Fear is a Poison of the Mind

So when I think about the Republican Party and its brand, a few people come to mind. Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and a number of others. By and large I believe these men sit in relatively safe Republican zones, are pressured by Republican goals but are not outright in the Tea Party Crazy camp at all times, at least not like an Allen West or Michelle Bachmann. 

This is different from the Republican Media, which consists of individuals such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Tucker Carlson, Michelle Malkin. These are individuals not so much concerned with policy as they are with courting numbers, which required pandering to Tea Party Crazy at all times because it's an easy target for revenue.

They're two different things and, while it's easy to laugh at how they're currently working against each other, it's causing real problems in politics for anyone with a remotely progressive view toward anything.

Because in reality, I sort of think both Boehner and McConnell would like to make at least a few deals work with Obama. They're politicians whose rhetoric, while still stupid, does not flirt with the extremism demonstrated by a number of others that have to court the Tea Party in order to maintain their office. These are men who can afford to compromise at least to a limited degree without having to worry if they'll have jobs next year. We hear stories about Boehner arguing behind closed doors against the crazier elements of his camp, which I believe, because I do think he wants a positive brand on the Republicans, while the Tea Party Crazy just wants extremist purity. I'm not saying I agree with them on everything, or even most things, but just feel that if not for the current political environment they'd be more open to working with Democrats.

That political climate, though, is being generated by the Republican Media, which has very different objectives from the Republican Party. Members of the party, primarily, want to be reelected as well as increase their elected numbers, including the taking of the presidency. The Republican Media, on the other hand, could care less about whether or not they get officials elected. Sure, it's nice, and they'll always be able to count on a Republican presence in office, but the current times presents a prime media opportunity for Republican celebrities. They get to feed off of fear and paranoia, increase their revenues, and maybe a few Republicans get along the way. That third point, though, is actually inconsequential.

The Republican Media, after all, wants profits more than elections. It's why they're represented by fear mongering and paranoia at all levels of its media, from its online presence, twitter, blogs and websites, to its personal mouthpiece in Fox News. What would life be like for a Republican media member who didn't use hyperbole and fear inducing rhetoric to generate numbers for themselves? Why, look no further than Tucker Carlson. Salon has a great piece on his downward momentum, falling from an at least somewhat thoughtful writer, to an arguing loudmouth on Crossfire, to an online media leader for Republicans. It's that last part that's interesting, though. The Daily Caller, according to Salon, at least initially attempted fair coverage of its topics. His traffic was dismal, so his response? Do just like everyone else was doing and spread fear, paranoia and tell Republican footsoldiers how scary the world was. As Salon points out, any attempts at integrity was abandoned for numbers by, essentially, lying.

Let's not act as if this is something new. Fox News does it. Michelle Malkin does it. Hannity does it. And Bill O'Reilly is famous for screaming down anyone he disagrees with, or misrepresenting their position. And what's the end game for these media members? It's not more Republicans in office. In fact, too many would probably be bad for the Republican media. It would send a signal that the world is actually conservative enough that people don't have to be so afraid, and fear is the primary means by which they generate traffic. I'm convinced that, if they did control Congress, the Republica media would immediately begin spinning even scarier stories of how terrorists, Iran, Russia, China and Korea were all gunning for the U.S. The more frightened the population, the more views on Republican websites and views on Republican television.

That's not the situation at the moment, though. At the moment, there's plenty for conservatives to be fearful of, from a Kenyan immigrant in the White House, to the plot to bring a hundred million Muslims into America. Because there's so much to fear, it means that the U.S. has to constantly be on guard, and the Democrats are too weak to defend it. In turn this means more Republicans need to be in office, and not just any Republican, but pure Republicans willing to stand up for whatever it is conservatives believe America truly is.

That's all well and good, and maybe even worth a laugh when you consider it's tearing the Republican Party apart. Electable members of the Republican party are being tossed aside for its 'purest' and actually, craziest elements, leading to defeats such as what we saw with Allen West, Todd Akin and almost Michelle Bachmann.

However, as we witness the atrophying of the Republican party, the immediate, negative consequence is that we have to wait as the logjam in Congress continues to pile up. The Republican Party is getting what its media wants, purity members that won't compromise with weak Democrats, and in turn leading to a Congress that can accomplish nothing. The root of that inability to get anything done is fear, illogical, unconfrontable fear generated in the minds of people who seek Republican media in order to confirm what a terrible world we live in, and who seek defenders that won't compromise. An inability to compromise, to assess a situation and change course, isn't fear, however. It's intelligence. It's the knowledge that situations change. Compromise is not always a bad thing, especially when it generates a positive way forward. We've criticized Democrats of doing that too much, and I agree, but it's a consequence of wanting to do something at the very least. As it stands, Republicans want to do nothing, which is a symbol among them of their strength. Unfortunately, it leads to the withering of the Republican in the meantime, even as their numbers dwindle.

Am I encouraged by the silliness engaged by conservatives at the moment? In the long run, maybe. Continual demonstrations of craziness threaten their party and brand, a goal their media doesn't mind because it keeps lining their pockets. For now, in this moment, though, it means we bear witness to ongoing suffering as people receive little to no help from the government, which is stuck in a do-nothing position.

As a young man, I read a book, as I'm sure many Democrats and Republicans have, called 1984. I took away a few lessons from that I think are always good to keep in mind. There may, or may not be, external threats. There are definitely forces at work in the world that work against the interests of this country. However, unmitigated fear among a country's population is the worst poison to progress. It makes us suspicious and hateful of our own. It focuses the attention of a people outward, to external places, instead of focusing on what can be fixed within. That's not even just a public policy lesson, that's an individual lesson. Inside each of us we must address our fears and prejudices in hope of contributing to a national dialogue. We have to look here, within our country, accepting that the world isn't entirely safe, but also believing in our ability to come together and solve the problems that are plaguing one another.

As long as we continually are ruled by fear, of our own insecurities, of one another, of people abroad, we can't make intelligent choices. Fear forces us to withdraw, to look out only for ourselves, to our own security, to wish ourselves the best while not looking out for anyone else. We have to be bolder, more courageous. We have to have the courage to say we will support one another, to vote for programs that support the least, even when it comes at a small cost to ourselves. These principles, these notions of self sacrifice, of charity, these are the inspiring things that move man beyond his base fears. It's a damned shame that there's an entire brand of media that's perpetuated by generating fear among a large segment of the population, and one so selfish it doesn't care that it halts the progress of society as it does so.

I can only end with the words of Dean Koontz, who most immediately sums up my position:
“Fear is a poison produced by the mind, and courage is the antidote stored always ready in the soul.”

A New Day Dawns: Sarah Palin is leaving Fox News

The New York Times reports:

Fox News has indeed parted ways with Ms. Palin, the former Alaska governor and Republican vice-presidential nominee, a Fox spokeswoman confirmed on Friday, reducing if not altogether ending her exposure to the channel’s millions of loyal viewers.

Although the picture isn't entirely clear, it seems that Sarah Palin is leaving Fox News following a fairly small contract extension offer. In essence, Fox was not willing to renew her million dollar a year contract. That isn't surprising, considering she was in highest demand coming off her role as a vice presidential candidate and a 'rogue' outsider. I mean, I guess, if she's the definition of rogue Republicans buy into. Still, whatever brand of crazy Sarah Palin was selling was eclipsed and surpassed by even crazier members of the Tea Party, which culminated in the 2010 debacle. Still, America seems to have entered the regret phase of their relationship, and that same Tea Party suffered a good number of losses just two months ago in the 2012 election.

With people identifying as Tea Party members in miniscule levels and most of the blame for the economy being shouldered by the Republican party, Republicans are now arguing that messaging is their biggest priority. While Democrats may argue otherwise, that it's really their principles that is the issue, the consequence of Republican re-branding may mean that the more 'loose cannon' style commentators are no longer of the value they once were. Even big names like Rush Limbaugh have caused profit losses due to their ill chosen comments in the last year, and if you can cut into his profit margins, you can certainly cut into Sarah's.

Palin was never the draw Limbaugh was though, and her appearances on Fox were growing less frequent. There were several reports that the honeymoon between the two was over, and in the wake of that, the offer they made seems to have been intended to finalize their divorce.
Nobody believes that this is the end of Sarah Palin's time in the media spotlight, but there's at least hope it's in its twilight phase. Without Fox to prop her views and provide her a camera, Palin is going to have to find ways to get exposure that don't include official backing from the Republican propaganda machine.

For now, let's toss this as one more log onto the fire consuming the Palin tv brand. Hopefully she doesn't find new life in some Glenn Beckian way.

The War on Christmas is Real

Or at least it was, 350 hundred years ago. In the midst of all the hand wringing that we can expect to occur as Christmas rushes toward us, especially among the Religious Right and their advocates at Fox News, something seems to be going overlooked: Christmas was illegal in the American colonies, at least among the Puritans, generally considered some of the most devout readers of the Bible and stringent followers of its commands. Regardless of what one may think about their attitudes toward life, it cannot be denied that they were deep thinkers. Their printing presses and bookstores were second only to London's, and the highest literacy rate in the world belonged to them. The Bible was required reading seven days a week, in addition to sermons, tracts and moral stories. Yet Christmas was a specific holiday that these religious people banned.

"Your conscience may not let you work on Christmas but my conscience cannot let you play while everybody else is out working."

- Governor William Bradford, Plymouth Colony

A little background is perhaps necessary to understand why Christmas was both socially and legally anathema. Bradford and the Pilgrims were Separatists, members of a religious order that sought to distance themselves from the Church of England and its influences. This had something to do with Catholicism, which was a constant evil in the mind of Englishmen. Catholics owed allegiance to a foreign power, the Pope, and could not be trusted. However, Catholics also used rituals, pomp and processions that some found to be extravagant and in contradiction to the Bible's teachings. These same forms of rituals had followed and tainted the English church. This produced Puritan groups that sought to purify the church of things that were unbiblical, again having to do with the extravagance of ceremonies as well as allegiances to men instead of God. However, some sought to distance themselves from the church entirely.

These were the Separatists, who were so committed to purifying their own communities that they departed a relatively intolerant English religious landscape for the Dutch Republic, a region generally renowned for its high level of tolerance for religious individualism. However, even here, some were unsatisfied and fearful of the taint of polluted religions. So, the Pilgrims became Separatists from the Separatists. They departed to New England and settled around Plymouth Bay. This group was later followed by the Puritan immigration. The two were linked in many ways by theological perceptions and fears of a tainted church, though the Puritans made explicit their hope to purify the church in England by becoming a shining light in their New World, a "City on a Hill".

However, part of that purity meant adherence to the Bible in ways foreign to modern believers, and the abolishment of practices associated with indulgence. Christmas is nowhere to be found in the Bible as a holiday to be celebrated, and so it had no Scriptural foundation. It was also rooted in paganism and non Christian faiths, something that apparently Christians were far more aware of centuries ago than they are now. The Church of England would celebrate the Feast of the Nativity, which the Puritans identified as a form of idolatry and a connection to the Catholic Church with extravagance and non Biblical practices.
Technically speaking, the Bible only sanctioned the Sabbath as a holy day and day of rest. So, from a theological ground, it had no basis. Culturally though, the Puritans found many reasons to object to it. First, it was an amalgamation of Christian beliefs with Roman holidays and practices that were non Christian. Perhaps their largest protest against it, though, was the fact that Christmas had become a day of such indulgence and foolish behavior that it was not worth celebrating. Behaviors such as those demonstrated on Black Friday, or those seen by mass consumerism and drunk driving that leads to death, would have all been justifications for the Puritans to ban it as a holiday.

Banned it was, actually. Legally it was banned in Massachusetts and Connecticut for a stretch of time, which coincided with a banning of holy days in England. However, once holy days were restored in England and Puritans were forced to legally allow them, they still shunned its practice. It was practically uncelebrated in New England for at least a century as governors and preachers rejected it and no formal motions were practiced to gather people for its recognition.

The trait most highly prized among Puritans was a strong work ethic, and so on Christmas Day they worked. The first Christmas in America was spent erecting buildings. William Bradford excused those who said they objected to working on the day, but when he found them playing sports and games later on, he had all their possessions confiscated and ordered any celebration they might have confined to their homes. This was the beginning of a long period in which Christmas was never recognized.

So to the Fox News pundits bemoaning the war on Christmas and traditional religious values, maybe there should be a moment of recognition that Christmas was never an inherent religious value prized by some of the most well read and work driven Christians in American history. They recognized it was neither a Christian holiday, and that it could actually spawn indulgent behaviors that were offensive to the community. Maybe Bill O'Reilly can take a moment to recognize that events like Black Friday were exactly why Puritans feared holy days becoming secular excuses for indulgence, and that they knew Christmas was never a Christian day sanctioned Biblically. It was a secular holiday.

So seriously Fox News, lighten up. Nobody's losing Christmas. It wasn't celebrated in the first place and didn't really get going as a holiday until the middle of the 1800s. Christians knew Jesus wasn't born in December, that it was a Roman festival inherently, and that there was nothing specifically spiritual about it except the facade erected over it by the church. So maybe we should all just let each other celebrate whatever we want, however we want, whenever we want, without getting into a bind that the government and media is trying to make Christmas a non Christian holiday. It never was.