Unlike the U.S. House of Representatives’ efforts some months ago, this was not theater. The Senate was deadly serious about stripping tens of millions of Americas of their health care in order to keep a foolish promise to a foolish base while, at the same time, lining the pockets of House members’ wealthy bribers. Fortunately—or unfortunately, depending upon one’s perspective—Republicans are better at theater than governance.

It is still too early to know the outcome of all these shenanigans. But whether the stalemate continues or is somehow ended, we can now expect the “moderate” Republicans who voted against the destructive and cynical plans of their party leaders to be “primaried” from the right. Probably some Tea Party lunatic. And because those Tea Party enthusiasts, like Archie Bunker’s admiring and approving audience of yesteryear, are too ignorant to know that they are simply being made fools of, we will end up with some right-wing nut job in place of a “moderate,” making it more likely that the next Republican campaign of mass murder of the poor will succeed.

We on the left have a vested interest in seeing that these “moderate” Republicans, already nearly extinct, are not outflanked on their right and disappear completely. Now, there is no reason to believe that the right-wing extremists can be reasoned with. They are not rational. So, talking is out. Neither is there any reason to believe that Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter), are prepared to say ‘no’ to the bribes of the wealthy class that corrupts the entire governing process. In light of these realities, it may be time for those of us on the left to hold our noses and take drastic, even repugnant measures.

We may have to set aside our Democrat voter registration I.D.s and register as Republicans so that we can vote in the Republican primary in hopes of defeating the lunatic extremists on the right. We can always vote for the more left leaning candidate in the general election. And if by chance the “moderate Republican” wins in the general election, well, perhaps that is the price we pay to keep the lunatics on the far right out of office. These people are simply that dangerous and that wicked.
Just a thought. Maybe I’ll start a campaign. We could call it something like, “Sheep in wolves clothing.”

Registering as Republicans has an added advantage. We are well aware of the right’s attempts to reduce the number of voters and to suppress voter turnout. It seems unlikely they will come after registered Republican voters. How can they be sure whose really a wolf, and whose a sheep pretending to be a wolf? So, “Democratic” voters, register as Republicans.
​
Come to think of it, perhaps African Americans should all just register as Republicans. Then, by God, I bet those on the right won’t be so quick to deny them the vote!

Today’s post will be a somewhat wide-ranging affair. Hopefully, I can provide the cohesion that I find in the diversity.

I placed an op-ed piece by Jeffrey Sacks on the Just Reporting page of this site. I would like to comment on and expand on a couple of points that he makes.

It is no secret that I am not a fan of the current conservative supreme court. Among the many evils they have propagated is, as Sacks points out, the legalization of bribery in politics. As far as I am concerned, it is as clear as clear can be that the court’s decision in the Citizens United case, along with several others like it, is utterly corrupt and legalizes criminal behavior.

I headed this post with a statement of the great Book of Mormon missionary, Amulek. “The unrighteousness of [our] lawyers and [our] judges” are indeed laying “the foundation of the destruction of this people.” However well-known and oft quoted, this passage is often, I think, misunderstood. It is not a criticism of individual lawyers and judges. It is a criticism of the entire legal system. More broadly, it is really a criticism of our culture. Let me try to explain what I mean.

In their rulings, such as that found in Citizens United, the judges of the supreme court only rule on behavior in which others are already engaged. Individuals and corporations were already engaged in a form of bribery. They either saw no immorality in their behavior or did not care. Either way, it is they, the people, who, in appealing to the supreme court, wished to have their immoral behavior found legal and acceptable.

In their ruling, the supreme court simply affirmed their legal right to bribe. To use Amulek’s language, they only laid the [legal] foundation for behavior in which the people were already engaged.

The supreme court was, then, as they always are, “reactionary”—that is to say, they were reacting to the culture in which they live. As part of the same culture as those who brought the case, they were simply ruling out of the traditions they had inherited from the culture—notwithstanding all the highfalutin nonsense about objectivity, constitutional originalism, etc.

So, as we say, Amulek’s criticism of “lawyers and judges” is really a criticism of the judicial system. But the judicial system is thoroughly part of and influenced by the culture—that is to say the citizenry, the people. Criticism of the judicial system is a criticism of the culture, the people. (After all, while Caligula nominated Gorsuch, the people elected Caligula to nominate Gorsuch).

This, it seems to me, is clear from Amulek’s comments. He claims that the lawyers were “learned in all the arts and cunning of the people.” Judges and lawyers are part of their culture. They practice the arts, cunning, and evils--the traditions—of the culture. These are arts, cunning, evils, and traditions shared by all in the culture.

Tradition and culture. For the most part, these simply go unnoticed, unexamined, and unquestioned. They explain, in part, why good people support policies and people that, on the face of it, would seem to be contrary to their personal beliefs. They act upon traditions inherited from their fathers and that have gone unexamined.

In my indictments of an America Christianity that supports and sustains our American Caligula, I often hear the complaint that these are good people about whom I speak so rudely. To an extent, this is true—individually. However, they have imbibed in many false traditions of their fathers. These in many instances lead them to act and feel contrary to their individual belief system. From these false traditions, they make many immoral choices, that, again, might be in tension with their (softly) held principles.

There is simply no question. By every standard, our American Caligula is an immoral man. His policies are immoral in every way. He maintains the support of his rabid base, including that of American “Christians” with the assistance of the false traditions inherited from their fathers.

Need examples of false traditions. Here is but one of many that could be sited. We are currently having a debate about health care. Those elected, with strong support from “Christians,” are attempting to dismantle an imperfect attempt to accomplish the most moral of objectives—provide health care to poor and vulnerable portions of our population.

How can this be? How could anyone proclaim against this attempt, imperfect as it is?

Well, we ask, who, according to the tradition of the fathers, are the poor? They are, in the mind of the tradition, African Americans. Never mind that the poor are not only or primarily African American. Let’s just pretend the false tradition has one scintilla of truth to it. What is wrong with providing African Americans who cannot afford it, with subsidized health care?

Answer, according to the tradition: African Americans are not fully human. Thus we had slavery. Thus were African Americans denied voting rights for most of American history. Thus have they been denied basic civil, even human rights for most of American history.

We have found our way out of slavery (much to the chagrin of many a southerner), and have even grudgingly and unevenly granted African Americans a modicum of human rights. We “allow” them to vote—though even this is currently under attack by “Christian”-backed extremists. But the tradition we inherited from “inspired founding fathers” is still there, screwing things up in the back of our heads. Are African Americans really and fully human? Are they fully Americans? Are they fully “us” or are they still “them”? Thus, Americans, joined by so-called Christians, having inherited the tradition, act and vote in ways that are, in fact, contrary to every fair and good principle they ever heard in their constitution and every Christian principle they ever read in their precious Bible.
​
Perhaps the American people are basically good. Perhaps American Christianity is not completely bankrupt of all righteousness. But the traditions they have inherited from their fathers are dampening these good and righteous impulses. They are leading them to do things like vote for and applaud the most immoral president of my life time and, likely, in American history. The only thing in which he and his Republican cabal will make America great again is immorality and rebellion against God.