Here are a few national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Sunday, November 2.

*Climate panel: Some impacts ‘irreversible’ (“A U.N. panel of scientists warned that only an unprecedented global effort to slash emissions will prevent temperatures from crossing a threshold that could trigger dangerous disruptions worldwide.” For those who don’t get it, THIS is why climate change is by far and away the most important threat facing humanity right now.)

*The Pitiful Whimper of 2014 (There’s a lot of truth to this, for instance with regard to climate change. Given that threat – and opportunity – where are the candidates speaking with clarity and vision about a rapid transition to a clean energy economy? How many more times do we need to hear “all-of-the-above” nonsense?)

*Good for you, Kaci Hickox (Agreed. This is unscientific nonsense, hysteria, fearmongering, etc.)

*The final sprint (Under 48 hours until polls open.)

*Senate Update: Polls Point Increasingly To Republican Senate Win (Let’s hope not. Just…ugh.)

*Our view: Your choices on Tuesday (“Gillespie is a thoroughly predictable Republican vote, having shown no signs of any original thinking or creative problem-solving. If you’re an ideological conservative, of course, that’s just fine and dandy…”)

*In 2nd District, Rigell, Patrick debate dysfunction (Suzanne Patrick is right “that Rigell’s support for GOP leadership stands on the budget is part of what gridlocks Congress.”)

*Uninspiring ballot, election fatigue among reasons for low voter turnout (No matter how “exciting” or whatever, it’s important to vote.)

*Incumbent Warner pulls out all the stops as Va. Senate race tightens (Remember, in 2012, Tim Kaine beat George Allen by just 6 points, 53%-47%. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Mark Warner beat Ed Gillespie by something like that, in a tougher year politically for Democrats than 2012 and against a stronger candidate than Allen in many ways.)

*Schapiro: For Warner, there’s little reason to smile (“Warner is strong where votes are abundant, the Northern Virginia-to-Virginia Beach crescent. It’s no surprise he’s ahead with women. Unusual for a Democrat, Warner is preferred by most men. And he has a reservoir of Republican support. At least 1 in 10 Republicans say they’re voting for Warner. Maybe that will put a smile on the face of the unhappy warrior.”)

*Scott unopposed in 3rd District (Bobby Scott is great, and I strongly support his reelection, but this is an example of how gerrymandered, incumbent-protection districts hurt democracy. It’s also an example of “packing,” which a court recently ruled needs to be rectified.)

*Two challenge Wittman in 1st District (Again, thanks to gerrymandering, this is a “safe” seat. Time to go to non-partisan redistricting in Virginia and across the country.)

*Competition and fairness (“Not to take anything away from Rep. Scott, a dedicated public servant, but absence of a competitive campaign hurts residents of the 3rd District. They would be served by a spirited debate of ideas among candidates eager to win their vote.” Bingo.)

*Virginia will have at least three new members of Congress (The 7th, 8th, and 10th CDs.)

*Better choices on Tuesday’s ballot (Classic example of what I was talking about yesterday regarding newspaper endorsements. This one’s got some – the endorsement of Mark Warner, the slam of Randy Forbes as a total zero – where the reasoning makes sense, one – using the word “bipartisan” in conjunction with Scott Rigell – that completely doesn’t, etc. Total mishmash.)

*Who is best for the Seventh District? (This editorial is ridiculous – they lean towards a true right-wing extremist, Dave Brat, but seriously believe Jack Trammell could pull an upset in this safe Republican district? Alrighty…)

*An Endorsement: Mark Warner and a Record of Moderation, Centrism (Yes, vote for Mark Warner, but the “both sides,” false equivalency bull**** here is off the charts!)

*Opinion/Editorial: Too many candidates play it safe (Another mostly ridiculous editorial.)

*A father’s scars: For Va.’s Creigh Deeds, tragedy brings unending question

*D.C. area forecast: Cold winds whip today; warming up for the work week

I encourage everyone to sign this. NPR has truly disgraced itself by taking this action; it needs to reverse course ASAP.

Sign the petition to NPR: “One part-time reporter covering climate and the environment is not enough! Reverse your decision to radically reduce your coverage of climate change and the environment.” Add your name:

Dear Lowell, National Public Radio just made the baffling decision to drastically reduce its staff dedicated to covering climate change and the environment, leaving just one part-time reporter on the beat.1 It’s unacceptable for one of our major sources of journalism in the public interest to essentially abandon it’s coverage of climate and the environment by reducing the staff covering it from four full-time journalists to one part-time reporter. Tell NPR: One part-time reporter is not enough. Reverse the decision to slash your team of reporters covering climate change and the environment. Click here to sign the petition. NPR pays attention to its critics, and is sensitive to criticism that it is failing to meet its duty to inform the public on the most pressing issues of our generation. Americans need more coverage of climate change and other environmental issues, not less. Due in large part to deliberately misleading coverage from conservative outlets like Fox News, and corporate media that insists on presenting “two sides” of the debate even if one side is blatantly lying, the American public is actively misinformed about climate change. As a result, public understanding of the crisis is heading in the wrong direction. In 2013, the percentage of Americans who don’t believe in climate change actually went up 7%. Only 47% of the American people believe that climate change is caused by human activities.2 Tell NPR: One part-time reporter is not enough. Reverse the decision to slash your team of reporters covering climate change and the environment. Click here to sign the petition. NPR’s decision is part of a disturbing anti-science trend within the news media. According to a study released last year, the number of newspapers that included a weekly science sections has shrunk from 85 to just 19 in the past 25 years.3 That’s why it is so crucial for NPR to provide meaningful coverage of climate change that is honest with the American people about the scope of the problem and what must be done to address it. NPR was created by an act of Congress in order to be an alternate news service that would address issues of national concern.4 NPR should devote more resources to covering climate change and other environmental topics, not less. Tell NPR: Don’t reduce your coverage of climate change and other environmental issues. Click the link below to sign the petition: http://act.credoaction.com/sign/NPR_Dont_Abandon_Environment/?t=6&akid=12120.4095727.kwQbGv Thanks for fighting climate change. Josh Nelson, Campaign Manager CREDO Action from Working Assets Add your name:   “NPR Reduces its Environmental Team to One Reporter,” Inside Climate News, October 24, 2014. “Misinformation Is Winning – Doubt In Climate Change Climbing,” DeSmogBlog.com, February 1, 2014. “NPR Slashes Number of Environmental Reporters,” Huffington Post, October 24, 2014. “NPR Guts its Environment and Climate Reporting Team, Becomes 'Part of the Problem,” ThinkProgress, October 24, 2014.

What got me thinking about this question recently is several cases where a newspaper endorsement was touted by other Democrats, even as that same newspaper endorsed a Republican (e.g., John Vihstadt for Arlington County Board) for another office, dissed other Democrats (e.g., John Foust), etc. Same thing with the “fact checkers,” which are touted by Democratic candidates – in TV ads, mailers, etc. – when they go their way, but obviously not looked kindly upon when they bestow “Pinocchios” or “false” ratings on them. The question is, when Democrats tout newspaper endorsements or “fact checks” that go their way, are they helping themselves in the short-term at the expense of: a) their fellow Democrats in the short-term; b) themselves in the long-term; and/or c) their party in the long-term? Also, does this phenomenon fall into either the “Prisoner’s Dilemma” or “Tragedy of the Commons” paradigm? Here’s a synopsis of conversations I had with a national Democratic political operative and two Democratic committee chairs last night on this subject.

• My question: “Doesn’t touting the endorsement increase its value, lend it credibility, etc., so then, when they endorse a Republican in the same or future election cycles, it’s hard to argue they’re idiots or whatever, because you just touted what an honor/privilege/etc. it was when they endorsed YOU? Is this similar to the ‘tragedy of the commons’ (‘individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one’s self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group’s long-term best interests by depleting some common resource.’)?”
• Response from Dem committee chair #1: “It’s very much that.”
• Response from national Dem politico: “I don’t really sweat newspapers when it comes to that, in part because they just don’t have the influence they used to…We may be jaundiced because we’re in the backyard of the Washington Post, whose ed board long since lost the benefit of the doubt.” (I noted that Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt prints climate science deniers, torture enthusiasts, etc., to which the national Dem politico responded, “**** that guy!”).

• Response by Dem committee chair #2 to my comment  that the guy who makes the Post’s Virginia endorsements, Lee Hockstader, is “so horrible” — “Yes he is.” The biggest problem (among many other problems) with Hockstader, in my view: “He never attends any debates or comes to any events or interview the candidates most of the time or….anything, so why is he qualified to make endorsements?”
• Comment from national Dem politico: “I don’t give the WaPo any benefit of the doubt. Fred Hiatt and all his minions can eat a bag of [redacted]…but I’d still rate the influence of the so-called fact checkers as far more poisonous.”
• But here’s the conundrum, according to the national Dem politico: “political tacticians go for what works, or what they perceive to work.”
• My response: “What I’m saying is that by acting in their own, narrow self interest, they do long-term damage while (they hope) furthering their narrow, short-term self interest. For instance, when the idiot Post endorses Republican John Vihstadt for Arlington County Board, it’s hard to blast them because another Dem is busy touting their endorsement by the same paper (actually, Lee Hockstader) — e.g., Gerry Connolly, Don Beyer — touting what a great honor it is, etc.”
• Response by national Dem politico: “Sure – but it’s a collective action problem (you’re familiar w/ the prisoner’s dilemma, I take it)…and a tough one to solve in the heat of a campaign…And someone will always break ranks, because the American party system is organized as a loose network, not in top-down fashion.”
• My response: “Right, but my point is, it’s doing long-term damage, because it puffs up these newspapers, gives them legitimacy which they most certainly do NOT deserve. For instance, the fact that the Post endorsement supposedly ‘worked for Creigh Deecds’ (whether it really did or not) puffs up Lee Hockstader/the Post’s importance, which hurts us when they endorse Republicans Frank Wolf, Tom Davis, John Vihstadt, whoever and/or say bad things about Democrats (e.g., John Foust).”
• As for the “fact checkers,” my national Dem politico friend said, “I have no patience for bad actors – people who draw false equivalences in order to posture as somehow ‘above it all’…So Politifact, for instance, can suck my [redacted].”

Another recent example of what we’re talking about is the Denver Post’s endorsement of right wingnut U.S. Senate candidate Cory Gardner over Democratic U.S. Senator Mark Udall. The problem is, Democrats touted this paper’s endorsements of Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, as well as of Mark Udall in 2008. To me, that may have helped specific Democratic candidates (including Mark Udall) in the short term, but in the long term, it only makes the Denver Post’s bat****-crazy endorsement of Gardner (over the same Udall they endorsed in 2008) more credible this year, hurting Udall’s chances of reelection this time around. See what I’m saying?

Finally, how about when Democrats actually tout endorsements from right-wing newspapers (or organizations) which deny (or express “skepticism” about) climate science,  endorse right-wing candidates (e.g., George Allen in 2006, Bob McDonnell in 2009), etc? Again, isn’t that just lending these newspapers/organizations legitimacy, treating them as if their opinion is something we should care about (when it clearly isn’t, based on their many past idiocies)? Unfortunately, I fear that this behavior – Democrats touting endorsements from newspaper editorial boards (or, in many cases, single individuals) who are most certainly not our friends, or positive ratings from flawed “fact checkers” (which soon enough will come back to bite us in the butt) – will continue, as campaigns look for any short-term advantage they can get, even if it does long-term damage to themselves, their fellow Democrats, or the party as a whole. Sigh…

Here are a few national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Saturday, November 1. Also see President Obama’s weekly address, in which he “highlighted the progress our economy is making, and the commonsense policies that could make it even stronger by ensuring that everyone who works hard has the opportunity to get ahead, especially women and working families.”

*Judge in Maine Eases Restrictions on Nurse (Good. This is not science based, ergo is a clear violation of her constitutional rights.)

*One pilot dead, one parachutes to ground in SpaceShipTwo test-flight failure

*Kentucky Coal Miners Say One Senate Candidate Is Pro-Miner, The Other Is Pro-Coal Company (Well, yeah, there’s a big difference between being pro-coal-COMPANY and pro-coal-MINER.)

*List: Last stops before Election Day

*CNN polls: Iowa, NC too close to call

*Virginia judge: Police can demand a suspect unlock a phone with a fingerprint

*GOP congressmen to appeal 3rd District gerrymandering ruling (“Virginia’s Republican congressmen have signaled they will appeal a court ruling that declared the state’s U.S. House district lines unconstitutional.”)

*Va. high court rules parents can’t be charged for tardiness

*Ann Romney will be in Virginia on Monday, campaigning for Gillespie and Comstock (Oh yay.)

*Comstock Leans In (Unintentionally funniest line of the day: “Comstock wants to be seen as a committed bipartisan, not a GOP attack dog.” Yeah right!)

*Comstock, Foust head for finish line in 10th District

*Distillers draft letter opposing McAuliffe price increases

*State sorting out potential liability in space launch explosion

*VSU President Keith Miller to step down Dec. 31

*Suspect in Virginia student murder arraigned in separate assault case

*Jesse Ferguson Lives to Fight Another Day

*Stafford family gets real treat with White House Halloween (“The trip was a welcome distraction for the [Broklawski] family. Mom Amanda is receiving chemotherapy treatments for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”)

*Not a good start for November: Damp, dreary, windy and cold

Here are a few national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Friday, October 31. Happy Halloween!

*Why a GOP Senate could be short-lived (Yep, even IF they win the Senate on Tuesday, it’s likely not going to last very long. Of course, they’ll do as much damage as possible in those two years, but fortunately President Obama has his veto pen.)

*Do Republicans have a plan for the country? The answer is ‘no’.

*The GOP’s Other Takeover (“Republicans are about to take control of state legislatures across the land.” This is a huge problem.)

*Apple’s Cook: ‘I’m proud to be gay’ (Cue the insanity from the Pat Robertsons and EW Jacksons of the world…)

*Rush Limbaugh Defends Street Harassment: ‘It Was Men Being Polite’ (I can never figure out if Limbaugh actually believes all the crazy, disgusting things he says. But what about his listeners?  Now that’s a frightening thought for Halloween!)

*Capture of Accused Cop Killer Eric Frein Saves Halloween

*Hard-Nosed Advice From Veteran Lobbyist: ‘Win Ugly or Lose Pretty’ (This guy is by any measure one of the most evil people in America, for instance fighting to make it easier to abuse, mistreat, torture animals. Why does he do it? Simple: $$$$$$$.)*

*Virginia Senate race narrows to seven-point gap

*McDonnell defense moved for mistrial over juror’s ouster

*Suzanne Patrick pledges efforts to protect against storm damage during Hampton visit

*Cuts in public safety prompt legislators to eye ABC for more revenue

*Western Marcellus Pipeline is 3rd seeking passage through Va. (Bad, bad idea.)

*McAuliffe sees ‘no contamination issues’ at Wallops Island

*New regulations likely for small day cares in Virginia

*China-based company buys Petersburg chemical plant, plans 376 jobs

*Rep. Robert Hurt takes no stance on Atlantic Coast Pipeline (Profile in courage, eh?)

*For Arlington County Board and school board (Just keep in mind, the guy who writes these endorsements, Lee Hockstader, never comes to debates or other events, doesn’t interview the candidates, basically has no clue what he’s talking aobut, and frequently does boneheaded things like falsely calling the hard-right Frank Wolf a “moderate” and endorsing him repeatedly.)

*Feds subpoena records from deals made by jailed developer

*Halloween weather not too spooky, but the weekend won’t be a treat

In “More on the O’Reilly/Stewart Brouhaha: The Right-Wing Urge to Kick Down,” I offered one explanation of how non-rich white people can get motivated to kick down on those below them (especially blacks, but also any of those “takers” they like to contrast with the virtuous, hard-working people they like to see themselves as being).  It is an old con job, where the dominant class sells a phony picture to induce one group of people they are exploiting to take their anger and frustration out on those below them.

Kick downward at the suppopsdly lazy, good-for-nothing poor, rather than protest upward at the source of the real injustice.

But that explanation doesn’t explain the impulse to kick down shown by the likes of Bill “What White Privilege?” O’Reilly, nor by the rich men with whom Mitt Romney sought to ingratiate himself with his “47%” comment.

Surely, part of the motivation for the distortion of reality is that the warped picture provides justification for the elite’s lack of compassion for those who suffer under their domination.  

But something deeper is going on.

It is not only the poor who experience being the recipient of a downward kick. That template of the downward kick is so ingrained in the culture – at multiple levels, and especially in some parts of the culture – that even many who, in socio-economic terms, are in dominant positions have had profound experiences of that kick-down pain.

Consider, for example, the core of the worldview of many in our civilization – i.e. in the religious realm – captured in the famous phrase of that eighteenth century New England theologian, Jonathan Edwards: “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

This idea expresses an important part of how, over the centuries, a large segment of white America has understood the nature of the relationship between man and God.

Christianity can, of course, express itself in other ways. In black churches, for example, it is not “an angry God” one hears about–at least judging from the many hours I spent attending services in black churches (mostly in Roanoke and Lynchburg, Virginia) during my campaign for Congress a couple of years ago.

In these services, I heard three main themes.

One was a theme of God’s love available as a comfort and a support in one’s suffering and despair. Even if one knew nothing of the historical and situational context of the congregation, one would know that this message was being delivered to people who were struggling, beaten down, in need of an infusion of hope.

A second was a theme of gratitude, calling upon the listeners to be thankful for the things that they do have–thankful for that morning, for the sunlight, for breathing, for each person among their friends and families. Even if one knew nothing of the context, one would intuit that it was important for their well-being for the people in the congregation not to focus on their deprivations.

And the third was a theme of possibility and responsibility, the idea that giving in to despair was not allowed, that an attitude of “yes I can” will carry you through, and that God is there to support you along the way. (No encouragement heard there for being a slacker, or a taker, or a parasite.)

Another thing I never heard a word of in a black church was any image of a wrathful God. (The world, perhaps, dishes out punishment enough. There’s no need to look to heaven to compound that burden.)

In white churches, over the generations in America, the message has very often been different. * [Note, below]

The notion that we are all deserving of damnation, and saved from eternal torment only through an undeserved granting of God’s grace, goes deep in the American religious tradition.  Certainly not all white churches focus on the depravity of the human being and the wrath of God. But the sermons of “fire and brimstone” are still to be heard in America. And in any event, the echoes of that message still resonate in the culture.

These are not trivial beliefs. Core religious beliefs arise out of people’s core experiences of their reality. And then they in turn create fundamental templates for their reality.

In this context, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” represents a basic template for the kick-down nature of the hierarchical relationship. But as basic as it is, that template did not come from nowhere. It expressed something deep in people’s experience of the world.

It is revealing that this emphasis on human depravity emerged at the same time as certain areas of Western culture were fostering a particularly stringent set of moral demands. Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism delineated how the take-off of capitalism, with its unprecedented productivity feeding a corresponding take-off in the wealth and power of nations, was made possible by an ethic of strict discipline, unceasing work, and denial of gratification in favor of continual investment.

In other words, the people who saw themselves as “sinners in the hands of an angry God” were people who had been compelled, as they grew up, to internalize a set of moral demands that was in conflict with their inborn needs and nature. Not for the first time in the history of civilization, power rested on a process of socialization that required the internalization of a judgment hostile to their natural inclinations.

The relation between God and man goes deep in a culture. But even more fundamental, I would argue, is the experience of the growing child of the relation between parent and child. The history of childhood in civilization contains many nightmares. One of these is the widespread experience of children, in many Western societies, growing up to be hyper-productive, hyper-responsible, hyper-repressed members of a society that worships the production of wealth. Or growing up to be repressed in the expression of their sexuality, or spontaneity, or other aspects of the human being’s inborn nature.

Such a kick-down process of socialization can be compared to the sadistic hazing of initiates into a club: as active members do unto the initiates as was done onto them, so also in a society with a harsh morality the parents will be driven by the impulse to replicate upon their own children the same kick-down energy that was inflicted on them when they were children. The parents are moved to this recapitulation not only by social pressure, but by the emotional forces growing out of their own unintegrated psyches.

It is therefore not at all surprising that it is in those parts of America that conceive of moral requirements in the most harsh and absolutist terms that we find the strongest impulse to deal with those below them not with compassion but with punitive demands.

Identifying during childhood with the punitive power, in order to escape the painful experience of being the one punished, and in order to fit into the harsh world, a person must live a lie — I am not the Sinner but the agent of the Angry God holding that sinner over the fire — and find outside himself a scapegoat onto whom to project the parts of the self that he has felt compelled to deny.

It’s a case of do unto others as has been done onto you.

And so here we have a substantial piece of the answer to the riddle with which we began: even if a person grows up to be rich and powerful, like O’Reilly and the Republicans listening to Romney about the irresponsible, dependent, slothful “47%,” the old pattern of (parental) power beating down (a child’s) weakness continues to foster the impulse to kick down.

********************

There are two points here that are central to the overall themes of my “Press the Battle” series.

First, that there are patterns or templates that get transmitted through the human world, and that these patterns are key to understanding how “good” and “evil” (or the forces of wholeness and those of brokenness) operate in our world.

The “kick-down” template, described here, is but one of those templates by which the pattern of brokenness gets transmitted.

And second, that a key aspect of transmitting the pattern of brokenness is the inculcation of a harsh morality. A harsh morality requires the growing human being to internalize cultural demands that run contrary to the needs and nature of the human creature. This fosters a war within, which is brokenness at the psychological level. And this war within, in turn, ramifies back outward into conflict in the world.

The urge to “kick down” against the already downtrodden is one of the forms that outward ramification can take.

The “Press the Battle” series , which has been appearing here in installments, can also be seen in its entirety here.

**********************

*NOTE: Maybe an important reason for that difference — between black and white churches, in the tendency to envision an “Angry God” — is that the whites were required to identify with the powers above them, so that they would support the status quo. But the blacks –having been told that, while they were subject to the ruling system, they were emphatically not part of it — were dealt with differently: rather than being enlisted (manipulated) to support that system, as were the subordinated whites, the blacks were coerced into submitting to it. One might imagine that whether or not one identifies with the oppressive power structure dominating the secular world in which one lives will influence one’s likelihood of worshipping a wrathful God.