Barack Obama: Progressive Messiah or Johnny-on-the-spot Benefactor?

Naomi Klein: does Obama have progressive street cred?

Coming once again via The Real News Network, Naomi Klein asks an important question about Barack Obama:

Is he the best benefactor for the collective energies of the American progressive movement? Or is he merely being embraced as the last, best hope of an alternative to ongoing Republican rule?

According to Klein, the gatekeepers of the "progressive infrastructure" in the United States have "suspended their critical thinking skills" in order to prevent John McCain from coming to power. In Klein's mind, the progressive movement is risking its honesty and integrity in singlemindedly becoming cogs in the "Obama machine".

"War mode" thinking has arguably led progressives -- not just in the United States, but in fact worldwide -- to embrace Obama as an anti-Bush figure.

Many of the organizations backing Obama -- such as MoveOn -- have campaigned for Obama relentlessly despite the fact that his policies don't necessarily match their expressed interests.

Unfortunately, this isn't such a big trick for many so-called progressives. Despite the fact that the actual behaviour of such regimes entirely contradicts their expressed beliefs, many so-called progressives will rush to the defense of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Vladimir Putin and the Taliban.

They'll conveniently overlook the fact that in Ahmadinejad's Iran homosexuals are brutally whipped (even as he denies the very existence of Iranian homosexuals on the world stage), in Putin's Russia opposition parties are ruthlessly squeezed out of politics, and women were brutally oppressed in Afghanistan.

The effect is even more profound when they rush to defend individuals who belong to their own movement. Consider the slavish defenses of individuals like Canadian Cynic -- individuals who, through their own behaviour prove themselves antithetical to what the progressive movement is actually supposed to stand for.

The rationale for this is actually quite simple -- and fickle -- indeed:

Anybody who conservatives dislike must automatically be good.

Many of these so-called progressives will immediately ignore the fact that progressives and conservatives often have many interests in common -- so much so that many people embrace socially progressive views while espousing fiscally conservative beliefs.

There are many things that, in fact, conservatives and progressives believe in common: beliefs such as the importance of human rights.

Yet as soon as a conservative politician condemns human rights abuses in Iran, many progressives feel obligated to rush to object. Iran isn't so bad, they insist, the brutal beatings, by Iranian police, of women lobbying in favour of women's rights to the contrary.

If conservatives say that Iran is bad, then Iran must somehow be good.

According to Naomi Klein, the same logic seems to apply to the Barack Obama candidacy: if Obama is running against John McCain, then Barack Obama must automatically be good -- regardless of whether or not he actually embodies the beliefs the progressive movement espouses.

There is no question Barack Obama will be a far more liberal President than John McCain.

But Naomi Klein just may be right: progressive voters may want to be very careful when deciding whether to cast their vote for Barack Obama or Ralph Nader. A vote for Obama may bring them less than they bargained for.

More Dress-Up Fun With Marty Rayner

His mouth is writing even more cheques his brain can't cash

Martin Rayner's bizarre behaviour of late may turn out to have a more rational explanation than it would seem.

He may be experiencing something of an identity crisis.

Rayner recently took time out of his... eh, busy... schedule to respond to this particular comment, found on a post at Return of the Trusty Tory:

"Red Tory, please, for the sake of clarity, remove Tory or any other symbol of Canada or Conservative from your name as you are nothing but a Canada hating, America bashing apologist. You would be best served in the mosque of a radical imam or the Communist party of Canada, which, it appears the Liberals have become."

For the sake of fairness, it's necessary to point out that the commenter is a bit of a nut. Mr Rayner is perfectly entitled to take issue with being accused of hating Canada.

He's said nothing to suggest to anyone that he hates Canada.

The nonsense about Muslim Imams and the Communist party clearly indicates that the commenter is more than a little unbalanced.

But Rayner's own response indicates that the commenter has managed to strike a nerve:

"Look, as long as I have preeminent ranking on Google for the term “Red Tory” and in the absence of any truly compelling argument that I am in some respect unworthy of that estimable term, I’m keeping the name. In the meantime, allow me to draw your attention to what was said by many about one of my fondest personal heroes Oscar Wilde way back when…"

Rayner's response seems to be best embodied in the insistence that "if Google says so, then it must be true". (The sad state of western society when allegedly educated individuals look to Google as the absolute arbiter of truth will remain uncommented on here -- for now.)

Beneath the inane rantings, the commenter raises an important point: how is it that Mr Rayner can justify blogging under the pseudonym "Red Tory" when so much of his behaviour strongly indicates that he has little idea what a Red Tory actually is?

In order to understand why, one needs to direct their attention to an excellent definition of Red Toryism offered by the seemingly now-defunct Deep Red Tory:

"A red tory is a compassionate conservative, driven by a concern for community over individualism, the collective well-being over personal self-interest, Burke over Mill, social responsibility over token rights, societal responsibility over state responsibility, fiscal responsibility over socialism, and responsible government over mob rule."

In particular, attention needs to be paid to the concern for community over individualism -- it's become thematic for various commentators over the last twenty years in particular, from Benjamin Barber to John Ralston Saul.

To put it most simply, Red Tories prefer strong democracy -- built around a participatory model -- to thin democracy -- built around a corporatist, negotiatory model.

Building community is at the very heart of strong democracy. But one has to keep in mind precisely what is necessary to build a community in the first place, then make it strong enough for participatory democracy.

At the very core of participatory (strong) democracy is a social compact that acknowledges that all citizens have a stake in their community. As such, all the citizens of a community have a right -- and an obligation -- to participate in the political life of their community.

But one also has to consider what kind of conditions need to exist in order for all of a community's citizens to participate in that community's political life.

Recently a farce was intentionally made of the concept of civility, a farce that Rayner himself was obnoxiously dismissive of.

Certainly, the exercise was, as Rayner himself notes, "facetious". It was less an attempt to refine the conduct of the Canadian political blogosphere and more a slap in the face to the very concept of civility.

Now, in all fairness, it's important to note that the importance of civility should be imposed to nearly all of Canada's bloggers (myself here at the Nexus included).

But civility is necessary to build the kind of environment in which a participatory (strong) democracy can prosper. Strong democracy is built on the principle that all of a community's citizens are equal citizens.

It's safe to say that someone who believes he can dismiss 30% of his country's population as "retards" is not prepared to engage in a participatory democracy on the pretenses that those so-called "retards" are his equal. Equally so for someone like Rayner who consistently condones that kind of conduct.

In fact, it's safer to say that individual will do everything he can to avoid having to "dirty his hands" engaging with such people under the pretenses of equality, and will probably avoid that by making his community's political environment as toxic, discouraging and unwelcoming as possible.

A legitimate Red Tory would stand up and oppose the behaviour of individuals like this -- not act as an apologist (or, as he himself insists, "intemperate") for them.

A legitimate Red Tory may not like the ideas espoused by their fellow citizens, but is more interested in consensus building -- Barber's metaphor of building a communal menu that reflects community tastes -- rather than fostering corporatist factionalism between "interest groups" -- Barber's metaphor of fighting over whose individual tastes the communal menu will reflect.

A legitimate Red Tory should recognize that even those with whom they disagree can serve the purposes of Red Toryism. For an example we can turn to Deep Red Tory's four interrelated principles of Red Toryism:

"1. Tradition & Incrementalism: The tory philosophy is one in which society evolves gradually, remains stable but not static, and relies on tradition as a guide for the future."

Most Red Tories don't favour social conservatism. But a committed Red Tory should recognize that, even as they personally favour progressive political values, social conservatives who would otherwise be viewed as political opponents can instead serve as a "brake" on those progressive values, preventing fast-and-hard Utopian societal upheaval, and all the instability that inevitably comes with it.

"2. Organicism & the Social Fabric: Core to the red tory ideology is the belief that society is more than a sum of its parts. It was Burke who invoked the term "social fabric" as a metaphor to describe society as a collection of individuals who, when woven together like threads, produce a much stronger and grander entity."

But in order for such a "stronger and grander entity" to be created, one has to work with the parts that are available. A strong social fabric cannot be woven without all of its members. As such, even the political beliefs and ideologies with which one disagrees or one disapproves of must have a place -- most importantly, an equal place -- in that social fabric.

The idea is to create a society wherein the bonds of citizenship and mutual obligation are so strong that efforts at accommodation are actually unnecessary.

3. Ascription & Imperfection: The very essence of toryism is rooted in the Protestant belief in human imperfection, and the existence of a ‘natural hierarchy’ in society such that only the most capable should assume positions of authority. For red tories, while the social ladder exists, it is still accessible to those with lower social status, who may climb it gradually through their lifetimes and initiative, or over the course of several generations."

Even the dissent of those who disagree with the direction in which a community serves a purpose. It reminds citizens of the imperfections in their society, and serves as the impetus for the continual -- incremental -- progressive improvement of that community.

This dissent can come from the left (typically, the engine although sometimes the brake) or the right (typically vice versa).

"4. Paternalism & Noblesse Oblige: In essence, then, toryism is a belief system that combines paternalism and collectivism through the concept of ‘noblesse oblige’. In the tory view of community, one discovers a sense of mutual obligation – of duties and privileges, rights and responsibilities – such that those in positions of privilege owe concern to those of lower social and political status, while the latter owe a certain degree of deference to elites. Labeled "tory democracy", this set of values may help to explain the ebbing of red toryism in an age of declining social and political deference."

Of course, this fourth principle is a matter of some debate. There are those that argue that low taxes allow for more money left in the hands of those who earn it, allowing for more charity (although they themselves have to remember Irving Kristol's insistence that if the market wants to be predominant, then it must accept responsibility for eliminating poverty).

Of course, others argue that only the state can manage all of a community's needs, and that the unencumbered free market rarely provides for the needs of the underprivileged. This, more often than not, has turned out to be true.

The role of a Red Tory should be to build a consensus between the two -- not overwhelmingly side with one against the other, as many people seem to think Rayner has done.

The fact that Rayner would take time out of his day to respond to a half-baked admonition from a largely anonymous individual suggests in itself that he is a little conflicted about his professed beliefs.

Either he never really knew what a Red Tory is in the first place, or has simply lost his way.

One way or the other, he should actually find it harder to justify his insistence that he's a Red Tory than simply "well, Google says so". Whether or not he's capable of being honest enough with himself to realize it has yet to be seen.

The Final Refuge of the Intellectual Coward

Apparently, some denizens of the left-wing blogosphere have no idea what "lies and fabrications" are

Readers of the Nexus may recall what the first refuge of the intellectual coward is.

And today Martin Rayner has reminded us what the last refuge of the intellectual coward is: dismissing inconveniently factual points as "lies".

After all, Marty, if "you can't define what a progressive is, so you can't tell us we aren't progressives" doesn't summarize your expressed beliefs, what else was the point of this particular spittle-feckled temper tantrum?

If you truly take exception to that interpretation of your impotent tirade, then feel free to elaborate on it.

We all know you have the attention span of an ADD-afflicted gnat, so we won't hold you to any serious debate on this matter. There's no reason to expect you to spontaneously conjure the cojones anyhow.

You've never had the guts before, and it's unlikely you ever will.

All the Fun Things You Can Be On Your Own Say-So

Martin Rayner misses the point -- again -- in spectacular fashion

Speaking of people who just don't get it, here's a classic example: Martin Rayner aka "Red Tory".

Some may recall Rayner's impotent sputtering in response to a recent post here at the Nexus that insisted that Canadian Cynic and his mindless coterie of sheep aren't progressives.

Rayner's response? "You can't define what a progressive is, so you can't tell us we aren't progressives."

Well, unfortunate for mr Rayner, there are numerous ways of defining progressivism.

But the point really goes much deeper than this, and one is surprised that he just can't seem to grasp it. (No one is surprised that the demagogues over at Cynic's blog don't get it -- we've long ago realized they just aren't all that bright.)

The underlying question is: how does one justify a claim that they are part of an organization, institution or movement? By their own say-so? Or are there requirements?

For example: could one consider oneself a Jew merely by their own say so? Or do they have to possess the beliefs that characterize Judaism, live according to the philosophy of Judaism, or possess some formal relationship with a Synagogue?

It's no different than progressivism. If an individual can be demonstrated to not legitimately hold the beliefs that -- by any number of definitions -- characterize progressives, refuses to behave in a manner that characterizes a progressive philosophy, and possesses no formal relationship with the progressive movement (although the progressive movement is notably large enough that no one person could possess a formal relationship with it, unless indirectly) then that person can't call themselves a progressive.

Having accepted Mr Rayner's insistence (that one can claim to be something despite failing to meet the requirements), I've decided to indulge myself in the following things:

-I am now a citizen of Ireland. I've always wanted to be a formal citizen of Ireland. And despite the fact that I wasn't born there, and have no formal affiliation with the state of Ireland, I am now an Irish citizen. Because I said so.

-I've always thought it would be kind of cool to be a prince. Despite the fact that I wasn't born into the House of Windsor, and have never married into it, I now declare myself a member of the British Royal family. Because I said I am. Apparently, that's enough.

-I've always wanted to be part of a multi-platinum selling rock band as well. As such, I'm declaring myself to be a member of Metallica, despite the fact that I don't play any of the instruments the band uses, have never met any members of the band, never tried out, and never been formally affiliated with the band. But I'm now a member of Metallica because I say so. In Martin Rayner's dream world, this is enough.

To top it all off, I'm a member of the Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic and Green parties. I don't share the beliefs of any of these parties and haven't paid a membership fee to any of them, but I'm a member of all four. Because I say so.

Marty's dream world may not quite be the real world, but it's much more fun than the real world. Still, it's not quite reality, is it?

(This is the kind of shit that really shouldn't have to be explained to people.)

And 'Lo and Behold: A Point Proven

Wow. They just. Don't. Get. It.

Some readers of the Nexus may recall yesterday's response to online hatemonger Canadian Cynic's "day of civility".

In the face of such a slap in the face to political discourse, it was necessary to point out that individuals like Canadian Cynic, who claim to be progressives, are not progressives.

Which, of course, drove good old Marty Rayner into a sputtering, incoherent rage. The truth really hurts, it would seem.

Considering the rebuking of his rage here at the Nexus, it's unsurprising that it would bubble over at his own blog, as henceforth:

"Doughy pantload and professional freeloader, oops, sorry… “sociology student”… Patrick Ross launches into yet another one of his painfully tiresome, windy and wholly ill-informed attacks on his nemesis and unrequited love-object, Canadian Cynic. This time he builds his ridiculous argument on the feeble contention that Cynic is not a “Progressive”…

Oh dear, here we go again with semantic labels and ideological definitions. In this case, Patrick hangs his baseball cap on a short blurb from the obscure website of some undistinguished outfit called “The Progressive Living Foundation” that defines “progressivism” as follows:

"…a political movement that represents the interests of ordinary people in their roles as taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents. To coin a phrase, progressivism champions government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people.’"

Gee, could that be a little more vacuous or fluffy? One hardly thinks so. Let’s see if we can come up with something more edifying. Wikipedia is often a good place to start:"

Oh, yes. Wikipedia. Sure, Marty. Let's start with a "source" that would net one a zero on any serious academic paper.

Let's start with a "source" renouned for the content tampering that is known to occur.

This being noted, let's indulge Mr Rayner:

"…A general branch of political thought which arose as a response to the vast changes brought by industrialization, and as an alternative both to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more or less radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Progressivism historically advocates the advancement of workers’ rights and social justice. The progressives were early proponents of anti-trust laws, regulation of large corporations and monopolies, as well as government-funded environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges."

Of course “Progressivism” is a colossally broad, nebulous sort of term and therefore difficult to define with any precision."

No duh, Marty, but let's not stop you from trying. After all, let's consider this further passage from the source originally cited:

"Economic elites emerge in every society and invariably seek to promote their own interests, all too often against those of taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents. By definition, economic elites enjoy greater wealth, and therefore influence, than the ordinary citizen, and they typically attempt to exploit these advantages politically, using them as leverage to obtain still greater wealth and influence."

Hmmmm. So let's see, economic elites -- who also tend to be political and cultural elites -- impede progressive politics, which "represents the interests of ordinary people in their roles as taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents."

In other words, progressivism is meant to advance the interests of those who fall in between the economic elites and the revolutionary socialists and anarchists who insist on a complete overthrow of the system.

Sounds an awful lot like... what was that term, again? Oh, yeah. "Ordinary people".

Seems an awful lot like the very definition that I used. But in his simmering rage poor ol' Marty just isn't capable of reading between the lines.

"It’s interesting to note the vast array of disparate individuals deemed to be “progressives” in the Wikipedia entry; from Upton Sinclair to Thorstein Veblen, and Dennis Kucinich to Woodrow Wilson. But to put a somewhat finer point on matters, John Halpin, senior advisor at the Center for American Progress offers up this insight:

“Progressivism is an orientation towards politics, It’s not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic.”

Unfortunately, this sort of delicate attitudinal nuance is apparently incapable of penetrating Patrick’s fantastically dense mullet, resulting in him just moronically squawking the dimestore mantra that “Progressivism represents the interests of ordinary people.” Well, duh. What political movement doesn’t make similar claims?"

Really, Marty? Do you really think so?

Let's consider the comments of Eric Alterman, author of Why We're Liberals, who insisted "liberalism is the ideology, progressivism is the strategy."

Let's put Marty on a time out here for a couple of minutes so we can define "dynamic" for him:

1. pertaining to or characterized by energy or effective action; vigorously active or forceful; energetic: the dynamic president of the firm.
2. Physics.
a. of or pertaining to force or power.
b. of or pertaining to force related to motion.
3. pertaining to the science of dynamics.
4. of or pertaining to the range of volume of musical sound.
5. Computers. (of data storage, processing, or programming) affected by the passage of time or the presence or absence of power: Dynamic memory must be constantly refreshed to avoid losing data.
6. Grammar. nonstative.
–noun
7. a basic or dynamic force, esp. one that motivates, affects development or stability, etc.

According to this definition, which Rayner seems to favour, progressive politics "pertains to effective action" and "affects development or stability".

Yes, that is much more descriptive than a politics that rejects elitism and acts in the interests of ordinary people. But the greatest hilarity is only yet to come:

"Following on from this stupendously dim revelation is a lot of cheap, utterly meaningless blather (over 800 words, all signifying nothing whatsoever) about “Cynic and his coterie of vicious hooligans” that don’t bear repeating or even skimming really, but behold this brilliant gem:

"What either fail to recognize, or fail to admit, is that the freedom for those who disagree with them to express their views without fear of attack or harassment is part and parcel of a progressive social contract in which people -- each presumably as equal as the next -- are permitted to hold to hold their own opinions, recognize their own interests, organize in order to pursue their interests, and express their opinions in that regard."

Yeah, well I’ll certainly keep that in mind when Frank Hilliard launches into his next spirited defense of the individual rights of people who choose to “pursue their interests” by driving whilst intoxicated or when he starts hysterically shrieking that Halal certification on certain lamb products is a sure sign that the imposition of Sharia Law by the treacherous Islamofascists in our midst is close at hand. Likewise, I’ll try to remind myself to be a little more sensitive to Kate McMillan the next time she endorses the “free speech” of a self-confessed “full time Nazi” who advocates the wholesale murder of homosexuals based on a commandment from Scripture."

The larger point that Marty seems to be missing is that no one is suggesting that he and his compatriots shouldn't be allowed to criticize individuals like Hilliard, McMillan, myself, or anyone else with whom they disagree.

But if Rayner wants to criticize people, then the onus is on him to be clear about what it is that he's actually criticizing. What he fails to understand is the greatest failures to this end vis a vis an ad hominem attack. Notably, that an "ad hominem attack is a fallacy:

"The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made)."

If Martin Rayner and Canadian Cynic really find the ideas of Hilliard, MacMillan or myself so atrocious, then perhaps they could find it in themselves to dispute the ideas.

In fact, in choosing to attack character instead of ideas, Rayner and Cynic actually offer a tacit admission that they can't. Ironically, the ideas they find so abhorrent come away from their criticisms stronger than before because of this, except in the minds of like-minded hatemongers.

So instead of debating ideas they settle for attacking character -- Rayner himself proves that in the course of his post. (One is also reminded about numerous challenges to debate the ideas instead of merely attacking the messenger, all of which went unanswered). In the process they clearly intend to exact such a personal toll on people whose ideas they abhor that these people will feel discouraged from expressing them.

"Perhaps others can back me up on this, but the last time I glanced at my “Progressive” membership card, I don’t recall there being any requirement that I check my brains at the door and automatically subscribe to the ludicrous notion that all ideas and opinions are of equal merit."

Certainly not. But one has to start with Martin Rayner and his "progressive membership card" -- he doesn't have one. He isn't a progressive.

"I forget the exact wording, but it may in fact even have suggested something to the contrary — that some ideas are catastrophically dumb and therefore quite deserving of being figuratively pilloried and mocked to death. Like say… much of the flatulent nonsense of Patrick Ross."

Unsurprisingly, Rayner just doesn't get it. This shoudn't surprise anyone by now.

In the end, Rayner just simply fails to comprehend the meaning of progress:

1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress. See synonyms at development.
4. A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her realm.

It raises a number of questions vis a vis Martin Rayner:
1. Whose goals should progressivism advance? Those of the largest number of people possible? Or merely his?

2. What kind of development or growth is fostered by a political discourse built upon the foundation of ad hominem attacks?

3. What kind of steady improvement of our society should we expect if entire groups of people are harassed out of participating in political discourse?

Well, there are some simple answers to be offered.

Certainly, progressivism could work toward only the goals of people like himself. Perhaps the development or growth would be something that he would be satisfied, but one has to consider the resentment that would bubble amongst the masses of people driven to the fringes and thus banished to permanent dissatisfaction with such development or growth. Could it really be considered a steady improvement if the society that Rayner envisions is built upon such a powderkeg?

One has to remember the thing about powderkegs: sparks tend to make them explode.

But then again, one also has to remember that the vicious and toxic discourse favoured by Marty and his compatriots would only lead our society to a place where only certain people -- the people with the so-called right ideas -- are allowed to participate in political debate.

This would not lead us toward a dynamic politics in which change is possible, but rather toward a stale politics in which change has been rendered impossible because the so-called wrong ideas have been forced out at the expense of intellectual pluralism.

This isn't progress. This is regression. Sadly, it's clearly the kind of politics that Martin Rayner envisions -- a world wherein political debate begins and ends with the word "retard" and there's little to no room for actual ideas.

But if Rayner wants to prove differently, the ball's in his court: start accepting the challenge to divest himself of ad hominem attacks and debate the ideas.

Unfortuantely, we know he won't. The ball may be in his court, but he's too scared to dribble it out.

He won't debate honestly. It's yet another reason why he isn't a progressive.

Why Doesn't the United States Have a Stable, Viable Social Democratic Party?

An unlikely source provides the answer

If there is one great unanswered question about American politics, it's probably "who really killed JFK?"

At least, if you're a nutbar.

If, like the rest of us, you aren't a conspiracy-peddling, Manitoba-cigarettes-smoking weirdo, that question is probably "why doesn't the United States have a viable, stable social democratic party?

A passage from Al Franken's The Truth (With Jokes) ironically provides an answer -- and it's an answer that "progressives" like Franken probably won't like.

Starting on page 119, and continuing onto page 120:

"It is actually illegal for tax-exempt religious organizations to engage in partisan political activity. But that didn't stop the Bush-Cheney campaign from encouraging clergy in battleground states to do their civic duty. In Pennsylvania, for example, recieved this e-mail from a Bush-Cheney staffer:

"Subject: Lead your congregation for President Bush

The Bush-Cheney '04 national headquarters in Virginia has asked us to identify 1600 "Friendly Congregations" in Pennsylvania where voters friendly to President Bush may gather on a regular basis. In each of these friendly congregations, we would like to identify a volunteer coordinator who can help distribute general informatinon to other supporters. If you are interested, please email Luke Bernstein at LBernstein@GeorgeWBush.com your name, address, phone number and place of worship.

Thanks,
-Luke

Paid for by Bush-Cheney '04, Inc

Jesus Christ! And this from a Bernstein?!

Look. Churches are always going to be involved in social justice issues, on one side or the other. Just as Dr. Martin Luther King (for) or Dr. Jerry Falwell (against). ANd some congregations certainly have a political bent, such as Our Lady of Gun Control in Bayside, Queens. But this was ridiculous. Even the campaign's allies thought the White House had gone too far, considering the state of the law at the time.

There was only one solution. Change the law."

Oooh! Those dastardly Republicans, right?

Right?

Hold that phone.

"In early June 2004, Republicans in the House Ways and Means committee added an ammendment to H.R. 4520, the American Job Creation Act of 2004 (which cut corporate taxes, thereby creating jobs for people who gild bathroom fixtures), that would allow churches to commit three (count 'em, three) "unintentional violations" of legal restrictions on political activites each year without losing their tax-exepmpt status. I call that the "four strikes and you're out" law. Even more exciting, clergy would now be allowed to endorse candidates, as long as they made it clear they were acting as individuals and not on behalf of religious organizations.

Thankfully, when even the Southern Baptist Convention said the Republicans were getting a little too cute, the "Safe Harbor for Churches" amendment died a quiet death."

Hooray! A victory for the separation of church and state, right? Right?

Well, that is important. But, at the same time, there are numerous questions. What about the right of Pastors to express their opinions (politically or otherwise), alternately known as free speach? What about the right of religious congregations to organize as they see fit (again, politically or otherwise)?

Of course, these are important questions, but not necessarily pertinent for our purposes here. For that, we have to turn to the development of Canada's social democratic party, the New Democratic Party. (While the Bloc Quebecois often claims to be a social democratic party, they don't count because they are founded almost entirely on an exclusionary racial ideology.)

The NDP was formed in 1961 as a political merger of the CCF (Cooperative Commonwealth Foundation) and the Canadian Labour Congress. The annointed leader, Tommy Douglas (quite possibly one of the three best Prime Ministers Canada never had) was actually an ordained Baptist minister. (That's right, you read it -- Baptist.)

Both the CCF and the NDP after it were based almost entirely on the Protestant Social Gospel. The Social Gospel advocated that Christian values demanded a more generous and inclusive society (aforementioned by Al Franken as social justice).

It probably helped that in Canada churches were allowed to hold and express political opinion. An obsession with politically marginalizing religion certainly isn't anything that has never manifested itself in Canada (see: modern NDP), but it has yet to establish the stranglehold on religion that exists in the United States.

Comparing the two case studies, one can't help but draw the conclusion that the failure of the United States to produce a relevant social democratic party is at least partially due to its legal muzzling of religious movements.

Of course other factors, such as an obsessive, fearful suspicion of communism (although suspicion certainly was warranted, at least on a limited basis -- read: not McCarthy-esque) certainly played a role, one has to wonder what would exist today.

Maybe -- just maybe -- a stable, viable social democratic party.

(If you're reading this, Ralph Nader, you don't count. And it certainly was a shame that Howard Dean -- whom history may recognize as one the best Presidents the United States never had -- was judged to be too scary by Democrats.)

Naturally, the blending of politics and religion can go too far, and George W Bush is a fairly decent example of that (although most of the Republican party's intractable opponents find Mike Huckabee even more threatening). But one should also keep in mind that a liberal mixing of politics and religion can also have positive results.

Canadian public health care is, without a doubt, history's greatest example of this.

But before the specific values of the Social Gospel can take root, as they have north of the 49th parallel, religious organizations have to be allowed to at least knock at the door. It's ironic that some of those who most decry the lack of social democrats in the United States are the ones most determined to see that this is never allowed.