Funny how the same revolution keeps spiraling down through our history. Different issues for different times but, alas, after stripping away all the rhetoric, we face the same bigots, hate mongers, zealots and treasonists that we faced a generation ago, or two or three or four for that matter. In the 1940's they savaged Roosevelt's New Deal populism because it dared to put forth the proposition that even the poor and middle class had rights in America. In the 1950's it was Joe McCarthy and his infernal blacklists. John Kennedy's catholicism (and youthful exuberance) brought him the most horrific of personal attacks by the moral pygmies of the Chrsitian fundamnetalists of the day. It was church going, God fearing, "born again" Christians that brutally beat MLK and his followers on the Edmond C. Pettis bridge in Selma, Alabama in 1965.

There was a ritual I tended to every morning in high school, back then. I would rise and play the song "Stand!" as ooud as I could on my stereo, fist clenched and full of defiance, righteous indignation and the willingness to fight back against the madness.
This habit also served to really piss off my grandmother with whom I lived at the time which made it even more of a treat.

Recently, I listened to this old song, recorded by Sly and the Family Stone in 1970, and was struck by how applicable it was an an anthem of resistance even today. Thought I'd pass it along.

Stand
In the end you'll still be you
One that's done all the things you set out to do
Stand
There's a cross for you to bear
Things to go through if you're going anywhere
Stand
For the things you know are right
It s the truth that the truth makes them so uptight
Stand
All the things you want are real
You have you to complete and there is no deal
Stand. stand, stand
Stand. stand, stand
Stand
You've been sitting much too long
There's a permanent crease in your right and wrong
Stand
There's a midget standing tall
And the giant beside him about to fall

Damn, when Tom Hayden's good, he's real good. The following is an open letter, dated April 29, from Hayden to Howard Dean, DNC Chair and man with a golden opportunity to commence the party's much needed resuscitation process.

If Dean tries to pull a Kerry-lite, non-position on the war ("the president fucked-up, so now we have to stay and support him in fucking it up even more, otherwise somebody might accuse us of being "Gasp . . .unpatriotic."

Preposterous. Look, we either need to grow up and get some moral backbone into out platform or we can turn the reins of the Democratic leadership over to Zell Miller and go smoke crack.

Hayden, primary author of the 1962 Port Huron Statement which founded Students for a Democratic Society is always at his best when leading from the front and left. The letter below makes the case for a cessation of the war and timed withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq. I thought it was a bright spot on what has lately been a rather dark political horizon.

April 26, 2005

Dear Chairman Dean,

Thank you kindly for your call and your expressed willingness to discuss the Democratic Party's position on the Iraq War. There is growing frustration at the grass roots towards the party leadership's silent collaboration with the Bush Administration's policies. Personally, I cannot remember a time in thirty years when I have been more despairing over the party's moral default. Let me take this opportunity to explain.

The party's alliance with the progressive left, so carefully repaired after the catastrophic split of 2000, is again beginning to unravel over Iraq. Thousands of anti-war activists and millions of antiwar voters gave their time, their loyalty and their dollars to the 2004 presidential campaign despite profound misgivings about our candidate's position on the Iraq War. Of the millions spent by "527" committees on voter awareness, none was spent on criticizing the Bush policies in Iraq.

The Democratic candidate, and other party leaders, even endorsed the US invasion of Falluja, giving President Bush a green-light to destroy that city with immunity from domestic criticism. As a result, a majority of Falluja's residents were displaced violently, guaranteeing a Sunni abstention from the subsequent Iraqi elections.

Then in January, a brave minority of Democrats, led by Senator Ted Kennedy and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, advocated a timetable for withdrawal. Their concerns were quickly deflated by the party leadership.

Next came the Iraqi elections, in which a majority of Iraqis supported a platform calling for a timetable for US withdrawal. ("US Intelligence Says Iraqis Will Press for Withdrawal." New York Times, Jan. 18, 2005) A January 2005 poll showed that 82 percent of Sunnis and 69 percent of Shiites favored a "near-term US withdrawal" (New York Times, Feb. 21, 2005. The Democrats failed to capitalize on this peace sentiment, as if it were a threat rather than an opportunity.

Three weeks ago, tens of thousands of Shiites demonstrated in Baghdad calling again for US withdrawal, chanting "No America, No Saddam." (New York Times, April 10, 2005) The Democrats ignored this massive nonviolent protest.

There is evidence that the Bush Administration, along with its clients in Baghdad, is ignoring or suppressing forces within the Iraqi coalition calling for peace talks with the resistance. The Democrats are silent towards this meddling.

On April 12, Donald Rumsfeld declared "we don't really have an exit strategy. We have a victory strategy." (New York Times, April 13, 2005). There was no Democratic response.

The new Iraqi regime, lacking any inclusion of Sunnis or critics of our occupation, is being pressured to invite the US troops to stay. The new government has been floundering for three months, hopelessly unable to provide security or services to the Iraqi people. Its security forces are under constant siege by the resistance. The Democrats do nothing.

A unanimous Senate, including all Democrats, supports another $80-plus billion for this interminable conflict. This is a retreat even from the 2004 presidential campaign when candidate John Kerry at least voted against the supplemental funding to attract Democratic voters.

The Democratic Party's present collaboration with the Bush Iraq policies is not only immoral but threatens to tear apart the alliance built with antiwar Democrats, Greens, and independents in 2004. The vast majority of these voters returned to the Democratic Party after their disastrous decision to vote for Ralph Nader four years before. But the Democrats' pro-war policies threaten to deeply splinter the party once again.

We all supported and celebrated your election as Party chairman, hoping that winds of change would blow away what former president Bill Clinton once called "brain-dead thinking."

But it seems to me that your recent comments about Iraq require further reflection and reconsideration if we are to keep the loyalty of progressives and promote a meaningful alternative that resonates with mainstream American voters.

Let me tell you where I stand personally. I do not believe the Iraq War is worth another drop of blood, another dollar of taxpayer subsidy, another stain on our honor. Our occupation is the chief cause of the nationalist resistance in that country. We should end the war and foreign economic occupation. Period.

To those Democrats in search of a muscular, manly foreign policy, let me say that real men (and real patriots) do not sacrifice young lives for their own mistakes, throw good money after bad, or protect the political reputations of high officials at the expense of their nation's moral reputation.

At the same time, I understand that there are limitations on what a divided political party can propose, and that there are internal pressures from hawkish Democratic interest groups. I am not suggesting that the Democratic Party has to support language favoring "out now" or "isolation." What I am arguing is that the Democratic Party must end its silent consent to the Bush Administration's Iraq War policies and stand for a negotiated end to the occupation and our military presence. The Party should seize on Secretary Rumsfeld's recent comments to argue that the Republicans have never had an "exit strategy" because they have always wanted a permanent military outpost in the Middle East, whatever the cost.

The Bush Administration deliberately conceals the numbers of American dead in the Iraq War. Rather than the 1,500 publicly acknowledged, the real number is closer to 2,000 when private contractors are counted.

The Iraq War costs one billion dollars in taxpayer funds every week. In "red" states like Missouri, the taxpayer subsidy for the Iraq War could support nearly 200,000 four-year university scholarships.

Military morale is declining swiftly. Prevented by antiwar opinion from re-instituting the military draft, the Bush Administration is forced to intensify the pressures on our existing forces. Already forty percent of those troops are drawn from the National Guard or reservists. Recruitment has fallen below its quotas, and 37 military recruiters are among the 6,000 soldiers who are AWOL.

President Bush's "coalition of the willing" is steadily weakening, down from 34 countries to approximately twenty. Our international reputation has become that of a torturer, a bully.

The anti-war movement must lead and hopefully, the Democratic Party will follow. But there is much the Democratic Party can do:

First, stop marginalizing those Democrats who are calling for immediate withdrawal or a one-year timetable. Encourage pubic hearings in Congressional districts on the ongoing costs of war and occupation, with comparisons to alternative spending priorities for the one billion dollars per week.

Second, call for peace talks between Iraqi political parties and the Iraqi resistance. Hold hearings demand to know why the Bush Administration is trying to squash any such Iraqi peace initiatives. (Bush Administration officials are hoping the new Iraqi government will "settle for a schedule based on the military situation, not the calendar." New York Times, Jan. 19, 2005).

Third, as an incentive to those Iraqi peace initiatives, the US needs to offer to end the occupation and withdraw our troops by a near-term date. The Bush policy, supported by the Democrats, is to train and arm Iraqis to fight Iraqis--a civil war with fewer American casualties.

Fourth, to further promote peace initiatives, the US needs to specify that a multi-billion dollar peace dividend will be earmarked for Iraqi-led reconstruction, not for the Halliburtons and Bechtels, without discrimination as to Iraqi political allegiances.

Fifth, Democrats could unite behind Senator Rockefellers's persistent calls for public hearings on responsibility for the torture scandals. If Republicans refuse to permit such hearings, Democrats should hold them independently. "No taxes for torture" is a demand most Democrats should be able to support. The Democratic Senate unity against the Bolton appointment is a bright but isolated example of how public hearings can keep media and public attention focused on the fabricated reasons for going to war.

Instead of such initiatives, the national Democratic Party is either committed to the Iraq War, or to avoiding blame for losing the Iraq War, at the expense of the social programs for which it historically stands. The Democrats' stance on the war cannot be separated from the Democrats' stance on health care, social security, inner city investment, and education, all programs gradually being defunded by a war which costs $100 billion yearly, billed to future generations.

This is a familiar pattern for those of us who suffered through the Vietnam War. Today it is conventional wisdom among Washington insiders, including even the liberal media, that the Democratic Party must distance itself from its antiwar past, and must embrace a position of military toughness.

The truth is quite the opposite. What the Democratic Party should distance itself from is its immoral and self-destructive pro-war positions in the 1960s which led to unprecedented polarization, the collapse of funds for the War on Poverty, a schism in the presidential primaries, and the destruction of the Lyndon Johnson presidency. Thirty years after our forced withdrawal from Vietnam, the US government has stable diplomatic and commercial relations with its former Communist enemy. The same future is possible in Iraq.

I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, not to take the anti-war majority of this Party for granted. May I suggest that you initiate a serious reappraisal of how the Democratic Party has become trapped in the illusions which you yourself questioned so cogently when you ran for president. I believe that an immediate commencement of dialogue is necessary to fix the credibility gap in the Party's position on the Iraq War. Surely if the war was a mistake based on a fabrication, there is a better approach than simply becoming accessories to the perpetrators of the deceit. And surely there is a greater role for Party leadership than permanently squandering the immense good will, grass roots funding, and new volunteer energy that was generated by your visionary campaign.

Tom Hayden

© 2005 The Nation

###
Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed

The Rising Tone of Violence

Living in one of the bluest of the blue states has its rewards to be sure. Besides its breathtaking natural beauty, Washington, or at least my little corner of it, is so far removed from the increasingly hostile tone of the red state religionists who are finally beginning to show their true colors. With such a disproportionately large share of political leverage firmly in their hands and the prospects for a handpicked federal
judiciary never brighter, the fundamentalist demagogues have not hesitated to turn up the intensity of their bombastic tirades against “Godless liberals� and “Marxist leaning activist judges.�

The assault force cadres of the new Christian nation have done their jobs well. Anyone in Congress or in a position of real public authority knows all too well that there is a
steep price to be paid for being viewed as antipathetic or obstructive to the legislative agenda of “values� and “Godliness.� Defying Christ’s many admonitions to His disciples not to force His name on non believers, today’s promulgators of Christian supremacy seem to revel in the rhetoric of fear and vengeance.They promise the faithful that the swift and savage hand of God will punish the willfully evil who seek to plunge the nation into a sea of hedonistic sin.

Such voices are not new to American evangelism. As far back as the 1830’s, the prophets of the Apocalypse preached a populist but rather narrow theological perspective to those who would listen and accept their call to salvation. It is widely agreed that modern Christian fundamentalism was popularized in early eighteenth century England by ecumenical groups such as the Plymouth Brethren. Incepted by one John Nelson Darby, these early adherents to a literalistic biblical interpretation sought to reform what they considered to be the socially liberal Anglican Church. Darby, an Irish, ex-Anglican priest, became preoccupied with the bible’s end times prophecy, claiming to have discovered a hidden biblical code which foretold of seven dispensations, or thematic historical periods through which the Christian church would pass until the rapture, tribulation and eventual return of the Messiah to rule on earth for a thousand year reign.

Exported to a largely rural America over the next few decades, evangelism (as it came to be known) spread throughout the dirt poor regions of the country. With its emphasis on the conversion experience and subsequent renewal of the spirit the effect was cathartic and immediate on a population that clung to the promised rewards of eternal blessings and riches that surely awaited the true believer as he took his rightful place in the heavenly afterlife.

If there was ever a people that needed the comfort of a better life ahead it was the conquered white farmers and scratch poor in the American South that had suffered so mightily during the civil war. Towards the end of the great struggle, especially within
the decimated confederate armies, there arose a “great awakening� as it was called, and by the hundreds the tattered and demoralized men in Lee’s and Johnston’s armies came to the Lord at impromptu “revivals� where itinerant stump preachers sounded out the message of mercy and redemption for a defeated nation. The abuses and excesses of Yankee Reconstruction only added fuel to the religious fire as most of what was lef of the white south struggled to feed their families while at the same time having to endure the often spiteful boot heal of the northern occupying troops that were garrisoned throughout the various southern states. Life was damn hard and the grief of having lost so many in their
holy cause only added to the widespread despair of the common folk. It was in these miserable conditions that the roots of modern evangelism took such a tenacious hold and, along with Its charismatic offshoots, it flourished and grew in great leaps and bounds throughout the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Whether it be the threat of retribution from newly freed slaves following the civil war or in defiance of determined voter registration campaigns by “northern agitators� of the early 1960’s, the fundamentalist Christian lay and clergy formed the backbone of the brutally repressive backlash against efforts to legitimize and franchise the large black population of the Jim Crow south. It was these devout Christians who organized and directed the violent terror campaigns against African American farmers and share croppers who dared to cross a white man or demand even his most basic civil rights. I find it ironic that so many of the black pastors of today are willing to jump so eagerly into bed with the historical and biological descendents of the same murderers and bigots that imposed the worst apartheid
system in modern history on their own recent ancestors. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. Of course, they have no capacity for shame, the reasons for which are fodder for another, future essay.
Their black congregations would do well to consider the truism that, at least in this world, the lamb is never quite so close to peril as when he is deceived into beleiving that he and the lion shall lie together in peace.

It was white Christian pastors that preached the doctrine of “states rights� in the early days of the civil rights movement and it was from the fundamentalist theology that the moral justification for the concept of racial purity (code for: white supremacy)was drawn. It was obvious to the bible believing southerner that God had never intended for the races to intermix. The supporting scriptural references were readily supplied to the doubtful and any white man or woman who dared to march or protest
was to be considered fair game for any punishment up to and including death. Never forget that the Ku Klux Klan’s regalia and artifacts were (and still are)dripping in Christian symbolism.

I grew up in the civil rights era South. Alabama, to be precise. The belly of the beast, one might accurately say. As a child with a precocious streak as wide as the lower Mississippi delta I asked lot’s of uncomfortable questions about the blatant inequalities
between black and white in my everyday world. More often than the not, the banal bigotry that framed the answers I got was laid at the feet of the baby Jesus upon whose name all manner of atrocities were heaped.

Miraculously, within ne short lifetime, the main body of evangelical doctrine has shifted from embracing outright racism of the worst sort to a new message of open arms
to all people of color and the complete lifting of the long standing taboo on inter-racial marriage. Why this rather sudden and radical change in attitude? One doesn’t have to look very far to find the answer. In order for fundamentalist core belief in the pre-millennial, revelations prophecy (whereby Christ returns to earth to rule His kingdom for a thousand year reign.) there have to exist various “signs� or “seals� in order to usher in the new dispensational order. These indicators depend heavily on the vision of earth firmly in the hands of Satan as evidenced by widespread hedonism and various forms of false religions. Welcome to the homosexual agenda to advance the cause of Godlessness and state sanctioned perversion which is to signal the beginning of a
dark period of persecution for all believers and in which the faith of all Christians will be tried and tested in order to prepare them for the Rapture.

Evangelical Christianity requires a constant supply of “evil doers� in order to justify its own rather parasitical existence. It feeds off of the fears and prejudices that distill
themselves down to the base level of our lowest common denominator. Rarely does it appeal to the higher, more noble aspirations of humankind. Fatalistic and condeming
of man as a whole for being lost in the suffering of his own sin, his only redemption after conversion is in the return of Christ to save an unworthy planet from being consumed by its own propensity to evil. Not a very uplifting religious ideology by any standard.
Furthermore, as the script for mankind’s agonized fate was written thousands of years ago and it virtually unalterable, there is really no use in trying to improve earthly conditions or avoid global holocaust. Such efforts are viewed with disdain by evangelical theologians as in their eyes they are nothing more than the arrogant indulgences of the wickedly prideful. They view Jeffersonian democracy much in the same light and tolerate it only
when it serves there traitorous purpose. In fact, it is my belief that there is almost a pathological streak of resentment towards the creative genius that designed our nation and protected it from the meddling of the “not quite bright� so that it would not
go the way of every other previous attempt at democratic self governance. It riles them to no end that our constitution is so conspicuously without reference to any of the Christian icons.

The nation is, I believe, in great danger. Those who would doubt the ruthlessness of tday’s well financed and highly politically leveraged zealots need only to reflect on the rather tarnished and tawdry history of modern Christian fundamentalism. Whether Reconstructionist, Dominionist or Evangelical in name, there is a single common thread that all of these various factions share which is a predicated belief in the bible as absolute and inerrant truth and, in particular, an eschatological fixation as revealed in the book of Revelations. Because it is hard for any rational and free thinking individual to conceive of such a blind and unquestioning belief system there is a tendency to dismiss the fundamentalists as cultists or deluded to be sure but hardly dangerous. How could such an extremist movement ever gain a serious grip on the levers of American political power? Such thinking is foolish at best and, certainly by this late date, belies an underlying unwillingness to confront the unpleasant truth. We are much further down the road to theocracy than most people realize.

Don’t think for a second that the hardened core of their leadership class is not willing to go to any length or stoop to any deed in order to accomplish their ultimate goal of a
“Christianized� America. They have proven time and again that they will, even violently if necessary, remove anyone who stands in their way. The GBLT Community happens To have been unfortunate enough to become the target of choice for the evangelical propaganda machine and it is my personal view that, ultimately, in a more formally Christianized society, they would be subject to the worst kinds of marginalization and persecution. When one really pays attention to the intensity of hate and condemnation of homosexuality in general that has crept into the national dialog in recent years it is not a great leap to imagine
the most horrific of possibilities. Unfortunately, the rhetoric has become even more strident in recent months as the circling sharks smell the blood of their prey, soon tobe finished off for good. With a zealot federal judiciary the deal is as good as done.
It may take some time (although I highly doubt it) but it is my firm conviction that we would see passing legislation designed to remove any remaining civil rights that identified gays may still possess. Witness some of the more extreme legislative
efforts in recent months such as the gay book ban bill that was recently floated in the Alabama state legislature. If enacted, the bill would forbid all state libraries (including those at state universities) to buy, reference or lend any book which so much
as mentioned homosexuality or had been authored by anyone known to be homosexual.The legislator who submitted the bill has been a frequent visitor to the White House in recent months, I might add.

In summary, we are on the verge of becoming a one party state, controlled by a hardened, totally committed cadre of ideological fanatics. They are un American, un democratic and could give less than three fourths of a flying fuck about the constitution or our Bill of Rights. If you are tempted to minimize the potential for disaster at the hands of these would be Theocrats then please, take the time to read about them in their own words.The following are two excellent sources of well documented and accurate information about the real agenda of the religious right. http://www.theocracywatch.org and
http://www.yuricareport.com/

There is so much more to the promise of America than what these moral cowards would allow. I never miss the opportunity to counter their usually slimy sales pitch.They absolutely hate me here locally because I’m not afraid of them. They have no
real courage of their own convictions and if cornered will back down every time. America is far better than to have the likes of Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham or, for that matter, GW Bush elevated to leadership status in any capacity. Personally, I hope there really is a God or mercy on that fateful day of judgment that we all must face because the bloodguilty of the evangelical rank and file are gonna’ need it when God gets finished counting the dead children of Iraq and, God knows, sinner that I am, mercy would be the last thing on my mind.

from a lonely outpost in the far reaches of the Blue State Intifada.

Lauren