GOP Belief in Christian Theocracy

In a recent closed-door speech, Attorney General William P. Barr spoke about a “campaign to destroy the traditional moral order,” citing “militant secularists” as the culprit. Barr explicitly blamed liberals as the cause:

“In other words, religion helps frame moral culture within society that instills and reinforces moral discipline. I think we all recognize that over the past 50 years religion has been under increasing attack. On the one hand, we have seen the steady erosion of our traditional Judeo-Christian moral system and a comprehensive effort to drive it from the public square. On the other hand, we see the growing ascendancy of secularism and the doctrine of moral relativism. Among these militant secularists are many so-called ‘progressives’. But where is the progress?”

The Washington Post describes the speech in an opinion piece as something that “appeared to be a tacit endorsement of theocracy.” Barr cited record levels of depression, soaring suicide rates and epidemic drug abuse arguing:

“This is not decay; it is organized destruction. Secularists, and their allies among the “progressives,” have marshaled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values. ..... On the other hand, we see the growing ascendancy of secularism and the doctrine of moral relativism. ..... We cannot have a moral renaissance unless we succeed in passing to the next generation our faith and values in full vigor. The times are hostile to this. Public agencies, including public schools, are becoming secularized and increasingly are actively promoting moral relativism.”

Note the phrase ‘organized destruction’. It means that Barr believes secular liberals are intentionally destroying what he sees as proper morality as dictated by him and his God. Barr is a devout Catholic.

Two visions of America

Back in 2015, the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision held that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses. Religious conservatives howled for weeks that the decision constituted a massive attack on religious freedom and freedom of speech. Despite the howling, any attack on religion or speech seemed overblown to this observer. At the time, there apparently was no objective analyses of exactly what the burdens on religion and speech the Obergefell decision imposed on any religion. What burdens there were was unclear. At the time, it seemed to be more accurate to describe the situation as the church attacking the state and secularism than the other way around.

It still seems that way today. Barr’s speech is an example of an explicit, broad-based Christian attack on secularism and by implication, an attack on both atheism and religious indifference.

The problem with Barr and his speech is that they ignore objective reality. Christian morals have been significantly corrupted by the decades of GOP propaganda and now our deeply immoral demagogue president. Most American Christians who support the president practice moral relativism with a vengeance. Survey data made that point. A June 2017 article in the Economist magazine, “The political beliefs of evangelical Christians -- Personal morality in politics is negotiable, commented:

Back in 2011, white evangelicals were the most likely group to say that personal morality was important in a president, according to the Public Religion Research Institute. Since Mr Trump became the Republican standard-bearer, they have become the least likely group to say that, changing what seems like a fundamental issue of morality to accommodate their support for the president. How do evangelicals explain their support for a thrice-married adulterer whose biographers have not found a man preoccupied with his salvation? “He doesn’t pretend to be anything he’s not,” says Ed Henry, a state senator for Alabama. He sees no conflict between this and support for Mr Trump. Other evangelicals mention the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court as evidence that what they perceive as a long assault on them from the judicial branch is now over.”

Barr ignores the fact that progressives did not cause the drug epidemic or suicides. Arguably, conservatives facilitated those social ills by supporting cuts to social spending for prevention and treatment programs. Most conservatives believe government domestic spending is bad if not illegal under the constitution. Barr also conveniently ignores the fact that US taxpayers support religion by at least $82 billion/year in tax breaks. Why isn't that massive social support for religion being used to fix the problems that Barr complains of?

And, there is no way to characterize handouts of over $80 billion/year as any kind of attack on religion. It is capitulation to massive social welfare, not any form of attack.

Barr also ignores the example he himself and the anti-truth, anti-democratic demagogue he serves sets. Barr is a liar. He also shows open contempt for the rule of law. He lied about the content of the Mueller report. He continues to lie about it by continuing to refuse to provide the full Mueller report and all supporting documentation. Those are lies of omission. He refuses to investigate possible crimes by his corrupt boss and complains when the House does his job for him. He is the top law enforcement official in the US, yet he refuses to do his job. That is deeply immoral.

There is moral relativism and hypocrisy going on here. It is being practiced by Barr and Christians who actually believe Barr and his lies, and his dark vision of partisan, context-based morality. America's moral decline, if that is what we are in, is caused much more by Barr and his ilk than by secularism, which is less corrupt but more moral.

The Radical Anti-Government, Anti-Regulation Revolution Quietly Continues

Political policies that try to reduce unneeded regulation and increase efficiency of needed regulations is rational and probably appealing to most people. Of course, the pragmatic concern about deregulation is that it tends to happen behind closed doors or otherwise flies under the public’s radar. Such deregulation is typically designed to reduce government regulation for the purpose of bolstering private profit, arguably at the expense of the public interest most of the time. That accords with the fact that American two-party politics is a pay-to-play system. Most of the payers are players who want more money and power. Regard for the general welfare or public interest are usually an impediment, not a priority.

It’s a matter of morals - the public interest is subversive

Nobel laureate and economist Milton Friedman, believed that anything that needlessly reduces profits for a business is immoral. He argued that the best type of CEO was not one with an enlightened social conscience. Instead, he saw CEOs with an enlightened social conscience as “highly subversive to the capitalist system.” There’s not much room for ambiguity in language like that.

An interesting instance of how toxic that rational, pro-public interest regulation appears to be to most businesses merits mention.

The 737 Max airplane story

An article in the New York Times discusses a fairly new law, the F.A.A. Reauthorization Act of 2018. That law further cripples the ability of the FAA (Federal Aviation Agency) to evaluate new aircraft for safety and other aspects of new aircraft operations. The safety of the now grounded Boeing 737 Max airplanes were evaluated under older less restrictive laws. That limited led to the failure of regulators to spot flaws in the safety system of 737 Max aircraft. The planes were grounded after two fatal crashes some months ago that killed a total of 346 people.

In the drafting of the 2018 law, Boeing and allied interests were able to insert a couple of paragraphs that gave companies more power to challenge regulator safety concerns. Companies had been lobbying the federal government for many years to get regulators out of the airplane evaluation process as much as possible. They has significantly succeeded even before the new 2018 law was passed. The new law makes it yet harder for government regulators to counteract companies’ power to reject regulator concerns.

Under older law, the FAA did not fully analyze the automated safety system. Boeing played down its risks. Then, late in the plane’s development, the system was made to be more aggressive. Those changes that were not even submitted in any safety assessment to the FAA. The newer law shifts even more power to companies.

The NYT investigation for this article included reviewing documents from a group representing safety inspectors. The group argued that the new 2018 law would allow regulatory intervention only after a plane crashed “and people are killed.” That is precisely how it played out on two occasions. While the 2018 bill was being written, the FAA criticized the law would because it would “not be in the best interest of safety.”

Since the law passed in 2018, at least some democrats in the House had to vote for it. Also, most democrats in the Senate supported the bill, which passed there by a 93-6 vote.

This situation exemplifies the persistence and stealth that modern pay-to-play deregulation looks like and what it can lead to. In essence, ‘deregulation’ is cover for corruption and quiet passage of laws that harm the public interest more than they help it. In the case of the 2018 law, the further gutting of FAA review authority was probably embedded in other measures that were seriously needed for the FAA to function properly. That is how special interests leverage their campaign contributions (free speech rights) to get what they want. And, if special interests backed by money don't get what they want one year, they will keep trying for decades to get what they want sooner or later.