The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward (Continued III)

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

In my last post entitled "The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward (Continued II)" as well as in the posts preceding that, namely "The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward (Continued)" and "The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward," I discussed at length how the Republican Party has drifted further and further Right, with that movement having now accelerated beyond anything that preceded it with the advent of the Tea Party basically taking over the G.O.P.

Most would assume that this rightward trek started with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, but it actually began long before. In 1964 while Lyndon Johnson was basking in his Congressional successes and was getting ready to run for re-election in his own right, after succeeding the martyred John F. Kennedy, a battle for the soul of the Republican Party was taking place. Barry Goldwater, representing the extreme Right of the Republican Party, ran for the party’s nomination against Nelson Rockefeller, who even though now identified with the infamous Rockefeller Drug Laws, was considered the liberal wing of the Republican Party. Goldwater won the nomination and even though he went on to a landslide defeat at the hands of Lyndon Johnson, the Right-wing control of the G.O.P. was never seriously in doubt thereafter.

Today, we are shocked as we see moderate and even conservative Republicans lose primary contests to the extreme Right wing of that party, but most have undoubtedly forgotten just how long this has been going on.

Yet it was as early as 1978 (two years before the election of Ronald Reagan) that Republican Senator Clifford P. Case, a liberal Republican from New Jersey, was defeated in the Republican primary, presaging the Rightward march that has since been identified with Ronald Reagan.

The Republican Party has now marched so far Right that Ronald Reagan would undoubtedly be considered a RINO (Republican In Name Only) by today’s standards. After all it was he who was enough of a pragmatist, despite his rhetoric, that when he was faced with a growing deficit introduced TEFRA, which is described by the Right-wing blog The Free Market as “the largest tax increase in American history”

And so we now have a Republican party that is so far Right that the Cato Institute, The Libertarian Think Tank speaking through its spokesperson, Daniel Mitchell, on the Newshour, referred to Nixon and Bush as: “big-government interventionists.” What might he have said of President Eisenhower who warned that “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” And added.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. 

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. 

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. 

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. 

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. 

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. 

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. 

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road. the world has been taking. 

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

But the party has gone so far Right that its official Ryan “budget” endorsed by its Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, was denounced by the Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in these words:

I reiterate our strong opposition to an unfair proposal that would alter the Child Tax Credit to exclude children of hard-working, immigrant families,” wrote Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development. “Denying the credit to children of working poor immigrant families--the large majority of whom are American citizens--would hurt vulnerable kids, increase poverty, and would not advance the common good.   

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), provides vital food security to families during tough economic times,” Bishop Blaire added. “It is estimated that cuts proposed in this bill would deny assistance to two million families, and cut the benefit for everyone else. No poor family that receives food assistance would be unaffected, constituting a direct threat to their human dignity.   

The Social Services Block Grant is an important source of funding for programs throughout the country that serve vulnerable members of our communities--the homeless, the elderly, people with disabilities, children living in poverty, and abuse victims,” he continued. “We should prioritize programs that serve “the least of these,” not eliminate them.   

The Catholic bishops of the United States recognize the serious deficits our country faces, and we acknowledge that Congress must make difficult decisions about how to allocate burdens and sacrifices and balance resources and needs,” Bishop Blaire added. “However, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts must protect and not undermine the needs of poor and vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to programs in the budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test.

And Bishop Stephen Blaire, the chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice, Peace and Human Development, added:

Just solutions, however, must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs. The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.

And on their web site the US Conference of Catholic Bishops set forth these criteria for evaluating a budget.

1.Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.  

2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first. 

3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times…  

Just solutions, however, must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs.

In April 16 and April 17 letters to the House Agriculture Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee addressing cuts required by the budget resolution, Bishop Blaire said:

The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.

Bishop Blaire also wrote that cuts to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP- food stamps) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) will hurt hungry children, poor families, low-income workers and other vulnerable people. Additionally, he wrote that if cuts to the federal budget need to be made, savings should first be found in programs that target more affluent and powerful interests.

Altogether three letters were written by the Bishops. The can be found here, here and here.

Other religious leaders' statements can be found here.

But our so-called middle and even many on the so-called Left do not find it in their hearts to express outrage and our media -- – Well, They see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil.

They are busy analyzing events only from the perspective of a horse race.

But I have gone far afield from where I intended to go. In my last post I concluded with: “But before I close this subject I must examine one more column by [David] Brooks. It is dated April 16, 2012 and is entitled “The White House Argument.” I suggest the reader examine it before my next post. It is one of Brooks’ best jobs yet at sophism. But like all his others, it does far better at obfuscation than at clarification.

Well, I guess that will have to wait till next time.

If you have read this please click here: es628@columbia.edu put "read" in the subject and hit send. A note will be welcome but it is not necessary.