I’ve been saying for quite some time now that the Clinton family ties are more deeply rooted in American Neoconservativism than anyone cares to acknowledge, but after reading the 2007 Mother Jones article Ehrenreich mentions, I wonder why I’ve never come across it before.

I’m gonna say it right now: I don’t trust Hillary Clinton. (Bold letters AND italics! Beat that!) I don’t trust her because she doesn’t have my best interests at heart. Not because she’s not Black, and not because she’s not from Chicago, but because if she had any Democrat’s best interest at heart, she would have dropped out of the race by now. The only way she can win at this stage is if she wins over a significant number of Superdelegates– Election 2008′s very ownhanging chad. Among these Superdelegates are high Democratic Party officials, including Hillary’s Husband/BFF/#1 Fan, Mr. President Clinton. Is she sticking in the race because she knows the unpledged delegates– among which she has considerably more clout than Obama– will scratch her back? It seems that this is the case, despite the fact that she’d have you believe that she just wants the people to choose the candidate for the job.

The Democratic Party is struggling, and it has been for as long as I can remember. I’m 22 years old and I’ve only been alive for one Democrat in office. For the first time ever, Obama is having a resounding impact on young voters and people of color– two constituencies on which the Democratic Party pride themselves on caring about the most. The Party could benefit strategically from following Obama’s lead and attempting to revitalize their politics to stimulate real systemic change, but instead it’s politics as usual as Obama is left not getting the support he deserves. It’s really sad to see him stranded, especially since his mantra of Change and Hope has had so much of a profound impact in this election cycle.

But I am straying from the point and getting on my Obama Soapbox.

This Family Organization is really troubling, primarily because of its Conservative affiliations. Take the founding principles, for instance:

The Family was founded in Seattle in 1935 by Abraham Vereide
[...]
He organized Christian prayer breakfasts for politicians and businessmen that included anti-Communism and anti-union discussions.
[...]
By 1942, the organization had moved headquarters to Washington, DC, where it helped create breakfast groups in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives.

At the very least, doesn’t this make her appear to go against everything she claims to believe in, as both an individual and a Democrat? The connection between her religious affiliations and her legislation is what bothers me the most: For me, the main drawback is that it can be used to unite a little too much when called upon in less-than-desirable circumstances. In response to America’s past as a refuge from political persecution, religion remains the last frontier, the one subject that is too personal to criticize. Talk about Hillary’s policies, her ideas and her strategies, but discussing her religion and her affiliations is taboo, thus making religion the perfect cloak for political and personal gain.

In the past 15 years or so, neoconservatives have courted the Religious Right with a persistent fervor. We’ve seen elections centered on perceptions of morality more in the recent past than in any other time in American history. We’re being divided by race, class and who we worship. Alliances between church and state seem to be more visible and certainly more politically influential than ever before. If the media can question Obama’s pastor, why can’t they delve beneath Clinton’s cloaked-and-daggered steeple?

Take, for instance, a conversation I got into with an older woman at a get together today:

Woman: So my pastor is putting us on a fast, but some people are trying not to do it because they say they have Diabetes. Now I know they’re just trying to get out of it, because the Devil is putting those words in their mouths, just like He’s putting that disease in them.

Me: But…if they have Diabetes, shouldn’t they not go on a fast? And isn’t Diabetes an actual, documented, tangible ailment? And shouldn’t a doctor of some sort be supervising this fast? How is a Pastor qualified for this in any way?
For some reason, comments like mine are met with a lot of disdain, despite the fact that they are perfectly sensible and logical. I’ve had a lot of arguments about this, on both sides actually, discussing why religion and faith are the final frontier when it comes to casual conversation. I fully recognize the right to believe in whatever you want to believe, but shouldn’t you be able to back those beliefs up without spouting utter nonsense like that woman was?

Another thing that bothers me about religion is this doomsday scenario that has been espoused for centuries. One of Nietzsche’s main beefs with Christianity was that it encouraged people to live their lives on Earth as if it were a means to getting to Heaven. Thus, the main incentive to being nice to people becomes not altruism but getting yourself to Heaven, and furthermore, people are told over and over how shitty things here on Earth are compared to Heaven, thereby taking away from the pleasures that we receive in this lifetime.

I certainly understand the advantage of this, namely motivating people who are having a difficult time to look forward to something. It’s a great tactic, of course. But I have a big bone to pick with the televangelists who seem to only want to spend their time talking about how awful the world is. Apparently, there’s some guy named Jack Van Impe who uses his television show to talk about how Christ is coming to deliver us all from this Hell on Earth. From the looks of things, he’s a bit of an alarmist who can’t possibly be taken seriously with segments on his show that seem to parody Twilight Zone episodes. I mean, come on, Extraterrestrials?

That seems to be a pretty dated episode, but I thought it was hilarious and couldn’t find any newer ones. Today, instead of talking about aliens and “E.T.s,” Van Impe and his lady sidekick peruse such venerable institutions as Time Magazine and The Detroit News to look for support for their thesis that the end of the world is nigh. I mean, are they serious? Van Impe even went so far as to say that Saddam Hussein placed nuclear weapons in Syria– a premise that I don’t think he has any reason to believe other than pure speculation.

Besides building up distrust and disdain placed squarely on the Middle Eastern world, they do very little to convince anyone to do anything other than buy their products. It’s simply sickening to watch, but I can’t help it– it’s like a train wreck. What’s terrifies me is that there are people who truly believe these people, and that’s just what they’re banking on.

There’s not a day that goes by when I don’t think about how fantastic of a job the Neo-conservative stronghold has put on the Religious Right.