What Book Are You Currently Reading? (2.0.)

[Schiff for Senate]

Okay, so I started reading Flowers for Algernon yesterday afternoon and finished the first 180 pages yesterday. It is quite a good book and I would recommend it to those who haven't yet read it.
 


The elephant in the room is God's Own Party. Finished Chapter 3, about 1960 and the Kennedy presidency, and read the part of the following chapter about the 1964 race. What can I say? There's just so much to be learned about the religious right from this book. If you are interested in digging even a little deeper on this topic, I would absolutely recommend this book. Until now I've only ever understood the religious right as judgemental, unprincipled and inconsistent hypocrites, and this book has exacerbated that negative perception like never before.


Starting with Chapter 3. Unsurprisingly, anti-Catholic Protestants rallied against John F. Kennedy in 1960 and implictly or explicitly, most major figures of the religious right supported Richard Nixon. They all played into classic anti-Catholic lines like the idea that Kennedy would be beholden to the Pope if elected. It wasn't as if they even really hated his politics, I don't think (except perhaps fundamentalists who were worried that he supported civil rights), it was just his religion. Billy Graham didn't quite endorse Nixon but he ultimately did campaign with him. Once Kennedy became president, Protestants like Bob Jones Jr and Billy James Hargis took it upon themselves to blast and bash him at every single turn. They also, for the first time, greatly encourage increased Protestant political participation and urged them to run for office - some, apparently, like Gerri von Frellick, didn't even care about their race, ideology, or affiliation, only that they were actively religious Protestants.


The end of the chapter was more interesting, since it took a look at School Prayer and Bible Reading. To my great surprise, the Protestant religious right was apparently quite all right with Engel vs Vitale, which disallowed mandatory school prayer, even as 80% of the nation, and politicians from across the spectrum (including even Eugene McCarthy) decried it. Catholics were understandably very irate by the decision. But Protestants and Baptists and fudamentalists and evangelicals, surprisingly, took it in stride. At first glance it seems as though it's for thoughtful, philosophical reasons (Carl McIntire said it was because prayer alone was not going to make anybody religious and, believe it or not, because it was ran against separation of church and state; more practical reasons included the fact that for Protestants prayer wasn't the way they expressed their religion, it was reading Bible/Scripture), but it was unsurprisingly for selfish, anti-Catholic reasons as well, since the ruling really hurt Catholics (and other religions) much more than it hurt Protestants: the prayer was secular and it promoted religions other than Protestantism. To my understanding Protestants reasoned that this helped other religions gain equal footing, and they decided that it was for the best that all of them lose the mutual advantage of school prayer, since it was much more important to other religions and really diminished their influence much more than it did for Protestants. Most Protestants probably figured it was better that way, since they could get their religion spread in other ways and much more easily than other religions, but some of them were shrewd enough to be farsighted and consider the implications and potential future rulings that really would hurt them. Basically, as the author put it at the end of the section, Protestants in their support for this ruling determined that atheism was better in this case than Secularism and Catholicism and Judaism.

Of course, Protestants weren't as happy with the next ruling, Abington vs Schempp, which disallowed mandatory Bible reading. Mandatory Bible reading was apparently much more integral a part of Protestantism than prayer, or at least when compared to Catholicism, because many Protestants were much more agitated about this decision than Engel vs Vitale. Southern Baptists were apparently more muted in their opposition to Schempp because they had different reasoning that thought that without Abington vs Schempp, Catholicism might receive (more) government support, and they were still worried about that.





On to Chapter 4. The chapters are divided into multiple sections, with the preface and first three focusing on civil rights and the 1964 contest, and the latter two shifting onto the Vietnam War and 1968. I have read only the first three sections, those regarding the religious right on civil rights and the 1964 presidential election. But there was a lot of interesting information in those parts of the chapter, and I haven't read any further yet (wanted to analyze this part of the chapter first and put down my thoughts so I didn't lose them later, before continuing).
The preface basically talks about Billy Graham on the 1964 election - while his daughter Anne backed Goldwater, Graham refused to endorse him or even take any side at all or campaign with him like he did in 1960, and urged churches and the religious right to remain neutral (spoiler alert: they didn't).
Then the first section of the chapter discusses the fundamentalist position on civil rights. Fundamentalists feared that civil rights meaned that the government would 'intrude' on churches and churches would be required to integrate (gasp!!) and allow African-Americans, or lose tax exemptions. Noel Smith somehow reasoned that Kennedy's pro-civil-rights stance and proposed bills would allow the government absolute power and muh Communism would ensue. What I completely don't understand is some of the other things Smith said (stuff that shows you the religious right's hare-brained, backward 'logic'). Smith said that Kennedy was requiring churches to integrate, and that he was proposing that blacks would get to come into church because they were black and not because they were pro-law-and-order or religious or good people, but just because they were black, and that this amounted to racism. I absolutely did not understand this fool's garbage logic, which was literally backward and absolutely upside down and the opposite of facts. Churches had discriminated against blacks because of the colour of their skin all this time, even if those blacks met his requirements for being good people and pro-law-and-order. The government wasn't mandating African-Americans be automatically accepted just because they were black. They were allowing 'progress based on the colour of their skin', as he put it, because blacks had been disadvantaged and at completely unequal footing - they had been discriminated against and whites had been favoured/advantaged. That was the real racism and unfairness, and the government was trying to undo or at least correct that by allowing blacks to finally get their fair shake and get into church like white people. But somehow, this amounted to racism. The only way I can understand this amounting to racism and not prior church practices is if African-Americans are all somehow bad people who don't believe in God, who aren't pro-law-and-order, and I honestly wouln't be surprised if Smith and other insane fundamentalists actually believed this (or maybe they were simply spewing incoherent nonsense - wouldn't be a surprise, either). And other fundamentalists were just as racist and segregationists - titanium HP Bob Jones, Jr (known for associating with the likes of Rep. L. Mendell Rivers, an ardent segregationist who wanted the US to leave the UN), gave George Wallace of all people an honourary degree from his so-called university. And that's just the first section...
The next section focused on fundamentalists supporting Goldwater during the primary and general, and a lot of the dialogue and reasoning demonstrates a key aspect of the religious right - their ardent hypocrisy, inconsistency, insincerity and double-standards. First of all, they backed Goldwater in the primary for two reasons. Firstly, he was much more conservative and in step with their ideology (very ironic since he would later really become more of a libertarian, decringy the rabid religious right and backing both same-sex-marriage and abortion) than his primary opponent, Nelson Rockefeller. Secondly, and much more infamously, was Rockefeller's divorce and second marriage. The far-right judgemenality machine and hysteria was activated, and they did everything possible to advance Goldwater and stop Rockefeller from getting the nod (Rockefeller's loss in the key CA primary was partly because of strong fundamentalist/ evangelical presence in the bane of our state, SoCal). In the general election, fundamentalists loved Goldwater's hardcore anticommunism and anti-civil-rights platform. They let something as irrelvant as ideology let them overlook something that had been much, much more important than ideology a mere four years prior - anti-Catholicsm. When Kennedy was nominated for president, they lost it and couldn't stop ranting about the Pope controlling the White House and turning American into Hell. Just four years later, when Catholic William Miller was selected as Goldwater's running mate, however, it made no difference whatsoever and was hardly mentioned. HP pair Bob Jones, Jr and Billy James Hargis enthusiastically backed the ticket, too. Mainstream and liberal Protestants, notably, were anti-Goldwater and pro-Johnson in 1964, largely because they were pro-integration and weren't for segregation. They, too, were vocal, loudly backing Johnson over Goldwater and stressing Goldwater's opposition to civil rights (which, unlike in the case of fundamentalists, was a negative and not a positive). Amusingly, some fundamentalists whined that this got in the way of nonpartisanship of the Church, even though it was exactly what they'd done in both 1960 and 1964, for Nixon and Goldwater respectively (hypocrisy). Goldwater himself also pandered to fundamentalists, highlighting that the GOP was pro-school-prayer (even though he, being a libertarian at heart, wasn't). Moving on to the final section I've read thus far....
The final section's most important parts are about Billy Graham. Graham, being more sensible and level-headed than fundamentalists, was nominally pro-civil-rights and supported civil rights, though he didn't support protests against segregation and was classically law-and-order. Goldwater was too extreme for Graham. But to ensure that he didn't endorse Goldwater, LBJ courted Graham, asking him to chair a citizen committee to oversee the Civil Rights Act (Graham reluctantly assented). He also forged a very close relationship with Graham, inviting Mr and Mrs Billy Graham to spend the night at the White House (a courtsey even Eisenhower, who on his deathbed asked for Graham, did not extend), and going swimming with him and asking for advice. LBJ, in classical LBJ style, used this relationship to his advantage and warned Graham to "stay out of politics" and not endorse Goldwater. Graham would assent - even though he received 1 millions telegrams asking him to endorse Goldwater, he declined, and he might have ultimately voted for Johnson. Evangelicals, per a survey, apparently would break for Johnson by a convincing 62-38% margin (which, as we know, was about what Johnson won by nationally). Fundamentalists likely voted much more conservatively than that.

Next up: I will read about the religious right and Billy Graham on the Vietnam War. Can't wait.




To close on a somewhat less grim note, I have gotten quite the impression of Billy Graham from this. I don't think I'd ever heard of the guy before but he really was a giant. While his contemproraries were making fools of themselves over segregation, he was able to avoid angering either side and got to actually influence policy making. He got to have close relationships with presidents of both parties and actually had power and influence. I feel like reading this book should inspire those on this forum who like to make Virgin and Chad memes to make one about Graham and southern fundamentalists (no joke). There is more than enough material in the first few chapters alone.

Just started reading George Orwell's Animal Farm.

Funny, I'm doing that book with my class.

I haven't read it yet but these posts inspired me to get it from the local library. Will start reading it in due course.

[Schiff for Senate]

Am very nearly finished with Flowers for Algernon - 13 pages to go - and I will be definitely done very soon. In any case...my progress on God's Own Party has stalled, though I finished the chapter I was on as of my last update on Thursday night. Nothing much to report, except that the religious right was very pro-Vietnam War and Billy Graham urged LBJ to keep it going. They also carefully changed their view on civil rights, not attacking civil rights per se since that was out of step, but saying it was inappropriate for the clergy to comment on civil rights (on the other hand, there was obviously a double-standard when it came to topics such as pornography, sex education, and the like).

[Schiff for Senate]

Finished Flowers for Algernon at midnight. Until now the book's been pretty good, but the ending (the last few pages - the last entry and the last part of the second-to-last entry) was devastating. I don't think I've ever actually done this before, but the last few pages actually made me cry. It was extremely sad.

In any event, two new books to be read now, aside from God's Own Party: Getting to Yes, and Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show.

[Schiff for Senate]

I have taken a break from God's Own Party. At some point, I'll get down to picking off at where I left off (Chapter 5: Nixon's Evangelical Strategy), but for now, I'm reading other books.

Getting To Yes: I am reading this for a side project, and intend to read at a slow, measured pace. Currently I've read the introduction and the first chapter, and it appears promising and interesting, discussing the pitfalls of hard (aggressive and stubborn, open to only agreements that are exactly what they want) and soft (appeasing, conciliatory, open to just about any agreement), and offering the alternative of more sensible and pragmatic 'principled bargaining.'

Betrayal: Got this from the local library and there are many people waiting on it so I the days I have to read it are numbered (it's due in like 9 or 10 days from now). Thus, I finally began reading it last evening, and have at this point finished the first two chapters. Nothing much to say, except that Trump is pure comedy gold (he compared the author, a distinguished reporter, and his nonchalancy about Trump attending the WHCD, with his son Barron, and Barron's reluctancy to say "I love you" to Trump!), but at the same time insane. I read this book's prequel, Front Row at the Trump Show, last February, and Frankly, We Did Win this Election, which covers many of the same topics, last October.

[Aurelius]

"Abraham Lincoln: A Life (volume 1)" by Michael Burlingame.

I finished Fillmore and Pierce still hasn't arrived in the mail, so I'm reading Lincoln up to 1852 in the meantime.

Started volume 2 a few days ago.

This is a weighty read chock-full of information, so I'm giving it the time it deserves.

[Benjamin Frank]

Finished both Archer short story collections last evening. I also read the chapter on the military from Conrad's book but have now put it away for the time being. Currently, I'm reading God's Own Party by Daniel K. Williams - I've been wanting to for a bit - and am in Chapter 1. Quite interesting so far. I didn't actually know this, but Jerry Falwell was apparently pro-segregation. After this I intend to read one more Archer collection (The Short, The Long and the Tall), as well as Daniel Keyes' Flowers for Algernon.

Have read the first two chapters of God's Own Party.

Very interesting. Basically, Christian conservatives who were prior alienated from politics used anticommunism as their bridge to mainstream America (which was, of course, very anticommunist and borderline paranoid about communism, in the 1950s). They tied Christianity to capitalism and linked atheism to communism. Billy Graham was able to perfect this art to the point that he had Eisenhower's ear while he was president. However, as Chapter 2 demonstrates, southern fundamentalists (such as Jerry Falwell) were still more alienated from the rest of the country than southern baptists and northern evangelicals, because while northern evangelicals and southern baptists were cautiously pro-civil-rights, southern fundamentalists were (surprise, surprise) ardently segregationist (including Jerry Falwell). Graham was pro-civil rights, which obviously didn't hurt his relationship with Eisenhower and the mainstream public (and politicians), but one of the reasons was that the USSR was able to attack the US over being segregated, and Graham thought it was best to gradually and carefully liberalize on the issue. Southern fundamentalists were highly segregationist and somehow connected integration with big government, the New Deal, socialism, communism, etcetra. This kept them at arm's length from mainstream America and non-segregationist politicians. It really is surprising to read a book where 'evangelical' is considered moderate (though it's not too surprising, either, given the comparison is to pro-segregation 'fundamentalists'). Will be reading Chapter 3 next, about 'God and Country During the Kennedy Presidency'. Should be an interesting read.

Eisenhower had the same view as Graham: Eisenhower was pro Civil Rights, but he was anti Civil Rights legislation.

Eisenhower was very unhappy with the Supreme Court decision on desegregation in Little Rock schools and mused privately, and I believe at least occasionally publicly, how 'Southern whites' were misunderstood and deserved as much sympathy as Southern blacks.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-dont-we-ike-civil-rights-msna329796


I presume chapter 3 of the book is at least partly if not largely about right wing radio talk show host preacher Carl McIntyre (and the Polish ham boycott!)  This is an, it seems, largely forgotten part of American history wherein President Kennedy used some fairly underhanded means to shut down (cancel/censor) right wing talk radio.

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/march/april-2020/how-jfk-censored-right-wing-radio

[Middle-aged Europe]

Hamlet

[Schiff for Senate]

Finished both Archer short story collections last evening. I also read the chapter on the military from Conrad's book but have now put it away for the time being. Currently, I'm reading God's Own Party by Daniel K. Williams - I've been wanting to for a bit - and am in Chapter 1. Quite interesting so far. I didn't actually know this, but Jerry Falwell was apparently pro-segregation. After this I intend to read one more Archer collection (The Short, The Long and the Tall), as well as Daniel Keyes' Flowers for Algernon.

Have read the first two chapters of God's Own Party.

Very interesting. Basically, Christian conservatives who were prior alienated from politics used anticommunism as their bridge to mainstream America (which was, of course, very anticommunist and borderline paranoid about communism, in the 1950s). They tied Christianity to capitalism and linked atheism to communism. Billy Graham was able to perfect this art to the point that he had Eisenhower's ear while he was president. However, as Chapter 2 demonstrates, southern fundamentalists (such as Jerry Falwell) were still more alienated from the rest of the country than southern baptists and northern evangelicals, because while northern evangelicals and southern baptists were cautiously pro-civil-rights, southern fundamentalists were (surprise, surprise) ardently segregationist (including Jerry Falwell). Graham was pro-civil rights, which obviously didn't hurt his relationship with Eisenhower and the mainstream public (and politicians), but one of the reasons was that the USSR was able to attack the US over being segregated, and Graham thought it was best to gradually and carefully liberalize on the issue. Southern fundamentalists were highly segregationist and somehow connected integration with big government, the New Deal, socialism, communism, etcetra. This kept them at arm's length from mainstream America and non-segregationist politicians. It really is surprising to read a book where 'evangelical' is considered moderate (though it's not too surprising, either, given the comparison is to pro-segregation 'fundamentalists'). Will be reading Chapter 3 next, about 'God and Country During the Kennedy Presidency'. Should be an interesting read.

Eisenhower had the same view as Graham: Eisenhower was pro Civil Rights, but he was anti Civil Rights legislation.

Eisenhower was very unhappy with the Supreme Court decision on desegregation in Little Rock schools and mused privately, and I believe at least occasionally publicly, how 'Southern whites' were misunderstood and deserved as much sympathy as Southern blacks.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-dont-we-ike-civil-rights-msna329796


I presume chapter 3 of the book is at least partly if not largely about right wing radio talk show host preacher Carl McIntyre (and the Polish ham boycott!)  This is an, it seems, largely forgotten part of American history wherein President Kennedy used some fairly underhanded means to shut down (cancel/censor) right wing talk radio.

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/march/april-2020/how-jfk-censored-right-wing-radio

McIntire is mentioned, along with Billy James Hargis, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones Jr and John R Rice.

[Schiff for Senate]

Update on Betrayal: I'm on page 214. I love some of Karl's anecdotes and tidbits, such as this one (context: this is talking about when Trump returned to the White House from Walter Reed):

Trump had talked to his aides about wearing a Superman shirt beneath his suit and ripping off his dress shirt to reveal the giant "S" symbol.

In all seriousness, though, I find fascinating the information about Johnny McEntee's crusade against (those perceived as) closeted anti-Trumpers and his 'purge' of those who were perceived as disloyal to Trump in the slightest. He replaced experienced members of the government because they wouldn't give him classified information, or because he found out they voted in a Democratic primary, or because they testified during Trump's first impeachment hearings. He would grill someone at the EPA about Afghanistan to see if they were secretly against the Trump agenda. Their replacements were picked by McEntee and were, to quote a source from the book, "the most beautiful 21-year-old girls you could find", who had zero experience whatsoever. They were Instagram influences, and dancers, and he created job positions just for them. Defense Secretary Mark Esper also was eventually fired, but his replacement, Chris Miller, proved to be sane. But this explains something else too - in removing the saner and more rational members of the administration, McEntee helped created the deranged echo chamber that helped detach Trump from reality regarding the election. The book has also made me disdain and dislike the believers of the Big Lie even more.

Anyway, I'll be reading Chapter 2 of Getting To Yes sometime soon. Maybe tonight.

[Schiff for Senate]

Am now done with the first 13 chapters of Betrayal and the first two of Getting To Yes. What interests me is now that even 8 GOP senators voted to object, given that McConnell told them all explicitly not to since it would fail and would serve no purpose but to drive a wedge in the GOP, divide the senate Republicans, and make them all pick between a rock and a hard place. The first GOP senators who announced they'd ignore McConnell and vote against certification were Senator-elect Tuberville (R-AL) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO).

[Wells]

Two books which I started recently: The City of Brass by S.A. Chakraborty, a fantasy which takes place in the Middle East, and Leviathan Wakes by James S.A. Corey, the first book in The Expanse series.

[Middle-aged Europe]

The Hound of the Baskervilles by Arthur Conan Doyle

[Schiff for Senate]

The Hound of the Baskervilles by Arthur Conan Doyle

Read it in summer 2018. It was pretty good.

[Benjamin Frank]

Revolution in History edited by Roy Porter and Mikulas Teich.

By 'history' the book is referring to the study of history.

https://www.amazon.ca/Revolution-History-Roy-Porter/dp/0521277841

[Middle-aged Europe]

Animal Farm

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Animal Farm

I read that as part of my school back in, iirc, 9th or 10th grade. Quite an interesting work.

[Schiff for Senate]

Am now done with the first 13 chapters of Betrayal and the first two of Getting To Yes. What interests me is now that even 8 GOP senators voted to object, given that McConnell told them all explicitly not to since it would fail and would serve no purpose but to drive a wedge in the GOP, divide the senate Republicans, and make them all pick between a rock and a hard place. The first GOP senators who announced they'd ignore McConnell and vote against certification were Senator-elect Tuberville (R-AL) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO).

Done with Betrayal.

Now unsure on what the next reading is to be. I think it'd be Animal Farm or maybe I'll resume God's Own Party.

[Middle-aged Europe]

A Christmas Carol by Dickens

[muon2]

In March I used our road trip to take turns reading aloud to the driver. The book we finished was Marie Kondo's The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up. My initial application was to my pants drawer. I'll take some time to assess the impact before looking at another application.

[Schiff for Senate]

Am now done with the first 13 chapters of Betrayal and the first two of Getting To Yes. What interests me is now that even 8 GOP senators voted to object, given that McConnell told them all explicitly not to since it would fail and would serve no purpose but to drive a wedge in the GOP, divide the senate Republicans, and make them all pick between a rock and a hard place. The first GOP senators who announced they'd ignore McConnell and vote against certification were Senator-elect Tuberville (R-AL) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO).

Done with Betrayal.

Now unsure on what the next reading is to be. I think it'd be Animal Farm or maybe I'll resume God's Own Party.

Have read one chapter of Animal Farm, and have also begun reading Alan Dershowitz's Cancel Culture: The Latest Attack on Free Speech and Due Process.

[Middle-aged Europe]

And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie

[Aurelius]

Finally finished Burlingame's Lincoln. Magisterial, and worth the high effort required.

Now taking a long break from presidents for some lighter fare.

[Aurelius]

Just finished "Travels with Charley" by John Steinbeck.

[Senator Incitatus]

Have picked back up Sexual Desire by Roger Scruton. Very dense, very worthwhile.

[Schiff for Senate]

Am now done with the first 13 chapters of Betrayal and the first two of Getting To Yes. What interests me is now that even 8 GOP senators voted to object, given that McConnell told them all explicitly not to since it would fail and would serve no purpose but to drive a wedge in the GOP, divide the senate Republicans, and make them all pick between a rock and a hard place. The first GOP senators who announced they'd ignore McConnell and vote against certification were Senator-elect Tuberville (R-AL) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO).

Done with Betrayal.

Now unsure on what the next reading is to be. I think it'd be Animal Farm or maybe I'll resume God's Own Party.

Have read one chapter of Animal Farm, and have also begun reading Alan Dershowitz's Cancel Culture: The Latest Attack on Free Speech and Due Process.

I wanted to review Cancel Culture but I'm already done with the first 8 chapters. Great book and would highly recommend, especially to red avatars. The only thing I'm wary on is his chapter on Israel - he very clearly has pro-Israel bias (which is evident if you carefully read and notice how he heaps praise on Israel, such as his claim that Israel has done more for the world than any other country, and other such things). But great, great book. People who support wokeness, BLM (he has a chapter explaining the organization itself is legitimately anti-Semitic, or used to be, since its platform earlier unfairly singled out Israel as a genocidal nation) and cancel culture should read it.