• Categories

  • The Golden Rule

    “That which is hateful to you do not do to another ... the rest (of the Torah) is all commentary, now go study.”

    - Rabbi Hillel
  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Remember to click "manage" to set your preferences, such as daily or immediate and the time of delivery.

  • Subscribe Via Email

  • Note on Older Videos

    Videos posted between 2008 and 2011 are not showing up because the coding used to embed the videos no longer work. Lockerz (who bought Vodpod) has shut down. If anyone has the time to look up the coding (youtube url) and put that link in the comment section of the post, I'd appreciate it. Thanks for understanding. More info: Note on Older Videos Posted on Dandelion Salad by Lo
  • Lists of posts and videos

    Dandelion Salad Videos

    Dandelion Salad Posts

    Don’t Enlist, But Don’t Just Take My Word For It by Lo
    Please pass this on to anyone you know who may be considering enlisting as a soldier (mercenary).

  • Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
  • Disclaimer:

    The views and/or opinions posted on all the blog posts and in the comment sections are of their respective authors, not necessarily those of Dandelion Salad.

    All content has been used with permission from the copyright owners, who reserve all rights, and that for uses outside of fair use (an excerpt), permission must be obtained from the respective copyright owner.

  • Member of The Internet Defense League

  • The Internet is Under Attack

  • US Deaths in Afghanistan: Obama vs Bush. Click here to learn more.

“The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 7th Installment: Chapter Six 2004: The First Hague

by Jonathan Westminster, Ph.D. aka Steven Jonas, MD, MPH
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
crossposted on Buzzflash,com
August 1, 2010

This is the seventh installment of a project that is likely to extend over a two-year-period from January, 2010.  It is the serialization of a book entitled The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022.  Under the pseudonym Jonathan Westminster, it is purportedly published in the year 2048 on the 25th Anniversary of the Restoration of Constitutional Democracy in the Re-United States. It was actually published in 1996 by the Thomas Jefferson Press, located in Port Jefferson, NY. The copyright is held by the Press.  Herein you will find Chapter 6.  In it you meet Jefferson Da­vis (J.D.) Hague, a Sara Palinesque character who was the 45th President of the old United States.  He was a great grand nephew of the pre-World War II Mayor of Jersey City, NJ, Frank Hague, a man who once said: “You hear about constitutional rights, free speech and the free press.  Every time I hear these words I say to myself, ‘That man is a Red, that man is a Communist!’  You never hear a real American talk like that.”

In his First Inaugural, the full text of which is provided, you will read the following passage from a 1990s writing of Jerry Falwell, which Hague used without attribution: “Yes, it is time to take America back, from the liberal politi­cians who are attempting to erase every evidence of God from public life, from gov­ern­ment officials who hide their radical, anti-Christian bigot­ry behind a twist­ed view of ‘the separation of church and state,’ from gay and lesbian radicals who not only claim the right to lead their Godless lifestyle, but demand that we support this abominable behav­ior, from the radical fem­i­nists whose ‘right to choose’ has caused the murder of mil­lions of inno­cent unborn little babies, from the militant left which is the fount of all evil—take her back from every group or individ­ual that refuses to recog­nize our beloved nation for what it truly is—a nation under God!” [Falwell]

Sound familiar?

Chapter Six

2004: The First Hague

The First Inaugural Address of Presi­dent Jefferson Davis Hague

December 25, 2004[1][1]

Mr. President, Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Speaker, my fellow Amer­i­cans under God.  I stand here before you today, on the birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ, in all humility awaiting my time to do His bid­ding.  And I can tell you that his bidding now is to fight the good fight, for the Lord, and for you the Ameri­can people under God.

For there is a religious war going on in this country. And we, the Ameri­cans of God, must win it.  We must take back our cit­ies, and take back our culture, and take back our country [Bu­chanan].  To do this, we must return to our Christian roots.  If we do not, we will continue to le­galize sodomy, slaughter inno­cent babies, destroy the minds of our chil­dren, squander our re­sources, and yes, sink into oblivion [Robertson].

We are in an eternal battle.  The battle is between right and wrong, be­tween truth and lies, between life and death.  And if we ever forget what it is about, if we think we are in a battle for elect­ing peo­ple to hold office, simply controlling political parties, then we will not ac­complish what we are to achieve.  We need to hold to our principles, and stick to them re­gardless.

The real enemy is the secular humanist mindset which seeks to destroy everything that is good in this society.  The fight that we are fighting, the battle we have joined, is one that encom­passes our entire life span.  Re­member, you have God.  You have your families; you have your commu­nity, your church community, your neighborhood, and all the things you are con­cerned about.  They have only power.  That’s all that matters to them.  They will fight with everything that’s in them to keep that power [Weyrich].

Today we face what I believe is an even greater threat to our lives.  The enemy is more insidious, more chameleon-like than a Hitler. And this enemy is even more deadly. The enemy is lethal and must be stopped [Fournier].

So far from having ended, the cold war has increased in in­ten­si­ty, as sec­tor after sector of American life has been ruth­less­ly cor­rupt­ed by the liber­al ethos.  Now that the other ‘Cold War’ is over, the real cold war has begun [Kristol, quoted in Starr].

Yes, we are engaged in a social, political, and cultural civil war.  There is a lot of talk in America about pluralism.  But you can’t have a society whose highest value is merely live and let live.  The bottom line is somebody’s values will prevail.  Some­body is going to win this civil war.  And the winner gets the right to teach our children what to believe about things like life and death, love and sex, and freedom and slavery.

As I have travelled the length and breadth of this great God-given land of ours, I have often run into skep­tics.  They say, “Well, J.D., if there is a civil war going on, where are the two sides?”  And my ex­planation is that on one side there are men and women like Americans under God.  People who be­lieve that God is.  And believing that God is, they are re­quired, they are obli­gated to take the posi­tions they take on a whole host of issues.  And on the other side of this great conflict there are people at very signifi­cant positions in our culture who begin their thinking with the belief that God isn’t.  They are our ene­my [Bauer].

Yes, it is time to take America back, from the liberal politi­cians who are attempting to erase every evidence of God from public life, from gov­ern­ment officials who hide their radical, anti-Christian bigot­ry behind a twist­ed view of “the separation of church and state,” from gay and lesbian radicals who not only claim the right to lead their Godless lifestyle, but demand that we support this abominable behav­ior, from the radical fem­i­nists whose “right to choose” has caused the murder of mil­lions of inno­cent unborn little babies, from the militant left which is the fount of all evil—take her back from every group or individ­ual that refuses to recog­nize our beloved nation for what it truly is—a nation under God! [Falwell]

We are the only society in history that says that power comes from God to you . . . and if you don’t tell the truth about the role of God and the cen­trality of God in America, you can’t explain the rest of our civiliza­tion.  I look forward to the day when a be­lief in God is once more at the center of the defini­tion of being an American [Gingrich, 1].

As to the future, if you think about the notion that the great chal­lenge of our lifetime is first to imagine a future that is worth spending our lives getting to, and then, because of the technolo­gies and the capabilities we have today, to get it up to sort of a virtual state, al­though that’s done in terms of actual levels of so­phistication, all that’s done in your mind.

And that takes leadership.  Most studies of leadership argue that lead­ers actually are acting out past decisions.  The problem when you get certainty with great leaders is that they have al­ready thor­oughly envisioned the achievement, and now it is just a matter of implementa­tion.  And so it is very different.  And so in a sense, virtuality at the mental level is some­thing I think you find in lead­ership over historical periods.  But in addi­tion, we are not in a new place; it is just becom­ing harder and hard­er to avoid the place where we are [Gingrich, 2].

In fighting this fight to avoid this place, we face an increas­ing­ly mili­tant, radical, socialist left.  And this is how we are going to win the war against this left.  We will use the same strategy Gen­eral Douglas MacArthur em­ployed against the Jap­a­nese in the Pacific in World War II: by-pass their strong-holds, then sur­round them, isolate them, bombard them, then blast the individu­als out of their power bunkers with hand-to-hand com­bat.  The battle for Iwo Jima [Author's Note: the penul­timate major battle of the Pacific War in 1945] was not pleasant, but our troops won it.  The battle to regain the soul of America won’t be pleasant either, but we will win it [Robertson].

Yes, with your help and God’s blessing we will win it.  Thank you and good night.

A Connie Conroy Note (December 27, 2004)

We did it!  We pulled it off!  We got the Prez a good speech, a great speech, if I may say so myself.  And after all those drafts he didn’t like at all, too.  Trying, honestly, honest­ly, to come up with a new way to say the same old thing he had been saying over and over in the campaign.  And so what did we do?  We went back to some tried and true stuff from our “Pa­tron Saints,” (if I may say so reveal­ing my Catholic back­ground—don’t let any of the true Fundy Minis­ters hear me say­ing anything like that!): Pat Buchanan, Pat Robert­son, Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, the Newt Man.

Just took some of their best stuff, threw it together, nobody was the wiser, especially the Prez, and presto!  The best speech mon­ey could­n’t begin to buy.  And I’ll tell you, after old Carney, I think that this young guy is going to be fun![2][2]

Author’s Commentary

The Hague Heritage

On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, Jefferson Da­vis (J.D.) Hague was elected as the 45th President of the old United States.  He was a great grand nephew of the pre-World War II Mayor of Jersey City, NJ, Frank Hague, a man who once said (Pe­ter):

“You hear about constitutional rights, free speech and the free press.  Every time I hear these words I say to myself, ‘That man is a Red, that man is a Communist!’  You never hear a real American talk like that.”

J.D.’s father, “Big Daddy Hague,” was a truck driver who sported the old Confederate States of America flag on the radiator of his 22 wheeler’s tractor, and carried a loaded sawed-off double-barreled shot­gun underneath the passen­ger seat.  It was there, Big Daddy would confide in friends, “to protect myself from the niggers.”  His choice of name for his second-born son came as no surprise to his friends, espe­cially since his first-born son “Nat” had been named after Confederate Gen­er­al Nathan B. Forrest.  This man’s principal claim to fame was that a year after the end of the First Civil War he had founded the viru­lently anti-black terrorist organization known as the Ku Klux Klan.

Big Daddy happened to be a passionate reader.  His taste in books ranged from those carried in the Paladin Press catalog (1991, focusing on guns, explosives, and survivalism) to those carried in the National Van­guard Books catalog (1993, featuring anti-Semitism, racism, glorifi­cation of Hitler’s Germany, and children’s books).

J.D.’s mother had been an active and vocal member of the move­ment to harass and assault elective pregnancy termination clinics, their staffs and patients.  She had joined the first Northern New Jersey chap­ter of the militant, violence-inducing anti-freedom-of-choice organiza­tion called “Op­eration Rescue” when it was founded in the mid-1980s.  She had been arrested many times for screaming at staff and patients alike “up close and personal,” attempting to physically block clinic en­trances, and on suspicion of participation in anti-clinic vandalism.

[1][2] Author’s Note: In her Note Conroy did not identify which sections of the speech were based on the words of which of the “patron saints.”  But with some detective work and using the process of elimination, it has been possible to determine with a fair degree of certainty just who was responsible for what. The putative sub-authors are named in the text in [ ], and the putative sources are listed under their names in the reference list at the end of the chapter.

One of President Pine’s first acts in 2001 had been to order the end to enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a Federal law passed by the 103rd Congress that had offered some protec­tion to the clinics.  (In ordering the non-enforcement of existing legislation that he didn’t like, Pine was following a well-known Right-Wing pattern.  For example, former 1996 Republican Presidential candidate Phil Gramm had declared that if he were elected President, one of his first acts would be to end enforcement, on his own authority, of Federal affirmative action (equal rights in employment) law [Page].)

J.D.’s mother was one of the first in the nation to publicly take advan­tage of the new Pine policy.  She went on to become a na­tion­al lead­er of the violence-centered movement spawned by Opera­tion Res­cue and its many mutations.  Aided by Pine’s Executive Order and the sub­se­quent repeal of the FACE Act by the 107th Congress, by the mid­dle of the Pine Presiden­cy, the movement had succeeded in driv­ing out of business most of the open elective pregnancy-termination centers around the country, even though the procedure was technically still legal.

The Development of the Republican-Christian Alli­ance

Hague was the candidate of the newly-formed Republican-Christian Alli­ance (R-CA).  The R-CA had been created at the quadrennial Re­publi­can Na­tional Convention held in Indianapolis, IN in the second week of August, 2004.  It was the final recognition of a reality that had been de­veloping since the Republican National Convention held in Houston, TX August 16-20, 1992 had adopted a platform largely writ­ten by representa­tives of the Christian Coalition (RNC).  Over the in­ter­vening 12 years, the dominant and driving force in the Republican Party had become ever-increasingly the Religious Right, led by its dominant political arm, the Christian Coalition.

It is interesting to note briefly the parallels between the develop­ment of the Republican Party in the last decade before the First Civil War and of the Republican-Christian Alliance in the second decade before the Sec­ond (Marsden).  In the 1850s, the “Anti-Masons,” an evangelical politi­cal party opposed to “free thinking” as well as slavery, lead the move­ment which divid­ed the old Whig Party into two.  Subse­quently, the Anti-Masons/”Northern Whigs” evolved into the new Re­publican Party.

In the case of both the latter and the R-CA, a movement that began with moral preaching eventually married itself to political power.  It was iron­ic, of course, that the Republican Party of the Transition Era, the R-CA, and their successor, the American Christian Nation Party (ACNP), would eventually undo much of what the original Republican Party had accom­plished when under President Abraham Lincoln it had lead the nation into war over the twin issues of pre­serving the Union and ending Negro slav­ery.

The ACNP would, by creating the New American Republics in 2011, break up the Union, and institute enforced, absolute, racial segre­gation that to some represented a form of slavery.  Prior to the forma­tion of the NAR, al­though the action had no practical application, it happened that they had, for the symbolic reason of adhering to the “Doctrine of Original Intent” concerning the Constitution, in 2010 among other things re­pealed the XIIIth Amend­ment (which had abol­ished slav­ery).

It was at the 13th annual “Road-to-Victory” national meeting of the Chris­tian Coalition held at Regent University in Virginia Beach, VA in November, 2003 that Jefferson Davis Hague had gained the Coalition’s “highest moral evaluation.”  (Right up to the adoption of the Suprema­cy Amendment in 2007, the Coalition was always careful to do nothing to jeopardize its tax-exempt standing.  The adoption of the Amendment had, among other things, lead to the passage of Federal legislation guar­anteeing “approved” churches’ tax-exemption regardless of what activi­ties they un­dertook.  Before that time, however, the Coalition never “endorsed” candi­dates [Freedom Writer].  It simply “recognized their moral value.”)  Once having achieved the Coalition’s top rating, Hague had the Republican-Christian Alliance Presidential nomina­tion well in hand.

The Political Background of Jefferson Davis Hague

Given Jefferson Davis Hague’s background, it would come as no surprise that as President, he would live up to the heritage implied by both his given and surnames, and then some.  At age 34 in 1994, Hague had been elect­ed to the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives from a district in Northern New Jersey.  He thus be­came a mem­ber of that year’s so-called “Fresh­man Class” of Right-Wing Reac­tion­ary Re­publi­cans.  A salesman of heavy-duty truck rigs of the type his father drove, typical of many in the “Freshman Class” before his elec­tion, he had had no experi­ence in government at any level.  He saw government in gen­eral and the Feder­al government in particular as ene­mies to be sub­dued, not as a set of institu­tions there to be made to work for the benefit of all the people, operating under a Constitution that gave the Federal gov­ernment a broad mandate and responsi­bility to work on behalf of the pub­lic good.

He was from the beginning vocal and vigorous in promoting the whole Right-Wing Reactionary agenda: end welfare, cut taxes, emascu­late gov­ern­ment regulation and “interference in the free mar­ket” with a special emphasis on gutting environ­mental regulation, significantly re­duce legal protections and recourse for both consumers and organized labor, intro­duce Congressional term limits, and so forth.  (That he was especially vocal on the term limits issue is highly ironic in the light of his own later history.)  He was also at the cut­ting edge of developing the new political racism that began with the Republican anti-affirmative action campaign first featured in the 1996 elec­tions.

He finely honed the line of assaulting “prefer­ences, quotas, and spe­cial privileges for special interests,” while proclaiming all the while that he was “no racist,” and simply wanted a “color-blind society” (Wilkins).  He also was one of the first to develop the strategy by which the Republicans were able to maintain support for affirmative ac­tion programs benefiting (white) women while at­tacking those benefit­ing all persons of color.  This tack proved very useful electorally for the Re­pub­licans.

Like many of his Right-Wing Reactionary cohorts supported by the Chris­tian Coalition he had never been particularly religious himself.  For example, he had never attended church on a regular basis.  (That inconsis­tency was nothing new for Right-Wing Reaction. Its patron saint, Ronald Reagan, himself attended church infrequently).  It is not even clear that Hague believed in a God conscious of his own person, a key tenet of the New American Religion (Bloom).  Nevertheless, throughout his tenure in the House he spent an in­creasing amount of time developing his “pro-Christian” position and allegianc­es.  As indi­cated, this proved very useful to him in the Presidential primaries of 2004.

From 1995 on, he attached himself closely, both physically and ideo­logically, to Newton Gingrich, the Right-Wing Reactionary Speaker of the House.  And Hague quickly rose through the ranks of the House leader­ship, despite his young age.  By the time the 108th Congress convened on Monday, January 3, 2003, he had become Chairman of the increasingly powerful House American Morality Committee (HAMC).  It was created at the behest of the Religious Right by the 106th Con­gress.  The HAMC had been formed to investigate the “mor­al decline” of America and pro­pose ways and means to deal with it.

The HAMC

In many ways, the HAMC was like its ideologi­cal predecessor, the old House Un-American Ac­tivities Committee (HUAC, 1938-1975). The HAMC spent a great deal of time defining groups that supposedly consist­ed of “moral enemies of the American Way of Life.”  It then spent a great deal of time “investigating” supposed members of these supposed groups.  A major means for doing this was to conduct highly publicized hearings into the private lives of American citizens, especial­ly prom­inent ones, who did not buy into the ideology the HAMC repre­sented.

Unlike the HUAC, which focused on political issues, as its name indicated the HAMC focused on “moral” ones.  It was especially inter­est­ed in “sexual morality,” sex and sexual identity being almost a mat­ter of obsession for many a Right-Wing Reactionary.  Also unlike the HUAC, which never in its entire tenure proposed even one piece of legislation, much less secure its passage, the House American Morali­ty Committee was very busy in both regards.

The HAMC became the most public proponent of the position that private morality should be the subject of the public law, especially the criminal law, the position held so strongly by the Religious Right dur­ing the Transition Era (see Appendix IV for a theoretical discussion on this subject by Dino Louis).

The HAMC held the legislating of “moral be­havior” to be its high­est re­sponsibility.  Hague’s vigorous and very public efforts in leading this crusade were central in getting him the 2004 Re­publican Presiden­tial nomi­nation.  He in turn, publicly at least, held the passage of the 31st and 33rd Amendments to the Constitution, (the Moral­ity and Su­premacy Amendments respectively [see Chapters seven and nine]), to be the most impor­tant achievements of his first term.

The Elections of 2004

By 2004, “The 15% Solution” was in full opera­tion for the elec­toral benefit of Right-Wing Reac­tion.  The Democratic Party had still not recov­ered from its Transition Era, Democratic Leader­ship Council- inspired, “me-too” stupor.  The left, such as it was, was never able to develop a solidly American ideology and program that went be­yond a Christmas-tree ornament package with in­dividual proposed solu­tions to individual prob­lems, having nothing to tie any­thing together into a con­sistent, politically salable, comprehensive philosophical and pro­grammat­ic pack­age.

Thus, with no viable alternatives to the continu­ation of Right-Wing Reac­tionary policies offered by the R-CA, voter turnout remained abys­mally low.  Hague waltzed in with 55% of the vote, and the Republican Party gained solid two-thirds-plus, “Amendment-guarantee,” majorities in both Houses of Con­gress.  As had been the case from 1994 onwards, even though the number of voters choosing the Republicans hovered around 15% of the total number eligible to vote (thus “The 15% Solu­tion”), the victory was hailed by the media as a “landslide.”

The First Hague Inaugural

President Hague’s First Inaugural Address was delivered from the National Cathedral on Christ­mas Day, 2004.  Under President Pine, Inau­gura­tion Day had been moved from January 20th to that date.  The move accomplished the dual pur­pose of having the new President in place before the new Congress would convene on Monday Jan­uary 3, 2005, and mak­ing a strong Republican nod in the direction of the Reli­gious Right, even before the formalization of the R-CA. The Nation­al Cathedral had been taken over several years earlier by the New Ameri­can Religion (Bloom), the rapidly growing religious arm of the political Reli­gious Right.

The text of the Hague speech contained a pecu­liar amalgam of styles.  On occasion it was quite explicit but in one place it was quite opaque.  For a speech that definitively announced to the world that the new U.S. Presi­dent fully intended to carry out his campaign promises, it had a somewhat jumbled nature and was quite short.  However, the latter characteristic was quite com­mon in Hague addresses (and quite the opposite of the usual style of dictators from Mussolini and Hitler through Stalin to Castro, a role Hague would later fill).

Historians of our time generally consider Hague’s trademark brevi­ty to be a nod, conscious or unconscious, in the direction of recogniz­ing that a short attention span was characteristic of most of his follow­ers.  For many years, historians have been split on what, even in the context of under­standable brevi­ty, accounted for the strange na­ture of the text of his first Inaugural.  Indeed, the controversy of the “why and how” raged hot and heavy in certain quarters until it was settled by the recent discovery of the “Connie Conroy Note” which answered the question (see above): the speech was a cut-and-paste job using various Right-Wing Reactionary texts from the late Transition Era.

An Alex Poughton letter

December 31, 2004

Dear Karl,

I am writing you on this last day on this dismal year before I dis­mally go into my cups and hopefully pass out before the cheers of the faithful echo around Washington welcoming in what they ex­pect to be a glorious New Year.  Glorious for the faithful, per­haps.  But for this increasingly be­nighted country, I don’t think so.

What a speech!  First, my suspicion is that few of its words were original.  I know I heard several of the most famous 90s quotes from Buchanan and Robertson, without attribution, of course.  And towards the end there was something that sounded just like Gingrich.  But plagiarism is a detail in the context of the politics of the thing. Hague and his new “Republican-Christian Alliance” are just ever-more deep­ly into the “Poli­tics of Mytholo­gy.”

You will recall that that strategy was introduced first in the 1980s by Rea­gan with the use of, for example, mythical “Wel­fare Queens” and fake quotes from Lincoln (Mitgang).  But it was really developed intensively in the 1990s by such people as the Republican ideologue Bill Kristol and the controllers of Rush Limbaugh: inventing some thing, some force, some trend in soci­ety, some supposed social policy that really doesn’t exist, then getting people to believe that it does, and finally making it into “The Ene­my.”

The latter was crystallized in this speech by the short section re­fer­ring to the “enemy’s” “insidious, chameleon-like” nature.  That “enemy” is never clearly identified, but presumably the faithful know precisely to whom the reference is being made.

In the 90s, for example, Kristol and his ilk constantly harped on the “Counter-Culture” of the 60s and its impact on Ameri­can values, in the 90s.  They conveniently neglected to define it, of course—its major social features happened to have been the pro­motion of peace, love, and commu­nity (Vitello).  (They liked to focus on the “sexual revolution” which sup­posedly ac­companied it, but then these guys are all sex-obsessed anyway.)

They conveniently neglected to point out that there never was a na­tional political leader who ever came close to adopting the “Counter-Culture” as representing his basic values, so it never received that kind of imprimateur. But for the Right-Wing Re­ac­tionaries, that lacu­na in their logic was just an inconvenient de­tail.

They also conveniently ignored the fact that the “Counter-Cul­ture” was marginal to most of the lives of many Americans even when it was a some­what prominent feature of American life back in the 1960s.  And they most conveniently ignored the impact on American life of the Reaganite ideology of “every man for him­self and the devil take the hindmost” [Author's Note: see also the quote from Michael Levin that ap­pears in Chapter seven, p. 88].

That ideology, of course, was very influential in the histori­cal peri­od just prior to Kristol’s first rise to prominence in the mid-Transition Era.  And because it was associated with a very popular national lead­er, and was backed up by his social, politi­cal, and economic policies, it happened to have had a much more widespread, and extremely dele­terious  impact on Ameri­can life than did the “counter-culture.”  The Reaganite ideology of the 80s was also the centerpiece of the Limbaugh ideology of the 90s, disguised as “self-responsibility” (both harking back to Herbert Hoover’s pre-Great Depression “rugged individual­ism”).  But Kristol and Limbaugh, and the other pro­mot­ers of the Poli­tics of My­thology just ig­nored the histori­cal facts.

Proceeding along these historical lines, in March, 1994, for ex­am­ple, Kristol’s ideological soul-mates at the old Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial that actually  blamed the murder that month of Dr. David Gunn, the first victim of the violent wing of the forced birthing movement, on the “permissiveness” of the 1960s!  The Poli­tics of Mythology.

Then there was Limbaugh himself continuing in the spring of 1995 to rail against the Congress as the fount of all evil.  He did this even after Congress had come under Right-Wing Repub­lican control.  Back then, despite the power of Bob Dole and Newton Gingrich and the success of Right-Wing Republi­canism in the Congress, Limbaugh was already be­ginning to call for the election of a “strong leader in the White House” to solve the country’s problems because “Con­gress couldn’t do it.”  The Poli­tics of Mythology.

Or take the Religious Right and the Politics of Mythology.  For years they regularly railed against the “secular humanists” as the most danger­ous enemy of everything that was right about Ameri­ca.  In the mid-90s, I know for sure, the leading organi­zation so-labelled by the Religious Right, the American Human­ist Asso­ciation, had all of 5400 full members.[3][3]  Hague took pains to sin­gle out the “secular humanists” in his speech, and no one has heard of the American Humanist Asso­ciation for quite some time now.

[1][3] Author’s Note: Poughton could also have referred to the use, start­ing in the 1980s, by Right-Wing Reaction with help from the Right-Wing Democrats, of the Immigration (see Chapter 4) and Welfare (see Chapter 7) issues as if they were truly significant causes of the major problems facing the country, which they were not, to promote distraction and hate.

In that tradition of creating supposedly powerful enemies where there are none, in his speech Hague talked about:

•     A “militant left” when no active left, mili­tant or otherwise, ex­ists in this coun­try—and hasn’t for de­cades—proposing to “bom­bard” and “blast” them, to boot.

•     “Radical feminism,” when it had been marginalized long before 2004.

•     The “promotion of homosexuality by homosexuals,” never a feature of the Gay culture, a culture that has for the  most part tucked itself well-back-into-the closet in the face of the manu­fac­tured hate-filled ho­mo­phobic public atmosphere of 2004.

•     The claimed “anti-Christian bigot­ry” of anyone who dares to simply dis­agree with so-called “Christian” policies.

•     And so on and so forth.

But those who rise to power by generating an ever-rising tide of hate and fear need to keep the supposed enemies front and center.  And just as in the 90s, if they aren’t here in fact, they have to be invented.

As usual, thanks for bearing with me.  You are familiar with the nice things I must say about this place in my regular col­umns.  You are my only outlet for what I know to be the truth.

All the best,

Sincerely, Alex

A Parthenon Pomeroy Diary Entry, December 26, 2004

We did it, we did it.  We’ve finally got the President we need.  Wow!  15 years of hard work to get someone who is on our side.  He’s going to save our country, our freedom, our American way of life.  I can’t believe it.  But I’d better believe it.  I do believe it.

This is going to fix things up all right.  Jobs for everyone.  Cut taxes to the bone.  And we can get the coons out of the schools, get sex out of the schools, get those faggots out of the schools, get prayer back in, where it belongs.  Really keep those damned foreners (sic) out.  This is what we need to get Amer­ica to where it ought to be, to what it can be, to what it always was and always will be.  Thanks, God, and thanks Pat, too.

References:

Bauer, G., “Speech,” Christian Coalition Road-to-Victory Confer­ence, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, 1991.

Bloom, H., “New Heyday of Gnostic Heresies,” New York Times, April 26, 1992, p. 19 (see also Bloom’s The American Religion: The Emer­gence of the Post-Christian Nation).

Buchanan, P., “Speech,” Republican National Convention, 1992.

Falwell, J., Fundraising letter, May, 1993.

Fournier, K., Fund-raising letter, American Center for Law and Jus­tice (Virginia Beach, VA), April, 1995.

Freedom Writer, “Stealth-Deception-You decide,” April, 1994, p. 7.

Gingrich, N., 1, quoted in a fund-raising letter, American Humanist Association (Amherst, NY), Summer, 1995.

Gingrich, N., 2, quoted in Kelly, M., “Rip It Up,” The New Yorker, Jan. 23, 1995.

Marsden, G., “The Religious Right: A Historical Overview,” Chap. 1 in Cromartie, M., Ed., No Longer Exiles, Washington, DC: Ethics and Pub­lic Policy Center, 1993, p. 4.

Mitgang, H., “Reagan’s ‘Lincoln Quotation’ Disputed,” New York Times, August 19, 1992.

National Vanguard Books, Catalog No. 15, PO Box 330, Hillsboro, WV 24946, 1993.

Paladin Press, Catalog Vol. 21,  No. 2, PO Box 1307, Boulder, CO 80306, 1991.

Page, S., “His Stetson’s in the Ring,” Newsday, Feb. 25, 1995.

Peter, L.J., Peter’s Quotations: Ideas for Our Time, New York: Morrow, 1977, p. 46.

RNC: Republican National Committee, The Republican Plat­form: 1992, Wash­ington, DC: August 17, 1992.

Robertson, P., quoted in fundraising letter of the ACLU, 1993, Freedom Watch, March/April, 1994, Vol. 3, No. 2, and Right-Wing Watch, Vol. 2, No. 11, Sept., 1992.

Starr, P., “Nothing Neo: Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea by Irving Kristol,” The New Republic, December 4, 1995, 35.

Vitello, P., “No Sign of Counterculture,” Newsday, December 6, 1994, p. A8.

Weyrich, P., quoted in “The rights and wrongs of the religious right,” The Freedom Writer, Oct. 6, 1995, p. 6.

Wilkins, R., “The Case for Affirmative Action,” The Nation, March 27, 1995, p. 409.

——————————————-

The original edition of “The 15% Solution” is available on Amazon.com and on BarnesandNoble.com. The 2004 print-on-demand re-issue from Xlibris is also available on Amazon.com and on BarnesandNoble.com.  You will find a “Sub-Home Page” for the serialization at the lower right-hand corner of the Home Page for www.TPJmagazine.us.  It contains such items as the Disclaimer, cast of characters, author’s bio., cover copy, and several (favorable) reviews, and will have a full archive of all the chapters as they are published over time.  The serialization is also appearing on www.BuzzFlash.com, Dandelion Salad; The Greanville POST; and TheHarderStuff newsletter.

Jonathan Westminster and biography are based on a pseudonym.

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author/co-author/editor of 30 books. In addition to being a Columnist for BuzzFlash, Dr. Jonas is also a Contributing Author for TPJmagazine; a Featured Writer for Dandelion Salad; a Senior Columnist for The Greanville POST; a Contributor to TheHarderStuff newsletter; a Contributor to The Planetary Movement; and a Contributing Columnist for the Project for the Old American Century, POAC.

see

The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022

“The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 2nd Installment: Chapter One

“The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 3rd Installment: Chapter Two

“The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 4th Installment: Chapter Three: 2001: The Real Drug War

“The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 5th Installment: Chapter Four 2002: The Preserve America Amend­ment (30th)

“The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 6th Installment: Chapter Five 2003: Anderson v. Board of Education

The 15% Solution

About these ads

8 Responses

  1. […] “The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 7th Installment: Chapter Six 2004: The First Hague […]

  2. [...] “The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 7th Installment: Chapter Six 2004: The First Hague [...]

  3. [...] “The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 7th Installment: Chapter Six 2004: The First Hague [...]

  4. [...] “The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 7th Installment: Chapter Six 2004: The First Hague [...]

  5. [...] “The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 7th Installment: Chapter Six 2004: The First Hague [...]

  6. [...] “The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 7th Installment: Chapter Six 2004: The First Hague [...]

  7. steve , i have the book . i will tell you what i think when i get thru reading it .

Please add to the conversation.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s