“Any Republican who doesn’t support Mitt Romney now isn’t a Republican and probably shouldn’t be.”

– Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster, August 31 2012

You heard the man: obey without question or get out of the Republican Party.

Which is it going to be?

As you have probably heard by now, longtime Republican congressman Todd Akin has gone public with his long-simmering view that a number of rapes aren’t really “legitimate rapes” and that women who are raped have a secret “female body” power that keeps them from getting pregnant.

The Republican Party is currently working as speedily as it can to shove Todd Akin and his prominent GOP-endorsed candidacy for the U.S. Senate under the carpet, quickly now, before someone discovers…

Todd Akin is just the Tip of the Iceberg.  We must stop electing sexist ignorant Republicans to public office… oh, darn. Too late. Atlantic Monthly Senior Editor Garance Franke-Ruta reports on Republican after Republican after Republican after Republican who has been caught saying almost exactly the same thing. It’s utter bunk, of course. As Franke-Ruta notes with sources in her article, some thirty-two thousand pregnancies result from rape every year in the United States. Research in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology concludes that:

Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.

But a shocking number of Republican Party politicians and activists — not just Todd Akin — are still living in an 18th Century fantasy world in which women who are raped — “really” raped — just can’t get pregnant. That makes the women who do get pregnant conveniently subject to their ignorant authoritarian whims.

Todd Akin is just the tip of the iceberg.

Columnist Richard Cohen, July 2012: Why Criticizing Romney for Offshoring Jobs to Sweatshops Makes No Sense

“Let there be no doubt (at least in my mind) that if Romney did not approve offshoring jobs in companies controlled by his Bain Capital, he certainly would have. His job — his raison d’être, his very heart and soul — was to make money for his investors and himself….

Products or services that can be produced more cheaply abroad will be offshored. This is a rule. Products that can be produced by robots will be produced by robots. This, too, is a rule. What is not a rule is that the debate about this has to be conducted on a schoolyard level about when, exactly, Romney was running Bain. It hardly matters who was running Bain when some steelworkers were fired and their jobs sent across the great ocean. If Romney was really in charge, he was doing what he was being paid to do. If Romney was not in charge, others did what he would have done — and he, the record shows, did not complain. He merely deposited the checks.”

Columnist Robert Connors, July 1852: Why Criticizing Whitney for Investing in Slaves Makes No Sense

“Let there be no doubt (at least in my mind) that if Whitney did not approve the use of slavery in companies controlled by his Bain Plantation, he certainly would have. His job — his raison d’être, his very heart and soul — was to make money for his investors and himself….

Products or services that can be produced more cheaply by serfs will be produced by serfs. This is a rule. Products that can be produced by slaves will be produced by slaves. This, too, is a rule. What is not a rule is that the debate about this has to be conducted on a schoolyard level about when, exactly, Whitney was running Bain. It hardly matters who was running Bain when some farmers were sent packing and their jobs were assigned to slaves. If Whitney was really in charge, he was doing what he was being paid to do. If Whitney was not in charge, others did what he would have done — and he, the record shows, did not complain. He merely deposited the checks.

When anybody tries to tell you that a system of exploitation is “a rule,” or “just the way it is,” or “the way things have always been,” don’t buy it. Things have never been the way things have always been — human societies have seen remarkable historical change. Things are the way they are because people make rules to let them be the way they are. A small number of people in the United States didn’t grow rich off the backs of a whole lot of slaves simply because it was “a rule” that slaves are cheapest. They grew rich off of slavery because they and their cronies made sure to enact and preserve the rules that made slavery legal. In the modern day, a small number of people in the United States — Mitt Romney being one of them — have grown rich by firing people from their old well-paid jobs with benefits and by hiring people who are paid mere pennies, who have no benefits and who have no rights. They exploit people through “offshored” sweatshop labor not simply because it’s “a rule” that invisible foreign sweatshop workers are the cheapest. Corporate chiefs like Mitt Romney have grown rich off offshored sweatshop labor because they have made sure to enact and preserve the laws that make it legal and easy to exploit people as long as you do it overseas.

To criticize Mitt Romney for getting rich off turning respectful employment into sweatshop labor isn’t illegitimate because some rule exists on the books. Slavery was a rule that existed on the books in the 19th Century, and it was legitimate to question that rule. Offshoring is a perfectly legitimate subject of conversation because it has to do with the righteousness of rules that enable people to get rich by exploiting people in sweatshops. Slavery was a legitimate subject of the Lincoln-Douglas debates because politics is about the rules by which we treat others. Offshoring is a legitimate subject in the current election season because the man who wants to run the most powerful nation on the planet chose to get rich by exploiting rules that exploit people. It’s fair for Americans to ask whether Mitt Romney is the kind of man we want to put in charge of the rules.

From the Pew Research Center’s American Values Survey:

I am concerned that the Government is Collecting too Much Information about People Like Me, Pew Survey Answer, 2007 and 2012

When a Republican is in the White House, Democrats are more concerned than Republicans about the prying eyes of big government.

When a Democrat is in the White House, Republicans are more concerned than Democrats about the prying eyes of big government.

My authority figure is a good authority figure. Your authority figure is a dangerous authoritarian.

On his new 2012 presidential campaign website, Republican Representative Thaddeus McCotter lists what he’d like you to believe are his “Five Core Principles”:

1. Our liberty is from God not the government
2. Our sovereignty is in our souls not the soil
3. Our security is from strength not surrender
4. Our prosperity is from the private sector not the public sector
5. Our truths are self-evident not relative

But if truth is really self-evident and not relative, then we should be able to see it from what Thaddeus McCotter has actually done in the Congress, not just on the basis of what he has said. These are the Real Five Core Principles of Thaddeus McCotter:

McCotter Principle 1: Support the Arbitrary Exercise of Government Power. In the 109th Congress, Thaddeus McCotter voted for H.R. 6166, a bill which installed undemocratic executive committees without review to designate citizens and noncitizens alike as enemy combatants without standards for proof. It granted President George W. Bush amnesty for his past violations of law. It granted the President supreme authority to decide whether an interrogation technique qualifies as torture. It allowed hearsay evidence to be used to convict an accused person. It permitted indefinite detention without review, without meeting standards of evidence the U.S. Government has followed for centuries.

In the 110th Congress Thad McCotter voted for the FISA Amendments Act, which when passed set up a system for the federal government to spy on you electronically, reading your email, listening to your telephone calls, watching what web pages you visit, following your financial transactions, engage in physical searches of your property and possessions without an explanation, without congressional oversight, without a probable cause warrant, without the ability of a judge to stop it, with permission for the government to use illegally-obtained information, granting telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for breaking the law and violating the rights of millions of Americans.

In the 111th Congress, Thaddeus McCotter voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act with provisions for spying on Americans without establishment of probable cause or so much as a demonstration that the person being spied upon is even tangentially connected to terrorism. This reauthorization of the most controversial of Patriot Act powers made it through the House hidden within Medicare legislations and contained no reforms whatsoever.

In the 112th Congress, Thaddeus McCotter voted for the Patriot Act again in a roll call taking place after mere minutes of debate, despite a lack of any committee consideration and without any provision for amendment. This bill reauthorizes provisions of the Patriot Act, a law that allows agents of the U.S. government to spy on, search and seize the property, papers and communications of individuals without a constitutionally-guaranteed finding of probable cause for that action.

McCotter Principle 2: Prop Up Military Pork Projects for Big Corporate Contractors. This year alone, Thaddeus McCotter has voted to preserve the flow of government money to four huge corporate military construction projects — on the deadly V-22 Osprey, a second unneeded F-35 jet engine, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and the Surface Launch Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile System. All four of these systems cost the government huge amounts of money. All four of these systems make military contractor corporations huge amounts of money. And all four projects have been classified by the Defense Department as unnecessary. Thaddeus McCotter voted to prop up government spending for all four.

McCotter Principle 3: The Heck with Religious Liberty. Use Government to Promote Christianity and Enforce Christian Theocratic Standards. In the 109th Congress, Thaddeus McCotter cosponsored H.R. 1070, a bill that prohibits federal courts from ruling on the constitutionality of government officials who use their positions of power to push their own parochial religious standards onto others. In the same Congress, McCotter voted for H.R. 2862, a bill that tried to make it illegal for anyone to enforce a federal court ruling that governments shouldn’t be erecting Christian religious monuments. In the 110th Congress, Thaddeus McCotter voted to let Christian churches take government money, use that money to hire workers for Head Start (which is NOT a religious program), and when doing so only hire people who promise to be Christians. In the 111th Congress, McCotter cosponsored a resolution encouraging American governmental bodies to use their power to erect tributes to the Christian God. In the 112th Congress, McCotter voted for H.R. 471, a bill to redirect government funds to religious schools in Washington DC, schools that are overwhelmingly Christian.

McCotter Principle 4: Restrict Free Speech. In the 110th and 111th Congresses, Thaddeus McCotter pushed legislation that would make it illegal for Americans to exercise their right to free speech by burning an American Flag.

McCotter Principle 5: Take Away Citizenship from Babies Born in America. In the 110th and 111th Congresses, Thaddeus McCotter cosponsored legislation to take away citizenship of babies born right here in the USA. The only American-born babies who would be permitted to have American citizenship would be those that could establish acceptable bloodlines. That’s the citizenship standard of Nazi Germany, by the way.

News Item: In order to attend a pep rally for Republicans on May 5 2011, you have to surrender your driver’s license to Tea Party officials and let them make a copy for their files.

Name of the event: the “Freedom Rally.”

What does the phrase “Tea Party” mean in America? That depends on your frame of reference. If you have any memory of history class at all, it should bring to mind the original Boston Tea Party, an act of defiant dissent of British colonists against the authority of their king. These dissenters referred to themselves as patriots.

In contemporary terms, the “Tea Party” means something altogether different. When eight Republican state senators published an open letter in Maine’s state newspapers to chastise the remarks of their own party’s Governor, Paul LePage, the Maine Tea Party did not react with amusement.

Maine Tea Party activist Amy Jo Rice writes:

I totally agree that we need to get behind our Governor and pass a sustainable budget…. I am a big believer in Ronald Reagan and the things that he was able to accomplish. One of the most important lessons that we have to learn from him is that you get behind and support the candidate that was elected. You don’t have to agree with them all the time, but if a unified front of support for our Governor and the job that he is trying to accomplish, all the hard work thus far is going to be mute.

Joe D’Alessandro chimes in:

I think we are all being too nice by asking these types of “Republicans” to please cooperate with the governor. I t may be time to tell them to shut up, do the job they were elected to do and get behind the governor or get out of office before they are driven out of office.

Kathleen M Caso’s point of view:

That they do not know how to work within the Party for the best of Maine people giving the Democrat/Socialist more ammunition is despicable. Get over yourselves…. I understand that Martin was a LePage favorite. Nice gratitude!… The Senators questioned BOLDLY in the newspapers so you think that is an appropriate way to handle chain of commander? YES they are entitled to their opinion and in my opinion it should stay in the State House.
What would you call Republicans stabbing their own publically in the back – Brilliant?

Richard Ashcroft identifies the problem:

Sounds to me like we elected a bunch of R.I.N.O.’s! What’s the mater with these people, don’t they realize that we should all stick together and back the Governor?… I really don’t care what their opinion of the Governor is, what I (And MANY others) want is for our REPUBLICAN legislators to stick together and BACK our Governor in his efforts!!

The modern-day Tea Party turns the historic Tea Party on its head: whatever you do, don’t speak up. Keep your disagreements private. Fall in line. Support the man in charge. Salute. Cooperate. Obey.

Last night, a visitor to Irregular Times named Luke made an interesting conjecture:

As a side-note, I am curious about the level of email openness in our Congressmen, if progressive, forward thinking congress critters are easier to contact than conservative, old fashioned ones. I have usually noticed that Republican elected officials either have no email option at all or make it so the user can only choose from a select range of topics.

Luke raises an interesting question, and there are intuitive reasons to suspect that political ideology is related to the style of congressional interaction with constituents. You might think that members of Congress holding the right-wing notions of respect for power and obedience to authority would be less interested as authority figures in feedback from constituents. You might think that anti-authoritarians in Congress who insist on individual civil liberties would be more interested in listening to dissenting voices.

As a quick test of this hypothesis, I’ve reviewed the congressional websites of the ten members of the House of Representatives with the best record of supporting civil liberties in the 111th Congress, and compared them to the ten members of the House with the worst civil liberties record for the same period. Each and every one of these twenty members of Congress prominently lists phone numbers for offices in Washington, DC and in his or her home district. Regardless of ideology, each and every member also maintains a web form from which constituents may easily send messages to their representative. Luke’s hypothesis, although thoughtful, isn’t borne out empirically.

The way in which these twenty members of Congress arrange and describe constituent communications doesn’t seem to be related to political ideology either. Although the authoritarian Representatives Marsha Blackburn and John Boehner won’t even let visitors access a contact form until they pass a Zip+4 postal code test to prove that they are actual constituents, civil libertarian Representatives Donna Edwards and Yvette Clarke do the same. Authoritarian Louie Gohmert is matched by civil libertarian Peter DeFazio in rejecting comments from outside his district. Civil libertarians Elijah Cummings and Keith Ellison welcome comments from outside their districts, while authoritarian Republicans Todd Akin, Michele Bachmann and Steve King make no restrictive statements whatsoever about who has the privilege to contact them.