The Evangelical Rebellion

[serenity]

Interesting...but is it hugely overstated? (not a rhetorical question...I'm asking for opinion.) For example, what do we make of this statement:

The Christian right is the most potent and dangerous mass movement in American history.

It's a declarative statement, so I think we're entitled to figure out if it's true.

Anyway, an interesting piece, if no doubt actively courting controversy.




by Chris Hedges






The rise of Mike Huckabee as a presidential candidate represents a seismic shift in the tactics, ideology and direction of the radical Christian right. Huckabee may stumble and falter in later primaries, but his right-wing Christian populism is here to stay. Huckabee represents a new and potent force in American politics, and the neocons and corporate elite, who once viewed the yahoos of the Christian right as the useful idiots, are now confronted with the fact that they themselves are the ones who have been taken for a ride. Members of the Christian right, recruited into the Republican Party and manipulated to vote against their own interests around the issues of abortion and family values, are in rebellion. They are taking the party into new, uncharted territory. And they presage, especially with looming economic turmoil, the rise of a mass movement that could demolish what is left of American democracy and set the stage for a Christian fascism.

The corporate establishment, whose plundering of the country created fertile ground for a radical, right-wing backlash, is sounding the alarm bells. It is scrambling to bolster Mitt Romney, who, like Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton, will continue to slash and burn on behalf of corporate profits. Columnist George Will called Huckabee’s populism “a comprehensive apostasy against core Republican beliefs.” He wrote that Huckabee’s candidacy “broadly repudiates core Republican policies such as free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America’s corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity.” National Review’s Rich Lowry wrote that “like [Howard] Dean, his nomination would represent an act of suicide by his party.”

Huckabee spoke of this revolt on the “Today” show. “There’s a sense in which all these years the evangelicals have been treated very kindly by the Republican Party,” he said. “They wanted us to be a part of it. And then one day one of us actually runs and they say, ‘Oh, my gosh, now they’re serious.’ They [evangelicals] don’t want to just show up and vote, they actually would want to be a part of the discussion.”

George Bush is a happy stooge of his corporate handlers. He blithely enriches the oligarchy, defends a war that is the worst foreign policy blunder in American history and callously denies medical benefits to children. Huckabee is different. He has tapped into the rage and fury of the working class, dispossessed and abandoned by the mainstream Democrats and Republicans. And he refuses to make the ideology of the Christian right, with its dark contempt for democratic traditions and intolerance of nonbelievers, a handmaiden of the corporate establishment. This makes him a much more lethal and radical political force.





http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/24/5984/

[USViking]

I don't even see the Christian Right as a mass movement.

Conservative Christians comprise something like a third
of the electorate, but often they don't even bother
to vote just like most other groups.

They are have shown no sign of trying to organize a
major political party, preferring to think the crumbs
the Republicans dish out for them are worth anything.

If the Christian Right became a mass movement,
with a lock on 30% of the vote, then that would
obviously make some kind of impact. I hope that
level of zealotry does arise. It has not so far.
The US has a tradition of non-clerical political
parties. I do not see that changing.

[halfamind]

A bit hyperbolic, true, but I have this theory. Well, make that "a" theory, the likes of which I have too many to count and none of them at all doccumented by way of serious study, but since my natural proclivity is to try to tie everything together in various grand, unifying ways, I just cannot help myself.

My theory, though, is this: When cultures evolve to the point where humanism triumphs over superstitious dogma and human rights take center stage over the perpetuation of tradition, women's status is affected to the point where they command greater control over their own reproduction and so limit their family size. This trend concurs with a culture's transition into a less agrarian state as well, the combination leading to diminished reproduction. THese changes are not even and uniform, though, as some elements of the population continue at higher levels, but the higher the status of women in the culture, the fewer children they have. The fact that the changes are uneven, though, is what leads eventually to a culture's collapse.

Now, in the 1960s, the idea of zpg really took off. We became more aware of our environment and understood the relationship between overpopulation and environmental degredation (well, at least some). Also, women experienced greater status than ever before, and the women's movement resulted in strong shifts towards lower birth rates (again, at least some). The thing is, that these changes were not uniform, with those more geared towards liberal secular humanism reducing their family size more severely than the traditionalists and religious conservative. In the 40 years since, this trend has continued, and although the relationship between attitudes and upbringing is by no means 100% in terms of correlation, there is still a noted tendency towards passing down attitudes from one generation to the next. If some people are reducing their family size and others aren't, how does that affect the overall culture in terms of prevailing attitudes?

For my money, what we are experiencing is the catch 22 inherent in secular humanism as liberal humanists have voluntarily reduced their contribution to the population quite sharply compared to those who do not share these beliefs.

It's just a numbers game.

[lord tammerlain]

A bit hyperbolic, true, but I have this theory. Well, make that "a" theory, the likes of which I have too many to count and none of them at all doccumented by way of serious study, but since my natural proclivity is to try to tie everything together in various grand, unifying ways, I just cannot help myself.

My theory, though, is this: When cultures evolve to the point where humanism triumphs over superstitious dogma and human rights take center stage over the perpetuation of tradition, women's status is affected to the point where they command greater control over their own reproduction and so limit their family size. This trend concurs with a culture's transition into a less agrarian state as well, the combination leading to diminished reproduction. THese changes are not even and uniform, though, as some elements of the population continue at higher levels, but the higher the status of women in the culture, the fewer children they have. The fact that the changes are uneven, though, is what leads eventually to a culture's collapse.

Now, in the 1960s, the idea of zpg really took off. We became more aware of our environment and understood the relationship between overpopulation and environmental degredation (well, at least some). Also, women experienced greater status than ever before, and the women's movement resulted in strong shifts towards lower birth rates (again, at least some). The thing is, that these changes were not uniform, with those more geared towards liberal secular humanism reducing their family size more severely than the traditionalists and religious conservative. In the 40 years since, this trend has continued, and although the relationship between attitudes and upbringing is by no means 100% in terms of correlation, there is still a noted tendency towards passing down attitudes from one generation to the next. If some people are reducing their family size and others aren't, how does that affect the overall culture in terms of prevailing attitudes?

For my money, what we are experiencing is the catch 22 inherent in secular humanism as liberal humanists have voluntarily reduced their contribution to the population quite sharply compared to those who do not share these beliefs.

It's just a numbers game.

Remember that secular humanists are not born but created.

It is the young of the religous that the secular humanists were coming from. It is where the future secular humanists will come from. Secular humanist culture is just to strong a pull for many religous young to ignore.

[NiteGuy]

I don't even see the Christian Right as a mass movement.

Conservative Christians comprise something like a third
of the electorate, but often they don't even bother
to vote just like most other groups.

They are have shown no sign of trying to organize a
major political party, preferring to think the crumbs
the Republicans dish out for them are worth anything.

If the Christian Right became a mass movement,
with a lock on 30% of the vote, then that would
obviously make some kind of impact. I hope that
level of zealotry does arise. It has not so far.
The US has a tradition of non-clerical political
parties. I do not see that changing.

You hope that level of zealotry does arise? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

And if you want to see how organized and politicized this movement can become / is beginning to become, may I recommend the indepentent film documentary "Jesus Camp" to you. It's very enlightening, and extremely frightening what could happen if these guys ever do truly get organized on a national level.

[USViking]

You hope that level of zealotry does arise? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Pardon me, I usually proof read better than that.

I hope that level of zealotry does NOT arise.





And if you want to see how organized and politicized this movement can become / is beginning to become, may I recommend the indepentent film documentary "Jesus Camp" to you. It's very enlightening, and extremely frightening what could happen if these guys ever do truly get organized on a national level.
I shall not pay the slightest attention to "Jesus Camp"
or any other sky-is-falling hysterics.

[Izdaari]

I reject the main premises of the article:

1) I don't believe Republicans are especially the party of corporate America, at least not more so than Democrats are. Yes, at their best, Republicans are pro-free market, but that's not corporatism, that's freedom, and that's the one of the reasons I prefer them over Democrats.

2) I don't believe the Christian Right is a mass movement, or any kind of threat... at present. The potential is there (cf. the Heinlein story "If This Goes On--" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehemiah_Scudder)), but there aren't many who would go that way. Only the Christian Reconstructionists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism) are of that sort, and they are too few to be a threat.

3) I don't believe the CR has a "dark contempt for democratic traditions and intolerance of nonbelievers".

However, it is true that Huckabee is a Christian Right candidate, and increasing numbers of the CR folks may not be satisified with just lip service from Republicans anymore. That concerns me because it may fracture the Republican coalition, but I don't see any form of fascism or theocracy coming from it.

Huckabee isn't my candidate, even though I'm Christian and of the Right, because he's not conservative enough on the stuff I care about -- low taxes, free trade, small government -- and he's too conservative for me on social issues. That said, I'd still prefer him over any Democrat in the race.

[Atticus]

Another misunderstanding here is the idea that somehow Christians (even "born again" or "evangelical" Christians) are an undifferentiated voting block. In fact, their voting patterns are much more diverse than most acknowledge. There are lots of born-again Christians who vote Democrat, look for ways the government can help the poor, and don't see abortion as a front-burner issue on which to base a vote. There are lots of surveys to support this point, but here's a recent one I googled today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-09-11-religion-survey_x.htm

[Izdaari]

Right, Atticus, Christians are not a solid voting block. We may all share Christian beliefs, but we don't agree on how best to express that in politics. There are even Christian libertarians, like myself.

[Demon of Light]

As was pointed out the Christian Right is divided a great deal as is the Evangelical movement.

However, that being said, Mike Huckabee scares the ever-loven **** out of me. Ron Paul said he didn't mean it towards Huckabee, but he quoted Sinclair saying, "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag carrying a cross." I think that actually does do a good job describing Huckabee. It's not just his policies on social issues, though, but his policies in every sphere. His fiscal policy is effectively statist and oriented towards building up the government. His immigration views, while he has talked like they're tough seem to be all about lax borders and it's no surprise since the President of the globalist CFR is one of his foreign policy advisers, by Huckabee's own admission.

Conservatives have talked of forming a third party or something to that effect should someone like Giuliani get the Republican nod. Should Mike Huckabee run for such a party it could effectively turn into a Christian Democrat party, which will, in practice, be neither Christian or democratic.

What scares me is not the Christian Right, but the views of some within that group. Huckabee's surge is due almost entirely to his social conservative views, but his views are actually the greatest betrayal to the very constituency he appeals to. The most powerful supporting block he could have is strongly Evangelical Christians in the mold of Pat Robertson and John Hagee, but his involvement with the CFR is the ultimate betrayal to this group scared ****less of globalism, which the CFR represents for many in all its being.

The problem isn't so much the Christian Right, but those who would appeal to their social conservatism to get elected and try to gloss over all their other views.

[Izdaari]

Just MHO, but I think National Review has the right of it: Romney is the best overall from an orthodox conservative PoV. That he's a Mormon is irrelevant: we're electing a POTUS, not a national pastor. McCain would be acceptable but is less conservative. Thompson is equally conservative but less experienced.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmMxYTUyYzA1YTk2YzE5NGVmNjc0OGFjYWJmNzMzNjI=&p=1

[serenity]

Another misunderstanding here is the idea that somehow Christians (even "born again" or "evangelical" Christians) are an undifferentiated voting block. In fact, their voting patterns are much more diverse than most acknowledge.

Very true, and this seems to be becoming more apparent. For just one example, there is an actual, growing movement of young evangelicals who have become environmentalists. (And still often, though not always, social conservatives...the idea that environmental concerns somehow "belong" to the left is an absurd, probably dangerous idea, whose time hopefully has come and gone).

The author DOES make it clear that there are real differences--theological as well as political--within the larger sphere of evangelicals. However, his tone often seems to belie this--he's clearly quite hostile towards the Christian Right generally (he's a Christian leftie), and this seems to color his tone pretty heavily.

Still, for what it's worth, the End-timers, the anti-semite-but pro-Israel Christians, are a pretty scary bunch.

[roderic]

I must admit I am very prejudiced against what could be called the "Christian Right" in the US, as I have had disagreements with a number from that camp and been called all sorts of names, but they don't seem to identify with any movement or party, though they have rather extreme immovable opinions on certain issues which are very similar.

Yeah, rather frightening, one might wish there was a broader education for everyone in the US - or maybe they are the exception and just very vocal on the internet.
- it just happens to confirm and feed my European leftist 'anti-Americanism'.

[FlyingGuineapig]

We'll see how long the fuss over Huckabee lasts. Personally, I think he's largely a media creation - every few months they need to pick someone to build up and then tear down - it's just his turn. Maybe in the process he'll catch the wider public's interest, but if he choses to focus on the "Christian right" - that's probably 15-20% of the American public.

[Chappy]

Huckabee walks the walk and talks the talk. He's authentic. His natural appeal is to social conservative Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists, roughly one-third of the Republican constituency and more than half of its primary voters. These folks are not small government conservatives; they want government to reflect their moral judgments and priorities.

[NiteGuy]

I shall not pay the slightest attention to "Jesus Camp" or any other sky-is-falling hysterics.

No "hysterics" to this movie at all Viking. There is no narration of any kind. No "experts" frantically trying to demonize the position of these folks. All they did was take a camera, and point it at them for the duration of a couple of weeks.

The images and comments made by these "Christians" speak for themselves.

[Ethos]

I don't believe the Christian Right is more or less dangerous than any other large political or cultural movement in U.S. history. It just happens to be the intersection between politics and culture that is inherent to the movement itself that makes it relatively dangerous.

When a person states we should vote for "God-fearing men and women" for public office, otherwise our standing as a "blessed nation" will be threatened, I become nervous for a variety of reasons. I have heard such sentiments a number of times since 2000 - whether due to increased media coverage, increased world conflict (including 9/11), or a combination of both I cannot say.

The end result is the same as it has always been with political movements - gaining and maintaining power. The most effective method for doing so has been the manipulation of emotions, and religion in general is extremely succeptible to emotive messages.

Ethos

[USViking]

No "hysterics" to this movie at all Viking. There is no narration of any kind. No "experts" frantically trying to demonize the position of these folks. All they did was take a camera, and point it at them for the duration of a couple of weeks.

The images and comments made by these "Christians" speak for themselves.
I decided to google the damn place and it has been
shut down, so I guess we do not have to worry about
an ensuing "mass movement" anytime soon, do we?

[NiteGuy]

I decided to google the damn place and it has been shut down, so I guess we do not have to worry about an ensuing "mass movement" anytime soon, do we?

Actually, it hasn't been. Oh yes, "Kids on Fire" has effectively been shut down, but the founder and owner simply changed names to "Kids in Ministry", and is looking for new venues to hold her camps, and send out her brainwashed little students.

[USViking]

Actually, it hasn't been. Oh yes, "Kids on Fire" has effectively been shut down, but the founder and owner simply changed names to "Kids in Ministry", and is looking for new venues to hold her camps, and send out her brainwashed little students.
Actually, if it has not reopened then it remains shut
down, doesn't it?

And actually it was not in any form a symptom of a
"mass movement", was it?

And actually I doubt that any of the activity there
would be have been any threat to any of our freedoms
even if it had remained open.