That's how it goes in the news media sometimes: a very important story is already six or seven years old--then, finally, a left wing publication writes something on it--and after that (if we're very very lucky) it makes its way into the rest of the political media. And then (if we're super-lucky; lottery ticket millionaire lucky:) people begin to take that issue seriously.
Thus with the Bachmann story. Yesterday somebody sent me a just-published Mother Jones piece on Bachmann.
The title of the piece is:
Does Michele Bachmann Think the Apocalypse is Imminent?
Want to understand the Minnesota lawmaker's prophecy-driven politics? Tune in to her favorite end-times-themed radio show.
By Tim Murphy | Wed Jun. 1, 2011
(CONTINUED)
...and then the reporter launches into evidence that Bachmann is indeed an apocalyptic conservative evangelicals.
To be fair, that is probably true of most conservative evangelicals in United States. It is probably fair to say that most of conservative evangelicals in the US look around them and see signs that we are near (or actually living in) what is called "the end times": the end of history, where there will horrible upheavals, catastrophes, the Antichrist, and the return of Jesus to found a new heaven and new earth.
Christian fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals believe that this is all very real and will inevitably happen--the Bible is, for them, a book of infallible prophecy as well as a guide to salvation. (Indeed the two concepts are inevitably linked...conservative evangelicals believe that so many of the prophecies in the Bible have come true that it is a practical certainty that the as-yet-unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible about the end of the world will come true.)
These are premises on which millions of Americans base their decisions about politics--because conservative evangelical Christianity has become politicized over the past four decades. They are also the premises of a radio program discussed in the article: "Understanding the Times," hosted by Jan Markell. (Formerly the show was entitled "Prophetic Views in the News," which gives you a better idea of what the show is about.
During the run-up to her unsuccessful attempt to get an anti-same sex marriage amendment to the Minnesota Constitution, Bachmann appeared on this program and made many alarming statements about the spectre of gay marriage. Some of Bachmann's statements are quoted in the Mother Jones piece; they could have quoted many more made during the same series of broadcasts.
The source of the quotes are the transcriptions I made from audio recordings of the radio show. Not attributed, but that doesn't mean anything...since I published these Bachmann statements prior to Bachmann's first election to Congress in 2006, they've been republished in many other different forums--on the Dump Bachmann blog, in the Bachmann comic books I publish, as parenthetical comments in posts about Bachmann around the web.
So it's at least five years since I first published those transcribed Bachmann remarks. They're surfacing more this year than ever before (because of Bachmann's prez run, I guess) but it's heartening to see a print journalist finally running some of them... seven years after Bachmann made the remarks publicly; live on the air.
You see: I sat out on the porch that day with a tape recorder and typed all this stuff up, because I figured it was "a dynamite news story." I figured that all I had to do was to get the quotes to Minnesota news outlets--I figured they would realize that this candidate's agenda is driven this Christian fundamentalist "end times" stuff (and lies and exploitation of homophobia)--and that they would print that.
I was absolutely wrong. I sent the stuff to Bob Collins, a senior editor at Minnesota Public Radio, and to Eric Black, the political journalist honcho at the Minneapolis Star Tribune: and they wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot poll. It remained in the comment threads to their news blogs--no story, no press on this aspect of this candidate's political beliefs, and thus no questions to Bachmann asking her to back up or clarify her statements. No information to the voters on this "Bible prophecy/Christian fundamentalist" that forms a key part of her personal vision as a politician.
I ended up publishing whatever I had myself, on a web page called thebachmannrecord.com It's still up there on the web; you can go there and you can see a lot of other "newsworthy and rather alarming" Bachmann quotes that really should have been reported to audiences by the Minnesota media over the past seven years or so. (I've never changed the content of that web page since I put it up. It is exactly as I left it in 2006; the quotes from audio and video recordings of Bachmann speaking have been available ever since then, with the dates and citations--Minnesota political press just ignored it in their regular profiles of Bachmann and in their reporting on Bachmann candidacies.)
But now--seven years later--a Mother Jones reporter is finally digging that stuff up, somewhere. And more power to him! He printed her words, what she actually said, on this very controversial subject. Printing that is exactly what the local political press is supposed to do with regard to a politician who makes heinous charges, unsubstantiated claims, professions of faith that the speaker considers central to his or her politics. If the press doesn't report the actual words of such a person, the voters never get to know that side of the politician--they get a "pass" from the press, the speaker is never asked to explain the claims to a wider audience of voters, the statements never get into the record, and their likelihood of success at election time zooms. If those statements aren't published by the professional press in a timely manner, the demagogue is free to continue to demagogue.
The problem is: Bachmann said all that stuff on the radio back in 2005. I'm glad to see that a print journalist with a real, live job is finally using column space to tell people about it...but it's a little late in the day, isn't it?
So I guess this is how it works, when it comes to the conservative evangelical political thing: you give the reporters a story, a really informative and newsworthy one--and seven years later, maybe some reporter from out of state prints it. The Mother Jones reporter also cites a fine City Pages profile referencing Bachmann's relationship with the prophecy radio show--but that piece is also from 2005.
There's more recent stuff in the article, and it's worth reading--but beware: as is true in so many cases, the reporter is a little confused about this Bible prophecy stuff and the central role it plays in conservative evangelical political thinking. And in this article the reporter doesn't seem to realize the fact of the the "movement" in Bachmann's career--the national conservative evangelical political movement that made and continues to make Bachmann's political career.
You see: apocalyptic ideas that are considered "kinda kooky" by left-wing journalists and people educated in the Western tradition of the last five hundred years are central to the conservative evangelical political movement. It's no exaggeration to say that millions of Americans around the country want to make law and public policy on the bases of those ideas. They've been hearing this stuff for decades in conservative evangelical congregations and on the vast conservative evangelical broadcast media. This stuff that Bachmann said on Prophetic Views in the News? It's part of the reason people vote for her, part of the reason that they send her money.
I guess Mother Jones ran the piece under the assumption that revealing this "apocalyptic" side of Bachmann's worldview would somehow discredit her. Maybe so, but it's also true that this side of Bachmann's worldview is actually what made her into a formidable political force in Republican and conservative circles. Bachmann's dire predictions and heinous charges against the White House, etc. all makes sense to a person who believes that we are approaching the end of world as predicted in the Bible. It's part of the reason that they support her.
And not just her. Bachmann is something of a figurehead in the evangelical conservative political movement; the people who guide that movement (for example, people like James Dobson and Pat Robertson) could end her career--just as their political machinery helped to build it.
The wherewithal that allows Bachmann to run to the right of the national Republican leadership--comes from the conservative evangelical political movement. And it would be silly to assume that Bachmann is their only candidate in US politics (she's just one of the most prominent and popular.) They have many, many candidates in local, state and federal races around the country.
Bachmann was a pioneer in some respects, and she knows it. She made her bones politically with an anti-gay marriage rally in St. Paul; she took a safely Republican seat away from "secular" Republican competitors. And a conservative evangelical political machine was shown to be powerful and viable. We are living with the consequences of that today here in Minnesota. The agenda pursued by Republicans in the state legislature this session was in some respects foreshadowed by the career of Michele Bachmann. Bachmann imitators and fans enter politics here and elsewhere in the country, and in districts and elections where the conservative evangelical organization is strong and the conservative evangelical vote is important: they win nominations away from "secular" Republicans, and often go on to success in November.
We all live with the consequences of that, even people who live in liberal or progressive districts. This is still a big mystery to a lot of liberals and progressives--in a post-Obama world, how can it be possible that this sectarian, supernatural, prophecy stuff be relevant to "who gets to decide on the state budget?"
Well: it is relevant to that, and to so many issues that don't seem to involve "the correct Biblical position." It's a central factor in modern American political life.
So (if this article is any indication) I guess print journalists will get around to reporting on exactly "what goes on every day"--about seven years from now.
http://motherjones.com/...