If you’re not familiar with the Three Stooges, this whole article will go right over your head. If you’re a fan, this will make everything about the 2012 crop of GOP candidates make total sense.

I got this idea after seeing Rick Perry’s “Cornerstone” speech in which he really started to cut up. I thought, “wow, he really looks like Moe with a better haircut…” The similarities did not end there, so that’s where I’ll start.

Rick Perry as MOE
The similarity is uncanny. Both think they’re in charge of things, but the chaos surrounding them says otherwise. They like a firm approach to law and order and Perry’s execution record matches up eerily with Moe’s catchphrase, “Remind me to kill you later.” Both think they’re smarter than they sound.

Herman Cain as CURLY
Both have a lack of hair, both have a charming personality, and both are the most unpredictable members of their ensemble. Cain chants “Nine nine nine!” and Curly goes “Nyuk nyuk nyuk!” Cain was never a trained politician, and Curly was never trained as an actor. Cain has his accusations of impropriety and Curly also has a weakness for the ladies… Both are prone to bouts of rhyme. While Cain has had a few sharp outbursts to the press when they press him on matters he’s not comfortable, it is currently unknown if Cain will spin on the floor and attack bystanders like a berserker if he catches a whiff of Wild Hyacinth perfume or hears “Pop Goes the Weasel,” but if he does, Rick Perry and the Larry-Equivalent Rick Santorum should keep either a tassel or some Limburger cheese on hand to calm him down.

Rick Santorum as LARRY
Like Larry, Santorum has a dazed look, like he’s not completely aware of his surroundings. Yet, he’s there. By no means the most entertaining, it wouldn’t be the same without him. He lingers around, never challenging those around him without incurring massive retaliation… so he keeps quiet most of the time. Of all the candidates, Santorum is the one most likely to accidentally put his paint brush in a sandwich and drink paint like coffee without noticing the difference. That makes him the Larry of this gathering.

Mitt Romney as SHEMP
Of all the Stooges, Shemp had the most professional acting experience, and that seems to be the case with Romney. Shemp’s known as the “thinking man’s Stooge,” and Romney certainly appeals to the intellectual wing of the Republican party. Shemp never really caught on with the rough and tumble slapstick Stooge fans, and Romney definitely hasn’t ignited the imaginations of the rough and tumble base of the GOP. Even so, Shemp was part of the Stooges’ act before they made their short films and, like Shemp, Romney was a GOP candidate for the presidency back in 2008. Yet, when Curly disintegrated and couldn’t perform, Shemp was there. Should Cain fall away, guess who’ll be there… that’s right: Shemp Romney.

John Huntsman as JOE
While there are those that will argue about the merits of Curly vs. Shemp, Joe has few defenders among Stooges fans. He didn’t fit in with the other Stooges and, well, neither has Huntsman. Joe came from a different tradition, like Huntsman, and his style never quite dovetailed with the others. The least popular of all the Stooges, Joe shares a popularity rating in common with Huntsman. He’s a lot funnier on his own. So is Huntsman.

Newt Gingrich as CURLY JOE
Curly Joe came in very late to the Stooges lineup, when they were too old to slap each other around. He appeared in the live-action shorts with the Three Stooges cartoons and in the Stooges feature films. Curly Joe was both an elder statesman of the Stooges and completely irrelevant to what made them successful. That would be Newt Gingrich to a T.

Michele Bachmann as MISS HOPKINS
Incredibly good-looking, but there’s that crazy in the eyes… Both Michele Bachmann and Miss Hopkins (as played by Christine McIntyre, above) could win your heart while breaking your nose. Miss Hopkins is a character in the Stooges short, “Brideless Groom” and first appears around 7:00. But when she opens her mouth and starts talking around 9:57, it’s a massive barrage of crazy, kind of like what we know Bachmann’s capable of. She savages Shemp – kind of like how Bachmann really lets Romney have it – and finally lands a haymaker that sends Shemp reeling. Kind of a metaphor for how Bachmann, darling of many in the GOP base (at one time) acted as the base’s agent to show the door to Mr. Romney. Feisty, attractive, confused, and crazy, our Miss Hopkins is definitely the archetype for Michele Bachmann.

Ron Paul as EMIL SITKA
What’s this? You’ve never heard of Emil Sitka? Well, if you only watched the news, you’d know Ron Paul’s face, but you’d never hear his name. Nevertheless, Sitka appeared with the Stooges in so many shorts, he was known as “The Fourth Stooge.” He never got full credit as a Stooge, however. Paul has been in many political contests and has faithfully supported the Republican party but, guess what… he’s never gotten full credit as a presidential candidate. In the short posted above for Ms. Bachmann, Emil Sitka appears around 11:30 and soon utters his most famous tagline, “Hold hands, you lovebirds!” He repeats it over and over, in fact. Kind of like how Paul repeats “Audit the Fed!” over and over. That’s about all we remember either of these kindly old gents ever saying.

Well, that’s the GOP roundup. In my research for this article, I reviewed the full version of “Brideless Groom” and realized that it’s a powerful, powerful metaphor for the GOP presidential nomination contest. I plan to write a full breakdown of the symbolism and prescience of that short in a follow-up article.

Thank you for your time and nyuk nyuk nyuk,

Dean Webb

Dear Pastor Jeffress,

How are you? I am fine. While I was at church yesterday, teaching children the ages of 2-11 songs about Jesus, news came out about how you said my religion was not truly Christian. This makes me sad. I believe in Christ, and I think that’s pretty much what one has to do in order to be a Christian. I’ve also been baptized by full immersion, just in case that helps any. I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior, and I even capitalize those words out of respect. So what is it that makes me not a Christian, but allows Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Coptic, Nestorians, Anglicans, and other denominations that aren’t yours to still fit in your definition?

It can’t be the extra books business. Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. We also have a different translation of the Bible. The Catholics have centuries of papal pronouncements that help to give form and shape to their religion. The Copts in Egypt have quite a few extra books in their New Testament, attributed to Mark, which are absent in other denominations’ Bible. The Ethiopians have even more books – their Bible is the largest of any Christian sect, and they claim it is that way because they never endured persecutions such as existed in the Roman Empire. Why, then, don’t we use their Bible? Is it because they’re Black?

Because, Pastor Jeffress, when you were pressed between choosing between either Romney or Obama – who is a Christian by your definition when Romney is not – you unequivocally supported Romney. If this isn’t racism, then it’s confusing and illogical.

How about this, Pastor Jeffress… Maybe, just maybe a group of people in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (emphasis mine) are Christians. You may not agree with everything we teach, but perhaps you would find common ground in our assertion of the divine nature of Jesus Christ, in encouraging our members to take care of each other and our neighbors in the event of disasters “even as the Savior would have done”, how we emphasize reading scriptures, daily prayer, fasting, charitable donations, and in avoiding evil influences.

According to most Protestant theology, accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as a personal Savior is sufficient for salvation. Some will also add in the baptism protocol. That’s it. There’s nothing else in their view that’s required to be Christian. Pastor Jeffress, I’ve done all that. I’m a Christian. I’d much rather share my witness than have to explain over and over again that I have such a witness.

But, yes, Pastor Jeffress… “Mormons” are Christians.

Hope this helps,

Dean Webb

In the many years I’ve taught either US History or US Government, covering Plessy involved saying that it upheld the constitutionality of the doctrine of “separate but equal.” That’s it. As I was writing the above summary, I wanted to check on the date of the ruling and went to the Wikipedia article about it. I noticed in the article that Plessy was actually only 1/8th Black. He was 7/8th White. That means he had only one great-grandparent that was Black. If one switches “Black” out and replaces it with “Jew,” he would have been considered as part of the Volksdeutsche under Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws. Louisiana law in the 1890s held that a person’s ancestors from three generations back could condemn a man to a life as a second-class citizen.

The story about Plessy has more interesting details. Plessy boarded a Whites-only streetcar as an act of civil disobedience. He had grown up in Reconstruction-era Louisiana, with no restrictions at all based on race. There was no segregation in his world until after the federal troops left Louisiana in 1877, when Homer Plessy was 15 years old. Heck, Plessy was pretty much a white man in appearance – that’s him in the photograph at the start of this articl. He just associated with the Colored society of multicultural New Orleans.

In 1890, Louisiana passed its strict segregation laws and Plessy was part of a group that wanted to challenge those laws. Plessy wanted to challenge the laws because he felt that, as an American, everyone should get equal treatment. He could have it if he wanted, but that option wasn’t available to other people singled out by Louisiana’s draconian law. The railroad companies wanted to challenge the laws because they didn’t want to take on the expense of additional passenger cars. In 1892, Plessy bought a ticket for the streetcar, sat in the Whites-only car and, when asked if he was White, said he was only 7/8th White. In the four years the case took to get to the Supreme Court, the Court became more segregationist in its makeup and they ruled that since the streetcars for Blacks were equal to streetcars for Whites, the Louisiana laws were constitutional. Never mind that the schools and other facilities for segregated Blacks were of inferior quality: the case dealt with a streetcar, and so only the equality of streetcars was in question.

Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote the majority opinion:

The object of the Fourteenth Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based on color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to the either. … If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of voluntary consent of the individuals.

In other words, if a majority didn’t like a minority, that minority was going to receive a beatdown from that majority. The one judge that dissented, Justice John Marshall Harlan, wrote:

I am of opinion that the statute of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberty of citizens, white and black, in that state and hostile to both the spirit and letter of the Constitution of the United States.

How different would our history have been if it had been Justice Brown in the minority and Justice Harlan writing the majority opinion? We would have not had 58 years of Jim Crow segregation. We would not have had William Rehnquist, later a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, write the following down when he was a law clerk for the Supreme Court in 1952:

I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by ‘liberal’ colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed… To the argument… that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.

A year later, Rehnquist wrote:

The Constitution does not prevent the majority from banding together, nor does it attaint success in the effort. It is about time the Court faced the fact that the white people of the south do not like the colored people: the constitution restrains them from effecting this dislike through state action but it most assuredly did not appoint the Court as a sociological watchdog to rear up every time private discrimination raises its admittedly ugly head.

This man later was nominated to serve on the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon, where he became one of the most conservative justices to sit on the bench. Had we not had that majority ruling in Plessy, would Rehnquist’s opinions have been possible? Would they have been tolerated in a Supreme Court Justice?

We live in an America where what happened, happened. We live in an America where not only was Rehnquist hostile to the idea of using the courts to roll back laws that created second-class citizens, he was also hostile to the doctrine of selective incorporation. The journalist Bob Woodward said of Rehnquist that he ruled, “with the prosecution in criminal cases, with business in antitrust cases, with employers in labor cases, and with the government in speech cases.”

So what did I learn from my dalliance with the Plessy case? Civil rights for minorities did not follow an ever-upward path in America. There were times when rights were on the ascendant, and times when reactionaries pushed back. Obama’s election is by no means “The End” of the struggle for equality in the United States. Racism in America has produced conditions we may find unimaginable today – and that it can produce them again.

Well, the Senate passed a resolution that will keep the government solvent for a while, but it’s not a permanent fix. The whole thing can keep happening over and over again because the two houses of the legislature aren’t playing ball with each other in a nice way.

But what complicates things further is how the Tea Party Republicans are breaking party discipline and are instead behaving like a rebellious junior partner in a coalition government. This is real gridlock in government at a time when we need real action instead.

And though Americans don’t like Congress as a whole, most Americans like their own Congressman, even though he’s typically part of the problem in the Congress. What to do if we’re just going to re-elect the same gang? Don’t tell me the solution is to vote for the other guy or a third-party candidate. The fact is, the incumbents win their elections and they’re going to keep doing what they’re doing now or become more extreme. With that in mind, what can we do that has a serious chance of succeeding?