Trump’s Angry White Men

The ascendancy of Donald Trump in American politics says little positive about the nation, but is particularly telling in the manner in which it shows the misogyny that reigns among white males, especially those who are poorly educated.    Having two daughters, Trump is the antithesis of what I see as a decent, moral individual, most certainly when it comes to his treatment of women.  His views on minorities, and I suspect gays as well, are little better. One can only hope that the women of America and minorities hated by Trump and his Neo-Nazi like supporters will see the danger that the man poses and get out and vote.  Michael Gerson, a long time Republican and former White House staffer looks at the ugliness fueling Trump's support.  Here are highlights: 

What do most of the chief advisers and surrogates of the Trump campaign have in common? I’m thinking of Chris Christie, Roger Ailes, Stephen Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich.

What could possibly unite this diverse group? They are white, middle-aged (and older) males — not that there is anything wrong with that. They are almost psychotically sycophantic. (According to Gingrich, Donald Trump won an “enormous, historic victory” in the first presidential debate. Both Christie and Giuliani have called Trump a “genius” for avoiding federal taxes.) They are very forgiving about certain foibles (“everybody” commits adultery, explains Giuliani) and rather tough on others (Miss Universe Alicia Machado, says Gingrich, was “not supposed to gain 60 pounds”). They apparently lack the gene for irony (“America’s mayor” is smitten with a candidate who has flirted with 9/11 conspiracy theories).

The ascendance of people such as Gingrich, Giuliani and Trump in the Republican Party, from one perspective, is succeeding. A campaign of shouting, apocalyptic, white men has undeniably appealed to white men. A recent Post-ABC News poll found Trump up 40 points against Hillary Clinton in this category. Up nearly 60 points among white men with no college degree. These results are remarkable, indicating both the limits of Clinton as a candidate and the fury in portions of middle-class and blue-collar America.

If the United States is truly in the midst of a wave election, fed by the fears and discontent of white males, it will have enormous consequences in a country that has moved considerably in the direction of diversity, tolerance and inclusion. A very real culture war will be in full swing, not between social conservatives and social liberals, but between a movement of white economic and cultural grievances and a party of social elites and ascendant minorities. This struggle — rooted in race and class — would be far more bitter than the old culture war of ideas.

Trump’s version of Eden is lounging at the grotto at the Playboy Mansion or smoking cigars in the back room at the Sands, with a little Studio 54 thrown in. This is the man who reportedly pressured his future wife Marla Maples to appear in Playboy and negotiated the deal; who appeared in a soft-core porn video himself (not naked, thank goodness, but breaking a champagne bottle over a limo); and who recently took to Twitter to urge Americans to view a sex tape. This is the man who boasted about his penis size and made amenstruation joke during debates and has a consistent history of demeaning women as “pigs” and “dogs.”

I wonder how Trump evangelicals explain to their sons and daughters that this man is a suitable leader for a great country. I know that people in some minority groups are genuinely frightened by the possibility of Trump’s election. . . . . I also know that if Trump ends up losing in November, it will be because women rallied in large numbers to defeat him.

Conservatives oriented toward reform and outreach — longing for the leadership of Nikki Haley, Tim Scott and Marco Rubio — are largely waiting in shelters for the storm to pass. But what of the Republican Party will be left?

I truly believe that the Republican Party needs to die given its open descent into racism and hatred of so many fellow citizens.  The irony, of course, is that the poorly educated white males supporting Trump will likely be even worse off over time if Trump  wins the White House and implements his tax breaks for the wealthy (including himself).   I find it difficult to have sympathy for these men.  Perhaps less fixation on sports - the current opiate of the lower classes, in my view - and more focus on schooling and education would have allowed them to have found better lives.  But that would mean taking personal responsibility rather than blaming others for their state in life. 

The Christian Right Plan to Sink Jeb Bush

As the initial phases of the GOP presidential nomination dance begin, two battle lines are shaping up: the Christofascists/Tea Party element versus the so-called establishment faction.  It goes without saying that anyone remotely sane and in touch with objective reality will not be acceptable to the Christofascists/Tea Party no matter how unelectable the "real conservative" might be in the general election.  The fear currently ripping through the Christofascists/Tea Party crowd is that Jeb Bush might become the GOP nominee.  Faced with this perceived threat, the Christofascists/Tea Party want to conspire and align behind a candidate that is sufficiently extreme on culture war issues and obsequious to the Christofascists/Tea Party king makers.  The New York Times looks at the effort which (i) proves the Christofascists' detachment from reality and (ii) could prove damaging to the GOP.  Here are excerpts (note the roles being played by notorious hate group leaders):

Fearing that Republicans will ultimately nominate an establishment presidential candidate like Jeb Bush, leaders of the nation’s Christian right have mounted an ambitious effort to coalesce their support behind a single social-conservative contender months before the first primary votes are cast.

In secret straw polls and exclusive meetings from Iowa to California, the leaders are weighing the relative appeal and liabilities of potential standard-bearers like Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and former Govs. Rick Perry of Texas and Mike Huckabee of Arkansas.

“There’s a shared desire to come behind a candidate,” said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a national [hate] lobbying group that opposes abortion and equal rights for gays.

The leaders of evangelical and other socially conservative groups say they do not believe that Mr. Bush, the former governor of Florida — whom they already view as the preferred candidate of the Republican Party’s establishment — would fight for the issues they care most about: opposing same-sex marriage, holding the line on an immigration overhaul and rolling back abortion rights.

The efforts to coalesce behind an alternative candidate — in frequent calls, teleconferences and meetings involving a range of organizations, many of them with overlapping memberships — are premised on two articles of conservative faith: Republicans did not win the White House in the past two elections because their nominees were too moderate and failed to excite the party’s base. And a conservative alternative failed to win the nomination each time because voters did not unite behind a single champion in the primary fight.

This time, social conservatives vow, will be different. They plan to unify behind an anti-establishment candidate by summer or early fall . . . . candidates seen as having potential to energize the party’s right wing would be invited to make their case before national groups of social conservatives in the coming weeks and months.

Of course, the basic premise driving the conservatives’ effort — that Republicans have a better shot at the White House by nominating a hard-right candidate who excites the grass roots — is rejected by the party’s establishment, which views a hard-line nominee as a recipe for a crushing defeat in 2016.

Some on the Christian right remain skeptical of the effort to settle on a single socially conservative candidate. Similar attempts in 2008 and 2012 collapsed because no consensus was reached . . .

The yearning for a single conservative contender to unite behind was perhaps most in evidence last month when a dozen leaders of evangelical and other groups gathered for a half-day conference to discuss possible candidates in Dana Point, Calif.

The retreat, at the five-star St. Regis Monarch Beach resort, was the latest in a series organized by Mr. Perkins, of the Family Research Center, according to people briefed about the proceedings.

The session culminated in a vote for “the most viable candidate.” The result, projected on a screen at the front of a conference room, showed Mr. Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher, as the winner.

“No question that conservative leaders around the country would love to coalesce around a candidate,” said Bob Vander Plaats, a social conservative leader in Iowa. “But it’s easier said than done.”

For the sake of the country, let's hope that they succeed and that their anointed candidate goes down to crushing defeat.  Just maybe if that happens, the Christfascists will be exiled to the political wilderness where they belong.

Rape-Marriage of Nigerian Girls IS "Biblical Marriage"

We hear incessantly from the Christofascists that "one man and one woman" marriage is "biblical marriage" as designed by God.   Like just about everything that comes from the lips of the Christofascists, it is a lie.  A close review of the Old Testament portion of the Bible in particular, shows that polygamy was the true norm in terms of biblical marriage.  Moreover, most brides were little more than girls who all too often had no voice in the selection of their husband to be.  Indeed, given their involuntary entry into such marriages, they might well be called "rape-marriages."  All these facts, of course are conveniently ignored by the godly folk.  A piece in Religion Dispatches looks at the fate of girls in Nigeria which reflect true "biblical marriage.  Here are excerpts:

Nearly 300 Nigerian schoolgirls have been ripped from their desks and chairs, notebooks and pencils, smiles and giggles and sent to hell. They’ve been sold, trafficked for sex and reproduction and household labor. Typically described as “forced” marriage, it would be more accurate to call it rape marriage. And, along with polygamy, rape-marriage is a form of biblical marriage despite being regularly overlooked by conservatives proclaiming their desire to return to biblical marriage. It’s evil but it also happens to be scriptural. 

The practice of rape marriage occurs in many cultures and while it is sanctioned by scriptures it actually reflects the antiquated beliefs and practices of many cultures. Boko Haram, the Nigerian terrorist group (mis)uses the language of Islam in declaring forbidden—haram—all forms of western education. Its sole purpose, they claim, is to (re)turn to a state where their cultural and religious values, as they imagine them, are normative, according to their interpretation of Sharia.

In their gross misrepresentation of Islam Boko Haram has turned to a pre-Muslim, pre-Christian practice, that of human trafficking for rape-marriages. These terrorists target girls who are being freed from the shackles of illiteracy and sell them into sexual slavery, quasi-sanctioned by forms of marriage that don’t require the consent of the girl.

The concept of rape marriage is not unique to these villains or their perversion of Islam. The Jewish and Christian scriptures have their own rape texts. . . . . The desire for biblical marriage is more than a reification of heteronormative marriage; it’s also a rejection of women’s sexual and reproductive autonomy. At its core, rape marriage reduces girls to objects for sale and barter to reproduce through torturous conditions, women who are compliant and accepting of their lot in life as household, sexual and reproductive slaves.    

Forced illiteracy is key. Boko Haram is as threatened by the doodle-covered grammar books and primers of schoolgirls as American slaveowners were by letters scratched in the dirt by the women and men they claimed to own

In my commentary on Ruth, I argue that “Religious authorities (bible translators, pastors, seminary professors) have been criminally negligent in exposing the ways in which the biblical narrative sanctions and contributes to the abuse of women in general, and wives in particular.” So we must tell the whole story about the treatment of women and biblical marriage, one which hardly resembles the rosy picture religious conservatives seek to invoke with that phrase.

We must tell the truth that the bible says that fathers can sell their daughters into sexual slavery (Ex 21:7)—given that enslaved women were used to breed slaves and for sexual gratification; there was no slavery for women in the bible that was not sexual slavery. (An argument can be made for the sexual abuse of male slaves as well.)

We must tell the truth that the bible says soldiers can take virgin girls home with them as the spoils of war (Num 31:17).

We must tell the truth that the bible says cut the nails off the woman you take home as your war prize (Deut 21:11)—making the rape easier on the rapist.

We must tell the truth that the bible says that Israelite identity does not protect women from wholesale rape as a tool of war; Judges 21:10-23 details repeated kidnappings of girls for rape marriage within Israel by other Israelites.

We must tell the truth that the bible says Ruth and Orpah were abducted into rape marriages just like the Nigerian schoolgirls.

We must tell the truth that what is biblical is not always godly, holy or even right.  We must teach the bible’s Iron Age theology because it permeates our culture and society and we must reject that theology when it is death-dealing. 

The objectification of women and girls as objects for rape and forced procreation is the manifestation of the rejection of their—our—humanity. It is older than the bible and the other scriptural texts it permeates.
We must reject rape culture in all its forms, looking in all our houses, including houses of worship, sacred spaces and sacred texts.

Telling the truth and the Christofascists are mutually exclusive.  While Christ's Gospel message is positive, much of the Bible is a horror story that justifies all kinds of evils.  It is about time that people realize that the "Good Book" really is not so good in many, many ways.