This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
More Facts About The Tea-Party's "Goliath-Slayer" David Brat
Slowly but surely, more is being revealed about Eric Cantor's unknown until now (so unknown that his Wikipedia entry was only two sentences before Tuesday night) nemesis, the anti-big business, anti-Wall Street, anti establishment "Goliath-slayer" David Brat. In addition to our profile from this morning, here is the latest compilation of biographical factoids about the suddenly uber-famous tea party activist, who has written about the role of religion in economic growth. He is also a fan of the pro-capitalist novelist Ayn Rand. Here are some facts about Brat from Reuters.
ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS PROFESSOR WITH DIVINITY DEGREE
Brat, 49, is an economics professor at 1,300-student Randolph-Macon College outside Richmond, Virginia. He describes himself as a budget expert on his campaign website, saying he "presents a major problem for liberals who try to continue increased government spending by discrediting conservatives." In May, Brat reportedly missed planned meetings with national conservative leaders because he had to prepare for final exams. He graduated from Hope College in Michigan in 1986 with a degree in business administration, received a Master's in divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary and a PhD in economics from American University.
FAN OF AYN RAND
Brat teaches a class on Rand's thinking underwritten by Rand admirer and former banking chief executive John Allison, who is promoting the class to counter what he sees as anti-capitalist thinking at U.S. institutions. The program, known as "The Moral Foundations of Capitalism," is intended to further the ideas Rand outlined in her novel, "Atlas Shrugged." Brat has reportedly said he is not a "Randian" but appreciates the case she makes for freedom and free markets.
ARGUED RELIGION PLAYS ROLE IN ECONOMIC GROWTH RATES
Brat has in published work found fault with a 2001 paper by Ben Bernanke, who would later become chairman of the Federal Reserve, that said long-term growth was mostly determined by variables such as saving rates, population growth and levels of education. Brat said that Bernanke had overlooked the role of Protestantism, which he said created conditions conducive to strong economic performance.
OPPONENT OF IMMIGRATION REFORM
In campaign ads, Brat accused the majority leader of "giving citizenship papers to illegal immigrants." The immigration issue helped Brat win endorsements from notable conservatives such as Ann Coulter, who called Cantor "amnesty-addled" in a column for right-wing news site Townhall.com. Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham also campaigned for Brat in Virginia and slammed Cantor on immigration.
FACE-OFF AGAINST FELLOW FACULTY MEMBER
Brat's Democratic challenger in the November election will be Jack Trammell, a Randolph-Macon assistant professor and director of disability support services who has written books about the slave trade and his family's life on a small farm in rural Virginia.
WAS CRITICIZED BY CANTOR FOR BEING A LIBERAL
Cantor initially dismissed Brat as "a liberal economics professor" who was pretending to be a conservative. Cantor's attack was widely reported, bringing a bonanza of publicity to Brat.
* * *
Further on Brat from The Hill
Dave Brat, suddenly among the most famous House nominees in the country, has preached an economic policy message rooted in capitalism and Christ, fearing in his writings that a weak society could produce the next Hitler, or that one party could try to monopolize morality.
“If markets are bad, which they are, that means people are bad, which they are. Want good markets? Change the people. If there are not nervous twitches in the pews when we preach, then we are not doing our jobs,” Brat wrote in a 13-page 2011 paper published in Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. “If we all spread the word, we would not need the government to backstop every action we take.”
“I have the sinking feeling that it could all happen again, quite easily,” he wrote.
Brat, a Randolph-Macon economics professor, stunned the political world on Tuesday night when he defeated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) in a Republican primary, a feat Brat described as a "miracle" on Fox News.
Now Brat, lauded by the Tea Party following his victory, is thrust into the national political spotlight, and his economic papers are being sifted through for clues about how he would govern.
"The government holds a monopoly on violence. Any law that we vote for is ultimately backed by the full force of our government and military. Do we trust institutions of the government to ensure justice?” Brat wrote in 2011. “Do you trust that power to the political Right? Do you trust it to the Left? If you answered 'no' to either question, you may have a major problem in the future.”
Brat received a doctorate in economics from American University and a master's divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary.
He now faces Democratic challenger Jack Trammell, another professor at Randolph-Macon in Ashland, in the battle for Virginia's 7th District.
Brat's remarks on Fox News following his primary victory echoed another passage he wrote in the 2011 paper.
“God asked the people of Israel: Are you sure you want a king? That is a good question to ask at this time,” Brat wrote in 2011. “The church needs to regain its voice and offer up a coherent social vision of justice and rationality. Soon. The Bible and then Calvin is a good start. Rule of Law is in the middle. Capitalism will be in the final chapters.”
In the same paper, he framed the current political landscape as one where Republicans “enforce morality” and Democrats “coerce others” to fund social programs.
“Can Christians force others to follow their ethical teachings on social issues? Note that consistency is lacking on all sides of this issue. The political Right likes to champion individual rights and individual liberty, but it has also worked to enforce morality in relation to abortion, gambling, and homosexuality,” Brat wrote.
“The Left likes to think of itself as the bulwark of progressive liberal individualism, and yet it seeks to progressively coerce others to fund every social program under the sun via majority rule. Houston, we have a problem. Coercion is on the rise.”
Brat praised institutions as a force of economic good, particularly religious institutions, according to a 2004 paper he authored that was published in the Virginia Economic Journal.
“Institutions such as religion, democracy and government anti-diversion policies all significantly enhance a country's long-run economic performance,” Brat wrote in 2004. “The religion variable may be the strongest ex ante, exogenous institutional variable in the literature.”
Brat wrote that “a real test for liberal Christian types is whether they will reach out to capitalists.”
“If we are ever going to be transformers of culture, we need to get our story straight on capitalism and faith,” Brat wrote in 2011. "The two can go together and they had better go together, or we will not transform anything.”
»
- 23303 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
If you believe as I do that the elites are preparing the nation for fascist fundamentalist Christian rule, another brick in the wall just fell into place.
See you on the battlefield, as I am not going "camping."
Corporatism is where we are at...so fascism is a short step away...but I don't see Christianity being tha hallmark of the idol leader fascism requires in that differentiation.
Maybe a "humanist" fascist? That's the global religion the elites would prefer...you know, the elites who preach that 'diversity' happens when we all agree with them.
All totalitarianism has a radical ideology at its root and core. In the DC US that is fundamentalist Christianity.
Please observe over the next two years as fundamentalist Christianity comes more and more to the fore in society and in the propaganda media.
Fundamentalist Christianity is: "Our God before you," rabidly pro-government control and extremely pro-Israel amongst other things.
Interesting how fundamentalist Christians criticise Islamic fundamentalists.
There's a big clue to something important in there.
To the outside world this guy looks batshit crazy.. Where are all the American Athiests? Surely some commonsense will prevail soon enough?
Who is this 'outside world'? I'm needing that to see if I give a rat's ass.
Exactly, who gives a fuck about the rest of humanity?
Come off it, the guy won his primary and we blindly presume he's going to be making waves? Great that Cantor is gone of course, but we don't know anything about him besides him saying the right things to win his primary race against another bible thumping asshole. If the guy's been a professor at a small liberal arts school for all this time, you know he's got some deficiencies. And on top of that he puts a fairytale in the sky before his family and country. As much as ZH loves bashing all politicians left and right, they sure are getting pretty worked up about just one more asshole replacing a possibly bigger asshole.
Perhaps you should stop being so quick to judge people?
one sockcucker replacingr another...first term splash(if elected), then poluted by the easy money. if he fights the status quo, he will never see a comittee and will be ostrisized...all one big fucking joke.
http://faculty.rmc.edu/dbrat/researchpapers/2005BOOKPhilosophyofEconomic...
quick read only ~80 pages (Not like some university where you're expected to digest, regurgitate and eviscerate at least 100 pages per day, every day... or do they not do that anymore?)
David Brat killed fuffty men. Fuffty if it was one.
He'll consume the Democrats with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse.
Brat: " There's a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it."
Cantor: "Yup sounds good, don't forget this envelope from Goldman".
FREEDOM!!!
wow.
that's all they've got on this guy?
...that's one *squeaky* clean politician.
Some dirty dirt digger's not digging deep enough.
They gave him so little chance of winning the primary they didn't bother with his NSA file. Hopefully he's clean. The only thing making me a little nervous is his first sentence on Fox after his win having the word "Israel" in it.
"that's all they've got on this guy?"
Typically, in most non-batshit countries, it's all that one would need. He wants to scare the markets into behaving by threatening them with hell and promising them heven. I's say you get the politicians you deserve.
David Brat: "We need to get closer to the LORD and treat one another as we would want to be treated."
David Brat: "It's open season on mexican alien invaders!!!"
gee.
thank goodness he got the immigration issue right.
right? lol.
...it's just not right for people who don't have any legal right to come here to claim citizenship dishonestly and illegally, when so many honest people around the world are on waiting lists to come here legally.
sheesh.
the nerve of some people!
It's just not right for some countries to steal from other countries and then demonize people for trying to move there.
After all, they are just trying to get back what is theirs.
The nerve of some people!
We have no saving rates, no population growth and no levels of education.. Good job Ben
"Brat teaches a class on Rand's thinking underwritten by Rand admirer and former banking chief executive John Allison..."
Woo hoo! Yeah, he's going to really serve it up to those bankers!
At least it isn't a secret, or a state secret, or denied and lied about.
Do I need to ask You to provided details about Obama's college aplications, funding, transcripts -or a hard copy of his birth cert.?
It's better that Brat's sources of funding and beliefs are public knowledge than hidden from consideration and verification, isn't it?
Seems like we all derserve the same transparency and honesty where some other People are concerned...
Dig a little deeper.
I think , if you do, you may find some disquieting stuff.
Government is the problem.
End of story.
Nobody has been able to stop the cocksuckers. Hardly anybody is even trying. I'm ready to let the bat-shit crazies have a go at it.
Call him anything you want but there is one thing you CANNOT call him and that's INCUMBENT. I don't care if he's a lower than whale shit pedophile, the only hope is to throw them all out. That includes Rand Paul, who, BTW, is NOT his daddy, Ron. Screw junior, too.
I don't care if I get downvotes, but I agree with the people mentioning the Rand/religion contradiction. I just don't understand the cognitive dissonance behind people that support both their own religion profusely and then simultaneously agree with Rand's objectivism.
I guess here's a better question: why do Tea Partiers support Rand with more gusto than say, Ludwig von Mises? (I'll give guys like Justin Amash credit here... he loves his Austrian economists)
Do you not like any two people who disagree with each other about something important?
If you disagree with someone about something important, do you feel the need to discount all of their other views as well?
Not when one thing completely contradicts the other thing.
So it's metaphysically impossible for a christian to find anything of value in Atlas Shrugged?
Come on, guys, this is not a serious complaint.
Their argument is a fallacy and it's their only argument against any of the anti-state crowd, and it's not even an accurate complaint as only about 15% of the anti-state crowd is even objectivist (Randian), and they are barely anti-state as they run for office.
Basically what I am saying is that their efforts are a strawman. A very convoluted and conficting strawman, but one nonetheless. I remember when it was actually hard to spot the con, I guess the good players have moved on to easier pastures.
????
Cugel, Rand's entire philosophy is based on the religion of "I." It's not just that she disagrees with a few things Christians say. She thinks Christianity is a joke, and her central philosophy of pure self-interest is antithetical to all mainstream Christian dogma. These are not just two friends disagreeing about something important. These are two friends who each think the other is an asshole.
“Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life.” – Ayn Rand
Hitler was religious and killed millions. Stalin was an atheist and killed millions. Any contradictions in their belief systems? There are contradictions and similarities in Rand and religion. I know many who profess values of both. We pick and choose those aspects of ideologies we align with. With any luck most of us manage to escape the most stringent interpretations that some fall in to, say radical Islam? See any conflicts within the practices of the Religion of Peace?
We are all just experiments of the double helix.
Those that produce more offspring are the most successful.
The trick is to realise this, i think, and then just run with it.
The big caveat is that if you think it's OK to do something to someone else because you have a bigger stick, you have to be open to the idea that there's someone just out of sight with a bigger stick than you have.
At least TRY to enjoy the ride. You'll be dead for a long time.
Jesus thought all people were selfish, and so did Rand. Jesis directed his followers to reject reject selfishness, and Rand taught that we should embrace it. You can agree with objectivism and believe in God, but you can't believe in an altruistic "fix" of man's inherent nature.
This wouldn't be a problem normally, but objectivism has essentially an all-or-nothing style of philosophy. Objectivism is very "this is our club" and is not very welcoming to other ideas or people that attempt to criticize it. That's why Rand's inner circle had the cult-like aura to it. I mean shit, look at Murray Rothbard's experience with Rand. She invited Rothbard and his gang over to check out Atlas Shrugged before she published it. Rothbard obviously had a lot of praise for the book, but Rand quickly found out that Rothbard's wife was a devout Presbyterian. Once she found this out, Rand confronted Rothbard and told him to divorce his wife and find a "more rational person" (it was something along those lines). Even though Rothbard was an agnostic/atheist/secular Jew and considered fine for Rand, Rothbard was happy with his marriage and told Rand to take a hike.
Again, this is why I question the Tea Party trying to praise a woman who created an extremely exclusive and insular philosophy that has clear contradictions with many of the conservative values that Tea Partiers hold dear to their hearts. It's also why I much prefer the current style of libertarianism that was started by Rothbard/Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul and continues to this day. You can have disagreements between people about some issues here or there and not be ousted or condemned for disobeying a specific set of guidelines. Bringing up Rothbard again as an example, he had some extremely gruesome opinons about abortion. Yet we have stauch pro-lifers that are libertarians like Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano that have simultaneously praised Rothbard. That kind of thing would be completely unacceptable in Rand's inner circle (considering Rand was pro-choice too) but libertarianism tries not to be that picky.
He was easily able to separate the content of the book from the rest of her dogma. Just like everyone else is able to do.
You answer your own question, yet profess bafflement.
I'm no scholar on Rothbard, but from what I've read in his writing, his opinion was that abortion should be legal. He also pointed out that legality is a separate issue from morality.
A person can be right on one thing and wrong on another. I happen to agree with Rand on both points, but those who believe that belief is good will disagree. That is not a contradiction at all.
The thing about "objectivism" is that it is literally just the view of one person, Rand. When she died, the philosophy died with her. Libertarianism, on the other hand, is alive and well, as is the anarcho-capitalism that she described so well in Atlas Shrugged (without meaning to, apparently).
Tea partiers are people with jobs and lives. They haven't all had the time, nor do they all have the knowledge and personality type to examine the source of their beliefs. Rand is convenient because she is very nearly "right" and laid out in a nice pretty package that people can point to and say "I support THAT". This is the nature of mankind. Only a few can devote the cycles neccessary to ensuring that the things they espouse to believe are really best.
First off the guy is a Constitutional Conservative. 2nd I donated money to Bivens, Bratt and Mcdaniels campaigns which means i have skin in this game. 3rd I originally came to this site because I thought at least 20% of commenters had some intelligence.I realize now I was overly optimistic, 2% percent is more apt.
You donated money to political campaigns. Oh my dear poor poor boy...
@omegaturd , yes I did, same as I do to the National Rifle Association. Thank U for making it clear U r a non-American with his nose up Obamas ass. I hope we meet soon
Politics brings out the worst in all of us and don't think these people will not defend their votes for Obama to the bitter end.
If you actually followed him he was more anti Wall Street fraud than anti immigration.
I would love it if the tea party would stop identifying as libertarians already. My dog doesn't pretend to be a cat either.
A populist reactionary anti immigration social conservative is not a libertarian.
"WAS CRITICIZED BY CANTOR FOR BEING A LIBERAL"
A dirty trick that didn't work.
I just want to thank everyone for this side-splitting I WORSHIP AYN RAND AND GOD EQUALLY rhetorical and philosophical tour de force.
Just don't get enough of these on ZH, anymore.
Me thinks that you sprinkled salt on a paper cut or two...
I been feelin' saltier and saltier these days.
You two saying anyone worships anything is amusing. The narcissism that I have seen come both of you is utterly shocking at times.
God, you are so dramatic.
Says the guy crying about a guy being religious and also liking Ayn Rand. You know because that is an amazingly important issue to get worked up over.... Out of all of the things on this site, this one issue is that worth getting that upset over.
I find your commentary boring and unintelligent :-)
If we can't comment about the utter cognitive dissonance of proclaiming faith in both Rand and Jesus in a story about a politician whose platform is based upon a proclaimed faith in both Rand and Jesus, where else can we comment about it?
If it were just commenting and not condemning the man, it would be fair.
This is why your apathetic group is so hated on here. You can't tell the difference between commentary and fallacies.
LOL
Do You read the page from top to bottom and from left to right ?
Both philosophical constructs contain useful insights and I don't find those insights to be mutually incompatible.
I for one don't worship Rand or Jesus -so I'm kind of confused.
None the less I am pleased that you enjoyed our repartee.
No hard feelings LTER. Let me help you up, Bro. You ok? -Got a ride outta here?
Don't listen to me, listen to Ayn:
The following excerpt is from a letter to Sylvia Austin dated July 9, 1946, in Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 287:
"There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.
This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul)."
"This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved.
-
That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul)."
I accept that Ayn identified and either did not care to or failed to resolve the contradiction in HER soul.
That was HER, LTER...
-And as I have repeatedly said: I am neither Ayn Rand -nor am I Jesus, not a devotee/acolyte of Ayn Rand -or of Jesus.
I accept the contradictions in my personality/soul.
I suspect that IF I chance to (re)solve these personal contradictions/get saved/reach enlightenment ...I'll probably be too reflective/self-involved or lost in myself/the myth/mysetery/?? to bother to let You or anyone else know. -I could be wrong,; but,...
Anyway: what would it matter to You IF I reach a state of enlightenment or general satisfaction or whatever -or NOT?
I am not your responsibility am I, LTER?
Ohhhhhh, -WAIT A GODDMANED MINUTE ! ! ! !
ARE YOU responsible for MY happiness, LTER???
ARE YOU?
ARE YOU?
...WELL?
???WELL????
-Cause IF YOU are...
Why? I worship you and my neighbor's cat equally.
I live in the district right next to this one, and Cantor lost because he is a douche. The tea party had very little effect, the open primary had very little effect, Brat himself had very little effect. This was about Cantor being a fucking Washington power monger douche who didn't give two squirts about his district other than it gave him a seat to try and make a national name for himself. Enough people finally got tired of him. Did I mention that he really is a swarmy douche?
Well, what I've heard over the hedge is that Cantor is kind of a douche.
But, as someone I've never spoken to, chosen at random on the interwebs; I'd like to hear your professional opinion as to the character and habits of the unfortunate Mr. Cantor.
I'm going to maybe retract calling him a douche, because a douche has a contructive purpose outside of itself. Cantor does not, and what he comes in contact with does not come back smelling fresh and clean. He is more like a tick or chigger.
He has the look of the relgious right, they always have the look as if someone is always queezing their nuts ..... I wonder id I could order up the same PhD.......
I don't see how he can be a Christian, and also be a fan of Ayn Rand. She was a notorious atheist in her philosophy. I suppose he could subscribe to her political and economic philosophy and not her moral philosophy, but in his world the two seem to be closely related.
Read the paragraph under Rand Fan...makes it sound like he's a fan of just part of her ideas.
Rand was a political philosopher or theorist whose atheism had nothing to do with "objectivism". Her central tenet was that all humans act selfishly. From that, she deduced that the best political system was capitalistic and rewarded those whose creativity and effort produced goods and services. I read all her books and subscribed to her newsletter and I don't recall any assertions that a repudiation of God was necessary to her philosophy.
Seems he's a Calvinist. Weren't Calvinists puritans? Puritans were religious fanatics.
Also, I seem to remeber reading that Calvin got his head lopped off in some pointless battle in a Swiss forest.
Please read the paragraph!!!
I'm tired of reading posts were people are debating a question answered already. It's part of her ideas he liked.
FAN OF AYN RAND
Brat teaches a class on Rand's thinking underwritten by Rand admirer and former banking chief executive John Allison, who is promoting the class to counter what he sees as anti-capitalist thinking at U.S. institutions. The program, known as "The Moral Foundations of Capitalism," is intended to further the ideas Rand outlined in her novel, "Atlas Shrugged." Brat has reportedly said he is not a "Randian" but appreciates the case she makes for freedom and free markets.
Please read some history!!!
He says "the Bible and then Calvin is a good start". That would make him a Calvinist.
Just read the text for fuck's sake...the sentence you quote starts "The church needs..."...not "our govt needs..."...so how is that relavant to my point?
Am I the only one who can read around here tonight? And you be surprised by the irony of you telling me...a historian...to read history.
WTH? Full moon or something?
Crap...now I'm a proven pagen by some board standards tonight.
I'm Catholic (like Brat), and I guess if I tried, I could find things I "like" in the writings of Aleister Crowley.
But that would be dumb.
But fuck - this is America in the 21st century, and postmodernism encourages stupid shit like this.
If Hitler said that the grass was green would you disagree? He probably did at some point.
Some things are natural truths...often seen but not fully understood.
Happy Cantor has been deposed. This guy Brat is a kook. So not sure about the outcome. Are there any sane folks who aspire to public office?
Wait why would they. Nevermind.
Cynic central ZH doesn't like him because he dares to mix his faith, political philosophy and Rand. So what, you don't have to be an atheist like Rand to admire her thoughts? Bitch bitch bitch , no one could measure up to ZH cynics.
Some real bright insightful folk here......BUT....this is becoming Cynic central..."you know who you are"....wear that badge proudly. You can always be right when the ship is sinking. I find listening to ya'll tiresome as in watching a turd circle the bowl refusing to go down. Why not join a bowling league or something?
Back at ya!
Its only a matter of time before these outsiders (Ukip, Tea Party) become puppets of big business, everyone has a price or a secret. The current setup is unsustainable but people generally don't want a reckoning, even if the current situation isn't working for them I think they fear it could get worse.
the Bible, the Law and Capitalism...the three pillars of tea party ideology.
TRouble with that is when Law and Bible come face to face on "peoples inalienable rights principle" and when Capitalism and Bible come face to face on "social" issues.
Are the Tea Party "talibans" when it come to applying the "divine word" to be taken literally; aka abortion and gay pinkos are abominations?
Are the Tea Party "capitalists" to the point they consider all social levelling via any form of taxation is a SIN and that the only true American idol is a guy who has the ability to "influence" the "invisible handed free market" like a Koch or a Walton or a Google Oligarch or a Buffet or a "whats good for Apple is good for USA" addict?
Behind the rhetoric is the hidden face of populist ideology which has nothing to do with the professorial trimmings you pander to the people. Reality is what you get once the guy is elected.
Your mind is only a tool. Like needing ears to hear, you need a mind to learn how to drive or how to learn a second language. Your mind is not you. You are an indepedent entity and can choose to follow what ever. Yor personl god, your wife, or your local bookie. Unlike your mind an body, you cannot be measured by matter and energy sensing tools. When the mind and body return to ashes and free electrons where do you go.