Primary Elections vs. General Elections

The way we choose candidates and elect them is really screwed up.

Just because someone does well in the primary/caucus stage doesn’t mean they would be the best candidate to take on the other party in November.

We can see this perfectly in this election cycle. Just about every poll shows that Sanders would be a better candidate in November against any Republican, and Trump would be the worst possible choice for the Republicans.

Clinton is currently doing better with the delegate selection, but many people seem confused at the way the system works and are only paying attention to the number of states won by the candidates. This primary/caucus season is not like the electoral college where the winner of a state takes it all. If you win by a small enough percentage, you could have two candidates coming out of the election with the same amount of delegates.

But there’s something else to consider. Look at this map showing who has won the various states on the Democratic side so far:

demo map

When I first started thinking about this, I said, “Who cares that Clinton won Alabama or that Sanders won Oklahoma? Those states are never going to vote for the Democrat in November.”

In November, we Democrats are assured some states but need to win some of the “purple” states that can go either way. On this map (of the states that have already voted), those would be Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Nevada. While all four of those have gone Democratic in the last two elections, they were close and easily could have shifted Republican.

Sanders won two of those states and Clinton won two. So does that tell us anything?

No, not really, and that’s the problem. While I was hoping to show that Sanders has a better chance in November in the purple states, instead I find an inconclusive result.

If we didn’t have that stupid electoral college, things would be much different…

The way we choose candidates and elect them is really screwed up.

 

 

 

 

Voting for Bernie is a Win/Win

Look, I know Bernie doesn’t have a great chance of winning his party’s nomination.

So you can give up and not vote for him and then we get Hillary Clinton — or you can vote for him and he loses, and then we get Hillary Clinton (who even Bernie says is “100% better than any Republican”).bernie

And maybe, just maybe, he might win.

So what’s the harm in voting for him if you really support him? As long as you vow to support whichever Democrat gets the nomination, what exactly is the downside?

On the positive side, if Bernie goes into the convention with a lot of delegates, that gives him some power to make demands concerning the platform, nominees, and the direction of the general election campaign. And, more importantly, it shows everyone that it can be done — that it is possible to run for President without having to get money from the insiders, lobbyists, and PACs. It will set a great precedent for future elections.

On the negative side ….  Sorry, I can’t think of anything. What, Hillary will be weaker in November? Not if Bernie encourages all his supporters to work for her election and not stay home. Getting people who normally don’t vote going to the polls is something Bernie has shown to be much better at than Hillary.

A stronger Bernie helps all Democrats. A grass roots movement that encourages voting will benefit us all.

Complaining that he should drop out now or just give up is the best way to alienate all those voters and keep them away from the polls in November. I’m sure it’s what President Trump will want.

Look, the primaries are not like the electoral college. Every vote counts, because they aren’t “winner take all” races. If Bernie gets 40% of the vote, he gets 40% of the delegates. It’s a loss but not a complete loss.

And don’t be discouraged by his poor showing in the south on Super Tuesday. So what if Hillary does better than him in Alabama? There’s no way Alabama is voting Democratic in November.

So keep voting your heart. There are no downsides.

 

Who cares what Hillary thought when she was 15?

Sanders supporters: It is possible to make comparisons between your candidate and Hillary without making bad ones. There are issues that these two hold in opposition to each other. Talk about those.hillary

But the meme going around that compares Sanders’ work for civil rights in the 60s to Hillary’s family’s support for Barry Goldwater is ridiculous.

Hillary was 15 years old during that campaign. She couldn’t even vote for another seven years. She was following her parents’ lead, which is what most kids do at that age.

To criticize her for positions her parents held 52 years ago is a ridiculous comparison. You just make yourself seem petty when you post that meme comparing what a college kid did as opposed to a freshman in high school at the exact same time.

Hillary wised up in college, and very publicly resigned from the Young Republicans group specifically due to their position on civil rights. Got that? When she got as old as Bernie was when he was fighting for civil rights, she too took the same position.

I am a Bernie supporter, and the fact that he fought for civil rights and was even arrested for protesting only makes me like him more. Comparing his actions to what a young girl did at the same time doesn’t change that — all it does is make me think less of you.

 

 

Political Scientists: “We don’t know nothin'”

Sanders and Trump have taken New Hampshire, which just goes to prove that Political Science is to science what military music is to music. bernturmp

I graduated cum laude with my Political Science degree. I worked on many campaigns (including being a campaign manager for a state representative), was a lobbyist for a while, taught political science, and continue to follow politics while blogging about it. And, like my fellow political scientists, I didn’t see this coming.

I’m not talking about predicting this a month ago. I mean a year ago — when Trump and Sanders started talking about running. Like all the other pundits that cover politics, I thought that these anti-establishment fringe candidates would fade by the time the primary season started.

Here’s what I wrote about Bernie last April:

He doesn’t have a chance of winning. He will only raise a fraction of what Hillary already has in her war chest. He doesn’t look like a President and that New York Jewish agitator vibe won’t help him in the slightest with most of the country. 

And that’s what most other commentators thought, as well. We then said similar things about Trump.

But the world has changed since we studied Poli Sci in college, and in two major ways.

First, Americans are sick and tired of politicians. We’re ready for an outsider — someone who doesn’t base his views on opinion polls and is not afraid to say what we’re thinking but have been told we’re not supposed to. For Democrats, that means talking about income equality, socialism, and social justice. For Republicans, that means embracing racism, sexism, xenophobia, and a mistrust of anyone not rich, white, and male (apparently).

But more importantly, the second factor is the internet, which has changed the way the game is played. The internet is a model of democracy — anyone can start a blog (like me!), spout an opinion, and share an article. Information no longer comes down to us from the gatekeepers — it moves up, often through “viral” posts. The mainstream media, instead of leading public opinion, is often scrambling to catch up.

This is not necessarily a good thing. So much misinformation gets passed around as fact. “I read it on the internet so it must be true” posts skew reality, and people end up believing the most amazing things. And then when the media whose job it is to report  the truth tells you that what you read on the internet is false, people instead disbelieve the media and embrace the comforting lie.

And that has helped Trump.

But the internet has also helped Bernie. He has been able to bypass the normal channels politicians usually follow, get his message out cheaply and easily, and raise lots of money without having to plead with the big donors and corporations that usually finance campaigns.

So this is a fascinating year.

And if anyone tells you that they know what’s going to happen, just remember: Nobody knows nothin’.

Hillary versus Bernie: Who can accomplish more?

There is a difference between being a loyal Democrat and being a mindless follower.

While there are Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters that are being completely unreasonable and are spending too much time shooting friendly fire at each other, there are also those who are saying that we should not question either of them because, after all, we want one of them to win in November.hilbern

I have criticized both of them before — just like I have criticized Obama when he says and does things I disagree with. I don’t think anyone should be above reproach. I will still happily vote for whichever one gets the nomination over any of the Republican candidates.

We can debate which one would do better in November without attacking the other.

One of the biggest criticisms of Bernie that I am hearing from Hillary supporters is that she knows how to get things done and he won’t be able to accomplish anything — therefore, we shouldn’t aim too high.

I hate that for two reasons:  (1) This is politics. We should aim high. We should dream of great things we can accomplish;  (2) The idea that the GOP will work with Hillary is ridiculous.

Look, they hate her. They’ve hated her from the day she appeared on the scene. They’re not going to work with her. They never have in the past.

Not that they’re going to treat Bernie any better. Any Democrat is going to have to deal with a Republican congress that says “no” to everything.

People are forgetting what the GOP has become. They haven’t let Obama do anything. Remember Bill Clinton? They hated him, too — they freakin’ impeached him. The only way Bill accomplished anything was that he had more Democrats in Congress than we have now.

And that is the bottom line — voting for either Hillary or Bernie won’t make much difference unless we also elect more Democrats to Congress. We have the numbers on our side. All we have to do is show up and vote.

Iowa Caucus Predictions

Both Trump and Hillary will win the caucus for their parties, but not at the percentage that the polls show. Here’s why:

Caucuses are not like primaries. For a primary, you show up, vote, and leave. You could do it in a few minutes if the lines aren’t long. For a caucus, you have to show up on time in your local area and be there most of the night. Speeches are given and debates are held and if a candidate doesn’t get enough votes, then a second vote is held and so on. It’s democracy on a most basic scale.

While Iowans take it very seriously (since no one cares about Iowa except ovote_ballot_boxnce every four years), you still have the very real situation where only the most political and enthusiastic supporters even attend. And even then, it varies from place to place. A rural site where 20 farmers show up can have as much of an impact as an inner-city site where 100 students show up.

And all this hurts both Trump and Hillary.

Trump gets people to come to a rally to see the celebrity and listen to him spout his hatred. But many of his supporters are people who never vote — they’re not your normal political folks. I’m willing to bet that a large chunk of them will find something else more interesting to do that night.

On the Democratic side, you have the very enthusiastic Bernie supporters who will come out to the caucus meetings. They will give Bernie a much better showing than expected but it still won’t be enough to counter Hillary (who, despite a media attempt to turn this into a horse race, is pretty comfortably ahead of Bernie in all state polls except for New Hampshire, located next door to his home state of Vermont).

I’m not saying Hillary will run away with Iowa — it will be close, and the closer it is, the better for Bernie. He may even win the caucus, which could give him the momentum he needs to even the polling in other states. That’s how Obama did it when he was behind Hillary by about the same amount. Obama had the advantage though of being a great speaker and looking like a President, something you should never discount.

In the long run, Iowa is important only to show how good each candidate’s ground plan is. It in no way predicts the ultimate winner.  Just ask Presidents Mike Huckabee, Tom Harkin, and Richard Gephardt.

But then again, who really knows? Trying to predict the caucus is next to impossible. Anything can happen. My prediction is just a guess.  After all, in 2008, everyone was predicting Hillary to win and she came in third, behind Obama and Edwards.

 

Thoughts on last night’s Democratic debate

It’s clear that the Democratic establishment is for Hillary, since they keep scheduling the debates on weekends when the audience will be the smallest. When you’re ahead in the polls, you want less debates — that’s just normal. Why risk anything?

Overall, the debates always help the challengers and hurt the front-runner. I think Bernie and O’Malley did well and probably improved their chances.  (Ha ha! I implied that O’Malley had a chance!)GTY_Martin_omalley_Hillary_Clinton_Bernie_Sanders1_ml_151012_16x9_992

Bernie was a bit too much like a politician in that he had his talking points he wanted to get out and he was going to work them in whenever possible. He also demanded to respond to comments made by Hillary a few times but instead of responding, he made new points. Not impressive there.

Hillary was quite good in some places and really dishonest in others, such as implying that Bernie was against Obamacare when he was one of the Senators writing the damn thing. “He wants to get rid of Obamacare!” she said. No, Hillary, Bernie wants to replace Obamacare with Medicare for All, a much better plan.

Hillary also argued that we need to be brave and fight for what is right while at the same time saying that we can’t fight for Medicare for All because it just wouldn’t pass. “Vote for me and together, we can accomplish mediocre things!”

So much politics is about personality. If Sanders were 20 years younger and looked and talked like George Clooney, he’d be way ahead in the polls.

When asked how they would bring the country together, Hillary’s answer wasn’t too convincing. “The Republicans have hated me since the 90s but they’ll work with me once I am President. Honest.”

“Democrats: We actually believe in science!” – Martin O’Malley.  Now there’s a good campaign slogan.

This is a major difference between the Democratic debate and the Republican debate: None of the Democrats think a good foreign policy is “bomb them all until they glow.”

Overall, it was a much more boring debate than the Republican ones, partially because these guys basically like each other and agree 90% of the time. No matter who gets the nominations, the others will support him or her. Plus they are sane.

 

Let’s send Bill O’Reilly to Ireland!

Fox News loudmouth Bill O’Reilly recently said that if Bernie Sanders gets elected, he’s moving to Ireland.angry-oreilly

I think Bernie should start using that as a campaign slogan.

This is not new, of course. People threaten to leave when they don’t get their way all the time. Remember when Rush Limbaugh said he’d move to Costa Rica if Obamacare was passed? We’re still waiting, Rush. Or — now this may be difficult to accept — were you lying?

Here’s the funniest part about the whole thing: Costa Rica, like every other industrialized nation on the planet, has for years had a national health care plan much more expansive than Obamacare.

And Ireland? Where they have universal health care, gay marriage, free education through college, high taxes on the rich, no death penalty, and many other liberal social programs?  Yeah, that’s a good idea, Bill. Perfect place for you.

Mind you, liberals also say things like “If Trump is elected, I am moving to Canada!” but the difference is this: Liberals want to move to someplace more like the kind of country they want.

Perhaps the conservatives should instead say they are moving to someplace like, I dunno, Saudi Arabia. There, the taxes are low, women have very few rights, religious law rules the land, gay marriage is illegal (as is homosexuality), and the death penalty is handed out frequently and usually through beheading in public. Ah! A conservative’s paradise!

Interview with American Atheists President David Silverman

David “Mr. Atheist Pants” Silverman’s new book is provocatively called FIGHTING GOD: AN ATHEIST MANIFESTO FOR A RELIGIOUS WORLD

He is the President of American Atheists, and under his leadership, the organization has become quite prominent, with its “You Know It’s a Scam” billboards, the well-attended Reason Rally, and his interview with Bill O’Reilly that produced the “WTF” meme with his face.atheists-david-silverman

David and I have been friends for years, and we’ve been discussing this book and how it changed and progressed over those years, so it’s great to finally see it come to fruition.

It will be released next week, but he provided me with an advance copy, which I enjoyed tremendously.  We sat down in front of an attentive audience at a convention last weekend where I interviewed him.

MICHAEL A. VENTRELLA: Tell us about FIGHTING GOD.

DAVID SILVERMAN: This book has three years in the making. The book was written because after I did the Reason Rally in 2012, a small publisher came to me and said he wanted me to write a book. I said yes, and it was called ‘I, Atheist’ and it was 50% atheism and 50% autobiographical. Right at the very last moment, my agreement with him fell through. It was a completed book, but the publisher and I parted ways amicably.

So I had a book and no publisher. I sent an email to Barack Obama’s agent. And she knew who I was, and signed me right away. Then she sent out the initial treatment to her top line of people and one was a guy from MacMillan, who was a fan of mine! And he signed me right away.

So now I’ve got this great contract with a major publisher. And he says, “Oh, three things. We’re changing the cover, we’re changing the title, and we’re taking out every part about you.”

So now I’ve not half a book and six months to fill it.

And so — is Keith DeCandido here? (audience says no)

So, what I did was structure the “Atheist Art of War” after his book THE KLINGON ART OF WAR. I added a lot of data. I added a lot of research. So what used to be my opinion is now backed up with independent quantifiable data from multiple sources.

What I’ve got now is a manifesto that puts forth the idea that firebrand atheism is more effective on a macro level, more effective on a micro level, and, more importantly, it’s the nicer thing to do.fighting god

Recognizing that religion is a poison — recognizing that religion is a scam — and not saying something is a selfish act. It’s an act you’re doing to preserve yourself and not to help your fellow human. If your friend is being scammed, you would have a moral responsibility to at least mention it.

So in FIGHTING GOD, I put forward this proposal that “Live and let live” may not be the ethical choice at all.

VENTRELLA: You talk about not respecting other beliefs.  What do you mean by that?

SILVERMAN: There’s a difference between respecting a belief and respecting someone’s right to believe. If you’re talking about Constitutional rights, we as Americans all have the exact same rights. If you want to believe in a Man in the Sky, you have the right to do that.

I do not respect that.

You don’t need my respect. And I don’t need your respect to believe what I believe. What is wrong is when you go to somebody who says they believe in something you don’t respect and you lie. And you say, “Oh, I respect it.” You’re respecting a scam not worthy of respect. You are lying when you do that.

I submit that is morally wrong. That is a selfish act. That is something you are doing to make yourself feel better at the expense of somebody else.

VENTRELLA: But are we under an obligation to say something as opposed to just remaining silent?

SILVERMAN:  That’s up to you. In FIGHTING GOD, I don’t say that we should attack. We definitely should not say we respect things we don’t respect.

VENTRELLA: At the same time, you are proud to be “Mr. Atheist Pants”, and somewhat of a dick.

SILVERMAN: I am not a dick! (laughs)event_199950482

VENTRELLA: But you write that sometimes someone needs to be. You discuss the Overton Window — which is the first time I had ever heard that expression — Can you explain that to us?

SILVERMAN: The Overton Window is a business term that talks about the amount of stuff that is politically correct to say. In the 2002 election, when Mitt Romney was running for the first time, he was a Mormon and on the fringe. And then, a couple of elections later, he’s the mainstream candidate. That’s the Overton Window shifting, with Mormonism coming into the norm.

What I have been doing, and what firebrand atheism does, is shifting the window in the same way.

If you look back at when I first came into the Presidency of American Atheists, the first thing I did was put up a billboard at the New York tunnel that called religion a myth. This billboard was on the national news in nine different countries because no one had ever called religion a myth with such grandeur.

After I called it a myth, I called it a scam, I called it nonsense, I called it this, I called it that — and I moved the Overton Window and now, if I put that same billboard up, nobody would care. Calling religion a myth is now inside that window.

That’s what firebrand atheism does. Just like Mitt Romney put Mormonism into the mainstream, we’re trying to bring atheism into the mainstream and it’s succeeding. And I can quantify that with multiple data from independent sources!

VENTRELLA:  Tell us about some examples where you’ve been surprised where it’s been accepted when it wasn’t before…

SILVERMAN: When I first started in American Atheists, back in ’97, we had a convention in New Jersey. Holiday Billboard BattleWe had to look to find a hotel that would allow us to come. That hotel, that we found, would not put us up on the marquee outside. On the one inside, we were listed as “AA” (audience laughter) and if somebody called the hotel and asked if the American Atheists were there, the hotel staff would say no. That was twenty years ago.

This past year, we had our national convention in Memphis. The city of Memphis flew us out and took us on a grand tour of the city. They bought us food. Bought us booze. Showed us all the hotels. The one we stayed at was a Hilton. When we went in, they had “Welcome American Atheists” plastered on the wall.

So this is serious movement.

People get so frustrated when they look at today. They see the inequality that atheists obviously have. There are ten times as many atheists in this country as there are Jews, but we have no representation in Congress.

This is a still a lot better than it was just twenty years ago. We’re making tremendous progress. We’re not there yet but we will be there in our lifetime.

VENTRELLA: So when we see studies showing that younger people believe now, it’s major change. Most of our fights are with the old crowd. And I’m thinking of the Hobby Lobby case, which was such a step backwards. You’ve been fighting those battles. Let’s talk about the Ten Commandment monuments and what you’ve done in those regards.

SILVERMAN:  The Ten Commandment monuments are just a statement of religious privilege. It’s not about their right to do anything, it’s about them having superiority over everybody else. They put a Ten Commandments monument on the public lawn, and that’s illegal — you can’t. When we say “Take it off,” they say it’s an attack on their religious rights. When we go into a public place, there is only one choice: There must be equality.

Equality can be done in many ways: You can take the Ten Commandments off, and we have equality, or you can let other people put theirs in and we have equality.atheistmonumentcr

VENTRELLA: And that’s a winnable argument that has won in the Supreme Court.

SILVERMAN: What happened was there a place in Florida where they had a Ten Commandments monument on public land, alone. We went in there and sued, and we won, and we put up an atheist monument on public land. The outcry was that this was “an attack on Christianity.” They said we were attacking them and that they weren’t attacking us when they put theirs in!

VENTRELLA: One of the book’s themes is that every single battle you have fought has been in defense. You’ve never fought to keep someone else from practicing their religion.

SILVERMAN: Everything we do is defensive. Everything is about equality. Nothing is about privileging atheism over religion. Nothing is about pushing religion away from the churches or persons. Everything is about defending the separation of church and state, which is a synonym for “religious equality.” The more separate church and state is the more free we are.

VENTRELLA: There’s a section of your book about the “War on Christmas.” 

SILVERMAN: It’s starting! ‘Tis the season!

VENTRELLA: Happy War on Christmas, Everybody! (audience laughs) This is mostly an invention by Fox News, if I’m not mistaken. It never existed before they started bringing it up…

SILVERMAN: It’s all an invention by Fox News.

VENTRELLA: But it gets you lots of interviews and publicity…

SILVERMAN: And every year, I knowingly feed it. Yes, every year I attack Christians everywhere, reaching into their homes and weeding out their Christmas trees, grabbing their presents, and I do all of this by putting up a billboard or two. (audience laughs) And I say “Happy holidays!” Oh, how evil I am.

We’re putting up billboards this year. We have them going up in two major cities that I can’t announce yet. They’re going to be fun billboards that will speak to people.cityroom-billboard2-blog480

VENTRELLA: One of the things you criticize other atheists for is their refusal to call themselves that. They want to call themselves humanists or agnostics… Why do you think it’s important for atheists to come out of the closet?

SILVERMAN: We’ve got polls and we know that the entire political process is based on polls. And if you look at the religious markup of the polls, you see that atheists are about 3% of the population and Christians are about 70%. So they look at those polls, and they say, “Oh, look, it’s 70% Christian, 3% atheists. Those atheists don’t matter.”

What they don’t realize is that really, this country is closer to 30% atheist. It’s just that 90% of the atheists in this country don’t call themselves atheists. They call themselves agnostics, secular humanists, none, they call themselves Christians, Muslims, Jews. They call themselves anything but atheists.

Now, if you look at Christians — you look at Methodists, and Baptists, and Presbyterians and all the different denominations, they all call themselves Christian. So they unite, despite real differences, and we divide despite no differences at all. We just don’t like the words.

So the major push of my effort is not to convert believers. Why would we? If we looked at that that 70 to 30 chart and really crunched the numbers, we’d end up with about 55% Christian. Think about how that changes everything. We don’t have to convert anybody — we just have to do is get people to tell the truth about what they are.

If you don’t have an active belief in a god, you’re an atheist. If you don’t have an active belief in a god and you don’t like the word “atheist,” you’re an atheist.  This is simply a fact, it’s a matter of definition, it’s not a matter of self-identification.

The important point is that how you identify affects your neighbor. When 90% of the atheists in this country call themselves something totally different, like “secular” or something that nobody knows what it is, the politicians lose interest in us. We, as a force, diminish. We lose rights because people aren’t using the right word.36

VENTRELLA: We’ve used the metaphor of coming out of the closet to compare this with the gay rights movement to show how quickly that changed. When people started coming out and everyone said “Oh my neighbor is gay? I have no problem with that person.” Do you think that is the atheist goal, to say “Look, we’re just like you except we don’t believe”?

SILVERMAN: That’s it. We will win once we make this change. We don’t have to convert anybody or change anybody’s mind about God. All we have to do is take atheists who are already atheists and make them know that they’re atheists. They can call themselves atheists and be loud and proud about it, and when we can get a poll that shows that we’re at least  a quarter of the population, we will be able to single-handedly influence the way the political situation works.

VENTRELLA: Do you see that as the main theme or goal of this book?

SILVERMAN: Yeah.

VENTRELLA: So why’d you call it FIGHTING GOD?

SILVERMAN: I didn’t! (audience laughs) The publisher did. But I am fighting the concept of God by telling people that they don’t have to pretend they believe any more. This is the big fight. Our lowest hanging fruit is just to get atheists to call themselves atheists.

VENTRELLA: And that’s different from the other atheist books we’ve seen from Dawkins or even Penn Jillette. You’re trying to start a movement.

SILVERMAN: The movement exists. It was started by my predecessor, Madalyn Murray O’Hair. American Atheists was founded in 1963 by her. She led the fight to take prayer out of schools. That’s the organization I run now and I’m very proud to stand on her shoulders.

VENTRELLA: You and her are the only names anyone knows from the organization. Why do you think that is?

SILVERMAN: I think Madalyn and I had a lot in common! I take a lot from her and I dismiss a lot from her as well, because she’s a person from a different time. I think the reason we are both well known is because we are both firebrands. Maybe the interim Presidents weren’t as firebrandy as I am or she was.

I think what we have here is a specific situation where a firebrand atheist movement can beat the Republican party. I think we can fix this country. And I’m not shooting pie in the sky — I write about this in the book — this war is winnable. Everything we see from the religious right is weak. I think the base is seeing it. I think when we talk to Republicans, they see it — not the leaders, the followers.

VENTRELLA: You went to a conservative convention and got a surprising response.

SILVERMAN: Tremendous response! I went to CPAC, this huge, conservative Jesus thing for Jesus. It’s all about Jesus Jesus Jesus except it’s not. I went to CPAC to try and just drive a little wedge between Christianity and conservatism and what I found was a bunch of people on top who were all Jesus People For Jesus and a whole bunch of atheists underneath.

Not tens, not twenties — hundreds and hundreds. At CPAC! Ayn Randians, libertarians, fiscal conservatives — they are tired of the religious crap.

We got five pages of membership sign-ups — at CPAC! I went there with two one-gallon bags full of buttons that said “Conservative Atheist” and we gave them away free on the condition that you wear it. And we gave away every single button! They were all young. Everyone under thirty at CPAC was wearing a “Conservative Atheist” button. What does that do to the candidates when they see conservative atheists walking around CPAC? I’ll tell you what — Tony Perkins of the American Family Association got up on stage and acknowledged that atheists were there and part of the conservative movement. That’s an amazing thing, but I want to make it clear — I’m not all giddy that Tony Perkins likes us. (audience laughs)  I am however thrilled beyond measure that he felt the need to say that. He needed to say that because of the presence of so many atheists out and proud.

Look at us single-handedly affecting how the Republican party works. Only because we went in there and used the word “atheist” — the word that everybody understands. The word that shifts the Overton Window.

VENTRELLA: Do you have any optimism about the upcoming election?49

SILVERMAN: Yeah! (big smile) One of the things we’re doing at American Atheists right now is that we’re running the atheist voter campaign. It’s a grass-roots campaign that organizes people to go and see the candidate while wearing “atheist voter” t-shirts, and ask the candidates specific questions about atheists. The questions can be very broad. “I’m an atheist and I want to know if, in your cabinet, you’d have an atheist?” Things like that, just to bring out the bigotry, just to get them to address us. We’ve gotten statements now on atheism from Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorino, Mike Huckabee, and I think Santorum as well.  We’re going to be publishing them soon. This is going to be something we’re going to be able to show the atheists of this country what they’re saying about us but at the same time, it’s going to show the candidates that we exist and we have to be addressed.

It’s no coincidence in my mind that Trump is the number one person in the Republican party. And everybody knows his religion is bullshit. He says, “Yeah, I read the Bible. I can’t remember anything about it.” (audience laughs) Everybody knows his religion is bullshit. He’s the only non-religious candidate on the Republican ticket and he’s number one by double digits. Why? Republican atheists. There are so many Republican atheists who are sick and tired of the religious right.

I don’t think we’re going to see a religious right candidate. I think what we’re seeing now is the beginning of the end of the religious right’s hold on Republicanism. We’re going into CPAC again this year and we’re going to push that wedge open.

I don’t know if you all know this, but there was a time when Republicanism was not the same as Christianity. Back in the olden days of Barry Goldwater, who was a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state — those days can come back. And we’re pushing that very hard with Republicans.478ed32622ba56a18a307d64989a1d74

VENTRELLA: On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders has refused to say much about religion  …

SILVERMAN: I know! He calls himself a “non-religious Jew.” Sounds like a synonym for “atheist” to me! (audience laughs) I don’t know if you all watched the last Democratic debate, but the only person there who didn’t invoke God or prayer was Bernie Sanders. The other two snuck it in, and it was really artificial. “They have their right — I mean, their God-given right…” Bernie Sanders was the only person who didn’t do that. I think he’s an atheist. I hope he’s an atheist. And I hope he wins. If he comes out as an atheist, I will definitely vote for him, but I’m probably going to vote for him anyway. American Atheists is a 501C3 organization, we do not endorse candidates!

We see the progress. We’ve got a person on a major ticket who is an atheist. He has not professed a belief in God. When he talks about his faith, he talks about how “we’re all in this together.” This is an atheist talking and he’s a major candidate now. He’s going to be like Romney in 2002.

VENTRELLA: He’s going to move the Overton Window.

SILVERMAN: Exactly!

VENTRELLA: The new Prime Minister of Canada has something like four atheists in his cabinet.

SILVERMAN: And what would it be if the Prime Minister of Canada had a secular humanist, an agnostic, a “bright” and a “none” in his cabinet? Same four people. Think about the difference in the impact. Think of what that could do at the local level. This is what we could do simply by using the right words.

VENTRELLA: Let me ask one last question. Tell us about the “What the Fuck” face.

SILVERMAN: I’m a meme, too! That’s the more famous part of me. I did a “Mr. Deity” episode a while ago. I love Brian, if you haven’t looked it up, look up Mr. Diety. We were filming this little webisode in his house. And his daughter comes out and she’s maybe sixteen years old. Dave_Silverman.svgAnd he says “Honey, this is David Silverman! He’s the President of American Atheists!” And she says, “Oh, that’s nice.” And then he says, “He’s also the ‘What the Fuck’ face guy.” She says “No WAY! Let me take a picture! Do the face!” (audience laughs)

Basically what happens is that I go to O’Reilly. I’ve been on a couple times now, but this was the first time we actually had a chance to talk before the show. And he is, by the way, intelligent. He’s knowledgeable. He knows what he’s saying, knows what he’s doing. We had a really good conversation. And then the cameras go on.

If you watch the video, you’ll see — I was manoeuvering him into a corner. “You’re a skeptical person and you don’t really believe this shit.” And he went defensive, and he said, “I’ll tell you why God exists. The tide goes in, the tide goes out, there’s never a miscommunication, you can’t explain that.” And I made this face.  What? 

A lot of people think it was about the question. It was about the question after we had this whole intelligent conversation beforehand. So I have this look on my face of a complete disconnect. What the hell am I listening to?

And the young people at Reddit seized on it, and they created this meme. And now this face, which is public domain — I don’t get any money from it — is on pajamas, on stickers at the dollar store. I love it!

It’s good marketing, right? Because if people look it up, they will watch that video of Bill O’Reilly saying something really damned stupid.

VENTRELLA: Stephen Colbert called you “Mr. Atheist Pants” after that incident.

SILVERMAN: That’s now my Twitter handle.

What IS “Democratic Socialism” anyway?

Many people are criticizing Bernie Sanders for being a “democratic socialist” without having the slightest idea what that term means.

scream-socialism

cartoon by Matt Weurker

Let’s try to simplify things.

There are two sets of terms to know:  economic and political. A government has both.

Economic

Capitalism. This is where the market decides and government stays out of it. No minimum wage, no health inspections, no laws against discrimination, no regulations on business at all. This doesn’t work, because you end up with the powerful running everything, destroying the economy, and keeping people in poverty.

Communism. This is where the government runs business. The idea is that we should all live together in peace and harmony and share everything, and the President earns the same amount as the guy who sweeps the street. This also doesn’t work, because it completely destroys initiative and any reason to try to improve yourself.

Socialism. This is where most countries are, somewhere between the two extremes. Here, the government regulates business to prevent the abuses capitalism can bring, and provides many services (libraries, hospitals, parks, fire departments, social security, unemployment, etc.) that pure capitalism would have private businesses provide (if they felt like it; pure capitalism would never require a business to provide something it doesn’t want).

This is the tough balance to meet. You don’t want to go too far in either direction, and most of the debate in the US is over how far to go — but honestly, even the most conservative politician agrees with some socialism (they’ll never admit that, though).

Political

Democracy.  This is where the people decide, usually through representative democracy or republicanism.

Totalitarianism.  This is a dictatorship, whether individually controlled (North Korea) or committee controlled (China). Once more, there are degrees here as well as various types (monarchy, fascism, oligarchy). But the key thing they all have in common is that the decision-making power is not with the people.

What usually happens is that people confuse the economic with the political. The Soviet Union was a communist country but was also a totalitarian country, and people started associating the two. This is wrong. You could have a democratic communist country. And despite what the Soviet Union would have had you believe with their propaganda, Karl Marx supported democracy.

It’s even more confusing when countries lie about themselves. Just because you call yourself “the Democratic Republic of Vietnam” doesn’t mean you are a democratic republic, any more than China is the “people’s republic.” The Soviet Union was indeed a communist country, but it was a corrupt one because you know perfectly well that not everyone shared equally in that society.

So when Bernie Sanders calls himself a “democratic socialist” he is making it clear that politically, he agrees with democracy (the people decide) and economically, he agrees with socialism (government works for the people).

Disclaimer:  This is a really quick and simple explanation and is meant to be a guideline and a start for conversation. And it’s also mostly from an old post I did about two years ago, so if you have a long memory, it may be familiar.