I’ve been fascinated with politics for approximately 10 years now. Ever since the 2000 election when there was debate over who won the presidential election between Republican candidate George W. Bush and Democratic candidate Al Gore, I’ve attempted to garner a greater understanding of the political world on a daily basis. The problem has been, unlike a science experiment or a mathematical equation, no longer is there a direct approach to journalism, where slant isn’t involved in one way or another. It’s typically rather simple to read a report, a column or hear someone speak on a news program and distinguish the facts from the fiction or even the exaggerated. Sometimes that’s not so easy and it’s become increasingly difficult to actually find reliable sources which simply report the news, without a hidden agenda. Anyone who says otherwise is just fooling themselves.
The problem is that with this ubiquitous slant, American citizens tend to be drawn to the very sources which support their beliefs. If one is a die-hard conservative Republican, they can watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. If one is a Democrat, they can watch MSNBC at night with the likes of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow both hosting their own programs. Cable news has become nothing but infotainment, with C-SPAN being the lone exception. Headline News was once a well-regarded news network, but has become a joke, as they constantly air car chases, obsess over celebrities’ lives and deaths and have become the shock cable news channel. CNN attempts to tinker around with so many gadgets, that they often times confuse themselves and have to try and explain what is happening to themselves on the air before they attempt to “confidently” repeat themselves to their audience, whomever that may be. The only cable news channel that doesn’t show any bias is the before-mentioned C-SPAN and they’re the lowest rated of all the channels, because they don’t include infotainment. The nightly news on NBC (with Brian Williams), CBS (with Katie Couric) and ABC (with Diane Sawyer) are arguably the best at keeping the news they present balanced and also not boring their viewers. Some would argue that there is a great deal of bias with these three anchors on the three major networks, but I personally don’t see it like I do with cable news (C-SPAN excluded).
I admit, I’m a liberal. I believe that everyone should be afforded equal rights and opportunities and that no one should be cast aside due to an innate trait, such as their gender, race or orientation. But, I’m also a realist. While I’d be lying if I said I didn’t vote for the Democratic Party more than any other, I don’t always vote for the party and I try to not let party affiliation play a factor in my voting. I do my research on each candidate and vote for the one I believe will move us in the proper direction. Because I am very liberal on social issues and perhaps not quite as liberal with regard to economics, but still left-of-center, I do vote for the Democratic candidate more times than not. At the same time, I know darn well there’s no such thing as a perfect party in politics. I disagree with many decisions that both parties make while in power. I disagreed with many of the decisions George W. Bush made while in office, from invading Iraq to trying to privatize Social Security to attempting to ban gay marriage and so forth. Even in his short-lived first term, I’ve disagreed with some of the decisions Barack Obama has made, as he compromised on FISA and hasn’t been as steadfast as I had expected in repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. If and when either party slip up, I’ll be one of the first ones to acknowledge it. If I hear a claim made by either party where I withhold any doubt, I’ll be the guy researching that very claim to check its validity. I’m a bit of a geek in psychology, philosophy and mathematics. Through these past 10 years, I’ve read, researched, observed and studied politics, as I’m fascinated to study people of different persuasions and I have constantly attempted to figure out the political puzzle through an array of formulas, which help make sense of it all. That’s nearly impossible to do, I admit, but that won‘t stop me from trying, as the rest of this piece will illustrate.
Ever since the early ‘90s, when Bill Clinton took office, this nation has felt divided. I was only 11 when he took office and was rather indifferent about politics, but when looking back, I remember there being a great division among this nation’s Republicans and Democrats. This continued when George W. Bush took office until September 11th of 2001, when the World Trade Center was attacked. Directly following that tragedy, all of this nation’s liberals, conservatives, moderates, Democrats, Republicans and Independents put their differences aside and came together. Bush’s approval rating was at or near a record 90% following the attacks.# It’s fairly common for a group of people to come together following a tragedy. After a death in the family, there will be sisters, brothers, aunts, cousins, fathers, uncles and mothers whom may not have seen or spoken to one another for years, yet all of those past troubles seem to be forgotten as they all mourn together in the loss of a loved one. But, shortly after the grieving, it’s also common for the family members to gradually go their separate ways and that’s what occurred following 9/11. Bush may have had the liberals’ and moderates’ support for a time after the attacks, but they too gradually went their separate ways. Before we knew it, the country was growing more divided than ever by the time the 2004 election rolled around and George W. Bush, whom at one time held the highest approval rating in history, was hovering around 50% and was one state away (Ohio) from losing the election to Democratic nominee John Kerry. His approval ratings continued to drop following the election and according to some polls, his approval rating was the lowest in recorded history.# Due to this drastic change in public opinion of the president, the country’s divisiveness waned somewhat until the 2008 election, when Democrat Barack Obama defeated John McCain by quite a substantial margin, winning what had been typical red states, such as North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana and even one electoral vote in Nebraska.# Republicans had lost their momentum following the 2004 election and Democrats made the most of it in the 2006 mid-terms and then again in the 2008 presidential election. With this change in momentum came some anger from the right and the level of divisiveness in this country seemed to pick up where it left off in 2004, only to a grander extent.
Anytime a politician runs on the mantra of “hope” and “change,” there will be a segment of the population fearful of this very change that the politician promulgated to the masses time and again. Also, while racism is not as prevalent in this country as it was at one time, it is still present. So, while voting the first African-American into the oval office is seen by many as quite an accomplishment for the United States, there will again be a segment of the population fearful of this very act, especially when the individual’s full name is Barack Hussein Obama. It is fairly common for one to fear change, to fear what is “different,” to fear what they don’t fully understand, especially for those whom may be older and a bit more set in their ways than others. While fear, like the world saw following 9/11, can be a unifier, it can also be a divider. When the fear is shared by an entire population, that very fear will likely bring people together. However, when only certain segments of a population hold these fears, it will divide them from those who don’t. Also, the grander the fears, the grander the divisions. As of 2010, these fears and divisions have stormed this country harder than at any other time in my life and some may say, hyperbolically or not, any other time in this country’s history.
Some may feel that this is an exaggeration. Fair enough, but I stand to differ. Just recently, after the passage of health care reform, at least six Democrats have had their windows broken.# At least ten more received death threats, including Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak, whom was a major reason why the bill didn’t provide any funds for abortions.# Democrats Jim Clyburn and John Lewis were spat upon and called N****** by those protesting health care reform while walking to office.# Openly gay Democratic Congressman Barney Frank was called a f****t by these same people.# Democratic New York Congressman, Anthony Wiener, was sent a package with a white substance in it.# Virginia Congressman Tom Periello’s brother had his gasline cut by some whom were none too happy about the passage of health care reform.# A man in Tennessee went to pick up his daughter from school. When the man behind him saw this individual’s bumper sticker, which showed support for President Barack Obama, the man gave him the finger and then pursued to follow him, until he sped up and rear-ended him (with the man’s daughter in the car). The father put the car in park to get everything sorted regarding the accident, but the man behind him kept pushing the car further and further. Fortunately, nobody was harmed in the incident.# These are just a few of the recent events which illustrate this country’s division.
Due to this incredible divisiveness, it makes me stand back and question, what is the true cause of this very division? What is the root of it all? Why has the anger and malcontent grown so exponentially within certain demographics?
I see this divisiveness revolving around four things/groups: Media, Internet, religious leaders and Christian fundamentalism. Between these four groups, rumors (falsities) have been spread in great quantity and great frequency. These rumors have led to fear, anger and with that a greater division not only between Republicans and moderates in this country, but also between Republicans and themselves. What I mean by this is that the Republican philosophy today is vastly different from that in the ‘80s, ‘90s, even between 2000 and 2004, and some whom may have considered themselves conservative Republicans back in 1987 may be at odds with the party and their ideology today.
One major reason for this is the media. The Rush Limbaugh Show began on August 1st of 1988.# On January 1st of 1995, Michael Savage was given his own radio talk show.# Fox News launched its network on October 7th of 1996.# With that, The O’Reilly Factor premiered on that same date. The Laura Ingraham Show debuted in April of 2001.# The Sean Hannity Show began on September 10th of 2001.# Glenn Beck’s radio program began airing in 2000.# His television program started in 2006.# This isn’t even including radio talk shows by the following conservatives: Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Bill Cunningham, Mark Levin, Michael Reagan, John Gibson, Lars Larson, Michael Medved, Curtis Sliwa, Neal Boortz, Tom Sullivan, Fred Thompson and Michael Smerconish. These names and their message wouldn’t factor in very much if there weren’t listeners. As of 2006, Arbitron ratings stated that on an average week, The Rush Limbaugh show averages a minimum of 13.5 million listeners per week.# These same ratings show that: Sean Hannity averages 12.5 million listeners per week, Michael Savage averages 8.25 million, Dr. Laura Schlessinger 8 million, Laura Ingraham 5 million, Neil Boortz 3.75 million, Bill O’Reilly 3.25 million, Glenn Beck 3 million, Michael Medved 2.25 million, Lars Larson 1.25 million, Mark Levin 1 million and Michael Reagan 1 million.# So, as of 2006, just among these 12 conservative radio talk show hosts, they combined to average a weekly audience of 62.75 million listeners, 20.7% of the 2008 U.S. population, which was 303.8 million. In the first quarter of 2010, the top 13 cable news shows are all on Fox.# Bill O’Reilly pulled in an average of 3.6 million viewers per night, Glenn Beck averaged 2.8 million, Sean Hannity averaged 2.6 million, Bret Baier averaged 2.4 million, Greta van Susteren averaged 2.1 million, Shepard Smith averaged 2.1 million, Neil Cavuto averaged 1.7 million, O’Reilly’s late show averaged 1.5 million, America’s Newsroom averaged 1.4 million, Studio B averaged 1.3 million, America Live averaged 1.3 million, Happening Now averaged 1.2 million and Fox & Friends averaged 1.1 million viewers per day.# Total all those and you get 25.1 million viewers on an average day. Add that to the 62.75 million listeners to conservative talk radio shows and it equals 87.9 million, which is 28.9% of the overall population in 2008. I hear a lot of moderates and liberals say, “Not much of the overall population listens to/watches those shows, though.” I don’t care how one slices it, 87,900,000 is a large number and a decent percentage of 303,800,000. Now, I imagine there is a certain amount of overlap between some of these very programs, with certain members of the population listening to/viewing more than one such show per day, but regardless, 87.9 million is quite a hefty number.
The quantity of conservative radio and television supporters isn’t the ultimate problem in dividing segments of our population. It’s the message they’re being told by such sources.
In a January 21st of 2009 interview with Sean Hannity on Fox, Rush Limbaugh said, “So I shamelessly say no, I want him (Obama) to fail, if his agenda is a far-left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?” #
On August 6th of 2009 on his radio show, Limbaugh said, “Obama’s got a health care logo that’s right out of Adolf Hitler’s playbook… Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate.” #
On April 4th of this year, Limbaugh stated on his radio show, “Obama does not like this country very much” and “He is seeking his revenge.”#
On April 8th of this year, Limbaugh said Obama is “Dr. Kervorkian” and that the nation is “being administered statist-assisted suicide.”#
On February 17th of 2010, Limbaugh said that climate change is a “hoax” and that it’s really “about advancing socialism, Marxism.”#
Limbaugh also referred to Obama as a “Halfrican American” on January 24th of 2007 and on June 2nd of 2008 and said that the Democratic Party was “go(ing) with a veritable rookie whose only chance of winning is that he’s black.”#
Fox News evening show host, Sean Hannity, aired a special on the then Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, on October 5th of 2008, entitled “Obama & Friends: A History of Radicalism,” in an attempt to persuade undecided voters to not vote for him. #
During the November 18th of 2008 broadcast of his radio show, Michael Savage said the following, “You haven’t seen any of what’s coming in this country. You are going to see the wholesale replacement of competent white men, and I’m targeting exactly the group that’s gonna be thrown out of jobs in the government. And I’ll say it, and I’ll be the first to say it, and I may be not the only -- the last to say it. I am telling you that there’s gonna be a wholesale firing of competent white men in the United States government up and down the line, in police departments, in fire departments. Everywhere in America, you’re going to see an exchange that you’ve never seen in history, and it’s not gonna be necessarily for the betterment of this country.”#
On the November 24th broadcast of his show, Savage said of the United States, “Socially, we’re far worse -- more degenerate than Weimar Germany. At least in Weimar Germany, men couldn’t marry men and women couldn’t marry women. So we’re probably 10 leagues below the degeneracy that brought about Hitler. We’re probably 50 leagues below the degeneracy that brought about Hitler. We are the sickest, most disgusting country on the earth, and we are psychology -- psycholo -- we are psychotic as a nation.”#
Arguably the most divisive conservative media figure in the country at this current time is Glenn Beck of Fox News. On July 28th of 2009 on his program, Beck said, “This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture… I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people, I’m saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.”#
On February 4th of 2010, Beck stated the following on his program, “Barack Obama… chose to use his name Barack for a reason -- to identify, not with America -- you don’t take the name Barack to identify with America. You take the name Barack to identify with what? Your heritage? The heritage, maybe, of your father in Kenya, who is a radical? Is -- really? Searching for something to give him any kind of meaning, just as he was searching later in life for religion.”#
On February 4th of this year, Beck referred to progressivism as “the exact same kind of thinking that led to” both the Holocaust and eugenics. He said, “The Nazis learned their propaganda from the progressive movement in the United States.”#
On February 11th of 2010, Beck said the following, “So this is -- really, this is the beginning -- I mean, this is the way it happens in every society. I mean, you know, the extreme example is what happened in Germany, when -- they actually had a chart on how many potatoes you could, you know, make, how many hours you could work, how many fields you could till, et cetera, et cetera. And if you couldn’t do very much, well, then, you didn’t get, you know, the primo health care.
That’s just the way it works when everybody has to share for the common good. Sometimes for the common good, you just have to say, ‘Hey Grandpa, you’ve had a good life. Sucks to be you.’ That’s not compassion.”#
These are just a few such quotes that have divided a certain segment of this population regarding anything from health care to Obama’s birth certificate to global warming to race to making Hitler comparisons and just about anything in between.
Another tool that many conservatives have found useful in dividing this country is the Internet. While television and radio may very well be the most effective sources for immediate exposure and circulation of a particular message, the Internet may be the most effective tool for the long-term circulation of that very message. The Glenn Beck Show, The O’Reilly Factor and The Hannity Show all air twice a day on Fox News, three of those being a late-night or early morning re-airing of the show from that evening. So, for followers of those programs, that equals three hours a day of new information and six hours total. On the Internet, if those same people were to browse the main sites for: Fox News, Drudge Report, World Net Daily and Rasmussen Reports, among others, they would find a great deal more information throughout the day, as the sites will continually be updated with new articles and columns. This equals well over even six hours of new news per day.
Also, the Internet may be a great way to join a cause or movement one believes in, yet while it’s unifying certain segments of our population, it’s also often times dividing us as a whole. Like cable news (except for C-SPAN), many people watch the channel that most closely mirrors their political beliefs, the same is true of the Internet. Liberals can go to MoveOn.org, MichaelMoore.com and other such sites to have their beliefs closely reflected in the articles and columns they read. Conservatives can read such articles at the Drudge Report and World Net Daily, among others to satisfy their political mentality for the day. It’s a constant preaching to the choir. Rarely are there many unbiased articles on such sites and following each will be a series of comments provided by members/subscribers of that very site. Rarely, if ever, will you find a civilized debate being constructed by members of different parties or ideologies. If you go to the Fox News site and read through the comments, often times one person may go against the grain and perhaps defend President Obama. He or she will then be bombarded with nasty insults from members of the right-leaning site. The same is true of left-leaning sites. If a person insults Obama, expect a host of insults being thrown his or her way.
As I stated earlier, the Internet may be the most effective tool for the long-term circulation of a particular message. There is no better demonstration of this than political e-mails being forwarded from one person to another and circulating the web for days, months, even years at a time. As of May 26th of 2010, there are officially 87 e-mail forwards circulating the web with regard to Barack Obama, as says the fact-checking site of such e-mails, snopes.com.# Of these, only 8 are true (9.2%). Out of 87 such e-mails, only about 1 in 10 is actually true, yet they continue to be spread from person to person and with that, false information is being taken as fact and fear and anger are becoming ever more present among these very people. Of these 87 e-mails, 59 are completely false (67.8%), 17 are partially false (19.5%) and 3 are undecided at this point (3.4%). So, 76 of 87 are at least partially false (87.4%) and if by chance the 3 undecideds contain at least one falsity, that number will increase to 90.8%. These e-mails include anything from Obama being a Muslim (not true) to him not being born in the United States (again, not true) to him being the Antichrist (once again, not true) and a host of other strange and false allegations.
Religious leaders have also been doing their part in dividing and instigating fear in this country. The three names that immediately come to mind in this spectrum are: Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the now deceased Jerry Falwell.
Starting with Jerry Falwell, in 1990, was quoted to saying, “I do question the sincerity and non-violent intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mr. James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left wing associations.”#
With regard to the 9/11 attacks, Falwell said, “And, I know that I’ll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen’.”#
In The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Falwell was quoted in 2001 of saying, “The true Negro does not want integration… He realizes his potential is far better among his own race… It will destroy our race eventually… In one northern city, a pastor friend of mine tells me that a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife… It boils down to whether we are going to take God’s Word as final.”#
James Dobson is another well-known figure whom has aided the Christian right through the years. On October 23rd of 2004 in The Daily Oklahoman, Dobson was quoted of saying, “Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth.”#
He made the following remarks about 9/11, “Christians have made arguments on both sides of this question. I certainly believe that God is displeased with America for its pride and arrogance, for killing 40 million unborn babies, for the universality of profanity and for other forms of immorality. However, rather than trying to forge a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the terrorist attacks and America’s abandonment of biblical principles, which I think is wrong, we need to accept the truth that this nation will suffer in many ways for departing from the principles of righteousness. ‘The wages of sin is death,’ as it says in Romans 6, both for individuals and for entire cultures.”#
Perhaps the most controversial of all the Christian right leaders is Pat Robertson. One such quote was written by him in a 1992 Iowa fundraiser, where he stated, “The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”#
He also said the following, “I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that’s the way it is, period.”#
On his program, The 700 Club, in 1991 he said, “Planned Parenthood is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism -- everything that the Bible condemns.”#
He’s also been quoted to saying, “There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore.”#
On August 22nd of 2005 via The 700 Club, Robertson said, “You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if [President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela] thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don’t think any oil shipments will stop. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.”#
In regard to “gay days” at Disneyworld, Robertson stated, “I would warn Orlando that you’re right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you. This is not a message of hate -- this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs; it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor.”#
Robertson also said this, “Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It’s no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.”#
His most recent such quote was stated on January 13th of 2010 in wake of the earthquake in Haiti, where he said, “It may be a blessing in disguise. Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. Haitians were originally under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever, And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you will get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it’s a deal. Ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other.”#
If we expand our scope from just these three leaders of the movement to Christian fundamentalism in general, while perhaps not quite as extreme in their views or as divisive as the before-mentioned spokespeople of the cause, the movement has definitely provoked fear and anger for many people across this country and aided in the divisions we feel as a nation.
The main intent of this movement hasn’t been to just go about business: To attend church, to politely spread the word to friends, family and even strangers, pray regularly and attempt to be a reflection of the ideals The Bible says to live by. The intent has become more political than religious. It has become about social issues and doing everything in the group’s power to elect conservative Republicans to implement the ideas which they see as coinciding with that of Jesus and preventing ideas which they don’t see as being “Christian” from being implemented by politicians. The two topics which are spoken about most frequently are abortion and gay marriage. They’re 100% against both. They’ve also spoken out against the new Health Care Reform Bill, which was recently passed by Congress and signed by the president. They often times speak in favor of war, speak out against other religions, Islam in particular, and the majority seem to feel that even the most tragic of events is God’s work, a result of our being sinful.
The Republican Party has become a reflection of organized religion, where their beliefs rely largely on blind faith, where facts are irrelevant to any argument, black-and-white thinking is encouraged and fear is like a best friend. This is not to say the Democratic Party is without blemish. Often times, corruption is power’s shadow and just like within the Republican Party, the shadow has indeed followed certain members of the Democratic Party as well. But, while the Democratic Party has embarrassed itself at times with contradictory statements and personal problems, such as John Edwards’ affair, among other issues, the party as a whole has appeared to be almost sane and reasonable when compared to the Republican Party. While it can be a thorn in their side on many occasions, the diversity within the Democratic Party is also what many see as its strength. On election day, women, Latino-, Asian-, Arab- and African-Americans align themselves more with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. The only faction of the population that swings heavily in favor of the GOP are older white males. Their constituents have been gradually eroding from the pool of GOP voters. As their viewpoints have increased in conservatism, their supporters have decreased in size. The Republican Party has become a joke, as they’ve been led and hampered by radicals on right-wing radio and Fox News, similar such groups on the internet, outspoken conservative Christian leaders and Christian fundamentalism, in general. Looking back throughout history, I can’t for the life of me imagine Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower or even Ronald Reagan fitting into the GOP’s current mold. It has become an almost cult-like following, where dissent is seen as unpatriotic within the party and if there is dissent, the loud voices on the radio and cable news network, Fox, will spread the word to Republicans across the country that this individual should not be re-elected to their position. The party has resorted to the mere-exposure effect, repeating headline-catching talking points time and again, until their followers start to believe the message, perhaps being frightened into believing the parlayed statements. As can be witnessed via their Tea Partier protesters and even through the words of their Senators and Congresspeople in the U.S. Congress, like with organized religion, politics is a war to the Republican Party. Democrats and liberals (along with terrorists) are seen as the enemy (Satan) and no matter how many lies are spewed about by these individuals through radio, television and/or the Internet, in their minds, the ends justify the means. They sin to prevent the sinner from obtaining power. How that statement summarizes many devoted followers of organized religion and whom has become an ideological reflection of that in The United States - The Republican Party.
