced the interests in favor of creating a nation that could exist on its own absent any religious affiliation.  In the end, they turned to a uniquely American source; one that was just beginning to come to life; and one that continues to grow with each generation of Americans just as the Christian faith has grown and been added to the teachings of Judaism.  It is one that is undoubtedly influenced by everything from paganism to Christianity.  Many of our Founders Deist beliefs and tendencies are well reflected in this new creation as well.  Emerging from the blending of historical and religious references was a sociological construct known as the American Civil Religion.

While they were likely unaware of the full impact of this driving force, it is likely that they understood its power even in its infant form.  While the American Civil Religion has evolved immensely over the course of the last 200 years, it was already firmly entrenched by the time our Constitution was ratified.  It began in colonial times and matured through the years of the Revolution.  By the time of the Constitutional Convention it was all around the Founders.  While the majority of that which is attributed to the American Civil Religion was not yet established, its core was firmly in place.  At the heart of the ACR is an unwavering and unyielding American Spirit.  It is what motivated those statesmen to create a nation unlike any the world had seen; it was that spirit that drove American colonies to unite in revolution; and it was that spirit that brought the puritans and pilgrims to this new nation and carried them through their hardships.  Long before there was a United States of America…there was an American spirit.  It is that spirit that is at the center of the True American Civil Religion.

ORIGINS OF THE OLD AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION

The term American Civil Religion was originally made famous by Robert Bellah in the 1970’s.  Bellah adapted traditional sociological and historical ideas on “civil religion” using works of many from Alexis de Tocqueville to Jean-Jacques Rousseau and applied them in an American context.  The “American Civil Religion” is what emerged from this blending of historical and religious influences and it generated a great deal of commentary as it came on to the scene.[1] The Bellah version of the American Civil Religion is one that has been debated and criticized for some time.  In fact, many of those who recognize the existence of the American Civil Religion are skeptical as to its usefulness and many more fear its powers in our political process.  Critics from the right and left of the political spectrum have attacked Bellah’s work.  Most have done so not from an academic standpoint but simply from the image that it creates.  Whether it seen as a theory, a myth, or even an overanalyzed and over glorified comparison to Christianity without the institution; it has nonetheless been deliberated on by many.  Part of the quandary that is the American Civil Religion as Bellah described it is that it resonates with many Americans even if they disagree with its impact or its usefulness.[2]

Bellah’s version of the ACR has generated a great deal of skepticism and concern for both the practicality of its application and the extent to which it permeates.  Accordingly, many alternate viewpoints have emerged.  However, before attempting to address criticisms, analytical opinions, or grievances that others have had with his version of the ACR as to its origin and purpose, we will simply address what the American Civil Religion is in its truest and most simple forms to demonstrate its prevalence in our society.[3]

AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION

One of the reasons that religion has served as such an iatrical part of nation-building is that it has the unique ability to unite.  It brings believers closer to one another in a common bond and a shared relationship with “God.”  While avoiding allegiances to any specific Gods, our Founding Fathers firmly entrenched an indelible “God” image of in nearly every aspect of the government they were creating.  The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”  When Americans say the Pledge of Allegiance, they recite that we are “One Nation Under God, Indivisible.”  Our money states “In God we Trust.”  The Deist roots of many of our Founders obviously facilitated the use of this universal God Figure as it was directly reflective of traditional characterizations of Deism.  This “God” was to be a universal God – one that could appeal to all religions.  The Founders wanted to unite Americans around their government, not their religious affiliations so they turned to a universal source and drew upon its unifying ability.  They needed allusions to religion, but ultimately they wanted Americans to bow at the altar of a free and democratic government, not at those of organized religion.

So, what can be characterized as the altars of the American Civil Religion?  While there are no structures specifically referred to as such, there are many that could serve in such a role.  Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell that used to ring there, are two that thousands pay tribute to each year in Philadelphia.  Our nation’s capital is home to a great deal of similar attractions of national importance.  The most apparent of these may include the White House or the Capitol Building.  These structures have been used as the centerpiece of many of the great ceremonies and celebrations of the ACR.  Ceremonially speaking, our newly elected presidents traditionally swear an oath, to God, in the shadows of our Capitol every four years.  Hundreds of thousands line the streets to witness the transition of power and the inauguration of our new leader.  Then there is a grand parade as the new president makes his way to his new home – the White House.  Both of the structures used scream symbolism.  The pure nature of the color choice of our chief executive’s home and the fact that the home of our nation’s legislative body is known as Capitol Hill obviously parallels the Winthropian idea of “a Shining City Upon a Hill.”[4] While these two great structures are clearly cornerstones of the physical manifestations of the ACR, they were not created solely for the purpose of reverence or reflection.  However, there are many that were erected entirely with that objective in mind.

We have paid tribute to our great leaders and our fallen soldiers with great monuments to their legacies.  There are shrines to Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson that would rival any traditional religious structures.  These public displays are not confined just to the capital city either.  Perhaps the greatest of all these tributes is the creation that is Mt. Rushmore, which immortalized Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson in the side of a mountain.  While these monuments inspire great national pride and remembrance, it is our nation’s symbols that are the bedrock of The American Civil Religion.  Lady Liberty and all that she represents should not be overlooked either.

Any discussion of symbolism and its use with the ACR must begin and end with our nation’s flag.  The stars and stripes are the embodiment of the unifying effect that the Founders intended.  With the original 13 colonies and the 50 states represented under one common flag, this is the center point of national pride and the ACR, but it does not stand alone.  There are many symbols that evoke a sense of Americanism or national pride.  Some of these may include the Bald Eagle, the Presidential Seal, the Scales of Justice, or even Uncle Sam.  These symbols reflect the truest ideas of what it is to be American.

While symbols, monuments, and altars are all important aspects of the ACR, the spirit behind it is what makes it useful as a unifying force.  Some have simply referred to this spirit as American pride or Americanism.  It is reflected in notions like the American dream and manifest destiny.  Some even argue that it reaches a level of passion that it takes on a quasi-religious fervor.  While it is not a religion in a conventional sense, the guidance and the unifying force that it presents may give it a close relation.  It should not be thought of as an alternative to religion for citizens of this nation, it should simply be thought of as a supplement to the government of this nation since its creation required actual religion to be absent at all levels.  In fact the ACR may have been the driving forced that allowed religious freedom to survive throughout our nation’s history.  It provided at least a glimpse of higher guidance or purpose that prevented actual religion from seeping into the fold.  Historian Robert Mailer once said “In America, the country was the religion.  And all the religions of the land were fed from that first religion.”  The ACR is purely a result of subconscious and conscious feelings, emotions, and commonalities that unite Americans whether they realize them or not.

There are some that take the religious nature of the ACR a step further.  They draw specific parallels to Christian dogma.  This level of structure and organization was obviously not intended by the Founders, but it is worth mentioning to illustrate the wide range of opinions on what in fact makes up the ACR.  It has been articulated that the center of the ACR is a version of the Christian Trinity, with Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson assuming the traditional roles.  Washington was the “Father” figure as our nation’s first president.  Jefferson is the “Spirit” as the creator of the Declaration of Independence which paved the way for the creation of an American nation.  And lastly, Lincoln has been associated with the resurrected “Son” figure.  His place as the leader of the nation at the time of the Civil War and his eventual assassination linked him to the effort of those who gave their lives so that the nation could be reborn causing many to place him in this role as the resurrected son.[5] Historian, Robert Linder supported such Christian parallels and summarized the wide range of such beliefs with the following:

“The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and later, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address became the sacred scriptures of the new public faith.  Just as the colonists saw their own church covenants as vehicles of God’s participation in history, so these public documents became the covenants which bound the people of the nation together in a political and religious union…A leadership imaginary developed that paralleled the biblical account of Israel and led to the Founding Fathers mythology…Before long Washington had become the Moses-liberator figure, Jefferson the prophet.”[6]

In addition to the Trinity figures, there have also been attempts to formulate a list of saints and prophets.  Some that could be included among these are: saints – Betsy Ross and Francis Scott Key; and prophets – Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, Benjamin Franklin, and Martin Luther King Jr.  While recognition of these parallel roles to Christian dogma is important for seeing the full picture of the ACR, their importance is nominal to the importance or effectiveness of it as a unifying tool.

While directly using any reference to these parallels is not politically viable, recognizing and appreciating the value of the ACR is of fundamental importance.

It is not important or even necessary to embrace any of these notions as long as there is an acknowledgement that they are relevant and present in the American conscience.  They do not have to be revered in the manner which Christian or any other religion’s deities are, they simply have to be acknowledged for the visceral feeling that they create; even if only symbolically.  What is important and is fundamental to the Republican message is the importance of the scripture of the ACR.  Three documents form the basis for all that is America and all that is the ACR.

The first is the Declaration of Independence.  It was a message to the world that we not only were seeking our independence, but that we were doing it in a manner that was to be a guide for all nations seeking to find true liberty in the years to come.  It was a declaration that there was a Creator – a God- but that it was only fundamental in declaring that the rights of men are defined by their relationship to their Creator and to one another; not by a government or religious institution.  This made a significant step in removing religious affiliations from the equation and it is fundamental to the liberty that our Founders sought.  If the Pledge of Allegiance – which has been compared to the Christian Profession of Faith – describes and reaffirms our collective unity under the ACR then the Declaration was the explanation of what that faith was.

The second is the Constitution of the United States.  It is the doctrine; it is the bible; it is the all-inclusive document that defines what it is to be American.  Careful in its drafting, the Founders created a document that would aim to balance the rights of men with need for a unified federal government.  It was careful to not infringe upon the rights of men or the rights of states to govern, but was clear in the message that it was creating a nation rather than an association of states or simply a confederation.  The Founders had learned how such attempts would lead to eventual failure as they had with the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution, and the reverence that should be afforded it, is the core of the ACR and should be the focus of Republican attention.  Conservatives believe in the importance of this founding document because it preserves the true intent of those who created this nation.  At times the Republican Party has championed this message but far too often they have let policies and issues detract them from this central focus.  This is where the Republicans need to call home.

The last is the Bill of Rights.  While technically part of the Constitution, it deserves special reverence because of the rights and freedoms which it aims to protect.  It is particularly important for the standard that it set for all nations of the world as well.  Much deliberated and much debated upon, this series of Amendments emerged in an antithetical role to what Christians would call their Ten Commandments.  In doing so, it may actually exemplify the notion that this is a nation founded with ACR principles in mind rather than a Christian form.  For this reason it has its most profound importance.  The Ten Commandments pronounces the Ten things that Christians must not do, whereas the Bill of Rights proclaims the Ten things that Americans are guaranteed under our new nation – as inalienable.  These were not granted by the nation.  They were inherent upon creation.  These were the universal rights; the promises that this new nation was making to the people it wished to serve.  And for this reason alone, it is profoundly important to any discussion of the ACR or life in America as we know it.

In addition to these foundational documents, much can be learned about the ACR from its use by our nation’s presidents over the years.  Beginning with the first administration, the American Presidency has been the focal point of the ACR as it has evolved throughout generations.  Robert Bellah noted that each of the first three presidents set the tone for how their successors would refer to religion in the public forum.  He believed that they derived many of their religious references from Christianity but that they were particularly selective in which they chose.  Washington, Adams, and Jefferson all spoke of “God” but never mentioned Jesus.  Bellah believed that this was a conscious choice and facilitated creating an impression of God in American life as being about order, laws, and right rather than love and salvation.

Bellah also believed that the idea of an American Civil Religion was not on the minds of our nation’s founders as they were creating our new government.  It was simply a creation that arose as a byproduct of their actions.  This assertion should not be ignored or completely discounted; but it may be more accurate to assume that the Founders did intend to create a government that drew upon religion and its most desirable qualities without going as far as believing that they were creating a “religious” entity.  While both views don’t completely contradict one another, the latter may be more reflective of the Founders’ collective view on religion and its importance in society.  It may also be worth noting that the absence of Jesus from public speeches by the early American presidents may simply be a result of their personal beliefs on religion generally.  It is well documented that both Jefferson and Washington were likely Deists and were likely non-believers in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

That being said, the concept of an American Civil Religion in any form may have begun long before our first president took office.  Many believe that the origin of “American Excpetionalism” has its roots at a much earlier time.  If those who believe in American “arrogance” sight an earlier date, perhaps there is an earlier origin of national pride to call upon as well.  This early American spirit, which some characterize in a negative light, was encapsulated in a speech given by John Winthrop as he and his community embarked upon a new voyage into the land that came to be the United States.  In a sermon to the Massachusetts Bay colony in 1630 he stated,

“For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill.  The eyes of all people are upon us.”[7]

With those words he described the new nation they were attempting to create in poetic and visionary terms that have been echoed throughout our nation’s history.  President John F. Kennedy referenced Winthrop in his first inaugural address stating:

“But I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before his shipmates on the flagship Arabella three hundred and thirty-one years ago, as they too, faced the task of building a new government on a perilous frontier…Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us – and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill – constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.”[8]

A generation later saw President Reagan reflecting upon his presidency in its final hours being drawn to that early American display of “exceptionalism” as well.

“The past few days when I’ve been at that window upstairs, I’ve thought a bit of the ‘shining city upon a hill.’ The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined…I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it.  But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.  That’s how I saw it and see it still.”[9]

Winthrop has been mentioned countless numbers of times by American presidents throughout our nation’s history.  The profound ideas that sermon articulated resonate with Americans and their feelings toward this nation.  Our earliest statesmen were committed to the cause of creating a nation that could serve as a model for the world to follow.  They wanted to create a nation that would be the embodiment of freedom and liberty.  Our first president shared in this spirit and recognized the responsibility that Americans were taking on.  In his first Inaugural Address he stated,

“That Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every defect…The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment intrusted to the hands of the American people.”[10]

ORIGINS OF THIS UNITING INFLUENCE

While Robert Bellah is credited with coining the phrase American Civil Religion, he was not the first to speak in general terms about such an entity.  Civil Religion was discussed and debated for generations in the sociological, historical, and religious communities; it was simply Bellah who was able to encapsulate an American construct of the idea.  The American version was even discussed before him by Historians like Yehoshua Arieli, Daniel Boorstin, and Ralph Gabriel who assessed the religious dimension of ‘nationalism’, the ‘American creed’, ‘cultural religion’, and the democratic faith.’  Sociologist Seymour Lispet said Americanism and the American creed rose to quasi religious fervor because of the existence of a distinct set of American values. [11]

While many others attempted to accomplish this feat, Bellah was uniquely successful and generated a tremendous amount of controversy with his efforts in academia and with the general public.  Much of the controversy in the public sphere emerged as a result of the negative aspects of Bellah’s ACR.  It was characterized as dangerous and divisive and many believed that if such a civil religion existed it did so only to alienate non-believers.  This alienation coupled with a negative perception of Excpetionalism, made the ACR a negative rather than a positive force.  Two sociologists’ views on civil religion may help to illustrate the fears that many had for the ACR.[12]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau had a great deal to say about Civil Religion as well.  He was of the belief that civil religion consisted of a generally accepted set of social norms or standards that citizens must abide by.  If the citizen chose not to follow them, then they could not be a “good” citizen or a “faithful subject.”  These were distinct from religious dogma.  They were simply societal norms or mores.[13] In reference to specific dogmatic creations he was very clear as well.

“The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or commentary. The existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the laws: these are its positive dogmas. Its negative dogmas I confine to one, intolerance, which is a part of the cults we have rejected.”[14]

“Now that there is and can be no longer an exclusive national religion, tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship. But whoever dares to say: Outside the Church is no salvation, ought to be driven from the State, unless the State is the Church, and the prince the pontiff. Such a dogma is good only in a theocratic government; in any other, it is fatal. The reason for which Henry IV is said to have embraced the Roman religion ought to make every honest man leave it, and still more any prince who knows how to reason.”[15]

Bellah referenced Rousseau in his formulation of the ACR and characterized his view of civil religion as “a sensible thing for leaders to create or encourage.”  Contrastingly, he also drew upon the works of Emile Durkheim who Bellah characterized as seeing civil religion as “an emergent property of social life itself.”  While skeptical of both beliefs, Bellah went on to reference Durkheim’s theories of the creation of civil religion.  He characterizes Durkheim as believing that civil religion arises out of unity rather than actual religion.  It is essentially a chicken or egg scenario.  Durkheim’s approach lends itself to the belief that religion emerges out of social integration rather than social integration emerging as a result of religion.  Hence, religion emerges as an outward representation of this unity.  While some of this message is lost in discussion of classical religion and the origins of civil religion altogether, it is of little importance to a discussion of a new concept of an American Civil Religion as it should be viewed in an entirely different light.[16]

TRUE AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION

This new version of ACR would draw simply upon Durkheim’s notion of how civil religions emerge in the first place.  While an opposing view would lend itself to the belief that an ACR would only lead to alienation and divisiveness, it may be more accurate to describe the American version as having much more humble and noble origins.  If the American Civil Religion emerged as a result of natural integration rather than as a tool to force integration, the natural order would be inclusive rather than divisive.  This positive view of American Civil Religion was simply not shared by Bellah and many of his critics.[17] The new or true American Civil Religion should be thought of in a context more similar to what the Supreme Court has described as a product of rote repetition rather than compulsory participation.  In the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 US 1(2004), Justice O’Connor concurring in the opinion referenced her analysis of the use of the word “God” in the dicta of her supplemental opinion stating,

“I believe that government can, in a discrete category of cases, acknowledge or refer to the divine without offending the Constitution. This category of “ceremonial deism” most clearly encompasses such things as the national motto (“In God We Trust”), religious references in traditional patriotic songs such as the Star-Spangled Banner, and the words with which the Marshal of this Court opens each of its sessions (“God save the United States and this honorable Court”). See Allegheny, 492 U.S., at 630 (opinion of O’Connor, J.). These references are not minor trespasses upon the Establishment Clause to which I turn a blind eye. Instead, their history, character, and context prevent them from being constitutional violations at all.”[18]

Presenting an argument that attempts to advocate the use and exoneration of the American Civil Religion is admittedly controversial and will likely generate much opposition.  Critics will undoubtedly focus their attention on previous sociological debates concerning this issue and will lead them to believe the ACR is a divisive and exclusive concept that aims to alienate rather than to include.  They will speak in terms of those within the ACR and those on the outside; in terms of believers and non-believers.  However, this attempt to call upon the ACR for motivation and unification of Americans is not attended to promote either of those unfavorable qualities.  Simply stating that ill effects are not intended is a rather empty promise; however, a closer look at what is being advocated demonstrates how claims of that sort are simply unfounded in a True ACR.

The TRUE American Civil Religion should encapsulate all that is purely American.  It should be characterized as simply an effort to unite Americans around all of those entities and similarities which have made this nation so uniquely historic and exceptional.  Those who believe that the ACR is a divisive tool rather than a uniting force should realize that the TRUE ACR champions all that is American.  This includes diversity.  This includes the old adage that this nation was and always will be a “melting pot” for all races and nationalities of immigrants.  This includes acceptance of our cultural differences because in those differences we have formed an American culture which is absolutely distinct from any that exists elsewhere.  The TRUE ACR is one that appreciates the differences and dissimilarities that exist between all Americans but focuses on their commonalities and similarities rather than taking a negative approach and focusing on that which divides us.

Some will argue that this is merely an outgrowth of “American Exceptionalism” and argue that such a movement or effort will have a negative influence with its impact and perception in a global community.  As for those “scholars;” we will acknowledge their point of view and remind them that this great nation is what has allowed them the freedom to share it; and we will simply accept what they have to say and move forward all the same.  While the United States must recognize its relationship to a global community, it is far more important to recognize its responsibility to Americans.  This does not mean that the US should take an isolationist posture.  It simply means that creating a new generation of American apologists is not simply an option.  As a nation, we are not without flaws.  As a citizenry, we are not without arrogance, contempt, and resentment.  However, as a nation we should be proud of what our country stands for and the role it has played in the global community.  While our detractors may only focus on our missteps, we should focus our attention on our successes; our compassion; our charity; and our continued pursuit of liberty for all God’s children.  It is without question that those who believe that the United States should take a more humble and reverent approach to self perception will be highly critical of this rhetoric.  For those citizens of that belief we must offer our support and accept them as our brothers, but we must not let their ill feelings toward this great nation detract us from the ultimate realization and celebration of our nation’s greatness.  American pride should be more than a bumper sticker or theory whispered for fear of being heard.  It should be promoted and felt within the hearts of all Americans without guilt or apology.

The idea of American exceptionalism arose from the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville who believed that the new nation that our Founders created was like no other the world had ever seen.   It was a nation of immigrants who united to form the world’s first modern democracy.  He saw this as quite a feat.  He referred to the new nation and the spirit that drove it as “exceptional.”  While he used the term in his depiction of a young America, it wasn’t made famous until a much later time and in a very different context.[19]

Those who have followed with the use of the term American Exceptionalism have taken a slightly more negative tone with its use.  They believe that this spirit or attitude casts Americans in a negative light.  Believing that this mindset began with Winthrop and his sermon in Massachusetts Bay, they believe the ACR and the commonly shared beliefs of Americans are a negative force.  Much of this sentiment is what has caused the ACR to be seen in such an unfavorable light.  For the most part, this criticism emerged in the post world war II era and in the Cold War years.  During each of these times American pride was particularly high and some were of the belief that such fervor takes on an arrogant tone.  Actions of the Bush administration have caused many who share in this ideology to begin throwing the term around again in recent years. While these concerns are genuine, they should not be mistaken for truisms.  Those who are of this negative mindset are also those who believe that our nation must apologize for all that it has been and all that it has stood for in the last 200 years.  For those misguided individuals, we must simply remind them what it feels like to be proud of something rather than insecure about the perception that pride may create.

In formulating his version of the ACR, Robert Bellah was of the belief that the Founders would not have been mindful of such a creation.  He extended this naivety to all with the exception of Thomas Paine who he believed would have certainly advocated such a framework.[20] In Paine’s book, Common Sense he refers to his vision of America in stating,

“… have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months.”[21]

In the same spirit and optimism that Paine conveys, a True American Civil Religion would embrace the triumphs of our founders.  It would celebrate America’s legacy.  It would be proud to be called exceptionalist in the interest of promoting nationalism and generating a common sense of pride for all Americans.  While nationalism often invokes images of the German form that led to WWII, it doesn’t have to be seen in such a negative light.  Americans can be united in their national pride and such unity can be used as a defense against increasing diversity dividing us from within.  Removing actual religion from the political conversation as our Founders intended will do wonders for creating a more open and accepting culture.  The focus must be on the Constitution not religious dogma or beliefs.  What better place to unite a nation than around a document that gives us the freedom to do so.

The Republican Party needs a unifying and motivating force; a spirit to support its philosophies.  It has tried rallying around organized religion and has failed miserably in the effort.  It must now turn to the uniting force that is the True American Civil Religion.  How can the ACR aid the party in this objective?  If the Republican Party is truly the party of conservatives, then it is fundamental for the Party to return to its roots; and at the heart of that notion is embracing the Constitution as our guiding light.  Recent attempts at protecting and rallying around the Constitution have come only in the form of protecting certain issues or policies that over time the Republican Party has called its own – abortion, gay rights, separation of church and state.  While these are all important issues – they are hardly the basis of a platform for resurrecting the Party to prominence.  They are issues and unfortunately, they are the issues with which the Party has become defined.  It is time to once again be a Party that is about fundamental beliefs and core values not divisive issues and policies.

The notion of adopting and embracing the True American Civil Religion by the Party is not a talking point or a subject of a stump speech; it is simply embracing the things that make this nation great and focusing on the most fundamental ideals of our Founders.  First and foremost on their mind in creating the United States was to form a federal government that would UNITE citizens from the several states under one common government. We were a nation of colonies.  This seems like an unusual notion in contemporary American society, but for the Founders it was a daunting task.

That being said, it is not contended that the Republican Party has quite the monumental the task ahead of it.  The groundwork for this movement has already been laid.  The Founders, in all their infinite wisdom, already began this process by never loosing focus of the need to UNITE.  Republicans need not wear the badges of this movement upon their lapels or cast great posters upon the wall as they champion this message.  The banners are already there; when Republicans give speeches and make appearances, the American Flag is proudly flying behind them.  They must simply remember that the cause that they are supporting is that which is symbolized by our nation’s flag.  It is the American Spirit.

So how does the Party put these core values to work in the context of the ACR?  They must use the rationale that the Founders used in creating this great nation.  They have given us the tools; we must simply choose to apply them.  Americans are united under one common principle – they are American.  As this nation becomes increasingly diverse, it will become even more profoundly important that the Republican Party become the party that is the protector of the American way and American values.  When people stand for the Star Spangled Banner at ballgames and they see the Flag waving in the outfield, they are all uniquely united even if for that moment.  When the nation has faced times of crisis like those that followed in the days after the attacks of 911, they were united as Americans.  The great national pride that is generated in those moments of tragedy is precisely what the Republican Party needs to embrace in times of triumph as well.  People want to be proud of their nation and they want to be proud of their government; they want to be reminded of the greatness of those Americans who came before them; and what better way to generate this pride than to remind them of the bonds that uniquely unite them?  A True American Civil Religion encapsulates everything that makes us uniquely American.  President Reagan understood the power of the ACR.  In his First Inaugural Address he stated,

Standing here, one faces a magnificent vista, opening up on this city’s special beauty and history. At the end of this open mall are those shrines to the giants on whose shoulders we stand. Directly in front of me, the monument to a monumental man. George Washington, father of our country. A man of humility who came to greatness reluctantly. He led America out of revolutionary victory into infant nationhood. Off to one side, the stately memorial to Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence flames with his eloquence. And then beyond the Reflecting Pool, the dignified columns of the Lincoln Memorial. Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln.

There will be many that will criticize such a movement as simply “rallying around the flag.”  This has to be much more than that.  It must be coupled with a renewed commitment by the Party to focus on individual liberties, state’s rights, smaller federal government, and a commitment to conservative values.  The Party cannot go half the way on this.  They cannot champion the cause of protecting the Constitution but be willing to ignore it when it is expedient to do so.  Because to do so would be to trample on the intent of the Founders and it would do little to advance the notion of uniting Americans around an American Civil Religion or any entity for that matter.  The Party must proceed with caution in regards to their religious evangelical base; and while protecting their liberties and interests, they must not lose sight that the Founders intended this to be a Nation Under God, not a nation under religion.  There should be no mistaking the order of this allegiance, it should be to God then country, but in no way, shape, or form did the Founders intend to choose that God for our citizens.

In a time of increasing cultural and religious diversity; and an increasing number of those Americans who consider themselves to be “god-fearing” but not religious, what better time for the Republican Party to be the party that is open minded; and the party that can have deeply religious roots but also pay homage to the greatness of this nation and the principles it represents.  At the end of the day, the Founding Fathers believed, Deists or not, in the importance of moral guidance that stemmed from a commitment to self improvement and an individualized morally principled framework.  What could be more important to uniting both religious and non-religious Americans under one common goal than a party that aims to protect the best interests of both groups?  If the party of Christians truly follows the Christian way of life, they should be just the party to make this gesture to their fellow Americans.  Why can’t the party of Christians be the party that embraces those from every walk of life and appreciates the uniting force of religion in any form?  If this is the Party that is committed to protecting the American way of life and preserving its founding documents, is there any cause that could be more important?

So yes, rally around the flag, sing “The Star Spangled Banner” and “God Bless America,” and say to hell with those who will call this American Exceptionalism.  Revere the great Americans that paved the way for our freedoms and protect the documents that created this great nation.  Unite Americans around the notion of what it means to be American.  Remind them in times of triumph and console them in times of peril with the idea that this nation will persevere and will continue to stand for the highest ideals of liberty and freedom for all of its citizens.  Remind them that this nation is that “City upon a Hill” for the world to see.  It is time for the Republican Party to remember the greatness of this nation and to remind Americans from all walks of life how to preserve those liberties and that greatness; to bring Americans together around things that unite them rather than focusing on that which divides them; to remind them of the American Spirit which has paved the way for this nation’s successes; to restore this nation to a place where all its citizens can openly rejoice that they are Proud to be an American; that is the power of the True American Civil Religion.

[2] Bellah, Robert

[3] Bellah, Robert

[4] Winthrop, John. “Models of Christian Charity.”  Sermon to Massachusetts Bay Colony.

[5]Bellah, Robert. “Civil Religion in America.”  Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. “Religion in America.” Winter 1967, Vol. 96, No. 1, pp. 1-21. see; Robert Lowell, “On the Gettysburg Address.” pp. 88-89.

[6] Pierard, Richard, and Robert Linder.  Civil Religion and the Presidency.  Academie Books.  Grand Rapids.   1987.

[7] Winthrop, John. “Models of Christian Charity.”  Sermon to Massachusetts Bay Colony.

[8] Kennedy, John F. Speech to a “‘Joint Convention of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’”.  January 9, 1961.

[9] Reagan, Ronald.  “Farewell Speech to the Nation”.  January 11, 1989.

[10] George Washington. 1^st Inaugural Address. April 30, 1989.

[11] Cristi, Marcela. From Civil to Political Religion: The Intersection of Culture, Religion and Politics. University Press. 2001

[12] P. L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann.  “Secularization and Pluralism.”  Yearbook for the Sociology of Religion. 1966, pp. 73-85, refer to “sacred comprehensive meanings for everyday life.” See also; Bellah, Robert and Phillip E. Hammond. Varieties of Civil Religion. Harper Rowe.  NY, 1980.

[13] Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract: or Principles of Political Right. 1762.  Constitution.org. Retrieved May 1, 2009.

[14] Rousseau, Jean-Jacques.

[15] Rousseau, Jean-Jacques.

[16] Durkheim, Emile.  Elementary Forms of Religious Life trans. Joseph Swain New York: Collier, 1961 pp. 62 and 432

[17] Varieties of Civil Religion..

[18] Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. 542 U.S. 1 (2004) 328 F.3d 466, reversed.

[19] De Tocqueville, Alexis.  De la démocratie en Amérique (Democracy in America).  Penguin Classics. 1835.

[20] Varieties of Civil Religion..

[21] Paine, Thomas.  Common Sense.  January 10, 1776.  (Published Anonymously: “Written by an Englishman.”)

QUESTION OF THE DAY…

What was on the mind of our embattled President as he woke this morning?  Was it healthcare, Afghanistan, Peace in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, or was it Hanna Montana vs. I-Carly in the Sunday morning tv programming war between Sasha and Malia?  I have no doubt that if the question was posed to our charismatic president that he would certainly say the latter.  So why does this President, who appears firmly committed to keeping his feet firmly grounded in reality, continue to ignore the most glaring evidence of his true and unavoidable destiny – that the less he does the more he will be appreciated?

Through ten months of this presidency, the president has ignored this reality and has attempted to change the world in his first 365 days as president.  In doing so, he has chipped away at his unprecedented support and may have added only to his celebrity rather than his legacy.  He took office as the most iconic figure in the history of the American Presidency.  He stood for more than he could ever live up to.  His image was that of change and that of hope.  After ten months of his administration, the only thing Americans are left “Hoping” for is less “Change.”

Just two weeks into his administration, President Obama was already so accomplished, so transformational, so inspiring, that he was nominated and subsequently awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.  Two weeks.  That’s all it took.  In that time, he had done nothing, accomplished nothing, and frankly had no plan to.  He was simply great for being Barack Hussein Obama.  Every action, every initiative, and every effort since those first days has done nothing more than chip away at his greatness and for that reason alone, I would suggest that this president should take a different course before his legacy is tainted and his greatness lost.

If I were advising this president – and obviously I am not; I would tell him to do absolutely nothing for the duration of his time in office.  I don’t simply mean accomplish nothing earth-shattering or support nothing world-changing… I mean nothing.  This guy should wake every morning and plan only to plan to make a plan.  He should embody the Reagan vision of the ultra-liberal.  He should schedule meeting after meeting and embark on fact-finding trips one after another.  He should call upon world leaders to break bread and deliberate over nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation… but again – he should do nothing.  He should give speeches on the state of the economy and the need for healthcare reform, but again, he should do nothing.

I can’t figure out why it is that this brilliant man – (yes, I said it – shut-up you ignorant phony cons – this dude is intelligent) can’t realize that instead of calling upon the spirit and philosophy of FDR he should be calling upon the divine wisdom of President John F. Kennedy.  No President in the history of our great nation is held in a higher regard for doing absolutely nothing.  His time in office if looked upon with any degree of objectivity it could only be characterized as a total failure (See Bay of Pigs). Much if not all that he is credited with by historians or at least the minds of impressionable Americans was actually a bi-product of his successor’s administration.  The Great Society of Lyndon Baynes Johnson and the efforts of the Civil RIghts Movement only came to fruition after Kennedy had left office.  Some will argue that the rhetoric and the vision of Kennedy is what inspired both of these movements and I will give them that point to a certain degree.  He may have opened the door for these changes to occur but he certainly didn’t have to face the cold of a Washington winter breeze blowing in his face.   Kennedy was content talking a good talk.  It served him well, and in similar fashion, doing nothing could be the greatest talent of this presidency as well.  

Just as President Kennedy quickly learned after the debacle of the Bay of Pigs that he was better at giving speeches than taking action, so too should President Obama as he moves toward year two of his presidency.  Stump it around the country and let your Czars and your liberal Congress stumble over one another grasping for power and a piece of your spotlight.  Let them do your bidding just for a chance to stand in your shadow.  Remember President Obama – you are the only real celebrity in American politics.  You are the once in a generation figure that was sent to Washington to change the game – not the world.

The Republicans have no viable alternative.  Rush Limbaugh is the only figure with anything close to your drawing power, and he isn’t leaving his radio desk to present a real threat to your celebrity or political power.  GOP “leaders” on the Hill have no real power to stop Dem legislation and if the DNC could simply stop fighting among itself progressives could do as they please for the next year and a half.  Healthcare, “Cap and Trade”, higher taxes, will be railroaded through Washington in that time.

Within your own party, Mr. President, let Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi fall on the sword for you.  You began this healthcare debate with the proper posture.  You were letting them handle it and take the “heat” when they realized that Americans don’t want it.  Then you got impatient and spent some of your “political capital” and threw your hat in the ring.  Come on Mr. President stay out of this.  Your celebrity is strong but even the biggest Hollywood star takes a very real hit with just one really, really, really bad movie.   You can’t afford Universal Healthcare Part II – the Pelosi Public Option to be your Gigli, Waterworld, or Town and Country.

So, Mr. President…as you begin to prepare your acceptance speech for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, downplay the fact that you failed to get Israel and Palestine to the table this week to negotiate, ignore the fact that you have no plan for Afghanistan, allow the UN to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem for you, empower NATO to chart the course for troop escalation in Afghanistan, encourage Pelosi and Reid to move forward with the public option, and let Hillary Clinton become the “Hawk” that she wants to be whenever national security compels you to appear like you are taking action.

Mr. President…embrace this much deserved award.  Smile, give a charming and brilliant speech, and tell the world that you ARE the transformative character that they hope that you are.  Then Mr. President… do absolutely nothing.  It worked with the Nobel Committee, it worked in the November election, and it will work with historians and movie makers as they shape your iconic legacy in the years to come.  Put simply Mr. President, the less you do and the more you talk, the more you will be loved and admired.  Bunker down Mr. President.  Bunker down… and work on your next speech.  But please Mr. President in the interest of your legacy, please just simply do nothing.

AP

Friday October 2, 2009

They have finally released the cover so that we will know where to run to when the stores open their doors.  OH man I can’t wait….  Just glad to see there’s not a photo of her wearing eye-black or holding a hockey stick with a little bulldog trailing in the background.   

Tuesday September 29, 2009

You all know what a fan of Sarah Palin I am, so you must know that I have been eagerly awaiting the release of her memoirs.  I plan to camp outside the nearest Borders and dawn my most Palin-friendly attire – yes, I may even wear some questionably fashionable glasses to increase my Palin IQ.

Well the day is set.  The AP is reporting that “Going Rogue: An American Life” will be released November 17th.  So set your calendars and join me to buy the next “conservative” best seller that I’m sure she wrote all of three pages of.  The book is set to outline her political career and provide insights into the “behind the scenes” relationships on the “McCain for President” campaign trail.

I am absolutely convinced that this book will be as mind-numbing as it is to listen to her speak, but I will buy a copy in the interest of continuing to frustrate the literary publishing world with conservative titles moving to the top of the best seller’s list.  What I will do with it after the purchase is yet to be determined….