Consensus Governance vs Authoritarian Rule

Consensus governance is typically thought to be the result of a democratic process where governed citizens are able to participate in a fair electoral process to form and direct the execution of their government.  This fair electoral process is certainly an important element of consensus governance, but there is one other element that is essential for true consensus to form.  This other critical element is a willingness by all parties both majority and minority to come together in an open spirit of compromise. This willingness to compromise is what really distinguishes consensus governance from authoritative rule. 

Compromise does not mean that everyone gets everything they want.  Rather it means that everyone's stake in the governing process is reasonably considered in the laws and regulation that are legislated and that measures are taken in the system of government to ensure that everyone is equally protected from one-sided positions that exist in authoritarian rule.  The goal is majority opinion tempered with reasonable consideration of minority positions.

The ideologues who are executing the Republican agenda these days seem to have totally abandoned the concept of compromise by refusing to accept anything less that total implementation of their agenda with no modifications.  The are the party of 'No' when they are a minority, and their majority persona is a shameless display of self-indulgence as they tear through everything to get what they want.

The first major assaults on our spirit of compromise occurred in the mid-1990's budget battles where Republican heavy handedness in the budget process actually closed the Federal government for several weeks.  These Federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1995–96 were the result of conflicts between Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress over funding in the 1996 federal budget.

The government shutdown resulted from Clinton's veto of the spending bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress. This shutdown put government workers on furlough and suspended non-essential services for a total of 27 days, and they were not popular with voters.  Republicans tended to avoid this tactic for years, but as recently as January 2018, the tactic resurfaced with another brief government shutdown that occurred after a budget bill failed to pass the Senate because the majority of Democrats voted against it.

Republicans have continued to show hostility to the principle of compromise even when they are in the minority.  The minority Republican caucus during the Obama administration made unprecedented use of the filibuster procedure to block virtually everything proposed by the president and the Democratic majority.  This overuse of the filibuster actually created an an embarrassing moment of filibuster self-abuse when Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) filibustered a bill that he himself had introduced only hours earlier in the 2011 debt-ceiling standoff.

Another symptom of Republican contempt of compromise is the deliberate undoing of all the executive orders from the previous administration during the Trump administration.  Instead of working ahead to the future, all the  matters of the past had to be erase to start again in an uncompromising manner to get everything they want.

It is not uncommon for a new president to change things especially when succeeding someone from the other party. Trump openly took this change to a new level by not just steering the country in a different direction but by actively dismantle everything that was established by his predecessor.  He has been wholly committed to reversing the accomplishments of its predecessor.  

Instead of focusing on what he could build, Trump seem far more comfortable destroying Obama's policy legacy than in forward thinking to development of for what will follow.  Trump's penchant for destroying the past is not accompanied by progressive new ideas.  He appears to only be intent on tearing Obama's legacy down which may actually be right in line with his hard-line supporters agenda.

The full force of this assault on the spirit compromise is best illustrated by the Republican approach to the Federal Judicial Branch.  Federal and state government system in this country have a of checks and balances of the three branches of Executive to enforce the laws, Legislature to make the laws, and Judicial to interpret the laws.  Each branch has a role to ensure the integrity and fairness of government actions.  The executive and legislature are elected officials and the Judicial judges are appointed by a process of executive nomination followed by legislative confirmation.

Since Trump was elected, a long standing Senate procedural rule requiring a 60 super-majority for Supreme Court nominee confirmation has been changed to a simple majority.  With this new simple majority in place, they are confirming very young perhaps to point of being inexperience to create a long lasting partisan impression of the judicial system.  Their confirmation feeding frenzy has result in two Supreme Court appoints and a record number of other judges is a very short order of time that has limited candidate vetting.  Details of this feeding frenzy will be provided in a separate post.

The Republican agenda has abandoned the approach of consensus building compromise in favor of a more authoritarian approach of our way or the highway.  At every turn, they obstruct and bully to the point they are incapable of consensus governing.  To them, a will of the majority that is not inline with their strict agenda of the few is an obstacle that needs to be overcome.  Their extreme unwillingness to compromise has made the Federal government completely unable to operate effectively to the point that everybody can see it, but unfortunately, not everyone see the real cause.

The Republican agenda is to impose minority positions on the majority in an authoritarian manner that is not in the spirit of our consensus opinion democracy.  They hope to accomplish this goal with voter suppression, gerrymandering, and completely disregarding the will of the majority as they impose their authoritarian rule.

Surging Economy and Staggering Debt

In his characteristic egocentric fashion, Trump is quick to claim credit for the strong economy, that according to him, is a direct result of his insightful economy policies.  If this economy is so strong, why has the Dow Jones just experienced its third-biggest one-day drop in history of more than 800 points on Wednesday and more than 500 points on Thursday.  As with all other Trump claims, things actually look a little differently when not viewed with the Trump rose colored glasses.

Trump inherited from the previous Obama (a Democrat) administration a strong economy based on sound fundamentals.  Obama, in turn, had inherited the Great 2008 Recession from his previous Bush (a Republican)  administration.  The Bush administration had somehow taken the Clinton administration's strong fundamental economy with budget surpluses and in a mere 8 years, turned it into the Great 2008 Recession.  Does anybody see an emerging trend here?

After less than two years, Trump is on the very same track that Bush followed.  The Republican controlled congress did everything possible to suppress Obama's attempts to resuscitate the economy during his administration.  They failed to completely smother it, but they did manage to keep it somewhat flat.  In the first year of the Trump administration, this same Republican controlled congress  took specific action to surge the economy with tax cuts (which mainly benefited the very wealthy) and 1.3 trillion of spending in the Trump first FY budget.  

Cutting taxes and increasing spending was the necessary fuel thrown on the Obama sound fundamental economy fire to give the economy traction.  Of course it took off, but there is a time-bomb ticking off the days to the next Republican inspired recession.  It took off like a rocket, but the fundamentals don't look good now.  The biggest indicator of a problem is the accelerated increase in debt.  The recent Dow Jones drops are a harbinger of this and other festering economic problems.

This course of action is exactly the same as the Bush administration on their eight year rush to recession.  The historical basis of this trend goes all the way back to the Reagan administration with the only difference being that Reagan inherited a very weak economy that was blamed on the one term Democratic Carter presidency which followed eight years of Republican's Nixon and Ford.

Reagan in the early years of his administration executed a healthy tax cut that benefited all but mostly the very rich, and radically increased defense spending.  He did not make these changes on a sound analysis of the facts.  It was more a knee-jerk by Reagan blindly implementing the extreme conservative agenda in the hopes that it would work without any fundamental knowledge.

Reagan's economic 'policies' did not go good well from early in his first term.  Some of this chaos was inherited by Reagan from previous administrations, but the sky-rocketing national debt was all caused by Reagan policies.  In this early time, his economic policy was being seriously questioned.  The resulting outcry had his own VP George H W Bush calling the Reagan cobbled together economic strategy 'Voodoo Economics' referring to the fact that it was not based on any study or good precedent. 

Just before the end of his first term his nearly $1 trillion increase in defense spending started to kick in and stimulate the economy.  Key among this increase in defense spending included loser projects like reviving funding to the over-budget, technically flawed B-1 bomber that the Air Force didn't even want and the great 'Star Wars' debacle.  Maybe nothing worth having was done, but the $1 trillion dollars did set the economy on fire.

After this perceived economic turnaround, Voodoo Economics began to be hailed as economic genius.  It was taken up by some economist under the new name of Trickle-down economic, but in the nearly four decades of its deployment, it has repeatedly demonstrated failure at both the national level and for several states who tried it (e.g. Kansas, Arizona, Kentucky, and West Virginia).  The end of Reagan's second term saw the onset of a recession that extended into the one-term presidency of his VP H W Bush's.  

This recession dogged H W Bush until he was defeat by Democrat Clinton in 1992.  Clinton raised taxes to get the debt under control, and the economy surged through the late 1990's.  At the end of Clinton's second term, the Federal budget was actually showing a budget surplus.  W Bush lost the popular vote, but was maneuvered into office by political cronies and the Supreme Court.  Shortly after W Bush took office, the Republican congress cut taxes and started a massive spending agenda.  The Clinton surpluses were followed after two W Bush terms deficit debt and the Great Recession of 2008. 

It took two terms of Obama to reverse this recession and return a robust economy.  Part of Obama's difficulties were the result of a Republican controlled congress that was installed in 2010.  This congress denied him any support in his recovery efforts by being the congress of 'no', but he still managed get the economy back on track.

The history of Trickle-down economics on nation debt can easily be seen in this CBO plot of debt percentage of GBP from 1940 projected out to 2020 illustrated in the figure below.  The highest percentage of debt occurred at the end of World War II in 1946.  It reach an all-time low in 1981 which was the last budget year for the Carter administration.  

It steadily increased through 1980 years of the Republican presidents Reagan and H W Bush with the introduction of Trickle-down policies.  Clinton was able to reverse the debt trend with budget surplus by the end of his second term. The W Bush presidency took those Clinton surplus and restarted the debt ascension.  Obama  inherited 2008 Recession debt growth.  He slowed it and started its decline in 2016 when Trump was inaugurated.  Trump with his tax cut and budget spending restarted the ascension.
















One lesson is very clear from this chart.  A clear trend of debt increase is observed with the implementation of the Republican Trickle-down economics.  Trickle-down implementation has repeatedly failed across this country resulting in massive debt and diminished or eliminated public services such as education.

We know from experience that a flat economy with a good foundation can be stimulated with tax cuts and increase government spending.  It will takeoff like a rocket.  The Republicans have learned that lesson quite well.  

The other economy lesson has proved to be a little bit more difficult for Republicans to learn.  This other lesson involves the effect of increase spending and a large tax cut.  This combination inevitably creates deficit debt that is detrimental to long-term economic stability, and nothing ever really trickles down.  Perhaps Republicans have failed to notice this inevitable consequence, but more likely, they just don't care as they pursue any avenue to win.

Whether these recent Dow Jones losses are the immediate precursor of the coming Republican recession  remains to be seen.  But one thing remains certain, the inevitable Republican recession is definitely coming. 

The Johnson Amendment

The Johnson Amendment threatens religious organizations and charities with loss of their tax-exempt status if they endorse or oppose political candidates. The restriction was promoted by Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson in 1954 after a conservative nonprofit group (no church was involved in its inception) with its own political agenda produced material in favor of Johnson's primary opponent with the intent of defeating Johnson.  Many believe this was Johnson's motivation for proposing the amendment.

The Johnson Amendment which applies to any  charitable organization seeking tax-exempt status was added to the federal tax code where such organizations were designated by the code 501(c)(3).  This designation included groups organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes such as religious, scientific, and educational. It simply stated that absolution from tax liability is forfeited for being involved in partisan politics.  It was not considered controversial at the time (it was agreed to without any record of discussion or debate) and was continued without controversy in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 enacted during the Ronald Reagan administration.


The Johnson Amendment prevents campaign contributions from being funneled through 501(c)(3) organizations which would mean this amendment prevents political contributions from being tax-deductible for donors.  Since churches are exempt from the reporting requirements required of other 501(c)(3) organizations, they present a special opportunity for creating a mechanism where political contributions could be made in violation of relevant campaign financing laws.  Majorities of both the general public and of clergy oppose repeal of this amendment, and The National Council of Nonprofits and the Independent Sector, a coalition of nonprofits, foundations, and corporations have stated their opposition to the repeal the Johnson Amendment.

This amendment is controversial now because clever political strategist have come to recognize the tremendous campaign potential that exists in properly motivated religions.   Without the Johnson Amendment, there is a risk that someone might create arguably fake churches to be used as a mechanism to obtain anonymous, tax-deductible contributions to spend on political activity.  In effect, a church could conceivably become its own super PAC.  Nobody wanted to repeal this amendment until the last few decades when it became apparent there was a huge political advantage that could be gained from doing it.

Extracted from Trump's Religious Executive Order. 

Trump's Religious Liberty Executive Order

Our society has been paralyzed by an extreme ideological polarization.   A social dynamic that has been ongoing for nearly 40 years has evolved our society into a static blue funk that just won't go away.  Instead of our previous full spectrum of opinions and inclinations, everyone, whether they like it or not, is being pushed to choose between either of the two extreme ends of the spectrum on just about every key issue, and without a doubt, the most contentious and central of all these issues is the matter of religion.

The possibility of an organized national effort by certain Republican leaders to circumvent the true will of the majority in this nation's democratic government was discussed in a previous post (The Curious Case of the Republican Cabal).  This post details the hyper-partisanship polarization that is one of the key strategies used by this cabal for dividing and conquering this nation's true majority intent in favor of their minority positions.  The most recent Trump Executive Order on Religious Liberties is a good illustration of that polarization strategy in action.

The dangerous potential of religion has been very apparent for some time.  History is full of instances where squabbles and rancor between different religions over territory and more importantly followers have erupted into long standing conflicts, hostilities, and even war.  Even within the same religion, those with somewhat different religious belief interpretations from the larger group to which they belong are typically regarded (and sometimes punished) as heretics.

In an attempt to guard against these religious dangers, the US Constitution specifically establishes a wall of separation between Church and State in its first amendment.  The founders of this country especially Thomas Jefferson knew that religion and politics were a volatile and dangerous combination that should never be mixed, and the pure political genius of the separation of church and state as laid out in the Constitution was preserved and respected for nearly 200 years before it began to be disturbed.

The Christian Right

In the late 1970's, a religious interest formally became a political movement that entered US politics affiliated with the Republican party.  It was formed by a coalition of conservative Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists.  By their account, this movement was formed in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s legalization of abortion in the Roe v Wade decision, but some believe and have reported the Christian Right’s real motive was to protect their segregated schools.  In either case, this political movement coupled the inherently high polarizing capacity of religion with the highly contentious social issues of abortion and segregation.  What could possibly go wrong?

In all religions, there are a majority of well-intentioned persons looking for fellowship and seeking some higher spiritual meaning to life. These people practice their religion in moderation and with tolerance of others. Their religion gives them comfort as they go through the process of living their lives and especially as they approach their death. There is no harm or foul in their particular religious practice.  

Religion becomes a problem when the message is taken too literally (i.e. the fundamentalists), and there is a desire to push that particular religious belief on everyone else (i.e. the evangelicals).  When these two religious extremes merged in the formation of the Christian Right, this political movement set about trying to apply their specific interpretation of Christianity into government to influence the creation of law and public policy.  They were quick to claim their religious freedom rights but reluctant to extend that favor to other religions as a fundamental, Constitutionally guaranteed right. 

This political movement evolved largely from existing grassroots evangelical and fundamentalist Christian activism that was already in place and could quickly motivate their electorate around certain key issues.  Initially their key issues were derived from their socially conservative positions on issues such as school prayer, creationism (aka intelligent design), repression of human sexuality (e.g. contraception, abortion, and homosexuality), and pornography.

How the Pieces Came Together

The coupling of the Christian Right and the other Republican Cabal ideologies of Big Money Interests and Racists/Xenophobes came about quite organically. The Christian Right was just the right seed crystal onto which these other two ideologies could be grown because the Christian Right already contained similar elements.

Most of the people who believe in Christianity are not rich.  They are a mix people ranging from rich to very poor with the distribution of numbers skewed in the direction of poor.  While the act of believing in Christianity is not going to make you rich, the process of leading the masses to Jesus can be be very lucrative for those leaders who not shy about asking for donations (wealthy Christian Leaders).  These wealthy Christian leaders shared many of the same Big Money Interests of other wealthy people.

This tendency to be rich is especially true for those leaders who profess Prosperity Theology a belief among some Christians that faith, positive speech, and especially donations to religious causes will increase one's material wealth.  This prosperity theology is a lot like the Republican trickle-down theory of economics in that it very effectively redistributes wealth in the direction of the already wealthy.  Both theories are based on the false notion that if you bless the rich with the option to keep most of their money, eventually it will trickle-down in the form of good paying jobs or heavenly blessings.  Trickle-down economics like Prosperity Theology  rewards those at the top very handsomely but rarely do those rewards find their way to those who make sacrifices and donations at the bottom.

The alignment with the racists/xenophobes was also assisted by a preexisting foothold in the mantle of the Christian Right.  A natural tendency to segregation already existed in Christianity in their belief they had greater or exclusive favor of god by virtue of having accepted the terms and conditions to be adopted into the fold.  This notion that they are the correct and chosen ones has resulted in contentious relationships with those who hold different beliefs.  They like to distance themselves from these outsiders through various discriminatory means.  These lines of discrimination are frequently draw along lines of race, religion, or sexual preference.

One example in particular (i.e Bob Jones University) illustrates quite clearly the history of racism in the founders of the Christian Right. The Bob Jones University position on segregation was summarized by Bob Jones Sr.'s 1960 Easter Sunday broadcast sermon entitled "Is Segregation Scriptural?" in which Jones declared "If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty".   

In addition to this clear declaration of support for segregation, the university also had a long history of supporting politicians who were considered aligned with racial segregation.  As late as 2000 when presidential candidate George W. Bush gave a standard stump speech at the university, his political opponents quickly noted his failure to mention of the university's existing ban on interracial dating.

Clearly, racist and xenophobic elements existed in the Christian Right since its inception.

The Culture Wars

In 1991, a book was published (i.e. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America by James Davison Hunter) that introduced the concept and term 'culture war' into the vocabulary of US politics.  In this book, the culture war is described as the conflict between conservative and liberal values that dramatically realigned and polarized US politics and culture around certain core issues.  

The core issues identified in the Culture Wars were an extension of the original Christian Right issues that included other issues not so clearly church related such as federal and state gun laws, climate change, immigration, personal privacy, recreational drug use, censorship, and new interpretations of the Constitution's separation of church and state mandate.  Ultimately, even health care was added to this list.  This extended range of issues were largely the result of the Christian Right's new found alliances with big money interest and the racist/xenophobes in the Republican Cabal as they collectively engaged in the culture wars.

The Christian Right continued to have the lead role because they had the cover of being righteous, a large contingent of voters, and the strong polarizing effect of religion.  They also had a lot of power in telling their congregation what to believe

Christian religious leaders control the scripture and its interpretation.  They have a lot of opportunity to insert personal opinions and prejudices in those scriptures (e.g. Schofield Reference Bible). Through the ages there have been church leaders with personal opinions who wanted to insert their thinking into church doctrine. In some cases, these insertions were done to promote a cause they thought had been overlooked. In other cases, they were trying manipulate thinking a more selfish way.

Religion is something for which people typically have very strong feelings. Whether they believe in a creator or not, those who choose the have an opinion generally hold that opinion with great passion.  These differing beliefs about the nature of god and more importantly, what that god expects of us are very polarizing of themselves, but the intensity of the religious mindset has such a strong polarizing potential that it can induce polarization in other areas that are not directly religious in nature.  In the case of these newly added, non church related issues, they were frequently adopted with this same religious passion.

The Christianity approach that demands blind faith and reserves primary interpretation of the message for the religious leaders makes the congregations vulnerable to ideologically manipulation. This vulnerability is a key element in the corrosive effect of religious alignment with government.  This tendency serves the cabal's other core ideologies well because these extended ideas could be presented to the Christian Right voters from the pulpit to congregation voters as religious doctrine that needs to be believed without question. 

The Religious Liberty Executive Order

On Thursday, Trump signed a campaign promised Executive Order on religious liberty that among other things allows clergy members and houses of worship to endorse political candidates from the pulpit by easing the now famous Johnson Amendment's restrictions against such behavior.  This specific action is not popular in most  public opinion polls of the American public as a whole or even among religious leaders.  There are even some evangelicals who think that partisan politics have no place in churches.

An early draft of this Executive Order was leaked in February, containing provisions that included grant exemptions for religious believers, schools and corporations to federal laws they thought were in conflict with their religious beliefs.  Some of these exemptions specifically targeted the LGBT community and abortion rights.  Some thought it would have established broad exemptions for people and groups to claim religious objections under virtually any circumstance.  Many saw the draft Executive Order as a government-license to discriminate. 

In response to this criticism, the White House disavowed the leaked draft and set about revisions for a final draft that was drastically rewritten eliminating much of the LGBT-specific attacks and any mention of abortion.   The new order does however direct federal officials to consider changing health care regulations in order to stop insurance coverage of contraception for huge swaths of women in addition to the language that undermines a law meant to discourage religious authorities from using their powers to influence elections.

Some conservative religious leaders were reported to be disappointed with the new revised scope of the Executive Order.  They had fully expected that it would exempted their organizations from Obama-era regulations aimed at protecting gay people from their religious discrimination.  They were looking for legal cover from the Executive Order in the form of relief for religious groups and charities that object to serving or hiring gay, bisexual or transgender people.

The Johnson Amendment

The Johnson Amendment threatens religious organizations and charities with loss of their tax-exempt status if they endorse or oppose political candidates. The restriction was promoted by Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson in 1954 after a conservative nonprofit group (no church was involved in its inception) with its own political agenda produced material in favor of Johnson's primary opponent with the intent of defeating Johnson.  Many believe this was Johnson's motivation for proposing the amendment.

The Johnson Amendment which applies to any  charitable organization seeking tax-exempt status was added to the federal tax code where such organizations were designated by the code 501(c)(3).  This designation included groups organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes such as religious, scientific, and educational. It simply stated that absolution from tax liability is forfeited for being involved in partisan politics.  It was not considered controversial at the time (it was agreed to without any record of discussion or debate) and was continued without controversy in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 enacted during the Ronald Reagan administration.


The Johnson Amendment prevents campaign contributions from being funneled through 501(c)(3) organizations which would mean this amendment prevents political contributions from being tax-deductible for donors.  Since churches are exempt from the reporting requirements required of other 501(c)(3) organizations, they present a special opportunity for creating a mechanism where political contributions could be made in violation of relevant campaign financing laws.  Majorities of both the general public and of clergy oppose repeal of this amendment, and The National Council of Nonprofits and the Independent Sector, a coalition of nonprofits, foundations, and corporations have stated their opposition to the repeal the Johnson Amendment.

This amendment is controversial now because clever political strategist have come to recognize the tremendous campaign potential that exists in properly motivated religions.   Without the Johnson Amendment, there is a risk that someone might create arguably fake churches to be used as a mechanism to obtain anonymous, tax-deductible contributions to spend on political activity.  In effect, a church could conceivably become it own super PAC.  Nobody wanted to repeal this amendment until the last few decades when it became apparent there was a huge political advantage that could be gained from doing it.

Classic Cabal Two Step Approach

The possibility of losing their tax-exempt status is a serious threat to many Christian Right leaders especially those making huge amounts of money under this tax-exempt cover.  They feel seriously threaten by the Johnson amendment.  Since complaining about the tax evasion and political donation disclosures benefits of the amendment would look petty and give their real positions away, the Christian Right has framed its arguments against the Johnson amendment in the context of the high-ground arguments of suppression of free speech and an entanglement of the IRS in the operation of their religion.

In the course of trying to make it appear to be a matter of suppression of free speech instead of the real issues of tax evasion and circumventing campaign finance laws, the Christian Right is following its very typical two step process of inventing a problem for the solution they want to force into place.  These two steps in the case of the Johnson Amendment are:

Step 1:  Convince the majority that the Johnson Amendment is causing a great injustice by denying clergy their free speech right to make political comment when in fact, the only thing preventing these clergy from making free political comments is their own personal desire to be tax-exempt.  One such recent effort is the Pulpit Freedom Initiative which urged Protestant ministers to violate the statute in protest.  For example, pastors in 20 states organized to give politically-oriented sermons to protest the law in 2008.  A Washington Post report found that of the more than 2,000 Christian clergy deliberately challenging the law since 2008, only one has been audited, and none have been punished.  Historically, the Johnson Amendment has never prevented religious organizations from issuing endorsements.

Step 2:  Work across the 3 branches of government to get the amendment repealed, challenged and thrown out in court, or diluted by Executive Order as follows:

Judicial:  Position the amendment for a judicial challenge by getting someone punished and pursue the matter through conservative dominated courts to get the Supreme Court to reject it.

Legislative:  Repeal or alter the amendment.  Republican lawmakers introduced legislation that would allow all 501(c)(3) organizations to support political candidates, as long as any associated spending was minimal.

Executive:  Dilute it with Executive Order.  Trump entered this fray during his 2016 presidential campaign by call for the full repeal of the amendment.  At the National Prayer Breakfast, Trump vowed to "totally destroy" the Johnson Amendment to curry favor with the Christian Right. and as president, announced through his Press Secretary that he was "committed to get rid of the Johnson Amendment" and "allowing our representatives of faith to speak freely and without retribution". 

Conclusion

The vitriol that has fueled U.S. culture wars for so long is now being exported, and some of our most ardent culture warriors are finding a far more receptive audience abroad.  Although the term "Christian Right" is most commonly associated with politics in the United States, its perceived success by its proponents has inspired them to export this political movement to other Christian-majority nations with some very dire consequences.

Some of the harshest intervention results have occurred in Africa.

Christian Right evangelists from the United States are influencing policymakers in Africa by speaking out against homosexuality and cheering on anti-gay legislation.  Two such evangelists were sued by a Ugandan gay rights group for their role in promoting human rights violations against LGBT people. The two participated in an anti-gay conference, where speakers blamed homosexuals for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, among other abhorrent acts.

In another example, two representative from a hard-right Christian group from US politics  supported antigay laws in Uganda in support of the so called Ugandan “kill the gays” bill.  One of the representatives actually congratulated the Ugandan president for "leading his nation to repentance."

Interventions in Europe have largely focused on the wedge issue of abortion, but some in the Christian Right see the EU as an enemy to “traditional values” and the “natural family” because they are advancing the rights of women and LGBT people as reported such reports as  Brexit Boosters: Why the Religious Right Hates the European Union.

Other Report have focus on comments from former Breitbart News Chairman and now advisor to Trump, Steve Bannon where he stated:  “We believe — strongly — that there is a global tea party movement, ... You’re seeing a global reaction to centralized government, whether that government is in Beijing or that government is in Washington, D.C., or that government is in Brussels… On the social conservative side, we’re the voice of the anti-abortion movement, the voice of the traditional marriage movement.”  The Rise Of Europe’s Religious Right

In Asia, the wedge issue of choice seems to be sexual morality with a particular emphasis on homosexuality described in The politics of sexual morality and evangelical activism in Hong Kong.

Beware the wedge issue incursions.  They won't stop there.

 

The Curious Case of the Republican Cabal

Cabal is a strong term that should not be used without due consideration.  It is all too frequently used on the conspiracy theory circuit in assertions that don't have much credible evidence to back up the claims, but the Republican Party leadership's struggle with its internal demons has suddenly and very publicly emerged from the shadows in the recent 2016 presidential election in a way that certainly seems to fit this chilling definition of cabal.
 
A cabal is a group of people who associate with one another to promote an ideology and act as a group to accomplish some big, difficult undertaking such as undermining the integrity of a functioning democracy. Usually, the cabal and certainly its individual members try to remain unknown to everyone outside their group until something dramatic happens that forces these background activities into the foreground light.  The 2016 US presidential election certainly seems to have been such a dramatic event. 

For years, the Republican Party has been tuned to numerous fringe ideology based groups in a dog whistle type approach that has been conducted strictly under the table.  They have been present for years as a near invisible minority inside the Republican Party, but since the 2016 election, they have been denied this mantle of invisibility by an upstart presidential candidate who seized control of the party to the complete shock and disbelief of many long time moderate Republicans who publicly distanced themselves from this year's party presidential nominee.   

Curiously, this publicly scorned party presidential nominee won the election in spite of poor fund raising, many campaign missteps, and this party internal rancor. After winning, the new president-elect found himself on the receiving end of much conciliation and even praise from many of the previously shocked Republicans who now saw his win as a tremendous opportunity to promote their ideological agenda.

Republican Ideology Blend 

The Republican ideology is a heterogeneous blend from the three major categories of Big Money Interests, Christian Religious Right, and Racist/Xenophobes.  Leaders and strong advocates from these three fringe groups collectively form the functioning unit of the cabal.  These leaders in the context of the cabal are responsible for raising the resources and marshalling the loyal voters they represent to the cause.

The extreme ideological position represented by each of these three categories are minority positions in the general population of the country, but these minority positions are frequently imposed as the law of the land.  Their success is largely the result of these three groups having come together in the form of the Republican cabal.

Big Money Interests

Since the formal inception of democratic government in ancient Greece, it has been plagued by efforts of the rich and powerful in a society to steer the democracy in directions that are favorable to them many times to the detriment of the majority.  They are small in numbers but large in resources, and are largely interested in government policy and regulation that is favorable to their current unfair economic advantage. 

The extreme economic agendas of the very rich result in government policies and regulations that line their pockets frequently at the expense of those from the other factions manipulated by the cabal who are not so economically favored.  For example, reduced taxes on the rich generate very large shortfalls because the rich have most of the money, and these shortfalls must be made up 'somewhere else' or become deficits in the form of borrowed money from China.  'Somewhere else' always ends up meaning the shortfalls are generated from those who are not so rich.   

The only other alternative is an overall reduction in government services, but since the rich don't want to lose their government subsidy payments and sweetheart government contracts, the reduction in government service has to come from things that benefit regular people such as education, health services, jobs, consumer protection, corporate oversight, and improving/maintaining public infrastructure to name but a few.

Christian Religious Right

The Founders of the US Constitution recognized the dangers inherent in being too much aligned with any particular religion.  Thomas Jefferson was a strong advocate for what he called a "wall of separation between Church and State".  This ‘wall’ is intended to protect the state from the corrupting influence of the particular demands of a specific religion because there is typically loss of freedom, repression, and discrimination as the prejudices of that religion are expressed through a government that aligns with a religion (e.g. Christianity in medieval Europe or the Taliban in modern day Afghanistan).  

Curiously, the Republican ideology is derived from the overly zealous Christian religious right who choose to be very political and only pay lip service to the constitutional mandate for religious freedom.  They believe interpretation of this constitutional mandate should only be honored for those who practice some flavor of their particular religion.  They represent relatively large numbers of voters, and their religious zeal translates nicely into the blind faith allegiance to the complete political ideologies of the cabal.

Racists/Xenophobes

It is ironic that a nation of immigrants (as in everyone except the Native Americans) should be so inclined to hate the most recent of immigrants regardless their background, but that has been the case since the very early inception of this nation.  The third and final cabal ideology consists of those individuals with these xenophobic/racist tendencies ranging from moderate to extreme obsession.   

The inclusion of this category is important for two reasons.  First, the demographic of this profile include a very large number of voters who all feel very strongly about these matters of race and immigration.  The second and equally important consideration is that the targets of the racist and xenophobic contempt provides the cabal its much need scapegoat for all the ills faced by the nation.  With just the right amount of spin, this 'foreign element' can even be blamed for many of the things which are a direct result of the cabals malignant agenda.

How They Come Together

Internally to the cabal, these ideological factions do something that they will never do externally.  They extend to the other ideologies in the cabal a willingness to compromise and offer concession.

The overzealous religious will accept unreasonable tax breaks for the rich in exchange for Supreme Court justices who will support their assault on abortion (perhaps even sex in general) and the LBGTQ community.  These strong abortion advocates have great compassion for unborn children, but next to none for underprivileged children with little to eat or opportunity to succeed.

One of the Koch brother publicly acknowledged to be very liberal in many of his political leaning.  He admits to believing that a woman should be able to choose an abortion if she thinks it is the right thing for her, but he openly supports candidates who would do everything in their power to deny access to that right.  He does not say why, but it appears to be a concession he makes for the greater power of the cabal to solicit the support of these large number of voters opposed to abortion into all cabal sponsored activities like tax breaks for the wealthy.

How They Pursue Objectives

The thing that really distinguishes a cabal from any other a group of people sharing some collection of strong beliefs is how this group of people conduct themselves in the  course of pursuing a political voice for these beliefs.  In the case of our democracy, this conduct is revealed in the way they engage in the election process and then how they execute the process of governing when they are elected. 

How They Campaign 

The key issues and policy positions of the Republican Party are well known at this point.  They haven't change in 30+ years.  They want to reduce taxes and reduce/eliminate regulations (for their money interests), oppose gay rights, abortion, and religious freedom for non-Christians (for their religious right wing), and obstruct immigration reform and defend discrimination and intolerance (for their racism/xenophobia wing).  The reduce taxes and reduce/eliminate regulations positions are already know to a problem because of the 2008 Great Recession, and none of these positions have majority support in the general US electorate.  Republicans don't want to campaign on their already well know positions. 

In recent years, Republicans has demonstrated a very strong affinity for candidates to focus their campaigns much more heavily on personal matters instead of current pressing issues. As a results, our elections have denigrated into character assassination and general mudslinging.  The benefit in this approach is character assassination and general mudslinging can be very effective even if it is only loosely based in reality, and in this most recent election, any basis in reality seems to no longer be a requirement.  

Many have found the tone and discourse in this most recent presidential election to be crude and coarse to the point of being disrespectful of the office of the president. A traditional campaign focused on policy issues and candidate qualifications has been replaced with never ending sideshows of mudslinging and character assassination where everything was reduced to a very personal context.  

The candidate’s demeanor and decorum during this campaign was coarse and boorish to the point that Trump campaign rallies appeared to be modeled after the Jerry Springer tabloid talk show.  The audiences were stirred with such frenzy that they frequently resulted in mindlessly chanting of hateful things, aggressive shouting directed at anyone thought to be against them, and even physical confrontation. 

Weeks after he won the election, most still don't really know Trump's position on many key issues.

How They Govern

These recent years of the Republican majority control, first in the Congressional House of Representatives and then control of the Senate are very telling.  The tradition of compromise that was the foundation of our democratic process has been replaced with their 'my way or the highway approach'.  They would rather see the government shutdown perhaps even be torn down than give even an inch to reach a compromise position.  Since compromise is not considered an option, they assume obstructionist positions when they do not have the comprehensive power required to force their agenda preferring to see nothing accomplished unless they can have everything they want.

Another aberrant behavior that has emerged in the Republican Legislative Caucuses is the tendency to vote as a unanimous block leaving little to no room for compromise or bipartisan efforts.  State and Federal legislators should be accountable first to their constituents and second to their conscience, but when the need to be accountable to their constituents is virtually eliminated by gerrymander, to whom are they accountable.  As it turns out, they are accountable to the Republican Party because if they don't follow the Party line they can be 'primaried' (i.e. challenged in a primary race) where they can be defeated.  There is no need to be accountable to constituents and conscience is not an options if it goes against Party lines.

Additionally, they recognize the value of a judicial system uncompromisingly stacked in their favor and do everything in their power to see these positions are filled with like minded individuals.  The cabal has carefully studied the Constitution and its system of checks and balances.  These checks and balances are intended to keep the government honest and on an even keel, but properly manipulated, it can render absolute control to the mastermind of that manipulation.

There is an abundance and commonality of anti-LBGT and anti-abortion tactics that are similar in function and form that are likely a backlash to the Supreme Court's legalization of gay marriage. These bills are believed to have been engineered in the same place by a large network of conservative lawyers called Alliance Defending Freedom whose CEO Alan Sears is a former Reagan-era Justice Department official and author of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. These laws are not the result of public outcry in the states where they are being introduced into law. They originate in these cabal think tanks and are sent to the states to be rubber stamped into state laws by the Republican majority legislatures.

After winning an election Republican candidate from an opposition incumbent assume the role of conquering warriors who on entering the new government sack all the offending things done by opposition elected officials (e.g. Trump's endless array of Executive Orders and the attempted repeal of Obamacare). Bearing in mind their own proclivity to sack and burn, the defeated Republican governor from North Carolina in a parting shot worked with the Republican controlled Legislature prior to his departure to passed two laws to limit the incoming Democratic governor's power.

 

Scope of the Assault

This battle for control our democracy is not limited to just the Federal Government.  Concerted campaigns have enabled Republican control of most state level government.  After years of careful study and strategic execution, these state government strongholds are actively engaged in trying, quite successfully, to enable minority positions to have their say imposed over that of the majority using tactics of the are quite simple and consistent with our democracies current rules of engagement.  

These state legislatures are critical to their comprehensive strategy of control.  They are the stageing ground for the suppression of dissenting positions with diluting dissenters with gerrymandering districts of representation and hindering dissenter access to their voting rights with voter ID requirements, fewer polling places, and reduced time polling place are available.  


After the Republican defeat in 2012 presidential election, Republicans openly discussed the possibility of tying Electoral College vote allocation to the gerrymandered congressional districts so that they could do to the presidential election what they are already doing to dilute dissenting opinions in the Federal and state legislatures. Allocating Electoral College votes by gerrymandered district would super size the advantage they have in the existing Electoral College which already promotes a tendency to slightly increase presidential voter significance to the states that have smaller population many of which are solid red Republican.

The numbers emerging from the past few elections indicate their approach is also very successful.   

The Chink in Their Armor

The Trump stunning victory was clearly not what the cabal leaders wanted from the beginning of this presidential election season.  In fact, his surprise victory was due in large part to voter reaction to years of very blatant meddling in the election process by the self-interested very rich.  It was clear to everyone that the elections were being bought by those with money for the sole purpose of ensuring their continued unfair economic privilege.  Every traditional candidate had to have some billionaire's support to fund their campaign (thanks to the Citizens United decision), and this shameless pandering to these billionaire benefactors was done very openly.

Trump's only appeal to voters was the fact that he created the appearance that he was beholden to no one.  He was quick to criticize the billionaire walk of shame that every other presidential candidate was forced to make, and this criticism was part of his appeal to the common man voters.  They in furn were willing to forgive his every misstep and gaff.  He was caught in lies, flip-flopped on issues, was rude, crude, and abusive to women, and clearly unqualified in experience, knowledge, and temperament for the job, but they (men and women) supported him anyway.  

Every attempt by the Republican cabal to derail him failed.  These failures exposed the one major flaw in their ambitious and otherwise so successful ploy.  The millions of foot-soldiers (i.e. base voters mostly in it for the ideals) for their efforts had been callously used and all they got in return for a few token favors while the cabal leaders walked away all the money and tangible rewards.

The curious thing about the Republican cabal is that only one of these three ideological factions actually realized the big windfall. The other two factions which actually generate the voting numbers required to make the cabal work were typically left disappointed as their specific goals are only marginally or not at all realized.  

The Christian Religious Right are promised judges and legislation that would support their crazy and in many cases unconstitutional ideas about women's reproductive health and relentless persecution of the LBGT community.  The xenophobes and racists are promised border walls, mass deportation of foreigners, and voter suppression.  In return, they pretty much gave up everything; jobs, healthcare, and hope for the future.

Curiously, the very rich with the smallest population minority position of the three actually got something they could use in the form of real large tax breaks and a multitude of sweetheart government deals and subsidies.  In shady business matter like those that lead to the 2008 Great Recession, they took everything leaving the middle-class of this country picked clean of anything of value.  

This highly skewed disparity favoring the rich was apparent to those in the other factions.  Early on, their disaffection was successfully scapegoated onto outside parties like the Democrats or immigrants.  These scapegoat excuses were propagated on cabal friendly media such as Fox News, but after years of hearing the same old lies, the voting ranks who support the cabal were in full revolt.  The scathing realization of these years of extreme disparity forced this election to spiral out of its usual cabal careful control.

The Other Shoe to Fall

During the course of this election, the subterfuge may have gotten out out hand when the Russians were discovered to be trying to intercede in the election process to favor the election of Trump.  The U.S. Intelligence community determined with "high confidence" that Russia's interference had helped Trump win the election and reported numerous instances of that interference such as:

1. A KGB sponsored Russian think tank prepared a report describing ways to interfere the U.S. presidential election in Trump's favor.
2. The Russian intelligence groups Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear were determined to be responsible for hacking Democratic groups and individuals and releasing that information via third-party websites, including WikiLeaks though Putin had denied Russian 'state-level' involvement.
3. Russia used paid social media trolls and developed/decimated fake news stories as part of the influence campaign's messaging strategy in concert with other cyber-activity.
4. Russian intelligence in an attempt to continue to developing these capabilities are believed to have already begun a spear-phishing campaign targeting US government employees and individuals associated with US think tanks and NGOs in national security, defense, and foreign policy fields.

In deploying the hacked emails and fake news, Russia exploited the very same election manipulation mechanism used by the cabal in the form of Political Action Committees and dubious internet news sources.

With the success in the US presidential election, Russia is reputed to want to apply these lessons learned to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes. Evidence of this intention has been claimed in the recent Germany election and in the ongoing presidential election in France.

So far in the Russian interference investigation, 

1. Flinn has resigned as National Security Adviser and later sought a plea deal for testimony, 
2. Sessions perhaps perjured himself and recused himself from the investigation, and 
3. Nunes pulled some outlandish stunt which resulted in his resignation as lead of a congressional investigation,

but by far, the most shocking allegation is the suggestion that evidence support the contention that Russia tried to recruit a mole to penetrate Trump campaign. Reports suggest that Russia may have tried to glean information from key Trump aides specifically suggesting the possible targeting of one time Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page. The full extent of these allegations are still being investigated.

These allegation are only preliminary with direct mention to only one individual so far, but the possibility several other may eventually be snared in this net is currently being speculated. Perhaps, greater depths of the workings of the cabal will be exposed as the investigation unfolds.

Conclusion

Certainly, fringe elements are common in all political parties, but these particular Republican fringe ideologies have demonstrated behaviors that have made many people feel uncomfortable and even fear for their personal safety. Additionally, the transition process for this new Republican administration to assume complete control of the Federal government of this country (i.e. Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches) has also been fraught with many decisions that reinforce concern about many of these behavior concerns observed during the election.

Make no doubt about the fact that this manipulation of our government process is being planned, organized, and executed to affect a complete control of our democracy by a well-organized and not so well-intentioned minority, and it may be too late to stop them.