Republican

With the balance of power tilting rightward again, it looks like healthcare reform (such as it was) may not become a reality. There are likely a few other items on the Democratic agenda that may not happen anytime soon. But the major disappointment is healthcare.

While I am a not-so-moderate Democrat, I have a lot of close friends and acquaintances who are Republican. At one time I was apolitical – with Republican leanings. So I understand the Republican mindset. Yet political parties evolve over time – and the Republican party today is not at all the Republican party of my politically active grandmother – a big Ike fan. I must admit that I have been baffled by today’s conservatism – especially on healthcare.

Frankly, Republicans seem not to care about people. Here’s what they do seem to care about:

Money. Healthcare reform is costly. It will bankrupt the country. There are other costly items like the military and shock and awe, but that’s different.

Entitlements. When I suggested that a certain level of healthcare is a basic human right (especially in a wealthy country like ours), a conservative friend reacted sneeringly. The principle seems to be that people don’t deserve anything unless they earn it, because they might “take advantage of the system.”

The status quo. Healthcare reform will change the healthcare industry as we know it. Those who have comfy plans and resources may have to share them with others – or something like that. We will all have to wait in line and some of us may lose our “Cadillac” plans.

The above points reflect a fundamentally conservative assumption: Conservation of money trumps human needs. This idea is what has been baffling me. Even more baffling is that a lot of religious people who are supposed to care buy into this thinking, as they are the most ardent Republicans – Republicanism is a virtual tenet of the Evangelical Christian faith.

John Calvin, 1509-1564

But I’m not as baffled as I was, because I have a theory. My theory explains why many people who pride themselves in being far more principled, moral and ethical than their liberal counterparts can seem to be such uncaring automatons.

We must go back to 16th century France, where we will find a young man named John Calvin. He was training for a career in law until he was swept up in the Protestant Reformation. By the age of 27 the brilliant lawyer-turned-theologian had already published the Institutes of the Christian Religion, a ponderous tome that would dictate the faith of millions of Protestants down to our day (we’ll set aside the question of why anyone in their right mind would buy into a theology manufactured by a 27-year-old lawyer, brilliant or not).

One of the big, sticky theological issues Calvin addressed was, “Why does God ‘save’ some humans while others are ‘lost’? His answer, essentially, was a construct called predestination: God had created some people to go to heaven and others to go to hell. According to Calvinism, most people have been created to go to hell and there’s not a darn thing anyone can do about it. Unless you’re lucky enough to be one of the “elect,” you’d better get used to a warm climate. Really warm.

In Geneva, Switzerland, Calvin turned his severe theology into practice. He and his associates took control of the city government, declaring it to be an independent republic and instituting a form of religious martial law. Homes were subject to random searches. Brutal corporal punishment was meted out for religious infractions. Those who did not agree with Calvin’s tyrannical dogma were declared heretics and executed, some by burning at the stake (as a small foretaste of what they could expect in the afterlife). Not surprisingly, Jewish people were not welcome in Calvin’s Geneva.

While this all sounds horribly medieval, America has been – and still is – deeply influenced by Calvinism. The Pilgrims were, after all, Calvinists. Ironically they were fleeing persecution in England so they could have the freedom to practice their own despotic religion in the New World. Millions of Americans still firmly believe, or have been influenced by, Calvinism and the idea of predestination — including conservative Southern Baptists, the largest Protestant denomination in America, and they are at the heart of the Evangelical church – the core of the Republican party.

If you believe that most human beings are write-offs, then you won’t be inclined to spend much money on them, will you? You might try to help out those poor folks down in Haiti, for example, but only because you might be able to “convert” them in the process – because, after all, some of them could be predestined for glory. But, like Southern Baptist Pat Robertson, you will believe that most of them are cursed because they made a pact with the devil, or they committed some other nasty sin.

And, while you might give charitable contributions to a few of our own hapless citizens whom you think are deserving of your help, the last thing you will want to do is make actual laws that will provide healthcare for millions who desperately need it. That would waste a lot of money on people who are probably predestined to fourth-degree burns for all eternity anyway.

So there you have it. Republicans just don’t care – and it all makes sense to me now (my apologies to the few Republicans, Baptists or Calvinists who really do care). My Republican friends won’t like this. My Calvinist friends may want to burn me at the stake. Thankfully, that’s still illegal, but with the current tilt to the right, stake-burning may make a big comeback soon. Some say Texans are thinking about it.

Monte Wolverton

Here, for educational purposes, are a couple of emails from corn-servatives in response to my last cartoon regarding anti-healthcare reform riots. As usual, I seem to have touched some sensitive spots.

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

Here’s an email I received in response to my admittedly edgy cartoon of the Cambridge Police at the door of H.L. Gates.

Sir, I am writing you regarding your cartoon of July 27th, 2009. I respect the fact the we live in a free country where everyone is entitled to speak their mind, as long as it does not endanger anyone else. This is a right I have a personal stake in, being as I served with great men and women of all ethnicities in the branch of the armed forces you mention in your cartoon - The United States Marine Corps. I understand that you also draw for Mad magazine, so I am not surprised that you make your money using edgy satire and controversy. Please don’t misunderstand, I do have a sense of humor. However, I cannot let your assertions go unanswered. An examination of the current situation to prove my point. You assert that police officers, specifically the Cambridge Police Department, are ‘pigs’. You use this, of course, because it is a derogatory term and is an attempt at humor. Ha ha, look at Dick Cheney offering to send in the Marines to help the fuzz beat down some black people. We know that all cops are racist pigs who like giving out stick time to minorities. The Marines are too, since they belong to Dick Cheney. I assume that you are also referring to the African-American officer that later responded to the call at Prof. Gates’ Harvard owned house as a ‘pig’. I hope you are consistent enough to call officers pigs to their face not only when you are pulled over, but when they are the first responders to the scene where you happen to have been in an accident; I would have respect for your position at that point. Fellow officers of multiple ethnicities have stated that the officer that arrested Prof. Gates was doing his job. Why must you malign him and all those who work with him? I guess you didn’t read that Sgt Crowley teaches other officers about racial profiling, and how to avoid it. I guess that you didn’t read how Sgt Crowley gave CPR to a dying Reggie Lewis. While there are officers out there who should be in a different line of work (Oklahoma state trooper in the news recently comes to mind), the last thing regular officers need is people taking the position that you took. How about doing something to encourage more minorities to become officers? How about donating to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, which gives scholarships to children? How about finding a way to address this situation in a positive manner, instead of jumping off the cliff of prejudice? I really don’t think your cartoon was helpful - I think it only solidifies tensions between law enforcement and the public. Bottom line, to borrow from Aaron Goldstein of the Canadian Free Press, you are judging Sgt Crowley by the color of his uniform, not the content of his character. Please think about it. Sincerely, Scott Marshall

Okay, I will. First, let’s talk about the pig representation. Please note that word does not appear in the cartoon. I believe, traditionally, it has been used as an epithet for police who overstep their authority. As the broad majority of police in this country are dedicated public servants who are careful to execute their duties within their lawful authority, and are putting their lives on the line to keep law and order in our communities — this certainly cannot apply to most police.

Officer Crowley, a respected and professional policeman,  was doing his job when he responded to the call, and when he questioned Professor Gates. In my estimation, he made a bad call when he refused to accept Professor Gates’ identification. It could be argued that Professor Gates should not have become irate, should not have played the race card, should have been calm, cooperative and respectful with armed police detaining him in his own home, even though he was suffering from jet lag. Such a thing would be difficult for me. Officer Crowley chose to arrest Professor Gates for “disorderly conduct.” Disorderly conduct? This seems to me to be an egreggious error in judgement — but, still, police are entitled to errors, like all of us. Gates is marched off to the station, held for 4 hours and then released. By dropping the charges of disorderly conduct, the police admitted that the charges (and therefore the arrest) were a mistake. An apology on Officer Crowley’s part, and an apology by the Cambridge Police would have largely diffused the matter at this point.

But no — they refused to give in. They had to “stand behind” Officer Crowley. At this point I believe they exceeded their authority and opened themselves to ridicule by those of us in the media whose job it is to point out hypocrisy and — stupidity. Hence, my cartoon.

Political cartoonists are here, among other reasons, because public servants (politicians, police, military, judges, etc, etc.) need to be reminded periodically that their authority is not inherent or divine — it derives from “we the people.” Authority has a tendency to grow out of proportion — it must be questioned, and questioned often for a society to remain free.

Hopefully, when Gates and Crowley get together with the President for a beer, they will all emerge as friends and this incident will be over.

What bothered me the most, however, is an ongoing problem. Where was the public outrage? Even my normally acerbic and radical friends in the editorial cartoonist community offered what I thought was an insipid (although very well-drawn in most cases) response. Meanwhile, the President accurately described the Cambridge Police actions as “stupid,” and was taken to task for being outspoken.

So I decided to complain a little and do a cartoon with some balls.

To all my friends and relatives who are police, sherrifs and deputies — keep doing your job — I appreciate it immensely. But if you exceed your authority, please understand, that as part of a free media and national discourse, I have to do my job too.

A few photos from the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists convention in Seattle — today! Top image, Mike Peters gestures hypnotically toward Gary Groth, who seems immune. Middle image, Jeff Parker and Jesse Springer question the proficiency of the photographer. Lower image, David Horsey is inexplicably struck by some sort of cosmic ray while speaking.

The work of my father, Basil Wolverton, will be exhibited at the Barbara Gladstone Gallery, 515 W. 24th St. in New York City. The exhibition of more than 150 pieces opens Friday night, June 19th and runs through August 14th. This is perhaps only the second time the work of a comic artist has been exhibited at a major fine art gallery — and represents a significant move toward the general recognition of classic comic art as fine art. But there is more than comic art in the exhibition. Most of Wolverton’s apocalyptic illustrations will be part of the show — as well as scores of other mind-bending Wolverton pieces from the rich collection of Glenn Bray. The show is curated by legendary artist Cameron Jamie. If you are in New York — stop in and get an eyeful. Heck — it’s even worth a trip there!

Finally, in this fourth and final installment on the vital issue of leadership, we visit religious leadership — the most bizarre of the four kinds I have identified. Having worked in the business of religion for decades, I can say that religious leadership is potentially more toxic and exploitive than any other form of leadership — generally because religious leaders claim to be vested with some form of supernatural power, authority or endorsement. I contrast this against free, informed personal faith (and the older I get the greater disconnect I see between personal faith in the deity and organized religion). But hey — at least organized religion is entertaining!

This concludes our informative series on leadership. Go forth now and be skeptical of all leaders, especially those who seem to have no checks and balances, and who seem to be extracting from their constituency more than they are serving!

See the other two forms of leadership below — coercion and employment. But the most dangerous form is political leadership. The most effective political leaders are persuasive coalition builders with messiah complexes.  They need loyal followers who will kill and die for them. Even after a million and an half years of human evolution, amazingly it still seems that there are billions of people who will give up their individuality to serve a political cause. Gosh, I’m sounding like an anarchist . . .

Continuing this resurrection of a series from my archives, In part 1 we examined the most basic form of leadership — coercion — someone coerces someone else who has a need to be coerced. The most common form of leadership, however, is the employer-employee relationship. Here the employer needs employees while the worker needs revenue — again, a specialized reciprocal relationship.

While browsing through my archives the other day, looking for something else, I ran across this toon I did 11 years ago. “Hey,” I thought. “This is as provocative and true as it ever was. It needs to be resurrected. I’ll post this on my blog and share it with the two or three people who come there regularly for sage insights.” In an era where everyone is enslaved by these artificial constructs we call organizations, governments, schools, churches, businesses, corporations and clubs — we need to remind ourselves that they exist to serve individuals, not the other way around. They are there simply to help people pool their efforts toward a given objective. Whenever an organization starts accreting its own power (or whenever a few are using the organization as a tool to control the many), it’s time to take it back, reform it, reinvent it or dispose of it. – Monte Wolverton