GAMAY, Roots of the Republican Right

For those bemused by the string of circus acts parading through the Republican nomination process, here’s your primer.

While the Republicans vie for the legacy of Ronald Reagan, the Gipper would disapprove of much of what they propose. He was not the fountainhead of Republican orthodoxy. The actual source of modern “conservatism” is William F. Buckley Jr. Sixty years ago, 26-year-old Buckley, recalling his term at Yale, authored God and Man at Yale. GAMAY, as it came to be known, essentially laid out the doctrine of modern Republican politics.

Buckley had two bones to pick with his alma mater:

First, in politics, Yale professors were teaching the Keynesian model of economics. As a laisey faire advocate, Buckley had no truck for government meddling in economic affairs. Surely the market would rein in industrialists and protect us from corporate and executive greed (as we’ve seen in the last few years?). Regulation and fiscal policies pursued by devious politicians would only bring distortion to pure market forces. Buckley advocated “individualism” to combat the looming menace of “collectivism,” the sure path to socialism, which he associated with “communist” regimes of Stalin and Mao Tse-tung.

Secondly, he was outraged over the academic, secular tilt of Yale’s religion department. By and large, the professors in theology at Yale, some of whom were ordained ministers, taught academic religious theory, instead of proselytizing the Christian faith to young, absorbent minds.

Buckley argued that academic freedom was a myth, and it was the responsibility of the University to lead its students down the path of [Buckley’s] choosing. “I believe,” he stated, “that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level.”

The Cold War was raging, as well as a hot war in Korea, and McCarthyism had spread its tentacles across our vision of freedom. Still these forces did not directly affect Mr. Buckley, and he seemed to be unconcerned with issues of freedom. These parochial views clearly defy the vision of “intellectual,” which we normally ascribe to this erudite and articulate gentleman.

Buckley conflated Christianity and economics into the focus of our goodly struggle against an evil, Godless empire. It was good verses evil. Even scholarly, John Maynard Keynes would lead us down the path to perdition.

And who would argue with this doctrine? Who could argue with it? There was no logic behind it---then, nor is there now. This is sentiment, a rationality based on emotion and faith. But this sentiment has imbued the modern Republican Party with the almost mindless fervor that is required to lock out reasonable dialogue. Sentiment trumps logic, or facts, because it's backed by the force of emotion. They don't discuss matters of politics because they're not dealing with what they "think;" it's a matter of what they believe. "Facts" or science have no bearing. When speaking derisively of the "intellectual elite" they're talking of non-believers, thinkers!

This anti-intellectual approach leads directly to the bombast of demagogues like Rush Limbaugh. It leads to sensational titles to widely-selling books from people like Ann Coulter: “Treason,” “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Demonic,” and “Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America.” It also leads many on the right to make the irrational connection between Republican conservatism and Christianity.

You wonder why actual conservatives such as Jon Huntsman and (even) Mitt Romney can’t breach the walls of Republican legitimacy. They don’t speak with fervor and righteousness. And when they try, they don’t get it right. They sound phony. The Republican base demands chords of crusade.

So the next time you slip into a “discussion” with a Republican, keep in mind that you’re speaking to his heart, not his head. If you’re not speaking his language, he won’t be listening.

American Normalicy

by C. A. Jones

It isn't surprising that Mitt Romney played the "American Exceptionalism" card in his first major foreign-policy address. What was startling, given Romney's image for moderation, was that he credited God for that exceptionalism.

"This century must be an American century," Romney said. "In an American century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world. God did not create this country to be a nation of followers."

This takes the invocation of the Deity a step further than George W. Bush's much-criticized 2003 State of the Union address, in which he said, "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity." Bush's line is actually anti-chauvinistic, whereas Romney is claiming a divine blessing for his assertion that "We're No. 1." Well, God is an American, right?

Has the United States always been an exceptionally free and virtuous nation? (Are you kidding me??) If you have to ask the question, you are already well on the road to unpatriotic perdition—or so every Republican about to run for president seems to think. “Don’t kid yourself with the lie,” Rick Santorum recently told a group of college Republicans. “America is exceptional, and Americans are concerned that there are a group of people in Washington who don’t believe that any more.” Mike Huckabee gives the same indictment a quasi-spiritual spin: “To deny American exceptionalism,” he told Politico last August, “is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this nation.” In his new book, Mitt Romney adds a messianic note: “Billions of people today live in freedom, or have the hope of freedom who otherwise would have lived in despair, if not for the greatness of the United States.”

Romney, the Robbinsense projected winner of the Republican nomination, further states: “I believe we are an exceptional country with a unique destiny and role in the world.” It is noteworthy that there is zero Biblical citation to support such a claim. This, by default, comes from a “de facto,” “third testament” of The Bible, which only people like Republicans seem to grasp. Or maybe this would be straight from the writings of Joe Smith (LDS founder), who claimed to have “found” ancient writings, and who also happened to be an American. Well people always find reasons to believe that they are the chosen. But Romney goes on to state that those who don’t subscribe to his Third Testament are ready to “wave the white flag of surrender.” As such, they would be presumed to be unpatriotic. Sorry, Mitt, but a true patriot, is NOT in denial as to the transgressions of his loved ones, including his country; he assumes responsibility for their faults and errors. We expect, we demand this of our president!

God’s chosen are not bound by the rules of other mortals; certainly they need never admit error: “I will never, ever apologize for America,” he goes on. “When America is strong, the world is safer.” Vietnam notwithstanding, even a peek at world history since the fall of the “Iron Curtain” makes a mockery of this statement. This is precisely the dangerous attitude in a president that has launched three wars in the last decade!

The issue of Romney’s Christianity (as a Mormon) is moot. The significance here is that he openly subscribes to “faith-based” statesmanship. And virtually no prominent Republican will gainsay these assertions.

You can see, there is no “logic” or rational argument being forwarded here. This is pure “sentiment,” a notion to be taken on faith…faith, the issue that drives religion. We’re not supposed to operate our government on this element of human frailty, much less our country.

Today in a poll conducted by The Hill, 69% of Americans believe we are in decline. Yet even President Obama, in response to the drumbeat, is reluctant to buck the sentiment in an election cycle. He posits that “the 21^st Century will be another American century.”

Growing up in the ‘50s, politicians didn’t make pronouncements like this. There was no need to. We were that country, and the whole world knew it. Now this sentiment is central to the essence of the Republican Party, and its campaign buzz. The reason they trumpet this cause is that it is no longer true. But they will say it over and over again. We are bludgeoned by oh so many lies, leading us to irrational wars, irrational election decisions, over and over again, because they know that if they repeat a lie often enough, people will come to believe it.

In the action films of the ‘50s, the sheriff, Gary Cooper or John Wayne, was a normal person, with the courage to stand up for the weak and prevail against odds. This was accepted as a metaphor for our country. After our prestige and integrity were destroyed in Vietnam, Rambo emerged to signify our national will. Our new heroes were pumped up with artificial muscles and bristling with overwhelming firepower, like our pumped-up military. Rambo was a creature of American defeat.

The politicians who trumpet this cause are stand-ins for Rambo. Our government seduces us with: “Support Our Troops” to distract us from looking closely at the wars being waged in our names. When we had real wars and normal, conscripted Americans fighting them, our sons and neighbors, we were not distanced from the fighting. The “professional fighting force” gives us separation from war. Our politicians no longer ask us to pay for wars…more separation. They can wage their economic and political battles in a vacuum, away from our surveillance.

Today our heroes return from war to a country that has lost its nerve, lost its spirit, lost its prestige, and has no jobs to offer them. Does anyone wish to take on a rational discussion of American Exceptionalism?

C. A. Jones is a Robbinsense staff writer

Founder, O Ship of State

by Jackson Dave

The ship of state is a famous and oft-cited metaphor put forth by Plato in book VI of the Republic. It likens the governance of a city-state to the command of a naval vessel - and ultimately argues that the only men fit to be captain of this ship are philosopher kings, benevolent men with absolute power who have access to the Form of the Good. The origins of the metaphor can be traced back to the lyric poet Alcaeus and it is found in Aeschylus' Seven Against Thebes before Plato.

It’s difficult to find fulfillment of this promise in our list of presidential aspirants. Meanwhile, our ship founders while the government fiddles. How did we get here?

At the close of World War II The United States of America was not only the envy, but the pride of the world. Virtually all countries looked here with admiration, and for most, gratitude. In less than four years, for the second time in a generation we had extracted the world from the jaws of horrific war. We were in the course of rebuilding allies and vanquished foes, through The Marshal Plan. We were the economic and manufacturing engine of the world. We were (in the eyes of the world) a beacon of freedom.

The course of history shows that great empires, through corruption and greed, swallow their own hubris and sink into decline and despair.

In the ’60s our ship of state hit hit its first, post-war iceberg. Both our self esteem and international prestige were challenged by the Vietnam fiasco. Sponsored by our own State Department, under the hand of no less august proctor than Dean Acheson, this war was a vestige of antebellum, European colonialism. Vietnam was a “pushover pawn” to fight the supposed threat of communism. A succession of five presidents could not find the courage and wisdom to put an end to the carnage and disgrace.

In the ‘70s Toto pulled the curtain back to expose a vulnerable giant. Our own president announced to the world that we could not satisfy our thirst for energy. We discarded him in order to maintain course. Middle East oil was inexpensive, and kept so by our bristling military might, and we wallowed in the politics and drama of that dysfunctional region. Our balance of payments dropped below the red line. The world watched as we were again humiliated by foes and friends alike (Iran, Hussein in Iraq, Israel).

The ‘80s, “Morning in America,” saw our government lead the charge on our own economic health as “Reaganomics” led to a spiral of debt. In the international sphere we sponsored another major proxy war; this time Afghanistan stood in (for us) against the Soviet Union, instead of Vietnam standing in for the Soviet Union against us. Meanwhile, we promoted and supplied both sides of a terrible war between Iran and Iraq in a misbegotten effort to control that region and keep the oil flowing. We provided chemical weapons to our friend, Saddam Hussein, who later used them against his own people to retain power. International disgrace was intensified by illegal arms deals and meddling in Latin America. For the first time, the United States of America became a debtor nation, beholden to the world not only for energy, but for our economic stability.

The ‘90s brought a brief plateau in our decline. Military expenditures were cut back and our economy prospered. But on the political front, chaos struck as an ambitious congressman (Newt Gingrich) saw an opening for power from below. Taking a page from the playbook of “Tailgunner Joe” (McCarthy) he trumpeted his “Contract with America” as a cure for evils he invented. Our political climate turned from backroom cooperation to personal attack and intransigence. This kind of impasse had not been seen since the nineteenth century. The “contract” was really a manifesto of political war, leading one of our major parties, believing its own rhetoric, to no longer tolerate being out of power.

At the dawn of the new century we hit two more icebergs. Re-implementation of “Reaganomics,” brought exploding deficits. This coupled with financial deregulation led to an economic disaster which has spread over the world. Meanwhile, our jobs have been shipped overseas and our manufacturing base has disappeared. International meddling, which finally resulted in an attack on our shores, led a reckless president to seek his personal legacy by unleashing our military colossus against any country he didn’t like. In the face of government lies that we didn’t want to see through, we stood back and allowed him to do it. We prefer war to truth, so long as we (think we) don’t have to pay for it, and my kid doesn’t have to fight.

In 2012 we find our ship of state taking on water as we navigate the next century. Almost everyone believes that we have the resources to repair the ship and sail on to prosperity. Our crew has the equipment and experience to repair the hull. Our captain is a capable and honest leader.

But the first officer, with a sizable faction behind him, wants to take over the ship and the drums of mutiny ring out. The problem is that the ship can probably reach the next port, and most of us will be getting off there…we don’t care enough about the ship or our descendants, who will be sailing on, to take action. The first officer, rather than showing us how capable his faction is at repairing the ship, has adopted the strategy of blocking all efforts to plug the holes. (While the lower decks are awash, the mutinous faction has quarters on the upper decks!) He hopes the passengers will blame the captain. But while recent history clearly shows that when in command, the first officer will continue on through ice-infested waters, it's clear to most that he is brazenly threatening to allow the ship to sink if not promoted to captain.

The question remains: “How high does the water have to get before we passengers remove the first officer from the chain of command and take charge, as we did on United flight 93, bound for the capital?” It’s no mere co-incidence that the same party that supports the mutinous first officer seems to do all it can to sabotage an educational system that might teach our children what’s been happening to them.

Jackson Dave in a Robbinsense staff writer

Social Disconnect

Dear Senator Boxer:

To remind you of what occurred in Afghanistan last week, President Hamid Karzai pardoned Guinaz, a 19-year-old woman, victim of rape, who has been incarcerated since “her crime” and has borne the child of the rapist while in prison. The victim was imprisoned, not the rapist, because she had sex out of wedlock. Meanwhile, the condition of the pardon is that both Guinez and her attacker agree to marry---each other.

The separation in social mores between this society and ours cannot be described in a short letter. Yet we expend our national treasure in prestige, lives and wealth to support this government against attack from its own people. You may contest that the Taliban would treat its women even more harshly; but that is their affair, Ma’am, not ours. The responsibility for THIS government is ours. We have no more legitimate authority over the progress or process of this society than we had authority over the Vietnamese people, 50 years ago, while we proceeded to destroy their country. These people will transform their society on their schedule, not on ours.

You, my government, tell us our mission is succeeding, as you told us 50 years ago that the struggle in Vietnam was succeeding. Our proposed success lies merely in driving our “enemies” under ground---awaiting our departure. In the meantime, large numbers of those who collude with the proxy government that we have put in place are executed for their treason. This is madness.

Your other excuse for our commitment, that we confront terror on their soil, is equally lame. Our military presence in that part of the world incites their passionate, selfless commitment to attack us. Our military presence there also drives Iran toward the nuclear option, which is their only assurance that we will not attack them. After we depart, they will return to squabbling among themselves.

I beg you: Stop this insanity. Bring all of our troops home immediately. We have plenty of egregious problems to address here at home. Our national treasure will be much more effective in the form of goodwill and war reparations.