Democrats vs. Demonizers

And so it begins, or should I say continues, the demonization of Hillary Clinton and her husband, the ex-president Bill. Character assassination that in some quarters might be compared to gang rape in its viciousness and virulency. 

It has transformed the nascent 2016 presidential selection process into a contest of Dems vs. Dems—Democrats vs. Demonizers. 

The most recent attacks on her character center on financial gain at the alleged expense of independent and objective stewardship of the affairs of state while she was U.S. secretary of state. Outside of the Washington Beltway, I suspect these attacks are fodder for the 40% of the public who watch Fox News and despise her from the get-go while being balderdash to the 40% who view MSNBC and would support her even if she were a confirmed witch being burned at the stake. 

My take on all this in my increasingly cynical mode is that all politicians play loose with the financial benefits that come across their desks when they are in or recently out of office. Of course they are trading on their influence. They have few other assets to market. 

I’m not condoning influence peddling. But I am more concerned with policy. Where do candidates stand on issues.

Do they favor a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy? Or do they support onerous rules that make a decision difficult to reach and execute?

Do they favor extending the right to vote to as many qualified citizens as possible, or do they support rules that would place undue burdens on the young, the elderly, or the disadvantaged in the alleged interest of thwarting voter fraud when no such fraud has historically been proven?

Do they favor a higher minimum wage or do they believe in tricky down economics (that should be “trickle” down economics but Apple Pages self-corrected it to tricky down, which I thought was a nicely comical transposition)?

Do they accept the science of global warming and our need to slow its advance, or are they blind and deaf to the realities of climate change?

Do they accept evolution, or are they bound by Scripture in a belief the world is less than 6,000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs?

Do they believe government can be an instrument for good, or is it all evil, particularly agencies that help the poor, regulate drugs and food, civil rights and education? 

I am in no way suggesting Hillary Clinton is a perfect candidate. But I trust her to appoint federal judges who would be progressive, not regressive. Based on the fact that during Bill’s and Barack’s presidencies the economy has been more robust than during Republican administrations, I trust her to oversee greater economic growth. Given the repressive actions in states controlled by GOP governors and state houses, I fear the direction this country would take if a Republican, even a moderate Republican, if there still is such a person, would be elected president. 

Yes, there might be gridlock in Washington. Republicans might even try to impeach a Clinton, again. They’ll have more select committees investigating “wrongs” than standing committees. But the alternative is much more dire. 

If I sound pessimistic let me seek comfort by identifying with Jon Stewart, the soon to be departing host of The Daily Show. Wednesday night, in conversation with Dana Perino, former press secretary to George W. Bush and currently a co-host of Fox News’ The Five, Stewart identified himself as an “optimistic idealist.” 

As for his outbursts against politicians, he said, “This is anguish, not pessimism.” 

I will be saddened when he leaves The Daily Show anchor seat August 6. But I think his decision is a good one. Of late, I’ve been seeing too much of Howard Beale in him. Beale, you might recall, was a news anchor in the 1976 film Network who encouraged his viewers to shout out of their windows, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

Stewart hasn’t gone that far (yet), but he seems to be more liberated in his diatribes recently now that his tenure is finite. 

A Deeper Meaning to Roe v. Wade

Forty years ago today, with the 7-2 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, the right to obtain an abortion became part of the universal law of the land. That right has been degraded in many parts of the country. It is imperative that men unite with women to insure their ability to choose to obtain an abortion, free of hassle.

For many, the abortion issue is bound up in theology. I am beholden to my friend Ken for turning me on to the Jewdayo web site for this analysis of a deeper import of the Roe v. Wade ruling. 

"Roe is about so much more than delineating trimester by trimester rights for women, or determining when life begins or when there is viability of the fetus,” wrote Rabbi Robert N. Levine of New York's Rodeph Sholom congregation. “To my mind, Roe v. Wade . . . takes on the question of whether the government, law enforcement, male-dominated institutions have the power to control basic decisions about women's lives. Those who yearn to repeal Roe v. Wade really want to correct the 'illusion' that women can make decisions about their own bodies and lives."

"The fundamentalist right tries to tell us that Scripture explicitly sides against choice. They are wrong! Listen carefully: There is not a single verse, not a single verse in any Bible outlawing abortion," says Rabbi Levine.

Religion to the Nation's Rescue

There are lots of theories as to why Mitt Romney’s bid to unseat Barack Obama is slipping further and further away from fruition. No need to recount them here. Rather, I’d like to proffer my own—in a country increasingly religious, many voters are turning to their Bibles to find reasons to support the incumbent and question the sincerity of the challenger.

As I was sitting in temple Wednesday during Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) services, I listened as the following excerpt from the Book of Isaiah 58:3-7 was read (in Hebrew, but here’s the English translation from our prayer book): 

3 “Why, when we fasted, did You (God) not see? When we starved our bodies, did You pay no heed?” Because on your fast day you see to your business and oppress all your laborers! 4 Because you fast in strife and contention, and you strike with a wicked fist! Your fasting today is not such as to make your voice heard on high. 5 Is such the fast I desire, a day for people to starve their bodies? Is it bowing the head like a bulrush and lying in sackcloth and ashes? Do you call that a fast, a day when ADONAI (God) is favorable? 6 No, this is the fast I desire: to unlock fetters of wickedness, and untie the cords of the yoke to let the oppressed go free; to break off every yoke. 7 It is to share your bread with the hungry, and to take the wretched poor into your home; when you see the naked, to clothe them, and do not ignore your own flesh.

Surely, there are religious men in the Republican Party. Perhaps House Minority Whip Eric Cantor read these words while he was in his temple on Wednesday. He might well interpret them to mean individuals have the obligation to help the less fortunate. Charity is a noble endeavor. But it would hardly balance the inequities and inequalities we currently face as a nation. 

In my readings of Scripture, I’ve never come across any capitalist manifesto. Yet time after time the Bible, the Old and New Testament, exhorts us to care for the needy, to make them whole again. Catholic bishops have weighed in that the proposed Romney-Ryan budget cuts too many dollars from social services and even some total programs. Romney might believe a budget that supports social welfare initiatives comprises income redistribution on a national scale. He would be right. He could find justification for such an idea in the Bible. During each jubilee year God commanded land be redistributed to original owners. If that’s not income redistribution, what is? 

So my reading of the political winds these days is that after hearing, in his own words, what Romney stands for and his true, unfiltered lack of compassion for the “47%,” religious Americans are having second thoughts. They may not like Obama, but they believe his compassion is real, his values are ones they find in concert with their own. Over the next six weeks their conviction will be sorely tested by the withering assault Republican Super Pacs will unleash against the president. They’ll have to keep in mind verse 4 from Isiaiah 58. 

I’m apparently not the only one to believe religion will help swing this election. Pastor Rick Scarborough of Texas, a big supporter of Rick Perry’s aborted bid for the GOP presidential nomination, is launching a 40 Days to Save America crusade tomorrow. He’s asking for prayer, fasting and action to change the direction of the country. 

I don’t normally hear about the good pastor’s ideas, but Stephen Colbert’s Wednesday show enlightened me about the plans to sway undecided voters, including, according to Colbert, “the biggest undecided voter of all, God. He may be all knowing, but He’d still like to know a little more about Mitt’s tax returns.”

Colbert suggested Romney might have an edge is appealing for God’s vote. He does, after all, fit Romney’s “core demographic—old, male, vengeful and lives in a gated community.”