The Christian Right, Jesus, and the Mormons... How the 2012 Election Was Won

It's funny that half a week into Obama's second term there are still right wing enthusiasts who can't deal with the state of affairs. Since he won several of these devoted republicans have again chosen party over country and have made some extreme declarations. They are moving to Canada, the world is going to come to an end, Christians who voted for Obama are imbiciles, and it would take more than a blog to cover the racist epithets. Unfortunate really, since there are a million contradictions in the thought.

Doctrinally speaking, Christians were right on in voting for Obama. Since so many religious leaders were telling their congregations to vote for the other candidate because he was "righteous" they were on the wrong side of kingdom thinking. This is because the New Testament of the Bible attributes righteousness to accepting Jesus Christ as savior and believing He died for you to save you from sin. Good living begins at that point and cannot be attained any other way. He is quoted in John 14:6 as having said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father except by me." While President Obama has continually confessed this as his own belief, by and large the Christian right has rejected him. Instead, they endorsed someone of Mormon faith. This was quite uncharacteristic for this group. Prior to the election they were declaring from the rooftops that Mormons needed to get saved and turn from the wickedness of their religion which purports that they can achieve god status by living a certain way here on earth. All of a sudden the religious right were saying he's the righteous one. The Christian's not really a Christian and you need to go with the other guy. Instead of honestly admitting that they just believed the republicans were right about the politics they flip-flopped and began to proclaim that Mormonism is a religion that practices righteous living and therefore every Christian should vote for one. Were they thinking about building God's kingdom or considering their own attitudes, beliefs, and tendencies? I'm not sure we'll ever know, but this strategy backfired miserably and their candidate lost both the popular vote and the electoral college. 

In the end it would seem the way politics has been working for the past few decades, where politicians could run without having a platform, but having a religious world view, is changing. We live in Babylon, plain and simple. The people want to know what you will do to make it work, not make their personal decisions for them. If you say you want smaller government, that smaller governing body shouldn't be able to tell it's people anything about how they raise their children, how they use their bodies, or what types of relationships they can or cannot have.What does Jesus do? Let everyone choose. In the same way the American government should have ways and means to build a future for the people, by the people without their rhetoric being the precipice upon which they build a campaign and then go to Washington and raise hell. If the right wants to win over the people, they need to get a plan that doesn't include simply saying what the other guys are doing wrong. Tell us what you will do that is right, that is good for all of us, and in everyone's best interest.

What Goes...Comes

It's March 1933. America is in its worst economic downturn ever. There are literally bread lines and thousands of people roaming the streets looking for work and/or food. Hopeless it seemed, to hear President Hoover explain how the trickle down method would work and how in no time, just 60 days, the country would dig itself out and be back up on its feet. Well, days became months, which became years. At its high unemployment was at 24%. Hoover maintained the federal government would not intervene and the private sector would have the opportunity to pull everyone out of this hole if the country just held on and waited it out. Policy decisions continued to move the entire globe in a downward motion.

Enter Franklin Deleanor Roosevelt. Rich, confident, and decidedly opposed to Hoover's way of handling the economic struggles of the American people. With fervor and insistence he railed against the current administration's policies and spread the news about the New Deal he wanted to hand to the American people. When he began espousing his ideas the people were ripe. Anything would be better than the other guy's strategy. The silver lining in that cloud was muted by the brilliance of a shining beacon that said, we're the government, we can help. He won that year, and many years in succession as he served a 12 year term (in that time there were no term limits). Even his wife, Eleanor, championed everyone's rights, including African Americans, and this did not go unnoticed. The African - American population left the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln in mass exodus to embrace the politics of the Democratic Party.

Familiarly, the Republican Party was not a fan of FDR's politics. They hated the regulatory constraints being placed on Wall Street, declaring it would hamper growth. They hated that his policies allowed the federal government to "impose itself" on states' and individuals' rights. After all, the federal government couldn't possibly save everyone from impending doom, nor should they try. It's America, pull yourself up by your boot straps and take care of yourself. Many rallied against Roosevelt and thought his policies terribly dangerous to the capitalist system that defined the Nation's way of life. He was wildly unpopular in those circles, especially with the elite who felt betrayed by this perpetration of government intervention. It implied everyone was responsible for everyone else, an unbelievable idea, especially from someone who was himself, one of the elite.

Though the economic depression persisted and unemployment remained high, Franklin Roosevelt gave the people hope and slowly, as with all disasters, things began to get better. The truth is, things didn't really get back to normal until World War 2 brought manufacturing and industry back through weapons. He had already been president for 8 years. Any and everyone who was looking for gainful employment could have it by then. Although FDR's policies helped, it was little by little, bit by bit. Still, his confidence helped the people believe in the New Deal and hold on with hopeful anticipation until "Tomorrow". He led the people into tomorrow...World War 2. Still, wildly popular with all the people, he won another term.

Fast forward to present day. In 2007 an economic downturn ripped the Nation apart. The market crashed and so did everything else. Virtually no regulation to vet, the rich got very rich on the backs of mainstream America. And now, here it was all coming to a head. Unemployment rates soared. Foreclosures, layoffs, businesses going under and, the party of the day, the Republican Party, was winding down its regime in the White House. It was a sure bet they would not win the 2008 election, come what may. It all happened on their watch so they had to go. There would be little attention given to religious rhetoric about marriage and abortion. The people needed something different. Not to mention, our men and women being shipped off to Iraq and Afghanistan to retaliate against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks without any actual sign of Osama bin Laden. Already two debt - ridden 7 year wars that had a bewildering origin, there was no way the people were interested in continuing on with these failures.

Enter Barack Obama - green, bright-eyed, bushy tailed, activist heart that says he's going to reach out and make a difference. Hope and change were his mantra while he criticized and undermined the 'evil' Republicans for their greed and unfettered callousness bringing the entire globe to its breaking point...again. He won. Gee, a literally African-American man was going to run the country. Absolutely unbelievable! No one conceived it would happen in this generation or lifetime, as racism is still a strong theme leading many facets of life in this country. Still, the people went to the polls and bet on him. In those beginning days there was a remarkable feeling tone of equality in which the black American almost felt like it really was possible to achieve anything in this country.

Yet, since he was sworn into office the American public has had to abide complete absurdity. In 3 1/2 years the leader we elected has been a socialist, an elitist, a Muslim, the anti-Christ, gay, a CIA operative, a terrorist, a racist, too inclusive, a communist, a dictator, a non-leader, and the list is actually even more intensive. Throughout his term a libertarianesque Republican army has been waiting to see the hope and change dressed in a package they can appreciate. Worse, Congress isn't helping. All of a sudden the popular rich kids and the townies can't make one solid decision regarding improving the quality of life of the people they're supposed to be serving. At some point at least 100% of the population has wanted to require all of their resignations for simply being useless. The figure is 100% because even they know they're guilty. Gridlock blamed of course on...drum roll: Barack Obama. Before he was elected he was golden. A week after inauguration he was toast. 

The difference between 1933 and today? Media outlets run by corporate franchises and the overwhelming acceptance of propaganda by the American people. Hidden in plain sight, the minute anything happens in the Nation it's reported exactly the same way by just about every media outlet. The same soundbites, same rhetoric, same demeanor, and even same body language and tone of those delivering the message have become so commonplace to us that we don't even blink / think (except Fox - they originate their own lies). Reporters get called on the carpet for going old school and actually investigating something and reporting the facts. So Americans have had to endure the rough waters of hearing pundits take everything he does and serve it up on a trash heap. He got Osama bin Laden. Yeah? Was it staged? Why didn't he ask Congress first? Wasn't that why we went to Afghanistan? Yeah, but it's disrespectful for him to go in without telling us. The unemployment rate is in a steady decline. Yeah? That's no thanks to Obama. But last week you said it was his fault there were no jobs. Yes, but he's not creating them. No one's crossing the border and he's deported more illegal immigrants than at any other time in history. That's not because of his administration, that's just because of the economy. They're 'self-deporting.' Such nonsense.

It used to be that a politician had to have an idea, a plan that the majority of the people liked. They had to show some ability to get the plan to work and the country to follow it. Pave roads, build a task force, improve the military, help pass laws that help states better govern the people. Today we assume that if they confess a religion they must be okay. Well, you can't be African-American and confess Christ, as we found with Obama. But, otherwise, blindly we trust. The media perpetuates this notion by debating it, discussing it, round-tabling it while Congress passes laws we know nothing about but that affect us dramatically. This keeps the voting populace in just enough vague ambiguity to think they know who to vote for.

It's very difficult in this climate to know what's true and what's tweaked truthiness. Unfortunately,each November the American people go into the voting booth blind to the facts, but clearly seeing spoon fed truths that have been propagandized to the hilt. We may as well close our eyes and pick the one our finger falls on...it is just as insightful.

The Survey

The past two weeks leading up to the November election have been peppered with many themes, all of which have been exploited for their provocative qualities. Recently my family, as we are registered voters, have been called by four separate campaigns inquiring who we were planning to vote for and trying to ascertain why that was so. The first survey was from the Obama campaign during which an actual human being asked if he could count on our vote this year. We explained where we stood on issues at that point in time and they politely respected our ideas and then it was over as quickly as the conversation began. In the next survey an automated voice began robotically asking us to participate in the survey. I hung up, uninterested in speaking to a machine. About a week later another call came in from an Obama campaign worker - again an actual human being, asking if we would come out to help with the campaign that weekend. We assured her we would not be available to help out and were still undecided in this election. She was polite and thanked me for my time reminding me to watch the debate in a few days. Then we began getting local calls. This was automated, but this time I chose to hear the survey out, curious to know what they believed were the "issues" of this campaign. The following topics were covered in the questions:

1. For which candidate would we vote for U.S. Senate

2. The political party most affiliated with

3. Our opinion on President Obama's policies on economic development

4. Gender

5. Race

6. Age

And then, you guessed it...

7. Religion

The survey asked whether the respondent was protestant, evangelical, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Mormon, or something else. The something else part was curious because that could encompass any number of things. Stopping to write down the questions being asked, it seemed the survey's design was terribly flawed. Here there is only one policy question. The rest of the questions of the survey seek to know more about the voter and then find out what would be suitable to hear in a campaign ad or speech. The survey was set up specifically to manipulate voters. It's right there in plain sight. In fact, the survey is asking questions that have so little to do with practice and so very much to do with tickling the ears that it's completely unclear which candidate is funding it. When did being counted in a survey become more important to the American public than knowing what the candidates stand for and what that translates to in practice in Washington? Since when is religious affiliation relevant to a campaign survey?

The Christian Right has become quite a group to contend with, mostly for Republicans, since the 80's. The surveys, pundits, mass mainstream media, and seriously over funded political campaigns have manipulated the thoughts and belief systems represented across our country. It seems campaign managers caught on that attaching a candidate to popular values in their party or state or nation can hook voters much easier than defining a candidates' actual purpose and practice. The idea is campaigns have deliciously put faith and religion on a platter to be eaten up by constituents while they bask in the glory of never having to actually stand on a real platform or give any specific details about policy. The debate is a prime example of this. The plans the Republican Party have laid out have been at best vague and unassuming. They have plans, obviously. They will most likely do exactly what is already being done, as it goes in Washington. They'll wipe away Wall Street's regulations, as this is what they do, but aside from that all will go exactly as it has. We'll only hear and know about what sways us. Media manipulation will continue.

But, the savvy American looks deeper. They see there have been no significant changes in Washington policy in decades, but shiny rhetoric and glossy bill signing distract us from what's really happening. The decline of freedom began long before complicated surveys began masking it's descent. Voters must wake up. Require the truth. We live in Babylon so religious affiliations have little to do with who is running this Nation. Find out where candidates stand on issues that affect our way of life and find out about your local leaders. State legislators, senators, and representatives have a greater bearing on what actually happens in your life than the guy in the White House and whether or not he has special religious underwear.