History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Esquire has released its list of the 10 worst members of Congress--a stiff competition, given that Michelle (neo-Joe McCarthy) ranked only as the third worst.
Number two is Georgia senator Saxby Chambliss, best-known for the worst ad of the 2002 cycle, against Vietnam veteran Max Cleland:
Chambliss is in a surprisingly tight race for re-election, against lightly regarded Democrat Jim Martin.
Beating out Chambliss for Esquire's top honor: Joe Lieberman. In politics, the magazine notes,"Some lose gracefully, some lose poorly, and, as in the case of Joe Lieberman, some lose their minds. Since being defeated by an antiwar candidate in the Democratic primary in 2006, Lieberman (who was subsequently reelected as an Independent) has pursued his campaign of revenge against his former party, thinly disguised as an act of principle, replete with the quavering sanctimony that no country should have to put up with from anyone, much less from this small man."
What a hoot! Can you name the last a-theist in the United States who was assassinated for his a-theism? Can you name *one*? *Ever*? Get serious.
Jeremy Young -
10/21/2008
I think I already made the comment that, like Harvey Milk, he's opened himself up to potential assassination. Now we're just going in circles.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/21/2008
You're correct on fact. Yet, he hasn't faced any serious opposition since 1980; he's won at least 60% of the vote in his current district since redistricting; and he has no serious opposition this year. I fail to see the oppression.
Alan Allport -
10/21/2008
With Alan, you get both wild exaggeration of the numbers of a-theists in the United States and a persecution complex.
Oh come on Ralph, that's silly.
My initial figure was off-the-top-of-my-head, as I was quite open about; and I revised it. Though I've subsequently seen a higher figure (19%). Part of the problem, of course, is that these stats are guesswork; the definitions of atheist and agnostic are not settled. Not everyone who is, in practice, irreligious resembles Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins. Not everyone who is, in practice, irreligious is even willing to admit it to themselves.
Why are they reluctant to admit it? Partly, because it's not quite a respectable thing to believe in most families and communities. It's weird, abnormal, a little unsettling. You don't have to have a 'persecution complex' to notice that rational free thought is considered vaguely un-American today. That doesn't mean tumbrils or auto-de-fe's; it does mean that a non-believer who wants to pursue a public career is wise to keep his or her mouth shut. And until Americans become as blase about atheism as Europeans, I'll continue to be impressed by anyone who defies the taboo.
Jeremy Young -
10/21/2008
Actually, I think this will be Stark's first election since admitting he was an atheist.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/21/2008
With Alan, you get both wild exaggeration of the numbers of a-theists in the United States and a persecution complex. Give me a break! Have these men been elected and re-elected to office, when their constituents knew full well what their religious views were? I can't see that their religious views are a reason one should admire or not admire them.
Jeremy Young -
10/21/2008
I don't think there's anywhere in America where it's safe to admit to being an atheist, except maybe on a college campus. Even if he's in no danger of being voted out of office by his constituents, he's in danger of assassination, death threats, etc. I don't decide who to vote for in an ideological vacuum, but I do decide who I like -- the only claim I made about Stark -- based on how much guts they show in every aspect of their political lives. I admire Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback for their willingness to admit to minority religious viewpoints, too, and have said so repeatedly -- but there's nothing quite like admitting to atheism in this country to show real courage. Recent polls show consistently that Americans would rather have a gay President or a Muslim President than an atheist President, so if you're running for office, it takes a great deal of courage to admit to that. To my knowledge, Stark is the only openly atheist Congressman ever to hold federal office (Robert Ingersoll and Clarence Darrow were never elected to office, though both ran).
Alan Allport -
10/21/2008
All three represent districts in which it takes no great intestinal fortitude to believe or not believe as they choose.
With all due respect, Ralph, I think you're showing a bit too much confidence in the reasonableness of your co-believers. *You* may think it's foolish to vote for or against someone because of a lack of religious faith; most theists do not appear to share that view. I doubt there's a single district in the United States in which a candidate can admit to atheism or agnosticism without at least some political cost. The taboo remains very strong.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/21/2008
All three represent districts in which it takes no great intestinal fortitude to believe or not believe as they choose. I hope they were not elected because of their belief or non-belief. I hope they are not defeated because of it. Supporting them for reasons of their belief or non-belief seems foolish to me.
Jeremy Young -
10/21/2008
No, because I'm not supporting him for being an atheist. I'm supporting him for admitting to be an atheist. In today's political climate, that takes guts. I support Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, who admit to being Muslims, for the same reason.
Alan Allport -
10/21/2008
Nonetheless, the percentage of people in the United States who affirm a belief in God is *very* high.
I agree that most people in the United States believe that they believe, or want others (such as opinion pollsters) to believe that they believe. I suspect that many of these beliefs are so gossamer-thin as to amount, in practice, to agnosticism (at least).
As for 'proportional representation': that isn't really what I was talking about (and I've never heard anyone propose it anyway). What I meant was this: in a political culture that is unremittingly hostile to rational religious doubt, it is encouraging for non-believers to see *someone* come out of the closet and admit their lack of faith. How many members of Congress are sincere about their espoused religious beliefs, do you think? How many of them just go through the motions because they fear the political consequences of being honest?
Ralph E. Luker -
10/21/2008
On your first point, nuances of faith and doubt mean that there will be degrees of uncertainty in the minds of those who affirm religious belief. Nonetheless, the percentage of people in the United States who affirm a belief in God is *very* high. A-theists of certitude do need to recognize that they are relatively few here.
On your second point, we are not commonly asked to vote for the a-theist candidate or the Roman Catholic candidate or the Baptist or the Jewish candidate. Or the male or the female or the black or white, for that matter. We are commonly asked to vote for the Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green or what have you. The notion that a-theists should have proportional representation seems a folly. Must the Baptists be represented in proportion to their numbers?
Alan Allport -
10/21/2008
Your 20-25% figure seems unlikely. Atheism, after all, is certitude that there is no god. No imperialistic claims that drag agnostics into the camp are allowed.
Hmmm ... if agnostics don't count as non-believers, why should milquetoasts who vaguely assert Christian faith without its theological implications ever bothering them in the slightest count as believers? Why should the less-than-certain fall into the faith camp?
For the record, Wikipedia suggests that my ballpark figure was too high: somewhere between 5-10% seems closer. Still a pretty significant national constituency.
And, given the fact that our elections are functions of political parties rather than religious denominations and that we have no system of proportional representation, yes.
Sorry, no idea what point you're making here. Clarify?
Ralph E. Luker -
10/21/2008
Your 20-25% figure seems unlikely. Atheism, after all, is certitude that there is no god. No imperialistic claims that drag agnostics into the camp are allowed. And, given the fact that our elections are functions of political parties rather than religious denominations and that we have no system of proportional representation, yes.
Alan Allport -
10/21/2008
If you claim that atheism deserves representation in the House of Representatives ...
Surely there's a big difference between (a) admiring someone for admitting that he holds an unpopular belief, and (b) demanding that that belief "deserves representation" in its own right?
(Though given that IIRC about 20-25% of the American people have little or no expressed religious belief, is it *that* outrageous for them to hope that one of their federal representatives might share that view?)
Ralph E. Luker -
10/21/2008
Isn't that a bit like Senator Roman Hruska's claim that mediocrity merits representation on the Supreme Court? If you claim that atheism deserves representation in the House of Representatives, those of us who are believers are entitled to measure members of Congress according to their theological orthodoxy.
Jeremy Young -
10/21/2008
I'm in agreement on both counts -- and I have to say I like Pete Stark a lot, if only because he's the only member of Congress willing to admit he's an atheist.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/21/2008
I would have thought that Kentucky's Jim Bunning and Oklahoma's Jim Inhofe would have found places on this list -- well ahead of Cornyn and, even, Saxby Chambliss.
