The 2012 general election: What really happened

I saw this coming, even if many other people didn't.

Despite polls showing a tightening race for president, incumbent Democrat Barack Obama ended up defeating Republican challenger Mitt Romney by a fairly comfortable margin in the electoral and popular votes earlier this week. Pundits have been trying to analyze what happened: Demographic shifts and a superior organization benefiting Obama, for example, but those don't begin to explain what became a fairly easy victory in a race whose results were supposed to be determined by a weak economy and fiscal instability.

I offer another hypothesis, albeit one that may rankle some: The pro-Obama electorate didn't simply vote for him; it also voted against the conservatives who run the GOP. More to the point, it repudiated their class- and culture-war politics, their collective smugness and their Machiavellian tactics that have been their hallmark for the past two generations and especially their campaign against Bill Clinton in the 1990s. And given their reaction, they still don't get that they sowed the seeds of their own demise.

Message to Karl Rove: Rejection sucks, doesn't it?

The seeds of this Republican debacle actually trace back to the 2006 Republican meltdown, with the promised "quick war" in Iraq -- essentially being financed on credit -- that continued to drag on, the "jobless recovery" and the Jack Abramoff-fueled lobbying scandal causing voters even in the South to flee the Republican Party; yet the party brain-trust never noticed that a counter-revolution that would permanently threaten its power was already under way. Here in Pennsylvania, then auditor-general Bob Casey Jr., namesake son of a now-deceased former governor, was recruited to run against the extremely vulnerable incumbent Sen. Rick Santorum; Casey's campaign ads referred to excessive Federal tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that Santorum supported and that drained the government of revenue. Casey, of course, won going away -- and an issue was born. (That helped indirectly to spawn last year's Occupy protests in major cities.)

Then you have the incessant attacks on the president -- that he wasn't a native-born American, that he was a Muslim or socialist, the photo-shopped photos of him and wife Michelle engaging in questionable public behavior; GOP politicians vowing that they intended to force him out of office; the complaints about his health-care bill; the twisting of his words in the movie "2016: Obama's America"; and so on. It became Clinton redux, only more open because their media apparatus had been exposed as fraudulent.

But don't forget Romney's words to some well-heeled donors about the 47 percent. The GOP-sponsored voter-ID laws passed in several states, supposedly to maintain "ballot security" but ostensibly to keep pro-Obama voters from the polls. (Thank you, Mike Turzai, for speaking the truth.) The destruction of ACORN, whose sin was registering people to vote. The attack on public-sector labor unions, especially in Wisconsin. All these had the cumulative effect of building a base of political progressives the likes of which hadn't been seen since the 1960s -- and it was ready to fight. That might be what the president was thinking when he uttered the words "Voting is the best revenge" to an Ohio audience.

Given the long-term ramifications of the elections, this might be the year that the conservative movement, with its inflexibility and unwillingness to talk or listen to anyone else outside its purview, begins to collapse. Many of its adherents still believe that maintaining a strong conservative message will eventually carry them to victory; however, most of Romney's opponents did and sank like a split-fingered fastball.  Add to this the reality that, if you take a strong stance on any issue, you also give the opportunity for folks to vote against you -- and you might lose.

THE most important election?

Earlier this week I became aware of an article written by a Louisiana pastor insisting that Tuesday's general election was the most important in American history. Similar to the thought process of a lot of other evangelicals, he wrote that God was primarily concerned about three things: Abortion, gay marriage and support for the state of Israel. And while I don't recall if he mentioned President Obama by name, the implication was clear: "God help us if he's reelected."

With all due respect to my brother down there, his screed is blasphemous. (And that's not an adjective that I choose lightly.) In referring to the same old cultural bugaboos, he ignores not only American history but also much of the teaching of the Word of God.

Let's take abortion first.  Most people don't realize that in this country abortion has generally been legal (in that laws restricting the practice originally didn't exist until the turn of the last century); however, according to the book "Blinded By Might:  Can the Religious Right Save America?", it was quite common, especially in major cities. However, such laws were enacted by that day's liberals, with considerable popular support, and had nothing to do with religion or faith.  Keep in mind that abortion was never directly addressed in Scripture, either.

We began losing the war against gay marriage about five years ago, with more and more people -- especially those younger than 30 -- becoming supportive of it, I submit in reaction to conservative evangelicals using the gay community as a political piñata for the sake of fundraising.  Indeed, only half-a-dozen passages refer to homosexuality and all of those symptomatic of those who reject God.  As for Israel, not even God established that nation forever for its own sake; it still needed to obey Him.

If God does judge a nation on anything, it's treatment of the poor (read: socially, culturally and politically powerless) in society, with entire chapters, especially in the Old Testament, written on that subject. James 1:26 reads, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress" -- and not simply as a diaconal issue, either. Yet few evangelicals even make that consideration, so fixated they seem to be with issues of power and convenience.

In addition, I remember 20 years ago when many Christians warned against a Clinton presidency, with Randall Terry's church in Binghamton, N.Y. improperly taking out about full-page advertisements in USA Today and the New York Times opposing him. In addition to flouting IRS rules about churches endorsing or opposing candidates, such demonstrated a lack of trust in God to preserve His people in an age that folks were "turning away from him."

And that represented the blasphemy I referred to earlier.  Because, in the end, God will always get His -- no matter who is president.

A resurgence of Marxism? Why and how it might happen

Folks have been complaining virtually since the time that he was inaugurated that President Obama is a socialist.  But it's more likely that, should Mitt Romney be elected president and conservative Republicans become politically dominant again — which I don't anticipate — we would see a resurrection of Marxism.

Come again?  Wouldn't conservative principles bring prosperity to all?  Uh — no, only a privileged few, who would then jimmy the system to make sure they stayed at the top of the food chain.   Indeed, similar to what we had during the second term of George W. Bush, the "jobless recovery" and all that.

What does that have to do with Marxism?  Only everything, because a lot of people are oblivious to the very conditions that create the climate in which Marxism can thrive.  What's required first is an economic elite that uses its power to perpetuate it and run roughshod over those of a lower social status.  Then, you have to have a religious elite that works hand-in-glove with the economic elite to give it moral sanction.  (Indeed, I consider the 1980s the "dark days" of evangelicalism because during the previous decade it had literally been bought off. If you think I'm kidding, consider that issues of poverty have always been all but ignored in Christian broadcast media.)

A history lesson from the Great Depression, which followed the "roaring '20s":  Only a relative few, mostly in urban areas, enjoyed the perks of wealth that came largely through the stock market and the financial sector; on the other hand, the rural Midwest was suffering through a drought and times were hard elsewhere.  But what did it matter?  Well, we soon found out after the stock market crash, which led to 25 percent unemployment.  And the church, which should have critiqued the culture, to my knowledge was nowhere to be found.

It was during the Depression that Marxist ideology became noticeable, if not all that popular, in America, and the political left was understandably quite concerned.  So President Franklin D. Roosevelt, among other things, placed restrictions on banks and other financial institutions to keep them from raping the system the way they had before.  The business community, which wasn't hurting all that much, deeply resented him as a result.  (And he was ready for a showdown, uttering his famous clause, "I welcome their hatred.")

Organized labor also did its part, purging its ranks of Communists and even receiving support from Roman Catholic clergy.  It was also fortunate that the civil-rights movement started in black Southern churches rather than with the small Communist cells that were operating in Southern cities in that day.  (Even despite Martin Luther King Jr.'s consistent denunciation of Communism, he was still vilified as a Communist.)

The elites, however, began fighting back in the 1950s, organizing and funding think-tanks that promoted free-market ideology with few if any restrictions, and by the 1980s organized labor in the private-sector was pretty much dead.  Moreover, the religious right was born in the late 1970s as a reaction to the Carter Administration's threat to check into the tax-exempt status of private Southern academies that he suspected may have been founded to circumvent court-ordered desegregation of public schools; it too hated on labor unions and "government."  (That was why they tried to remove Bill Clinton as president — it correctly saw him as a major threat to its worldview.)

But right now the modern conservative movement has a real problem.  In a recent column in the Washington Post, E.J. Dionne Jr. made this salient point: "Romney, [vice-presidential hopeful Paul] Ryan and the entire right know that their most deeply held belief — the one on which they won’t compromise — is rejected by the vast majority of Americans. That’s their faith that every problem in the economy and in society can be solved by throwing more money at rich people through tax cuts." 

And that's the place where Marx's "Communist Manifesto" might get a hearing.  Keep in mind that he didn't so much call for "class warfare" but recognized that it already existed.  (The Scriptures, especially the Old Testament, make the same point, but those passages are completely ignored by most evangelical Christians.)  So if we don't want a resurgence of Marxism, it would behoove us "to act justly and to love mercy and walk humbly with [our] God" [Micah 6:8b].

'Laziness?' Perhaps not

About 12 years ago, while researching an enterprise story on the stigma of mental illness, I came across this clause: "Trying to find depression among the indigent is like trying to find emphysema among coal miners."  That is to say, all too common.

I can't say I was too surprised, because before then I had suspected that the problems in the 'hood weren't so much cognitive but emotional and thought that folks there might benefit from a good therapist.

For the past 30-odd years and even now, you have a lot of people complaining about "the poor" and their alleged freeloading from the rest of society. I have no doubt that it happens, but today I believe that there's more than "laziness" involved.

It might be clinical depression. I'm serious, as someone who has suffered from such since age 10.

Consider the symptoms: Sleep disturbances, whether sleeping too much or not enough. Changes in appetite, whether greater or less. Irritability. Feelings of hopelessness. Loss of interest in normal things, including hygiene. Thoughts of death or even suicide. That could very well be driving some of the nihilistic behavior that goes on there, including sabotaging economic or educational opportunities, gang violence etc.

And trust me -- it's not something that you can simply "snap out of"; some professionals have suggested that it's caused by a brain chemical imbalance (and thus often treated with medication).

So why don't folks simply go in for treatment? In the African-American community there's still a resistance to such things because of cultural mistrust of the medical profession. On top of that, there's still a stigma attached to mental illness -- the subject of my story in 2000 -- that keeps people from admitting that they need help. (In that story I wrote, one of the subjects was an associate pastor of a thriving evangelical church that had had a breakdown.)

Frankly, I don't know how to solve this problem on such a mass level, but from 1983-5, during my darkest hours, a group of students I met through a church rallied around me and gave me hope. They didn't judge me; they didn't think of me as weak. Gradually I began to take steps to rebuild my then-shattered life; to this day I shudder to think where I would be, if anywhere, had I not met them.

I've heard that the church referred to as a "therapeutic community," and that's what I was privileged to find. But we can't be that when we've already determined their character -- we need to learn the stories, hear the  pain, rail against the injustices -- in short, give them voice. I would say that such people need to be not demonized but heard.

'2016: Obama's America' -- don't bet on that

You may remember four years ago that James Dobson wrote a hysterical screed complaining what might happen in America by 2012 -- of course, this year -- were Barack Obama elected president.  Any of you remember his predictions?

Of course, I don't.  And I also don't remember any of them coming true.

That's why I'm not going to bother with the current movie "2016 Obama's America," based on the book by conservative "scholar" and American Enterprise Institute fellow Dinesh D'Souza, which is supposedly based largely on Obama's books -- but which does pretty much the same thing.

Oh, I have every reason to believe that the movie will be more painstaking and more comprehensive than Dobson's rant, which I did read.  It will be slicker.  It reportedly has interviews, including with a half-brother in Kenya.  But the spirit of fear of change is the same, so it wouldn't be worth my time and money.

You see, D'Souza makes several mistakes.  One, he falsely assumes that everyone is driven by a fixed, unchanging ideology.  (Obama, in his renomination acceptance speech at last week's Democratic National Convention, said, "Times have changed, and so have I.")  Two, D'Souza apparently believes that Obama has the power to enact his agenda no matter what, conveniently forgetting that he has to deal with a Congress that can't get its act together and many of whose members intended to sabotage him from the outset.

What I'm seeing thus represents projection -- that is, that's what D'Souza would do were he in those shoes, which is a poor way to make an argument.

This represents also yet another desperate attempt to marginalize another sitting president, Bill Clinton of course being the first, that conservatives don't like.  With the passage and subsequent SCOTUS sanction of the Affordable Care Act, which the political right fought tooth-and-nail merely for political purposes; voter-ID laws either being threatened in court or running afoul of the Voting Rights Act; a campaign in several states questioning his eligibility to run in the first place; and his taking down of Osama bin Laden, they, clearly obsessed, simply paint themselves as just this side of crazy.

Which also tells me that they don't themselves possess the qualities to run a country.

The REAL theological implications of a Romney presidency -- not what you might think

The Republican candidate for President of the United States is unabashedly pro-life and pro-family.  He comes from and has always had a solid family life with not even a hint of scandal. He attends religious services regularly and tithes consistently.

Yet, according to one poll, 18 percent of evangelical Christians said that they wouldn't vote for him.

We're of course talking about Mitt Romney, the former governor of the state of Massachusetts who is not only a lifelong member of but also a bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ of Letter-day Saints, more popularly known as the Mormon Church.

Frankly, because we live in a secular republic and we're not electing a pastor-in-chief, I personally don't have a problem with his membership in what most orthodox Christians, myself included, consider a cult.

I do, however, had a problem with how he's made his money, which is where the theological problems come in.

I say that because too many Christians worship business leaders as the epitome of cultural virtue, fitting into the American myth of the "self-made man."  In Romney's case, however, it doesn't consistently apply.

For openers, he was reared with that some of that money, his late father George an executive at American Motors and a former GOP presidential candidate in his own right.  Later on his former firm Bain Capital practiced what has been derided as "vulture capitalism," tearing firms apart and making huge profit but at the expense of their workers and supporting his numerous homes and foreign tax shelters  (That's why his tax returns, more accurately his refusal to release them, have become such a hot topic in the campaign, especially considering the last Republican in the White House, George W. Bush, whose absolutely insane economic policies helped to wreck the economy, constantly cut taxes for the super-wealthy -- including Romney.)

So where's the "theology" in all this?

Well, consider what the Bible says about the rich, in too many passages to mention here.  There's nothing wrong in itself with having that kind of wealth; however, folks can become so attached to it that they forget that God gives it for specific reasons, to be a blessing to the community.  (One of the lessons of the parable of the rich fool, not mentioned in the text but understood in that culture, was that he never consulted with his neighbors as to what he should do with his bounty.)  Moreover, those of us who "have it" too often lord that privileged status over everyone else and develop an "entitlement" mentality, assuming that, "if we can get it, you can too," not understanding the opportunities that we were given that others may not have had (and we also don't talk about how to expand such opportunities).  One reason the Pharisees hated Jesus was that they subscribed to such a "health-and-wealth gospel" which He exposed as fraudulent.

Please understand that I'm not talking about "welfare handouts" or "economic redistribution"; doing so just muddies the waters  More to the point, because virtually everyone wants to work, folks need to know where jobs are and how to get them, an important issue these days because of the unstable economy.  Oh, one other thing:  Simply giving more leeway to "job creators" hasn't done the trick for some 30 years now because all they do, and will continue to do so, is pocket that money and spend it on lobbyists to maintain their status.  (Virtually all employers are rich people; however, most rich people are not employers.)

I will not tell you whom to vote for -- that's between you and the LORD.  I will say, however, that the consequences of your vote are not just political; they're ultimately theological in nature and say something about your relationship with Him.

Why Romney can't win

The Tampa-based pep rally called the Republican National Convention ended on Thursday with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney officially emerging as the standard-bearer and U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his sidekick to face the Obama/Biden ticket on the Democratic side.

Although the election apparently will be closer than I had originally predicted — last year I was thinking a blowout of Johnson/Goldwater proportions — I still don't foresee any scenario of "regime change."  That's especially the case after what will likely be a campaign bounce for President Obama after the upcoming Democratic convention in Charlotte, N.C.

Here are my reasons:

1) In all the time that he's run for president, Romney has never, ever articulated a comprehensive, inclusive vision for this country that contrasts to Obama's — in other words, he has become little more than the "not Obama," and that's not good enough.  In 1996 and with reality setting in, Bob Dole was reduced to saying, "I"m not Bill Clinton!"  True dat. Romney has had to shift his positions so radically over the years that no one is sure just what he actually believes; remember that he was elected governor of arguably the most liberal/Democratic state in the union but moved rightward during the primaries after going up against a number of fellow Republicans with more conservative bona fides.

2) Romney's support as a result is suspect. According to Bloomberg News columnist Jonathan Alter and quoting from a survey by Public Policy Polling, Virgil Goode, the candidate of the Constitution Party, has 9 percent support in the swing state of Virginia — 9 percent, more than enough to give the state to Obama, that would normally go to Romney.  Let's also not forget about Ron Paul, who was refused a speaking slot at the convention because he wouldn't endorse Romney.  (Paul's support, while not particularly wide, is very, very deep.)

3) Republican "dirty tricks" to try to keep Democratic voters from the polls are being fought in court and thus creating more of an incentive to vote not only for Obama but also against the GOP.  The Justice Department has invalidated recently-passed voter-ID laws in several Southern states, including Texas just a couple of days ago, because they went against the 1964 Voting Rights Act.  Just yesterday a Federal judge in Ohio allowed early voting in that state, favoring urban (and thus pro-Obama) voters when it was previously permitted but recently outlawed by the Republican governor and legislature in that state.  Earlier this year, another statute was declared unconstitutional in Wisconsin.  And as I write, Pennsylvania's voter-ID law has gone to the state Supreme Court, with a ruling to be delivered later this month.   (Interestingly enough, Gov. Tom Corbett had wanted the court to delay a ruling until October.  Wonder why?)

4)  Ronald Reagan is still dead. Reagan remains the only conservative political candidate whom moderates actually liked; the trouble is that the conservatives still haven't learned that the country voted for him as a person, not as a conservative.  As such, the likes of Newt Gingrich and Joe Scarborough are saying that "when we promote a strong conservative message, we win."  If that were the case, we'd see a Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain or Rick Perry leading the charge against Obama, but voters — Republican voters, mind you — didn't buy any of them.

Furthermore, the tea-party movement, which officially is non-partisan but so far has backed only Republican candidates, wants to cause political change but only from the outside, without being involved in the actual process.  Its insularity and resultant unpopularity have become such that, at least here in Pennsylvania, Democratic political candidates actually ran campaign ads that they "stood up to the Tea Party."

Romney will thus need to find a way to counteract all of these things working against him.  I see no way for him do that.