I've watched each of the Republican Presidential Debates with fascination, looking for themes and subtexts, while enjoying the inherent parody and absurdity of the show.
One of the candidates stands out from the group, for his personal integrity and willingness to honestly express his views, this being Representative Ron Paul. If it weren't for him the proverbial Man from Mars (or average American voter) would have no inkling that prior to January 20, 2009 this country had faced an economic crisis or were thrust into a war on false pretense that had caused most of the deficit that the candidates decry. It is all blamed on something called "Obama." always uttered with ridicule and contempt. This thing, this scourge is the cause of all evil, and was the uniting theme of the group, as when the hostility among them got too great, someone, would say, "Even though we disagree on issues, we can all agree that we must get rid of Obama."
Last night Ron Paul dared to burst the bubble in response to Cains view of Occupy Wall Street:
REP. PAUL: Well, I think Mr. Cain had blamed the victims. There's a lot of people that are victims of this business cycle, and we can't blame the victims. But we also have to point -- I'd go to Washington as well as Wall Street, but I'd go over to the Federal Reserve. (Cheers, applause.) They -- they create the financial bubbles. And you have to understand that; you can solve these problems if you don't know where these bubbles come from.
But then when the bailout came and -- supported by both parties. You have to realize, oh, wait, the Republicans were still in charge. So the bailouts came from both parties. Guess who they bailed out? (followd by No Applause) The big corporations, the people who were ripping off the people in the derivatives market. And they said, oh, the world's going to come to an end unless we bail out all the banks. So the banks were involved, and the Federal Reserve was involved.
But who got stuck? The middle class got stuck. They got stuck. They lost their jobs, and they lost their houses. If you had to give money out, you should have given it to the people who were losing it in their mortgages, not to the banks. (Cheers, applause.)
It was followed by Paul pointing out the obvious, how those in the debate all want to cut the deficit, but without cutting any part of the deficit that matters. He dared utter the untold story of our military enforcement of the American Empire
REP. PAUL: Well, I think we're on economic suicide if we're not even willing to look at some of these overseas expenditures, 150 bases -- 900 bases, 150 different countries. We have enough weapons to blow up the world about 20, 25 times. We have more weapons than all the other countries put together, essentially. And we want to spend more and more and you can't cut a penny? I mean, this is why we're at an impasse. I mean, this -- I want to hear somebody up here willing to cut something, something real. (Cheers, applause.)
This next performance, as that's what it was complete with being close to tears, was the most daring and amazing. Being in the epicenter of the foreclosure crisis, they were all asked "does the federal government have a role in keeping people in their homes, saving people from foreclosure in the state of Nevada? ". This answer from Michelle Bachman, said with dripping sincerity takes the prize:
.......what I want to say is this: Every day I'm out somewhere in the United States of America, and most of the time I am talking to moms across this country. When you talk about housing, when you talk about foreclosures, you're talking about women who are at the end of their rope because they're losing their nest for their children and for their family. And there are women right now all across this country and moms across this country whose husbands, through not fault of their own, are losing their job and they can't keep that house. And there are women who are losing that house.
I'm a mom. I talk to these moms. I just want to say one thing to moms all across America tonight. This is a real issue; it's got to be solved. President Obama has failed you on this issue of housing and foreclosures. I will not fail you on this issue. I will turn this country around. We will turn the economy around. We will create jobs.
That's how you hold on to your house. Hold on, moms out there. It's not too late.
That's it. No intervention with the bank who are foreclosing, no plan at all, except to create jobs. But the jobs will not be in nearby Yucca Flats, the only depository to hold the uranium waste of our nations nuclear plants. Not a single candidate, in this case including Paul, was willing to buck the NIMBY of the audience (In fairness is was Harry Reid, who killed the project) to move on with this project to safely store this waste to prevent another Japanese style disaster. But the Candidates all will cut federal output, and then like magic, create jobs. And that was Bachman's answer.
So, while the pissing match between Perry and Romney was the best Jerry Springer moment, and for that you have to see it on a video as the Texan was shut down by the Harvard Guy, who even placed his hand on his shoulder. A real man would have decked him, but that's another story.
As Herman Cain has become a real threat, the field had to demolish his 999 plan, which created a serious problem for them. This fringe group that has taken over the Republic party is conceptually an enemy of the United State Federal Government, Currently, the House Republicans are refusing to fund the IRS adequately to enforce the laws on the books, knowing that by doing this they will be condoning those who evade such taxes, and increase the deficit by tens, maybe hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The most serious defect of Cain's plain is that it would decrease government revenues at least several trillion dollars over ten years. but this happens to be exactly what this group would desire. So, this defect was not mentioned at all, rather the fact that it would open a new revenue stream, the federal sales tax was the point of the attack. Among this group the only plan preferable to 999 would be 000, which was what Michelle Bachman said in an earlier debate to great applause.
Now to the headline of this essay, that this is a cabal that reviles atheists, secularist and humanists. History Professor Newt Gingrich leads the charge on this one, but without a single dissent (don't know what Paul thinks about this) It is customary among non evangelicals to talk about this country allowing freedom of conscience
for people of all faith or of no faith. In this group the "or of no faith" is conspicuously absent, The reason is articulated by Gingrich:
I think if the question is does faith matter, absolutely. How can you have a country which is founded on truth, which begins, "We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights" -- how -- how can you have the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which says religion, morality and knowledge being important, education matters? That's the order: religion, morality and knowledge.
Now, I happen to think that none of us should rush in judgment of others in the way in which they approach God. And I think that all of us up here, I believe, would agree. (Cheers, applause.) But I think all of us would also agree that there's a very central part of your faith in how you approach public life. And I, frankly, would be really worried if somebody assured me that nothing in their faith would affect their judgments because then I'd wonder, where's your judgment -- how can you have judgment if you have no faith? And how can I trust you with power if you don't pray? (Applause.)
Who you pray to, how you pray, how you come close to God is between you and God. But the notion that you're endowed by your creator sets a certain boundary on what we mean by America. (Applause.)
This permutation of Republicanism is a throwback to the tradition of anti rationality that takes the form of a requirement for belief in a higher being. While other candidates explicitly include churches and synagogues in the belief community , by definition it would include Mosques, but not Ethical Culture or Humanistic groups. This was last purportedly articulated by the senior President Bush, when he mused that he didn't think that an atheist should even be a citizen. Whether Bush actually said this is subject to debate, but Gingrich's calumny against non theists is on the record, for all to see.