Political Theatre category archive

Motivated by the popularity of the History Channel’s current biblical potboiler*, Chauncey Devega wades into the confluence of history, belief, and culture to wonder why, in the popular American imagination, Jesus is always imagined as white like me.

The historical figure known as Jesus of Nazareth was not “white.” He was not European. Based on the scholarly consensus, the historical Jesus would be a Middle Eastern Jew of medium, if not dark, complexion. He was certainly dark enough to have spent time in the Middle East and elsewhere, and to not have had his skin tone commented upon or noted.

This Jesus would be hounded and harassed by the TSA, looked at as a de facto “suspicious” person in post 9/11 America, and be racially profiled by the national security state. The historical Jesus would likely be subject to stop and frisk policies by the New York police and others. If it were too late at night, and the historical Jesus was trying to get a cab–especially if he were not attired “professionally”–he would be left standing curbside because brown folks in their twenties and thirties who look like him are presumed to be criminals.

Read it.

____________________

*Which I am industriously ignoring.

(Link fixed) Daniel Ruth on CPAC: “Get your programs here! You can’t tell the players without a program!”

There was Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who if he had his way would turn the federal government into Grand Duchy of Fenwick.

And there was Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who wowed the crowd by simply finding his way to Maryland.

Also there was Sen. Marco Rubio, who has been running for the presidency since he got former Florida House Speaker Johnnie Byrd his first cup of coffee. Rubio extolled the virtues of individual liberty. Who better to make that tea party argument than a guy who has been collecting a government paycheck for virtually his entire adult life?

More delightfulness at the link.

Via Bob Cesca’s Awesome Blog.

CPAC version.

PoliticalProf sees a long, long dance:

But it turns out Republicans aren’t the only ones to have made peace with the sequester cuts. While Democrats might offer Republicans a deal — end defense cuts to restore social welfare spending — it’s pretty clear the Democrats have decided that the Republicans couldn’t — or won’t –deliver on their end of such a deal. That is, given that it is likely Republicans in the Senate will filibuster the restoration of funds for social welfare spending even were the House to support such a plan, the Democrats have decided it’s better to cut defense some than it is to restore defense spending but cut social welfare. At least, Democrats can claim, defense got cut too … and it wasn’t going to get cut any other way.

Read the rest, then you can decide whether he’s on to something.

Dick Polman:

It speaks volumes about the Republican fantasy world that alleged deep thinker Paul Ryan foresees a balanced budget in 10 years – thanks to the repeal of Obamacare.

Will somebody please stage an intervention and tell this guy that Obamacare is here to stay, and that therefore his new budget blueprint is delusional?

Do read the rest.

Warning: Some language.

Mike, a Florida resident with a ringside seat at Florida’s Bush league, wonders whether Jeb Bush can outdo George the Worst.

Jay Bookman considers Rand Paul’s recent filibuster (by the way, kudos to Paul for having the integrity to actually, like, you know, talk through a filibuster, rather than talk of one) and rumors that Paul might be the 2016* Republican presidential nominee:

I didn’t think it possible for the 2016 GOP presidential field to even approach the 2012 field in terms of wackiness, but given early indications, I may have to reconsider that notion.

_____________________

*2016 is a long time away. This type of speculation now is nothing more than the political press pleasuring itself, something most persons do in private.

Via Delaware Liberal.

In a long article in New York Magazine delightfully entitled “Lipstick on a Elephant,” Frank Rich fisks the current media myth-making over Republican attempts to remake/rebrand/reform (depending on the pundit of the day) the party and its image and concludes that it is but a legend of the Village elite, a tinkling cymbal, a sounding bell, signifying nothing.

A nugget:

This is why Karl Rove’s “Conservative Victory Project,” which would oppose rape-obsessed candidates like (Todd “Legitimate Rape”–ed.) Akin when they surface in GOP Senate primaries, was dead on arrival. Republicans vote for candidates like Akin in primaries because they actually believe in them, not because they are duped.

Afterthought:

Branding seems to have been sort of a theme today.

Dick Polman, in his roundup of “the week in crazy,” spots the presence of at least one ghost and several ghoulies. First, the ghost (emphasis in the original):

The winner (of the week in crazy–ed.): U.S. House Republicans: Yeah, I know. You guessed who the winner would be when you were reading about Limbaugh. But how is one to ignore the gem on page 105 of a new GOP budget bill? No need to look it up, I’ve got it right here:

SEC. 8099. None of the funds made available under this Act may be distributed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) or its subsidiaries.

. . . ACORN died in 2010.

Read the rest for the ghoulies.

. . . and sees that it is good.

The common U. S. view of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is similar to the common U. S. view of any foreign leader whose policies are unpopular with Wall Street’s masters of the universe:

Dictator! Subersive! Threat! And, of course, Commie!

Der Spiegel offers a non-U. S. and certainly more balanced view. A nugget:

There’s no doubt that Chávez felt called upon to carry on the work of the great liberator Simon Bolívar, who from 1813 first beat the Spanish and then freed today’s Venezuela, Colombia, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador from colonial rule. As Chávez saw it, the US and the opposition in his own country were modern colonial masters who had to be vanquished. In his deeply ideological claim to gain complete control of his country, he became the epitome of the charismatic ruler.

After meeting Chávez years ago, the writer Gabriel García Márquez said he didn’t know if he had just spoken to a visionary capable of saving Latin America or a dreamer who would turn into a common Latin American despot.

Barbara Ellen calls out the UK government’s “blame the victim” tactics. Seems they have their own variety of Ronald Reagans “welfare queen” lie:

How long would it take for “poor-shaming” to embed itself in the national psyche as borderline normal? Or perhaps it has already done so? The Methodists, the United Reformed Church, the Church of Scotland and the Baptist Union have joined forces to publish a study called The Lies We Tell Ourselves. It highlights myths surrounding people and poverty, including Iain Duncan Smith’s much trumpeted “families out of work for three generations” line (which, it turns out, has never been backed up by data).

The report argues that the government is “deliberately misrepresenting” the poor, blaming them for their circumstances while ignoring more complex reasons, including policy deficiencies. Moreover, they feel that this scapegoating is the result of collusion between politicians, the media and the public.

Micahael Cohen, writing at the Guardian, dares to point the finger of blame.

The reality is that whether one likes Obama or thinks he is the Antichrist, facts are facts: he has offered Republicans a Grand Bargain compromise repeatedly over the past 18 months. He has made concessions on key liberal priorities, like Medicare eligibility and Social Security benefits. He signed into law huge cuts in domestic spending without matching revenue hikes. And in return, all he has asked of Republicans is to support rather tepid increases in taxes. They have refused; and they have refused for the same reason every time.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Via PoliticalProf.