The American Way of Using Religion as a Stick

So, it has become known that the DNC had it in for Bernie supporters, just as his supporters suspected.

Which tells us that even Democrats are not beneath GOP-tactics of using religion to undermine a candidate.

Jew, agnostic, atheist, who cares anyway? I mean, don't actions speak louder than words? Words are cheap. Actions are where life is.

I've seen some pretty bad things done by those who carry holy books around or profess faith in a deity; and I've seen some pretty good things done by those who are not religious or may be agnostic (not-knowing) about the whole theism thing.

The point isn't to say anyone has a monopoly on "goodness." It is to say one's position on religion or theology is irrelevant to one's public behavior.

Thomas Jefferson was attacked for being an atheist, for daring people to "dare the existence of God" in the name of enlightenment.

Thomas Paine is all but forgotten, because he chose to write The Age of Reason, which undermined organized religion (even though Paine's Common Sense was a huge broadside in pushing the American Revolution forward).

It's always been the lazy politician's (or wonk's) approach to undermine a candidate by accusing him of not conforming to the majority's belief system.

Shame on those in the DNC who went down that route. And shame on the party leaders (DWS and HRC) for not calling them out and shaming them, if only internally.

How the South was Lost

I just watched LBJ (Brian Cranston) last night on HBO and was amazed (not really) how much the appearance (white/male) and rhetoric (state's rights, unconstitutional, etc.) of those opposed to civil and voting rights legislation in the 1960s is the same as today's GOP. Not much has changed. The reactionaries have objectively not evolved in half a century, other than to tone down their speech ... i.e. until Palin and Trump arrived. It does get a bit confusing though, since the South was predominantly Democratic then and that is where much of the opposition came from. LBJ accurately predicted that the Democratic dominance in the South would be lost for at least a generation as a consequence of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Political party allegiances began to invert nearly immediately and has continued apace ever since, with many Democrats (starting with Strom Thurmond) bolting to the Republican Party, that was more (conservative) hospitable to remaining opposed to change (esp. regarding minorities) they felt was "too quick" and upsetting (to their racist constituents).

Republicans quickly seized on the opportunity with their Southern Strategy, that worked extremely well for them. For the country, not so much. Fifty years later, and the "Party of NO!" still thinks any change is "too quick."

19th Century Republicans = Modern Democrats

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican of the 19th century variety.

The philosophical impetus that drove Lincoln evolved since the Civil War and eventually landed in the Democratic Party (the former South/slavery-supporting party) during the mid-20th century when Civil Rights legislation passed.

After that, along with the "culture wars" since, we had an inversion in America's political parties with a good many Democrats abandoning their party to become Dixiecrats (see: Strom Thurmond) or became Republicans in protest of Civil Rights legislation (along with welfare, and liberalism) beginning around the Johnson years.

By the time Reagan came along, the political solidification of the South was already well underway which is why national "party" heat maps show the South as being predominantly "red."

Republicans invoking the name of Lincoln to establish "creds" without qualifying it with historical context is dishonest, at the very least. And, manipulative at worst.