December 8, 2017--Evangelicals: When Time Shall Be No More

While struggling to understand the logic and politics of President Trump's decision to move our embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, considering the disruption and violence it is already fostering, virtually all the analysis suggests that it is for religious reasons. 

To woe Jewish voters? To some extent yes, especially the likes of billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and some of Trump's other wealthy, intensely pro-Israel supporters and donors.

To throw a lifeline to about-to-be-indicted ultra-nationalist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has lobbied for this? Yes, as this will firm support for him from the right-wing religious parties in Israel who are a part of his ruling coalition. 

To appeal to Christian evangelicals? Especially yes. This is most mentioned by commentators and connects two dots--between Trump's huge national Evangelical base and Roy Moore's core of voters in the Alabama senatorial race.

But, in regard to why Evangelicals are such passionate supporters of non-Christian Israel, there is barely a word.

Religion can be such a hot-button subject that it is sadly understandable why the mainstream media would shy away from discussing it. For every Evangelical they might attract and thus boost advertiser sales and ratings, at least as many will, they fear, be offended And as they can be easily mobilized by rightwing demagogs, controversy and boycotts will likely follow.

But an understanding of why conservative Christians so universally support Israel, especially when it is governed by Jewish millennialists--those who believe in the imminent coming of their own Messiah and the commencement of a new religious age--to understand them in all their aspirations and nuances is critical right now as Trump rampages across the region where these issues are most intense and are at such a dangerous boiling point. 

I have been talking and writing about this for many years, ever since reading Paul Boyer's brilliant, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief In Modern American Culture.

If you haven't read it (it is scholarly and readable), I urge you to do so immediately. I feel certain it will reshape your view of the world.

Briefly, it begins with a discussion of prophetic religious belief in the Middle East and the West, particularly America where fully a third of the adult population believe that we are approaching the End Times--the Rapture when the most worthy Christians will be bodily lifted to Heaven (see image below), to the appearance of the AntiChrist, the 1,000-year Times of Tribulation, the Second Coming of Christ, and at the ultimate End--the Last Judgement.

To contribute to bringing this about, essential to the coming of the Millennium, all Jews in the diaspora must return to Israel, actually to Greater Israel, which includes Sinai and Iraq. To some this helps explain why born-again George W. Bush overthrew the government of Iraq and occupied the country.

Jews who do not return will be doomed and those who do emigrate to Greater Israel will be given a final opportunity to convert to Christianity. Thus the Jews for Jesus movement. If we Jews, as dupes, do not avail ourselves of this opportunity, we too will be doomed for all of eternity.

Trump's rock-solid base of supporters who see him as an essential part of this narrative, his 30-33 percent, are mainly Americans who share this apocalyptic prophecy, and almost all of Roy Moore's potential voters are of this persuasion.

From this brief synopsis it is obvious why CNN, the New York Times, and even Fox News would shy away from touching this. They are more concerned about their numbers than the fate of America.

We, I feel, must understand and confront this as the fate of our democracy may be at stake.

In the "Actual" Rapture, Those Raptured Will Be Naked

March 22, 2016--Yes, Yes Trump

A heretical thought--

Shouldn't progressive Democrats hope that Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination? Even, where they can, cross over and vote for him in their state's primaries?

Before you pull the plug on this, hear me out. And, as a hint, remember what happened to the GOP in 1964 and thereafter.

First, Trump's winning the nomination would assure Hillary Clinton's election.

Head-to-head she would trounce him. Forget current polls showing him doing decently in the general election. Imagine Clinton and Trump on stage debating. What do you think would happen? That's easy--he'd make a fool of himself, reveal that he is not temperamentally fit to be the Commander in Chief, and remind people the presidency is serious business and that political playtime is over.

As a consequence, Hillary would win at least three-quarters of the Electoral vote.

Then, as we've already seen, Trump is currently leading the pack of three after demolishing 14 other aspirants by self-funding his campaign. This is rendering high-roller donors such as the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson irrelevant.

Remember Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio? All were odds-on favorites, supported by big-buck PAC groups, and all are out of the race. The Kochs and Adelson types may be crazy, but they're not stupid--they know that the party for them is over if Trump continues to do well without their help. Actually, shows disdain for it.

He is a one-man wrecking crew when it comes to Citizens United. This could be the beginning of the end for dark-money interests who for decades have owned conservatives in Congress as well as the White House. This goes back to Dwight Eisenhower's and Ronald Reagan's time, both of whom were propelled forward and unduly influenced during their presidencies by corporate plutocrats.

Then there is the matter of Fox News.

Since it's launch in 1996, funded by Australian media-mogul Rupert Murdock, current fiancé of Mick Jagger's ex, Jerry Hall, and overseen by GOP spinmeister Roger Ailes. It has been the most powerful and influential of conservative institutions. Perhaps even more so than Rush Limbaugh or the Republican National Committee. What GOP politicians, including presidential aspirants, have not pandered to Fox's so-called reporters and talk-show hosts? No one but Donald Trump who uses them or ignores them on his own terms.

While Trump was getting his political career launched he was as ubiquitous on Fox air as John McCain and Sarah Palin. But as he was propelled into the lead, he began to treat Fox with dismissive contempt. After being effectively taken down by Megyn  Kelly during the first debate, he began a sustained campaign to assassinate her character and professionalism. It's hard to forget his "bleeding from wherever" slander and then how he petulantly decided not to participate, before the Iowa caucuses, in the Fox-hosted debate. And just this week, about another Fox-organized debate, he said "enough." And, knowing that without his showing up the ratings would plummet, Fox canceled it.

Not satisfied, Trump then launched another campaign of criticism directed at Kelly. Some said he was losing control, that he is "obsessed" with her, even that he is "stalking" her.

Who knows. But his not genuflecting at Fox's altar is beginning to affect their numbers. Without Trump-breaking-news-all-the-time, for the first time CNN and MSNBC, both of which are devoting almost full time to covering Trump, are seeing their comparative ratings creep up.

If Fox News is diminished because of Trump, rather than see in his attempts to control the press (which politician or president hasn't attempted to do that?) signs of fascism, maybe we should acknowledge, hate him-love him, that in this case Trump may be contributing to the diminishment of the heretofore all-powerful Murdock-Ailes media axis.

And then there is the 1964 effect. Another reason progressives should consider "using" Trump.

Recall, that was the year Barry Goldwater and his acolytes soundly defeated moderate Republicans Bill Scranton and Nelson Rockefeller for the GOP nomination. This was when Goldwater famously declared, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice . . . and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Goldwater went on to be overwhelmed by Lyndon Johnson, winning only six states while securing less than 40 percent of the popular vote. It took until 1980, 16 years, before the Republicans were reconstituted. A lifetime in political history.

Establishment Republicans are so fearful (I almost said freaked-out) about the prospect of a Trump nomination that they are talking about changing the party's nomination rules when they convene this summer in Cleveland or, if that fails, putting forth a third-party candidate such as Rick Perry. Yes, the hapless former governor of Texas. Or if he's not available, maybe they'd run Herman Cain. But not to worry--about him, I'm making that up.

Thus, a Trump nomination would not only assure a Clinton victory and likely enable Democrats to regain control of the Senate (and with that the ability to confirm progressive Supreme Court nominees) but would also dismember the Republican Party such as it is for at least a political generation.

So, my friends . . .

February 2, 2016--A Win Is A Win

After last night's results, I should drop out of the prognostication business.

Though I got Hillary right--she squeaked by by about a half a percent--I totally missed what was happening among Republicans.

Ted Cruz came in first?

Marco Rubio a very close third, almost leaving Trump in his dust?

What does this say about Iowa voters who had half-a-year to think about what to do?

How did Cruz sell himself as an alternative to the "system" when he and his wife are embedded parts of it? Princeton, Harvard, Goldman Sachs, the U.S. Senate? Bankrolled by billionaires?

Was it all about religion in a state that is made up of 60 percent evangelicals?

Maybe Iowa, as it has been in the past, is a niche electorate and that things will become more predictable and understandable in New Hampshire and beyond.

I have to do a lot of recalibrating.

It's hard to think that Cruz will win in NH or many places beyond.

And I am consoling myself by remembering that the last two GOP Iowa caucuses were won by Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.

A couple of things may be clear--

Trump will not win the nomination. Half of what he's about is his self-proclaimed winning. These results undermine that.

Cruz also will not win the nomination. I am certain the phones were ringing all last night from the Koch Brothers and Sheldon from Las Vegas, coalescing at last around a so-called "establishment candidate. One they can support and own--

Marco Rubio will be offered that deal as he has shown in the past that he is comfortable being supported by billionaires (car-dealer Norman Braham in his case) and has no problem answering his phone when they call and doing their bidding.

For Hillary, though messy, a win is a win and she should go on fairly easily to secure the nomination after losing to Sanders in NH.

By next week at this time, in addition to Huckabee and Santorum, it will be the end of the road for Carson and Carly and Christie and poor Jeb! And . . .

Here I go again, still prognosticating. I have to get over this addiction.

February 1, 2016--The Emotional Culture of America

The day before the evening caucuses in Iowa--the first time in 2016 that actual votes will be counted--it feels timely to pause, reflect, and predict.

I'm being advised by some friends, including one of my best friends who is wicked smart and well informed, to stop paying so much attention to Donald TRUMP. The implication loud and clear is that by doing so--even with a critical or satiric edge to my writing--I am aiding and abetting his candidacy. That it's obvious he's dangerous and needs to be defeated.

Perhaps my friends are right. I should step back and think about what they are counseling. Not necessarily come to agree with them, but take seriously what they are saying.

We go back and forth for a few rounds and then someone claims that TRUMP is dangerous because of what they see to be his fascistic inclinations.

If TRUMP is a fascist, what else is there to say? Except that hopefully the America of 2016 is not the Italy of 1922.

All of this aside, as I pause to think about the current state of the presidential race, to wonder if I have been showing too much favor to TRUMP and his candidacy, I should ask myself how I think he and others are doing, what can be learned from that, and who am I inclined in November to support.

I have been arguing here that TRUMP has tapped deep chords in current American consciousness and has exploited or resonated with them (take your pick) with astonishing effect.

As a candidate he was initially thought of to be a "clown," an impostor, someone only interested in enhancing his "brand" and, once he accomplished that, he would drift away and return to his literally gilded tower.

But, unlike other Republican political comets, from Michele Bachmann to Herman Cain to Sarah Palin, he has not flamed out but has lingered at the top of the polls now for more than seven months. No other first-term candidate in 100 years has done so so consistently for this long. Not even ultimately popular candidates such as Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, or John F. Kennedy in 1960.

In the face of friends' criticisms I have tried to insist it's important to understand as fully as possible TRUMP's success, and successful he has been, so we can better root it out, defeat him, and--most important to me--learn as much as we can about what it means about today's America. To continue to mock him, write him off, assume he will implode will not get that job done. So, it has been my view that we had better be sure we do not continue to ignore the forces undergirding his appeal and energizing his candidacy and in that passive way be of unintended help to him..

As examples of these views, here are excerpts from a few of the emails I have sent to friends in an attempt to explain my posture--

TRUMP and the other spawn of reality TV, talk radio, and Fox News have seized control of the process. Maybe of reality.

And, they are no longer beholden to the forces that launched them or the people who bankrolled them . Interesting, isn't it, that we haven't heard much lately from the Koch Brothers or Sheldon from Las Vegas. 

What I mean to say is that politics is now operating in a parallel universe of its own. 

I am eager to see if (1) TRUMP maintains his refusal to participate in Fox's debate Thursday night and (2) if he doesn't show up what, if anything, will be the consequences. 

We can already hear the whiners saying that he's afraid of someone wearing a skirt (Megyn Kelly). How can someone who fears a WOMAN be trusted to stand up to really bad guys such as Putin, the Ayatollahs, or ISIS. (Roger Ailes of Fox News already said literally that.) 

It may be that Donald is a political Frankenstein, more powerful than his creators. And, to them, more dangerous. If so, they deserve him.

*  *  *

The case for TRUMP is that more conventional, better prepared and experienced candidates and presidents have been dangerous disasters. Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush come to mind. 

But it may be that he has just the right temperament for the job that now needs to be done. In my view, he is so threatening to the status quo that the array of forces, worried about their prerogatives, are lining up against him. From Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity at Fox News, to the Rush Limbaughs, to the Republican establishment Koch Brothers, to the Wall Streeters, to the professional bureaucrats, and of course all the liberals and movement conservatives. For me, this is an attractive list of opponents and enemies.

*  *  *

I'm concentrating now on both the process and on what what is happening reveals about the political and emotional culture of America. For that, for me, the TRUMP phenomenon is as important as it gets. I think there is a great deal to study and I'm trying to see and learn as much as I can. 

Next stage--after some dust settles (I think Hillary and TRUMP will win in Iowa, Bernie and TRUMP in NH, and then Hillary and TRUMP in SC, with Hillary and TRUMP then on inexorable paths to the nominations) for me then it will be time to try to understand what kind of presidents they might make.  

It may be true that TRUMP could be dangerous, but I do not until there is more actual evidence join in that feeling. And to me also, because Hillary is so full of personal ambition and inner demons, she also frightens me. 

My fantasy since I can't see myself voting for either TRUMP or Clinton-- 

Hillary gets indicted or censured for the email mess and Joe Biden and/or John Kerry enter the race. The Bernie people would go crazy, of course. But Biden and Kerry are the only two people I feel good about. To me either of them would be good presidents.

Otherwise, Hillary wins it all in a walk.

December 3, 2015--What Have the Kochs Wrought?

For years the Koch Brothers and their kind--fellow billionaire casino baron Sheldon Adelson and hedge fund CEO Paul Singer among many others--have been inflaming with anger and fear conservative Americans who have genuine concerns about their declining resources and prospects, especially for their children.

They have been brilliant at controlling the public narrative as to why this is occurring. Rather than taking a hard look at structural causes such as the growing inequality that has led to people's frustration, fear, and anger they have instead, through groups that they fund and politicians they control, manipulated the discussion so that governments, mainstream media, and liberal academics are said to be responsible.

Their agenda, though, is self-serving for in truth they have hypocritically been the main beneficiaries of government policies that allow them to shelter most of their earnings and have successfully influenced the policy environment that has largely deregulated the institutions through which they have gained and retained their wealth. These policies are among the reasons average Americans are slipping behind while the Kochs and Adelsons amass additional billions.

If the public were to know the truth, those with the most assets might become vulnerable and that is why the Kochs and others have attempted to distort the truth, all the while keeping working people distracted by social issues such as same-sex marriage, immigration, reproductive politics, and a steady drumbeat of conspiracy theories such as the one that calls all of science into question and blames America's problems on people of color, affirmative action, political correctness, government employees (including teachers), and gays.

This is the context, the culture that has nurtured and propelled Donald TRUMP to the fore. And now these GOP donors and what's left of the Republican establishment are fearing that the monster they created--TRUMP--may actually win the nomination and if elected turn out to be a true traitor to his class.

The danger he represents to them is that he knows how the game is really played. He knows that from the inside, as he boastfully proclaims, having played it. He thus threatens to shatter the illusion system that has been foisted on ordinary people, struggling Americans, who have been the dupes and unknowing enablers of our oligarchs.

Sheldon Adelson 

September 24, 2015--Run, Joe, Run

Though the vast majority of Democrats think Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy, she is still the odds-on favorite to win the nomination.

Since an even greater percentage of Americans say they do not trust her, because of that it is unlikely she can be elected.

Trust is a very big deal when it comes to electing presidents.

On the other side, Republican leaders are beginning to conclude that Donald TRUMP has a very good chance of being nominated. The rest of the field is so weak, he is so well known (and in his idiosyncratic way liked), and enough of the GOP base (who dominate the nomination process) are so fed up with business-as-usual, that they are sticking with him even though he continues to say things almost daily that would knock a traditional candidate out of the race.

The reason why the Republican establishment, including the big-money boys are so upset is not because they disagree with TRUMP about immigration, the economy, and international affairs, is because they feel, probably correctly, that he can win the nomination but, also correctly, feel he would lose to Hillary.

So, if things proceed on their course, Hillary Clinton, deeply flawed as she is, is most probably our next president.

Bernie Sanders is an attractive fantasy alternative to progressive Democrats, and he may win the New Hampshire primary, he has no chance of being nominated and if there is anything more unlikely than "no chance," he has an even less chance of being elected. Even Donald TRUMP would defeat him.

Then, in regard to both parties, the political professionals have rigged their primary processes to make it easier for Jeb Bush and Clinton to win the nominations, feeling a year or so ago when the rules and calendar were determined, that they were their party's strongest potential candidates.

Both parties' nomination calendars were rigged and the small number of debates allowed were to benefit the two favorites. Fewer debates meant that lesser-known candidates had less chance to become known and compressing the primary season to just a few months would mean there would be less time for internecine party warfare.

But a funny thing is happening on the way to the two preordained nominations--Hillary Clinton has been exposed as less then trustworthy (emails and such), Jeb Bush is proving to be a dud, and then there is The Donald who barely needed any debates or all that much time to become better known since he is about as well-know as all his opponents combined.

Therefore, it's time for Joe Biden to jump in.

That is, from the perspective of progressives who do not want to see Hillary nominated or a Republican such as TRUMP, or Jeb for that matter, elected.

At the moment, Biden would have not much chance to defeat Hillary. There isn't that much time to get rolling and he has no money. Clinton has hundreds of millions either in the bank or pledged.

But the fact that he is surging in the polls suggests there is a pent-up interest in him or, minimally, Clinton fatigue, and thus much of the money pledged to her could quickly migrate to Joe.

Notice how that has already happened on the Republican side--former candidate and frontrunner Scott Walker was about to be anointed with hundreds of millions of support from the Koch Brothers. That money is now seeking a new candidate. Ditto for Sheldon Adelson's hundreds of millions.

Among Democrats the same thing could happen.

Biden is a credible candidate. He has the same progressive values as Clinton, is at least as well-prepared to assume the presidency (her resume is her biggest asset), and has been right about as much as she has been wrong when it comes to foreign affairs, especially regarding Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. As Secretary of State, she was largely a failure. All of this will be fully exposed if she becomes the nominee and it would weaken her further.

And then there are the authenticity and liability factors. Side-by-side Biden would stand out. He has no need to have a personality makeover as Hillary is currently attempting to pull off by going on the Ellen and Colbert shows.

Even Joe's propensity to say goofy things these days would not be much of a liability. At a time when our national elections are more-and-more about likability, he is as likable as Donald TRUMP.

So, run, Joe, run.

March 31, 2014--The Republican Clown Car

As the 2016 presidential election season begins to boil, with Republican pretenders genuflecting before $40-billionaire Sheldon Adelson this past weekend in Las Vegas, how is this cycle's version of the GOP candidate Clown Car shaping up?

Literally and figuratively, thus far the biggest clown of all is Chris (Sergeant Schultz) Christie. As the most moderate hopeful (for example, he is less ferociously opposed to same-sex marriage than the competition), he showed up in Las Vegas to kiss Adelson's ring. But as a moderate he is the least favorite among the Tea Party wing of the party.

The other moderate, Jeb Bush, slightly more acceptable, met with Adelson but out of sight of the media, slipping into one of Sheldon's casinos through a back door. There is, after all, a limit to how much public groveling a son of Barbara Bush is willing to do.

But, sadly for late night comedians, and me, there do not as yet appear to be any Donald (you're fired) Trumps, Herman (Pokemon) Cains or Michele (my husband's a great dancer) Bachmanns on the horizon to liven things up. Maybe Newt (and Callista) will give it one more try. He at least can be amusing. And Rand (named for Ayn) Paul, who appears routinely to wear clown makeup and has funny hair will at least liven things up when he will inevitably be asked why he as a physician and a self-declared Libertarian opposes abortions even in the case of rape or incest.

But if it's going to be Jeb versus Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio, I'll be sticking with Dancing With the Stars and The Colbert Report for my entertainment.

There is, though, hope that Ted Cruz will get in the race. He does a mean imitation of Winston Churchill ("We will never surrender") and is a dead ringer for Joe McCarthy. So he should be good for a few gaffs and laughs. And, I almost forgot, there's Rick (high executioner) Perry. He can be a hoot, especially if he's high on pain medication.

But if you're wondering why so many run for the presidency even though they know in their hearts they have no chance, think money.

There's a fortune to be made out there by speaking for cash at all sorts of untra-conservative political, religious, and corporate events. Being on the record opposing everything about Obama is all that's needed. And celebrity. That's where to Clown Car comes in. It makes you a household name and as your Q Scores go up, so does your speaker's fee.

Remember during the last campaign how Mitt Romney's fees for talks of this kind in 2012 yielded a neat $375K, which he famously shrugged off as "not very much"?

Before running, Rick Santorum made literally nothing. He struggled to put food on the table for his wife and dozens of children. But then after being in the lead for the nomination for a week or two he saw his average fee soar to $100,000 an appearance. This is not a typo.

How much do you think Herman Cain made before also being ahead of the pack for a week? As we would say in my old neighborhood, that would be bupkiss. He now gets $25K for 40 minutes of standup and singing.

And as soon as Michele Bachmann's congressional term is over in December, she is expected to be paid at least $25,000 a pop.

Even old Ron Paul whose shirts and suits look like they were bought off the rack at Kmart is paid a whopping $50K per appearance. No need to practice medicine anymore or live in Galveston.

Sarah Plain, who has made tens of millions since running with John McCain in 2008, pockets more than $100,000 to show up and entertain. I don't know what Tina Fey commands.

Then there are the right-wing media celebrities who live off this circus. If you think that Dick (Romney-in-a-landslide) Morris is working at the checkout counter in Publix, think again. He "earns" $15-$20,000 a rant by spreading paranoia that Barack Obama is about to launch black helicopters to round us up and take away our guns and other "freedoms."

Endnote--In fairness, I should mention that Hillary gets an obscene $200,000 to talk about everything except Benghazi.

And, on a recent Bill O'Reilly Show, Herman Cain hinted he is giving serious consideration to running again in 2016. Please God.