Politics Plus

Here’s an interesting notion:

Would Jesus Christ – the founder of the largest religion in the world, unequivocally recognized as a messenger of peace and love – support capitalism?

It’s one of the questions filmmaker Michael Moore, the well-known creator of documentaries such as Bowling for Columbine and Sicko, asks in his latest film, Capitalism: A Love Story.

In Capitalism, the filmmaker wonders whether Christ would support a system that, as the filmmaker stated, "has allowed the richest one per cent to have more financial wealth than the 95 per cent under them combined."

Moore, a Roman Catholic, argues that Jesus’ commandments to care for others and feed the poor and hungry go against the love of money and greed that make up capitalism. He argues that one cannot be a religious Christian and a capitalist.

Clement Mehlman, a Lutheran chaplain at Dalhousie University, agrees.

"Jesus was a Jewish peasant, coming from an underprivileged tradition Himself, so He would have been what we would call a communist or a socialist," he says. "And there are elements of communism in descriptions of early Christian communities. They pooled their resources. There was not independent wealth, there was communal wealth."

The idea that Christ preached a socialist message would probably scare some conservative believers, but Mehlman has no problem with that.

"Jesus says to follow Him, you have to give everything you own to the poor," he says with a wry smile. "How many Christians do you see doing that? It’s a text that should be thrown at the wealthy fat cats."… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

It rarely happens, but in this case I completely disagree with Michael Moore.  I think Jesus would have no problem whatsoever with capitalism.   But there is a catch.  Capitalism is an economic system in which a free market sets the price of goods and services between an unlimited number of suppliers, with no barriers to entry, and an unlimited number consumers, based on the law of supply and demand.  In Adam Smith’s view, monopolies and oligopolies were the ultimate evil.  True capitalism has no place for corporations, because they concentrate suppliers, create barriers to entry, and form both monopolies and oligopolies, which collude to function as monopolies.  In fairness to Moore, he was referring to our current economic system, but that system is NOT capitalism.  Jesus never raised an objection to the common free market trade of goods and services between individuals, which is capitalism.

Mehlman’s argument that to follow Jesus we have to give all we have to the poor has a problem.  It takes Jesus’ statement out of context.  The person to whom Jesus was speaking was one of the elite theocrats, who was rich from the temple monopoly.  Jesus required this of him only because the man’s life was centered around his greed.  Jesus often dined in the homes of believers who had not divested themselves of all their possessions.  One cannot care for the poor and feed the hungry without the means to do so.

The system we have in the US today is hard to label, but I’ll try to give it two labels.  One is crony corporatism.  We have rule by corporations through the empowerment of corporate cronies.  The other is plutocratic fascism.  I don’t mean Nazism here.  Fascism is a system where access to power is available only through elite status or membership in a group.  Thus, plutocratic fascism is government of, by and for the rich, and the rest of us have to band together into groups to be heard at all.  Economic exploitation by the elite is the norm.  Would Jesus oppose this?  I say yes, and I’m sure Moore would agree, because this is what I think he meant.

The closest thing Jesus encountered to our system was the monopoly on mandated temple sacrifice held by the religious right of his day.  There was no other source of supply for sacrificial animals and the unique currency required to buy them.  These theocrats manipulated the system to fleece the common people.   Sound familiar?  Jesus’ response was to drive them out of the temple.  Unlike the religious right, Jesus would certainly oppose our economic system.

It saddens me immeasurably that the most vocal groups, who identify themselves as Christians, have sided with the plutocrats and corporatists against the poor, contrary to Jesus’ teaching.  This is the opposite of authentic Christianity!

Amid all the wailing and gnashing of teeth coursing through the media and the blogosphere forecasting the imminent demise of the Democratic party, we need to recognize that the other side is worse off than we are.

The first editorial is from Charles Blow:

The attack on the Republican establishment by the tea party folks grabs the gaze like a really bad horror flick — some version of “Hee Haw” meets “28 Days Later.” It’s fascinating. But it also raises a serious question: Are these the desperate thrashings of a dying movement or the labor pains of a new one?

My money is on the former. Anyone who says that this is the dawn of a new age of conservatism is engaging in wishful thinking on a delusional scale.

There is no doubt that the number of people who say that they are conservative has inched up. According to a report from Gallup on Thursday, conservatives finished 2009 as the No. 1 ideological group. But ideological identification is no predictor of electoral outcomes. According to polls by The New York Times, conservative identification was slightly higher on the verge of Bill Clinton’s first-term election and Barack Obama’s election than it was on the verge of George W. Bush’s first-term election.

It is likely that Republicans will pick up Congressional seats in November partly because of the enthusiasm of this conservative fringe, democratic apathy and historical trends. But make no mistake: This is not 1994.

This is a limited, emotional reaction. It’s a response to the trauma that is the Great Recession, the uncertainty and creeping suspicion about the risks being taken in Washington, a visceral reaction to Obama and an overwhelming sense of powerlessness and loss.

Simply put, it’s about fear-fueled anger. But anger is not an idea. It’s not a plan. And it’s not a vision for the future. It is, however, the second stage of grief, right after denial and before bargaining.

The right is on the wrong side of history. The demographics of the country are rapidly changing, young people are becoming increasingly liberal on social issues, and rigid, dogmatic religious stricture is loosening its grip on the throat of our culture.

The right has seen the enemy, and he is the future.

According to a Gallup report issued this week, Republicans were more than twice as likely as Democrats and a third more likely as independents to have a pessimistic outlook for the country over the next 20 years. That might be the fourth stage of grief: depression.

So what’s their battle plan to fight back from the precipice of irrelevance? Moderation? A stab at modernity? A slate of innovative ideas? No, their plan is to purge the party’s moderates and march farther down the road to oblivion… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

The second editorial is from me:

I consider the retaking of America a two step process.  First get rid of the alligators.  Then drain the swamp.

Get rid of the alligators.  The alligators are the GOP.  They are divided into four segments:

Neocons: They believe that the US should rule the world by force.  They brought us wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  They also planned to conquer Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Iran, but could not proceed because the GOP botched the first two.  They also believe in ruling our nation by fear, and if that does not work, by force.  In the event of a civil disturbance in which US troops refused to fire on our citizens, Bush and the GOP had Blackwater storm troopers poised to cut us down.  The US public is tired of war.  The GOP has played the fear card so many times that only the most delusional Faux Noise sheeple believe it.  And we are reasonably safe from the threat of force from our government, as long as the GOP is never allowed back in power.  They cannot win over the public, unless a major terrorist attack, on the scale of 9/11, succeeds.

Theocons:  They believe in establishing a theocracy through which they can mandate observance of their piety codes on those who do not share their beliefs.  They would overturn a woman’s right to control her own body, muzzle science, criminalize the LGBT community, enforce abstinence only education, and require the teaching of the Genesis creation account in schools.  They cannot win over the public, because the majority opposes their repressive policies, and because the numerous scandals from Pastor Ted to John Ensign exposes them as the hypocrites they are.

Corporocons: They believe in No Millionaire Left Behind, the only successful Bush/GOP policy.  Because of them, the bottom 40% of Americans own only 0.2% of the wealth.  The banksters are a subset of the corporocons.  They cannot win over the public by themselves, although they have worked in close concert with the GOP, they are equally happy to buy Democrats.  They have been successful enough in that endeavor that eliminating them will have to wait until the second step of the process.

Insanocons:  This is the teabagger set.  They believe only what they see on Faux Noise.  Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin are their demigods.  The think what they’re told, say what they’re told, go where they’re told and do what they’re told, happy to goose-step into insignificance.  They are dangerous because of their passion, but there are few enough in numbers, and so far off the deep end, that they cannot win over the public.

There is also a fifth segment of the GOP:  the authentic intellectual conservative.  I did not include them, because the other four segments have turned on them, marginalized them, and driven them out of the party to such an extent that they are virtually extinct.  That is a sad thing, because without them, the GOP has no redeeming value.

So this is what we’re up against.  The only way we can fail is to form a circular firing squad.  Though the Democrats are far from perfect, supporting them is a necessary step toward reclaiming our nation, and we need to be just as passionate in that support as the insanocans are in theirs.

Then drain the swamp.  The swamp is the Democratic Party.  But that’s another editorial.