Let's Put These Political Terms in Plain English

For 18 years, as a classroom teacher of secondary social studies, mostly upper level American History and government, Economics and World Civilization, I included objectives in my lesson plans which led to students being able to identify political ideologies by name.  Terms like "Communism," "Socialism," "Democracy," and "Fascism," are part of an eighth grade class in Constitution.  Since that's a required class, and most Americans have at least an eighth grade education, at least I hope they do, these are terms we should know, and be able to use by now.  

Don't trust politicians, especially conservative politicians who think their constituents are the most stupid and ignorant people on the planet, to define these terms correctly.  In some cases, I'm not sure they know what they mean, and if they do, they don't care about the real meaning.  Let's take, for example, the term "Democratic socialist."  This is often referred to, by those who either forgot everything they learned in social studies, or who are deliberately engaged in duping their constituents, as a "left wing" political ideology that supports both political democracy and some form of a socially owned economy.  

That's a very broad definition but it works for the sake of discussion.  Let's observe a couple of specific points about it.  

First, the presence of political democracy is essential to democratic socialism.  A government of, by and for the people is the core essential element necessary for this ideology to work.  So it is, in this aspect of governing philosophy, impossible for a Democratic Socialist to be a Communist.  Communism imposes the will of one class over the other.  And that's not democratic.  So let's make this clear.  Democratic Socialism is not Communism, it is the opposite of Communism.  

Whether or not it is a left wing political philosophy is another issue.  Frankly, I don't really care if it is.  

The Socialist part of Democratic Socialism is a bit more complicated, and it has a long history.  Basically, the American economy, while it has overwhelmingly capitalist characteristics, is socialist by definition.  There are businesses which the society at large, through the government of the republic, has placed under public ownership and control or regulation.  For example, one of the biggest socialist projects in American history is the Tennessee Valley Authority, a series of dams constructed for the purpose of preserving water resources and providing electricity to an impoverished part of the country.  

The railroads are another example.  No need for every rail company to build rails, the infrastructure was a socialist development.  

In Canada, for example, the national health care system is an example of the most beneficial kind of Democratic Socialism.  Canadians have a national health care system that pretty much covers everything, right down to prescription drugs.  Conservatives in America love to bash the system, claiming that if it was so great, why do so many Canadians cross the border to get health care in the United States?  

I know the answer to that question.  They don't.  Oh, to be sure, there are some Canadians who live in places close to the US border where certain kinds of specialty services are much closer in the United States than they are in Canada.  But the truth is that relatively few Canadians seek medical care in the United States.  I have a step-brother whose family lives in Port Erie, Ontario, right across the river from Buffalo.  If they need a specialist to which they don't have access in their local clinic, they go to Toronto, which is a little further than Buffalo.  

And let's talk about the waits to see specialists and get specific treatments.  My own spouse has waited for more than two months to see a pain management specialist in Illinois, in one of the most well-equipped hospital systems in the state, attached to medical, nursing and medical tech schools.  The wait to see her PCP is three months.  The wait in Canada, in Toronto, for a cardiologist specializing in electrophysiology is two whole weeks.  Two weeks.  

Well, let's cut to the chase.  It frustrates conservatives that Canadians generally like their socialized medicine because it works for them.  Statistically, the overall quality of their care is better than that received by the vast majority of Americans.  And the fact that they pay slightly less than half of what Americans pay for private insurance is a bonus.  It is, in fact, the way most citizens of countries in the world that have some form of socialized medicine feel about the care they get.  

In a society and in a government that conservatives love to claim is based on Christian principles, how is it possible to consider human pain and suffering in terms of the profit that it can generate?  

And that is the essence of Democratic Socialism.  There is not anything Communist about it.  It is about the power, invested in the governed, determining exactly how the government can contribute to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of its people.  We have proof all around us that a national system of health care, and the ability to finance it by either cutting insurance premiums in a private, competitive market, or by removing private paid premiums altogether, in favor of a single-payer health care system.  

Getting Rid of Citizens United

Oligarchy is a less frequently defined objective in social studies courses at the eighth grade level, but it actually does exist in current constitutional studies objectives.  Oligarchy, which is the concentration of political power in the hands of a small group of people who are united by common political interests, is now the primary means of government in Russia.  That's not completely surprising, given its modern history of government, from a Czarist monarchy primarily based on feudalism, to a short-lived provisional government intending to restore legislative power to the Duma, to Marxist Communism, to a short-lived sort of democracy that could never break out of internal corruption, to the current oligarchy that has come out of the economic instability several banking and industrial tycoons have imposed on the country in the form of Vladimir Putin. 

The one element missing from Russian socialism, in those periods of time where it actually happened, was democracy.  I wouldn't venture to say that Russia ever got very close to real Democracy, even in the years when Boris Yeltsin was President.  There are too many divisive elements vying for power in the Russian regime to allow the voice of the people to be heard.  

But the United States was never a feudal monarchy, nor have we ever, at least until now, experienced a government that was anywhere close to as authoritarian as what we have now.  One of the reasons for it is that we have been moving in the direction of allowing the 1% of the population who control 99% of the money to buy the government.  All it took was a Supreme Court that had already been corrupted by the presence of billionaire dollars in their pockets.  Bribery of judges is going to be called "pulling a Clarence" given the kind of money it has taken to buy his decisions.  And so we have corporations considered equal with citizens of the United States.  

Democratic Socialism would be the kind of government philosophy that would lead to the overturning of the Citizens United court decision that made this possible in the first place.  The first people to raise this possibility, back in 2020, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, were individuals labelled as Democratic Socialists, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  They suggested breaking the filibuster in order to create five more Supreme Court seats by amending the Judiciary Act, allowing President Biden to appoint liberal, Democratic Socialist justices who would have overturned Citizens United on day 1, along with  restoring Roe, nullifying Presidential immunity and expiditing the intermiable foot dragging and delaying and obfuscating of Merrick Garland, making sure Trump got tried and convicted for the insurrection on January 6th, and for stealing classified documents.

Just for Clarification

Democratic Socialism would not, in any way, ruin the current free market economy we have in the United States, because we don't have a completely free market economy, and we already have a measure of socialism in our economy.  There aren't a lot of places in the economy, beyond health care, public utility regularion, and maybe down the road in energy resources, where Democratic Socialism needs to intervene, health care reform being the major priority.  

I see some things that Mayor Mamdami is doing in New York, under this label, that are necessary and reflect the will of the people, such as the rent freeze, and the establishment of city operated grocery stores in parts of the city that are considered grocery "deserts."  I've seen the same thing happen here in Chicago, with local people working to establish cooperatives in areas of the city where there's no grocery store, or pharmacy, nearby.  Chain stores put the local grocers and pharmacies out of business, then, when they discovered that they can't make the same kind of profits they do elsewhere, they close down and leave the neighborhood without a grocery store or a pharmacy.  Democratic Socialism either makes sure that stores don't shut down, or they lead the community to provide the infrastructure for a local investor to be able to operate, and compete, to provide goods and services. 

And let's say it one more time for effect.  Democratic Socialism is NOT Communism, it is the polar opposite of Communism.   

This Political Turmoil and Chaos is Being Promoted in Church

In attempts to try and figure out how it was that there were enough voters in this country to ever elect Trump to the Presidency, even the first time, there were plenty of previous signs.  When Newt Gingrich became the first Republican to be elected Speaker of the House in 40 years, that was a sign that things were about to change, and that the Heritage Foundation and the billionaires club were going to systematically engage in attempts to buy influence over the United States government piece by piece. 

The realization that there were enough Americans who would vote against their own interests, and against politicians who were committed to making the American Republic work and for those politicians who were willing to take it apart, piece by piece did not come to me because of my background as a social studies teacher, or my knowledge of American history and government, or from reading and watching multiple news sources.  I knew there was an element of subversion among the country's electorate because I observed it in church.  

The Seeds For This Political Disaster Were Sown in Conservative American Churches 

I grew up in the household of a union member.  My Dad trained as an air conditioning mechanic in the Navy during the Second World War.  He first put those skills to use after his Navy service in the chemical industry, where the need for mechanical refrigeration in the production process was essential.  And he, like his uncles and cousins who also worked in the chemical plants, joined the union.  He was a Roosevelt Democrat who grew up in West Virginia during the depression who would tell you Jimmy Carter was his favorite President.  

He was raised in church, the Disciples of Christ, but after college, and the Navy, he wasn't attending when he met and married my Mom.  She was raised in a "half time" Methodist church.  When I came along, they decided to be more regular, and joined a small, Southern Baptist church where they felt comfortable among other transplants from the south in the small Arizona town where they settled.  

And that's where I saw, and heard, the kind of abberant politics and ideology that would eventually lead to explaining why there could be enough voters in America to turn against its historic principles, and its own democratic republic by electing a corrupt and incompetent destroyer like Trump.  It was in the ideology being preached and taught in church.  

It wasn't always that way.  This was a small congregation, not more than fifty people gathering on any given Sunday, mostly transplants who moved to this small Arizona town because of their employment.  There were a lot of Virginians because of the presence of a nearby military base, and a lot of Texans and Oklahomans, who worked for the natural gas company, which was based in Texas.  There was a utility construction company there, based in Mississippi, and so those who came from a Southern Baptist background started their own church.  

For the first thirty years of its existence, it had a succession of bi-vocational pastors.  But in the early 70's, they called a retired Army seargeant as their first full time pastor.  And he introduced the strident fundamentalism to the congregation that had, as part of its belief system, the idea that everything in the world around them that did not conform to their specific perception of God, and of what was true, was to be considered as an enemy.  It also introduced what is known among conservative Evangelicals as "Premillinial Dispensationalism," the idea that the evil in the world will eventually trigger a series of events which will usher in the second coming of Christ.  These events are charted on an "Armageddon Calendar," for which the clock is constantly ticking.  As a child, that scared me.  As a college student at a Baptist-affiliated University, I discovered that, while the ideology was widespread in the churches, it had no following at all among Bible scholars.  

Fundamentalism is the breeding ground for Christian Nationalism.  Commonly held beliefs that the Founders of the United States intended to create a "Christian nation" made up of the chosen race of white Europeans who were being given a special blessing from God to populate and develop the resource-rich, virgin continent of North America were infused with the "fundamentals" of the Christian faith.  The enslavement of blacks because of a belief that the Bible taught they were inferior to whites and that servitude was their lot in life, enshrined in the Confederate constitution, was also the basis for which the Southern Baptist Convention  was organized.  

Fundamentalists were moving to take over the Southern Baptist Convention during the late 60's and early 70's.  Claiming that it was "sliding down the slippery slope of liberalism," they organized a poltical campaign within the denomination, claiming to be interested in restoring the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, which they said Southern Baptist leadership and seminary professors had abandoned.  That was one purpose.  The other was to align the denomination with Republican party politics.  Starting with the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in Houston, Texas, (held in the Summit, which is now, ironically, Lakewood Church) in 1979, a succession of fundamentalists were elected SBC President, with the power to appoint like minded fundamentalists to trustee boards and the executive committee. 

"The Government is the Enemy of Everything" 

The biggest problem Christian nationalists have with their ideology is that American history doesn't support the contention that America was founded as a Christian nation.  Two of the founders, Madison and Jefferson, made concerted efforts to see that the idea of a state church was removed from consideration with the establishment clause of the first amendment that both of them asserted was separation of church and state.  The Constitution itself cites no biblical reference in support of its ideology.  And the establishment of a Republic as the form of government, is based solely on principles of democratic ideology, as opposed to the existing Christian church at the time, which was not a democracy, but a dictatorial hierarchy.  

Another problem is the fact that the Christian gospel doesn't establish a church with a hierarchy, it establishes the church as a body of those who have become believers in the salvation by grace through faith offered by Jesus.  "The Church," the ecclesia, is a local group, with connections to all Christians everywhere.  And it was intentionally contrasted with the old covenant, which ended with Christ's resurrection, that included the theocratic model of ancient Israel.  Fulfilled by Jesus, according to Matthew 5:17-18, it was replaced by the church, with Christ as its head, and a membership made up of all nations, baptized by the spirit.  It is a spiritual body, and intentionally not a political entity.

A Christian sociologist at Boston University, Nancy Ammerman, outlined the recent history of resolutions passed by the Southern Baptist Convention in recent years.  What she found was that these resolutions reflected the growing influence of Christian nationalism among the churches and members of the Southern Baptist Convention.  In 2021, in spite of biblical teaching found in Romans and in First Peter instructing Christians to be obedient to the laws of the civil government because all governments exist under God's authority, the SBC passed a resolution that states, "God establishes all governing authorities as his avenging servants who should only be obeyed if they are following higher law, not iniquitous decisions."  

So in effect, they are rejecting the biblical teaching that all government falls under the authority of God, because those governing authorities who are not  conservative and fundamentalist are not legitimate.  That contradicts the teaching of the Apostle Paul in Romans 13:1-7, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God."  Yes, even Democrats elected as President or to Congress.  

It also contradicts I Peter 2:13-17, especially the statement that it is doing God's will in accepting the authority of human institutions, because it silences foolish criticism.  These are statements, from the two most significant and prolific early Christian apostles, which deny the very premise of Christian nationalism, and which also condemn, from a Christian perspective, the lawlessness of Trump and his presidency.  

So it is that in the Christian gospel, giving support to a politician who is deliberately standing against this core Christian principle would be a sin.  

But keep in mind, this is a denomination that was founded as a result of a split from the Triennial Baptist organization because it refused to send slave owners as missionaries.  Southern Baptists left their fellow Baptists behind in forming a new denomination because they believed slavery was ordained by God as the lot of black persons because they believed they were created inferior to whites. It took them 150 years to apologize for that, and basically, to refute it.  

So it should not come as a surprise that these people are setting aside the principles, doctrine, theology and practice of the Christian gospel, established by Christ alone, in order to support a lawless politician who has publicly made licentiousness [see Jude v. 4] his trademark.  This is being systematically taught, preached from pulpits, and subverting the Christian gospel for a long time.  Most of those who support it are incapable of seeing it for what it is, and are not likely to change their minds.  Fortunately, they are not anywhere close to having a majority of the vote if Americans take their citizenship responsibilities seriously and show up at the polls.  They can hide their ideology behind their religion, which isn't Christian, and it's protected by the first amendment, but they don't have the ability to force it on the rest of us, if we participate instead of being apathetic bystanders.

I'm Not Painting With a Broad Brush

There are Southern Baptists, and conservative Evangelicals, who will not let the politics of Christian nationalism invade their church.  I found refuge in two different Baptist congregations, where I worshipped for over 25 years, from the influences of fundamentalism and the Christian nationalist, right wing political agenda that comes with it.  I couldn't tell you the political makeup of the membership of either church, though both had plenty of members willing to put Democratic party candidates' bumper stickers on their cars.  Both churches have preserved what is a core Baptist principle, the belief in religious liberty and separation of church and state, evidenced in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, written in  1802.  

The denomination is finally splitting over this issue.  When the first fundamentalists were elected and the takeover began in 1979, the numbers were small.  It took a decade for a new group, known as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, to form, and almost a decade after that for significant influence to become known.  That has eventually resulted in the depature of about  3,500 churches from SBC affiliation, though a formal count isn't being tracked.  But since 2016, when Trump was first elected, the Southern Baptist Convention has lost 25% of its total membership, from a peak of 16.6 million to the most recent count of 12.2 million.  The correlation of the dates is not a coincidence.  While they blame the losses on just about everything else, the evidence shows otherwise. 

We have the first amendment to the Constitution, and that protects freedom of conscience, regardless of where that conscience may take an American citizen.  There's a lot of inhuman, racist bigotry in the world and it always has the potential to erupt into violence and destruction.  But in this country, we have institutions which we must support and encourage in order for them to achieve their purpose which is the preservation of our democracy.  We have schools which have this as their mission and purpose, where we need to improve social studies instruction and raise the level of what is required for graduation in order to make sure each succeeding generation understands they must participate in democracy to make it work.  

And I believe there are churches which are also capable of supporting the kind of values that not only thrive in a democratic society, but which contribute to its security, and which are bulwarks against violence and inhumanity.  Their support should be included.  

But the biggest enemy to democracy in America is the concentrated wealth we have allowed to accumulate in the hands of just a few people who now are using it to destroy the nation and get what they want.  It promotes immorality so it stands against Christian values.  It creates inequality so it is unconstitutional and unpatriotic.  And we need to remind ourselves that if it can buy the Republican party, it can also buy the Democratic party, and apparently, it already has a few of those in its pocket.  It's time for some real reform.  

Democrats Are Turning to More Progressive Newcomers Who Are Winning Primaries

CBS News: New York Loss Causes a Political Earthquake 

Newsweek: Why Democratic Socialists are Suddenly Winning Primaries

It's been an interesting primary season.  Democratic voters are turning out in record numbers, even in some red states where the number of voters supporting Democratic candidates is double the number of votes Republicans are getting.  The other development is that many of the Democratic candidates who are considered "moderates" within the party are losing primary elections to newcomers, mostly identified with elements of the party further to the left, in the "Democratic socialist" part of the party.  

Frankly, I'm just fine with that.  

This party has needed an injection of individuals who are willing to take some bold risks to protect what's left of our government and constitution from the existential threat Trump poses.  Too many turf protectors and nest featherers have us in the position where we now find ourselves.  It seems Zohran Mamdami's influence has been one of the factors in these wins in many of those New York congressional districts. 

Most of these districts are safe for Democrats, so the primary winners will more than likely go on to win the seat as well, and it doesn't necessarily mean big gains.  But these politicians are really not politicians in the common definition of the term and it appears they will be bold risk takers, which is exactly what the Democratic party needs right now.  It's hard when establishment politicians lose races they are expected to win, or think they should win because they are the establishment, but I don't see a problem here.  The country hates Trump, and his greatest opposition hasn't come from moderate elements of the establishment branch of the Democratic party.  It's come from progressives, and from angry independent voters who disapprove of the job he is doing by almost a 3 to 1 margin.  

With the latest round of primaries comes the twentieth win scored by Leaders We Deserve, the organization led by David Hogg, who made a wise move when he was shoved out of the DNC.  

A Pet Peeve

Democratic socialists are not communists.  Keep saying that and it will prove genuine ignorance.  The political movement is one that is of, by and for the people, a democracy if you will, and the philosophy of socialism is simply the belief that if resources from the community are used to earn profit, they can also be used for the improvement of the whole community.  It includes convictions that we, as a nation, and as an American community, are responsible for the well being of our neighbors.  It includes the belief that health care is a basic human right, not a profit-generating commodity.  It supports the right to a sufficient and adequare education.  And it believes that human beings in a prosperous society should not have to struggle to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.  

If you want to see a very strong, working model of a socialist society, look no further than the descriptions of the first Christian church in Jerusalem, after the resurrection of Jesus, described in the book of Acts by Luke, in Chapter 2:43-47.  There you will find the best example of socialism that exists in human history.  

My Commitment

I will absolutely vote in the November mid-term elections.  I will vote for the Democratic party nominee and for those who are identified on the ballot as Democrats.  I will do my research before I vote, so that I know the political persuasion of every human being on that ballot, and will not, under any circumstance, vote for anyone, even if its just for the office of dog catcher, who is associated with, affiliated with or has expressed any kind of like for the GOP and Trump.  

I don't care, at that point, whether they are progressive, moderate, establishment or renegade.  Anyone running against a Republican is worth my vote.  And that's the viewpoint that every Democrat needs to take.  We're turning out and we're demonstrating a united front against the biggest enemy to our democracy we have faced since World War II.  

But, know in advance, that I am for a whole list of progressive reforms that politicians like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Zohran Mamdami are promoting.  Government of, by and for the people should also serve the people.  Let's keep that in mind.

The Coming Democratic Landslide Presidential Election

MSN: The Democrats Who Can Beat JD Vance and Marco Rubio 

We haven't even had the midterm election yet, and already there is plenty of polling data to indicate that they may very well be followed by another blue tsunami two years down the road.  Let's be realistic here, the source I'm citing is MSN, which tends to be much more sensational and much less accurate in its reporting, since it is grabbing for readers who are browsing the internet.  But they are citing some actual polling date here, and it's worth considering, because it does have some consistency with other sources.  

The polling compared several candidates mentioned as possible Democratic party nominees with both of the Republicans mentioned most often as possible replacements for Trump.  Head to head comparisons show the Democratic candidates hold double digit leads over Vance, and leads well outside the margin of error over Marco Rubio.  There is a lot which can develop between now and then, and I believe that the Democrats getting back the House and Senate in November, and I think they will get control of both, will set the Trump agenda aside, it appears that Trump's second term will be a major disaster for the GOP.  

Democrats Have a Deep Bench

Four Democrats emerged as favorites for a 2028 run in this particular poll, including former VP Kamala Harris, California governor Gavin Newsom and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  Pete Buttigeig was also a leading candidate, but the poll didn't run a head to head between him and Vance.  Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were the Republicans matched up in the poll.  

If Vance were the GOP nominee, the Democrats would all beat him by similar percentages in double digits, averaging around 11%.  Rubio does better, but not by much, averaging around an 8% defeat.  Even at this point, more than two years away from the election, this is good news for a couple of reasons.  One, MSN has a strong GOP bias.  Two, we are seeing polling numbers which suggest who the Democrats are leaning toward supporting as Presidential candidates and they are all outstanding possibilities, and the Republicans are stuck with Vance and Rubio.  

The Democratic party seems to be on track to re-invent itself, based on the very strong political message being sent by the American people in opposition to Trump.  Are they finally getting back to their roots among the working class?  It seems like that is happening, though they are definitely listening to the American people on issues like the Iran War, now more unpopular, with less support than even the Vietnam War had toward the end, the economy and the rising cost of everyday items like groceries and gas, along with bigger rip-offs like housing costs and utilities.  

An Ideological Shift Has Occurred

The fact that someone like Trump, and the tangled confusion of MAGA ignorance and incompetence when it comes to determining what is important in American politics, is an indication that major reform must occur soon.  We have lost our free press and the government now must be more than just pro-active in making sure conditions exist for getting it back.  Whatever steps are necessary to break up the billionaire monopolies which control the companies that own television networks, internet communications, radio broadcasts and the online "newspaper" business must be taken.  The structure is there, constitutionally and in the law.  It must now be strictly enforced.  

We also have a public education system that was considered essential for the support of a free, democratic society.  But far too many Americans are ignorant when it comes to defining and understanding what democracy is, and how it works for all Americans, and that's because the requirements for school-aged children and youth to learn about it in school have been gutted from graduation requirements.  We need to restore strong standards in social studies education that put how constitutional democracy works in front of students every year they are in school.  Two years of American history and a half year of Civics, shared with a semester of economics is not enough.  

An entire segment of conservative Christianity, the biggest part of Evangelicalism, has become a detractor and a negative influence due to a subversion of traditional Christian theology and doctrine by modern developments like fundamentalism, and the spiritual mysticism of Pentecostalism, a combination of doctrine arising as a result of the shortage of seminary trained, educated, even literate ministers, mostly following the nineteenth century frontier revivalism.  A lot of cults and deviations from traditional, biblical Christianity originated on American soil as a result, and have led to the perpetuation of blatant white supremacy and Christian nationalism.  

The Constitution protects freedom of conscience, including religious liberty, which protects aberrant, distorted, cultic beliefs.  But it also protects education aimed at fighting ignorance and superstition and protecting society from their harmful effects.  And an informed electorate is the best protection for democracy.  Eighty million Americans chose not to participate in the 2024 election and the correction for their apathy is a functioning free press and a strong education.  We're seeing how dangerous it is not to have either of those things.  

And perhaps, in the support that seems to be forming around candidates who are talking openly about what kind of reforms are necessary to prevent another political disaster from occurring, there is some genuine reform on the way.  My hope is that this movement will not be corrupted by corporate dollars before it becomes possible to bring about the kind of reform that eliminates the influence of money in elections altogether.  

Democrats May Be Seeing Pathways to Victory in Unconventional Ways

I'm not a professional political analyst by any means, though I do consider myself well informed and perhaps with a little bit of an edge after having spent so much time as a social studies teacher specific to American History and Civics.  I do a lot of reading, from a variety of sources outside the scope of the mainstream media, which is really where the American free press exists these days.  

I watched the Democratic Senate primary in Maine pretty closely, mainly because I find Graham Platner to be the kind of candidate exactly suited to help Democrats win what I see as an overwhelming victory in the coming Mid-term elections.  He's not a party-liner, nor is he a traditional or typical candidate by any stretch of the imagination.  He's going to win.  His opponent, Senator Susan Collins, is going to lose because she typifies the kind of Republican that most voters will be voting against in November, lacking anything of substance to offer and lacking any real commitment to convictions.  But he is going to win because he does have something to offer that is attracting a lot of voters who might not participate in a moribund election otherwise.  

The Republicans, and most notably Trump himself, have made the kind of slurs and attacks on Platner's character meaningless.  I mean seriously, why should Democrats bother with a few verbal comments, emails and a tatoo when Republicans have ignored far worse than that in almost all of their major candidates and cabinet posts?  They're the ones who have made these kinds of choices, which clearly are not representative of the candidate's character by the way, irrelevant and meaningless.  This is the politics of the current hour, people, and it is stupid, and yes I will use that word in the full context of its meaning, to try and bring down the strongest Democratic candidate running for the Senate in Maine over a few long since past mistakes that are not only meaningless, but about which the other side has clearly demonstrated they don't give a damn.  

I'm pleased to take note of the fact that whoever thought this might amount to something got kicked in the teeth by the primary vote supporting Platner.  Honestly, whoever was responsible for that made him an even more viable candidate.  He's a man of the people, and the way he is approaching this campaign is a gigantic threat to the billionaire establishment that runs the country now. People who are opposed to that saw this for what it was, and they turned out and gave him a win that went way beyond what pollsters were predicting.  

The Republicans introduced politics that sometimes kicks people in the teeth.  It's time the Democrats stepped up and started knocking out some teeth themselves, instead of mamby-pamby old school stupidity. 

I'm also watching Texas, and Senate candidate James Talarico with close interest.  While the pollsters who claim to be genuinely credible and accurate keep finding Talarico leading this race by anywhere from three to five points, and keep finding that his core constituents are planning on turning out in the same kind of record numbers they did during the primaries, the old heads, like the Cook Political Report, just don't want to change their position.  

What I think is fascinating about Talarico is that he has exposed conservative Evangelicalism for the pseudo-Christian cult that it is.  The biblical values that establish the Christian gospel, revealed by Jesus in the words recorded by the gospel writers are not the kind of Christian example people see in the hard line racism and exclusion exhibited by conservative Evangelicals in the blend of right wing extremism with their fundamentalist religious perspective.  There is no consistency between their claims to Biblical fidelity and the politics and politicians they support.  

And Talarico can't be attacked on traditional Democratic party platform support.  They've tried, but he has a perspective that is consistent with his Christian faith and practice, one that allows for complete individual freedom on the social issues Republicans want to use to control people's lives.  And that frustrates the conservative Evangelicals to no end, because it exposes their hypocrisy.  

These candidates are walking their own path, staking out their own campaign and carving out unique positions that don't always square up with the party line at the moribund DNC.  What I really like is that the old line politicos there have to support these guys whether they like them or not, because they need the seats and they want the win.  They should have paid a little more attention to David Hogg.  

I'm observing trends, looking at the numbers and reading things from "on the ground."  Texas still has a cluster of independent, weekly newspapers scattered throughout small towns that reflect local thinking and local life, and ignore evertything else as irrelevant.  There's a lot of support for Talarico among those editors, and among those who still express their opinion by writing letters to the editor.  A lot of those people loved Cornyn and hate Paxton.  There's no D or R on a Texas voter registration card, either, and that means a lot of independents can show their preference in the primaries.  The fact that Democrats doubled the Republican turnout this time around indicates to me that Talarico is on his way to a firm win.  

I think the Democratic primary turnout and vote tally in Maine confirmed Platner's ability to win this senate seat by a ten point margin, if trends continue.  I think his ability to get out of the party mode and be his own candidate, flaws and all, is exactly what is so appealing and attractive to voters in Maine, who aren't urban Democrats by any means.  

Ultimately, I think this is a lesson for the whole Democratic party.  We need more than just a cordial debate, which isn't an effective strategy at all against someone we claim is an existential threat to American democracy.  Our party's lack of bold risk taking cost us the chance to make sure he never got back into the White House, because there was too much interest in personal nest-feathering, and not enough collective boldness.  There are so many things we had the power to do, right there in our hands, including court reform leading to overturning citizens united and the ridiculous immunity ruling of the Supreme Court, and saving Roe.  But we let foot dragging and obfuscation get in the way and we didn't push because it would have looked "too political."  

Well, it's damned political, and there isn't anything we can do about it except stop this bastard.  That's the bottom line.  With candidates like Talarico and Platner, we have a fighting chance.

 

Lies, Lies and More Lies; Talarico's Church Pushes Back Against False Accusations

Baptist News Global: Talarico's Pastor Pushes Back Against Daily Wire's Claims 

Whatever there is to be known about the Daily Wire, and it's not really all that much, Ben Shapiro is good at something.  He's good at playing on people's prejudices and biases, and if he tries to confirm something, there's a 100% chance it is a misconception or an outright lie.  The fact that it depends on social media to spin its misinformation underlines the fact that it isn't credible news or information or commentary.  

So when they attacked St. Andrews Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas, the church where Texas Democratic nominee for the US Senate James Talarico is a member, the information they put out was clearly innuendo that counted on ignorance of the church, the denomination, and lacked proof or evidence of anything in the accusations.  The article, written by Lief LeMahieu, made a list of standard, tired, inaccurate accusations.  

And it got a response from the church's pastor, who compared it to the silly ignorance that spread around when false accusations were made about public schools doing sex change operations and putting litter boxes around for kids who identified as feline.  What amazed me about all of that idiocy, when it was being spread, was that people were actually stupid enough to believe it.  I am also amazed when people are stupid enough to believe anything in the Daily Wire, or that Lief LeMahieu or Ben Shapiro has to say.  

The Accusation that St. Andrews is a "Woke Church" is Accurate

The whole idea of Christian redemption, which relies on things like repentance, grace, loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and loving your neighbor as yourself is the very definition of "woke."  In spite of the right wing use of the term as one of derision, what is now defined as "being woke" is exactly the kind of spiritual awakening that is at the very core of being Christian.  It is, in fact, not possible to be Christian with any genuine sincerity of repentance that is exactly what being woke means.  And when the Daily Wire accuses St. Andrews of being a "woke church," it is stating the very obvious fact that St. Andrews is a genuinely and sincerely Christian church.  

So thanks for that. 

Anchoring Christianity on the Actual Teachings of Jesus

Jim Rigby, senior pastor at St. Andrews, gave an outstanding summary of exactly what has happened to American Christianity as a result of right wing political extremism when he said, "Now anyone may be called a heretic if they presume to anchor Christianity on the actual teachings of Jesus instead of the rantings of televangelists and political moralizers."  

The primary, foundational core belief of Christianity is rooted in Jesus' declaration that the first and greatest commandment, leading directly to redemption and eternal life, is "to love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.  And the second is like it, to love your neighbor as yourself."  That's found in Mark 12 and in Luke 10.  Matthew, who records the primary, core teachings of Jesus in one segment, known as the Sermon on the Mount, starts off with a list of the core values of Christian faith, in the Beatitudes.  

It's the legalistic, literalist interpretation of specific select passages from the Bible, missing the required filter of interpretation through the teachings of Jesus Christ, that forms the foundation of the highly politicized version of Evangelical Fundamentalism that is the real heresy.  In his parable of the Good Samaritan, in which Jesus defined the term "neighbor" for the lawyer who asked the question, he deliberately chooses a man whose ethnicity was despised and hated by those to whom he was speaking, to exemplify the characteristics he was defining.  What that means is that "neighbor" is anyone with whom we come in contact.  It is all of humanity, without qualification.

So how does this parable apply today?  Would the Levite and the Priest represent the conservative Evangelical, who wouldn't help the person wounded from being robbed if they were gay or atheist, or Muslim?  Or black, or a woman?  Or would the wounded man represent the conservative Evangelical, and the Samaritan be of some social group or ethnicity he despised, such as someone who was gay or lesbian, or a Muslim, or a black man?  The analogy here would work in any of those cases.  

Let's Put This in a Clear Perspective

If right wing extremists want to make James Talarico's faith, and the church where he worships, a political issue, then so be it.  Look who he's running against.  His opponent fits the defintion of "an ungodly person who perverts the grace of our God into a license for immorality" as the Apostle Jude defines in his epistle, verse 4.  If that is the issue that is being pushed, and those are the standards that are being used, then no sincere, faithful Christian can cast a vote for Ken Paxton without completely violating the core principles of Christianity.  

And I think that's as clear as it gets. 

Attempts by Southern Baptists to Amend Their Constitution to Exclude Women Pastors Isn't Rooted in Historical, Traditional or Biblical Christianity

It's rooted in the unorthodox, distorted theology and doctrine that emerges from the combination of nineteenth century fundamentalism with the distorted interpretation of the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible subjected to the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy.  It is complicated further by the push of Evangelical conservatives into right wing politics as a result of the pressures that come from white Christian nationalism creeping into the churches. 

There's a power vacuum among Southern Baptists now, more than forty years after a movement tagged as the "Conservative Resurgence" was launched in 1979 with the dual purpose of bringing the denomination into full support of right wing Republican politics, using the theological and doctrinal claim that it was sliding down the "slippery slope" of liberalism, requiring restoration of the belief in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible as inerrant, and infallible, the sole authority for the faith and practice of the church.  

The two men who used their personal connections, power and influence to orchestrate the political activity in order to bring about this resurgence, Dr. Paige Patterson, then president of broken down Criswell College, a fundamentalist school operated by First Baptist Church of Dallas, where the power-broker pastor W. A. Criswell still occupied the pulpit, and Paul Pressler, a Texas Appeals Court Justice and Republican Party community organizer and operative, revered among Southern Baptists as the "architects" of this movement, are both out of the picture, disgraced by their own involvement in the sexual abuse scandal that the denomination's leadership can't seem to resolve.  

Patterson was involved in the negligent mishandling of abuse and rape accusations at both Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina and at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, under his presidency at both schools.  He was ultimately dismissed from Southwestern for this reason, and not for his gross mismanagement of the seminary, leading to an almost 70% decline in enrollment and financial resources.  Pressler passed away two years ago, after charges of sexually abusing young men in the churches where he served as a youth pastor and Sunday school teacher, and in association with his law firm.  You can click this link to Baptist News Global to read about all of that scandal. 

Will Persistence Pay Off? 

This is the third time an attempt to amend the constitution with this specific requirement has been attempted.  The first time it was introduced, by Virginia pastor Mike Law, is was approved, but it failed to get the two thirds vote it needed at the subsequent convention.  The following year, a Texas pastor, Juan Sanchez, introduced it again, but it failed to get the required two thirds vote to be brought back the following year.  So this year, Dr. Al Mohler, noted Southern Baptist pontificator, commenter, influencer and President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, made the recommendation to place the amendment in the constitution.  

Mohler's motion to amend the constitution passed 6,028 to 2,026, just under a three to one vote.  It should be noted that 11,692 messengers were registered for the convention which means that when this vote, billed as the most important thing the convention was doing  this year, was taken, 3,638 messengers did not cast a ballot.  However, under the SBC's parliamentary rules, non-voters do not count in the total.  Having almost a third of the messengers not vote on an issue isn't all that unusual at an SBC meeting, especially not in Orlando, where this denomination has now met four times since boycotting Disney.  

Complimentarianism, the name given by conservatives to the ideology which claims that the Apostle Paul laid down authoritative comments restricting women from preaching or serving as a pastor, the "episkopos", bishop or elder as the Greek term in I Timothy 3 would suggest, runs very strong among Southern Baptists.  That is due largely to the anti-educational bias that infected the formation of hundreds of Baptist churches along the western frontier, and in the south, due to a lack of educated, seminary trained pastors and leaders mostly as the result of the Second Great Awakening, a movement that produced as many cults as it did new Christians, by the way.  

There is also a whole lot of what I can generally call "Southern American culture" that is part of this errant theological perspective, stemming from the same kind of faulty, literalist, "word for word, verse by verse" interpretation of the Bible that convinced Southern Baptists to separate from the Triennial Convention in 1845, in full support of the belief that the black man was inferior to the white man, and that this belief was an unassailable truth, in the words of Andrew Stephens.  That same literalist, fundamentalist approach, treating every verse separately as its own command and nugget of truth is exactly what has produced complimentarianism.  

Baptist churches, unlike most of the other branches of Christianity that have developed over the 2000 year history of the church, are independent and autonomous.  Each one is a local body, with no formal or ecclesiastical connection to any hierarchy, so a church is the highest level of authority when it comes to interpreting and applying scripture, the church determines its own leadership, including who will serve as its pastor, and ordination of ministers is determined by the leadership and congregation of the local church alone.  When the churches in the Southern states formed their own denomination in 1845, they separated not only from cooperation with other Baptists, but also from the colleges, universities and seminaries where ministers were educated.  

I'll say it here, because it's true.  It's not possible to understand the Christian gospel revealed by God through Jesus, if all that's available is a King James Bible and a man with a 6th grade education who has been taught to read, and interprets it literally, verse by verse.  It's a disadvantage to start Bible study without even a basic understanding that verses and chapters are reference points and not the outline of the original text.  

The Bible is Not Equally "Inspired" 

The statements of faith adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention over the course of its history reflect influence and change when it comes to specific theological issues.  In the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message, under the section which defines the denomination's belief regarding the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible, the last line very clearly states, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ."  

While much of that paragraph states beliefs that have been determined by common agreement, this last statement is the key to any hope of achieving an accurate interpretation of the Bible, if such is actually possible from a 2000 plus year old text that has been undeniably filtered by, influenced by and altered by culture.  Christians ultimately concluded that Jesus Christ was both fully human, and fully divine, the incarnate word in the flesh, a direct and thorough revelation of the nature of God himself.   This doctrine, called the Supremacy of Christ, establishes the words and the life work of Jesus as the Christian gospel.  So everything else must be interpreted through the filter of that belief, and all of the implications involved.  

So it's not possible to consider the works of the Apostles, or the Prophets, or any other Biblical authors as being equally inspired and equally authoritative with the words of Jesus, even if we're at the point of acknowledging that what we read in our modern English translations is a relatively accurate rendering of the original manuscripts in ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.  

Much of the basis of the Christian nationalism we see among Evangelical conservatives is based on Old Testament theocracy, and the old covenant which God made with Israel, through patriarchal heritage.  However, if Christians believe that Jesus is the criterion by which all scripture is to be interpreted, he makes a comprehensive statement in the Sermon on the Mount which puts the perspective of the Old Covenant in its place.  He declares an end to it, in Matthew 5:17.  

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill."  

And how did Jesus fulfill both of these things?  

He did not establish a theocratic kingdom with himself as the political and spiritual head.  He separated the spiritual kingdom from the literal kingdom, giving the spiritual kingdom a much different identity and purpose.  Declaring the old covenant, and the prophets, fulfilled, Jesus taught a salvation that involves acceptance of his sacrifice on the cross as the penalty for violating the law, to which obedience once represented the same kind of salvation.  And he established a spiritual kingdom, the Christian Church, which transcends the political authority of a theocratic state, and repreents an accessible kingdom made up of those who are spiritually redeemed from sin.  

The Christian gospel is simple, not complicated.  It is founded on the principles and values taught by Jesus.  If you want a quick and easy to understand look at exactly what that involves, the gospel writer Matthew recorded what is known as the "Sermon on the Mount" in Chapters 5, 6 and 7, starting off with the Beatitudes.  I've actually been a member of two churches which understood this as the foundation of Christian faith and practiced, and which actually worked because there wasn't some kind of ulterior motive to control or to use faith as a means of wielding some kind of power.  

I'll Cut to the Chase

Constructing theological systems like complimentarianism, and then putting it up against egalitarianism, is an attempt to gain power for the purpose of control.  It's simply fallling for the third temptation of Jesus, when he was offered rule of the world in exchange for his loyalty.  Many of the older Southern Baptist congregations hold on to some of the last vestiges of antebellum Southern culture, remnant social order of the old Confederacy, and, seeing what they label as "militant feminism" as a threat to that culture, they've tried to package it as satanic evil influence, and use the churches they control to fight against it.  

Jesus, however, wasn't concerned with the social order.  He was concerned with revealing the nature and character of God to humankind.  That concern is characterized when he asked a young lawyer to look at the law, which he fulfilled, and tell him what it said.

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength," responded the lawyer, "and love your neighbor as you love yourself."  

"You have answered correctly, Jesus replied.  "Do this and you will live."  [Luke 10:27-28, NIV]

And without a debate on complimentarianism, or on the purpose of the law, that was it.