crossposted at five before chaos.

There was another great article today by the NYT’s voice of reason, Paul Krugman, called ‘Way Off Base’. It’s basically addressing something that’s been on our minds for quite a while, the notion that the public is way ahead of the curve on the issues that Dems are cautiously supporting, yet the Dems still fail to get that, as if they’re really afraid of some political liability in challenging a president less popular than recently thawed dog-poop in the snowmelt on a Hubbard Park trail.

Democrats don’t have the same problem. There’s no conflict between catering to the Democratic base and staking out positions that can win in the 2008 election, because the things the base wants – an end to the Iraq war, a guarantee of health insurance for all – are also things that the country as a whole supports. The only risk the party now faces is excessive caution on the part of its politicians. Or, to coin a phrase, the only thing Democrats have to fear is fear itself.

Exactly. I’ve said this before, especially when dealing with DLC types who preach moderation and accomplish nothing but enabling the president and his allies. They need to stop behaving like it’s October of 2001. The GOP has nowhere to go but backwards:

Normally, politicians face a difficult tradeoff between taking positions that satisfy their party’s base and appealing to the broader public. You can see that happening right now to the Republicans: to have a chance of winning the party’s nomination, Republican presidential hopefuls have to take far-right positions on Iraq and social issues that will cost them a lot of votes in the general election…

Republicans will, for a while at least, be trapped in unpopular positions by a base that’s living in the past. Rudy Giuliani’s surge into front-runner status for the Republican nomination says more about the party than about the candidate. As The Onion put it with deadly accuracy, Mr. Giuliani is running for “President of 9/11.”

And that brings me to my second part. The stunning lack of any accomplishment from this veto-proof Democratic VT legislature. Impeachment gets scuttled. Nothing but a meager proposal for property tax reform. We were lucky to get the anti-war resolution. Last session’s Catamount healthcare was like a band-aid that still fails to address the larger problem. What the hell are they doing up there?

Is it laziness? Timidity? Do some Democrats apparently not realize what having a large majority means? Apparently Washington County Senator Anne Cummings doesn’t have a clue. When not busy knitting in committee meetings, she shared this nugget (on VPR) in regards to the greenhouse gas tax bill that would put a surcharge on fuel oil:

(Dillon) Cummings says the goal is two-fold: First get something the governor can sign.

(Cummings) “There’s a great deal of concern that a tax of that kind would be vetoed, and we would then end up with nothing.”

First, get something the governor can sign. Great place to start the negotiation, huh? What exactly does Douglas have to concede when presented with that sort of position?

Now, personally I think this particular bill, although well-intentioned, was a bad idea and should not have been introduced in the first place, considering how many Vermonters are already struggling to pay their fuel bill. But I use it because Cummings’ response is really emblematic of the problem, most notably in regards to some of the other matters in the legislature.

Considering the current makeup of the legislature, it’s Governor Douglas who is the one that should be asking for concessions here, not the other way around. Regardless of the issue, the Dems should be forceful and put forth the best possible legislation, and then have the Governor do the negotiating so he won’t have his veto overridden. Not the other way around. It’s all about the positioning, and to get back to Krugman’s point, if the Dems decided to push through a BOLD proposal for universal healthcare, for example, and they just might find that they’re not really being extreme at all. Sure, they’re going to piss off corporate apologists like John McLaughry, Big Insurance/Pharma and a few conservatives, but by and large they’d be lauded for the courage and as an added  bonus, if they frame it correctly, could paint the gov as a tool for corporate interests, which he most certainly is. Most importantly, they’ll have taken action on an important issue and worked towards a solution instead of just perpetual hand-wringing.

And the Dems’ inaction does not let you or I off of the hook, either. So many of us talk a good game when it comes to democracy, but we need to not just ‘practice’ it, we need to get good at it. Go to these committee meetings. Talk to your legislator and look him/her in the eye and tell them to show some courage and that you will support them strongly when they do. And that you will make a stink when they don’t.

Having a supermajority shouldn’t mean sitting on one’s ass and not doing anything. It doesn’t mean being drunk with power either, as the national nightmare of Republican rule exemplified. It means taking action. It’s time to start putting Douglas on the ropes. Now.

Another thing worth drawing your attention to, in regards to our beloved culture war against the Religious Right. If you saw Time mag a few weeks ago, there was an article about how Biblically illiterate many Americans are. Anyways, there are increasing calls for the teaching of the Bible in a strictly historical, non-religious context, under the pretense that religion aside, it is an important historical book that should be taught as part of a well-rounded education.

See, the problem is finding teachers that are able to do that, for most that are willing to seem to be unable to inject the subtle or not-so-subtle proselytizing, as this LA Times article suggests, which is part of a larger article about the not-so-enlightened folks in Texas who are considering requiring Texas schools to offer this as an elective:

“When teachers don’t have solid training in biblical studies and 1st Amendment issues, then they fall back on what they know from prior knowledge,” Chancey told state legislators last week. “Courses end up being sectarian, often despite their best intentions.”

He said one teacher showed students a PowerPoint presentation titled “God’s Road Map for Your Life.” Included was a slide called “Jesus Christ Is the One and Only Way.” Another teacher taught students that NASA had found a missing day and time that corresponded to a biblical story of the sun standing still. One school showed “VeggieTales” videos, which feature computer-animated Christian vegetables that talk.

And interestingly enough, to get a better mindset of who is behind this, it’s Texas state congressman Warren Chisum (R). You might remember him as the nut who was passing around anti-evolution propaganda to his colleagues authored by an organization that believes that Copernicus was wrong, and the earth really is the center of the universe.

What’s really struck me is how many of the Religious Right really want this class taught. It doesn’t make sense, simply because nothing makes an atheist easier than when one analyzes and studies the Bible strictly from a historical context. It’s what sealed the deal for me. When one sees all of the glaring inconsistencies and the dubious nature of the circumstances of its authorship, it suddenly becomes a lot harder to take seriously, other than a work of historical fiction. That is not to say one cannot still find it inspiring, or that their religion is somehow invalidated (unless, of course, it’s one that takes the Bible literally, as many do). So those who say they want this in there for reasons other than subtle proselytizing are full of bunk.

At least WorldNutDaily columnist and action star has-been Chuck Norris is honest about the agenda. He describes it as “your first step to getting God back into public school”, and the big problem he has with it right now are these ‘five unnecessary changes’ that a mainstream liberal Christian group are proposing:

Mandate that teachers have appropriate academic qualifications and sufficient training on legal and constitutional issues surrounding instruction about the Bible in public schools.

Require rigorous, scholarly reviewed textbooks and other curriculum materials for all courses. 

Include strong and specific language that protects the religious freedom of students and their families by barring the use of Bible classes to evangelize or promote personal religious perspectives.

Require the Texas Education Agency to regularly monitor and report on the content of public school Bible courses to ensure that they are academically and legally appropriate.

Continue to allow districts the option to offer – or not offer – such courses.

Funny, because those are all the things that would actually insure that it is taught in an academic, non-religious context. It’s like the ‘Intelligent Design’ non-debate. They think that your kids should all think like theirs do, and they know what they advocate does not pass academic scrutiny whatsoever, so they try to put it under the radar. Makes me proud and relieved to live in the state with the second highest percentage of citizens with no religious affiliation (21%). And it is important to always remember that when these people accuse you of objecting because you fear that they may be right, make sure you correct them and let them know you fear them because they are wrong. Keep an eye out.

 Loading ...