1. Populism and racism aren't the same thing, even if some populist are racist.
What happened on January 6 with an attempted coup in Washington D. C. will go down as one of the back marks in American history. Truly, an infamous day.
Post insurrection analysis has frequently strayed into suggesting that part and parcel of the insurrectionist goal is a deep seated racism. To hear commentators speak of it, you'd get the idea that the storming was by the Dixiecrats of the last century. This does a disservice to the facts and ignores the real divide in the country.
Some of the populist are racists, there's no doubt about it. And Donald Trump did nothing to distance himself from racists while he was President. Having said that, however, the GOP started quietly down this path in the 1970s with Ronald Reagan's "Southern Strategy". Before that, the Democrats were the party with a regional race problem and the Republicans were not. The GOP couldn't win in the South for that reason. So, much like in the compromise that resulted in setting the 1876 election, the GOP decided to abandon its strong civil rights position in order to court the otherwise highly conservative, and mostly white, Southern electorate.
That's a legacy of what we're seeing now, and its a feature of some of the populist movements from around the country, but it doesn't really define what's going on. What defines it is the abandonment of the Rust Belt working class by both political parties.
The American blue collar working class was hailed since the early 20th Century as the real definers of what it was to be an American. There's an endless amount of propaganda about it and everyone has seen it. Rosie the Riveter wasn't a college educated career woman who was living with a Soy Boy café worker. No, there was about a 50/50 chance that she hadn't finished high school and was going to stop working the second her boyfriend returned from defeating the Axis and took back his welding job, after which point they'd get married and have stout little kids who played baseball and football and who would look forward to the same careers their parents had had.
Now that seems to be all gone, but the implications have not been worked out at all. You can't tell a group of people that they define what it is to be an American and then one day that they're the enemy of progress. Men and women who simply want jobs to live rather than to live their jobs and who are Christians with traditional Christian values have, over the past decade or so, been told that they need to move on to the metro and reeducate, and that the values they held which defined society are now not only obsolete, but they need to keep them to themselves.
When people speak of a "culture war", that's what they're talking about, and that's what's brought about what we're seeing right now. At least half the country, and probably more, is sick of being told that their deepest values need to be put on the shelf forever.
That doesn't excuse what occurred on January 6, but it gave rise to it. Trump gave voice to it. And at some point a group of people who were told over 90 years that they were the real Americans, and defined Americanism, are going to react with huge suspicion if they're suddenly told they aren't.
The culture war rift in the country is now a grand canyon. And its runs right through Western society into other countries. It's not close to being over and there's no good reason to believe that Joe Biden can heal it.
But claiming that everyone who is on the right is basically Nathan Bedford Forest, as some on the left, and the constant press commentary, has, isn't going to make things better. It may actually make it much, much worse.
2. The "choice" isn't between "Democracy and Socialism".
I'm noting this here as I hear things like this all the time, and I read an op ed article in the Trib by somebody who is a clear supporter of Anthony Bouchard's run against Liz Cheney which referenced that phrase, although not in connection with Bouchard's primary effort to displace Cheney, which I'll predict will end up just being an expensive waste of time on his part. The author of the op ed apparently wrote a book in which he claims that will be the choice for 2024.
No it won't, and it doesn't make sense.
I'm really sick of people getting these confused. It's perfectly possible to be an ardent (small d) democrat and a Socialist.
Indeed, the Social Democratic Party is the largest party in Germany and, sorry US, its' considerably more democratic than the United States. The current German constitution and body of electoral laws makes us look rather backward in that regard, restrictions on the freedom speech where it pertains to fascism and restrictions on strange movements like Scientology notwithstanding.
And the SDP isn't the only full democratic, and Socialist, party that's governed in Europe. France had a massively anti communist, heavily allied to the United States, elected premier during the Reagan administration, Francois Mitterrand, who was the First Secretary of the Socialist Party in France.
Every European nation except for the United Kingdom and Ireland has a viable and large Socialist Party that participates in their parliaments. And, taking us back to history again, it was the SDP that was the last bulwark against the Nazi Party and the Communist Party in 1932 in trying to keep democracy running in post World War One Europe. Yes the CDU was in there too, but the SDP was the big, anti Communist, anti Fascist, party.
Why do people believe this myth?
Bad historical education.
People seem to think that Socialism=Communism, and way, way back when, before there were any Communist countries, this was in fact true. It hasn't been true since 1917/18 however, and in that time frame the Communist and the Socialist separated with the Socialists uniformly supporting democratic governments. They went down in defeat on that point against the Communists in the Russian Revolution and in Nazi Germany.
What Socialism really is, is an economic system that argues for "social" control of the economy.
Get it straight.
Indeed, while not a Socialist whatsoever, I'd note that Socialist will claim that Socialism is more democratic than Capitalism, as there's social vestment of the economy in society at large. I think that's mostly hooey, and in reality the economy always ends up being vested in the government, but the end game for Socialism and unrestrained Capitalism is the same. . a monopoly. That's why nearly all Capitalist economies have Distributist laws, even if they don't call them that, such as the Sherman Anti Trust Act.
FWIW, the percentage of the GDP that's attributed to the government hovers between 35% and 40% in the United States irrespective of whether the GOP or the Democrats are in control. There's never been a country, ever, whose government didn't dominate some aspects of its economy. It's just that people tend not to be able to recognize it, except in the case of outright Socialism, including in Wyoming. For example, the state could completely contract out highway snow removal if it wished to, which would be a lot more free market. But it's not going to. Or the state could close the remaining 100% of the highway rest stops and let people travel to gas stations, etc. in times of need, but that sure wouldn't be very popular. You get the picture.
3. While we're at it, "free market economics" doesn't equal Capitalism either.
Capitalism is a system under which business organizations which are actually partnership in the natural sense obtain state protection for their de fact partners by making them de jure shareholders and granting the corporation legal personhood. It can't exist without the state.
There are a lot of reasons this system has proven to be such a huge success, but its a mistake to assume that the system is natural or that its a pure free market one. In a pure free market natural economy (which would be a type of distributist economy), corporations wouldn't exist but partnerships would.
Every member of a partnership, of the traditional type, is legally liable for the acts of the company. In a corporation, generally, only the company itself is. That's why corporations are so successful at raising "capital". Only the shareholder's investment money is at risk.
Anyhow, if you point out that Capitalism is always a state sponsored and created economic system, as Socialism is when actually applied, you'll draw a blank look. People are so use to thinking the opposite that they don't grasp that Capitalism is not a natural system, and that it requires state support to exist.
4. The GOP adrift. Real Wyoming isn't as alt right as the alt right thinks. It isn't even as conservative as people think.
There's conservative and then there's Wyoming conservative and then there's the conservatism of Wyomingites.
They're not the same.
Time may prove me incorrect on this, but what has been going on in the state's GOP in the last few years really doesn't reflect the way most Wyomingite's actually think. In reality, most Wyomingites just don't follow politics all that closely.
To grasp this you have to first realize that there's basically two, or maybe three, Wyoming populations. There's the temporary one made of transient workers who are here during booms, and then depart during busts. When they're here, they make a big difference in politics and they bring their politics with them. They aren't all oilfield workers by any means, as some of them have come in as professionals due to the boom, or occupy other boom time economic positions. Then there's the Jackson Hole crowed, which is now more diffused than in just Teton County, who are also from somewhere else, but upon arriving here they buy a puffy coat or a Stetson and imagine themselves to be Wyomingites. They also bring their politics with them.
And then there's the people who were born here, brought here while very young, or who were from a neighboring rural state that was much like Wyoming in some ways. These are the people who are staying and whom make up most of the electorate.
They're political views are really unique to themselves. They aren't actually all that conservative, but can be mistaken for conservatives. They're more in the nature of rural libertarians combined with something that might be most comparable to the Russian Civil War era Ukrainian Greens.
This group isn't going to rail against Liz Cheney for voting her conscience and, like it or not, they aren't all that worked up on social issues either. They're just as likely to support a "right to roam" as they are property rights, and no matter what your views are on one thing or another in social trends, they're going to espouse the traditional views while ignoring whatever it is that other people are doing.
I note all of this as the current drift of the GOP towards a really, really hard right is already beginning to further split an already split party and the GOP doesn't seem to get it. At the same time that county GOP organizations are voting to censure Liz Cheney, the written comments to the Trib are overwhelmingly in her favor, including those written by her avowedly former opponents. The GOP seems to be on the verge of splitting in two nationally and if it does, it's pretty clear that the bulk of the state party will go wherever the Trump wing of the party does, which in state politics is likely to pretty quickly end up in their becoming a minority party.
5. Apparently "innocent until proven guilty" is something that nobody really believes. . . or at least it doesn't apply to Catholic clerics.
I haven't commented on this before and perhaps I shouldn't here, but I'm going to anyhow.
The Tribune has been following, understandably, the legal woes of retired Wyoming Bishop Joseph Hart now for years. Bishop Hart was accused of sexual ickyness with male minors.
During the same period of time during which Hart has been dealing with this, three local Protestant ministers have faced the same accusations, and they all proved true. Mention of it in the Press was very brief. No following story occurred. Hart's story has, however, proven different.
The initial investigation lead the Laramie County authorities to pass on doing anything. They didn't see enough evidence. The current Bishop, however, Bishop Biegler, chose to revive the matter within the church itself and that lead to it being looked at by the authorities a second time. On that second occasion, the prosecutor in Natrona County again determined not to charge Bishop Hart with anything. That lead to criticism, he reopened the file and, after some time had passed, he once again determined not to file charges.
The internal church matter, however, went on to some sort of tribunal at the Vatican. And now it also has determined that there's not enough there to do anything.
With this being the case, Bishop Hart, over a period of decades, has endured and prevailed over four separate prosecutorial episodes, three at the state level, and one at hte Vatican level.
The American myth is that you are innocent until proven guilty. Hart hasn't been proven guilty of anything. The Tribune, however, continues to treat his as if he is guilty and getting away with it. Indeed, Bishop Biegler isn't helping much either as, having gotten this rolling, he's still basically sending out signals that he believes that Hart is guilty and will be crediting his accusers in spite of years and years of such efforts having failed. This gets to something regarding Bishop Biegler we'll deal with in a moment, but we'll note this here.
Bishop Hart gets this sort of attention as he's Catholic. The Catholic Church has gone through a horrific episode recently, now mostly addressed, with clerics who are now all older having committed terrible sexual transgressions. Most of these, however, seem to have arisen due to a vareity of factors that let in priests who were not there for the right reasons, although their views are ones that the press also genuinely celebrates. Indeed, this takes us back to the culture wars item above, as Catholic clerics that are loyal to the Church's traditional beliefs and dogma are ones that the press really doesn't like.
And for that reason, it doesn't like the church itself, which is why this gets so much press but real proven accusations by protestant minister is the same readership field, do not.
6. Bishop Biegler and the rearward gaze.
We're now a full year into a present massive crisis that has caused a crisis in the Church but to look at the Diocese of Cheyenne, you'd not know it.
The Bishop has suspended the obligation to attend Mass on what is now running up on a year. I had real doubts about this early on, but as the pandemic deepened, I have to admit that at some point, that's valid. As soon as the churches were opened back up, I started going back to Mass, but in the recent deepened episode, I suspended going, taking advantage of the dispensation as I had a childhood asthma condition and I really don't want to get virus, particularly with vaccinations come on so soon.
Anyhow, if you check in on the Diocese website the first thing you are going to find is a statement by Bishop Biegler about retried Bishop Hart.
Bishop Hart was the bishop here from 1978 until 2001. I.e., he hasn't been the bishop for 20 years. He's been retired for 20 years. We're on our third bishop since that time.
Wyoming, as we've noted above, is a highly transient state. There's a core of us diehards who were born here, and who will die here, and who are watching people come and go in the meantime. And quite a few of us, although its a minority in the state's population, are Catholic. Quite a few of the transients are too.
Most of the people in the pews have very low interest, in this point, in the Joseph Hart saga. It doesn't impact our daily lives whatsoever. When Hart was last Bishop, I was 37 years old and my youngest child was a baby.
The pandemic does impact my daily life.
During the entire pandemic, I haven't had a representative of the parish reach out even once. I've reached in several times, but at the time the pandemic struck I'd only recently gone off of a parish council.
Indeed, the pandemic struck at a particularly bad time, in this context, for me, as I'd gone off of the council and I stepped down as a lector as the Mass time didn't work well for my spouse and both kids were headed off to Laramie. I'd been a lector at that point for years and years, and I do miss it. But as that occurred it was also the case that the downtown parish was clearly being changed into the Hispanic parish. That's fine, but Mass times were also altered for reasons that aren't clear to me, and therefore I went across town to another parish. The entire process left me feeling a bit unmoored as the parish that I'd served at quickly became pretty unrecognizable, the new Priest had no idea who I was, the focus was on a demographic that needs to be focused on but which I'm not part of, and then the pandemic hit.
The parish I was going to did a good job at first at dealing with the crisis but then the Bishop ordered the doors closed. I'm sure I'm just lost to where I was at, and now I'm barely known where I am. I get that.
What I don't get, quite frankly, is why there wasn't a full scale effort to require the parishes to reach out to parishioners. There wasn't. Or at least there wasn't one that I could see. And to check in on the Diocese website to learn the latest in regard to the church and the pandemic is a disappointment, as the information is hard to find. News on Bishop Biegler and Bishop Hart is easy to find, however.
And here's the point. In a pandemic in which our connections with our parish is now strained and souls stand to be lost, dealing with a problem that's now 20 years in our review mirror should not be front and center.
7. "I have a right to an opinion" doesn't mean your opinion is worth listening too.
Given that so much discourse happens on social media anymore, you've seen this argument. Some issue is out there, somebody argues the facts, and the reply is "I have a right to an opinion".
First of all, it's debatable if you have a "right" to an erroneous opinion. It may be your opinion that you are a polar bear, but you don't really have a right to that, as that would be delusional. That's an extreme example, but it demonstrates a point. At some point opinions can so depart from reality that they can lead to institutionalization. So, in fact, you don't have a right to an opinion without question.
You may have a right to an opinion, however, on matters which are fairly debatable. And that's the kicker. A lot of people raise the "I have a right to an opinion" defense at the point at which their opinion is, in fact, no longer fairly debatable.
Now, assuming that the opinion doesn't constitute a danger to yourself or others, you may have a legal right to hold it, but that doesn't amount to an existential right. You have no right, really, to be wrong. So taking refuge in that argument actually isn't a defense at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment