Modern American Myths Being Debunked by Reality

There is a lot of mythology in America, especially when it comes to our own history and development as a nation.  I've seen a lot of literature that has taken on the task of debunking commonly held myths by presenting the facts in an objective way, but that requires somehow getting past what one has already accepted as fact or truth about the myth.  One of my favorite books, Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, does a great job of debunking myths.  I've used an earlier version of that in a high school American History class, and boy, did I get some reaction to the contents, mainly from parents.  

Recent events have shown us that much of what we once believed about the America we live in is simply not true.  And of course, I'm going to elaborate on a few of these myths, which will make some people angry, but which are, nevertheless, true.  

In America, We Believe In and Support the Rule of Law 

I'm not sure exactly where we can draw the line and say that the rule of law is only for a segment of the American population which does not have the means to afford the kind of legal professional necessary to get around the law.  That's really the bottom line of justice in the United States, it's not whether lawbreakers are caught, fairly tried and punished, but which lawbreakers cannot afford the kind of lawyer it takes to get them off.  

I can't think of any time in American history in which this was not the case.  Living under the rule of law may have been an aspiration, something we strive to achieve, though the legal system we have constructed doesn't promote the rule of law at all.  

The failure of a Democratic party Presidential administration to prosecute the instigator of a very visible insurrection against the United States is proof that America is not a nation living under the rule of law.  That is a myth.  And while I consider the failure to prosecute this crime, along with multiple others we are now aware of that the justice department simply let go of in the past four years, as gross incompetence, it is still evidence that we do not live under the rule of law. 

America Was Founded as a Christian Nation 

There has never been a time when America was "Christian."  Theologically speaking, according to the core principles of the Christian gospel, no "nation" is Christian, by definition.  Only individuals can be converted to Christianity and become Christians.  No matter how many people in any given country have been through a conversion experience, and have become Christians, it does not define or make the country Christian.  

The actual number of people who self-identified in some way as Christian, has fluctuated in the United States, and was at its lowest point during the colonial days, and in the period between the Revolution and the Civil War.  Revivals, known as the Great Awakenings, increased church attendance, but church growth and the spread of Christianity along the frontier was inhibited by the lack of ministers with enough education to correctly interpret and apply the Bible in their preaching.  In fact, there are multiple denominations and groups of churches in the United States right now that are based on a very superficial, literal interpretation of the Bible, including those identified as Fundamentalist, Pentecostal or Charismatic, and groups other Christians identify as cults, such as the Latter Day Saints or Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Science, among others. 

Christianity, including both Catholicism and the broad branching out of Protestantism, has been a pervasive influence in American culture, and in politics and government.  There are those who believe that Christians, of their own kind of course, should hold priority in public office because they think they are better able to determine "God's will" for the country.  But the problem with that is the core beliefs of the Christian gospel do not apply to nations or countries, or ethnicities.  A nation cannot be redeemed based on the number of Christians residing in it, nor is it blessed by God over others for the same reason.  That's a grave theological error.  

Christianity is an individual covenant relationship between God, and any human being who has responded to his word.  There is no such thing as a "Christian nation" and any attempt to make one would fail, because it would not be consistent with the will of God expressed in his written word. 

America is the Greatest Nation in the World

In the television drama, The Newsroom, created and principally written by Aaron Sorkin, Jeff Daniels, playing a cable news network anchor named Will McAvoy, is seated on a panel, answering questions from college students when he launches into a diatribe in response to a student's question, "Can you say why America is the greatest country in the world?" Initially attempting to avoid the question, he delivers a shockingly factual answer.  You can click the link which is the underlined title of the show and watch the clip.  

McAvoy's diatribe, which checks out factually by the way, really hits the nail on the head when he tells the student who asked the question that these are things she might want to remember if she ever does get close enough to a voting booth.  Yes, I know, it's only a television program, but that's often an effective way of delivering factual information, especially when most of the news media in this country doesn't.  

In addition to leading the world in the number of people who believe angels are real, in defense spending, and in the number of incarcerated persons, we also lead it in the number of people gunnned down in mass shootings and we now lead it in two more categories, in the number of uninformed and ignorant people who cast ballots in elections, and in putting criminals in our highest executive branch offices.  That will be a hard record to break.

"That Could Never Happen Here," They Said, After World War 2

That remains to be seen.  

When I was in high school and college, during units when the years leading up to the Second World War were being discussed, the question always arose, about why it was that the United States, which went through similar economic and political circumstances post World War 1 that the Europeans did, why it was that in the United States, fascism and communism didn't take root, while it did in most of Europe.  In fact, one of the reasons England and France were reluctant to confront Hitler, right up to the point where he attacked Poland, was because they were still weary of the first World War, and because there was an element of both fascism and communism in the governments of both countries, and some Hitler sympathizers.  

That existed in the United States, too, though what kept their influence limited was that most of the Nazi sympathizers were in the minority party, and though they hid behind American neutrality in their attempts to push the country in their direction, they were not successful in stopping things like Lend-Lease, or rolling back certain aspects of the Neutrality act.  They were more successful in infiltrating the State Department and in developing highly restrictive rules regarding the admission of Jewish refugees that prevented the United States from taking in very many Jewish refugees all through the war.  

Essentially, while there were Nazi sympathizers and Communists in the United States, they were too small of a minority to catch on and do much damage  The Roosevelt Administration was quite powerful, and popular, and successful when it came to minimizing the effects of Communism that began to infiltrate depression-era politics, and  in keeping democracy strong as Fascism began to grip Europe, including growing influence in France and England, and build a following in the United States.  

"That could never happen here," said most Americans, at least, those educated and informed enough to know what was going on in Europe and who followed Roosevelt's carefully executed policy aimed at keeping both Fascism, and the destruction of the war, away from the United States.  He succeeded in his time, and the prosperity and politics in the United States, which emerged victorious from World War 2, succeeded, for a time, in keeping Fascism from gaining any ground, and which made Communism an enemy and a dirty word.  

But "that could never happen here" was an arrogant myth.  Institutions which were instrumental in the prevention of the kind of lack of information and expansion of ignorance that Fascism, Communism and other forms of totalitarianism thrive on, such as a free, independent press and a high quality public education system, have failed.  John Dewey, who was the founder of the progressive movement in public education, once declared that the goal of universal public education in the United States was, at least in part, to maintain an informed electorate as a means of preserving democracy.  Likewise, the motto of the Washington Post has been, "Democracy dies in darkness."  Both of those institutions have failed.  

And Fascism, though it has taken a somewhat different form in this twenty-first century than it did in the early twentieth, has not only worked its way into the United States government, it has done so through the ballot box.  It rests on the ability of its current leadership to lie convincingly and have those lies propagated through a media that refuses to tell the truth or report honestly about their deception and have those lies take root among an electorate who, for over sixty years now, has been so poorly educated, that the schools they attended rank even worse than those in some third world countries.  American elementary and high school students are required to master about half of the social studies, geography, history, civics and government and political science objectives as the other industrialized countries in Europe, North America and Asia.  So the combination of the absence of a free press, and the inability of Americans to miss its absence and discern the truth, has given us Trump's second term.

The very systems of government set up by the constitution to prevent this from happening here have failed.  We have allowed our system of justice to become so complicated, cluttered with rules and procedures corrupted by those wealthy enough to afford the unregulated cost of attorneys who are adept at finding loopholes and side paths to protect themselves from prosecution that the legal system is generally unable to protect the rule of law.  On top of that, the justice system itself, specifically those who serve in it as judges charged with the responsibility of executing the law, have been chosen not because of their expertise in understanding and administering justice under law, but because of their partisan political preference and willingness to corruptly rule to protect their own party's politicians from prosecution.  

The ideology that produced one of the most visionary sections of the Constitution, the first amendment's protection of freedom of conscience, which included religious liberty and abandoned the state required and mandated religion of a state church, is also being abandoned.  It is sliding into the government via Project 2025, a blueprint for re-establishing a state mandated religion.  It turns government itself into a religious institution for the purpose of defending the Christian religion.  Those who've read it know this, which is why the Republicans and their politicians went to great lengths to lie about their support of it during the campaign, and are now ignoring their lies as they take power in Washington.  

So it's happened here, after all.  The question now is whether or not the Constitution will survive, and whether enough democracy will remain in tact to fight back, and whether enough people will care about it to make a difference, if the opportunity to vote in a free and fair election still exists in two years.  It may already be too late to save things.  We've been warned, not just recently, but throughout our history.  And the world is about to pay the price again.  

For Democrats, Being the Opposition Party Must Start Now, and it Can't be Focused on Self-Preservation

A Presidency That Shouldn't Have Happened, if the Law Had Been Enforced

We are now just weeks away from the beginning of the second Presidential term of a man who has proven that he is not qualified to hold the office.  He proved it with four years of some of the most inept incompetence, and ignorance of how this constitutional democracy operates, that, had he worked for a private company, he would have been fired and locked out of the building.  It wasn't just bad, it was terrible.  He proved it by committing crimes indiscriminately, for his own personal benefit, during the whole time he was in office.  And to top it off, he finished out his term in office by leading an insurrection against the Capitol, with Congress in session, counting the electoral votes.  

That should have disqualified him from ever running for public office again. It was an unimaginable failure, completely inexcusable, that this was not prosecuted and he was not sentenced.  Congress laid out the case and the evidence in its investigation and hearing.  The fact that the justice department was unable to expedite and get the case to trial is a huge part of where the blame lies.  Most legal experts are not convinced that the Supreme Court's immunity ruling would have affected the outcome, since inciting an insurrection is not among the President's official duties.   

So we are in a situation that I am certain the founding fathers who authored the Constitution and spent time figuring out how it would work never imagined would have to be handled by a government of the United States.  And we are going to have to handle it in a way that will preserve the Constitution's authority and principles, and will not allow the convicted felon, who should not be there in the first place, to ruin it, or to take advantage of it to make himself a dictator.

Democrats Cannot Afford Any More Loss of Confidence

This lifelong, financially contributing Democrat is disappointed and concerned about the party leadership's response, or lack of it, to the election loss in November.  From where I sit, which includes gathering information from more progressive media sources, among them Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid, the response by Democrats to the November election seems to be one of scurrying back into their holes to hide while playing this lame-duck transition by the same old protocols, taking a break after election season and doing nothing of significance while the rest of us face a crisis they convinced us would be the case if Trump won.  I don't remember exactly where I heard the expression, I believe it was on an afternoon talk show on the progressive radio station, WCPT, here in Chicago, that when it comes to politics, especially since 2016, it's like Democrats are bringing a knife to a gunfight. 

Traditional politics, with courtesy and give-and-take in a bipartisan fashion is gone, and it will not return simply because Democrats continue to insist on playing by those rules.  Doing so only gives the other side an even bigger advantage in their determination to remain inflexible and uncompromising when it comes to getting their way.  

There was conversation, at the beginning of the Biden Administration, about the problems created by a blatantly partisan, bribery corrupted Supreme Court that badly needed to be reformed.  The only pathway to doing that was to pack it by amending the Judiciary Act to increase the number of justices, and then having the President appoint the most liberal, free-thinking, far to the left justices that could be found in the federal system.  

But that would have taken a measure of boldness and some risks that Democrats in Congress haven't seemed to be willing to take with Trump lurking in the background, and getting what amounted to a basic open forum in the news media on a daily basis.  The risk would have come with having to break the Senate filibuster to achieve it.  If Democrats broke the filibuster and packed the court, then that would open the door for Republicans do to likewise  It's a tradition that the President wasn't willing to risk breaking.  

If we had been bold, and we had done exactly that, there would be no immunity ruling from the Supreme Court protecting the President from prosecution for crimes he commits while in office, because that court would not have issued such an unconstitutional, unethical, immoral ruling.  Then there would not have been any excuses for the Justice Department to drag its feet in bringing Trump to a quick trial for insurrection, and for stealing classified documents.  

But let me tell you, it's not going to take long for this newly elected Senate to break it, to do whatever their party's sitting President, a convicted felon who shouldn't even be there, wants them to do.  The filibuster rule is a thing of the past and I'm willing to bet that it will take them less than three months to do it.  They're going to break it the very moment it is most convenient for them to do so, and the Democrats and their insistence on keeping it will turn out to be a completely futile gesture that winds up destroying, not protecting, our Democracy. 

Boldness is in short supply. 

Back Up Those Words With Action

Anyone who has read through Project 2025 knows what's coming.  The question is, at this point, one of surviving to be able to elect a Democratic congressional majority in 2026.  

We've been told by the party leadership since the last election, that this one would be the most consequential of our lifetime, and that Trump was an existential threat to American democracy.  The evidence of that claim was his first term, and his daily ramblings and rantings that had the full attention of the media, which gave him far more news coverage than they did the sitting President.  Clearly, based on election results, the Democrats did not get that message out to enough voters.  Or, perhaps, they saw something different between the rhetoric of Democrats about Trump's threat, and their actions.  

I sure did.  

If Trump was the existential threat to democracy that Democratic leadership claimed, then boldness would have prevailed over concerns about certain actions appearing "political," such as expediting his trial for insurrection.  In fact, no matter how "political" it would have appeared, there would have been a commitment to a single achievement, the removal of that threat to American democracy.  With control of both houses of Congress, and the justice department in Democratic hands, that threat was not removed.  That counts as a failure, with consequences we must all now endure.  And that's not something that increases confidence of voters in the Democratic party.  

I understand the extent of the achievements of the Biden administration, especially during his first two years in office.  It was a monumentally successful Presidency.  And it was one that did not get the media coverage it deserved, for whatever reason.  Trump has himself all over the media, but in those ways that are at a President's disposal to do the same for anyone who holds the office, Biden did not make anywhere near the number of appearances he could have ordered by simply setting the date for a press conference or speech.  

This gave tremendous credence to Republican claims that he was showing signs of dementia and his "handlers" didn't want him making public appearances.  It looks, from this perspective, like they just let that go, didn't address it, and didn't change the way they were doing things.  Even hard core party loyalists are going to have difficulty maintaining their confidence in the face of that kind of inaction and lack of response to Republican criticism that made them look like they were right on target.

"They've Given up, They're in Disarray, They Don't Know What to Do" 

I've seen all three of those phrases, describing what the Democratic party looks like right now, from the other side.  They were expecting a fight, some form of resistance, and pushback based on the fact that this really was the "razor thin" election the polls predicted it would be, even closer in many cases, and doesn't show a major shift to the right at all.  But when Republicans lost in similar fashion, they just dug in and didn't budge.  They're seeing the opportunity here to gain a lot more ground than they earned at the ballot box. 

We need strong leadership at the Democratic National Committee.  This can't be a job where people sit and collect paychecks off the contributions.  They need to be our voice in the media, pushing there way in and creating opportunities for visibility that we would not get by being polite, respectful and by sending out email notifications.  We need to show up, and the DNC needs to be the organization that leads the way to doing this.  

And will someone please answer this question for me?  What is there, in Project 2025, which is going to be the Trump administration agenda, that Democrats can work across the aisle to support?  I'm all for bipartisan achievement, but not when that means one party gets it all and the other party lets them have it.  Frankly, if a Democratic member of Congress doesn't comprehend where we are headed and what is happening, they shouldn't be in Congress.  We can't have politicians hiding in their offices, collecting their paychecks, guarding those things as their own assets.  That's a public trust, and I am depending on them to do their job.  And that's not collaborating with the GOP to bring about white, Christian America.  

Carter's Presidency Wasn't Considered Successful at the Time, But He Was One of the Best in This Post World War 2 Era

America's 39th President, James Earl Carter, Jr., who preferred to be called Jimmy, served one term in the White House.  He followed in the aftermath of Richard Nixon, who turned out to be one of the most crooked and corrupt men ever to serve in the White House up to that point.  He won office because he had served as a politician in a state legislature, and then as the governor of Georgia, and had a reputation for being honest and forthright.  

I turned 18 in October of that year, just a few days before the voter registration deadline for the election.  I proudly registered as a Democrat, and stood in line for over an hour outside an elementary school gymnasium in Phoenix, to cast my ballot for Carter.  

There were several factors that pushed Carter, who was relatively unknown prior to his run for the Presidency, over the top.  One was, of course, the frustration of voters who wanted to see Nixon brought to justice for his crimes in the Watergate scandal, who voted against Ford because of the pardon.  Ford was never in a great position politically, and would likely have lost support within his own party if he hadn't pardoned Nixon.  The momentum that carried Nixon into the White House on top of the largest electoral vote majority any Republican had ever achieved was still hanging around in spite of Watergate, but Ford couldn't take advantage of it.  

Carter's shift from the segregationist position he held when he first ran for public office to his surprise declaration in his inaugural address as Georgia governor, that the time for segregation was over, was also a major contributing factor to his victory.  The Civil Rights movement, from just a little over a decade earlier, had produced record numbers of voter registrations among the black population in the South, and Carter became the first President to be elected on the strength of the black vote, not just in southern states, though he carried all of them as a result, but it put him over the top in Ohio and Wisconsin, which he needed to win enough electoral votes to win the election.  

Politics Are Not the Only Measurement of a President's Leadership

From a political perspective, Carter's Presidency might not look like it was much of a success.  There were some legislative achievements, in fact, more than any subsequent Presidency as gridlock replaced working across the aisle as the congressional norm.  He was not a Washington insider, something that never really made those who were comfortable with his leadership, including members of his own party.  

In terms of the Presidency itself, I would say that his biggest achievement was shifting the White House and Washington culture away from the "Imperial Presidency" established by Nixon, who attempted to overstep the boundaries of Presidential power.  By contrast, Carter was most definitely a man of the people, and he restored integrity to the Presidency.  That was something Ford had not been able to do, and is a mark of Carter's success.  Arthur Schlesinger wrote a book, The Imperial Presidency, toward the end of the Nixon presidency, describing what Nixon had done.  Carter, determined to undo it, didn't even want "Hail to the Chief" played when he entered a room. 

His signature achievement was negotiating the Camp David Accords, bringing Egypt and Israel to the negotiating table, and winning the peace, something that still stands, and can be considered the greatest step toward peace in the Middle East since 1917.  I wonder how much more this man would have achieved, given his approach, toward resolving problems between Israel and its other neighbors, had he been given the chance.  His conduct, demeanor and his knowledge of the facts in the situation earned the respect of the Israelis and the Egyptians, ending three decades of almost constant warfare.   

Even though the impression left as a result of circumstances that caused the end of his Presidency after only one term in office, he was successful in getting a lot of legislation through Congress, as much in one term as his Democratic successors Clinton and Obama achieved in two.  Noting that Carter served prior to the time when partisan loyalty has super-ceded patriotism in American politics, he managed to get most of what he set out to do as President done, and most of it was legislation providing for the benefit of the American people.  

Introducing Evangelical, "Born Again", Christianity to the American People

Carter was a Southern Baptist, which places him squarely in the center of American Evangelicalism.  In observing his public life, there was never any doubt that he was not only well acquainted with the theology, doctrine and practice of the Christian faith, but that he was committed to its core principles and beliefs, including having a personal conversion experience, which some Evangelicals call being "born again," using the terminology from the Gospel of John which explains the process of Christian conversion, or "being saved," as many Evangelicals call it.  

And while he very openly practiced his faith in the White House, he never crossed the boundary of imposing what he believed upon others by using the power of his office.  He respected, understood and believed in the constitution's guarantee of religious freedom to all Americans, found in the first amendment, along with separation of church and state.  He respected the rights of others to practice their faith in the same attitude and atmosphere of religious freedom, without compromising his own convictions and beliefs.  

His strongly held Christian convictions, which included his desire to demonstrate his love for his neighbor, by serving the American people, were evident.  The manner in which he expressed his faith while serving as President earned the respect of most people, not their ridicule or derision.  He knew where to draw the line between depending on his faith, and praying for the wisdom and guidance he needed to lead the country, and wearing it on his sleeve, demanding that everyone should have the same faith.  

Carter's example as a Christian stands in start contrast to those among the religious right who became his detractors, and whose ambitions for political power were for the purpose of using it to "make America a Christian nation again."  The organizations that were formed by individuals such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, were aimed at putting someone in office who would use the power of the Presidency to bring about their definition of a spiritual revival that would lead to moral reform of a nation which they had determined was subjecting itself to God's judgement because of its collective immorality.  

Knowing that such a move was neither consistent with sound Biblical doctrine, or with the first amendment of the Constitution, and that a sincere practitioner of the Christian gospel like Carter would never buy their agenda, they turned to a non-Christian, divorced, New Age practicing, "B" movie actor to champion their Christian nationalist cause.   The contrast between Carter, who is recognized and respected for his sincere and visible practice of a Biblically-guided Christian faith, and the Religious Right leadership, who are viewed mostly as money-grubbing crooks and power hungry extremists, gets more visible as each year passed.  

The Most Remarkable Post-Presidency in American History

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. [Matthew 5:9 NRSV]

Carter has been a stark contrast to the entire Religious Right organization, and has set an example that demonstrates his commitment to the Christian gospel, as well as to the American people.  For over 40 years, he participated with Habitat for Humanity, actually contributing physical labor to help people realize their dream of owning a home.  He continued to serve as an ambassador for peace around the world, using his influence and his skill as a former President.  He established the Carter Center, committed to humanitarian activity such as supporting research in the advancement of immunizations and disease eradication and increasing food production in Africa.  

The Carter Center also is engaged in peacemaking, or conflict resolution.  Their record on resolving conflicts around the world, particularly civil strife between political groups in the same countries, where the UN is unable to intervene, is remarkable.  It would be difficult to find an institution more successful at meaningful and lasting peacemaking efforts anywhere in the world.  The Carters have been actively engaged in this work for decades, most of it going unnoticed in the news media. 

He has truly earned the biblical title of "Child of God."  

Carter's Christian faith was the driving force behind his evolution from being a typical, segregationist politician in Georgia, to the remarkable statement he made during his inaugural address as Governor, when he said, "The time for racial discrimination is over."  Those were not just idle words.  He put this into practice, not only as a politician, but in his own personal life.  

Carter was known for his Evangelical faith, from statements he made when running for President, explaining his Christian conversion experience using the common Evangelical term, "born again," taken from John, Chapter 3.  He was a Southern Baptist.  As a result of the fact that the local Southern Baptist church in his hometown did not accept black people as members of the church, Carter became one of the founders of Maranatha Baptist Church, which eliminated racial discrimination membership requirements and welcomed members of all ethnicities and races.  

When the Southern Baptist Convention took a turn toward a more extreme fundamentalist doctrinal position, beginning in 1979, the Maranatha Baptist Church, including the Carters, who were members, withdrew from the denomination, joining a more progressive group oriented toward practice of the principles of the Christian gospel, rather than on unattainable doctrinal purity, called the Cooperate Baptist Fellowship.  CBF, as it is known, has also rejected the intrusion of right wing extremist politics into its organization, and works to protect its churches from such intrusion.  

Jimmy Carter stands as an example of integrity, a true American patriot and a "born again" Christian.  

Well done, good and faithful servant.  You have been faithful with a few things.  I will put you in charge of many things.  Matthew 25:23, NIV