The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    MuddyPolitics's picture

    New Rule for Radical Lefties: Mottos Don’t Matter

    By MuddyPolitics on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 10:44pm |

    After a year of failures, Republicans have been so desperate to draft a bill that had a chance of becoming law that they chose something they knew wouldn’t be defeated, a bill they knew Americans would support, and a bill that would show the electorate that they actually are quite busy earning their $174,000-a-year salaries.

     
     
    Defunding Planned Parenthood and NPR didn’t work. Repealing health care reform didn’t pass. Turning Medicare into a voucher program failed. And so why not draft a bill that shows their support for a law that’s already on the books?
     
    I’ve already written about the GOP’s vote to reaffirm America’s motto, “In God We Trust.” I’m writing about it again for two reasons: One is to explain why making an issue of a national motto (fighting to overturn it, for example) is stupid, unproductive and counterintuitive to what should be the progressive base’s overarching objective: rallying middle America. The second reason is to clarify the point that though “In God We Trust” has been our motto for decades, it has not been our motto for centuries, and the numerous re-affirmations of it are actually quite a bit more interesting in the context of the Tea Party’s recent influence not only in Congress, but in the Republican presidential primary race.
     
     
    I won’t belabor the latter point because this is not an awe-inspiring issue to begin with, but I will say that similar to the 1954 inclusion of “under God” into our Pledge of Allegiance, the motto “In God We Trust” (created in 1956) actually wasn’t this country’s original motto.
     
    Thanks to Republicans, it’s at least more well-known now than it was a week ago that in fact the founding fathers of this nation chose “E Pluribus Unum,” (Out of Many, One) as the original national motto.
     
    For all the talk of the founding fathers in this election cycle, and in 2010 as well, there hasn’t been much action to back up the rhetoric. Of course, what can we expect when the presidential candidate who casts herself as an expert on America’s origins believes Bruce Wayne, not Bruce Lee, pulled the trigger in the shot heard ’round the bar somewhere outside of Toledo.
     
    So okay, Republicans are embarrassing to everyone but their spouses and children. They’re wasting space and oxygen, destroying national brain cells and faith, and they should be taken out behind the shed and – haha… – offered a lobbying gig after voters across the country oust them from public office.
     
    They should not be riled, however. Their mob is much more dangerous than the left’s mob. Their lacking cognitive functionality has a much greater potential to make headlines (in part because they wear goofy costumes whenever they protest anything). And their messaging machine, Fox News, is much too powerful to overcome.
     
    That’s not to say we should give up. It’s only to say we should leave this specific issue alone.
     
    Yes, the motto this nation was founded on was not based on God. It was based on community, on unification (sort of like the name of this country itself). But trying to change it, as some of the more radical liberals on the left have proposed, will only ignite a fuse that will inevitably blow a hole in whatever chances the progressive left has of infiltrating mainstream American and influencing the real, relevant, important policies that actually affect the people of this country.
     
    Is it a victory for the religious right? Absolutely. Is it kind of embarrassing that there’s so much patriotism surrounding a motto that Republicans created in response to their own party’s Red Scare persecution of allegedly communistic atheists? Without argument.
     
    But is it something we should make an issue of when there are much bigger fish to fry, much more powerful Republicans to skewer, much more pertinent economic and social issues to affect? I think no. I respect those who think we should, on principle, but I know that those who have sued to try and remove “under God” and “In God We Trust” and even “so help me God” from the public, governmental lexicon have failed not only to be taken seriously, but also to sway anyone with the power to affect such changes.
     
    It’s a politically suicidal move for any Democrat who embraces it. And it’s counterproductive to garnering support from the masses toward issues that actually matter – such as, you know, representative government, economic equality, the 99-percent movement in general.
     
    Pick your battles, folks. If you lick your finger and stick it out into the political winds, you’ll realize pretty quickly that overturning the national motto is a political loser. In the process, perhaps you’ll realize too that some types of intolerance (toward atheism, in this case) aren’t viewed by mainstream, average Americans as national injustices that need to be addressed.
     
    “In God We Trust” may be offensive to some people, but it isn’t hurting anyone, it’s not decrying atheism, it’s not making Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam) the official religion of the United States, and it’s not giving the government an excuse to unduly incarcerate people who don’t agree with it.
     
    Overturning it, however, even publicized attempts to overturn it, would offend people. And it would offend a large portion of the country at a time when progressives need all the support they can muster for fighting against the real injustices in America.

     

    Comments

    That’s not to say we should give up. It’s only to say we should leave this specific issue alone.

    Great idea.


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 11:06pm

    I'm sorry, is this a draft for a high school social studies essay?  Are you asking for feedback?   


    by Saladin on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 11:28pm

     

    No feedback necessary. It's only that my high school sped teacher (a conservative bitch) forced me to post something on a public blog that put bleeding hearts (she said "libtards") in their place. I chose a topic that the far left often gets pissed off about even though they have no chance of affecting any policy related to their position. I’ll probably get an A. 


    by MuddyPolitics on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 11:47pm

    "I chose a topic that the far left often gets pissed off" 

    Yes you did, inanity. Well done.  I hope that she looks like one of those hot blond Fox milfs and compliments your brilliance when she hands it back. 


    by Saladin on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 12:48am

    Genghis has a whole book on the Republicans technique of blowing smoke.  I think you need to read it Muddy.   Just because Bill O'Reilly says, for example, that there is a liberal war against Christmas doesn't mean there is actually a liberal war against Christmas - much less that liberals then need to be warned not to wage that war.

    Similarly, liberals don't need to be warned not to wage a war against "In God We Trust" that they are not in fact waging.  Who in the world are you actually addressing?   Don't let yourself get lost inside the Republican smoke machine.

    Here's the kind of thing that actual progressives are actually talking about:

    dagblog.com/reader-blogs/heartbreak-motel-employed-unemployed-and-unemployable-12096


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 11:44pm

     

    Thanks Dan. I actually read the book. Interestingly enough, that's what led me here. (Which means it's Genghis' fault that I'm here at all.)

    Regarding your statement, “liberals don't need to be warned not to wage a war against ‘In God We Trust’ that they are not in fact waging,” and  your question, “Who in the world are you actually addressing?” I was actually commenting on the comments made by Mr.Smith, VA, and Saladin on my last post, but also the pro-Michael Newdows of the world in general. No Republican smoke machine here. I’m drug free.

    As for the heartbreak hotel piece, it was breathtaking.... I wish I could write like that.

     


    by MuddyPolitics on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 12:06am

    As one of those that contributed to your thinking I would say that the appropriate place for this point would have been in the conversational stream in your previous piece.  It certainly did not call for a stand alone piece, and I actually don't believe it does a very good of responding to the points that each of us made. 

    The inconvenient lack of an actual left wing effort to remove the new motto makes your piece strawman argument, that frankly reads like a douchebag lecturing his dog on how important he is. I now have a mental image of you as a young Ignatius Jacques Reilly clutching a copy of George Lakoff and warning us libtards of our impending missteps.  I suppose that's not a bad identity if you want to make it yours, but its sorta hard to take seriously. 

    BTW- If you are using Dagblog as a forum to work on your writing I think that is a fine thing to do, these are good people around here. I tried to do the same thing over at the old TPM cafe, but I actually learned much more through the commenting dialog, which is why I stop by here on occasion to converse.  I would also recommend trying to bring something new to the conversation through your postings. Maybe a little background info, an interesting observation or connection, or if you are going for satire, find some humor.  Above all it is important to consider your audience. 


    by Saladin on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 12:40am

    It's not a straw man argument when you have advocacy groups (Americans United, as just one example) making headlines for protesting moves like the reaffirmation of the U.S. motto, when you have atheists activists suing to change the motto, and when you have bloggers arguing that we should go back to the original motto.

    Educating people about the real history of our motto is all fine and good. Undermine the GOP by informing people that our founding fathers disagreed with them on the motto of the "United" States of America. That's effective. A public protest about informing the masses would be awesome. A public protest, or publicized protest, a lawsuit rejected by the Supreme Court -- I think these do little to make the progressive movement attractive to larger audiences. There's a difference between educating people about the original motto and actually fighting to bring it back, which one reader here proposed. 

    Any other critiques beyond the now common "you should write about something else" "you write like a high school douchebag" analyses?


    by MuddyPolitics on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 11:29am

    I haven't heard a word about any of those efforts and don't really think there is much behind them, and I would note that you did not mention any of them in your piece.  If your goal is to address them, then address them. That gives your piece context that a reader can understand, this is a against the left as a whole, which is simply wrong.  One can always find minor advocacy groups that you can point to?  Does the existence of NAMBLA signify a far left acceptance of pedophilia? Do a few activist atheists prove their is a "war on Christmas".  Conservatives love to point to these examples but its bullshit, there is no larger movement behind them.  This piece plays into that framing by accepting the fallacy that a few speak for the many, in short you are thinking like an elephant. 

    Your second paragraph is quite good, I don't disagree with you, maybe it should have been in the piece.  Factually I would quibble with your history. Its true that some founding fathers would have disagreed with the GOP--Jefferson comes to mind--many likely would not have.   

    My other writing comment would be to spend some time editing your work. When you finish a piece don't be so quick to publish. Give it some time, and then reread it critically. How will someone with no idea of the subject matter respond? Is your thesis clear? Are the examples well crafted, or are they rushed.  Is your tone the voice that you want to betray? (in this case a pejorative tone pervades the piece, which is fine, but you risk in kind responses).  Now I warn you that I am not a very good writer, but these are some things I have been told.  So take it with a grain of salt.

    Best of luck, 


    by Saladin on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 3:10pm

    Just to extend Saladin's point, as perhaps the most obvious atheist here (because of my handle), you'll note that not only did I not advocate for attacking the motto, but explicitly stated that is was not a battle worth fighting at this time. That's not to say I'd be sorry to see it go (I wouldn't), but I'm quite aware of the framing such an issue would get. Right now, our best approach is to lead with E Pluribus Unum, as MrSmith suggested on your previous piece. I also agree that it'd be best to keep these conversations in a single blog post, at least when that post is still as easily accessible as that one is. It makes the conversation much easier to follow, and keeps reader blogs from disappearing off the side bar when no new issue has been added.


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 6:03pm

    The "heartbreak hotel" piece was good because the author was writing about a world he knows well. It is a world he lives in and works in every day. How is the economy and politics effecting the world and people around you personally? You can find some good politcal stories right under your nose.

    by trkingmomoe on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 5:31am

    I know there's some debate about how hard liberals are even fighting over this issue.  From what I can tell, they basically aren't.  I also don't consider it an issue of paramount importance while we have 9% unemployment.  But I also don't see much of our foreign policy as having paramount importance these days.  Better, and better paying jobs, is all that should matter.

    But let's not lose sight, in this discussion, of the fact that "one nation under God," shouldn't be in the pledge and that "In God We Trust," should not be any sort of national credo.  Witnesses in court should also not be asked to swear on a Judeo-Christian bible.  It all happens, but it's all wrong and while there are more pressing issues, this is not without some importance.  If people do want to devote time to fighting it, more power to them.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 4:11pm