Deck the Halls With Partisan Warfare

Xinhua/Zumapress.com

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Ah, Christmas in Washington. ‘Tis the season for holiday cheer, good tidings—and political attacks wrapped up in cringeworthy yuletide metaphors. Cultural conservatives have long accused liberals of waging a “war on Christmas,” and both parties have been blamed for grinchy behavior this year. Below, ten ways the holiday has been used for political ends:

1) Though revived by the rise of Christian fundamentalists, the purported “war on Christmas” goes way back in American history. Industrialist Henry Ford, a notorious anti-Semite, blamed Jews for stifling Christmas carolers and school-based religious demonstrations, notes Time magazine. “The whole record of the Jewish opposition to Christmas…shows the venom and directness of [their] attack,” Ford writes in 1921.

2) A few decades later, Communists were blamed for destroying the holiday. Notes Time Henry Ford in 1919: WikmediaHenry Ford in 1919: Wikmediahere, quoting a pamphlet from the John Birch Society: “One of the techniques now being applied by the Reds to weaken the pillar of religion in our country is the drive to take Christ out of Christmas.” The title of the 1959 pamphlet: “There Goes Christmas?!”

3) The controversy over public nativity scenes came to a head in 1989, when the Supreme Court ruled in County of Allegheny vs. American Civil Liberties Union that it was illegal for governments to endorse Christianity—though governments could “celebrate the season” through joint displays of Christmas trees and menorahs. The compromise hardly settled the matter, however: Every year, local governments wrestle with disputes over whether Baby Jesus has been overshadowed by menorahs and the trappings of secular Christmas.

4) In 2005, Bill O’Reilly helped revived the “war on Christmas” meme, going after retailers like Toys ‘R Us who had failed to use the word “Christmas” in their advertising. “Surely they understand the anger that is going to be engendered among millions of Americans who feel their holiday is being denigrated and disrespected,” O’Reilly said. “I think it’s all part of the secular progressive agenda to get Christianity and spirituality out of the public square.”

Setting up the Capitio Christmas Tree.: Xinhua/Zumapress.comSetting up the Capitol Christmas Tree. Xinhua/Zumapress.com

5) That year, Reverend Jerry Falwell also led a crusade against governments that labeled Christmas trees as “holiday trees.” “‘We want to make sure that Christmas is safe, but we know that it is not,” Mat Staver, president of the Liberty Counsel, a Falwell-backed conservative legal group, told the Baltimore Sun. ”When people seek to rename what otherwise is a secular symbol simply because of the name ‘Christmas,’ that shows the depths of political correctness run amok.” Then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) bent to the pressure by ordering that the Capitol Holiday Tree be rechristened the Capitol Christmas Tree.

6) President George W. Bush also experienced a fierce backlash from some conservative Christians for sending out holiday cards that wish 1.4 million friends and supporters a happy “holiday season”—a generic greeting that some activists interpreted as a war on the religious holiday. “This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture,” William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, told the Washington Post. Bush “claims to be a born-again, evangelical Christian. But he sure doesn’t act like one,” added Joseph Farah, editor of the conservative website WorldNetDaily. “I threw out my White House card as soon as I got it.”

7) Liberals have tried to turn the tables in the Christmas wars, arguing that their conservative opponents are the ones who are truly obstructing the Christmas spirit through needlessly punitive public policies. In 2005, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) used the holiday as a political bludgeon in a legislative fight over the mininum wage: “Democrats believe that Congress should act on the true meaning of Christmas—hope, generosity, and goodwill toward others,” said the Maryland Democrat. “Unfortunately, our Republican friends seem to have forgotten the meaning of Christmas.”

The 2005 Bush holiday card.The 2005 Bush holiday card.

8) More recently, Republican lawmakers have invoked Christmas to slam Democrats for extending the current lame duck session. Attacking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s ambitious plans for the lame duck, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) declared: “It is impossible to do all of the things that the majority leader laid out without doing—frankly, without disrespecting the institution and without disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for Christians and the families of all of the Senate, not just the senators themselves but all of the staff.” Sen. Jim DeMint similarly blasted the Democratic effort to push through the START treaty and omnibus spending bill before Christmas as “sacrilegious.” DeMint registered his objections by threatening to read entire bills aloud on the floor—eating up what valuable floor time was left—and his threat successfully got the omnibus bill pulled off the floor.

9) Democrats hit back by accusing Republicans of taking Christmas away from the middle-class during the bruising tax-cut debate, as Politico notes. “Our Republican colleagues are playing Santa for the millionaires and Scrooge for the middle class,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ). “For those who make over $1 million, they want to give them a big, fat check averaging $104,000 with a bow on it. For our children, they want to give them a big, fat $4 trillion bill to be paid back with interest for generations to come. I guess that’s their version of ‘Happy Holidays, America.'”

10) These days, Christmas may mostly be an excuse for Washington lawmakers to bring a stockingful of puns and groan-inducing metaphors into the public discourse. Introducing a debt-reducting bill last week, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) tweeted: “We ought to deck the halls of Congress with some fiscal restraint.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate