Propaganda’s Waste Product: Betrayal

The pain of betrayal… – Fuel for the journey

The U.S. economy is in shambles as the Covid19 virus continues to ravage cities and rural places across the country. Millions are out of work, many losing hope that they’ll ever get back to the way it was before the virus, before Donald Trump. The “how” of this is self-evident, but the “why” is disguised by layer upon layer of propaganda that has been fed to America over the last forty years. If you’re able to get far enough away from these trees, so that the forest becomes visible, it’s pretty easy to see that this has happened to us, because the right is obsessed with making the rich even richer.

That is its only cause.

Any government individual, program, or policy that existed to provide a check on the power of the super rich has been severely reduced or eliminated. The dangerous isolation of the nationalism that has arisen has made us a laughing stock in a global community that includes business arrangements with foreign powers. Bringing in cabinet members from the very industries they are designed to oversee has taken authority away from a government designed to keep an eye out for mischief within the private sector.

Our world is a mess, and we know it. Now, we stand at the edge of new beginning, assuming the chief author of this mess is shunned by American voters. Trump will (rightly) be the whipping boy for all of the palpable anger in our midst, but there’s another actor in all of this that will take center stage as we try to manage our way out of the chaos we feel, and that’s how we prevent this from ever happening again.

We’re going to have to find a way to trust each other again, for our entire way of life depends on it. And, before we can get there, we have to deal with the propaganda campaign that led us here in the first place. The first amendment has been so abused as to have had its teeth completely removed through a calculated series of lies and other fallacies that have successfully created a narrative within which a politicized press can function as mainstream.

Most people understand that propaganda is skewed information, a.k.a. lies, in a form designed to fool people into believing a certain way and acting on it. It is highly pejorative in our world, because nobody likes to be thusly fooled and manipulated.

And, the discovery that one has been duped leads to an angry and justifiable defense: profound feelings of betrayal. Betrayal is a powerful waste product of propaganda, and its nature as a long-lasting emotional response is sufficient to change the world

Betrayal leaves behind all sorts of ugliness that impacts our social and cultural lives. An academic paper in the National Library of Medicine describes betrayal thusly:

“Betrayal is the sense of being harmed by the intentional actions or omissions of a trusted person. The most common forms of betrayal are harmful disclosures of confidential information, disloyalty, infidelity, dishonesty. They can be traumatic and cause considerable distress. The effects of betrayal include shock, loss and grief, morbid pre-occupation, damaged self-esteem, self-doubting, anger. Not infrequently they produce life-altering changes. The effects of a catastrophic betrayal are most relevant for anxiety disorders, and OC D and PTSD in particular.”

Betrayal begins with trust, and once that is broken, it becomes a long-lasting influence on those for whom the trust was revealed to be foolish in the first place. Those who’ve been so broken aren’t likely to give themselves over to such manipulation in the future.

“Stab the body and it heals,” wrote famous Japanese Geisha Mineko Iwasaki, “but injure the heart and the wound lasts a lifetime.” Or, as Arthur Miller noted, “Betrayal is the only truth that sticks.” This lasting legacy is why propaganda is a fatal wound for those manipulated, and this will come to light in the years ahead, as people grapple with the full extent of the political manipulation of the late 20th Century and early 21st Century.

The white evangelical church, for example, has betrayed its members in adding politics to the gospel, and that’s not going to end well for anybody. The church has given up its rightful place as salt and light in the community in order to obtain a Supreme Court they believe will have their backs in perpetuity. Rather than let God work through them, these deceived ministers and pastors have cast their lot with the super rich and the bearing of false witness in order to get what they want for themselves. The court is now 6–3 in favor of big business and corporations, but starry-eyed Christians think it’s all about them, abortion, and their “religious freedom”.

This is a betrayal of the first magnitude, and repentance and pleading for forgiveness are the only way out. This is unlikely, however, because these propagandists are soundly yoked to the rich and powerful. Nevertheless, it’s not something the church will get over anytime soon.

When the church plays the end-times theme, rest assured there’s a string attached, and it’s directly tied to the business model of the church, for its core competency rests in producing a herd of well-behaved denizens. The truth is that nobody knows the day or time of the end, and to postulate its nearness has been the propaganda of religious charlatans for centuries. After all, if the end is near, then its necessary to assure one’s place in the afterlife, for the saving one’s own ass for eternity has been the self-centered nature of Christian evangelicalism from the beginning.

The deals cut between these church leaders and their political puppet masters were made in dark, secret places, behind closed doors where nobody was watching (see Anne Nelson’s powerful book Shadow Network for some light on the subject). The high calling of caring for the poor and the afflicted has been replaced by a licentious thirst for power, riches, and influence under the sun. As Jesus said about such, “They have their reward,” which ought to send shivers down the backs of those under their counsel.

Propagandists will head for the shadows when discovered, as the 52 Republican Senators did after ramrodding a pro-big business advocate to the Supreme Court earlier this week. The GOP has always stood for the rich, and it’s amazing how many of those barely making ends meet have voted against their own interests in favor of alignment with the wealthy. How could this possibly have happened? Through the lesser of two evils fallacy and propaganda that positioned the GOP as having all the right answers for everybody, especially those poor unborn babies that socialist-liberals were killing left and right.

Did the Jews feel betrayed by the people of Europe who remained silent as they were marched to the Nazi death camps? Do the people dying of the lung complications brought on my smoking feel betrayed by the big business of tobacco? Do Palestinians feel betrayed from guarantees made to them in the beginning regarding Zionism? Do Native Americans feel betrayed by white invaders? Then there are the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church, both guilty of the most heinous forms of abuse and betrayal.

The use of propaganda to take the place of serious journalism is perhaps the greatest national propaganda betrayal of modern times, for in crying “fake news,” professional manipulators representing the political right have planted just enough false evidence to make it stick. There is little argument that this false witness was milked by the GOP as a way to maintain their influence over those being manipulated. It’s very hard to craft sound bites that disprove this particular piece of propaganda, because the press has been the thorn in the side of the ruling elites for at least the last century.

There are those who will argue that Donald Trump was the bad actor in all of this, and that once he’s gone, everything will be tickety-boo. However, Trump would not be President were it not for the secret labor of those wishing to overthrow the checks and balances that governed the engine of big business. This included the dominant role of white evangelicals in playing the religious liberty card ad nauseam while trying to force the culture into submission under their watchful eyes.

The church provides a colorful side show that draws attention away from greed of the one percent. Who cares, for example, that the rich are oppressing the poor when the lives of the unborn are at stake?

Finally, I have to say that, as a student of the Bible, God is not at all impressed with those who practice propaganda in order to gain worldly power and influence. This was the oppressive sin of the Scribes and Pharisees that Jesus railed against at every turn. Old Testament prophets would look across the ravages of Covid19 and insist it was a response of God to sin, but that is completely lost on people today. Today’s God is the same One we’ve always had, and, trust me on this, He is NOT happy with what has been done in His name repeatedly over the last 40 years.

As surely as I’m sitting here at my computer, God is judging this behavior, for He has no place with the propaganda of today or the betrayal that some will doubtless blame on Him. If betrayal has any redeeming quality, it’s that it can be a powerful motivator for change.

And that’s where we are today.

Can/will the Virus Open Eyes?

The deception that is Fox News grows more dangerous to our republic as time passes and more and more people are bathed in the lie that it is a news organization. It is warping our sense of unity and pitting American versus American at a scale that wasn’t even present during the Civil War. Add to this the omnipresence of so-called “conservative” commentators who mix news events with their propaganda, and we have a monster storm against “peace and good will” on this Easter weekend.

Well, Terry, but they’re no different than those on the other side of the aisle.

And this, my friends, is the essence of the lie. It’s perhaps too late to fix it, but let me explain.

The news doesn’t care about political affiliation. It is neutral in that sense, because it’s always based upon that which is “new.” If “new” drives the news agenda, “old” drives the conservative point-of-view. This was evident in Donald Trump’s Make America Great AGAIN slogan. We can’t go back as a culture, and everybody should know this, for to run with a perspective that pushes only the good from yesteryear without considering the alternate pressures that were also in play is foolishness gone-to-seed.

Political coverage is certainly a part of any “news” agenda, but only to the extent that news organizations can speak to new events or trends in informing their audiences. It’s very easy to accuse, but when the accusation is required to justify one’s own existence, it ceases to be relevant to the very concept of news. Simply stated, it’s just propaganda. Contemporary marketing is very often a form of propaganda, foisted upon us in the name of commerce. The same is true with conservative “olds”, and that’s the point.

If news organizations spent as much time trying to shape those thoughts as they are accused of doing, we would have left-wing propaganda groups sharing their views in the form of news. We don’t, and ANY attempt to shape a narrative that says otherwise is pure and self-serving folly. It’s simply absurd, so the argument that “both sides do it” is specious, at best. Survey any group of citizens, however, and this is exactly what they’ve been taught to believe, namely that the news industry’s players are either left or right. Nonsense, and I know, because I was there when we created the concept of “conservative news” in the early 1980s at the Christian Broadcasting Network. We wrote the playbook that Fox copied.

A key part of this effort was to position ourselves alongside existing news organizations and claim that a liberal bias was the same thing as liberal propaganda. Hence, we saw no problem with presenting our conservative propaganda as a participant on the same level as CBS, ABC, and NBC. We spent our money on technology and especially graphics to make ourselves look no different than the rest. We were selling this to an audience ripe for the taking by stating our abhorrence with what we felt was a satanic effort to destroy America.

Conservatism is not at all associated with the news except to provide a “side” to developing stories. News organizations have an ethical governor that demands presentation of all sides in any issue relating to political points of view. The organization itself has no political point-of-view, except perhaps from their editorial boards. As anybody who has worked in the news business knows, there is a vast separation between a news organization’s newsroom and its editorial side. But ownership is ownership, and there are plenty of stories of owner pet projects that find their way into the content presented.

The point is that the bias of news is towards that which is new, and if that is seen as political, the only response can be propaganda. It cannot be expressed as “news”, because that would require a bias towards something else. It also requires looking the other way when events — take, for example, the gender identification movement or political correctness — weaken or destroy its propaganda. Again, this is why we cannot use the term “news” in describing something that isn’t “news”.

I was ridiculed and mocked during a talk about this subject with a group of Colorado right-wingers. When it got too uncomfortable for them, they retreated to the gospel to end the discussion. Open minds, these were not. I knew that going in, but the overwhelming and defensive response revealed that the matter is far more important to their worldview than most observers really imagine. Why else use the Bible to talk back to me, the former Executive Producer of the TV program that created the thing in the first place?

This is why I often reference religion in my writing. White evangelical Christians are completely convinced of their righteousness in this or any other argument.

Methinks they doth protest too much.

Mo Mo Gotta Go Go, Coronavirus Edition

Rep. Mo Brooks with his Master

Oh, Mo. Sigh.

On March 5th, you gave us bullet points on the congressional briefing regarding the virus. You emphasized positives for the USA. Then, on March 9th, you gained publicity for yourself by urging Congress against recessing. These are YOUR words:

Yes, COVID-19 is highly contagious. But, unless you are old or have immune deficiency, the threat is VERY low.

Congress must stand strong as America’s example, not cut & run like snowflakes!

Snowflakes, BTW, is a pejorative term used to describe Democrats. It’s one of those words you’ve been taught to insert wherever you can, but it’s so inappropriate here.

Then on March 10th, you did a radio interview saying that the media was “overreacting” and that the virus was not as serious as some are making it out to be. You were glib and sarcastic in mocking the panic (your word). You chuckled as you told your radio hosts they needed to “get with the panic” and not be gathered together in a radio studio. Laugh? I thought I’d never start.

Here are more quotes from you during that interview. I should add that Matt Murphy and Andrea Lindenberg did a great job in asking the right questions. You, however, were a major FAIL! Remember, this was March 10, 2020.

“It is not novel. It is not new. And yet the public is being beaten into a panic mode by the mainstream news media. You just talked about four thousand people dead. We’ve had hundreds of thousands of people during the same period die from the flu. Hundreds of thousands worldwide. Why are we panicking over four thousand versus hundreds of thousands that we see on a regular basis every year?…

Question: Why is government now creating commissions and getting involved?
“To try to address the panic that the mainstream news media and the Democrats are drumming up. That’s not to say it isn’t serious. It’s not to say you shouldn’t be taking precautions, but they’re the same kinds of precautions you should take every flu season…

“This thing is being blown all out of perspective by the mainstream news media, and it’s causing damage to our economy and damage to our lives as a result…

“If you’re under age 60 and your immune system is functioning as it normally does, you really are not at risk any more than if you’d caught a cold or the flu…

“There is risk, but at the same time, you have to keep the risk into perspective. And the best perspective I can put it into is compare it to the normal flu and what happens every year with that flu…

“The rest of us need to go on with our daily lives and try not to interact with those who are in one of those high risk categories…

The Democrats and their allies in the mainstream news media are trying to create a panic. They are trying to tank the American economy because their hatred of Donald Trump is so great. They’re willing to risk American lives and risk the American economy in order to defeat Donald Trump in November 2020, and that’s no different from what the Democrats do to border security. We know that Americans are going to be killed as a result of the lack of border security, but that doesn’t stop the Democrats from continuing with an open borders policy that’s going to result in 2,000 dead Americans each year, people who have died at the hands of illegal aliens, and that’s the average…

So they’re willing to, for political gain, to do what they do at the southern border. They’re also willing to, for political gain, do great damage to our economy, because that has been one of Donald Trump’s biggest strengths as President of the United States.”

Honestly, Mr. Brooks, you do not represent me or any of my friends with this kind of thinking and behaving. You have aligned yourself tightly with Donald Trump, and as he goes, you will go. We need somebody with the mettle of a Doug Jones to represent North Alabama in the House, and, as I said the last time, I’ll do whatever I can to make that happen.

Mo Mo Gotta Go Go.

The right plays offense; the left always plays defense.

Image result for sitting on a fence

In the world of politics, the idea of a comfortable fence between the right and the left is an illusion, as is the insistence that there’s a sizable “middle”. That’s because when it comes to campaigning’s end, voters have to pick one or the other, even while splitting tickets. This is the only way in which the right and the left are the same.

The right plays offense while the defensive unit for the left is always on the field.

In the realm of convictions, expectations, and faith, the right and the left are polar opposites. The right is all about business and wealth, and their justification comes from a misinterpretation of Biblical promises regarding prosperity. Thusly, the right argues against taxes for the rich — those who allegedly create jobs for everybody else — and regulations for businesses. Its litmus test is presented as favorable to white evangelicals, but it’s actually always the degree to which candidates for government are business-friendly.

The left is a consortium of special interests fighting discrimination, gender equality, poverty, global warming, and a check on the extremes of business without regulation. The “both the same” tag, however, is meant to dismiss deplorable behavior in matters such as corporate benefactors, fundraising, and electioneering. After all, if they’re all the same, then sleaze is just a normal part of the political process in the U.S., and it doesn’t matter which party you pick. The fact that one party says it far more often than the other, however, speaks loudly about the behavior that party is trying to blur.

Thusly, the suggestion that all politicians and political parties are identical entities and that they “all do the same things” benefits the right far more than it does the left. For one thing, it originates with the right, because it obliterates viable resistance to corporations who would rather have a perfectly stable environment within which to do commerce (e.g. Make America Great Again) than one that is constantly changing. The right is very vocal about this and is in a regular game of offense while stating it. When this offense steps out-of-bounds, there is no penalty flag, so the process is repeated ad infinitum. This effort is organized, focused, and coördinated, which is often not the case for the Democrats.

The left sees this relentless posturing as an attack, so their defensive unit is always on the field. It is into this stadium that the flag of “all the same” flies, because it so easily hides the truth that they are not.

It’s a specious statement, because at core the two groups function so differently that the narrative has to fall apart. To get where we are today, the right forced the comparison with the Clintons and then Barack Obama, and the left allowed them to get away with it. As long as the left lets others define them, then the right will always win. This is the great weakness of the Democratic Party. Each element of the left is its own individual institution or social movement, all of whom must work together to produce a force large enough to win elections. While it could be said that these disparate groups have much in common, each’s bottom line is different, so fitting everybody into one, tightly-focused message is much more difficult.

The right has always been comprised of the wealthy and especially those in business, especially the defense industry. The 1% is a very small, hierarchical group, so consensus is fairly easy to establish. Whatever is best for them is what drives Republicans. Of course, because they represent so few, the party must offer bones to a few groups with numbers, but the NRA, white evangelical Christians, Wall Street players, and the fearful don’t call the shots. These groups are only needed for the voters they bring, and if any ever decided to walk away, it would create quite a crisis for the right. This is why business interests will often be cloaked as “for the people” through the use of propaganda, euphemism, oxymorons, such as “clean coal”, and especially outright lies.

With Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and other white guys calling the shots, it’s pretty easy to see that the “right” has its marching orders from a white, hierarchical “top.” The RNC is focused, and the Republican Party platform we’ll get this summer will be one that caters to the extreme wealthy and is hard on the have-nots. Oh, it’ll have the right words to support Trump’s fanatical Christian base, but the point is the Republican Party is governed from the top in a way that is not at all similar to the Democrats.

In this sense, Democratic issues are too small to compete with the grand narratives shouted by the right. One illustration is the term “political correctness,” with which the right can tag the whole party when it’s actually only important to those dealing with gender identity, minority communities, and some women’s issues. Political correctness is not a plank of the Democratic Party platform, but the tag sticks, because nobody will come out and say it doesn’t. The right suggests they are the party of real men, those who hunt and fish, dominate their family units, and are generally considered the smarter of the two genders. I assure you there are “real” men in the Democratic Party, but again, if nobody challenges the assumption, then it will default to the position of truth. To the right, women are here for their real men. Their women are touted as more beautiful than those on the left, and they’re certainly sexier and more playful. The obsession that Fox News has for blondes is simply a reflection of the whole party. Blondes in red dresses are hot, but women on the left wear only pants or dull outfits. Again, this is all carefully orchestrated so as to provide both direct and subliminal evidence that they are somehow better than those ugly, nasty, and whiny bitches from the left. Do not underestimate this, for the images shared with the media of glamorous Republican women — yes, even those who qualify as trophy wives — are calculated and purposeful, for what girl wouldn’t aspire to be just like them (wink, wink)?

We practiced this same form of manipulation when I was producer of The 700 Club. The idea was to recruit beautiful people through the presentation that beautiful people followed Jesus Christ. This was a response to ground-breaking research that revealed America’s true thoughts about white evangelical Christians. Our job was to present the opposite in the hope that we could break through the negative images that people held about Christians.

As of this writing, the GOP’s 2020 tactics include tagging every Democrat as a socialist. This accomplishes several things. It redefines progressive by making it seem extreme. There is no useful comeback for the label. It paints every Democratic Party plank as anti-business. Socialism is defined as an inch from communism, which is a defeated concept. But mostly, it chafes at the idea of non-white progress, because, after all, what self-respecting white family wants their children being forced to attend classes with these aliens? Socialists want to take money from the rich to help the poor, even though the wealthy believe that they can offer greater relief by themselves. What’s most irritating to members of the right is that THEIR money is being taken from them and being used for programs and systems they don’t support.

But mostly, the socialist tag forces the left to play more defense, which means the right is again playing offense.

The left must play offense with a crystal clear focus on the reality that Trump represents a Republican Party that has completely gone off the rails in its disgust with the poor and the afflicted. This path, however, is fraught with danger, for Trump was elected primarily because he was not a part of the status quo in government and that he would do things differently. A part of Trump’s charm with his constituency is the proud proclamations that he is not a part of anything “normal” and therefore able to govern differently, which we must all admit has proven to be the case. While the left complains that Trump doesn’t play by the rules, his supporters are quick to point out that these rules are the biggest part of the problem in Washington and that they voted for Trump to do things differently.

If the Democrats ever want to put an end to this, they must be prepared to hire a new offensive coördinator to craft a new strategy, because a defensive posture that is governed by logic and reason doesn’t stand a chance against propaganda that asserts the opposite.

It begins with recognition that while defense wins championships, it’s the offense that gets all the glory, the fame, and the money.

An open letter to the church at America

Dear Church,

Fake Christians and Fake Christianity! That’s what they’re saying about you. Imagine that? Oh, you’ll likely just dismiss this as the name calling of those evil liberals, but this cry comes from the inside, from Christians who want no part of what you claim is the real faith. These people view with righteous skepticism your willingness to support a political party whose highest priority is the wealthy. If you aren’t fabulously rich, then you, like the rest of us, are sucking hind titty with this administration when it comes to your wants and needs. The counterculture nature of Christianity has always been towards the poor and the afflicted and against the rich, and yet, here we are in a real crisis over the state of our country.

You got your so-called Conservative Supreme Court, but the price for that is that history will tag you forever as fake Christians. Why? You are an affront to those who live simple lives in just trying to make the best of what they have and raise their children in the fear of the Lord. This is what happens when you mix politics with religion and why we have a First Amendment. It is by affiliation — the unrighteous yoking of yourselves and those who seek their reward at the expense of others. This is not Christianity, and it’s time we all came to agreement on that.

Christianity Today (or is it Fake Christianity Today) published a piece last week (The Current Storm and the Evangelical Response) by our old friend Ed Stetzer, who tried to justify all this in the name of the faith. Ed used a statement by Howard Dean on MSNBC as a springboard.

(Dean) gave his take on the state of the current GOP, saying it has “the same meaning as evangelical Christianity with young people, intolerance, bigotry and a lack of respect, not just for women but for anybody who is not on their team.” Stetzer chose to base his entire argument on the belief that this doesn’t describe all of the people or groups he knows. He called the statement by Dean “incomplete and unfair.” He’s able to indict those Christians who behave in this manner, but concludes that it’s really just a big misunderstanding.

No one can deny that the reputation of evangelical Christianity has been significantly diminished as a result of some pursing (sic) the acquisition of power and influence and blurring the lines of faith and politics.

But this does not, and cannot, change the facts: thousands of years of evidence have pointed to the true mission of those who claim to follow Jesus Christ—we seek to live humble lives of faithful service so that Jesus will be lifted high.

Howard Dean isn’t the first—nor will he be the last—to criticize evangelicals. We need to hear their critiques. But, we also need to respond in a such a way that others exclaim, “So that is what it means to be a Christian!”

And they, in turn, will turn to Christ as well.

To the church at America, if you don’t like the generalizations of Howard Dean, first remove your own generalizations about those who oppose you politically. Then, we might be able to have a discussion. Nobody is going to buy your arguments as long as your behavior represents the extreme. What’s needed is repentance, not justification for the unjustifiable. In your zeal to be models for everybody else, you’ve actually become that which you despise, the fat cats who take their ease among the refuse that’s left behind, including the poor, the sick, the afflicted, the refugees and their children, the unemployed, the strugglers and the stragglers, the lost and alone, and the people of the world who don’t have even a breath of what we possess.

Salvation promised sometime in the future is a cheap substitute for our lack of concern in the present.

Your servant,

Terry

Five thoughts about a conservative court

The President’s selection of Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is getting the expected party line reactions this morning. Conservatives think it’s great. Liberals think it sucks, and so it goes. As one of the insiders who helped Pat Robertson shape his presentation of right wing news, I know well not only the religious zeal behind the conservative perspective but also what will come next. As usual, I have a few opinions.

One, the conservative majority that a Kavanaugh approval will make is built on an immoral and unethical foundation, and it will have consequences. Life will tolerate cultural manipulation only so long. This is not the will of the people, although that’s how it’s going to be presented. It’s the will of those who blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland by Barack Obama in 2016, those who also represent the 1%. Christian conservatives think it’s all about moral issues like abortion, the Ten Commandments, and school prayer, but a conservative court is more so a pro-corporation court. Folks, it’s always and always about the money.

Two, as a consequence of number one above, the kerfuffle about possibly overturning Roe v Wade is a productive sideshow for those occupying 1% status. Everything that the World War II generation and before fought to accomplish in the work force and socially will be shoved aside, in effect, granting license to corporations to do as they please in the generation of profit. How easily people forget, for example, that the entitlement of weekends is a gift of U.S. labor efforts in Congress and the White House. “Oh, Terry, they’ll never do away with weekends.” Really? Where’s the governor that will prevent it?

Three, assuming the sideshow produces fruit for Christian conservatives, Roe v Wade is only the beginning. There’s also pornography, school prayer and display of the Ten Commandments that need, um, “correcting” in the establishment of a Christian nation. And, let’s not be fools. Abortion isn’t about innocent babies losing their lives anyway; it’s about the act that created the unwanted baby in the first place. In this area, there is no end to the mischief that can be generated by a 5–4 or 6–3 conservative court.

Four, as a consequence to numbers two and three, the court will have to invade the institution of MEDICINE in order to make illegal what is at core a MEDICAL decision between doctor and patient. This precedent would have profound implications for the future, especially in the area of genetics and even its study. Think it can’t happen? We’ve already had the government take pain relief out of the hands of doctors and put it into the law and order category. A conservative court would also most certainly put caps on lawsuits against doctors were it not for the fact that our legislative branch is filled with trial lawyers.

Five, conservatives are all about order and the ability to manage it. It’s the top personality trait of conservatives, so look for a series of cases that present opposition as chaotic or without order. The arts, for example, will always lose out to law enforcement or the military in a zero sum, order-dominant atmosphere.

As I wrote earlier, the fascinating thing about this to me is the misuse of the “strict Constitutionalist” litmus test for conservative nominees, which is based on the view that the Constitution never considered laws being created by Supreme Court rulings. This is the judicial branch’s method of creating law, which according to the Constitution, is reserved for the legislative branch. It’s the result of judicial precedent, something we hear about all the time in our crime dramas on TV. In the conservative legal hierarchy, judges are supposed to decide the merits of individual cases, not actually make law that will impact decisions in subsequent cases. Pat Robertson hammered this concept home in program after program in attempts to help God fix what was wrong with the Supreme Court. However, this, it turns out, is not the case when it comes to decisions that leave conservative results, for then it’s all right for judges to “legislate from the bench.” Who knew?

If all this continues, one day we’re going to have to look at how the Supreme Court is formed. If it is the political instrument that both sides seem to think it is, that’s going to have to be changed. Perhaps we should elect four liberals, four conservatives, and one swing vote. That would require a Constitutional Amendment, so the likelihood is not good.

Sigh.