I will call him John. He's a sophomore at Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton Mississippi--the now infamous school that refused Constance McMillen's request to take her girlfriend to the senior prom.  In this day and age such actions completely confuse me: Why are these small, Southern communities still so hostile to gays and lesbians? Usually, I chalk it up to the church and a lack of education and then I move on to the next article on the Huffington Post. This time, however, I went in search of answers. 

Using Facebook, I found John.  He loves women and the UFC.  He's Baptist (although his work schedule doesn't allow him to attend church as much as he would like).  He's not sure if he will attend college, but he's excited about joining the Marines.  In the "favorite books" section of his profile, John writes: "I only read when I have to." Given these characteristic, I began the interview expecting a steady stream of anti-gay rhetoric.  I was wrong.  As John said himself, "We are not what [the media is] attempting to make men and women around the world see us as."

John is nothing like the stereotype. The small LGBT community at Itawamba is no secret, and John doesn't care, "they are not really trying to hide the fact that they are different because we do not really judge them for who they are or want to be." He added: "they make it very apparent. They do not care about their sexuality because we really do not care what they do with their personal life." About Constance, he said, "I respect her life choices because it is her life." The more I learned about his views and about his life I figured out that the "silent majority" of this country consists of individuals who do not wake up every morning worrying about gays and lesbians. They do not wake up with hate in their hearts. Instead, they hit the alarm clock each day with concern: they worry about jobs and whether they can provide for their families. They want to live a just life--a notion far less grand than its Platonic version. They want to have a little spending money in their pockets. They want to watch college football. They want to marry their high school sweethearts. 

They also believe in fairness. Based on my exchange with John, it seems that his peers generally do not care if Constance and her girlfriend attend the prom.  In fact, they feel uneasy with the school's discrimination. Yet they still blame Constance. A young man that attends another high school in the area told me that, although he understands her position, he still believes she is being "selfish:"  "because of her the other students won't have a prom." John offered a similar assessment. While he doesn't care about her sexuality, he doesn't "like the way the ACLU is suing my school. Because this is just going to cause young adults like myself to lose a very great school." He later added: "Now the ACLU is defending [Constance] and suing our school for this but they will not stand up for prayer in our schools. Do you not find that wrong? [T]hey abolished our constitutional rights [to] freedom of religion in our schools but will defend the rights of people that feel they are being judged when they really aren't."

John is a victim, but the culprit is neither the ACLU nor Constance. It's the Itawamba County school board. Conservative political elites, like those on the school board, create simple narratives and zero-sum games to turn otherwise caring people against their neighbors. John, and perhaps others at his school, did not care about gays and lesbians attending the prom until school officials made Constance the enemy of the good--until school officials manipulated the situation, making it seem as if Constance and the ACLU were prioritizing gay rights over every high school student's right to a fun and memorable senior year. These elites make it seem as if the media, liberal politicians, and liberal organizations create problems where problems don't really exist. Unfortunately, the national media only adds insult to injury. The media's own need for simple narratives forced them to create a story about courageous Constance versus the homophobic hicks in her community. Part of that story is true: Constance is certainly courageous. But not all of her classmates and neighbors, as John informed me, are motivated by hate: "my closest friends really just want to have a good time without all of this controversy going around about our school 'hating gays, bisexuals, and lesbians."

This nation is suffering from a pre-2009 mindset.  Before the election of Barack Obama, the nation considered only Muslims terrorist threats.  Only Muslims--or so the narrative goes--flew into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Only Muslims plot against the government of the United States.  The Oklahoma City bombing faded into the past, assuming the status of a Pearl Harbor--an awful moment faintly remembered and caused by an enemy vanquished long ago.  Does anyone even remember Ruby Ridge?  The terrorist Eric Rudolph murdered several people, yet most Americans probably can't recall why the name is famous.

Now, we see the folly of the pre-2009 mindset. Because of our lack of vigilance and our inability to develop a coherent security apparatus against domestic terrorists, our nation--its institutions, its values, its people--has been attacked several times.  Neo-Nazi James Von Brunn stormed the Holocaust museum and killed an innocent American.  Anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder assassinated an innocent American.  He killed George Tiller because the good doctor ensured that women possessed access to the reproductive rights the Constitution and courts have granted them.  Most recently, Joseph Stack flew a plane into a federal building in Austin, murdering a Vietnam veteran.  A couple of days ago, John Patrick Bedell, a right-wing, anti-government terrorist, attacked the Pentagon, driven by the same type of radicalism that caused several men to highjack Flight 77 and fly it into the same building. 

The most dangerous feature of this post-2009 America is the legitimacy with which these reactionary forces operate.  Although the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement do not expressly advocate violence against the government, they certainly validate the warped vision these domestic terrorist have of this nation and its government.  In response to the terrorist attack of the federal building in Austin, Rep. Steve King commented, "It's sad the incident in Texas happened, but by the same token, it's an agency that is unnecessary and when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the IRS, it's going to be a happy day for America." Rep. King never emphatically denounces domestic terrorism.  Instead, he validates the terrorist's core theory of American government.  The media is even worse.  The blind sheikhs of conservative radio and television--Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck--foster conspiratorial views of this government and continually sow the seeds of sedition.  If you hate the American government in the deserts of the Middle East, these forces label you a terrorist. But if you hate the American government in the air-conditioned, New York studios of Fox News, you're a patriot. 

The radical relativism of the so-called liberal, mainstream media (MSM) only makes matter worse.  The MSM treats all opinions equally--not matter how false, no matter how conspiratorial, no matter how unpatriotic.  With the use of split screens, two sides--one false and dangerous and the other fact based--are given equal respect and are forced to duke it out on television--as if the truth would be revealed from such an exchange.  In reality such exercises demean the truth and fail to check the alarmist claims of political extremists. Networks get good television. Political extremists get a platform.  But the truth dies, and we all become a little less safe.      

Unfortunately, the Democrats haven't developed a political response to the dangers of the post-2009 world.  After 9/11, the Bush administration created a shrewd political strategy: make Democrats look soft on terrorism.  It beat Tom Daschle.  Because Daschle opposed the administration's legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security, President Bush said: "Democrats are not interested in the security of the American people."   It beat Max Cleland, a disabled US Army veteran of the Vietnam War.  The Chambliss campaign aired an aid likening his opposition to the administration's legislation to supporting Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. 

The Democrats must understand the post 2009-world.  Republicans, conservative thinkers, and conservative media outlets are now crucial parts of networks of domestic political extremism and terrorism.  They turn a blind eye. They validate. They scare.  Democrats must be aggressive.  The party must call people out:  If you hate this government and you purposefully try to prevent it from doing the people's business (i.e. passing legislation--particularly noncontroversial measures--by a majority vote), you're unpatriotic. That's un-American  If you fly into government buildings or if you promote--through your insane prophecies of government taking over--such behavior, you're a terrorist. 

First, what’s really going on here with the McCain campaign’s relentless pursuit of Obama’s association with Bill Ayers?  What do Obama’s associations actually reveal about him?   Republicans, as they are apt to do during election cycles, are re-litigating the culture wars of the 1960s.  From a culture-war perspective, Obama’s associations tell us that he cut his political teeth in liberal, Chicago circles.  The truth is Obama infrequently interacted with someone who adopted illegitimate means of fighting the establishment (Bill Ayers) and someone who had and has legitimate gripes against the establishment (Rev. Wright).  This tells us that Obama may be liberal.  Does this information tell us he’s untrustworthy?  No.  Do these associations reveal poor judgment?  That depends on your own ideological perspective.  Do they expose a traitor?  Absolutely not!!  This is where the McCain campaign shifts from rough, but fair, politics to reckless partisanship. Republicans always lose me when they make liberalism foreign and un-American.  However, it’s hard to make liberalism un-American when a Republican administration is nationalizing key sectors of the economy (attendees of McCain-Palin rallies should be afraid of the socialists already in the White House).  Their tactics become dangerous when they purposefully draw upon bigotry and xenophobia to paint a family-man, father of two daughters, who has lived the American dream as an American nightmare.  But this is all they have. We’re not in the middle of a culture war; we’re in the middle of an economic catastrophe.  A frontal assault on liberalism will fail: Reaganomics is in its last throes.  So, unable to beat up on liberalism, they besmirch the good name of a good man.  

What do McCain’s associations tells us about McCain?  From the culture-war perspective, he cut his political teeth in the establishment.   He befriended members of the establishment who terrorized American democracy (G. Gordon Liddy), brave individuals who defended the establishment (Bud Day), and corrupt individuals who defended the establishment (John Singlaub).  But his associations also expose a man who would betray his principles for political expediency.   McCain associated with Marylin Shannon, a delegate to the Republican National Convention, who is violently anti-gay and who defended an anti-abortion terrorist. He associated with Charles H. Keating (taking campaign donations from him, flying on his corporate plain, and vacationing at this housing in the Bahamas) whose corruption led to thousands of families losing their life savings.  He mended fences with the “agents of intolerance” and expanded his list of bigoted religious associates to include Pastor Hagee and Rod Parsley.  Finally, he pals around with Palin, who cavorted with crazed, Alaskan separatists and attended a church that allies itself with Jews for Jesus and anti-gay movements. These people are not his ideological or spiritual allies.  I actually believe, in his heart of hearts, McCain disdains them.  There’s something about Shannon, Keating, Hagee, and even Palin that must offend McCain’s ideological sensibilities. He’s not one of them: he has never been.  Nevertheless, he associated with them to achieve political power, which doesn’t say much about his character or judgment.   

Again, we’re not in a culture war.  McCain’s pro-establishment credentials are not assets in this environment. His new relationships with the religious right and Sarah Palin may excite the base of his party but they scare the vital center.  We’re in serious times. Unfortunately for McCain, we’re in a moment that requires liberalism and political leadership that puts principle over politics, country above contempt and contention.

There’s nothing noble about McCain’s decision to suspend his campaign.  It is practical: you suspend things that aren’t working.  McCain’s campaign woke up this morning to a report in the New York Times that contradicted his campaign’s statements about Rick Davis’ lobbying ties to Fannie Mae.  This bold move will successfully distract the public away from the Davis scandal (which is less about the actual lobbying than it is about the McCain campaign’s duplicity).  The last couple of days also revealed that McCain is losing substantial ground in national and state polls, including key battle ground states that he shouldn’t be defending (Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida).  Moreover, the polls reveal that Americans prefer Obama’s leadership on economic issues, which are, by the way, their main concern.  Indeed, Obama, who is twenty-five years younger than the senior senator from Arizona, has been the grownup this week. His calm and, from my perspective, prudence contrasts drastically with McCain’s bombastic statements and erratic behavior.  So now McCain is trying to play the bigger man, matching Obama’s wise call for a joint policy statement with a dramatic, unilateral move to cancel Friday’s debate and campaigning.  Again, canceling the debate and the campaign is practical politics: 1) this debate on foreign affairs, McCain’s strong suit, will only be background noise during this financial crisis--McCain will lose a chip in this debate game; 2) the suspension gives the McCain campaign time and space to retool and think of other ways to distract the public; and 3) It would possibly cause the VP debate to be postponed, which would give Sarah Palin more time to meet people and learn things.  All of this fine practical politics, even if it is cynical.  But McCain is not putting country first by taking his campaign of mass distraction into tense negotiations over the Wall Street bailout package.  I would prefer he sit out the debate in one of his homes and wait for congressional leaders to call him when he’s needed.  Playing politics is fine.  Playing with our money isn’t.