Beck's 'Apolitical' Black Robe Regiment Will Urge Voter Involvement
August 31, 2010 4:17 pm ET by Joe Strupp
Glenn Beck's newly created Black Robe Regiment -- which he has said would be apolitical -- apparently has a clear political direction, according to two of its members.
Dr. Richard Lee of the First Redeemer Church in Atlanta, Ga., and Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, both said part of the group's mission is to return to their places of worship and boost voter involvement.
"We know the people of America are good, morale, decent people," Lee told me Tuesday. "If they look within their own hearts, they will vote the proper way and allow themselves to stand up at the voting polls."
Beck has repeatedly insisted that the new group and his recent rally would be apolitical.
On his radio show Monday, Beck discussed the first meeting to create the new group. He said: "I had a couple people that had helped put this together, and some of them had been involved in the Christian Coalition. And when I first called them and talked to them, I said, 'Look, I know you were involved in the Christian Coalition, but this isn't Christian, this has to be everybody, and it cannot ever be made about politics. If it's about politics, it's worthless.' And all of them said the same thing: 'Amen.' "
On Monday's edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Beck added: "If my church started to preach who to vote for, oh, the Republicans are better than the Democrats or vice versa, I would also leave my church on that."
But Lee said a mission of the Black Robe Regiment, a group of religious leaders that Beck announced on Saturday, is to get church members to use their voting rights and become involved: "It is to encourage our congregations to become involved in the process of restoring honor around the world and at home by being involved in the exercise of maintaining good will, including voting."
He added: "Voting is the voice of America. The public square happens in a voting booth - America is changed one vote at a time."
Lee said he has already become involved by placing voter registration forms in his church.
Asked if he will endorse candidates or tell parishioners for whom to vote, Lee said, "We do not vote a Republican ticket or a Democratic ticket, we vote a Christian ticket. How a candidate performs in relation to our Judeo-Christian ethic dictates how I support them."
Lee said he would endorse candidates privately. But asked if he would do so from the pulpit, he said: "I don't need to say it. If a candidate does not adhere to the Christian faith, they will know who it is."
Land also said he planned to boost voter involvement and guide parishioners to use their voting rights to influence government decisions on many issues.
"Energizing all of our members to register to vote, to be informed as to where the country stands on issues and leave it to them to connect the dots," Land said. "I will do my best to make sure they know what the bible says about the sanctity of human life, marriage and the notion of man."
Asked to be more specific on which issues he would discuss with parishioners with regard to voting, he cited abortion, same-sex marriage, assisted suicide and out-of-wedlock births.
"I think gay marriage is an oxymoron," Land said. "Marriage is between a man and a woman."
He also cited his opposition to the recent national health care legislation, stating, "It is rationing of care. I read the bill, it is horrifying."
Another participant in the group is Rabbi Daniel Lapin, president of the American Alliance of Jews and Christians.
He would not go into specifics about promoting voter involvement, but said: "In my case, it is a conviction that politics is nothing more than the practical application of our most deeply held moral values. This is simply making certain that those whose moral values are influenced by biblical thought also participate in the democratic process."
Land and Lee were first asked to join the group during a dinner hosted by Beck on June 30 at New York's London Hotel that included James Robison, Rev. James Dobson, Rev. John Hagee and about 15 other religious leaders.
"At that meeting, he said this is where he had been led to go," Land said, referring to Beck's reasons for starting the Black Robe Regiment. "He asked me to be a charter member."
Lee said Beck asked the leaders at the dinner how they believed their churches could help "bring the country together."
"There was no agenda put forth," said Lee. "We talked of voting, he did not bring it up. A lot of people have been disenchanted with politics in America."
Land did say one of the reasons for the push for voter involvement and the effort to utilize government more is because "our society sees its rights and privileges over its obligations."
Both men said no further planning had been done for the different religious leaders to meet again, but expected additional plans to be put in place.
"We are still in the formation process," said Lee.
These idiots do NOT represent mainstream Chrisitianity . . . neither does Beck.
They specifically said THEY WILL NOT TELL PEOPLE WHO TO VOTE FOR. Maybe you have seen something different, but based on what I've read, they will not be commenting on specific candidates.
In your opinion, what do they preach that is counter to mainstream Christianity (whatever that means)?
Beck is a Mormon . . . he does not represent mainstream Christianity, in fact, the majority of the "black robe" dudes don't believe that Mormonism is Christianity at all, they believe it is a Satanic cult and that Beck is, most likely, a Satanist. They are teaming up with Beck because he has a television program where they can push their BS.
The rest of the "black robe" dudes are fundamentalists, and/or end timers. Only about 1/5 of the American public shares this theology . . . a far, far smaller percentage of Christians world-wide share this theology. As I said, it's not mainstream.
Needless to say, the referendum passed. And when the first casino was built, the church started running bus trips to and from Atlantic City......
"We know the people of America are good, morale, decent people," Lee told me Tuesday. "If they look within their own hearts, they will vote the proper way and allow themselves to stand up at the voting polls."
Vote the "proper way"? WHAT involves voting the "proper way?
Could it be the Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition and Bush 1992 campaign way? The one where Robertson hand picked more than 30 Bush campaign leaders, gave advance information on the printing and distribution of 40 million Christian Coalition voter guides favorable to Bush. And how Bush then returned the favor by raising money for the Christian Coalition? The Christian Coalition And George Bush...
Republican are consistent if nothing else. When something works but knowledge of it becomes public, they simply regroup, tweak a few things and try it again. And that's exactly what Glenda, "The Black Robes" and the evangelical so called ministers are doing.
The cultural divide has been a part of the Republican playbook for years. The advertising themes of "family values", "patriotism", "church", and "guns" have been apart of the Republican arsenal for campaigning and it's worked before.
You only have to look at the Bush election of 2004. 821,000 jobs lost in Bush's first term, oil prices rising to a record $55.17 a barrel and leading economic indicators decline for a 4th straight month. Yet the campaign theme was "God", "patriotism" "I can keep you safe cause I'm God fearing" and "elitist liberal".
Sound familiar?
And what were the so called ministers telling their congregation at that time?
Richard Land, president of the Nashville, Tennessee-based Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and other religious leaders say they have preached the importance of voting based on moral issues.
``I told my congregation that I'd rather have a president who protects unborn babies than cuts my taxes 50 percent,'' Land says.
Yeah right, and if YOU believe that sh*t, I've got a bridge to sell you!
But again, I understand, because all of those stories in the news contain no 'misinformation' - it's all true.
Granted, he doesn't get it and will soon be flunked out but; that's why he is here.
:-)
Given the history of voter suppression by the forces of reaction in the U.S. I sincerely doubt that.
For one of the first nations to enshrine freedom of religion and the separation of church and state (as prescribed in Matt 22:21) it is astounding how little what is preached is practiced.
So often freedom of religion seems to have the unwritten rider "as long as I at least approve of it, but preferably it should be exactly the same as mine), so much store is placed on the religious label applied to seekers of political office and so often, certain members of one religious group (Christians) try to hijack what are generally regarded as universal human values (from well before the Christian era) as their own unique contribution to society.
Within any society there will always be "turbulent priests" of both a constructive and corrosive nature. The danger is when they claim divine authority for their view of the affairs of man. Whilst we can accept the wisdom of our priests, imams, rabbis, shamans or other learned elders as guidance, we should never accept their direction on matters of conscience.
That is to repudiate one of our greatest gifts, the one genuine, unalienable right that all humans have: freedom of thought. and with that freedom comes the responsibility to inform and act upon our consciences. To fail on this measure is both a tragedy and a sacrilege.
Just asking.
Why do people in this group find it funny to make jokes about the KKK? Beck has never said anything close to ANY VIEW that the KKK held.
Oh really how about the kkk's anti-union stance and fight against labor rights. When I was younger my work in the L.A. steel mills the KKK'ers were company men that stood against minorities working in the plant and against minorities moving into the more skilled and better paying trades in the plant. They used violence to intimidate workers and reported back to the company anyone they considered to be rabble rousers or working to end discrimination. Glenn Beck echoes their anti-union stands.
Also Glenns promotion of admitted NAZI sympathizer and organizer Elizabeth Dilling and his mentor who was too kooky even for the Mormon hierarchy W.C.Skousen. If you don't see similiarities there you just don't want to see.
Being anti union-corruption and thuggery has nothing to do with race as the anti-labor stances taken by the KKK did. That is the difference in the VIEW and STANCE. Race was always the motivation for the KKK. Unless you can prove that Beck's motivation for his union views are racially motivated your point is moot, and you need to find another parallel between Beck and the KKK.
He didn't promote Elizabeth Dilling. He discussed a book she wrote and the contents of that book. That isn't the promotion of the woman or the extension of her views. Skousen. Have you read, "The Five-Thousand Year Leap"? Tell me how that book is racially divisive in the least bit. Again, he wasn't promoting the person. He was promoting the content of a piece of literature. If this is the best that you can do, then I feel comfortable in my assessment that correlating Beck and the KKK is not only a stretch, but very offensive to those effected by the actions of the KKK.
Glenn Beck touts W.C. Skousen as one of his mentors as one of the men that changed his life,he was not only promoting Skousens book he was promoting Skousens works and thus what he stood for. You may not see racial division in "The five Thousand Year leap" which quite frankly is a mish mash of misinformation and Mormonism.
Alexander Zeitchek summarized Skousens "Leap" thusly:
What has Beck been pushing on his legions? "Leap," first published in 1981, is a heavily illustrated and factually challenged attempt to explain American history through an unspoken lens of Mormon theology. As such, it is an early entry in the ongoing attempt by the religious right to rewrite history. Fundamentalists want to define the United States as a Christian nation rather than a secular republic, and recast the Founding Fathers as devout Christians guided by the Bible rather than deists inspired by French and English philosophers. "Leap" argues that the U.S. Constitution is a godly document above all else, based on natural law, and owes more to the Old and New Testaments than to the secular and radical spirit of the Enlightenment. It lists 28 fundamental beliefs -- based on the sayings and writings of Moses, Jesus, Cicero, John Locke, Montesquieu and Adam Smith -- that Skousen says have resulted in more God-directed progress than was achieved in the previous 5,000 years of every other civilization combined. The book reads exactly like what it was until Glenn Beck dragged it out of Mormon obscurity: a textbook full of aggressively selective quotations intended for conservative religious schools like Utah's George Wythe University, where it has been part of the core freshman curriculum for decades (and where Beck spoke at this year's annual fundraiser)."
Some of Skousens later works definetly had racial overtones and stories of happy darkies during slave days:
Toward the end of Reagan's second term, Skousen became the center of a minor controversy when state legislators in California approved the official use of another of his books, the 1982 history text "The Making of America." Besides bursting with factual errors, Skousen's book characterized African-American children as "pickaninnies" and described American slave owners as the "worst victims" of the slavery system. Quoting the historian Fred Albert Shannon, "The Making of America" explained that "[slave] gangs in transit were usually a cheerful lot, though the presence of a number of the more vicious type sometimes made it necessary for them all to go in chains."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/print.html
Funny how you give Beck the slack he doesn't give others. Your excuse him by saying that he is promoting authors and not the authors ring hollow when you take into account the number of times Beck has accused others of wrong doing and despicable actions with his guilt by association attacks and his magical chalkboard.
Who is Elizabeth Dilling whose book Beck was promoting(I don't know about you but this asscoiation would have thrown up red flags to me):
Why is Beck promoting an anti-Semite on the radio?
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201006040032
and
More on Glenn Beck's new favorite anti-Semitic author, Elizabeth Dilling
It just so happens that Dilling has her own entry in The Encyclopedia of White Power: A Sourcebook on the Radical Racist Right, edited by Jeffrey Kaplan. Here are a few of the highlights:
In her later years, Elizabeth Dilling played the role of the grandmotherly, blue-haired old lady who could always be counted on to respond to a mail solicitation with a few dollars for a variety of anti-Semitic causes. Older members of the American racist movement knew better, however. Dilling was the author of several of the most scurrilous attacks on Franklin Roosevelt and his administration to appear in the interwar years.
[...]
Elizabeth Dilling graduated from the University of Chicago, and after a visit to the Soviet Union in 1931 her life changed. The experience made of her a passionate anticommunist. She soon became convinced that Jews were responsible for the communist movement, and a fanatical anti-Semite was born.
[...]
Dilling's primary claim to historical fame stems from two books that she authored in the early years of the Roosevelt administration. To Dilling, Franklin Roosevelt was in all likelihood a Jew and his administration a Trojan horse for international communism. To publicize these views, she authored and published at her own expense two of the more vituperative books of the era. The Red Network: A "Who's Who" and Handbook of Radicalism for Patriots was published in 1934. Red Network opened with a primer on the horrors of socialism (seen as synonymous with communism), proceeded to an encyclopedic listing of organizations Dilling believed to be communist fronts, and then culminated with a list of no fewer than 1,300 prominent Americans connected in some way to the Roosevelt administration whom she felt to be active communists or "fellow travelers."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201006040047
Now what is the thread running through all this and the KKK'ers in the steel mills,it was fear and racism draped in the flag ,sprinkeled with God and anti-communism. Skousen a fervent defender of the John Birch society that was against the civil rights movement because he and they saw it as being communist led and inspired. Beck even touts Skousen ,saying that Skousen proved the hateful and discredited McCarthy was right.
You talk about union corruption and thuggery well the KKK'ers I was referring to led the union and ran it in the interest of the company. Anyone that stood against them,i.e., for safer conditions in the mill,more minority hiring and skilled jobs advancement,advancement opportunities for women of all colors was conventiently labeled a "red" or communist similar to what Beck is doing now. Beck and the kkk'ers and neo-nazis have common ground which is why I'am sure he found comfort in Skousen and Dilling and why they find find comfort in him:
http://newsone.com/nation/news-one-staff/glenn-becks-white-supremacist-guests/
and
Breaking: Glenn Beck's Twitter scandal - white supremacy sympathies exposed
http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-portland/breaking-glenn-beck-s-twitter-scandal-white-supremacy-sympathies-exposed
Glenn Beck has done more to promote black people's role in the founding of this country and their importance to the development and greatness of this country in the last year than any other tv or radio personality. To say that he is racist is foolishness. To compare him to the KKK is offensive.
Btw, on Saturday Glenn Beck apologized and said he should not have called Obama a racist. However, could you explain how calling someone a racist makes the accuser in fact a racist?
I showed you Glenns white supremacist connections and who he uses as his mentors and who he promotes. I've given Beck more leeway than he has given others he has demonized and persecuted with his guilt by association nonsense and his magical chalkboard that you Beckbots seem enamored with.
I glad you find my association of Beck with Nazi's and KKK'ers offensive you have done nothing to dispel my beliefs.
Look at the salary of the head of a local union and look at the salaries of the top 50 CEO's or for the matter the workers they employ. There is no comparison. The point is GM wants more profits at the expense of it's workers.
The agreeements corporations and local and state agencies entered into was voluntary. Maybe you should look there for your corruption and not the people who worked and got the benefits.
Trust me, grunt, I WAS NOT making a joke. I'm quite serious about the "black robes" thing. I didn't think folks would have to be rocket scientists to understand my thought.
Were you speaking to me? Ummmmmmmm, I was thinking historically. Can you not see the analogy between white and black robes?
My point about "open a history book" is in reference to the history of the "black robe regiment". It has nothing to do with race. Your preconceived notions about Glenn Beck appear to be forcing you to make false and offensive comparisons or "analogies" as you call them.
Meanwhile, other news media picked up on what I observed Saturday: the incongruity of Glenn Beck inviting virulently anti-Catholic Rev. John Hagee to address the spectacular "Restoring Honor" tribute to himself that Beck staged on Saturday. (I talked about it on MSNBC's "Hardball," video below.) Hagee, it's well known, has called Catholicism "the great wh0&e," and suggested Hitler was Catholic and the pope was responsible for the Holocaust. John McCain had to renounce Hagee's endorsement after his anti-Catholic bile was widely publicized. So why was he at Beck's rally?
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/index.html
Hagee, it's well known, has called Catholicism "the great wh0&e," and suggested Hitler was Catholic and the pope was responsible for the Holocaust. John McCain had to renounce Hagee's endorsement after his anti-Catholic bile was widely publicized.
* God caused Hurricane Katrina to wipe out New Orleans because it had a gay pride parade the week before and was filled with sexual sin. From the same interview:
JH: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.
The newspaper carried the story in our local area, that was not carried nationally, that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it would was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other gay pride parades.
So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the Day of Judgment, and I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/02/28/hagee
My point about "open a history book" is in reference to the history of the "black robe regiment". It has nothing to do with race. Your preconceived notions about Glenn Beck appear to be forcing you to make false and offensive comparisons or "analogies" as you call them."--grunt
Trust me, I have no preconceived notions when it comes to Glenn Beck whatsoever. I understand just exactly what his plan is.
Sorry that my analogy zipped over your head. I still stand behind it.
"And the sheep voted for whomever the Black Robes said. And all was right with the world. And St. Sarah of the North was chosen by the sheep to lead them. And the nations pointed to the new order and wept at the ignorance that flowed forth. As the sheep waited for the return of the One, the poor went hungry and the ignorant remained so. And the people of the fields were sent to the South to fend for themselves, and families were torn apart and the crops rotted in the fields. And St. Sarah appointed Beck of the airwaves to lead the Department of Health and Human Services and the people went without. And darkness covered the land..." to be continued.
I believe this was intended to be an internally focused rally. To bring in the fact that you are concerned by what people in Myanmar or Iran or Rawanda care about us shows you don't care about the U.S. or our sovereingty. One world under one Marxist leader. Bringing in others to a family fight is totally devoid of class and honor.
You mean what was tried under the prior administration? You know the majority of Bush's first administration were neo-conservatives. Neo-conservatism has its base in the teachings of Trotsky . . . a Marxist. It has nothing to do with conservatism in the least.
Turn off Fox . . . they're lying to you. Obama is MUCH further from being a Marxist than GWB was.
Still living up to your name, huh??
Are you totally devoid of thinking for yourself? Since I know the answer to that from your posting history here, I think the discussion is over.
Is "Christian" the new word for "Republican?"
It's not Beck I have a problem with, it's anybody that follows his lead that are the real problem with this Country.
I wonder if Beck will get tax-exempt status?
My dad who was a very religious, conservative man to whom his church and family meant everything. However, he ALWAYS said that there were 3 things that should never be discussed:
Religion
Politics
Sex
He was also a very private man who was never comfortable when/if any of those topics were discussed.
There is supposed to be a seperation between church and state, remember?
Do you not understand separation of church and state?
Also, you have shown a glaring misunderstanding of the first amendment. A government official is free to be a member of any faith, and may speak freely about their faith. However, they are not above the law and must act (and in the case of judges rule) according to constitutional, federal, state, and county law.
Or do you believe free exercise of religion means subverting the constitution in cases where it promotes the religious beliefs of faiths YOU deem acceptable?
"By that logic, I hope you agree that those angry christians outside of the park 51 community center should just "get on with their lives" instead of protesting a group of private citizens building within city codes on land they have legally bought or leased..."
That was in response to mookie post which said:
as i understand the establishment clause, congress shall make no law... which means they have no right to prevent anyone, even a government official in an official government capacity, from "the free exercise thereof"... no law not only means in favor of, it means no law at all, for or against... in other words, congress must butt out... so if an atheist walks into a courtroom and sees the ten commandments on the judge's wall or walks by a nativity scene at city hall, he should get over it and get on with his life..." Mookie whatever
Coolslaw finished with a question;
Also, you have shown a glaring misunderstanding of the first amendment. A government official is free to be a member of any faith, and may speak freely about their faith. However, they are not above the law and must act (and in the case of judges rule) according to constitutional, federal, state, and county law.
Or do you believe free exercise of religion means subverting the constitution in cases where it promotes the religious beliefs of faiths YOU deem acceptable? ---CoolSlaw
Again I see no confusion just well stated points.
I think grunt is new to the idea of real political discourse. I can tell he's a Glenn Beck fan and that tells me a lot. It doesn't mean is is stupid, but likely highly misinformed and used to hysterics and demagoguery in place of thoughtful discourse and fact.
Welcome to the MMFA boards, grunt, may your time spent here be enlightening. Read up, and go investigate for yourself, there's lots of great information here.
Conservatives really know how to do verbal gymnastics and twist logic pretzels around issues relating to church and state. defending THEIR religion being actively promoted by federal law, while promoting federal law put restrictions on OTHER people's ability to practice different faiths.
This isn't a right wing site. Most liberals aren't moved by fear and emotion as easily as the true believers on the right.
The first line of the first amendment is pretty clear. It's actually quite a bit clearer then the right wing's favorite sacred second amendment. While I am generally pro-gun ownership, and believe in the right for citizens to responsibly bear arms, the second amendment does not state with such clarity and with no room for misinterpretation what the first amendment does in relation to establishment of state religeon.
Save your war on christmas paranoia for your right wing friends. When retail outlets tell employees to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" it has always been a private, corporate decision based on the principle of wanting to sell products to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Athiests and whomever else wishes to spend money at that establishment.
The ACLU "boogeymen" deal with the promotion of a specific faith on government property where official government business is conducted. Are you really trying to tell us you don't get enough Christmas imagery for about three months of the year? Private citizens and businesses don't bombard you with enough light displays, nativity scenes, Santa at the mall, Christmas cards, et all?
Get some perspective and take a step back from the paranoia and victimization theology.
Glenn Beck spends a lot of time attacking political figures and the Democratic party. You think he's so honest and full of integrity that he won't let his political shtick flow into this faith-based shtick? I happen to suspect that he's using these church leaders for both personal gain, and to advance his political ideology, it's just the kind of person Beck has proven himself to be.
I also hope you aren't talking about the tea party movement, because that movement is little more then a clever re-branding that has been bought and paid for by very wealthy conservative/republican interests. I understand it started as a grassroots movement, but very early on it was usurped and twisted into the ill-informed mob that jumps when bitter Dick Morris, diva Sarah Palin, and wealthy elite Rupert Murdoch tell them to.
Liberals and progressives are 2 VERY DIFFERENT things. Liberals traditionally have stood more in line with libertarians. Progressives are not the same thing. I wish the 2 would not be used synonymously. I consider myself a libertarian. However, I would not side with progressives on hardly any economic issue. They turn economics into a moral issue rather than seeing the economy for what it is. They do with the economy what the right does with science. They reject the truth for their personal biases and relative morality.
I'd like to hear your definition of a liberal. Just because the words sound similar does not mean they have anything in common.
Also, you've been completely misinformed about progressive views on the economy. Progressives generally view the economy in much the same way liberals do. It's a pragmatic approach that wants to see government spending used to strengthen society at all levels. They believe in a progressive tax code and that a social safety net may be unpopular among the wealthy, but benefits us all in the long run by granting more security to those who may be in a weaker position.
Both liberals and progressives also believe in regulating capitalism to prevent the massive bubble and burst situation that the libertarian-esque supply side theories have given us over the last few decades. Both liberals and progressives wish to reign in predatory lending and usury practices by banks and creditors as well.
When you claim progressives base economic beliefs on some kind of morality, you are woefully misinformed. The progress made last century from the time of the new deal that was dismantled during the "Reagan Revolution" is not faith, it's historical precedent. It worked just fine when it made America into the world's leading economic superpower and brought decades of financial stability along with the strongest middle class in the history of the world.
You've been duped by wealthy fat-cats, grunt my friend. We've been moving away from liberal and progressive economic policy since the early 1980s and only the rich have gotten richer while the rest of the country stagnated or grew deeper in debt and poverty.
Not so much if you look into libertarian views on social policies like homosexuals, drugs, gambling, and other INDIVIDUAL choice issues. Liberals once stood for individual freedom and liberty from the oppressors of the left and the right. They stood in the middle to guard from too much government from either political ideology.
-"It's a pragmatic approach that wants to see government spending used to strengthen society at all levels."
That is kind of my point. They believe in social engineering which they pass off as compassion and care. I believe that progressives in society like you have good intentions much like the conservatives in society have good intentions. However, I think the power that controls the progressive policies and the conservative policies are not in line with goals and views of the common man. They use the framework and twist it as a way to concentrate power.
From my studies (a bachelors degree), I have come to the conclusion that economics work like science. The strong ultimately survive. Not in a sense of rich versus poor, but in the sense of the savvy, hard working, ethical, and smarter people/companies survive and thrive in an economy that allows true and real economic principles to work. In a society where the government or power structure tries to engineer who is successful we get all kinds of abnormalities much like in science.
-"They believe in a progressive tax code and that a social safety net may be unpopular among the wealthy, but benefits us all in the long run by granting more security to those who may be in a weaker position."
This is the moral view of the economy I am talking about. Shouldn't we be focusing on economic rules that create the most wealth? That create the greatest gains in global quality of life? That create the most efficient and valuable distribution of goods to all classes of society? Rather than engineering from a rich versus poor perspective shouldn't we focus on principles that build long term economic strength?
-"Both liberals and progressives also believe in regulating capitalism to prevent the massive bubble and burst situation that the libertarian-esque supply side theories have given us over the last few decades."
There is no evidence that any progressive policies have ever helped avoid bubble or burst situations. They have however created stagnant economies. You know when the Fed was created we were not supposed to ever have a recession again, right? This is my point. The more you tinker, the worse it gets. We should let it work, and build a framework that ensures equal access and opportunity to the economy.
-"Both liberals and progressives wish to reign in predatory lending and usury practices by banks and creditors as well."
Again, a sense of moral superiority. Banks should not be able to lie to lendeed or borrowers. However, their rates reflect what the market demands and the supply of money available. No one has to take out loans. Also, progressive policies are a component of the housing bubble, and one of the main reasons home prices are STILL INFLATED. We were told everyone can afford a home. What did that do? It pushed home demand to inflated levels. The banks and the gov't policies were BOTH at fault. The progressive policies of home ownership being a major culprit.
-"It worked just fine when it made America into the world's leading economic superpower and brought decades of financial stability along with the strongest middle class in the history of the world."
I'm a pluralist when it comes to the economy, but I would disagree with your statement on its face. We saw a boom in the 50's because of the follow up to WWII. JFK cut tax rates sustantially in the 60's and look at the economic growth that followed. We then had a near collapse in the late 70's. Based on that, how can you say that progressive policies have somehow created stability? I would argue that OPEN MARKETS and FREE TRADE created the WORLDWIDE growth we experienced.
-"We've been moving away from liberal and progressive economic policy since the early 1980s and only the rich have gotten richer while the rest of the country stagnated or grew deeper in debt and poverty."
The standard of living has increased exponentially in the last 30 years. Access to clothes, shelter, and food are at all time highs. As a result, the percentage of income spent on these basic neccessities is at an all-time low. Why? Because of open and free markets. Wages are a concern. However, higher taxes are not the answer. The role of government as a percentage of GDP has increased for decades. Do you not find a correlation possibly? The more th government TAKES OUT of the economy, the less there actually is for ALL PEOPLE.
You've also reminded me about the sort of misinformation about progressives being tossed around. This whole "they want to control you" nonsense spouted by the likes of Glenn Beck, since progressives are nothing like the bogeymen and caricature that right wing mis-informers create for you to hate.
Did you really just state that the housing bubble was created by "progressive policies"?
Do you believe that the Federal Reserve is some institution beloved by liberals and progressives? Where did you hear that? How did they justify such ideas?
Do you really think FDR and the new deal had nothing to do with America's economic boom last century? How can you say that the fifties were not a time when the government exercised regulation over industry?
Do you realize that tax rates on the top income earners are at historic lows, and have been for decades?
Do you realize that much of the "prosperity" we're seeing now is the result of the family dynamic changing to a two working parent household and deep consumer debts?
Do you know regular people that aren't wealthy who have seen (as statistics prove) that as worker productivity in this country has grown, wages have stagnated and decreased?
Are you defending "globalism" and "free trade" practices like off-shoring and importing goods made in countries with deplorable human rights records?
Are you aware how and when the national debt skyrocketed to it's current proportions? Do you know who was pushing those policies and who ended up benefiting the most at the expense of all taxpayers?
I have to say, there is a lot you don't know about liberals, and progressives, and history.
I said it was a part of what caused the problem. The Community Reinvestment Act was part of the problem. The problem with the CRA is that it pressured banks to make high risk loans. If groups protested a bank for not making loans, these banks would be denied the ability to open new branches and mergers would be delayed. So, in a sense, they were put in a catch 22 by progressive policies. When banks tried to assess fees to cover themselves for the riskier loans, they were protested. Eventually, in 1993 progressive policies doubled down and created subprime mortgages. Subprime mortgages were responsible for almost 50% of all foreclosures in the current economic downturn. In 1999, Fannie and Freddie eased credit requirements and started purchasing more and more of the subprime loans. The more they approved and/or bought, the more banks gave. I could go on, but I think to act as though progressive policies had nothing to do with the bubble is dishonest.
As a side note, home prices are STILL INFLATED because of this. That is why people cannot get loans and the housing market is facing a double dip recession/depression.
-"Do you believe that the Federal Reserve is some institution beloved by liberals and progressives?"
What president do you think started the federal reserve? What were his promises? I think that will answer any questions you have for me.
-"Do you really think FDR and the new deal had nothing to do with America's economic boom last century?"
I never said that. As I said, I am a pluralist on the economic matters. It had to do with the sttrength of the dollar following WWII. It had to do with innovation. I think FDR's policies are part of the reason it was the "Great Depression". It isn't seen as that in other countries around the world. His spending policies stagnated the economy. The growth of the economy in the mid-century had to do with our capacity for manufacturing. Where did this capacity come from? WWII mainly.
-"Do you realize that tax rates on the top income earners are at historic lows, and have been for decades?"
Yes, your point?
-"Do you realize that much of the "prosperity" we're seeing now is the result of the family dynamic changing to a two working parent household and deep consumer debts?"
Way too simple an explanation. Cheap energy. Cheap food. Cheap clothing. Cheap electronics. Low unemployment for much of the last 25 years. Those are all factors as well. People have had far more disposable income than ever before in the last 25 years.
-"Do you know regular people that aren't wealthy who have seen (as statistics prove) that as worker productivity in this country has grown, wages have stagnated and decreased?"
What is your solution?
-"Are you defending "globalism" and "free trade" practices like off-shoring and importing goods made in countries with deplorable human rights records?"
I'm defending cheaper goods and NECESSITIES. I'm defending families being able to buy food and clothing as a lower percentage of their income.
-"Are you aware how and when the national debt skyrocketed to it's current proportions?"
Yes, but do you also know that many economists believe that if Reagan's tax policies had continued into the 90's that our deficits would have been wiped out in the early 90's, and we would have seen surpluses throughout the 90's. Have you ever seen that?
-"I have to say, there is a lot you don't know about liberals, and progressives, and history."
Of course there is. I know that I have a lot to learn. I think we all do. That is why I come to this site. I want to get information from a different perspective. I want the TRUTH. I am tired of partisan "facts". Thank you for having a decent conversation with me. That is hard to find on MMFA. It is usually filled with insults and rhetorical firestorms.