[MD] Tim Walberg, Why I Don't Like the Religious Right, and Family Values

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

Steve,

Goddam man, what a bunch of issues. And in one post. :-)


[Steve]
Part of the problem here is also the gullibility of the uneducated voters.

[Arlo]
There is a complexity afoot that requires an understanding beyond radio talk-show bullets. But when this appeal works (to garner votes), how on earth on you gonna convince people NOT to do it? Beyond the hypocrisy (I mean c'mon, if I hear "Bush Hater" one more time I'm gonna scream), beyond the appeal to xenophobia (gays, mexicans, welfare moms, you name it), there exists one undeniable truth... these campaigns work. Much as Bill O'Really condemns "smear", he makes a living off it. It works. So-and-so "hates America" is the latest Hannity repeat ad absurdum.

There is no denying that a complex understanding of political, sociological and even historical, issues pertaining to current issues is required for even a base-line discussion of the problems we confront. But this is "too much" for those who seek profit (power and money) off telling us the only real problem is "people who aren't like us". Boogeymen. They're gonna getcha. Boo! Khaled had initially referred us to it, and I recommend it highly... "The Power of Nightmare" from the BBC. And one a quick side note... check out Tom Tomorrow (that great "he hates America" cartoonist") in his latest, "The Rightwingoverse" (http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=21200)... If you like it, well, you're just a "Bush hater" and you "hate America". Ba da bing.

So where do we start.. educating voters? If you believe the "right wing", the academy and education is nothing but a propaganda machine for commies and "Bush haters". So any call for (as I have done) strengthening critical inquiry is marked immediately by the Political Puppets as "anti-Freedom". Remember the right-wing stupidity Pirsig himself confronted when, as a "radical professor" he was targeted by the right-wing for dismissal. Maybe the new book on Dewey and Pirsig will shed some light on education. But, methinks if it doesn't appeal to baseline party orthodoxy it will be marked as "traitorous". You watch.

[Steve]
My defintion of "pro-life" includes anti-abortion, anti-gun (Walberg is pro-gun), anti-death penalty (Walberg did not take a side), and most importantly pro-environment (Walberg did not take a side).

[Arlo]
You and me both, amigo. Although I support hunting (and fishing), I think its it quite ludicrous that those who most vocally claim to be "pro-life" are also for capital punishment. I side with Pirsig, life is life (or was that Opus? :-) those who get the reference can call me on my personal line for a free beer). But this is simply evidence of the hypocrisy of those who appeal to "moral righteousness" in the name of securing their own power. 

[Steve]
Campaign spending
You can buy elections in this country!  The religious right proves it
every election.




[Arlo]
Not just the right. The left too. Both sides pander to votes through money, both in donations and promises of spending.. beit tax breaks for oil cartels or specific ethic communities. What the right does is pander to xenophobia. What the left does is pander to disenfranchisement. What we need is something new. But, I don't know if you or I will live to see it. "Power entrenches". They ridiculed what's-his-name for running as a third party, and that was that. No more third party in America. The dichotomous "war" continues. Either the repubicans got everything right, and the democrates are stupid and evil, or vice versa. Sell you soul to the Party. It is really your only option. 

[Steve]
The religious right have a
legitimate concern about the role of family in modern society.  I
don't agree with their blaming the problem on feminists and gays.  But
we as a scoiety face a question about the role of family.  It is
common today for both parents to work, work longer, or commute,
reducing time spent with their kids.  Divorce is common, sigle-parent
homes are common, which influences poverty increase.

[Arlo]
Again, right on brother. We took a devasting economic hit when I decided to be a stay-at-home dad (one income families almost always do). Those who are so-called "pro-family" should address why although in the 70s single-income families were possible, today it is not only rare but economically unfeasible for most. Consumerism is to blame for a lot of it, in many cases we can realize we don't "need" so much of what we think we do (thanks to the "vendors of style"). And I hope that the anti-consumerism trend (if it gets moving) continues. Is it more important to own a bunch of junk or have one parent "home" for the child? Arlo chooses "B". 

Divorce? Hell, that doesn't mean a thing, as long as "dem d'er gays"  aren't "marr'an". Heteros can marry and divorce all they want, but let homos marry and civilization will collapse. Boom. Just like it did 'cause of all them "illegals". Oh... wait. It didn't.... Never mind.

[Steve]
Jackson,
Michigan, my hometown, has a lot of broken homes like these.

Now, the religious right seemed concerned about the family but
ignorant of the real problems facing it.  With this thread I wanted to
pose some questions to the MD:

Family is a social level structure, like the church.  What does that
imply about family?
Where does the family fit in the MOQ?
Does the MOQ offer solutions to the problems facing the modern family?

[Arlo]
I think one has to back up and consider what is important about "a family". Is it that it consists of a "male and female"? Or is it that it consists of people who, out of love for each other, work to support their ongoing covivancy. Then you can ask yourself, "in a familial arrangement, what is the best scenario for all involved?" For some, it may be two careers. For others, it will likely be earning enough to raise a child without that child experiencing need. But what "is best" should be answered "sans vendors of style", where you will hear that nothing is more important than your child having the latest "tickle-me-elmo" doll. It never was, and it never will be. One of the more meaningful things (if not THE most meaningful thing) I have gotten from Pirsig is this... spending "good time" (emphasis "good") with your kid is the only thing that matters. Toys and junk come and go. A cross-country tr!
 ip together lasts. And is what is, in the final moment, all that matters and what we are thankful for. 

Where does the MOQ fit "family"? I think as such. "Family" is culturally specific static social pattern whose formation tends to support the perpetuation of particular social patterns. The goal of "the family" is to preserve certain social level patterns that (it is culturally believed) preserve the social level over de-evolution to biological patterns. The MOQ then provides the language to consider which "patterns" are indeed necessary for the survival of the social level, and which are not. That is, is "heterosexuality" necessary in the family to protect against social dismantling, or is "covivant love"? Is "wealth" or "things"? Or is availability of a parent for the child? Which patterns matter? And which are merely usurped by politicos seeking to futher their power by convincing you of (yet another) boogeyman threat?