I had occasion to link to some of Rodda’s latest work in my July 8 Care2 post:

For much, much more regarding Barton’s crimes against history be sure to check out the extensive works ofTalk to Action blogger (and also at The Huffington Post) Chris Rodda, Senior Researcher for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and the author of Liars for Jesus:  The Religious Right’s Alternate Version of American History.  Rodda’s “No, Mr. Beck…” series is instructive for understanding Barton’s tactics; like misrepresenting the work of actual academics in order to suggest that the Constitution was based on the Book of Deuteronomy, or cropping a quote from John Adams in order to claim that the second American President thought “Governments must be administered by the holy ghost.”  (Sigh…)

Barton, clearly, has no shame.  And as you’ll see in the clip from the July 8 Countdown broadcast, he is in serious need of some fashion advice.  (I know… It’s a petty observation. But that  jacket is tragic.)

                          

“Counting President Obama, he last eight presidents have gone on television and promised to move America towards an energy-independent future.”

Stewart’s hilarious, yet sad, commentary should serve as a reminder to us all:  Presidents can only lend rhetorical weight to the nation’s goals.  Without support from the electorate, they’re just words.

                          

If you’re up for a little intellectual exercise, check out Wise’s April 22 post:  ”Imagine if the Tea Party was Black”

————————————-

Related on PiP – Maddow – ‘Confederate History is nothing to celebrate’ (video)

                          

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Think Progress reports that Virginia isn’t the only state harboring nostalgia for the Confederacy —  Both Mississippi And Georgia Have Confederate History Proclamations Without Any Mention of Slavery.

                          

The right is rewriting history.

The most ballyhooed effort is under way in Texas, where conservatives have pushed the state school board to rewrite guidelines, downplaying Thomas Jefferson in one high school course, playing up such conservatives as Phyllis Schlafly and the Heritage Foundation and challenging the idea that the Founding Fathers wanted to separate church and state.

The effort reaches far beyond one state, however.

In articles and speeches, on radio and TV, conservatives are working to redefine major turning points and influential figures in American history, often to slam liberals, promote Republicans and reinforce their positions in today’s politics.

The Jamestown settlers? Socialists. Founding Father Alexander Hamilton? Ill-informed professors made up all that bunk about him advocating a strong central government.

Theodore Roosevelt? Another socialist. Franklin D. Roosevelt? Not only did he not end the Great Depression, he also created it.

Joe McCarthy? Liberals lied about him. He was a hero.

Some conservatives say it’s a long-overdue swing of the pendulum after years of liberal efforts to define history on their terms in classrooms and in popular culture.

“We are adding balance,” Texas school board member Don McLeroy said. “History has already been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left.”

The effort in Texas and nationwide is controversial, however, even among many conservatives. McLeroy was defeated in a recent primary after he led the campaign for a more conservative version of history, a defeat that the National Review, a leading conservative organ, called “sensible.”

While even some conservative intellectuals say that some of the revisionist history is simply wrong, at the core, the effort reflects the ever-changing view of history, which is always subject to revision thanks to new information or new ways of looking at things, and often is viewed through a political lens.

“History in the popular world is always a political football,” said Alan Brinkley, a historian at Columbia University. “The right is unusually mobilized at the moment.”

“Part of the tide of history is that it’s contested terrain,” said Fritz Fischer, a historian at the University of Northern Colorado and the chairman of the National Council for History Education. “We should always be arguing and questioning what happened in the past.”

It’s not just historians who contest history, however. It’s also politicians and pundits.

The left has done it.

Fischer cited the case of controversial former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, whose essay claiming that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were the fruit of illegal U.S. policies became a cause celebre. Fischer said Churchill “ignored a lot of evidence and made some up to promulgate a particular political belief.”

Now, it’s the right.

“There’s clearly a political impetus behind this that connects to the issues of today,” Fischer said, such as labeling President Barack Obama a socialist. “But when history is ignored to do it, that can be dangerous.”

Here are five recent examples of new conservative versions of history:

JAMESTOWN

Reaching for an example of how bad socialism can be, former House of Representatives Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said recently that the people who settled Jamestown, Va., in 1607 were socialists and that their ideology doomed them.

“Jamestown colony, when it was first founded as a socialist venture, dang near failed with everybody dead and dying in the snow,” he said in a speech March 15 at the National Press Club.

It was a good, strong story, helping Armey, a former economics professor, illustrate the dangers of socialism, the same ideology that he and other conservatives say is at the core of Obama’s agenda.

It was not, however, true.

The Jamestown settlement was a capitalist venture financed by the Virginia Company of London — a joint stock corporation — to make a profit. The colony nearly foundered owing to a harsh winter, brackish water and lack of food, but reinforcements enabled it to survive. It was never socialistic. In fact, in 1619, Jamestown planters imported the first African slaves to the 13 colonies that later formed the United States.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

At the same event, Armey urged people to read the Federalist Papers as a guide to the sentiments of the tea party movement.

“The small-government conservative movement, which includes people who call themselves the tea party patriots and so forth, is about the principles of liberty as embodied in the Constitution, the understanding of which is fleshed out if you read things like the Federalist Papers,” Armey said.

Others such as Democrats and the news media, “people here who do not cherish America the way we do,” don’t understand because “they did not read the Federalist Papers,” he said.

A member of the audience asked Armey how the Federalist Papers could be such a tea party manifesto when they were written largely by Alexander Hamilton, who the questioner said “was widely regarded then and now as an advocate of a strong central government.”

Armey ridiculed the very suggestion.

“Widely regarded by whom?” he asked. “Today’s modern, ill-informed political science professors? . . . I just doubt that was the case, in fact, about Hamilton.”

Hamilton, however, was an unapologetic advocate of a strong central government, one that plays an active role in the economy and is led by a president named for life and thus beyond the emotions of the people. Hamilton also pushed for excise taxes and customs duties to pay down federal debt.

In fact, Ian Finseth said in a history written for the University of Virginia, others at the constitutional convention “thought his proposals went too far in strengthening the central government.”

THEODORE ROOSEVELT

Theodore Roosevelt was long an icon of the Republican Party, a dynamic leader who ushered in the Progressive era, busting trusts, regulating robber barons, building the Panama Canal and sending the U.S. fleet around the world announcing ascendant American power.

Fox TV commentator Glenn Beck, however, says that Roosevelt was a socialist whose legacy is destroying America. It started, Beck said, with Roosevelt’s admonition to the wealthy of his day to spend their riches for the good of society.

“We judge no man a fortune in civil life if it’s honorably obtained and well spent,” Roosevelt said, according to Beck. “It’s not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it only to be gained so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.”

Actually, Roosevelt said, “We GRUDGE no man a fortune … if it’s honorably obtained and well USED.” But either way, Beck saw the threat.

“Oh? Well, thank you,” Beck said with scorn during his keynote speech to the recent Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. The presidential suggestion that the wealthy of the Gilded Age should contribute to the good of society was a clear danger that must be condemned, Beck said.

“Is this what the Republican Party stands for? Well, you should ask members of the Republican Party, because this is not our founders’ idea of America. And this is the cancer that’s eating at America. It is big government; it’s a socialist utopia,” Beck said.

“And we need to address it as if it is a cancer. It must be cut out of the system because they cannot coexist. … You must eradicate it. It cannot coexist.”

There’s no doubt that Roosevelt was a domestic policy liberal by today’s standards. In a 1910 speech in Kansas, he acknowledged that his “New Nationalism” meant “far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had.”

The 26th president insisted, however, that he wanted the government to guarantee opportunity, not a handout.

“The fundamental thing to do for every man is to give him a chance to reach a place in which he will make the greatest possible contribution to the public welfare,” he said.

“Give him a chance, not push him up if he will not be pushed. … Help any man who stumbles; if he lies down, it is a poor job to try to carry him; but if he is a worthy man, try your best to see that he gets a chance to show the worth that is in him.”

In his autobiography three years later, Roosevelt went on to dismiss the tenets of socialism as taught by Karl Marx as “an exploded theory.”

“Too many thoroughly well-meaning men and women in the America of today glibly repeat and accept,” he wrote, “various assumptions and speculations by Marx and others which by the lapse of time and by actual experiment have been shown to possess not one shred of value.”

In addition, Roosevelt didn’t advocate government ownership of the means of production, the definition of socialism.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

It’s long been debated how well Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal government programs countered the Great Depression, but now a prominent conservative has introduced the idea that Roosevelt CAUSED the Depression.

“FDR took office in the midst of a recession,” Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told the Conservative Political Action Conference in February. “He decided to choose massive government spending and the creation of monstrous bureaucracies. Do we detect a Democrat pattern here in all of this? He took what was a manageable recession and turned it into a 10-year depression.”

A year before, Bachmann went to the House floor to blame FDR and what she called the “Hoot-Smalley” tariffs for creating the Depression.

“The recession that FDR had to deal with wasn’t as bad as the recession (President Calvin) Coolidge had to deal with in the early ’20s,” she said.

Coolidge cut taxes and created the roaring ’20s, Bachmann said.

“FDR applied just the opposite formula: the Hoot-Smalley act, which was a tremendous burden on tariff restrictions. And of course trade barriers and the regulatory burden and of course tax barriers.

“That’s what we saw happen under FDR. That took a recession and blew it into a full-scale depression. The American people suffered for almost 10 years under that kind of thinking.”

The truth? Historians agree that tariffs hurt trade and worsened the depression.

However, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act — not Hoot-Smalley — was proposed by two Republicans, Sen. Reed Smoot of Utah and Rep. Willis Hawley of Oregon. A Republican House and a Republican Senate approved it. President Herbert Hoover, a Republican, signed it into law.

The facts also show that the country was in something far worse than a “manageable recession” in March 1933 when Roosevelt took office.

Stocks had lost 90 percent of their value since the crash of 1929. Thousands of banks had failed. Unemployment reached an all-time high of 24.9 percent just before Roosevelt was inaugurated.

JOE MCCARTHY

Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., burst onto the national stage in the early 1950s with accusations that he had a list of names of known Communists in the federal government. He didn’t name them, was censured by the Senate eventually and his name became synonymous with witch hunts — McCarthyism.

Now, the end of the Cold War has opened up spy files and identified many Communist spies who operated inside the government during the era. Some conservatives argue that this proves not only that McCarthy was right, but also that he was a hero and that he was smeared by liberals, the news media and historians.

“Almost everything about McCarthy in current history books is a lie and will have to be revised,” conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly said.

“Liberals had to destroy McCarthy because he exposed the entire liberal establishment as having sheltered Soviet spies,” conservative commentator Ann Coulter said in one interview.

“The myth of ‘McCarthyism’ is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times,” she said in another. “Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Senator Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. … If the Internet, talk radio and Fox News had been around in McCarthy’s day, my book wouldn’t be the first time most people would be hearing the truth about ‘McCarthyism.’ ”

Yet even some prominent conservatives say that McCarthy’s defenders go too far, and that even from a conservative perspective, McCarthy was no hero and damaged the country.

“A dangerous movement has been growing among conservative writers to vindicate the late Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy and his campaign to expose Soviet spies in the U.S. government,” Ronald Kessler wrote for the conservative Web site Newsmax.com.

“The FBI agents who were actually chasing those spies have told me that McCarthy hurt their efforts because he trumped up charges, unfairly besmirched honorable Americans and gave hunting spies a bad name.”

Kessler said the release of secret Cold War files under the Venona Project confirmed that there were Soviet spies in the U.S. government.

“The problem was that the people McCarthy tarnished as Communists or Communist sympathizers were not the real spies,” Kessler wrote.

“The cause of anti-communism, which united millions of Americans and which gained the support of Democrats, Republicans and independents, was undermined by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin,” wrote William Bennett, who was the conservative secretary of education under President Ronald Reagan.

“McCarthy addressed a real problem: disloyal elements within the U.S. government. But his approach to this real problem was to cause untold grief to the country he claimed to love,” Bennett wrote in his book “America: The Last Best Hope.”

“Worst of all, McCarthy besmirched the honorable cause of anti-communism. He discredited legitimate efforts to counter Soviet subversion of American institutions.”

Read more and watch the accompanying video –> http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/01/91478/some-conservatives-rewrite-history.html#ixzz0k39I7YMr

                          

PFAW has assembled a nice, but alarming post, comparing the then & now of McCarthyism.  Perhaps what’s most frightening about its present manifestation is that there aren’t any Republicans with the stones to stand up to the baseless fear mongering.

From People for the American Way, published December, 2009:

McCarthy’s campaign against supposedly widespread communist infiltration of the U.S. government brought down sitting Senators and intimidated even President Eisenhower (who loathed McCarthy) and his advisors.  McCarthy’s campaign was boosted by conservative think tanks, media figures, and clergy, and abetted for years by the unwillingness of most of his colleagues to stand up against his false charges and clear abuses of power.

[snip]

Today’s McCarthyism has many faces and voices, including the household names of right-wing cable television, a plethora of radio hosts, Religious Right leaders, right-wing organizations and the bogus “grassroots” campaigns they generate – and Members of Congress and other Republican Party officials.  Together they engage in character assassination and challenge the loyalty and patriotism of their targets…

Read More / Digg it

                          

“They love to engage in revisionist history,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) said on the floor of the U.S. Congress, Nov. 19.  She was referring to Democrats as she had risen to speak in opposition to an environmental protection measure intended to safeguard a 21-mile segment of Molalla River in Oregon.  As she spoke, Foxx set about some blatant revisionism of her own.

Foxx’s began her objection with the bizarre suggestion that the GOP had been the champion of “good” environmental protection laws.  Had she stopped there, her floor speech would have justifiably been dismissed as a bit of irony.  Instead, Foxx went on to perpetuate the misconception that Republicans were also the champions of civil rights legislation in the 1960s, amid fervent obstruction from Democrats.

Upon the completion of Foxx’s remarks, she was passionately rebuked by Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA).  “I can’t believe my ears,” Cardoza said, and went on to assign credit for the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) to the efforts to the Democratic administration of Lyndon B. Johnson.

Here is video of the exchange on the House floor from the ThinkProgress.org Nov. 19 post on the subject. (continued below the clip)

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.4150138&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

While Cardoza’s assessment was factually correct and his tone appropriate, his rebuke of Foxx would have been strengthened by informing her that the Republican Party of which she spoke no longer exists.  Indeed, the Republicans whose votes were vital to passing civil rights legislation in the 1960s would be derided as RINOs – Republicans in Name Only – by Foxx and like minded, right-wing ideologues of today’s GOP.

That conservatives have sought to maintain this myth is nothing new.  Paul von Hipple addressed it in a 2005 Alternet.org post responding to a taxpayer funded “Republican Freedom Calendar” which presented a one-sided representation of their Party’s historic role as advocates of civil rights.  The evidence employed to prop up this argument relies upon the higher proportion of GOP votes for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

It’s a far too narrow interpretation of history, as von Hipple indicated in his 2005 post:

In fact, Congressional votes on the Civil Rights Act did not break along party lines – they split along regional lines. In the North, both parties supported the Civil Rights Act; in the South, both parties opposed it. The difference was that the Republican Party had very little presence in the South, which had been dominated since the 1870s by the segregationist wing of the Democratic Party.

This period marks a historical turning point for both political parties.  President Johnson and liberal Northern Democrats were ill prepared for the Southern white backlash that followed the passage of civil rights legislation.  Of course, the legislation wasn’t the only factor, but it was during this time that the Democratic Party set on a path to shedding its racist elements.  In doing so, Democrats lost the political grip on the South it had held since the Great Depression.

The path chosen by the Republicans was altogether different.  Interestingly, the GOP underwent a schism, not unlike the one presently in progress.

Republican conservatives, sympathetic to the racist backlash among Southern whites, made their first political inroads in the South around this time.  The most significant evidence for this trend was the GOP’s 1964 presidential nomination of Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater.

Before Goldwater’s nomination, the GOP’s regional strength was based in the American North-East.  Their party leaders were inclined to support government investment in infrastructure.  Having been decimated during their initial struggle against Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal (which they decried as “socialist,” sound familiar?) a moderate GOP persisted as a minority party, seeking to improve FDR’s legislation rather than rail against it.

Goldwater lost to LBJ in 1964, but having won his home state and four other Southern states in the contest, the GOP’s course was set.  They abandoned their moderate positions — the mantle of which Foxx is presently attempting to claim — in pursuit of the racially divisive “Southern Strategy.”

This political strategy was neatly summarized by Sidney Blumenthal in a 2003 Salon.com post:

With the coming of the civil rights revolution, Democratic presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson deployed the federal government to support social equality. In reaction, Republicans — from Barry Goldwater to Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan — developed a Southern strategy to win over white voters in the region who felt betrayed. That strategy involved using widely understood code words going back to the Civil War like “states’ rights,” an updating of the well-worn strategy of Southern reactionaries to demagogue on race in order to keep poor and working-class whites divided from blacks on issues of common interest. Thus the party of Lincoln became the party of Reagan.

Indeed, Reagan’s ascendency is instructive.  His rise was facilitated by the GOP’s rejection of its moderate voices.  Just as Foxx mistakenly claimed the civil rights mantle on Nov. 19, Reagan did also.   Yet his true feelings were betrayed by his policies and rhetoric.

From the above mentioned von Hibble Alternet post:

…Ronald Reagan, in his 1966 campaign to become governor of California, endorsed repeal of California’s Fair Housing Act, saying, “If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so.”

Similarly, Foxx’s own statements over the past year illustrate her departure from the moderate positions of the kinder, gentler GOP of yore.  She has more than made herself clear regarding the present-day civil rights issues, most notably in debates over the rights of homosexuals and health care reform.

My Care2 colleague Tracy Viselli understandably called for Foxx’s apology or resignation following her slanderous comments about Matthew Sheppard on the House floor while debating the hate crime legislation that bares his name.  More recently, Viselli , rightly, took issue with Foxx’s declaration that the present health care reform proposals pose a bigger threat to America than “any terrorist from any country.”  Add to this Foxx’s 2006 vote, along with 33 other Republicans, opposing the extension of the Voters Rights Act, and it becomes clear that any claim of civil rights advocacy exists only in her mind.

Further, these outrageous examples of Foxx’s true beliefs plainly illustrate that the North Carolina congresswoman has absolutely nothing in common with the Republicans who helped advance  the cause of civil rights in the 1960s.  Rather, Foxx is just another product of the cynical GOP which prospered by exploiting the societal divisions left after their passing.

                          

Check out my post regarding Foxx’s revisionism – Virginia Foxx and the GOP civil rights champions of yore – Today, she’d know them as RINOs – posted at Care2.com’ Political Causes Blog.

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.3979600&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

                          

Uploaded by YouTube user: FasttrackHistory, 30 January 2009

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.3917248&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

                          

When they see footage in Michael Moore’s new film of FDR announcing his Second Bill of Rights, many Americans will wonder whatever happened to it. Harvey J. Kaye explains why we should honor his vision.

Michael Moore’s new film, Capitalism: A Love Story, not only takes on corporate power and greed in America. By featuring rarely seen footage of FDR calling for a “Second Bill of Rights” in January 1944 and of the Flint, Michigan, sit-down strikers fighting for their rights in 1937, the film also challenges our political passivity with the democratic ideals and struggles that made the men and women of the 1930s and 1940s the most progressive generation in American history. Conservatives and libertarians have rightly tried to portray Roosevelt and his New Dealers as revolutionaries. In the best American sense of the term, they were…

Read more HERE

                          

From Greg Sargent’s The Plum Line Blog at WhoRunsGOV.com, posted 1 September 2009:

…The claim has been echoed far and wide by pundits, Dems, and Republicans alike. Recently ABC’s George Stephanopoulos said that “Kennedy the compromiser” would likely have advised fellow Dems to ditch the public option.

It’s true that Nixon and Kennedy negotiated over how to do universal health care — Nixon wanted to do it through private insurers; Kennedy through the government — and that both sides ended up walking away from the table.

But the notion that Kennedy “regretted” his failure to cut a deal with Nixon is largely bogus, according to Adam Clymer, a former Times reporter and the author of “Edwards M. Kennedy: A Biography.” Rather, Clymer says, Kennedy’s regret was that the differences between both parties were unbridgeable, making agreement impossible and losing a historic opportunity — not that his side had failed to give up enough to get that agreement.

“Kennedy was sorry that they didn’t reach an agreement” and that both sides “never reached closure,” Clymer told our reporter, Amanda Erickson. He dismissed the idea that Kennedy regretted not giving up enough: “That’s not the same thing at all.”

[...]

Read more HERE.

                          

The conservative playbook is in need of an update.  Fantastic album cover, but it didn’t work in 1961.  How the same arguments are allowed any credibility in 2009 is beyond me.

                          

The next time I hear a talking head refer to this nonsense as the work of “concerned political activists…’  I’m coming through the EF’ing screen! At least with Rachel, my television will always be safe.

At some point, as I suggested in an August 6 Care2.com post, convincing a bunch of poorly informed, needlessly frightened citizens to advocate contrary to their own interests, as a political strategy (if you can call it that), eventually has to backfire.  How can it not?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5L4dXl4fns&hl=en&fs=1&]

                          

“Let me be clear about this,” CIA director Leon Panetta told his troops in May, “it was not CIA policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values.”

Of course, Panetta is entitled to his opinions, but he cannot create his own facts. And, as a long-time member of the House of Representatives, he surely must know that there is a long and substantiated record of CIA deceit and dissembling to the congressional intelligence committees, which lawmakers revealed late Wednesday Panetta admitted to in a closed-door briefing. Here are some highlights of the CIA’s record of lying to Congress…  Read More

                          

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.2795685&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

                          

In the 1944 Presidential election, Republicans attacked FDR for his dog, Fala, in much the same way that President Obama’s Republican critics are attacking his dog, Bo.

On September 23, 1944, FDR took his critics to task in what became known as the “Fala speech.” Watch:

                          

From Politco, 11 May 2009 post, by Prof. Matthew Dallek:

From their efforts to enact bipartisan health care reform to shaping energy and environmental legislation, Democratic moderates form a crucial bloc of votes that will define much of Obama’s legislative agenda…[snip]

…[Moderate Democrats remember] Clinton enacted a landmark budget in 1993. It raised taxes on corporations and the wealthy, put limits on new social spending and ultimately helped cut the budget deficit and produce a budget surplus in 1998. Clinton’s presidency “marked a profound change” in the Democratic Party’s direction, argued Kenneth Baer, the author of “Reinventing Democrats,” a history of the DLC. Before Clinton’s ascendance, Democrats “had been seen as profligate ‘tax-and-spenders’”; with Clinton in power, however, Democrats “had a president who championed … fiscal restraint.”…

read more | digg story

                          

(One can only guess whether the newly minted senator might reprise his pelvis-gyrating 2006 party victory dance, in which he wagged an imaginary codpiece on “The Colbert Report”; or whether he might advise voters, as he did years ago, to treat George W. Bush kindly “even though he’s kind of stupid and he stole the election.”)

Capitol Hill has never lacked for humor, inadvertent or otherwise. Over the centuries its denizens have provided the raw material of comedy — their ranks filled with magnificent egos, fakers and philanderers, not to mention the occasional statesman…

read more | digg story

                          

read more | digg story