Call them the Badlings

I still can't determine with any finality if yesterday's op-ed in the Washington Post by that paper's former religion reporter was an over-the-top attempt at objectivity or merely abject ignorance of American constitutionalism. It seemed to lean so far to the latter that perhaps it was only a poorly written stab at the former. No one, I thought, could be this unschooled in the American political tradition, especially a WP reporter -- and one who had covered religion, which, sadly, has become inextricably and organically tied to modern politics.

Its author, Hanna Rosin, could, I suppose, muster the defense that she was only relating a new reality in American politics -- that right-wing Christian ideologues in government, such as Monica Goodling, are here to stay -- yet the tone of her piece seemed so warm and fuzzy toward this theocratic trend, I initially read it as nothing more than an endorsement. It was shocking and horrifying, so much so that I kept wanting to believe in my "objectivity" hypothesis.

Ms. Rosin set the tone in her opening sentence: "To the Bush haters of America, the young Monica Goodling is a footnote of this wretched era, one of the many Washington types that they'll be happy to get rid of come January 2009: Venal Vice President, Ex-Lobbyists Turned Regulators and, in Goodling's case, Young Evangelicals in High Places."

Under hot lights Ms. Rosin could claim she was only reporting a contemporary reality: that most Americans do hate Bush, that this is indeed a "wretched era," and that for excellent reasons we'll be delighted to "rid" ourselves of these political malefactors and their enabling "Young Evangelicals in High Places." In effect, she could say, you can't blame her for simply reporting how bad things have gotten.

But again, it was the overall tone of Ms. Rosin's piece that disturbed, and appallingly so.

"Goodling," she wrote, has been "mocked" by comedians and commentators as "one of a 'bunch of hayseeds' staffing the administration." But for Ms. Rosin's money, we should properly "Call them the Goodlings: scrubbed young ideologues, ready to serve their nation, the right's version of the Peace Corps generation."

Nowhere in the piece does the author question if the wholly biblical worldview of these "scrubbed young ideologues" just might conflict with the wholly secular U.S. Constitution. Did the author just assume that anyone with any rudimentary schooling in American political and constitutional history would already know this?

And there were passages such as these: "Even after this administration is gone, they can work for one of the more than 150 members of Congress who call themselves evangelical or dozens of conservative think tanks and activist groups. Or they can run for office.... They will be around long after Bush is gone.... They are embedded firmly enough into Washington to provide jobs for smart young Christians for generations to come."

Was that a warning; or an objective statement only of what's coming, like it or not; or an expression of her own ideological relief?

To decide, you'll have to read it for yourself. I had to pick my jaw up off the floor after reading it the first time. But then, with a severe case of incredulity that the Washington Post would ever have hired a right-wing Christian mole to report on religion -- meaning too often, these days, politics -- and then try to pass her off as a serious editorialist, I reread it trying to find "objectivity" loopholes.

Was I wrong? Is it really as bad as it read? Could it actually be that today we have in the mainstream media purportedly educated reporters who really can't distinguish between the Bible and the Constitution? Between Thomas Jefferson's vision and that of Pat Robertson's? Between age-old republicanism and creeping theocracy?

Comments

[Robert Carruth]

I agree with you. Ms Rosin seems to be charmed by the so-call Christian right wing.

[Bruce]

HOLY MOLY! I was hoping you had exaggerated your review, but then I read the article. It is scary. Scarrier was the description of these driven students working so hard, but only allowed, whether formally or by social sanction, to think one way. Scarrier still is the tile of her upcoming book "God's Harvard" about a Christian college and its mission to save America. Oh, but wait, the bible says to love your enemies, feed the hungry, take care of the poor, give your excess belongings away, judge not lest ye be judged. These people are not followers of Christ or the bible; they are narcissistic, bigoted, regressive and fearful over-priviledged white people desparate to recreate a world in which they ruled over all others. The bible is just their excuse. They don't give a shit about what it really says, only what they can extract to keep others down and have their own way. Let's stop calling this strain of zealot "Christian" and start calling them what they really are: totalitarian.

[Jane White]

Bruce's comments are right on, but not direct enough. Please, please, go back and read the rise of Hitler from any reputable source. He distorted Christianity, took over the military, infiltrated government, and burned the Reichstag (Parliment). The similarities to what is happening now are, for this old soul who remembers all to well, are terrifying!!

[Colonius]

Objective, but annoying, I thought. Not quite gloating, but not sounding appalled as she should be. I didn't perceive that she finds this "trend" either a good thing, nor bad.

OTOH, the central theme of her oped seems to be that they're here to stay, that what the Bushies and Regent'ies have wrought shall remain among us. She gives no good logical argument of this, simply says they can work for the 150 congressmen who are evangelicals, etc. That assumes that their standing as Bush loyalists won't get them thrown out of office in the next couple cycles.

When I read the last paragraph of her oped, I was thinking that she should do a follow-up oped on the avalanche of disaffection Evangelical Christians are undergoing towards the Bush government: its war, mean spirited abandonment of the sick and the weak, divisive politics, sexual depravity and pedophilia, corruption, and obvious manipulation of themselves as a "base".

There's another factor I'd [being an atheist] like to mention. It makes sense that Christians in this nation would want to be in public service, and to allow their concept of Good to influence government. What scares me is, don't schools teach kids the fundamental principal anymore, of secularism and its essential role in preventing governments from swinging into tyrrany? I was raised in the midWest Republican suburbs of Chicago in the '50s and '60's, and that genius contribution of the Founders was ground into us by our teachers, without fail.

[noo2me]

I agree with Colonius. Or maybe I wasn't adequately "freaked out" enough about the editorial. That doesn't mean I DO NOT think that these people will have slots in certain right-wing think-tanks, etc. My fervent prayer is that this administration is finally uncovered for the roaches that they undoubtedly are.

[Annoying Mouse]

Scary. And these nutjobs have more than a year and a half left in office. Well, since they're all evangical republicans, they'll probably all end up imbroiled in some sex scandal or another along the way.

[Annoying Mouse]

Colonus, to answer your question about whether they're teaching civics, etc., in school anymore, I don't know but I don't think so - they only teach reading and aritmetic these days for NCLB (which is just a way to keep kids from actually learning anyting useful, like what they're rights as an American are). I remember civics - I went to school until 10th grade in northwest Missouri and the education system was terrific there. Then I moved to Alabama and honestly didn't learning anything more until I went away to college. Oh, and we had daily prayer every morning in Alabama (and this was a public school, mind you). The kids aren't taught such things like the president doesn't have the powers of a king and church and state are separate anymore, from what I can tell.

[colonius]

Dear Annoying Mouse,

Yes, I read something online just in the past couple of days, about the inexplicable lack of a civics curriculum anymore. [Google, google -- sh*t, can't find the link, sorry]. But it's apparently just as you say. And like I said, this is what is really scary, that the understanding I had as a kid about President-not-King, secular-not-state religion, checks and balances-not-unary power, that are not just tradition (that's right, Busheviks!), but solidly enshrined in constitutional law is not a part of new Americans' civic mind. That such an understanding (and I remember that they had us really think about this in class, with thought experiments and everything) is no longer a part of our educational system!? How can that be? As baby boomers became grownups, did we assume that our children, new Americans, would just understand that stuff automatically?

I mean, unlike a lot of other failures (journalism, Fairness Doctrine, secure elections, open and respectful debate, etc.) it's not something I can point to the RNC and show how they orchestrated it over the decades since Watergate.

OTOH, even during the Nixon years and the (relatively quaint) shenanigans of his crew, when I was in my early 20s, I remember being appalled at how hard it was for him to be called out on his unconstitutional abuses of power -- though it really wasn't all that long, then, before Rule of Law prevailed, a real DOJ took him on after Mitchell left, etc.

[Vic Anderson]

In Bushspeak, I believe that's doubleplus unGoodling.

[The Oracle]

I agree. Something very perverse and wicked has happened to our democracy.

And then to have a Washington Post religion writer tell us all to get used to it, that these evangelical Christian storm-trooper graduates of Liberty University and Regent University (as well as so many other taxpayer-funded religious institutions) are here to stay, undermining and subverting our Constitution, for decades to come, then one has to wonder who is more dangerous, al Qaeda or these evangelical Christians?

I'm a secular Christian who is a "true believer" in the U.S. Constitution and the separation of church from state, and vice versa. I served in the U.S. military and swore an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution...not to subvert it, not to sabotage it, like these twisted and warped "true believer" evangelical Christians are doing.

Monica Goodling has been "outed." She's a danger to our democracy. Compare this to the evangelical-backed Bush administration's "outing" of a covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame-Wilson, a true American hero, who was (and still is) a staunch defender and upholder of our Constitution, a patriot who guarded our nation from rogue nations getting WMD.

If Monica Goodling represents just the tip of the iceberg regarding the large number of twisted and warped evangelical "moles" planted throughout our freedom-loving democracy, then the threat to our nation (WMD or otherwise) has increased exponentially...and we must be vigilant, extremely vigilant...if we are going to survive both the orthodox threat from al Qaeda and survive the internal threat from these anti-U.S. Constitution, un-American evangelical religious-programmed (brainwashed?) robots.

[Hugh Vincelette]

In one of the many excellent comments ; it is mentioned that some(?) of the new conservative religious law schools are taxpayer funded. Is that not an issue to be investigated and , if possible ; eliminated ?

[sam dobermann]

What this fawning writer has mentioned, indeed has probably not realized, nor have the commenters, is that the "goodlings" have been hired into Civil Service positions and from such they can't be fired except for cause and through a long procedure. The ranks of the government are infested and won't be cleansed by a new administration. They will just burrow deeper.

They include judges at all levels.

It's worse than you can imagine.

[larryo]

You are not wrong! If the people from Regent U are so well trained, how could any of them break the law so blatantly and then have the gall to appear in front of the entire nation and say "I didn't mean to."

What the hell did she mean to do, if not that? Here's another principle from the first year of law school: You don't have to intend to break the law to be guilty - all that is necessary is the intent to do the acts that constitute the crime. They seem to have missed that at Regent.

The Badlings are abominations, and they should be hounded out of government at every level.

[StevenWells]

"Could it actually be that today we have in the mainstream media purportedly educated reporters who really can't distinguish between the Bible and the Constitution?"

Why not? Congress, the judiciary and every federal government agency are full of "purportedly educated" people who can't make that distinction. In short: you have to ask?

[Freedem]

These are so much more than "Conservative Christians" and so much less as they are neither Conservative or Christian, in any sane sense.

Rather they are Totalitarian Extremists who have plans that call for the mass murder of most Americans if they ever get enough power to do so. No longer blared from the front of web pages, the plans are still out there, if you look.

They are not sitting around wishing it, but have well developed plans that are a long way to completion. Monica is one face, and Blackwater is another, but like an iceberg most is hidden.

2008 will be quite late, be sure that they have plans in place, they are nothing if not patient.

Gonzo, and Monica are now expendable, they have their Psychophants in place in all the US Attorney's chairs. Without one such honest person, no Gang Of Pirate crime will be prosecuted, and no Constitutional challenge can be brought.

If as it now appears that the supposed Democrat spinal implants were just a stick up their a**, we are in for a very bumpy ride.