Santorum Wants to Impose "Judeo-Christian Sharia" [Archive]

Ostrinski

6th January 2012, 00:37

9 Controversial Santorum Quotes

1. Opposing birth control
Quote: "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." (Speaking with CaffeinatedThoughts.com (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=14se96da4/EXP=1327019815/**http%3A//thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10/19/348007/rick-santorum-pledges-to-defund-contraception-its-not-okay-its-a-license-to-do-things/), Oct. 18, 2011)

2. Keeping moms at home
Quote: "In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don't both need to. ... What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else — or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon — find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism." (Santorum's 2005 book (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=123317dvi/EXP=1327019815/**http%3A//www.post-gazette.com/pg/05187/533421.stm), It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good)

3. Re-spinning the Crusades
Quote: "The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. ... What I'm talking about is onward American soldiers. What we're talking about are core American values." (South Carolina campaign stop (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=12o7lq1et/EXP=1327019815/**http%3A//www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50054.html%23ixzz1EoVJn3HW), Feb. 22, 2011)

4. Rejecting the very idea of "Palestinians"
Quote: "All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they're not Palestinians. There is no 'Palestinian.' This is Israeli land." (Campaign stop in Iowa (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=1349oa3sd/EXP=1327019815/**http%3A//www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/political_insider/santorum_there_no_palestine), Nov. 18, 2011)

5. Reminding America that some view Mormonism as "a dangerous cult"
Quote: "Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?" (Santorum's Philadelphia Inquirer column (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=13dk1kdln/EXP=1327019815/**http%3A//articles.philly.com/2007-12-20/news/24996925_1_romney-speech-mormon-faith-religion), Dec. 20, 2007)

6. Dissing welfare programs that "make black people's lives better"
Quote: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money." (Campaign stop in Iowa (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=13pn7be20/EXP=1327019815/**http%3A//www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57350990-503544/santorum-targets-blacks-in-entitlement-reform/), Jan. 2, 2012)

7. Bringing race into Obama's abortion views
Quote: "The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person — human life is not a person, then — I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'We're going to decide who are people and who are not people.'" (CNS News interview (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=156tqda99/EXP=1327019815/**http%3A//tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/santorum-on-obamas-abortion-views-its-remarkable-for-a-black-man-to-say-we-can-decide-whos-a-person.php), Jan. 19, 2011)

8. Equating gay marriage to loving your mother-in-law
Quote: "Is anyone saying same-sex couples can't love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?" (Santorum's Philadelphia Inquirer column (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=12k4u5ltn/EXP=1327019815/**http%3A//thinkprogress.org/politics/2008/05/22/23672/santorum-gay/), May 22, 2008)

9. Comparing homosexuality to "man-on-dog" sex
Quote: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. ... That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing." (AP interview (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=12tmqlal9/EXP=1327019815/**http%3A//www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm), April 7, 2003)

http://news.yahoo.com/9-controversial-rick-santorum-quotes-163300085.html

NewLeft

6th January 2012, 00:38

Google Santorum lol, that's all I have to say.

workersadvocate

6th January 2012, 00:44

I guess talking it out is out of the question then.

Check the video of Santorum making a racist welfare rant just dsys before the Iowa GOP caucuses:
thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/03/396428/santorums-racist-welfare-rant/?mobile=nc
The Jesus Crispies clergy loves this guy.

Connect the dots...what do ya get?

Ocean Seal

6th January 2012, 00:56

Santorum wants to impose "Judeo-Christian Sharia"
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/opinion/obeidallah-santorum-sharia/index.html
The working class must destroy him and all like him seeking to impose religious tyranny and a reign of terror in the name of their 'God'. Nail him upon his own fucking cross
Right-wingers have been saying this shit for years. Relax its nothing to worry about. Pay more attention to the Romney types who say more moderate things like business is good for society, and America shouldn't become more like Europe. Beware of welfare-queen Reganite rhetoric. Beware of "necessary" austerity measures. Religious extremists aren't a priority right now. Hate them, but don't let them get to you.

workersadvocate

6th January 2012, 01:54

Right-wingers have been saying this shit for years. Relax its nothing to worry about. Pay more attention to the Romney types who say more moderate things like business is good for society, and America shouldn't become more like Europe. Beware of welfare-queen Reganite rhetoric. Beware of "necessary" austerity measures. Religious extremists aren't a priority right now. Hate them, but don't let them get to you.

You must be living in some large and diverse American city.
Besides, how do ya think they'll sell this "necessary" austerity? Religion, patriotard corporatist nationalism, and of course blaming oppressed minorities and 'lazy' 'godless' poor people and 'greedy' unions and those Occupy people who "hate America and hate our freedom". Where I live is primed for that shit, for this Santorum asshole. Romney will get perhaps a majority of the well-off urbanites. Who will Santorum get?

Lucretia

6th January 2012, 02:09

You must be living in some large and diverse American city.
Besides, how do ya think they'll sell this "necessary" austerity? Religion, patriotard corporatist nationalism, and of course blaming oppressed minorities and 'lazy' 'godless' poor people and 'greedy' unions and those Occupy people who "hate America and hate our freedom". Where I live is primed for that shit, for this Santorum asshole. Romney will get perhaps a majority of the well-off urbanites. Who will Santorum get?

Ok. You've convinced me. This Santorum guy is clearly such a grave threat to workers that we should all vote for Obama to stop him should he win the repub nomination. Better yet we should all vote for Romney in the primaries to make sure the great menace never has a chance of winning the nomination.

Or we can make a class analysis of American politics instead of a cartoon one, and realize that Santorum's hardon for Jesus doesn't make any fucking difference even if wins the presidency. What will determine policy is the same ruling class currently governing through Obama.

NewLeft

6th January 2012, 02:14

Since Scrotum got google bombed, we should google bomb Mitt Romney...

LuÃs Henrique

6th January 2012, 03:13

Some comments.

4. Rejecting the very idea of "Palestinians"
Quote: "All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they're not Palestinians. There is no 'Palestinian.' This is Israeli land." (Campaign stop in Iowa (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=1349oa3sd/EXP=1327019815/**http%3A//www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/political_insider/santorum_there_no_palestine), Nov. 18, 2011)

Which brings the question, why do some "Israelis" have civil rights, and other "Israelis" don't have civil rights at all? In other words, if there are no Palestinians, and the West Bank is an integral part of Israel, then Israel is by no means the "only democracy in the Middle East"; indeed, it is simply not a democracy at all.

5. Reminding America that some view Mormonism as "a dangerous cult"
Quote: "Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?" (Santorum's Philadelphia Inquirer column (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=13dk1kdln/EXP=1327019815/**http%3A//articles.philly.com/2007-12-20/news/24996925_1_romney-speech-mormon-faith-religion), Dec. 20, 2007)If you parse it correctly, he is not saying that some view Mormonism as a dangerous cult; he is saying that Mormonism is a dangerous cult. Some say it misleadingly calls itself Christian, but they are an active missionary church (who would deny that?), and so there is no reason to believe he is back to the "some say" mode when talks about a dangerous cult.

9. Comparing homosexuality to "man-on-dog" sex
Quote: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. ... That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing." (AP interview (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=12tmqlal9/EXP=1327019815/**http%3A//www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm), April 7, 2003)Indeed we should have the right to "poligamy", why not? What reason dictates that each man can have only one wife, and each woman only one husband? As long as it is consensual, what is wrong with that, or with groups of, say, three wives and five husbands? Yes, we should have "the right to anything" consensual. Which, of course, excludes his "man on child" or "man on dog" fantasies, which cannot be consensual.

Luís Henrique

workersadvocate

6th January 2012, 03:18

LuÃs Henrique

6th January 2012, 03:18

Sinister Cultural Marxist

6th January 2012, 03:42

Ok. You've convinced me. This Santorum guy is clearly such a grave threat to workers that we should all vote for Obama to stop him should he win the repub nomination. Better yet we should all vote for Romney in the primaries to make sure the great menace never has a chance of winning the nomination.

Or we can make a class analysis of American politics instead of a cartoon one, and realize that Santorum's hardon for Jesus doesn't make any fucking difference even if wins the presidency. What will determine policy is the same ruling class currently governing through Obama.

I think it may make a huge difference for any woman wanting an abortion, a gay person, a religious minority or welfare recipients of color. You're right that it would not have a serious impact on the class struggle in American society, but these kinds of things do have legitimate, practical effects on the livelihoods of actual people. In terms of class interest, Republicans and Democrats are more aligned than most Americans believe, but there are individual politicians who do have exceptionally reactionary beliefs and it is quite simplistic to argue that they are essentially equivalent.

Lucretia

6th January 2012, 04:03

I think it may make a huge difference for any woman wanting an abortion, a gay person, a religious minority or welfare recipients of color. You're right that it would not have a serious impact on the class struggle in American society, but these kinds of things do have legitimate, practical effects on the livelihoods of actual people. In terms of class interest, Republicans and Democrats are more aligned than most Americans believe, but there are individual politicians who do have exceptionally reactionary beliefs and it is quite simplistic to argue that they are essentially equivalent.

Why would the ruling class and most of the middle class not want Santorum right now?
You think they aren't making their choice right now?

Wait, so you think that once Rick Santorum wins office, he's going to outlaw same-sex sexual activity, ban abortions, and establish Christianity as an official state religion? Let's set aside the fact that even at a theoretical level this is all impossible because of the way the American government is set up (with multiple branches of government with some capacity to check one another), but do you honestly think for a second that the ruling class will allow religious fanaticism to destabilize the country and in the process threaten capital accumulation?

Of course it won't, which is why politicians as religiously right-wing as Rick Santorum, George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan have very minimal ability to change social policies regarding these hot-button "cultural issues." The point isn't that the establishment doesn't want Rick Santorum - it's that Rick Santorum needs them, and if ever in a position of the presidency will not be able just to sign his religious convictions into law. While Thomas Frank is a confused liberal in many ways, his book What's the Matter with Kansas? was spot-on in observing that these hot-button issues basically function as a way to get the working class to vote against its own interests. The irony, he notes, is that once in government these cultural firebrands very rarely change anything of substance in regards to the laws governing these cultural issues. We can expand Frank's analysis further by noting that Democrats and misguided leftists who run around in hysteria at the thought that Rick Santorum might win the GOP nomination (he almost certainly won't), believing it will represent doom for gays, women and atheists, are making the exact same kind of mistake. They are so fixated upon cultural issues about which virtually nothing will change that they act against their own interests by supporting a party of capital.

By the way, the biggest obstacle to an abortion has always been class and money, even back when abortions in the U.S. were illegal.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

6th January 2012, 05:35

Wait, so you think that once Rick Santorum wins office, he's going to outlaw same-sex sexual activity, ban abortions, and establish Christianity as an official state religion? Let's set aside the fact that even at a theoretical level this is all impossible because of the way the American government is set up (with multiple branches of government with some capacity to check one another), but do you honestly think for a second that the ruling class will allow religious fanaticism to destabilize the country and in the process threaten capital accumulation?

It has before in other countries. The bourgeoisie, just like the Proletariat, can act politically against their best interests when they are in conflict amongst themselves.

Of course it won't, which is why politicians as religiously right-wing as Rick Santorum, George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan have very minimal ability to change social policies regarding these hot-button "cultural issues." None of those leaders were in power during an economic crisis, and even their "minimal" changes to US social policies effected people's lives.

The point isn't that the establishment doesn't want Rick Santorum - it's that Rick Santorum needs them, and if ever in a position of the presidency will not be able just to sign his religious convictions into law. There is no "the establishment" in the singular sense. There is the bourgeoisie, which is divided in conflicting interest groups. But there's no smoke-filled room where every member of the elite agrees on a particular set of policies which help them all out. One can over-rate the relevance of bourgeois politics, but you are going too far in the other direction to underrate the internal divisions within the bourgeoisie.

While Thomas Frank is a confused liberal in many ways, his book What's the Matter with Kansas? was spot-on in observing that these hot-button issues basically function as a way to get the working class to vote against its own interests. The irony, he notes, is that once in government these cultural firebrands very rarely change anything of substance in regards to the laws governing these cultural issues. Nationalism was used in such a manner too, but this didn't stop hyper-nationalists from later on successfully instituting the policies which the nationalists paid lip service to. Your confidence in the failure of social conservatives in the past as proof of their ultimate historical irrelevance doesn't convince me.

We can expand Frank's analysis further by noting that Democrats and misguided leftists who run around in hysteria at the thought that Rick Santorum might win the GOP nomination (he almost certainly won't), believing it will represent doom for gays, women and atheists, are making the exact same kind of mistake.Under normal circumstances, he is a long-shot, but up against the competition (the weakest the GOP has offered up, ever, really) you can't be so sure.

They are so fixated upon cultural issues about which virtually nothing will change that they act against their own interests by supporting a party of capital.
I'm not saying vote for the Dems (or otherwise), bourgeois politics is bourgeois politics.

By the way, the biggest obstacle to an abortion has always been class and money, even back when abortions in the U.S. were illegal.Banning things, which drives them into the black market, will almost always drive up the price. Class and money is an obstacle, but like any obstacle it can be raised or lowered.

Klaatu

6th January 2012, 06:16

The thing that cracks me up about these right-wing fucks like Santorum is when they talk about "freedom" and then proceed to try to
take away inherent freedoms of others (gay rights, abortion rights, union rights, first-amendment rights, fourth/fifth amendment rights etc)

And they actually believe they have "good reasons" to do these things!

It boils down to this: Either you believe in equal rights for all, or you do not believe in equal rights for all. Can't have it both ways.

Lucretia

6th January 2012, 06:31

It has before in other countries. The bourgeoisie, just like the Proletariat, can act politically against their best interests when they are in conflict amongst themselves.

None of those leaders were in power during an economic crisis, and even their "minimal" changes to US social policies effected people's lives.

There is no "the establishment" in the singular sense. There is the bourgeoisie, which is divided in conflicting interest groups. But there's no smoke-filled room where every member of the elite agrees on a particular set of policies which help them all out. One can over-rate the relevance of bourgeois politics, but you are going too far in the other direction to underrate the internal divisions within the bourgeoisie.

Nationalism was used in such a manner too, but this didn't stop hyper-nationalists from later on successfully instituting the policies which the nationalists paid lip service to. Your confidence in the failure of social conservatives in the past as proof of their ultimate historical irrelevance doesn't convince me.

Under normal circumstances, he is a long-shot, but up against the competition (the weakest the GOP has offered up, ever, really) you can't be so sure.

I'm not saying vote for the Dems (or otherwise), bourgeois politics is bourgeois politics.

Banning things, which drives them into the black market, will almost always drive up the price. Class and money is an obstacle, but like any obstacle it can be raised or lowered.

You can pretend that the logical extension of your position isn't to vote for the dems, but that's precisely what it is. To the degree you're ramping up fear of Santorum by obsessing over all the terrible things he's said, rather than what he's done policy-wise and would almost certainly have the power to do (and not to do) were he to win the presidency, you're reciting the Democraps' lesser-evil script line for line. And as I said, you've convinced me that this is a serious emergency, unlike all the other times right-wing religious kooks from the GOP have been painted by lesser-evilists as unprecedentedly evil and in need of being thwarted by one last vote for the Dems (as with a junkie, there's always one more final emergency). Let me know where I should sign up to vote for Romney in the GOP primaries. If we're going to play the lesser evil game, we might as well play as effectively as possible. :closedeyes:

workersadvocate

6th January 2012, 08:09

Lucretia, you are totally right to insist that raising the alarm about Santorum (actually its about raising the alarm about the likely upcoming manner of shoring up the middle class and of the sort of governance the ruling class needs for the next period) must not be let to confuse working people into voting Democrat.
I think Santorum represents a significant portion of the ruling class and appeals widely in the middle class (especially outside major cities, but also some support with major metros too). I believe these class forces want a radical rightwinger with intense appeal to their base, not a lukewarm Mitt. They aren't sending Santorum money and hyping him in the media like the second come of Christ now for nothing. They don't want Romney. They want the iron fist. They want union busting, Occupy smashing, austerity imposing, deregulation, resegregation, dispossesion of oppressed minorities, and war. They need a head of state that can sell all that in the name of God, American patriotardism, and holy capitalism (or as they like to call it, "freedom")...who can get and keep the middle class on board, while duping and scaring working people into staying quiet "in our place".

Lucretia

6th January 2012, 08:14

They don't want Romney. They want the iron fist. They want union busting, Occupy smashing, austerity imposing, deregulation, resegregation, dispossesion of oppressed minorities, and war.

Why the hell would capitalists like Romney (who is quite wealthy) have any interest in reinstituting segregation? And why in the world would Romeny not want to union-bust, occupy-smash, and impose austerity? Even if he personally did not want to do these things, a possibility I find unlikely, you seem to be under a naive impression that politicians, at least at the national level, are principled people. They're not. They are narcissistic opportunists who delude themselves into thinking that what's good for them is good for the rest of the world. And what's good for them is invariably to take the path of least resistance, to do what the largest faction of the ruling class, or largest coalition of ruling class factions, wants.

Zostrianos

6th January 2012, 08:59

9 Controversial Santorum Quotes
3. Re-spinning the Crusades
Quote: "The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. ... What I'm talking about is onward American soldiers. What we're talking about are core American values." (South Carolina campaign stop (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=12o7lq1et/EXP=1327019815/**http%3A//www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50054.html%23ixzz1EoVJn3HW), Feb. 22, 2011)

Conservative Catholics often use revisionism with regard the Crusades, claiming that the poor innocent Christians were acting in self defence against the evil Muslims, and that it was latter who committed atrocities. Unfortunately this contradicts historical accounts from that time. Here's a great example from the Christian historian Raymond of Aguilers:

Strange to relate, however, at this very time when the city was practically captured by the Franks, the Saracens were still fighting on the other side, where the Count was attacking the wall as though the city should never be captured. But now that our men had possession of the walls and towers, wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our men (and this was more merciful) cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands, and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses.

So let it suffice to say this much, at least, that in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies. The city was filled with corpses and blood. Some of the enemy took refuge in the Tower of David, and, petitioning Count Raymond for protection, surrendered the Tower into his hands.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/raymond-cde.asp#raymond1

Small Geezer

6th January 2012, 09:52

Sit down this arsehole once and for all.

Os Cangaceiros

6th January 2012, 10:03

He doesn't have a snowflake's chance in hell of getting elected.

workersadvocate

6th January 2012, 12:17

He doesn't have a snowflake's chance in hell of getting elected.

Why?
How does the ruling class actually choose its American presidents?
(Don't forget what happened in 2000, btw).

Os Cangaceiros

6th January 2012, 12:32

Generally speaking: because the American voting public doesn't care about religious zealotry, and those who do represent a minority who's electoral power has been greatly exaggerated. And no, I didn't live in a "large and diverse" city, I grew up in a rural "red state". People (esp. liberals) give the religious right waaaaaaaay too much credit, they're not nearly as potent a political force as certain hysterical individuals make them out to be. Independents, who generally have the power to sway elections, are alienated by religion in politics...G.W. Bush didn't conduct his campaign in 2000 by promising to enforce "Christian sharia". :rolleyes:

Specifically speaking: because Iowa primaries serve as a springboard for cranks who ultimately don't go anywhere...Ron Paul got third there, and Huckabee won it last go-around. New Hampshire will be won by Romney, who will probably go on to also win South Carolina and do a victory lap through the other states.

workersadvocate

6th January 2012, 13:51

Who really selects...the ruling class, or voters?

I think the ruling class selects, then voters go into elections to show which of the selected candidates they buy into supporting most. Coke, pepsi...it's still soda, and the ruling class profits, while voters foolishly think they freely and decisively chose. What they really did was indicate which had better marketing.
Romney has more money and more 'alike' the ruling class, but Santorum has way more populist marketing potential, and they choose presidents to get the job done of serving their class interests.
If they go with Romney, yes they'd make him do the same job, but would he be able to prevent or suppress likely rebellion the way Santorum could (by having his base help, akin to fascism)?
That is the question! The ruling class needs an effective butcher who can get the middle class to help with their own steely knives and loyal support of the corporatist state.
Before the present crisis and upsurging rebellion, the ruling class could rely only on their state.
Today, I think a substantial portion of the ruling class is deciding that they need a kind of fascism now, albeit much less independent and more astroturf then in the 1920s and 1930s. Setting the petty bourgeoisie loose against working people, but only on their terms and under their preapproved sponsered dependent leadership, as an auxillary to the state apparatus, and perhaps also as a means of settling remaining intra-class rivalries between the bourgeoisie itself.

LuÃs Henrique

6th January 2012, 13:52

Wait, so you think that once Rick Santorum wins office, he's going to outlaw same-sex sexual activity, ban abortions, and establish Christianity as an official state religion?

No, he won't be able to do that. He will be able, however, to steer public debate in such direction (and, of course, to change the composition of the Supreme Court in a way that could eventually lead to legal abortions or same-sex marriage being ruled inconstitutional, or to those matters being ruled state-level business). And that is what matters; a Santorum presidency would mean focus being moved away from economic matters, in a way Obama, Romney or Paul won't be able to do.

Let's set aside the fact that even at a theoretical level this is all impossible because of the way the American government is set up (with multiple branches of government with some capacity to check one another), but do you honestly think for a second that the ruling class will allow religious fanaticism to destabilize the country and in the process threaten capital accumulation?This is, however, what the ruling class has actually been doing for the last decades. And it apparently came to a point where it is gone out of control; religious fanaticism has now political strenght of itself, that the ruling class can no longer dispell without a long political battle (and alliances that it would like to avoid).

Of course it won't, which is why politicians as religiously right-wing as Rick Santorum, George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan have very minimal ability to change social policies regarding these hot-button "cultural issues."Sure, but each presidency by one of them makes such minimal ability slightly less minimal, on one hand; and their far-right constituency ever more eager for more radical leaders, that won't compromise as much as Reagan or Bush Jr. historically have. At some point, a final straw may well break the camel's back.

The point isn't that the establishment doesn't want Rick Santorum - it's that Rick Santorum needs them, and if ever in a position of the presidency will not be able just to sign his religious convictions into law.The problem however is the converse: whether the "estblishment" needs Santorum or not. If it decides that it needs Santorum, what this means is that the "establishment" needs, or thinks it needs, more radical and aggressive policies against the working class.

While Thomas Frank is a confused liberal in many ways, his book What's the Matter with Kansas? was spot-on in observing that these hot-button issues basically function as a way to get the working class to vote against its own interests.He is certainly right here. The problem however is to what extent it is possible to get the working class to vote not only against its own interests, but in fact in the interests of the bourgeoisie, which is quite similar but is by no means the same.

The irony, he notes, is that once in government these cultural firebrands very rarely change anything of substance in regards to the laws governing these cultural issues.To a certain point they don't even want to do it, because it would deprive them from their rallying points. Instead, they are content with acting very little and compensate it by blaming the "establishment", ie, the institutions that keep them in check. This of course fosters every shade of crazed far right politics, including conspiracy theories against freemasons, Jews, homosexuals, etc. In the end, what they are saying is, "you want abortion to be illegal, but I can't make it illegal because there are those damned things like a Judiciary branch, Congress, free press, checks and balances, in a word, democracy". This makes their constituency increasingly radicalised against democracy; at some point, the votes are going to start to actually remove constitutional rights.

Bush may have not been able to make abortions illegal, but he managed to pass repressive legislation in a scale inimaginable twenty years earlier. More, he managed to make such repressive legislation so much commonplace that those who would have opposed it twenty years ago now accept it without a blink.

We can expand Frank's analysis further by noting that Democrats and misguided leftists who run around in hysteria at the thought that Rick Santorum might win the GOP nomination (he almost certainly won't), believing it will represent doom for gays, women and atheists, are making the exact same kind of mistake.Evidently, the hysteria you describe is very real; the CPUSA naturally calls each presidential election "the most important election in history", and paints things like if the Republican candidate gets elected, you will have outright fascism in the US, while if the Democrat wins, all will be peace, flowers and democracy. Both ideas are false, but the point is, the latter idea is much more false than the former. The Democrats aren't part of the solution, first and foremost because they do not have the will to fight back the Republicans (indeed, they need such a convenient devil to get the working class to vote against its own interests, too).

They are so fixated upon cultural issues about which virtually nothing will change that they act against their own interests by supporting a party of capital.Evidently.

But the problem here is not precisely in their fixation on cultural issues, but in their capitulation to the idea that one of capital's parties is effectively able to deliver whatever "cultural" policies they rally for.

The far right has not this problem; it relentlessly pushes the Republicans farther to the right, with no qualms about electability, compromising, etc. The left, instead, allows the Democratic establishment to neutralise any of its points in name of a common struggle against the right; the Democrats then use such support not to fight the Republicans, but to appease and accomodate them.

The problem, as always, is the independent organisation of the working class. To denounce the Democrats is necessary, but completely empty if not coupled with an effort to organise and independent working class party. To say that Obama is the same as Romney, that Romney is the same as Paul, and that Paul is the same as Sanatorium is possibly correct in the abstract; but if it in the ends it only means that we are comfortable with a complete crackpot like Rick Santorum as president of a nuclear power, then it harms more than helps. And unless we can stand up and say something like, "Obama is the same as Santorum, but here is someone or something that isn't the same, and this one or this thing is our way out from the insane conundrum between Obama or Santorum", then dismissing the differences between them only means that we are comfortable with Santorum's platform, ie, right-wing radicalism, homophobia, illegalisation of abortions, repression against non-Christians, etc.

Luís Henrique

workersadvocate

6th January 2012, 14:50

Luis is right about the independent organization of the working class being crucial. The one thing I'd possible argue with is about what is meant by "party" and what does that party actually do.
Some leftists try to form an electoral third party...and I strongly disagree with that as a strategy, and besides, why do that when independent democratic mass working class organizations right now barely exist within the proletariat in America? Getting endorsements on paper from a few union bureaucrats for some electoral third party don't mean much, when the working class masses have been left unorganized, and don't even get me started about today's business union bureaucracy (fuck those bosses too).
How about we actually help the working class independently organize itself to fight for itself, instead of just going to them (if we bother that) for warm bodies at some activists' insta-protest, or for ballot signatures and votes for an electoral third party they aren't really already involved in ( it ain't really the working people's self-organization)?

Os Cangaceiros

6th January 2012, 16:14

Who really selects...the ruling class, or voters?

The voters select who's going to represent them and their party (in the GOP primary, which is what Santorum's currently running in). Of course both candidates will ultimately represent "ruling class interests"...there isn't a significant deal of difference between Democratic and GOP candidates, as the presidency of the current president has proven amply.

And no, I don't believe that those in power are ready to unleash the theo-fascist wolves because they're so terrified of their own empending doom.

workersadvocate

6th January 2012, 17:16

The voters select who's going to represent them and their party (in the GOP primary, which is what Santorum's currently running in). Of course both candidates will ultimately represent "ruling class interests"...there isn't a significant deal of difference between Democratic and GOP candidates, as the presidency of the current president has proven amply.
Who chooses the main contenders in these primaries?
What makes these candidates "major", "legitimate", "have a chance", before the public has voted?
Media, money, and endorsement nods from the ruling class and their top representatives

And no, I don't believe that those in power are ready to unleash the theo-fascist wolves because they're so terrified of their own empending doom.
Ever heard the saying, "prior preparation prevents piss-poor performance"?
You think they aren't readying for this because the level of mass rebellion from below is still quite low. Don't just look at the next week or next month.
There will be rebellion from below, with or without bureaucrats and the middle class left.
Who can't see the clash of antagonistic opposite forces that's coming?
The forms may not precisely be known, but the essense of class conflict is widely known and felt. Unless you want it to go down just like the August Uprising in the UK, it's time to organize and prepare, and fuck every bogus left group that leaves working people hanging in such a conflict with only excuses and dismissals and peace police speeches afterwards.
Don't forget what recently happened in the UK.
The ruling class in America almost certainly was paying attention and will prepare.

Os Cangaceiros

6th January 2012, 17:24

Who chooses the main contenders in these primaries?
What makes these candidates "major", "legitimate", "have a chance", before the public has voted?
Media, money, and endorsement nods from the ruling class and their top representatives

Yes, to an extent. However, Ron Paul got third in Iowa this time, and he's been constitently ignored by the media, although that has to do with the fact that he doesn't fit into mainstream political discourse, not that he's in fundamental opposition the establishment. Santorum's outside mainstream political discourse, too, waaaaaaay outside, and if you think the media is going to obstain from savagely hammering him if he were to become the GOP nominee for president, well, you'd be wrong.

Ever heard the saying, "prior preparation prevents piss-poor performance"?
You think they aren't readying for this because the level of mass rebellion from below is still quite low. Don't just look at the next week or next month.
There will be rebellion from below, with or without bureaucrats and the middle class left.
Who can't see the clash of antagonistic opposite forces that's coming?
The forms may not precisely be known, but the essense of class conflict is widely known and felt. Unless you want it to go down just like the August Uprising in the UK, it's time to organize and prepare, and fuck every bogus left group that leaves working people hanging in such a conflict with only excuses and dismissals and peace police speeches afterwards.
Don't forget what recently happened in the UK.
The ruling class in America almost certainly was paying attention and will prepare.

Americans don't like ultra-religious nuts in government, though. Someone who wants "Christian sharia" in the US will never be elected.

Klaatu

6th January 2012, 19:18

Can we remove all private (capitalist) money out of politics, and thus stop wasting so much time (more than one full year before the actual election!) trying to pick from a motley crew of obviously mentally-deranged candidates? :scared:

bcbm

6th January 2012, 19:23

Can we remove all private (capitalist) money out of politics,

no

Sam_b

6th January 2012, 19:48

Why?
How does the ruling class actually choose its American presidents?

Because Santorum's idea 'of 'small federal government' is counter to the ambitions and goals of the current ruling class?

Sasha

6th January 2012, 20:09

Santorum wants to shrink government so small it fits in your bedroom/uterus. The GOP machine wants to shrink government like Reagan did (i.e. expand it and raise both taxes and debt)
A good overview of the current state of the republican field: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/necropolis-now/Content?oid=11446910

~Spectre

6th January 2012, 20:17

Why would the ruling class and most of the middle class not want Santorum right now?
You think they aren't making their choice right now?

They don't want him. He's bad for business.

~Spectre

6th January 2012, 20:20

Who chooses the main contenders in these primaries?
What makes these candidates "major", "legitimate", "have a chance", before the public has voted?
Media, money, and endorsement nods from the ruling class and their top representatives

In both money, endorsements and organization, Santorum is way behind both Obama and Romney.

Santorum even failed to win his last Senate run and got blown out by a huge margin.

ColonelCossack

6th January 2012, 20:22

groooooooaaaaaaaaaan.

same old same old, isn't it, really.

bcbm

6th January 2012, 20:29

why do they call it 'sharia' as though the idea of a fundamentalist religious rule is unique to islam?

agnixie

6th January 2012, 23:19

why do they call it 'sharia' as though the idea of a fundamentalist religious rule is unique to islam?

For the same reason they call it judeo-christian when it's only christian. They're stupid and adopting the opposition's scare terminology.

The working class must destroy him and all like him seeking to impose religious tyranny and a reign of terror in the name of their 'God'. Nail him upon his own fucking cross

Nonsense, such a virulent fascist is almost a providential candidate, so long as the left gets ready and actually acts like it can do more than bullshit sectarianism... oh yeah, nevermind, carry on then.

Proteus

6th January 2012, 23:44

If so much that is wrong with the world can be solved by Jesus, why doesn't he smite Santorum and run himself?

Robespierre Richard

7th January 2012, 00:02

Os Cangaceiros

7th January 2012, 00:10

Zostrianos

7th January 2012, 00:21

Would it really be that bad if the country gets taken over by religious fundamentalists? I mean the profession I'm pursuing (anthropology/archaeology) would be fucked and I would probably have to leave the country or something, but can anyone think of what kind of problems this could lead to exactly?

Women would probably have to stay home, gays would be sent into forced therapy or reeducation to cure their "illness", atheists and non Christians might be stripped of their rights and forced to convert (or sent to jail), scientific progress would be curtailed and creationism might be imposed in schools. Freedom of speech will probably be abolished, and there will probably be book burnings and restrictions on media and entertainment. This may seem extreme (and it might not go so far) but it gives you an idea of what might happen. In the very worst scenario, think Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, but run by Christianity instead of Islam.

ColonelCossack

7th January 2012, 00:28

Robespierre Richard

7th January 2012, 00:29

Women would probably have to stay home, gays would be sent into forced therapy or reeducation to cure their "illness", atheists and non Christians might be stripped of their rights and forced to convert (or sent to jail), scientific progress would be curtailed and creationism might be imposed in schools. Freedom of speech will probably be abolished, and there will probably be book burnings and restrictions on media and entertainment. This may seem extreme (and it might not go so far) but it gives you an idea of what might happen. In the very worst scenario, think Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, but run by Christianity instead of Islam.

Yeah that would be pretty shitty...

Good thing that it will never happen though most likely, like in 1988 when Pat Robertson actually had a good chance of becoming the Republican nominee for president.

Wikipedia:

Robertson ran on a standard conservative platform. Among his policies, he wanted to ban pornography, reform the education system, and eliminate departments such as the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. He also supported a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.

Robertson's campaign got off to a strong second-place finish in the Iowa caucus, ahead of Bush.[14] He did poorly in the subsequent New Hampshire primary, however, and was unable to be competitive once the multiple-state primaries began. Robertson ended his campaign before the primaries were finished. His best finish was in Washington, winning the majority of caucus delegates.[15][16] He later spoke at the 1988 Republican National Convention in New Orleans and told his remaining supporters to cast their votes for Bush, who ended up winning the nomination and the election. He then returned to CBN and has remained there as a religious broadcasting broadcaster.

zJsgAEQAvis

Sinister Cultural Marxist

7th January 2012, 02:01

You can pretend that the logical extension of your position isn't to vote for the dems, but that's precisely what it is. To the degree you're ramping up fear of Santorum by obsessing over all the terrible things he's said, rather than what he's done policy-wise and would almost certainly have the power to do (and not to do) were he to win the presidency, you're reciting the Democraps' lesser-evil script line for line. And as I said, you've convinced me that this is a serious emergency, unlike all the other times right-wing religious kooks from the GOP have been painted by lesser-evilists as unprecedentedly evil and in need of being thwarted by one last vote for the Dems (as with a junkie, there's always one more final emergency). Let me know where I should sign up to vote for Romney in the GOP primaries. If we're going to play the lesser evil game, we might as well play as effectively as possible. :closedeyes:

Jefferson Davis and Lincoln were both politicians within the bourgeois system, but because of the political, social and economic context of the USA at the times the choice between them was very stark nonetheless. Yeah you're right insofar as it is important not to play the "lesser evil" game but it's equally delusional to think that the bourgeoisie is united as a single entity and that whatever politician is elected in a capitalist republic has zero impact on the lives of working people or various minorities. A President has the opportunity to stack the supreme court, pursue various aggressive foreign policy ventures, and pressure the direction the legislature takes, and as a politician they always represent certain factions of the bourgeoisie. What makes this particularly problematic with folks like Rick Santorum in 2012 is the economic crisis and the possibility of instability in the middle east. There are added instabilities which did not exist in 2000, or even 2004 and 2008.

Anyways, people can fight fanatics like Santorum without pushing for people to vote Democratic, merely by emphasizing the logical fallacies of their arguments. In fact, that is likely what will happen.

why do they call it 'sharia' as though the idea of a fundamentalist religious rule is unique to islam?

Because it shows the hypocrisy of the Christian conservatives? Because it is ironic? It is a good question, but I don't know if it is necessarily "Islamophobic".

Lucretia

7th January 2012, 02:13

Jefferson Davis and Lincoln were both politicians within the bourgeois system, but because of the political, social and economic context of the USA at the times the choice between them was very stark nonetheless. Yeah you're right insofar as it is important not to play the "lesser evil" game but it's equally delusional to think that the bourgeoisie is united as a single entity and that whatever politician is elected in a capitalist republic has zero impact on the lives of working people or various minorities. A President has the opportunity to stack the supreme court, pursue various aggressive foreign policy ventures, and pressure the direction the legislature takes, and as a politician they always represent certain factions of the bourgeoisie. What makes this particularly problematic with folks like Rick Santorum in 2012 is the economic crisis and the possibility of instability in the middle east. There are added instabilities which did not exist in 2000, or even 2004 and 2008.

Anyways, people can fight fanatics like Santorum without pushing for people to vote Democratic, merely by emphasizing the logical fallacies of their arguments. In fact, that is likely what will happen.

Because it shows the hypocrisy of the Christian conservatives? Because it is ironic? It is a good question, but I don't know if it is necessarily "Islamophobic".

The idea that "fighting bad arguments" will dismantle religion or the illusions religious people have in their Bible-thumping candidates is straight out of the liberal playbook and betrays a failed understanding at what causes and reinforces ideology. Good arguments are already out there circulating, on the Internet, in movies, in day-to-day conversations. The reason religious fanaticism persists isn't that good arguments haven't been sufficiently developed and disseminated.

If you want to eliminate this noxious brand of religion, fight to overturn class society. Don't waste your time with explaining to people that there are massive contradictions and historical inaccuracies in the Bible (not to mention scientific impossibilities), or with pretending that you can convince a die hard pro-lifer if you just retooled your argument slightly. These sorts of beliefs are rooted at a level far deeper than anything you'll be able to penetrate with a slogan or even a pamphlet. It's at the core of who they are, and requires a revolutionizing in their lifestyle to alter.

Proteus

7th January 2012, 02:35

What matters to the US ruling elite in terms of state policy is finding the person who will take the class war to another level and destroy the evil that is welfare, whilst smothering business and the rich with handouts. Which isn't a a dogma, a religious belief or a moral principal, its just sheer bloody expediency. They don't have much to worry about because Obama will do that anyway in his second term, should he win.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

7th January 2012, 03:36

The idea that "fighting bad arguments" will dismantle religion or the illusions religious people have in their Bible-thumping candidates is straight out of the liberal playbook and betrays a failed understanding at what causes and reinforces ideology. Good arguments are already out there circulating, on the Internet, in movies, in day-to-day conversations. The reason religious fanaticism persists isn't that good arguments haven't been sufficiently developed and disseminated.

If you want to eliminate this noxious brand of religion, fight to overturn class society. Don't waste your time with explaining to people that there are massive contradictions and historical inaccuracies in the Bible (not to mention scientific impossibilities), or with pretending that you can convince a die hard pro-lifer if you just retooled your argument slightly. These sorts of beliefs are rooted at a level far deeper than anything you'll be able to penetrate with a slogan or even a pamphlet. It's at the core of who they are, and requires a revolutionizing in their lifestyle to alter.

You misunderstood my argument. Of course a die-hard religious believer won't change their mind, but there are many on the fence or who might vote for Santorum for reasons other than his social conservatism. This has happened before-the people of the Gaza strip is not so wedded to Islamist ideology as Hamas, but they voted Hamas into power because they were sick of the PLO's corruption. This has had an impact on, among other things, women's rights. Now women can't smoke Hookah, dance in public, ride on the back of a scooter while a man is driving, or go out without a hijab in Gaza, despite the fact that these issues are really irrelevant to the daily lives of most Palestinians who live there and not the major issues which they vote on.

I don't care about inaccuracies in the bible etc, people can believe in the bible and the resurrection, more power to them. It's not about revealing "scientific impossibilities" or "internal contradictions", it's about reminding people that the rise to power of particular factions within a Capitalist democracy will have real-world effects on the lives of women, minorities, marginalized communities etc. Yes the only real answer, ultimately, is a proper social revolution, not the selection of "lesser-evil" capitalist politicians, but that reality shouldn't stop us from addressing the other reality that some bourgeois politicians are also fanatical bigots. They are not mutually exclusive truths.

Ismail

7th January 2012, 14:25

The electoral choice between Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln was quite significant. It led to a civil war within the ranks of the bourgeoisie and had permanent ramifications precisely because it was a war between two social and economic systems: slavery, which was a relic of feudal-bourgeois rule and a fetter on capitalist development, and actual industrial capitalism, which was not. German Communists and friends of Marx like Joseph Weydemeyer fought in the Union Army and both Marx and Engels openly backed the Union not because Lincoln was a nice and smart guy, but because it was a case of progressive industrial capitalism versus reactionary planter aristocrats seeking to uphold by force a historically antiquated and dying system against the influence of industrial capitalism.

A good read on the subject:
http://mccaine.org/2010/03/26/marx-engels-and-the-american-civil-war-i/
http://mccaine.org/2010/03/27/marx-engels-and-the-american-civil-war-ii/

There's nothing remotely comparable to that in modern American politics. The choice isn't between "lesser evils," it's between two reactionary political parties serving the interests of the bourgeoisie lock, stock and barrel. The Obama Administration has proven itself to have basically expanded everything the Bush Administration has done, from imperialist wars to austerity measures to surveillance against prominent "anti-American" organizations. This is because capitalism itself demands such things in order to retain its power and influence.

Klaatu

8th January 2012, 01:31

no

Do you mean "no, we can't" or "no, we should not?"

A Marxist Historian

8th January 2012, 18:39

You misunderstood my argument. Of course a die-hard religious believer won't change their mind, but there are many on the fence or who might vote for Santorum for reasons other than his social conservatism. This has happened before-the people of the Gaza strip is not so wedded to Islamist ideology as Hamas, but they voted Hamas into power because they were sick of the PLO's corruption. This has had an impact on, among other things, women's rights. Now women can't smoke Hookah, dance in public, ride on the back of a scooter while a man is driving, or go out without a hijab in Gaza, despite the fact that these issues are really irrelevant to the daily lives of most Palestinians who live there and not the major issues which they vote on.

I don't care about inaccuracies in the bible etc, people can believe in the bible and the resurrection, more power to them. It's not about revealing "scientific impossibilities" or "internal contradictions", it's about reminding people that the rise to power of particular factions within a Capitalist democracy will have real-world effects on the lives of women, minorities, marginalized communities etc. Yes the only real answer, ultimately, is a proper social revolution, not the selection of "lesser-evil" capitalist politicians, but that reality shouldn't stop us from addressing the other reality that some bourgeois politicians are also fanatical bigots. They are not mutually exclusive truths.

Creatures like Santorum and Bachman and Perry come to the fore as a symptom of the extreme decay of capitalist society. They are not currently serious dangers, but simply are momentary flashes in the pan due to rank and file Republicans feeling like anything is better than Romney. Up they come, and rapidly they disappear.

Hey, you even had a brief boomlet for Herman Cain (remember him?) till the Tea Party types heard that it wasn't just black women he was harassing, but white women.

Religious fundamentalism is unlikely to really be the platform of dangerous reaction in America, which is, for all its faults, a much more socially advanced society than Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.

Instead, the danger is classic fascism, the mobilization of the bankrupt petty bourgeoisie and white lumpenproletarians vs. the working class, the poor, and racial minorities. The Tea Party, whose archetype is scab construction contractor Joe the Plumber, is a culture medium out of which a real fascist mass movement might develop.

So worry less about the religious nutcases, and more about the economic ones.

-M.H.-

LuÃs Henrique

10th January 2012, 16:49

Creatures like Santorum and Bachman and Perry come to the fore as a symptom of the extreme decay of capitalist society. They are not currently serious dangers, but simply are momentary flashes in the pan due to rank and file Republicans feeling like anything is better than Romney. Up they come, and rapidly they disappear.

Maybe. But what makes rank and file Republicans feel like anything is better than Romney?

The answer probably is, because Romney is (if we ignore Jon Huntsman) the only actual conservative running for the Republican nomination. We are in times of capitalist crisis; even rank and file Republicans are facing unemployment, cuts on pensions, foreclosures, etc. And Romney is a too much typical bourgeois; he has run capitalist companies that have outright destroyed too many people's lives. And so a right wing party needs some kind of outsider who doesn't so clearly personify the evils of capitalism.

And so it is true that many political clowns are trying to be this outsider. They are of two different kinds: religious fanatics, on one hand, and Ron Paul on the other (with Ginrich somewhere in between). And yes, those of the first kind come up quickly, and then quickly disappear - not because they have the wrong politics, but because they are too much unwilling to talk about what people - rank and file Republicans included - want to hear about (which, of course, is the economy).

The fact is, Romney is the Republican candidate that the Democrats would love to face. Ginrich asks an important question:

Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money? (See here: Voting in N.H. Opens as Romney Fends Off Attacks (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/us/politics/on-primary-eve-rivals-try-to-force-romney-to-play-defense.html))
We know the answer, of course; but the Republican rank and file is more likely to believe that this is something else rather than capitalism (corporatocracy, greed, the Jews, etc.) To keep them into such delusions requires painting an ideological picture of capitalism that must be increasingly out of touch with reality - and that probably needs a candidate that doesn't make capitalism look too much as a handful of rich people manipulating the lives of thousands of other people and walking off with the money, to put it into Mr. Ginrich's style, or lack thereof.

Religious fundamentalism is unlikely to really be the platform of dangerous reaction in America, which is, for all its faults, a much more socially advanced society than Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.

Indeed, and this is the reason that Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain are no longer candidates, that Rick Perry and Ginrich are struggling to avoid a similar fate, and that Sanatorium will likely be also out when it comes to South Carolina.

Instead, the danger is classic fascism, the mobilization of the bankrupt petty bourgeoisie and white lumpenproletarians vs. the working class, the poor, and racial minorities. The Tea Party, whose archetype is scab construction contractor Joe the Plumber, is a culture medium out of which a real fascist mass movement might develop. So worry less about the religious nutcases, and more about the economic ones.

Which probably means the danger is Ron Paul - the actual economic nutcase of the lot. His problem, indeed, is the opposite of Romney's: not the Republican rank and file, but the Republican top brass, who are too much directly linked to actual capitalists like Romney to be able to support Paul.

Luís Henrique

workersadvocate

10th January 2012, 18:37

The religious nutcases are "economic" bloodsucker scum too.

I really don't get why Luis and AMH don't feel that religious fundamentalism in politics is a threat in the USA. Outside the big cities, and actually to some extent even in the big metros, it sure seems like there has been a desparate turn to religious revival. In the abstract, it wouldn't be a big deal perhaps. But who tells these people what "God" wants and what displeases "God" and why "God" is cursing them for sinful disobedience?
Who tells these people that they must be soldiers for "God" in the 'culture wars' and obey the will of "God" in the patriotic imperialist wars?
The vast majority of these religious people have never ever read their own scriptures fully for their own interpretation. They mostly are told what it supposedly means by clergy and religious demagogue politicians.
Average religious Joes and Janes don't come up with the same talking points against abortion by themselves, for instance. Religion in America is political (and seeminglt always has been). Just because America is quite advanced technologically doesn't mitigate the danger of religious reaction. If anyone here has been to one of those Tea Party or Glenn Beck fan rallies, then they know how "God" and the American Right's politics and interpretation of history mesh into a bloodthirsty dangerous cocktail with significant influence. How is that less significant then the much smaller, much more isolated and mych less organized American adherents of classical 20s-30s style fascism?