Mmmm...barrelled fish for breakfast.
Way back in the 1950's when I first tasted politics and journalism, Republicans briefly controlled the White House and Congress.
Oh no! I assume you just kept chewing, because you're still at the buffet.
With the exception of Joseph McCarthy and his vicious ilk, they were a reasonable lot, presided over by that giant war hero, Dwight Eisenhower, who was conservative by temperament and moderate in the use of power.
Yeah. Good thing there weren't actually any Communists anywhere within the federal government. And if there were, that would've been OK, too. It's not like Communists were ideologically committed to the destruction of American society or anything.
That brand of Republican is gone. And for the first time in the memory of anyone alive, the entire federal government — the Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary — is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate.
Say, didn't we have one of those election-thingies recently? Where people, like, voted, and kicked some people out of office and stuff?
That mandate includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives.
Uh-oh. I'm sure W. will destroy all chance for his re-election and squander the entirety of his political capital on that issue. Maybe he's a dumb-ass after all, despite having gained control of the federal government.
It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich.
Funny, my taxes went down last year. I must be rich! Are you rich, Bill?
It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable.
Yeah, I wish that we had Clinton back in office, so he could do things like carefully manage our nation's forests so that they all burn to the ground. Now that's environmentalism!
And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine.
Thank God we have your mighty imagination, Bill! Penetrate the veil for us! Shed the light of truth upon our scaled eyes!
Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life.
Unlike, say, Democratic judges, who are appointed for life but have no discernible political agenda.
If you liked the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming.
*Thud.*
And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture.
Look out! The big Boogey-God-Man! And, by the way--if the Rapture came, all the God-folks that you're so freaked out about would *poof* ascend to heaven, thus solving your problem. So I'd hope for that, if I were you. That's the trouble with you knee-jerk atheist-types: you don't know jack shit about Western religion. Makes you sound kind of goofy when you talk about it.
These folks don't even mind you referring to the GOP as the party of God.
One of the many right-wing Republicans you hang out with must have told you that.
Why else would the new House Majority Leader say that the Almighty is using him to promote 'a Biblical worldview' in American politics?
Maybe it's because he represents that portion of the American citizenry that has a "Biblical worldview." Poor, misguided citizenry!
So it is a heady time in Washington — a heady time for piety, profits, and military power, all joined at the hip by ideology and money.
As opposed to a heady time for wickedness, loss, and flaccid weakness, all joined at the hip by no discernable arrangement of principles and a system of barter using livestock and produce? Is that preferable? What's your point here, Bill?
Don't forget the money. It came pouring into this election, to both parties, from corporate America and others who expect the payback. Republicans outraised democrats by $184 million dollars.
Huh. I thought that the purity of the Democratic party prevented it from raising money from corporate America or anyone else who expects "the payback." I mean, that would be wrong. Does this mean that the Democrats are $184 million less corrupt?
And came up with the big prize — monopoly control of the American government, and the power of the state to turn their ideology into the law of the land. Quite a bargain at any price.
Sure is. It's a shame that all of the voters who made this choice are daft, deluded dupes of the Massive Right Wing Conspiracy, unable to see that they have created hell on earth for all of us.
That's it for this week.
You mean there will be more next week? Huzzah.
For NOW, I'm Bill Moyers.
Who will you be LATER?
All together now: shut up, Bill!
Dear Mr Head,
Am I mistaken, or are you implying that you approve of McCarthyism and a "biblical worldview"?
That part of American citizenry is misguided IMO. In fact, the knee-jerk atheist types know there won't be any rapture, no God-Folks going *poof*, so hoping for it would be like praying for it, something an atheist would obviously never do. I'm not an atheist, I'm just guessing about that.
He can keep talking for all I care, I'm not listening.
Other than that, yeah. I guess I never caught on that you are a Hard-Righter. I also had the impression that you weren't straight-up christian, but more of a Seeker. Not the sharpest butter knife, remember? Won't stop me from reading, however. I know, the anxiety of my possible delinking must have kept you awake at night! 8)
An Astonished Admirer
Posted by: Sylvain | November 11, 2002 04:36 PM
Bill and Sylvain make the same mistake of overgeneralization about repubs and religion that repubs make about demos and greenies. Greenies dont run the dems, religion does not run the repubs, get it through your (astonished?)heads.
Posted by: John | November 12, 2002 05:35 AM
I'm not either of those things. I'm opposed to idiocy and smug ignorance, both of which Moyers exemplifies and gets to demonstrate weekly on a network funded in part by my tax dollars.
Whether I approve of McCarthyism or not (he was an ass, but he had a point, and his were not nearly the worst crimes of that era), or approve of a "Biblical worldview" or not (whatever *that* means...it's really just a scare-phrase Moyers uses to appeal to right-thinking folks, which is to say, folks who think like he does) isn't really the point.
The point is that this is a diverse country made up of various polities, all of whom have a right to representation and a right to exercise their powers of choice at the polls. What irks me is that while Moyers regards it a self-evident that anybody with, say, a "Biblical worldview" is a repressive medieval dolt, he also pretends to be an objective journalist serving "the People;" while he's pretending to be a journalist, he doesn't even have a basic understanding of the "worldview" that he smugly mocks.
This particular bit of his was properly labelled as an opinion piece. "NOW" and his other television efforts are also opinion pieces, but are labelled as "news reporting."
In actuality, Moyers is an ideologue and a propagandist, and I resent having to subsidize his soapbox. Doesn't mean I don't dig PBS or NPR; it just means that I'd prefer it if they kept in mind that--whether GW Jr. 'stole' the election or not--it was still close to a 50/50 split. To hear Moyers tell it, that means that half of the country--the half that doesn't live on either coast--is composed of Bible-thumping simpletons who want to force raped teenagers to bear children, give corporations free rein to dump plutonium into our drinking wells, return all women to the kitchen where they belong, and put homosexuals into asylums (if they're feeling charitable).
While objecting to the exercise of an ideology not his own, he is completely oblivious to the fact that "his side" uses the same methods, the same coercion, and the same power to get what *it* wants.
The reason he's oblivious, of course, is because he's right, and if you disagree with him, you're probably immoral.
In other words, he's just like the people he opposes.
Posted by: --iaw | November 12, 2002 09:40 AM
Well said.
"Moyers regards it a self-evident that anybody with, say, a 'Biblical worldview' is a repressive medieval dolt"
I still find myself agreeing with this POV.
Posted by: Sylvain | November 12, 2002 06:07 PM
'Tis your right, of course.
Does this mean that you find no value in actually learning about Western (and near Eastern) religious systems? If so, in my opinion you're missing out on some fascinating insight into the ancient causal relationships that are driving much of the current world situation...
Posted by: -iaw | November 12, 2002 09:21 PM
And I didn't mean by "actually" to imply that you're ignorant of such traditions; for all I know you're a seminary dropout...
Posted by: --iaw | November 12, 2002 09:51 PM
« | Main | »