Where did the fireman go
Now that we need him so?
And where is the meat inspector
Ensuring our food’s not infected
And the maintenance director
Who saw that our planes were inspected?
Don’t they know we are dying
Instead of just flying?
And who are we to judge it
If we are not in the budget?
And budget is high in the protocol
But why do we subsidize alcohol?
We continue to hear the cry from the right for ”less government.” It sounds compelling, especially if you have just been pulled over by the Highway Patrol, but we need to drill a little deeper and examine where this cry comes from and where it is likely to go. It is essentially a Libertarian chant and not Republican in origin although the GOP has amplified the sound and added its own lyrics. This is where analogies get tenuous and less meaningful. Libertarians propose to limit government to the barest essentials such as providing for the common defense. I doubt they would believe that traffic lights are essential except where citizens did not jump out and voluntarily direct traffic. If nobody volunteered, they might have a car wash to pay for a traffic light. Eventually, they might contract with some vendor to provide a light but no government for safety. Most Libertarians dream of restoring the gold based monetary system with a few stalwarts actually insisting on using gold directly for financial transactions. Libertarians would restore “Caveat Emptor” to the fullest degree to take government out of any responsibility for any inspection or oversight. Hence, if somebody sold you a package labeled “Pure Beef,” and it was actually pork or canine in origin, you would have to take his word for it or sue in court if you somehow determined that fraud was committed. While that may seem easy enough for something you could taste, it might be difficult to determine that the medicine you purchased from a vendor contained the ingredients promised without a laboratory supporting your aspirin purchase. Still worse, if other unseen perils such as Salmonella or E. coli were included in your transaction, you would have to investigate and prove that in court, if you were lucky enough to live and could afford the research and lawsuit. Note that you no longer buy federally stamped inspected meat and poultry. That service was eliminated during Reagan’s tenure as President. During WW II when black market meat crept into the market, horse flesh was often substituted for beef. Government inspectors could not keep up with black market vendors. Libertarians are sometimes called ”pot smoking Republicans” because of their penchant for individual freedom over the common good or “commonwealth.” I once served on a school board for ten years and the district was fortunate enough to have a physician volunteer to conduct all entry and sports physicals for the trivial sum of $500 per year for the high and junior high schools. A Libertarian on the board insisted that we fire him and that individual families bear the cost of the required physicals which, then, cost about $150 each. Obviously, that was not a smooth economic move for the common good, but it highlighted individual responsibility, another Libertarian tenet.
Now we also have Republicans who hold many basic philosophies similar to Libertarians, but they have morphed into a different animal over time. While Libertarians simply feel that government should take on very few functions, Republicans in the past thirty years have become so distrustful of government, that they are attacking it and accusing government of some kind of willful attempt to annoy and even harm citizens. Government is described as incompetent and incapable of efficiency or effective systems or behavior. Government has become an almost mythical self that is capable of willful actions and it has become de-linked from the live people who actually run and constitute our government. This leads to some humorous situations when politicians and the hired mechanics of government criticize it as though they were having an out-of-body experience. We frequently hear and see elected Washington politicians speak of “Washington” not acknowledging that they themselves work in Washington. The pronoun “they” is almost always used and “we” is never used. Unlike Libertarians, Republicans have found that by joining together, they can become more powerful and can select those functions that are better implemented by the federal government such as having women take lectures on abortion paid for by government or perhaps government subsidy of religious counseling clinics such as that run by Marcus Bachman (Michele’s husband) that includes “curing” homosexuals. Separation of Church and State applies to Muslims, but not fundamentalist Christians. They boast of a “moral” agenda that has bankrolled legislation like stopping funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood while simultaneously demonstrating outrage at reducing funding for corporations who support their campaigns. So we are in one breath able to decry the waste of a few million dollars for NPR and defend both the Billions in subsidies for corn/ethanol production and the tariff that discourages importation of ethanol. And this is from the party of “free trade.” Ideology reigns supreme. Less humorous is the drastic reduction of police and firemen across the nation due to shriveled budgets.
Taxes are evil because they only encourage government that is inherently wasteful and evil and yet income to offset the condition of an unbalanced budget is also evil. Free trade is the only way out, unless it might diminish campaign financing. In the Republican frenzy to “kill the beast” (government), they have taken an oath to Grover Norquist) a non-elected person who has become famous for his statement that he does not want to kill government but only to shrink it to a point where it can be dragged into the bathroom and drowned in the bathtub. While most of us would see an inherent conflict in his statement since drowning is killing, there are sincere Republicans who hold the Norquist oath at least as seriously as their oath of office. Defining “tax” then becomes a delightful fantasy where stripping any subsidy to a friend of the party is tax-like and removing the subsidy is anathema. So GE gets $ 1 Billion in subsidies and can shift its work overseas with impunity as is true for Exxon-Mobil and dozens of other large firms. Not coincidentally, negotiations with persons not party to the oath are a charade because no “new” income will be permitted by the GOP in budget talks. This total intransigence has recently been in the spotlight as we both cut the budget as raised the debt ceiling. The GOP refused to consider even a dollar of income. And this is in the time of the lowest taxes since 1928. Our system of government assumed compromise for the common good, but it is no longer common. The first decline of our national credit rating noted the inability of our elected officials to reach agreement during the process. The $4.7 trillion promoted by Obama was rejected by House Republicans because it contained “income enhancements,” and yet that is the general figure that Standard and Poors saw we needed for AAA.
We have some serious problems to solve in our republic. When any party, but mainly the GOP in the past 30 years, hews to partisan advantage OVER public good, problems become insurmountable. Over these past 30 years we have seen partisan use of a war to denounce critics, even in the case of Iraq that was a war of choice against a country that had never attacked us and yet criticism was assailed as unpatriotic. This constant attack mode had Senator Mitch McConnell openly stating that his number one goal is to make President Obama a one term president. Polls consistently indicate that about 70% of all voters and more than half of registered Republicans favor an elimination of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and yet the mantra for no “tax increase” remains strident and strong despite the people’s wishes.
Most recently, besides the debt ceiling fiasco, the GOP blocked funding the FAA because they wanted no unions. As a result, aircraft safety inspections were threatened, over 4,000 FAA workers were furloughed and over 70,000 construction workers at dozens of airports also were idled. The issue Republicans claimed blocked agreement was the voting rule for union recognition. The GOP wanted a rule where absence from voting would be considered a “NO” vote (instead of majority rule). Can you imagine what that would mean in any election? It also cost our republic $400 Million in uncollected ticket taxes that became a windfall for airlines (except Alaska and Spirit). But beyond that side partisan attack on unions is the frontal assault on the safety of the flying public. Do you fear flying? Given current events, maybe you should.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
7 August 2011
Showing posts with label fundamentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fundamentalism. Show all posts
Sunday, August 07, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Paradise Lost
Today we search for the prize
Of an earthly Paradise
Where pain and fear are spent
Only heaven knows where it went
Because pain is up with the rent
And the future is broken and bent
Promises made to compromise
Are meeting an old demise
In the rise of the ideologues
And making of deeper bogs
Along with a feudal caste
To fight the wars and to die
To hold the wealthy on high
Lest they pay a small fee
For another’s dignity
Today, we are in a stew of our own making. Compromise cannot exist in the conflict of ideology and reality. We see this in multiple ways. Even the recent murders committed by Anders Breivik of Norway were committed in the name of fundamentalist Christianity. Ironically, “Anders” is pronounced “Honors” for those who note such things. The murders are not simply excused by his fundamentalism, but his fundamentalism compelled him to take direct action against fellow Christians in order to stem the growing Islamic menace. Now surely, that concept sounds insane, but not to the fundamentalist mind. I will venture that fundamentalism itself is a greater predictor of behavior than any underlying philosophy. In other words, Christian, Islamic and Jewish, Sikh, or any other philosophy has less impact than fundamentalism itself. A fundamentalist Christian has more in common with a fundamentalist Muslim than a Baptist to a Lutheran within the Christian experience, etc. Recently, on announcing her candidacy for president, Michele Bachman resigned from a fundamentalist Lutheran Church (Salem Lutheran) that denounces Christians and terms the Pope the Antichrist. Ms. Bachman very suddenly recognized that her fundamentalism might be exposed for what it is and she withdrew from membership without condemning Salem Lutheran. In Waco, Davidians chose death by fire over compromise. Fundamentalists in Jonestown, Guiana chose the poisoned Kool-Aid over compromise. Father Feeney who announced that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church in the 1950s commanded a following until he was excommunicated for his fundamentalism. That is their common bond. Absolutism in ideology means there shall be no compromise. Yes, death over compromise. Excommunication over compromise. Vicious assault over compromise. Kill friend and foe alike but do not compromise.
Currently, we have calls for compromise in the debt ceiling negotiations between our two major political parties. Over 250 national elected representatives, almost exclusively Republican, have signed the Grover Norquist pledge to not raise taxes. There are far more in state legislatures. That might not be so bad except for how they interpret tax raises. Eliminating the $Billion in subsidies to GE which is currently in the process of moving its medical imaging leadership and production to China, is interpreted as a tax increase, therefore any plan to remove the subsidy is tantamount to a tax increase, albeit for a corporation and against our national interest to subsidize creation of jobs outside these United States. Michele Bachman has not only signed the pledge, she has openly stated that she will not vote for raising the debt ceiling. It is against her principles. This was clearly spoken by a woman from the party of Cheney who said “Deficits don’t matter,” at a time when Bush put two wars “off the books.” Tea Party fundamentalists are first fundamentalists and then Republican or Democrat or Libertarian. There can be no compromise with ideologues unless one considers adoption of the fundamentalist position as a compromise by all the others party to a dispute. Calls to compromise are effectively calls for unconditional surrender. If House Speaker John Boehner appears to be waffling and uncertain as to defining his position, remember that he is facing President Obama on one side and his own fundamentalist Tea Party “Republicans” on the other. He must adopt their position or face ouster from his position. Mr. Eric Cantor is waiting impatiently to take over if Mr. Boehner falters. Do not forget that Mr. Cantor is selling T-Bills short in order to make a few bucks on the impending financial calamity. Ideology has its rewards, I guess. Do not bet that protecting the United States will overcome these ideologues regarding the arbitrary deficit ceiling. Another characteristic of fundamentalists is that facts don’t matter. Ron Paul (Libertarian-Republican) is looking forward to the default of our national credit for the return of the gold standard. The likelihood of that outcome is zero, but that does not matter to Paul or other fundamentalists. Think of a child who believes in Santa Claus and is immune to cues to the contrary. That describes the fundamentalist and the child-like faith that, despite abundant contrary information, the ideology is goodness itself. Either they believe that great good will arise from destroying our economy or perhaps that the economy will not be destroyed. Much as true believers of Communism believed that Paradise would be achieved through the withering away of the State, these fundamentalists believe that Paradise will be achieved by insignificant government, zero taxes and elimination of all the social safety nets. Dignity for Grandma in her dotage? Hell no. She needs to get rich or die. She got lazy or unlucky or lived too damned long with healthcare provided by the “job creators.” “Job creators,” too, is a myth unsupported by facts or history, but what are facts compared to an ideology?
Recently, it has become clear that we have contrasting visions of America. We have the ideologues who profess that economic Darwinism is our goal and may those who achieve the most toys rule those who did not. They see no socialism in blind subsidy of “conservative” wealthy people and corporations They see socialism in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. We also have those who have contributed to the common good by paying their fair share of taxes, contributed to Medicare and Social Security and hope to live out their years. “Shrink government!” shout the ideologues and yet they would expand government by gaming national laws to make our nation as one in access to guns but not access to healthcare or women’s reproductive rights. They would expand the power of corporations but shrink the power of unions that might fight for a fair share of the economic pie. It is tragic, that the ideologues who practice economic Darwinism actually forbid Darwin’s theory from being taught because it conflicts with their ideology that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and that their ideology should be given the upper hand in schools and courts. Man shall have dominion over the earth and everything on it. It matters not that “man” is defined narrowly to include the ideologues and exclude you. We faced this in the 1920s and it took a massive depression to change our hearts. Is history being recycled?
Peace,
George Giacoppe
28 July 2011
Of an earthly Paradise
Where pain and fear are spent
Only heaven knows where it went
Because pain is up with the rent
And the future is broken and bent
Promises made to compromise
Are meeting an old demise
In the rise of the ideologues
And making of deeper bogs
Along with a feudal caste
To fight the wars and to die
To hold the wealthy on high
Lest they pay a small fee
For another’s dignity
Today, we are in a stew of our own making. Compromise cannot exist in the conflict of ideology and reality. We see this in multiple ways. Even the recent murders committed by Anders Breivik of Norway were committed in the name of fundamentalist Christianity. Ironically, “Anders” is pronounced “Honors” for those who note such things. The murders are not simply excused by his fundamentalism, but his fundamentalism compelled him to take direct action against fellow Christians in order to stem the growing Islamic menace. Now surely, that concept sounds insane, but not to the fundamentalist mind. I will venture that fundamentalism itself is a greater predictor of behavior than any underlying philosophy. In other words, Christian, Islamic and Jewish, Sikh, or any other philosophy has less impact than fundamentalism itself. A fundamentalist Christian has more in common with a fundamentalist Muslim than a Baptist to a Lutheran within the Christian experience, etc. Recently, on announcing her candidacy for president, Michele Bachman resigned from a fundamentalist Lutheran Church (Salem Lutheran) that denounces Christians and terms the Pope the Antichrist. Ms. Bachman very suddenly recognized that her fundamentalism might be exposed for what it is and she withdrew from membership without condemning Salem Lutheran. In Waco, Davidians chose death by fire over compromise. Fundamentalists in Jonestown, Guiana chose the poisoned Kool-Aid over compromise. Father Feeney who announced that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church in the 1950s commanded a following until he was excommunicated for his fundamentalism. That is their common bond. Absolutism in ideology means there shall be no compromise. Yes, death over compromise. Excommunication over compromise. Vicious assault over compromise. Kill friend and foe alike but do not compromise.
Currently, we have calls for compromise in the debt ceiling negotiations between our two major political parties. Over 250 national elected representatives, almost exclusively Republican, have signed the Grover Norquist pledge to not raise taxes. There are far more in state legislatures. That might not be so bad except for how they interpret tax raises. Eliminating the $Billion in subsidies to GE which is currently in the process of moving its medical imaging leadership and production to China, is interpreted as a tax increase, therefore any plan to remove the subsidy is tantamount to a tax increase, albeit for a corporation and against our national interest to subsidize creation of jobs outside these United States. Michele Bachman has not only signed the pledge, she has openly stated that she will not vote for raising the debt ceiling. It is against her principles. This was clearly spoken by a woman from the party of Cheney who said “Deficits don’t matter,” at a time when Bush put two wars “off the books.” Tea Party fundamentalists are first fundamentalists and then Republican or Democrat or Libertarian. There can be no compromise with ideologues unless one considers adoption of the fundamentalist position as a compromise by all the others party to a dispute. Calls to compromise are effectively calls for unconditional surrender. If House Speaker John Boehner appears to be waffling and uncertain as to defining his position, remember that he is facing President Obama on one side and his own fundamentalist Tea Party “Republicans” on the other. He must adopt their position or face ouster from his position. Mr. Eric Cantor is waiting impatiently to take over if Mr. Boehner falters. Do not forget that Mr. Cantor is selling T-Bills short in order to make a few bucks on the impending financial calamity. Ideology has its rewards, I guess. Do not bet that protecting the United States will overcome these ideologues regarding the arbitrary deficit ceiling. Another characteristic of fundamentalists is that facts don’t matter. Ron Paul (Libertarian-Republican) is looking forward to the default of our national credit for the return of the gold standard. The likelihood of that outcome is zero, but that does not matter to Paul or other fundamentalists. Think of a child who believes in Santa Claus and is immune to cues to the contrary. That describes the fundamentalist and the child-like faith that, despite abundant contrary information, the ideology is goodness itself. Either they believe that great good will arise from destroying our economy or perhaps that the economy will not be destroyed. Much as true believers of Communism believed that Paradise would be achieved through the withering away of the State, these fundamentalists believe that Paradise will be achieved by insignificant government, zero taxes and elimination of all the social safety nets. Dignity for Grandma in her dotage? Hell no. She needs to get rich or die. She got lazy or unlucky or lived too damned long with healthcare provided by the “job creators.” “Job creators,” too, is a myth unsupported by facts or history, but what are facts compared to an ideology?
Recently, it has become clear that we have contrasting visions of America. We have the ideologues who profess that economic Darwinism is our goal and may those who achieve the most toys rule those who did not. They see no socialism in blind subsidy of “conservative” wealthy people and corporations They see socialism in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. We also have those who have contributed to the common good by paying their fair share of taxes, contributed to Medicare and Social Security and hope to live out their years. “Shrink government!” shout the ideologues and yet they would expand government by gaming national laws to make our nation as one in access to guns but not access to healthcare or women’s reproductive rights. They would expand the power of corporations but shrink the power of unions that might fight for a fair share of the economic pie. It is tragic, that the ideologues who practice economic Darwinism actually forbid Darwin’s theory from being taught because it conflicts with their ideology that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and that their ideology should be given the upper hand in schools and courts. Man shall have dominion over the earth and everything on it. It matters not that “man” is defined narrowly to include the ideologues and exclude you. We faced this in the 1920s and it took a massive depression to change our hearts. Is history being recycled?
Peace,
George Giacoppe
28 July 2011
Sunday, December 06, 2009
The Family, a book review
The Family, by Jeff Sharlet was published in 2008 by Harper Collins.
By now, most of you have seen on TV or read in a magazine or newspaper about the clique of politicians embroiled in sex scandals while living in a C-Street mansion in Washington, DC. While Senator Ensign and a host of other notables were using this address as a hangout and refuge and ignoring the commonly accepted rules for personal responsibility, they also prayed together. Yes, the family that prays together also preys together. What a concept! Unfortunately for them, since the book was published, their tax exemption for the house as a church has been revoked.
Jeff Sharlet conducted extensive research that required years of interviewing members of the Family in wide ranging settings from Washington, where he was accepted as a sort of research intern, to Colorado Springs where he joined fundamentalists in their everyday religious activities to develop information that uncovered an extra-legal and off-government influence of worldwide events.
The group began formally in 1935 when a Norwegian immigrant (Abraham Vereide) established the International Christian Leadership that became a front for American fundamentalism that has since expanded beyond any reasonable expectation. Now who could have any objection to prayer? That is a fair question that only reading the book will begin to answer. To start with, the name “Christian” has a different meaning for most of us because the theological base of the New Testament seems paramount in the mix of things. Not so for many fundamentalists who seem to be focused on the Old Testament and especially King David whose reputation for adultery and murder might seem at odds with a religion that touts the Beatitudes.
The answers seem rooted in the concept of power that the Family espouses. The powerful do not have to live by the rules of the ordinary folk. God chose David. This act gave David power and power does not have to answer to ordinary rules. You can see where this is going on the level of individuals in power, but what you cannot easily see is that a concept like this would go nowhere unless it was enabled by people in power. Note that the National Prayer Breakfast (formerly the Presidential Prayer Breakfast) is organized by the Family, so that the group creates access to those currently in power.
Some of you will probably see in this fabric the hint of a Calvinistic pre-ordained nature of humanity. Either you are saved or not, and nothing you do will change the outcome. This surely reinforces the powerful and it also makes the rest of us a little out of the picture unless we take sides and join with the powerful to get God’s work done. This is less an illusion and more a matter of secrecy and organization. Concentric organizational circles are drawn that offers something to everyone. Those on the inside touch power and make things happen. Those nearby such as in Ivanwald in Arlington, Virginia, support the Family directly and hope to grow from being congressional aides to men with real power. And, yes, men, because women have a different role in this scheme and direct access to power is not a fundamentalist role for women. Those several circles away take pride in doing God’s work as they see it, and they pray to support the aims of the leaders.
Sharlet carefully explains the links between economic Darwinism and political power through the policies that are promoted by the Family. This allows the group to endorse strong leadership without any flinching and also promotes the image of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and even Mao as examples of how power gets things done. Abraham Vereide (Abram) expressed preference for Hitler over Roosevelt who dared to curtail the suffering of Americans during the Depression while Hitler took action against those who were adding nothing to the German community (as he saw it). Later, Doug Coe, taking over the Family from Abram, did likewise. Coe often told the story of how just seven men (Hitler’s closest group from the putsch) were able to do so much to change history (and that the Family should also do so by using power and secrecy).
Again, all this would mean little unless something happened to change “prayer groups” into action committees (cells) at home and abroad. The Family does that handily using Supreme Court judges, senators, representatives and ambassadors and generals in several of the concentric circles. If somebody in the Family feels that it is God’s will that the people of Uganda should have abstinence education instead of condoms to slow the ravage of AIDS, look to Senator Brownback and others to introduce legislation to do that for God and the Family. Unfortunately, the AIDS rate spiked up when he succeeded, but then, pain and suffering are part of God’s plan, so that is not a problem.
In the 40s and 50s the Family effort was to provide get-out-of-jail cards for Nazis. In the 60s and 70s, the Family took the side of Suharto against the citizens of East Timor. Over 600,000 were massacred according to Sharlet (men, women and children, if that makes a difference to the pure), while Wikipedia allows only 100,000 for those killings. What is also chilling is the language that Suharto used. He spoke of the “New Order.” That language was also used by Hitler, Abram Vereide and our own neocons. How could that be? Suharto was invited to the Family’s prayer groups and, incidentally, they never condemned his actions. The reason they supported Suharto was because he was anti-communist although communists did not control East Timor, Suharto was a strong man doing god’s will. The “New Order” calls for hegemony built on absolute acceptance of “Jesus plus nothing.” That is a concept where Jesus is stripped of everything but power and it is a tenet of the Family that separates it from most of Christianity.
This Family scenario is replicated with African and Central/South American dictators and with similar devastating results and, in each case, whether the excuse be homosexuality, communism, or even the lack of “free” markets, the results were the same and help was obtained through our own and allied elected and appointed officials who went to extraordinary efforts to support foreign murderers and thieves. The list includes Papa Doc Duvallier, Emporer Selassie, General Park of Korea and General Medici of Brazil. American resources were spent through foreign aid and other means to do what the Family could not do on its own but did through influencing power so that, in the end, the will of the Family prevailed.
Jeff Sharlet studied several religions for years and then got on the ground with hundreds of fundamentalists here and abroad to discover how this strange group with its concentric circles of faithful was able to get business done. The concentric circles have decreasing power and knowledge of the secrets of the Family as they become more distant from the small group of leaders. The common element appears to be a prayer breakfast. That is something most of us have participated in, so how could anything so innocuous become so powerful in a this-worldly and vicious manner?
Much of the present magnetism of the Family is derived from early American fundamentalists with the ingenious addition of the focus on power. This is a must-read book for anyone interested in today’s reality. I commend this book to anybody that is curious as to why things are as they are. It is a sobering look at how things get done, even when they are too horrible to contemplate.
George Giacoppe
By now, most of you have seen on TV or read in a magazine or newspaper about the clique of politicians embroiled in sex scandals while living in a C-Street mansion in Washington, DC. While Senator Ensign and a host of other notables were using this address as a hangout and refuge and ignoring the commonly accepted rules for personal responsibility, they also prayed together. Yes, the family that prays together also preys together. What a concept! Unfortunately for them, since the book was published, their tax exemption for the house as a church has been revoked.
Jeff Sharlet conducted extensive research that required years of interviewing members of the Family in wide ranging settings from Washington, where he was accepted as a sort of research intern, to Colorado Springs where he joined fundamentalists in their everyday religious activities to develop information that uncovered an extra-legal and off-government influence of worldwide events.
The group began formally in 1935 when a Norwegian immigrant (Abraham Vereide) established the International Christian Leadership that became a front for American fundamentalism that has since expanded beyond any reasonable expectation. Now who could have any objection to prayer? That is a fair question that only reading the book will begin to answer. To start with, the name “Christian” has a different meaning for most of us because the theological base of the New Testament seems paramount in the mix of things. Not so for many fundamentalists who seem to be focused on the Old Testament and especially King David whose reputation for adultery and murder might seem at odds with a religion that touts the Beatitudes.
The answers seem rooted in the concept of power that the Family espouses. The powerful do not have to live by the rules of the ordinary folk. God chose David. This act gave David power and power does not have to answer to ordinary rules. You can see where this is going on the level of individuals in power, but what you cannot easily see is that a concept like this would go nowhere unless it was enabled by people in power. Note that the National Prayer Breakfast (formerly the Presidential Prayer Breakfast) is organized by the Family, so that the group creates access to those currently in power.
Some of you will probably see in this fabric the hint of a Calvinistic pre-ordained nature of humanity. Either you are saved or not, and nothing you do will change the outcome. This surely reinforces the powerful and it also makes the rest of us a little out of the picture unless we take sides and join with the powerful to get God’s work done. This is less an illusion and more a matter of secrecy and organization. Concentric organizational circles are drawn that offers something to everyone. Those on the inside touch power and make things happen. Those nearby such as in Ivanwald in Arlington, Virginia, support the Family directly and hope to grow from being congressional aides to men with real power. And, yes, men, because women have a different role in this scheme and direct access to power is not a fundamentalist role for women. Those several circles away take pride in doing God’s work as they see it, and they pray to support the aims of the leaders.
Sharlet carefully explains the links between economic Darwinism and political power through the policies that are promoted by the Family. This allows the group to endorse strong leadership without any flinching and also promotes the image of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and even Mao as examples of how power gets things done. Abraham Vereide (Abram) expressed preference for Hitler over Roosevelt who dared to curtail the suffering of Americans during the Depression while Hitler took action against those who were adding nothing to the German community (as he saw it). Later, Doug Coe, taking over the Family from Abram, did likewise. Coe often told the story of how just seven men (Hitler’s closest group from the putsch) were able to do so much to change history (and that the Family should also do so by using power and secrecy).
Again, all this would mean little unless something happened to change “prayer groups” into action committees (cells) at home and abroad. The Family does that handily using Supreme Court judges, senators, representatives and ambassadors and generals in several of the concentric circles. If somebody in the Family feels that it is God’s will that the people of Uganda should have abstinence education instead of condoms to slow the ravage of AIDS, look to Senator Brownback and others to introduce legislation to do that for God and the Family. Unfortunately, the AIDS rate spiked up when he succeeded, but then, pain and suffering are part of God’s plan, so that is not a problem.
In the 40s and 50s the Family effort was to provide get-out-of-jail cards for Nazis. In the 60s and 70s, the Family took the side of Suharto against the citizens of East Timor. Over 600,000 were massacred according to Sharlet (men, women and children, if that makes a difference to the pure), while Wikipedia allows only 100,000 for those killings. What is also chilling is the language that Suharto used. He spoke of the “New Order.” That language was also used by Hitler, Abram Vereide and our own neocons. How could that be? Suharto was invited to the Family’s prayer groups and, incidentally, they never condemned his actions. The reason they supported Suharto was because he was anti-communist although communists did not control East Timor, Suharto was a strong man doing god’s will. The “New Order” calls for hegemony built on absolute acceptance of “Jesus plus nothing.” That is a concept where Jesus is stripped of everything but power and it is a tenet of the Family that separates it from most of Christianity.
This Family scenario is replicated with African and Central/South American dictators and with similar devastating results and, in each case, whether the excuse be homosexuality, communism, or even the lack of “free” markets, the results were the same and help was obtained through our own and allied elected and appointed officials who went to extraordinary efforts to support foreign murderers and thieves. The list includes Papa Doc Duvallier, Emporer Selassie, General Park of Korea and General Medici of Brazil. American resources were spent through foreign aid and other means to do what the Family could not do on its own but did through influencing power so that, in the end, the will of the Family prevailed.
Jeff Sharlet studied several religions for years and then got on the ground with hundreds of fundamentalists here and abroad to discover how this strange group with its concentric circles of faithful was able to get business done. The concentric circles have decreasing power and knowledge of the secrets of the Family as they become more distant from the small group of leaders. The common element appears to be a prayer breakfast. That is something most of us have participated in, so how could anything so innocuous become so powerful in a this-worldly and vicious manner?
Much of the present magnetism of the Family is derived from early American fundamentalists with the ingenious addition of the focus on power. This is a must-read book for anyone interested in today’s reality. I commend this book to anybody that is curious as to why things are as they are. It is a sobering look at how things get done, even when they are too horrible to contemplate.
George Giacoppe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)