Contributors

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

The Republican Reformation

Markadelphia has yet again vented his spleen about the Republican Party and how it is ultimately doomed, but again I think he is off base. It's not doomed, it's just going through a very messy Reformation, as England did during the rule of Henry VIII. The Tea Partyers see themselves as saviors of the Republican Party, modern Luthers, but a better analogy is Thomas Cromwell.

At that time the Catholic Church was riven by schism. Lutherans in the Germanic countries split off from Rome. Luther felt the papacy was corrupt, it was obsessed with money and material goods, it allowed sinners to buy indulgences, it engaged in idolatry, it had too many saints and minor deities like Mary, it forbade the common people to read the word of God (William Tyndale translated the Bible into English and was hanged for it), and it set the priesthood up as a wall between the people and Christ.

In England this played out differently. There were some Lutheran-style reformationists, but there were many who remained loyal to the Catholic Church, including the Henry's first wife, Catherine of Aragon, and her daughter Mary, who eventually became queen. Catherine could not give Henry a son and he wanted the marriage dissolved so he could remarry a more fecund bride.

Thomas More, Henry's chancellor, was a solid Catholic. He opposed the Reformation and burned heretics at the stake (he was eventually canonized). He was opposed to Henry's divorce, and was ultimately executed.

Thomas Cromwell, who became Henry's chief minister, used his position to push the English Church into the Reformation, rounding up and executing his religious and political enemies. He also closed down many monasteries and other religious institutions and took their money for the king and himself.

(Incidentally, this history makes it obvious why America's founding fathers believed wholeheartedly in the separation of church and state. These very conflicts caused so many people to flee England to America. It wasn't Muslims killing Christians, this was Christians killing Christians because one believed that holy wafers were actually Christ's flesh, and the other thought it was just a bland cracker.)

Cromwell got Henry his divorce from Catherine, and the English church split from Rome. Henry married Anne Boleyn, who bore him Elizabeth who eventually became queen. Anne never gave Henry a son and was ultimately executed on charges of infidelity and incest, which were almost certainly trumped up. Henry then married Jane Seymour, who did give him a son, but she died in childbirth.

It was Cromwell's fanatical zeal that did him in. He forced Henry into a marriage with Anne of Cleves in order to more closely ally England with the Lutheran countries. Henry married Ann just five days after meeting her, even though he had no attraction to her, and the marriage was annulled before being consummated. Cromwell was executed for treason, heresy and corruption. But his real crime was being a bad matchmaker.

Then Henry married Catherine Howard, a girl many years his junior, who did commit adultery, and was executed for it. Finally he married Catherine Parr who outlived him.

What can we learn from this history? Cromwell's Reformationist zeal is much like the Tea Party's. He was willing to kill on the slightest pretext of heresy, in exactly the same way the Tea Party radicals are willing, nay, eager, to destroy traditionally conservative Republicans like Orrin Hatch. The Tea Party is conducting a hunt for heretics, and are finding them everywhere. The Tea Party cry is "Convert or die!" Heretics will be burned at the stake.

But the Tea Party, like Cromwell forcing Anne of Cleves on Henry, is in danger of forcing an unelectable presidential candidate on the Republican Party. By holding the country's economy hostage to their debt-ceiling dogma, the Tea Party's negatives are going up all around, most importantly among independents with a conservative bent.

The evangelicals and Reformationists were a minority in England, and even though they held great power while they enjoyed the king's favor, in the end the traditional bent of the clergy, the people and the nobles won the day, and many of the reforms that Cromwell and his ilk killed for went by the wayside. Since then the Anglican Church has been much more like the Catholic Church than the evangelical and Lutheran churches, and for many years there was talk of reunification (women and gay priests have pretty much ended that).

In the long run the Republican Party is inherently conservative, and will return to the conservative roots it had before the current wave of Tea Party radicalism. Over the last 50 to 80 years Social Security and Medicare and the concepts underlying them have become part of the fabric of American society. They have problems, but Americans want them fixed, not destroyed. The Tea Party was born in opposition to the health care law, even though everyone knows we need some kind of health care reform, and that means some kind of collective responsibility for all Americans' health. Opposition to health care reform is a prelude to the demolition of Medicare and Social Security. The Tea Party's fervent zeal to destroy them will ultimately fail when America's elderly -- the people who vote in the greatest numbers -- finally realize what the Tea Party has in store for them.

It's tempting to assign historical roles to the modern players in the Republican Party. Sarah Palin as Anne Boleyn for seducing John McCain and causing a terrible schism in the Republican Party. Michele Bachmann as Catherine Howard, the crazy bimbo. Karl Rove as Thomas More, for executing Reformationists like Christine O'Donnell. Grover Norquist as Thomas Cromwell, for going after anyone in the old guard who dares cross him and his radical tax-cut theology. And Rick Perry as Henry VIII, for executing more people in Texas than any other governor, including the insane, mentally deficient and children (Henry had a law passed allowing the execution of the insane so that Lady Rochford, who helped Catherine Howard arrange her adulterous liaisons and went mad while imprisoned in the Tower of London, could be beheaded).

In the end, if the Republicans run a Tea-Party turkey and lose to Obama in 2012, the Tea Party will find its head on the executioner's block just like Thomas Cromwell did.

8 comments:

6Kings said...

You must be a Kos kid. Otherwise, how do you explain such ignorance of the Tea Party movement. Let's start with the Tea Party impetus:

Excessive Government spending and Taxation.

The health care legislation just happened to be a massively opposed mess of stupidity democrats rammed through which violated all three of the core values of the Tea Party movement.

The three core values:
1. Fiscal Responsibility
2. Constitutionally Limited Government
3. Free Markets

And their stance on social issues:
As an organization we do not take stances on social issues. We urge members to engage fully on the social issues they consider important and aligned with their beliefs.

It seems from yours and Mark's rants against the tea party that this 'radicalism' is dangerous and not good for America. Why is that? These are the founding principles of America are they not? Tell me how a Government mandated insurance plan aligns with the founder's views of central government's role in America. Do it.

Not only do you not understand the Tea Party Movement, you don't understand America. Time for you two rubes to get out of your little far left blue bubble.

Mark Ward said...

I think I'm going to cut and paste this comment and use it as a perfect illustration of cognitive dissonance. Here's why.

Excessive Government spending and Taxation

The tax burden in the United States is very low at present.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/us-tax-burden-lowest-level-58/story?id=13541330

So, you are wrong there. Here's another way to look at it.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

We've had tax cuts for the last 10 years. I don't see where excessive comes in. Point me to the effective rates (not the statutory ones) that you think are excessive.

Regarding spending, just because you don't like Keynesian economics does not mean that it doesn't work. The hysteria over spending is nonsense when you consider those same Tea Party types love Social Security and Medicare. Sure, spending needs to be cut but not at the level you want it to be cut. You are not thinking clearly about the implications of what would happen. For example, the government spent money on developing the internet and look what happened. 90 percent of the companies that occupy the internet are US based. That's a good thing, right? The government started the innovation and then the private sector carried into the framework of capitalism. This a great example of how the balance works.

opposed mess of stupidity democrats rammed through

Wrong. The health care legislation was debated for over a year and changed forms several times. The Democrats had control of all Congress and the executive branch. They voted legally to pass a bill which was essentially a rehash of a GOP bill from the early 90s.

Why is that?

Because of the facts. They are not thinking clearly about the implications of their libertarian utopias. They fail in the same way that socialist utopias fail: people. I'm not sure what you mean by "free market" but I sure as shit want the government there to protect my property rights. This extends to my friends who own businesses as well. I also want them to improve efficiency of markets as they can do from time to time with monopolies, oligopolies, and markets where suppliers can take advantage of inelastic demand. This brings us to health care..

Tell me how a Government mandated insurance plan aligns with the founder's views of central government's role in America. Do it.

This statement is simply ridiculous. As I have explained many times on this blog, the founders were not a monolith. There were many disagreements and this is where your true believing clouds your judgement. Washington and Hamilton wanted a national bank, for example, and Jefferson and Madison did not want one. Like mandated health care, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the US must have a central bank. Yet Washington and Hamilton knew that we needed one and they created it anyway. It's the same thing with health care when you consider the inefficiency of the market.

little far left blue bubble

Wrong again. From your perspective in Bircher land, I could see why you might think that but it's simply not true. Socialism doesn't work and we need to strike the right balance between providing for the general welfare and markets based in capitalism that encourage innovation. We haven't always been perfect as there are indeed some areas that are over regulated and others that are under regulated but the results speak for themselves.

We built ourselves into a juggernaut with very high taxes and tight regulation. Globalization has made it impossible to go back to this but that doesn't mean we have to adopt the libertarian wet dream. That will quickly become a nightmare as we have seen what happens when private sector folks are given a leash that is too long. It's why we are having the problems we are having now.

Mark Ward said...

For sake of saving time, I'm also going to respond to your comment from the other thread about Texas.

TEXAS

Wasn't that hard. Small government, no income tax, tort reform, energy policy. Not perfect but this little example DESTROYS the examples of lefty dominated states like Cali, Illinois, and Michigan.


Filled with ignored facts. Texas has actually increase the size of government by adding 7 percent more federal jobs, 8 percent more state jobs and 6 percent more local government jobs. In addition, Governor Perry took 6 billion in stimulus money. And Texas may not have an income tax but it does have a gross margins tax on businesses as well as a state sales tax at just over 6 percent. Cities can impose an additional 1 percent tax. Property taxes in Texas are high and provide the bulk of the state's income.

I won't argue with the success of Texas but part of it has to do with migration to the state. Jobs have gone up and many of them are government jobs.

Now, if you choose to respond to me (no big deal if you don't want to), refute my facts. You've already slipped in this post with:

2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem.

3. Projection/Flipping.

4. Rewriting History.

9. Populism.

Continue with any of these tactics and we won't really get anywhere.

6Kings said...

The Tea Party impetus is too complex for you? The whole point is cut spending and don't use taxes to prop up the spending. People want the government to balance the budget by CUTTING SPENDING. We have shown you time after time that spending is WAY above the historical norm and even with historic revenue like during the Clinton presidency, it wouldn't be enough. Why isn't this getting through? What is it about math that irritates you so?

Funny, I don't remember saying the health care bill was illegal. This mess of a bill was passed against the wishes of the majority of people AND nobody knew what was in it exactly. Pelosi was the dumbass who confirmed it.

I won't argue with the success of Texas but part of it has to do with migration to the state.

Yep, you are arguing. I live in Texas you moron and I know all about it and the 'ignored' facts. This states inbound migration is filled with people coming from Blue states where failed lefty policies are driving people out. Yeah, it sucks to live under Democrat rule and people all over America know it. Want evidence?: Blue States SUCK

On to your Texas Jobs fallacy:
Jobs have gone up and many of them are government jobs.

In July, there were 13.9 Texans for every government worker employed in the state, based on figures from the Texas Workforce Commission and the Census Bureau. By comparison, the ratio was 12.9 residents for every government worker in 2000. In other words, the number of government workers has decreased on a per-capita basis as Texas' population has grown.

Dept of Labor confirms that Texas from 12/99 to 12/2009 had 9.3% private sector job growth. The next closest was Florida at 4.31%. Where were the big blue states? California -2.72%, NY -1.04%, Illinois -8.47%, Ohio -11.74%, Michigan -19.56%, NJ -3.26%.

The most common occupation sectors in Texas were office and administrative service, sales, and food service. Of the three, office jobs had the highest median wage, at $29,300. Food service had the lowest median wage of all occupation groups, at $17,700 annually. Together these occupational groups made up more than a third of employed Texans.

But the same pattern can be observed in both national numbers and nearly every state, said Ray Perryman, chief executive of a nonpartisan economic research firm based in Waco.


Even with the large group statistically mirroring every other state and the nation as a whole, Texas is still creating better jobs.

Furthermore:

Texas has a large low-wage work force and an undeniably high unemployment rate, said Don Baylor, a senior economic analyst at the liberal Center for Public Policy Priorities. But the "economy has diversified," he said, "so there are a lot more opportunities that exist now than before."

Three other industry sectors added more jobs than mining over the last year: trade, transportation and utilities increased by 57,900 net jobs; professional and business services by 53,400 net jobs; and leisure and hospitality by 44,900 net jobs.


Source

Don asked for an example and I gave one. AGAIN I will say it is not perfect but it is a heck of a lot better than the lefty alternatives. Chicago Sales tax (City only) is over 10%. California continues to raise taxes and driving business out....to Texas, Utah, Arizona, and other business friendly states. The only thing Texas lacks is water which is a pretty big problem.

The Tea Party and the vast majority on the right don't want your fabled 'no government'. We want a government that regulates and enforces laws, not an overseer that thinks it should have a hand in everything. And it is not necessarily a quick and dirty fix either. It is a long and painful correction process that needs to happen or the leviathan will sink this ship.

6Kings said...

The government started the innovation and then the private sector carried into the framework of capitalism. This a great example of how the balance works.

This is true and a good example. Guess where it started? Defense (DARPA) which is constitutional mandate of the government.

By the way nowhere are the 'Right' saying cut all government spending - not even on your hallowed SS and Medicare. That is an anarchists view. I missed this in my last post.

Mark Ward said...

Blue states suck? That's your response? Sadly, we are back to winning the argument again. The problem here is that you use your ideology as a blunt instrument and, once again, have ignored the facts that I have listed above. Your hyper OCD about spending is ridiculous when you consider that spending alone won't solve the problem. You're so focused on it that it has clouded your rationality.

This blind rage you have about the government shields you from seeing that it does do quite a bit of good when it spends money. Reducing poverty in the elderly, for example, is a good thing for the general welfare for our culture. Breast cancer research is another area in which money should be spent. Interestingly, the Army is leading the way in this field which I think is appropriate considering defending the health of our citizens is important.

Regarding Texas, the federal government has been directly involved with job creation in Texas over the last few years. This is an inescapable fact. With more people moving there, more people require government services (mail, school, dmv etc). People aren't moving there to escape the tyranny of the blue states. They are moving there because there are private sector jobs being created there in the energy sector as well as other areas. This job growth is partly due to the president's economic policies. Would you like me to put up the private sector gains chart again?

In case you missed it, here is the AC piece which refutes some of your claims.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/17/kth-perry-vs-president-obama/

6Kings said...

In case you missed it, here is the AC piece which refutes some of your claims.

Seriously? I just used Texas and Federal government statistics for the private sector alone - just so it wasn't mixed government growth too. You can contort all you want, your 'claims' hold very little value.

And just to be clear, since you apparently don't read too well and continue to argue against nobody - Government spending itself isn't the boogeyman. Overspending is. I have a hard time figuring out your continued support and fawning over fiscal irresponsibility.

So, if you aren't impressed that Texas is a decent example. Pick one of the Blue states in the top 10 of population and highlight how that should be emulated. What lefty policies have been put in place to create a good business environment?

6Kings said...

I have a hard time figuring out your continued support and fawning over fiscal irresponsibility.

Nevermind. I know where this goes already.