Remembering Paul Weyrich

Pioneering conservative activist Paul Weyrich died on December 18 at the age of 66. Though Weyrich was commonly regarded as a behind-the-scenes Beltway operator, he achieved one of his most enduring goals in the backwaters of the South.

In 1971, before the Roe v. Wade decision riveted America, the Supreme Court ruled in Green v. Connally to revoke the tax-exempt status of racially discriminatory private schools in 1971. At about the same time, the Internal Revenue Service moved to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University, which forbade interracial dating (blacks were denied entry until 1971.) The decisions infuriated a popular evangelical pastor from Lynchburg, Virginia named Jerry Falwell. "In some states it's easier to open a massage parlor than to open a Christian school," Falwell complained.

Seeking to capitalize on mounting evangelical discontent, Weyrich took a series of trips down South to meet with Falwell and other evangelical leaders. Weyrich hoped to produce a well-funded evangelical lobbying outfit that could lend grassroots muscle to the top-heavy Republican Party and effectively mobilize the vanquished forces of massive resistance into a new political bloc. In discussions with Falwell, Weyrich cited various social ills that necessitated evangelical involvement in politics, particularly abortion, school prayer and the rise of feminism. His pleas initially fell on deaf ears.

"I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed," Weyrich recalled in an interview in the early 1990s. "What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter's intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation."

In 1979, at Weyrich's behest, Falwell founded a group that he called the Moral Majority. Along with a vanguard of evangelical icons including D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson and Tim LaHaye, Falwell's organization hoisted the banner of the "pro-family" movement, declaring war on abortion and homosexuality. Thanks to the persistence and vision of Weyrich, a pre-Vatican II Catholic, the heavily Protestant religious right was born. Even the phrase, "moral majority," was a Weyrich creation.

While working in Colorado, Weyrich met beer baron Joseph Coors, a funder of the far-right John Birch Society and friend of California Gov. Ronald Reagan. Inspired by Weyrich's vision of a vast infrastructure of conservative instituions that would replace the liberal establishment and guide the right out of the wilderness, Coors ponied up $250,000 in 1973 to found the Heritage Foundation -- the crown jewel of Weyrich's planned counter-establishment.

The Washington think tank, which Weyrich chaired, became Reagan's unofficial idea factory as soon as he entered the White House in 1980. (Coors guided the president's personnel decisions as a member of his "kitchen cabinet.") During the George W. Bush era, Heritage has inspired White House policy on issues ranging from abstinence education to missile defense, while grooming a generation of conservative cadres for the future through its intern program.

A pre-Vatican II Catholic traditionalist, Weyrich was most passionate about social issues. He railed against abortion before the GOP was officially against it, and teamed up with anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly to torpedo the Equal Rights Amendment in 1977, warning darkly that its passage would force good Christian girls to use unisex bathrooms. Last year, Weyrich howled that "the Feminazi crowd" planned to reintroduce ERA.

In 2001, Weyrich circulated a commentary accusing Jews of murdering Jesus. When a conservative writer named Evan Gahr attacked Weyrich as a "demented anti-Semite," he learned how powerful the conservative founding father truly was. In short order, neoconservative activist David Horowitz barred Gahr from writing for his FrontPageMag and forced him to apologize to Weyrich.

Obsessed with ideological purity, Weyrich homed his most vitriolic attacks on the Republican congressional leadership. David Grann's classic profile of Weyrich as a "Robespierre of the Right," published in 1997 in the New Republic, is probably the best window into Weyrich's often destructive efforts to force the GOP to the hard right. "The problem with Gingrich," Weyrich said of the House majority leader at the time, "is that he does not have any immutable principles that he would die for." (Weyrich sued The New Republic for libel after it published Grann's article, a suit that was dismissed.)

In 1996, Weyrich was diagnosed with a debilitating spinal injury. Five years later, the injury consigned him to a wheelchair. He spent the last years of his life in constant pain, and took heavy doses of painkillers. In 2004, after a bad fall, Weyrich's legs were amputated. But he soldiered on, addressing conservative conferences and pumping out a steady flow of commentaries urging the Republicans to stay tethered to their right-wing base.

In September 2006, foreshadowing Rep. Michelle Bachmann's notorious remarks about her congressional colleagues two years later, Weyrich called for an FBI investigation of reporters who harbor subversive attitudes and urged the resurrection of the House Un-American Affairs Committee.

By the time Weyrich died, the conservative movement he created had grown so vast his imprimatur on its agenda was no longer apparent. But his impact is undeniable. Thanks to his efforts and those of the thousands of cadres he recruited and cultivated, the Republican Party is more ideologically extreme, more disciplined -- and more politically marginalized -- than at any time since the Goldwater Era. And that might be just where Weyrich wanted it. In his heart he knew he was right.

Comments

[GrainOSand]

Now or Never

Prologue
This comment was inspired by the excellence in journalism practiced at PBS. PBS is the pinnacle of broadcast journalism. No other outlet is in the area of the mountain of quality that PBS stands atop as the best. The suggestion to the other outlets is to get busy; to get serious, and to get off your high horse and start delivering content that informs rather than misleads, and that stimulates thought, rather than hypnotizes, fosters, and solidifies public confusion and stupidity. When the reporting journalist becomes more important than the story, I must change the channel. I must turn the page. When gimmickry and self-promoting verbiage is blended with the truth, I question why, for the truth needs no embellishment.

PBS aired an expose on the life and times of Lee Atwater. As I watched, the Reagan years and the Bush 41 years came rushing back to memory.

This will be a multiple part comment. I ask that it be posted in full, or not at all. I will take care not to be offensive, though I find that to be a subjective term. I do not mean to hijack this thread, but I find I am motivated to attempt to present the following thoughts. I do not presume genius, intelligence, or worthiness, but as I have written before, these times are so compelling I find myself motivated to try to say something that may benefit in a world seemingly bent on destruction through delusion.

[GrainOSand]

IX
One person’s opinions do not register or amount to very much, unless you somehow are made to be a voice that matters. Many voices have been made to matter through agents and Madison Avenue packaging. Many are contributing to the swerve and the glide of the public discourse and mindset. I look at America’s problem. I start with the smallest aspect of America and I ask -- What is the state and quality of that entity? The rest is an assessment in kind all the way to the largest aspect of America -- which is the collective. The tiniest part of America is an individual life, not any one in specific but every one in general. Bruno is doing well and Monica is catching hell. Mash the Bruno’s and Monica’s together. Draw the lines that connect them and that disconnect them. Determine what doing well means. Is it possible upon defining doing well, for all to do well, becomes the next inquiry. Is there a baseline and a high and low watermark? In a pluralistic society what is the overriding principle of governance that allows the society to flourish and prosper with longevity? Thus far, the realization is that it must be a society of individuals who are made to understand the significance of every moment out of the birth canal such that they maximize whom they are by how they live -- from Day One!

[GrainOSand]

VIII
Vote for us because it is a world of bad people and we will protect you they infer. Vote for me because I will use the government to control your neighbor who I am going to make sure you want controlled by tagging the person with a wedge label -- if they disagree with me.

They GOP neglect to inform “the people” that they themselves are the bad intentioned people from whom we need protection. We will let you keep your guns and your money they intone, all the while, we will send you to war, unjust, unnecessary, unending, and unsustainable, and insure you do not have any money to tax, as we reward our friends to maintain the historical pyramid scheme. Family values and right to life, but you are on your own, do not make any mistakes for there is no safety net, and if you cannot make it, the unsaid implication is, die fool, die! This is the mentality of a predator, very much akin to the attitude of a ghetto drug dealer (who some would suggest are government agents). They want to hook you with a toothy grin, and once you are hooked, you are screwed...forever dependent upon the supplier of your downfall -- for charity, for mercy, for a chicken in your pot -- The ultimate socialism. Keep churning them out and we will keep them running on that small piece of real estate called nowhere.

[GrainOSand]

V
This year fear did not dominate. This year hope came out on top. We are forever changed by the life we live. This is true for nations as well. This nation has lived the life of a nation that has done great things (lifted people up and strengthened life) -- and horrific things (“slammed that po’ child to the ground”). We as a people are evolving. This year we sought to straighten our backs up, and as Martin said, “A man can’t ride your back unless it is bent!” Martin was one bad brother delivering a message for the ages, yet many continue to walk stooped over (mentally, spiritually, morally, ethically, politically, and professionally). Despite the accessibility of this recent teacher and advocate of the correct approach, many are laboring under the weight of delusion and denial. This year we not only sought to straighten our backs up but to shrug off that heavy weight, of a divisive, dismissive, harmful, and hateful past. America was never so great by a collective choice it made, as it was when it went to the polls and elected Barack Obama. Our voice rang around the world and hearts of ice were melted locally and internationally. We backed up the pre-election rhetoric with the courage to believe that we could be different as well as great -- in the voting booth.

[GrainOSand]

IV
The post-election spin by some in the American media and by GOP apologists and operatives is a case of lessons unheeded. Instead of looking in the mirror for truth, some in the GOP seek to create a new mirror, one that gives them the image they desire to see -- which is a distortion of the truth. The GOP continues to play with funhouse mirrors while the nation slips further down the back slope of hype.

Right of center, Obama won because of the economy, politics is a historically rough-and-tumble blood sport justifying McCain’s approach (and Hillary’s), media slant defeated McCain, etc, etc... All these and more are presented as distortions of the outcome of the election, the collective American mood, and why the GOP did not prevail and how they might next time. Syrup on excrement is sweet excrement. In 2008, the Republican Party went back to the well of “divide and conquer” with their hole-riddled bucket of calculation once too often. They did not allow for the evolution of the human heart and spirit, and less tolerance for self-defeat thru fatalistic voting. When they brought the bucket up, it was not overflowing with electoral confirmation as in times past. Sure, some responded to their traditional message of hate, fear, and divide or spin, stereotypes, and lies. Evil will always exist to stand in contrast to that which is good. This year, evil was not in the majority.

[GrainOSand]

III
For anyone who may come to read this and not be aware of the Lee Atwater story I suggest you go here for context: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/atwater/

I knew of the man before seeing the documentary. It was only after seeing it, and then contemplating all that happened over the course of the campaign season just ended, that I got the inspiration to serve up these thoughts. Mr. Atwater reached the lofty heights of political fame, power, and influence. He was Karl Rove’s predecessor and mentor as architect of modern, “say-anyth­ing/do-any­thing-to-w­in” politics. He is the man that brought us Willie Horton as cheap political tactic as opposed to serious issue requiring redress, the person who through various dishonorable methods distorted the honorable public image of Michael Dukakis and to a lesser extent Bob Dole via a gullible, distracted, and willingly consuming public. Lee Atwater is the poster child for all that is wrong with ambition over principled living. He is also the poster child for what happens when the media glare fades and you are left to contemplate a vacuum of crushing regret that happens to be your life. His story is a tragedy, not a triumphant tale of principle and high virtue, no matter who he rubbed elbows with, how much money he made, and how much time he spent in the spotlight.

[bobh]

I would suggest the epitaph: "He Did His Worst"

The truth is that the US would be better off had certain people not been citizens.

[BaileyWo]

The tragic problem with authoritarians is that they leave so many lost followers when they die. Be careful on those highways this Christmas!

[leeman79]

A lifetime wasted on not getting it.

[BaileyWo]

I heard that was the Pope's basic problem as well.

[priscianusjr]

Paul Weyrich's politics were truly appalling. Few Americans were more closely linked to the old fascist networks in Europe and Latin America.
However, when someone dies we try to say something good about them, and fortunately I have something good to say. Paul Weyrich was a passionate supporter of urban light rail, and I commend him for that.

[killmenow]

No matter how much analysis is provided, it remains a mystery to me how such people develop their outlooks and personalities. It's a total mystery.

[Kassandra]

they believe in some Utopia...which means nowhere

[Telemachus]

With folks like Weyrich, you usually find that they were repeatedly beaten or otherwise abused during childhood. How else to explain that constantly erupting volcano of hatred?

[LeftCoastLarry]

The extreme evangelical movement was so successful because they were able to fly under the radar and work their evil, not to mention, dishonest, agenda without drawing much attention. The MainStream Media certainly wasn't any help. If anything, they were complicit. The only difference between extreme Muslim Fundamentalists and extreme Christian Fundamentalists is they haven't flown any airplanes into buildings yet. Even though, they are a bigger threat to our democracy than the Taliban. Forget the pretext of supporting Democracy. They will settle for nothing less than destroying what's left of our Democracy and replacing it with a Theocracy. Much like what they have in Iran, only Christian.
As a practicing Christian, it deeply troubles me that there are so many co-called Christians who think they can't be both Christian and American.

[3dtrix]

Thanks Larry - what you say is true.

[Telemachus]

Right on. Weyrich's brand of utopia is well described in "The Handmaid's Tale."

[SILVANUS]

True, Larry.

[rich misty]

Excellent post

[FlamingLibrul]

Excellent comment Larry. What really gets me is how often religious fundamentalists enjoy saying that progressiv­es/liberal­s are the ones who take away freedoms. I suppose anything people say against conservative demagoguery is potentially infringing on their freedom to practice rampant intolerance.

[Allablaze]

Paul Weyrich. Plain to see why conservatism appeals to only a minority of Americans.

[cobraxus]

The Heritage Foundation is the new John Birch Society.Most of their money goes to paying for speeches by Dick Cheney and Ann Coulter.I caught a glimpse of this once on C-SPAN 2.If it weren't for how scary these people are it would've been funny.they're waging war against an enemy who has moved on since the 1970s.you'd think Nixon was still in office and Abbie Hoffman protesting on The White House lawn.

[Kassandra]

Well maybe, but if you ever read "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" you would see that the Birchers were very democratic thinkers. It also exposes alot of the shenanigans of the elite and we are seeing the consequences of their rise to total power once again.

Hard to find it nowadays...funny that.

[FlamingLibrul]

Kassandra, your assertion that the Birchers were ever Democratic thinkers is as laughable as your talk of "The elite, and their rise to total power."

Here's what a quick google search will tell anyone:

The John Birch Society opposed aspects of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s because of its concerns that the movement had communists in important positions. The Society opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, saying it was in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and overstepped the rights of individual states to enact laws regarding civil rights.

They also opposed the Occupational Safety and Health Admin, (OSHA). (imagine that, standards of safety for workers!) How undemocratic! The list goes on and on, but just those two examples speak volumes. Why there are so many repugs who are against progress and reason just baffles me.

[HmblDog]

I pray that he has met up with Jesus in Heaven by now.
Maybe they can compare notes. Hopefully, he won't find Jesus lacking and banish our saviour to the pits of hell.

[novowel4me]

Guys like Weyrich should spend some time praying that the God they meet and the judgment she hands out is one that forgives hypocrisy.

[Lionsden]

It seems that the Founding Fathers worried more about denying the Feds control over religion than about religion being discriminatory, because the constitution is specific about protecting religion.

I think that tax exempt status shouldn't ever be denied to any religious organization because of the special case religion represents in our form of government.

That said, what would have evolved here?

Had the leftists let it alone, then the whole world would have seen what hypocrites Christians (allegedly) were. That would have either driven more people AWAY from Christ or led to a mini-reformation (racially) in Christian churches. Problem solved.

Nothing stopped the leftist christian churches from welcoming blacks (or whoever) into their pews or school rooms. Nothing stopped black Christians from opening their own church-based schools.

In my opinion, there wasn't a need for the state to act against these churches.

I feel that religious freedom was denied by removing the tax exempt status, and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association was usurped by the state.

Leftists remind us that the Constitution protects unpopular ideas, but they often seem less then willing to apply that thinking when those protections fall on Christians.

[cuchulain]

How on earth would taking away tax exempt status deny religious freedom? It's not possible. Beyond that, these megachurches in question are big business. Their leaders are filthy rich, pay little to no taxes, and spew hatred from the podium. They also push a political POV. The state should not support any religious institution. It does just that when it gives them tax exemptions and allows they to build their businesses, get richer and richer and more and more powerful, and push political ideologies.

If these churches would stick to religion and to a non-profit model, staying away from any organized political activities, I would be for tax policies that fit non-profit status. But they do not do that. They should be taxed accordingly.

[3dtrix]

No church with assets should be tax exempt. Not one. Real estate is an asset - or it once was, and will likely be again. Vestments are an asset - they can be sold for money. Trusts are an asset.

Can anyone give me a logical explanation why a secular society - which ours is - would subsidize the various cults of invisible super-beings?

Believe what you will - give all you want - just don't ask the rest of us to help you pay for it.

[Telemachus]

My imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend.

[Lilly-G]

I couldn't agree more. Taxing wealthy churches would substantially lower the national debt. Now that churches seem so involved in politics now it would be most appropriate.

[Lionsden]

3dtrix:

You are joking, right? Yes, you have to be because it is likely that you are a smart person.

The government could so tax the churches that it would tax them right out of existence.
The founding fathers knew this. So did the communists.

[UnknownSoldier]

try not to speak ill of the dead

[Rockwell]

Another republican Pharisee dies. Good riddance.

[Bugs222]

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[rxbus]

Is there a ceremonial micturatorium? I'd be happy to participate!