US Creationists And Climate Change Denialism

What’s With Them Rednecks ?

It is occasionally noted during discussions of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) that Creationists are a stronghold of AGW Denialism. For example, The Guardian (UK) ran an article in April 2009 entitled “Just What Is It With Evangelical Christians And Global Warming” citing a survey from the Pew Forum On Religion and Public Life which showed only 34% of US White Evangelical Christians accept the AGW hypothesis.

Here is an extract from the Pew survey of 1,502 Americans, which has a sampling error of plus/minus 3%

Percentage of Americans who believe in AGW:

Total Sample: Yes 47% No 45% Don’t Know 8%
Non-Religious: Yes 58% No 35% Don’t Know 7%
White Mainline Protestants: Yes 48% No 44% Don’t Know 8%
White Evangelicals: Yes 34% No 55% Don’t Know 11%

What Is The Correlative Factor ?

Given that Pew found that the rate of acceptance of AGW amongst the Evangelicals was significantly lower than that of the general population and in view of the fact that Creationists would be more strongly respresented in this group than the others, it is fair to assume that the correlation between Creationism and anti-AGW exists. This being the case, what is the correlative factor ? What is it about US Creationists that predisposes them to reject AGW ?

The Wall Street Journal of Sept. 28, 2007 ran an interesting article, “Split Over Global Warming Widens Among Evangelicals”. In this article the views of pro- and anti-AGW Evangelicals are canvassed and the following anti-AGW viewpoints/rationales given:

- Senior US Evangelicals believe that AGW distracts clergy/believers from their core responsibility to elucidate Jesus’ message. A similar argument has been advanced by Cardinal Pell of the Catholic Church in Australia.
- Theological reasons advanced against AGE by certain Evangelicals.
- White Evangelicals are overwhelmingly Republicans hence toe party line.
- Conservative inertia. Southern Baptist Convention cites Climate Change not settled among scientists. 50 years ago refused to acknowledge Racism as an issue.

In my opinion the correlative factor between Creationists and anti-AGW is that of political allegiance to the Republican Party, the third factor cited in the Wall St. Journal article.

Creationist and Republican

The Religious Right is a constituency of the Republican Party. In the 2008 US General Election 73% of Evangelicals voted Republican according to the Pew Research Centre in this article, Voting Religiously

Republicans, Republican Pastors and AGW

The Republican Party is haven and wellspring for anti-AGW ideology.
Environment Magazine in Sept/Oct 2008 carried an article entitled “A Widening Gap: Democratic and Republican Views On Climate Change”. In data, data sourced from Gallup Polls showed that only 40% of Republicans subscribed to AGW compared to 72% of Democrats.

In a similar vein, Pew Research Centre in Oct. 2009 found that belief amongst AGW is very low amongst Republicans. In April 2008, Pew found only 27% of Republicans subscribe to AGW, dropping to 18% in Oct. 2009. The comparitive figures for Democrats were 58% and 50%.

Despite the disparity between the Gallup and Pew figures, both polls make clear that Republicans are far less likely to subscribe to AGW than Democrats.

To summarize the Pew Data:
27% of Republicans believed in AGW as of April 2008
18% of Republicans believed in AGW as of October 2009
34% of Evangelicals (mostly Creationists) believed in AGW as of April 2009.
73% of Evangelicals vote Republican.

In general terms then: Creationist correlates to Republican correlates to anti-AGW.

Some hard data which supports the above correlative chain comes from Lifeway Research, an arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. They polled 1,002 pastors and found that the more conservative their political beliefs, the more likely they were to reject AGW. The research appears in their article LifeWay Research studies global warming beliefs among Protestant pastors

When the pastors’ personal beliefs are factored in, the differences grow even more pronounced. Among pastors who consider their political ideology liberal or very liberal, 93 percent agree that global warming is real and man-made, and 79 percent of self-perceived moderates agree. Among those who identify themselves as conservative or very conservative politically, however, agreement is only 37 percent and 16 percent respectively

Disseminating Republican AGW Denialism To Creationists

The Religious Right (RR) has a very effective network of radio and television stations through which it can disseminate its opinions to members and sympathizers. These TV and Radio networks are controlled by the older members of the RR who are more conservative and more pro-Republican than the younger members.

AGW represents a massive challenge to the economies of the West, addicted as they are to chronic over-consumption. For the Republican Party, with its array of prominent financiers and backers from Big Oil, AGW represents a second and even more immediately serious challenge which is how to maintain the legitimacy of unlimited Oil Production and Consumption. AGW represents a threat to the power, money, authority and thus the very survival of the Republican Party. These challenges can only be met by de-legitimizing AGW.

Fissures In The Religious Right Over AGW

From the Pew figures it can be seen that Evangelicals, and hence Creationists, are less likely to reject AGW than the average Republican. (34% vs. 22% approx.)

During the 2008 US Federal Election campaign, fissures in the Religious Right began to appear as younger members began to assert their agreement with the AGW hypothesis and pressure Evangelical organisations to adopt AGW platforms and practices.

The younger Creationists turned to the Biblical concept of ’stewardship’, a centuries old cross-denominational position on mankind’s relationship to the environment to support their notion of ‘Creation Care’ and argue for an AGW-friendly agenda in the RR media and secretariat.

For Senior Evangelics acceptance of AGW represented a second-order heresy of ‘turning Democrat’ the party not only of Al Gore, whose entire political career was predicated around the environment and Climate Change, but also associated in their minds with Gay Rights and Abortion.

Those that control the RR, with their established links to Republican politicians and centres of influence use theri position and control of RR resources to broadcast their anti-AGW opinions at the expense of pro-AGW opinions to the Evangelical rank-and-file.

The Contempt Of The Left For The Bible And Christianity

It is sometimes posited by left-leaning journalists and bloggers that the Creationists are anti-AGW for theological reasons: that Creationists believe the Bible teaches anti-AGW, or that Creationists are simply anti- or non-scientific because the Bible, itself putatively an anti-scientific document is the arbiter of truth for them.

Such leftists group Creationism and anti-AGW as equally non-scientific beliefs. Creationists are held to be innocently or defiantly ignorant of good science. A contempt for Creationists is apparent among many leftists, prominent in this contempt being the general refusal of Creationists to accept the Theory Of Evolution as incontrovertible fact. This contemptuous tone is very evident in the Guardian article cited above.

The contempt of leftists for Creationists leads them to attempt to locate the reasons for Creationist anti-AGW sentiment in the Bible, a document leftists love to mock as being non-scientific, not least because it is the source for the Creationist position.

The desire of leftists to mock and ridicule the Bible thus causes them to overlook the most obvious reason for US Creationists being anti-AGW. They are Republicans.

Theological ‘Proofs’ For Anti-AGW

To be fair to leftists, it is absolutely true that theological ‘proofs’ are used by certain prominent Creationists to argue against AGW.

But the quality of these ‘proofs’ is very poor, suggesting that theological argument is being coerced from the Scripture by certain Creationsists in order to to buttress a political (anti-AGW) position, rather than being derived inductively from Scripture. These Creationists are trying to force the Bible to say something that it really doesn’t say.

In short, anti-AGW interperetations are being retro-fitted onto Scripture by those with motive to coerce such interperetations from the Bible.

A theological ‘proof’ for anti-AGW is very palatable to the senior RR movers and shakers as it allows them to reconcile their Political and Theological ideologies into a coherent whole and stave off leadership and/or policy challenges from younger members.

Consequently, senior RR members allow such ‘proofs’ airtime or print space and leftists gleefully pounce on these theologically impoverished proofs to support their own bias, that the Bible is anti-Scientific and to give them further excuse to ridicule Scripture and Christians (not that they generally need much encouagement).

But again, to be fair, most leftists do not have sufficient Biblical literacy to properly evaluate theological argument.

Theology and Anti-AGW

The concept of Dominion as expressed by certain Creationists to theologically disprove AGW relies on a highly innovative understanding of Dominion. It is in fact so ‘innovative’ that I suspect that it has been invented expressly to cover the proponents real objections to AGW which I would say is that it challenges the rapacious corporate-government ‘free market’ paradigm beloved of the Republican Party.

The US Evangelical organisation Cornwall Alliance, a faith-based ant-AGW advocacy group, strongly infer that the Dominion of Humankind over Earth means that Humans can only ever be an agent for improvement in the natural environment and never an agent of destruction.

Cornwall, quoted in the Guardian article say:

Many people mistakenly view humans as principally consumers and polluters rather than producers and stewards. Consequently, they ignore our potential, as bearers of God’s image, to add to the earth’s abundance… Our position, informed by revelation and confirmed by reason and experience, views human stewardship that unlocks the potential in creation for all the earth’s inhabitants as good. Humanity alone of all the created order is capable of developing other resources and can thus enrich creation, so it can properly be said that the human person is the most valuable resource on earth… While some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated… Some unfounded or undue concerns include fears of destructive manmade global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss.

The concept that humans can only ever exercise a positive effect on the natural environment is not taught in scripture. What is taught is that it is God’s mandate and gift to humanity that we, of all creatures, have the primary responsibility for the care of the planet and the most capacity to enjoy its beauty and wonder, as it was prepared very much for mankind’s enjoyment, but not solely for that purpose, as other scriipture goes on to tell us.

Other creationists teach, as did for example John Shimkus, a Republican House Of Representatives member testifying before the US House SubCommitte On Energy And The Environment in March 2009, that since God is sovereign, only He can destroy the planet, not humanity, thus AGW cannot be real.

Shimkus also ingeniously posited that AGW cannot be real because it would cause a second Noah’s Flood, which God said He would not do. This ignores the fact that God is not causing AGW (note that ‘A’).

Theologically Agnostic To Climate

Finally on climate and theology, it has been sometimes posited that Evangelicals are anti-mitigationist because they believe in The Rapture (thus it doesn’t matter what happens to the climate) or because they are looking forward to the destruction of the planet beause that’s when Jesus will return.

It is plain that the first belief should not be correlated to anti-AGW as it renders the entire debate moot, while the second could easily lead to a pro-AGW position because it makes Jesus’ return more likely to be sooner.

To Summarize

Creationism correlates to an anti-AGW belief because Creationists are Republicans.

Creationists are less likely than most Republicans to be anti-AGW because traditional Christian concepts of stewardship undermine the Republican position that humans are not responsible for Climate Change.

Theological arguments in support of anti-AGW exist but are theologically impoverished. Their role is to reconcile the political beliefs of Republicans with the Bible, but do not successfully do so.

The Author Speaks

I contacted the author of the Guardian article, Leo Hickman, and said I felt he had left out the obvious fact that Evangelicals are Republicans. He was kind enough to reply and said:

Not sure why I didn’t make that direct reference at the time but I think perhaps I felt many would make that link instinctively.

In other words, its obvious.

In which case the opening sentence of Mr. Hickman’s article just looks more like he’s enjoying putting the boots into Christians due to standard leftist antipathy. That sentence:

Just what is it with evangelical Christians and global warming? I
doubt we’re ever going to get a satisfying answer to this long-running
question…

So Why Do Creationists Vote Republican ?

Evangelicals have identified with the Republican Party since the 1960’s. Prior to that time they were politically disengaged, but several issues coincided in the 60’s, to make Evangelicals identify with the Republican Party as the party of traditional Christian morality.

These isues were the advent of a the Catholic presendential candidate, John F. Kennedy, fielded by the Democrats, the rise of the 1960’s counter-culture with its ‘progressive’ social views and libertarian sexual morality and Supreme Court decisions legalizing abortion and banning prayer in schools.

This identification solidified during Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign and presidency such that by 1984 the formation of the Evangelicals as a Republican Party constituency was completed in the form we know today.

While, the Evangelical vote is overwhelmingly Republican, it is not monolithic. African American Evangelicals (15% of all Evangelicals) vote Democrat because they place jobs and the economy of higher electoral importance than Abortion and issues of traditional morality.

As noted above, in recent times the younger Evangelical vote has fissured from the more conservative older generation. The younger generation of evangelicals did not favour the Iraq War and are AGW-friendly. Only 45% of younger Evangelicals were in favour of the Bush administration during 2008.

In general, however, Evangelicals vote Republican because they see the Republican Party as caring more for issues of concern to them. A survey commissioned by the Barna Group in January 2008 and reported at World Net Daily found:

Evangelicals’ top concern – by a wide margin – was abortion (94 percent). This was followed by the personal debt of Americans (81 percent), the content of television and movies (79 percent), homosexual activists (75 percent), and gay and lesbian lifestyles (75 percent,)”

So, Why Are Evangelicals Sceptical About Global Warming ?

From, Evangelicals Go “Green” with Caution, Barna Group, Sept. 2008

In particular, evangelicals express the greatest caution regarding their perception that media has hyped the story (65%), their belief that cyclical climate change is not primarily caused by human activity (62%), and their concern that proposed solutions would hurt the poor, especially in other countries (60%).

While Evangelicals enunciate specific objections to the AGW or mitigationist view , the overall picture given by history and data is that the Evangelicals associate the AGW hypothesis with the Democratic Party and its legions of godless liberals.

AGW is perceived as a Democrat cause along with Gay Rights, Abortion, and the banning of prayer. On the other hand, the party that Evangelicals identify with and trust, the Republican Party is anti-AGW. The specific reasons given by Evangelicals to oppose AGW are Republican Party propaganda points.

Sure, Evangelicals do not say ‘I oppose AGW because the Republican Party say so’, but that is in effect the case.

The Basic Issue Is Trust

…and Evangelicals do not trust the Democratic Party.

An evangelical couple from Texas, Katharine Heyhoe and Andrew Fairley who are respectively a climate change scientist and a pastor have specifically identified lack of trust as central in Evangelical resistance to the AGW hypothesis.

They have wrotten a book aimed at answering questions commonly put to them by the Evangelical community.

When it comes to conservative Christians, I think the real question is who can we trust on this issue?” Farley said. “The scientist who has opposed us in the past, perhaps on issues such as evolution versus creation? Can we trust the local radio talk-show host on conservative radio who seems to be vehemently opposed to the idea that climate change is happening and speaks out quite passionately? Should I trust my local pastor who has a B-minus in high school biology?”

Many of the questions put by Evangelicals are recycled from the arguments of conservative celebrities who act wittingly or not as Republican Party functionaries

“Glenn Beck is saying this, Laura Ingraham is saying that, Rush Limbaugh is saying this, and these people are well-respected in conservative communities, so where are these talk-show hosts wrong and how can you show that they’re wrong with data, not slick talk?” [Fairley] said.

Older Evangelicals will not abandon the Republican Party while it is their personal Hezbollah (Party Of God), nor will they abandon their mistrust of the godless Democratic Party.

While these factors are salient and the Republican Party opposes AGW, so will older Evangelicals.

But the younger generation is moving on and this is fuelled in part by the Bible because its natural reading on the environment supports an ecology-friendly approach to living. The tortured, coerced and debased Dominion Theology used by Republican Party loyalists in the Evangelical movement falls to pieces in the face of the genuine article.

Right-Liberal

You often hear the term ‘left-liberal’ but almost never ‘right-liberal’.

Here’s John Howard slagging off the ‘left-liberal’ media in front of his mates at the American Enterprise Institute:

But perhaps the most convincing sign of all that some progress has been made is the significant decline in media coverage of Iraq – noticeable both in the United States and Australia. The dominant left-liberal elements in the media in both our countries apparently cannot bring themselves to acknowledge good news stories coming out of Baghdad.

Left-Liberal v. Right-Liberal

As an exercise, try Googling ‘left-liberal’. You will get a huge number of hits.
Now try Googling “right-liberal”. Very few hits. Why ?

In my opinion the reason for this is that the political discourse in the USA and, latterly Australia, has been dragged so far to the right that liberals are no longer recognised. Small-’l’ liberals are no longer accommodated in the public discourse.

There is no room for them because the political discourse in Australia over a decade was dominated by Howard and in the USA by the Republicans/Democrats, none of whom are small-l liberals, but right-wing either conservatives or ideologues. For Howard and the power-wielding core in the Republicans and Democrats there are precious few questions left to be answered about political economy and society. The debate is over. Hence there is no more need for critique, small-l liberals or, in fact, Liberalism.

Critique, which is a hallmark of Liberalism is thought instead to be evidence of leftism. Small-’l’ liberals have had their political habitat destroyed by the rightward shift in the polity and have become extinct. Hence the political arm of ruling class (which is a Business-Corporate Polyarchy) and, under their tutelage, the general public have progressively forgotten what Liberalism entails and what it means to be a Liberal Democracy. In today’s polity of the USA and Australia, a small-l liberal is sighted about as frequently as Wasabi Paste in your grandmother’s lamb roast, and, to the ruling class, is about as disgusting (bordering on treacherous).

This article by Tom Switzer, a former senior Liberal advisor and a research fellow for the Institute of Public Affairs (an Australian cousin of the AEI), writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, appears to concur with my thoughts that the Australian polity has drifted rightward, approaching the topic from an ideological perspective opposite to mine.

notwithstanding the loss of conservative government, the centre of political gravity in Australia remains conservative. No longer, for instance, is welfare seen as an unconditional right. No longer are activist judges rewriting our constitution. No longer are Australians ashamed of our past, pessimistic about our future and unsure about our place in the world. In this environment, why should Liberals lurch left when Labor could only win power by moving right?

To Republican voters, Obama’s comment to ‘Joe The Plumber’ that taxes and redistribution of wealth might serve a useful purpose was seen as tantamount to Socialism or even Communism. This is an indication that the Republican Party is defining the political ground in the USA to telescope everything leftward of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School into ‘hard-left’.

In Australia, the climate is not so dire. John Howard merely believed that all the media (see above) and all Universities (see below) are dominated by the ’soft left’.

JOHN HOWARD: Despite a more diverse and lively intellectual environment in Australia compared with past decades, we should not underestimate the degree to which the soft left still holds sway, even dominance, especially in Australia’s universities.

In his stultifying presence none of Howard’s party colleagues had the guts to disagree and so Howard’s rather crazed ideological/cultural stance, shared by Quadrant and the IPA became increasingly entrenched in the public sphere, thus providing Tom Switzer with that nice afterglow which permeates his SMH article.

Liberalism – Not Dead But Coughing Up Blood

So, as I was saying, in the context of the rightward shift of the polity in the USA/Australia, anyone who critiques the approach or policy principles of a government is assumed to be a leftist.

Thus the media, which centrally exists to critique, is deemed ‘left-liberal’ simply because it critiques and because it critiques it is thought to be ‘dominated’ (Howard’s term above) or controlled by leftists.

In fact, Howard and his ideological fellows in the AEI are not only non-liberal but anti-liberal. For them, critique only emenates from enemies, not from peers with different and equally valid conceptions of how economics and society should be arranged. For Howard and the AEI the media is an adversary which must be contained, disciplined and controlled. For Howard and the AEI, critique of their views is a sign of a sick mind infected by ‘cant, hypocrisy and moral vanity’, as Howard described the left which for him, supposedly dominates the media.

‘Right-liberal’ is an almost non-existent category because if you are a ‘conservative’ (in Howard’s terms) you do not critique except to say that the government is correct but has not gone far enough with its (basically good because rightward) policies. Such voices are those of friends. They are not critiquing the basic wisdom or ethics of the rightward agenda, just wishing for even more of the good stuff.

Liberalism is centrally about freedom of expression, toleration and debate of different viewpoints. For Howard and the American Enterprise Institute the debate is over. They are anti-liberal. The Right is absolutely right to the point of self-evidence. Hence the only liberals are left-liberals.

John Howard’s Irving Kristol Lecture: Narrowly Avoiding Pre-Fascist Australia

In March 2008 John Howard received the Irving Kristol Award of the American Enterprise Institute. In receiving that award he delivered the Irving Kristol Lecture to the AEI. Howard’s speech was entitled ‘Sharing Our Common Values’.

Howard’s Disdain For The Media

During his speech Mr. Howard made the following remarks about the media, inter alia the prevailing situation in Iraq and what he views as the success of ‘the surge’.

But perhaps the most convincing sign of all that some progress has been made is the significant decline in media coverage of Iraq – noticeable both in the United States and Australia. The dominant left-liberal elements in the media in both our countries apparently cannot bring themselves to acknowledge good news stories coming out of Baghdad.

Media: The Enemy Of Government

I find Mr. Howard’s remarks deeply disturbing.

Not only does Howard consider the ‘left-liberal’ media to be biased, he also considers it to be the enemy. John Howard approved of the nauseating description used of the ABC by his former Chief Of Staff, Graham Morris, that the ABC is

our enemy talking to our friends [i.e. the Australian people]

It is very troubling that Mr. Howard considers the media so much his enemy and the enemy of what he describes as ‘conservative’ governments such as his Liberal/National Party administration 1996-2007 and the administrations of Bush Senior and Junior. (In fact, Howard is far from a conservative but I’ll leave that for another time).

Where the media is considered the enemy of the government, repression and intimidation of the media are usually not far behind. And where you have repression and intimidation of the media, Democracy suffers.

Howard’s Harrasment And Intimidation Of The Media

Today I read this article in New Matilda which described the systematic harassment of the media by the Howard government. I was shocked to discover that in my own country the government had regularly despatched police with hammers to destroy the hard drives of computers owned by journalists thought to be troublesome by Howard.

Narrowly Avoiding The Pre-Fascist State

Margo Kingston described Australia under Howard as a ‘pre-fascist’ state, a characterisation thought to be ‘psychotic’ by Gerard Henderson, his former staffer and a prominent columnist. But when police are despatched with hammers to destroy hard drives, one should pause for thought.

Whose Common Values ?

Mr. Howard entited his speech ‘Sharing Our Common Values’ implying that the values he personally championed during his Prime Ministership are also those championed by the AEI, and the Australian and American publics. However, while the AEI and Mr. Howard are in agreement over values, there is significant divergence between the values of the AEI and those of the American public and, as noted above, Mr. Howard’s hostility toward and intimidation of the Australian media are not values common among Australians either.

Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party occupy positions on the political spectrum which are to the right of the general American population as demonstrated by this article

The University Of Maryland Centre on Policy Attitudes took a poll just after the 2005 US Federal Budget and discovered that the government implemented policies to the right of the preferences of the American people on a very wide range of issues. In the words of Noam Chomsky:

Let’s start with some proposals about the federal budget announced last February. It should have a sharp cut in military spending, including supplementals for Iraq and Afghanistan. It should have sharp increases in social spending, meaning education, job training, renewable energy, medical research, veterans’ benefits, UN peacekeeping operations, in fact, UN generally. With regard to fiscal policy, it ought to be committed to reducing the deficit—it’s a burden on future generations, a very serious one. And it should rescind Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, a large proportion of them, say for people over 200,000 dollars.

Well, that proposal happens to be very conservative. It’s the position of a very large majority of the American population. Immediately after the budget was announced, there was a careful study of attitudes toward the budget, undertaken by the most prestigious research institution in the country, based at the University of Maryland. As they pointed out, overwhelming public preferences were basically a mirror image of what the budget actually was. That is, where the budget went up, the population, by an overwhelming margin, wanted it to go down—and far down. Where the budget was going down, the same overwhelming margins wanted it to go up, by again, very large margins.

In regard to the specific issue of Health Care:

The large majority of the public feels we should have a national healthcare system, like every other industrial society. In fact, about 80% of the population regard it as a moral issue, that the government should provide adequate health care to everyone. The number of people who think the healthcare system is working is about 8%.

The same relationship, or non-relationship between policy positions preferred by the American general public and those of the major parties was observed in more polling taken two weeks before the 2005 US Federal Election

Polls showed that in 1984 over 80% of Americans supported increases in social spending and a majority favored cuts in military spending over decreased spending on healthcare. Obviously the Reagan and his administration chose to curry the favor of 20% of the population when they implemented policy.

The United States is the only industrialized nation with no universal health care system… Chomsky cited numerous opinion polls, including those conducted by NBC-Wall Street Journal and the Pew Research Center. Each poll reflected that over 60% of Americans wanted a universal health care system.

The American Enterprise Institute is on the right of the Republican Party which is itself too far to the right to represent the American population on substantive policy such as Health Care, Tax, Climate Change, The International Security, Fiscal Policy, Education, Medical Research, Terrorism, Iraq, the conduct of US Foreign Policy, Job Training and Military Spending.

Howard receives awards from the AEI and describes the ‘common values’ supposedly shared with them by him and the Australian people. I do not think, however, that the media in general, supposedly in the thrall of the ‘left-liberals’ according to Howard, are considered by the general populace of Australia to be the enemy of the Liberal Party or the Republican Party either. In this thinking Howard is to the right of the Australian people and has entered into the domain of an unhealthy ideological spectrum.

The End Of A Nasty Little Era

I am very relieved Howard lost the 2007 election. Always an ideological thinker in economics, Howard throughout the 1990’s became progressively more ideological in his cultural and sociological views and in doing so has absorbed some highly undemocratic ideas from the American outer-Republican right. By 1996, at the time of his election to Prime Minister he had become convinced that the non-commercial media was in the grip of an adversarial, politically-correct culture that made it the enemy of ordinary Australians and conservative governments.

Canaries In A Coalmine

The American author Kurt Vonnegut was once asked what earthly use an author was to society anyway. Vonnegut replied that he thought authors and artists generally were like ”canaries in a coalmine’. The old time miners would take canaries down with them underground. When the air began to foul, the canaries being most sensitive would drop dead. The miners would then be alert to the danger of foul air and be able to vacate the mine before the foul air claime them too.

Kingston, in my view, was quite right. She was one of our canaries in the coal mine, and not the only one. Howard, I am sure unwittingly, was creating the first pre-conditions for the development of an Australian Police State. Without his stultifying presence the Liberal Party has space to remember how a Liberal Democracy should behave and our media can function once again without harassment.

Appendix

Here’s the excerpt from the New Matilda article where journos get their hard drives smashed with hammers:

In 2005, several months after publication of Axis of Deceit, a book about the non-existence of WMDs in Iraq by whistleblower Andrew Wilkie, officials claiming to be from the Attorney-General’s Department raided the offices of the book’s publisher, Black Inc, as well as the homes of Wilkie’s brother and sister, that of the journalist Carmel Travers (who had been emailed a draft copy of Wilkie’s manuscript), and the university office of the person who commissioned the book, the academic Robert Manne.

Travers later described to SBS Dateline how the officials spent all day trawling for information and smashed computer hard-drives with hammers in what they called an act of ‘cleansing’ that they performed regularly ( ‘We do this every day’) , and that they’d carried out perhaps ‘70, 72 or 73 times.’ They spent a week at the Black Inc offices. All those who had their hard-drives smashed were asked to sign a confidentiality agreement preventing them from discussing what had happened, which would have opened the way for charges under the National Security Act and the possibility of five years in jail.

From ‘Conservative Correctness’ By Mark Davis, ‘New Matilda’ 21 November, 2007

For more information on how the Democratic and Republican Parties are to the right of the general American population, Google ‘Chomsky Democratic Deficit’.

More
More on Pre-Fascist Australia here

Obama Fireball Engulfs USA

Since the Republican Party believes that Obama is a Muslim Terrorist (or at least both a Muslim and a Terrorist) I assume 46% of Americans now live in icy fear as they await the firestorm of bombings that will surely engulf the continental United States now that Obama is safely elected.

Unless that was all just a loathsome smear campaign.

John McCain Appearance On David Letterman Show

McCain Helps Letterman Beat Leno’s Ratings

It was striking how poorly McCain presented. He was easily flummoxed by a mildly challenging question about his relationship with G. Gordon Liddy and whenever departing from scripted lines became incoherent to the point of mummified silence.

Sheltered Workshop

In my opinion John McCain could not survive as a serious candidate for high office in any country except the United States. This candidacy is so weak it can only survive in a half-billion dollar media bubble.

Any of Australia’s political leaders (John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Turnbull – bugger it – any Kindy Kid with a mastery of Mr. Men) runs rings around McCain in their ability to formulate spontaneous answers during interview. Even against the funereal and charisma-less Brendan Nelson, McCain’s mental vacancy would be obvious. (Actually, come to think about it, McCain has a fair physical resemblence to Malcolm Turnbull, alas none of Turnbull’s brilliant communication skills).

On The Positive Side

McCain’s only apparent attributes are that he is handsome, has a nice smile and was once a prisoner of war. He fully satisfies the Dilbert criteria for Senior Management – Good Hair.

It CAN Get Worse

On objective ability I would say McCain-Palin is the worst-ever ticket presented for candidacy for the US Presidency.

The McCain-Palin ticket is incredibly weak on any meaningful criteria outside transient voter appeal BUT is also incredibly dangerous. They are both economic illiterates in this time of worldwide economic turmoil, both intellectually lazy or non-functioning on serious issues, both regard American bombs as the best way to bring happiness and prosperity to Middle Eastern nations and both would drill the Arctic into oblivion if offered five dollars.

A Republican win in the 2008 Election be be a disaster for both the USA and the Planet.

Other Bloggers On McCain’s Letterman Appearance

The Confabulam said McCain uttered nonsense while one of the commenters descibed him as ’stunningly inept’.
Hot Air thinks Letterman is an Obama apologist who minimized Obama’s links to terrorism.
Hot Off The Trail felt that the Letterman-McCain interview was one of the better political interviews of the year, as McCain’s incoherence under pressure was alarmingly obvious.

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, has a Blog piece on McCain with some perceptive commenters. See especially the comment by RC Christian on the idiocy of Obama being in any way a danger to the establishment.

Republican Party Prefers Idiots And Monsters

Why is it that brainless morons, souless goons and vicious warmongering maniacs are routinely offered up as candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States by the Republican Party ?

It Cannot Be A Coincidence

Given the enormous sums of money (approx. $500,000,000) that are required to get a candidate through the Primaries process and into the White House itself, and the mind-boggling military/financial perogatives at the disposal of the US President, I conclude that the selection and sponsorship of candidates is absolutely intentional, by which I mean there is absolutely no chance for a candidate to emerge who does not faithfully represent the will, intention and purpose of the GOP sponsors and backers. There are no ‘mavericks’. The benefits of power are too precious to let uncontrolled hands take over.

We Want Morons

This means that the GOP machine, in particular the party donors, actively seeks morons, power zombies and wamongering maniacs as its representatives. It is precisely these types of candidate that provide GOP backers with return on investment and are malleable to its will.

Sarah Palin’s Religion

Sarah Palin is not stupid. By which I mean she has enough intelligence to complete high school and even University. She can understand a newspaper article and probably even write one; she can plan, think and execute strategy. Prior to her nomination as Vice-President Palin spoke lucidly on numerous issues that affect Alaska state without disappearing into the blizzard of cheerful babbling nonsense that epitomized her Vice-Presidential campaign performances.

But palin is nevertheless crazy enough to think one can drill the Arctic without adverse effects, a believer in the goodness of ghoulish undertakings like the Iraq War, insane enough to believe a Muslim society can be transformed into democracy by carpet-bombing its hospitals and naive enough to believe that American Foreign Policy is designed to promote peace, democracy and the advancement of human rghts.

In short Palin is a true believer in American Military-Industrial-Complex Religion, the unholy creeds of which are funded by Big Business, enforced by Untramelled Power and force-fed through Compliant Media into the hearts and minds of every American from birth.

“What Am I Signing ?”. “Just things, Ma’am.”

Palin is a perfect vehicle for souless goons like George Bush Senior and the vicious Richard Cheney to continue with their programme of personal and class enrichment made possible through the blood of American servicemen and the liquidation of the unpeoples of the Middle East and elsewhere. Palin does not have to lie to support the aims of Cheney’s Corporate-Miltary wars - she absolutely believes in this religion so she evangelises for it without coercion or embarrassment. As did Ronald Reagan and George Bush Junior. As John Cleese has noted, Sarah Palin’s main function is to deliver propaganda speeches written by her masters. This was also true of Ronald Reagan.

Palin’s Strategic Utility

Her other short-term utility is to shore up the Christian Fundamentalist vote for the Republican Party, whose supporters on the Religious Right currently feel taken for granted and indeed betrayedby the Bush administrations. Obama, whose churchgoing credentials are not in doubt, unlike the socially conservative but spiritually apathetic McCain, has the ability to leach votes from the Republican Christian wing. Palin is there in part to stop that drift.

Unspeakable Horror

The Republican Party is a cabal of Corporate-Military-Political power that makes war gladly for profit. It kills as many as required to deliver that profit and utilizes American military power to that end. The unspeakable horror of their agenda can never be enunciated honestly so it is well served by idiots such as Dan Quayle, true believers like Palin and Bush Junior, and warmongering maniacs like John McCain who promote the agenda without necessarily understanding it or even thinking about it.  These clowns accept suggestions from their backers and patrons as to specific actions to be taken, or like Bush Junior and Palin simply know through gut-feel and indoctrination how to serve their masters’ ends.

The Purpose And Role Of Monsters

The GOP cannot leave the country entirely in the hands of idiots, however, so Monsters like Bush Senior and Richard Cheney are also required at the highest level. People like these properly appreciate the strategies and intentions of American Foreign Policy (Empire, Money, Power) and actively encourage and implement the necessary policies for the continuation of that Empire and the direction of the ensuing wealth and privilege to themselves, their associates and their Class cohorts.

This doesn’t mean the Monsters need to be President or even Vice-President, as long as the office of President is effectively controlled by them.

John McCain

The benefit of John McCain to the Republican Party Corporate-Military-Political cabal is that he likes war and is intellectually lazy. He will be well satisfied bombing Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan to smithereens in some deranged hunt for Bin Laden and/or Ahmadinejad while Richard Cheney and Halliburton rake in the concomitant profits. Entranced by the smell of Napalm in the morning and enraptured at the sight of bombs falling on foreign cities at his command McCain will be as effectively sedated as a toddler watching Sesame Street.

Thank goodness McCain’s complete illiteracy in Economics, which he openly confesses, is costing him votes as the USA leads the world into a global recession.
War criminals the lot of them. 

What Is A Maverick ?

The so-called ‘Maverick’ nature of Palin is also of immense value to the GOP backers as it demonstrates in her a fundamentally undemocratic approach to government.

Palin, who knows by instinct what is right and wrong, does not require consultation with the voters or indeed anybody to do what she feels is right. So, just as she installs her unelected husband as a psuedo-Governor of Alaska with all the power of office, so she will be happy to share the perogatives of the US (Vice-) Presidency with anyone else of like mind she ‘knows’ she can trust. Any future Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld will feel very comfortable in their ability to share Presidential power with Palin without the public ever knowing.

In short, Maverick is another word for ‘puppet’…and that’s the ideal candidate for the souless goons of the GOP.