Don’t throw the Funadamentalillness out with the bathwater

Posted By Ross

I’m a little late commenting on this, but in honor of my Tardiness, perhaps a better name for this post could have been “Not So fast, guys…”

I didn’t use to be as cynical as I am now. Where once I used to give the benefit of the doubt or at least, where once I tended towards the most mundane explanation of any event, now my BS detector goes off during episodes of Robot Chicken. Naturally, I know that part of this is a normal side effect of living, for a prolonged period of time, under a government that makes me feel like an alien in my own country. To be honest, 6 years of having to avoid political conversations with my family really grates. Hell, I can even feel slightly sympathetic to those loony, black-helicopter, militia-sympathising, Billary-r-teh-communism conservatives who saw threats to the very foundations of American liberty every time Bill Clinton even looked crossways at a camera.

No, I don’t agree with them or consider them reasonable, I merely understand how feeling alien in your own country, and being embittered by constant political defeat, can lead to a kind of political causal loop wherein you become more and more paranoid.

Of course, in the years since Billary left office, you may have noticed the critical difference between conservative conspiracy theorists and liberal ones: Liberals tend to be suspicious even when their guys are in charge. Conservatives tend to continue suspecting liberals even when their guys are doing exactly what they accused us of doing. Where, oh where are those “Get U.S. out of UN” guys now that their boy is turning the bill of rights into a bill of suggestions? But I digress.

There. Caveat dutifully applied. I admit my suspicious cynicism. And now that I’ve got that out the way, I can disregard it because, and I know I’m alone on this one, I’m definitely not taking any of the hype about how the Republicans secretly despise their Funduhmentalist base, at face value, or any value for that matter. I don’t buy it.

For those of you who don’t know, what I’m referring to is Tucker Carlson’s appearance on Chris Matthews last weekend, where he came right out and said (via atrios):

The deep truth is that the elites in the Republican Party have pure contempt for the evangelicals who put their party in power.

Oh no you di-int Tucker, you did not just go there!

Ah but he did. And soon after this “astounding” revelation, the plot thickens like thighs on thanksgiving. Via the Poorman, here’s the latest permutation of the sudden startling willingness of Republicans to shit all over their base:

…MSNBC’s Olbermann had a preview of a new book from the former No. 2 man in Pres. Bush’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. David Kuo’s “Tempting Faith” will be out 10/16.

Olbermann: “Kuo cites one example after another of a White House that repeatedly uses Evangelical Christians for their votes while consistently giving them nothing in return… According to Kuo, Karl Rove’s office referred to Evangelical leaders as the ‘nuts.’ … When cufflinks were not enough, the White House played the Jesus card, reminding Christian leaders that ‘The knew the president’s faith’ and begging for patience. …

The Poorman comments, in a post called “Chumps,” thusly:

Blah-blah no respect blah blah abuse of power blah blah unconstitutional blah blah useful idiots … Ooooooooooo! Free cufflinks!

But are they Chumps? Let’s think about it for a moment. If Tucker and Former White House douchebag are telling the truth, then of course this is terribly shocking news (ews ews ews). Why, it would mean that the Religious Right, long acknowledged as the rock-solid, endlessly loyal base of the Republican party and, if Barak Obama is to believed, the single most strategically important voting block (and the real-est of All Americans!) are a bunch of Mark Ass Bitches. Suckaz! Well obviously it has to be true because it makes perfect sense that, with mere weeks to go before an election, both a former Bush White House official, and a well known Republican Talking Points Ventriloquist Dummy like Tucker Carlson, would rush to make sure that this information is as widely distributed as is humanly possible. Because as we all know, the one thing that two well known, ardent Republicans would want to do just before an election is to fuck over the last bastion of true right wing loyalty.

Sure. That makes perfect sense.

I know a lot of bloggers o’ the left are having a blast right now, gloating about the foot-in-mouth hilarity of not one, but two fairly prominent Republicans telling us what we want so desperately in our hearts to believe. Hell, I think the Religionic Crowd are hilariously idiotic too. They believe nonsense and they’re doing everything they can to make sure their nonsense is law. But disregarded by God’s Own Party? Ninja please. Don’t believe it for a second. Here’s the juice: Contrary to what Thomas Frank argues in “What’s the Matter With Kansas,” and contrary to what Tucker says, in fact, the Religious right might just be one of the most consistently rewarded interest groups in Modern American politics.

Don’t believe me?

Ask Chief Justice Roberts about his views on Abortion.

Ask public school officials how Abstinence only education is going?

Hell, ask every single outspoken Atheist or Secular Humanist about their chances of getting elected anywhere east of Los Angeles and South of Chicago.

Oh, while we’re at it, anyone out there read anything about how Americans finally kicked Intelligent Design Charlatans out of American Schools, en masse, and returned learning to the people who know something about science? Or about how the FCC stopped disproportionately responding to the complaints of a tiny minority of Religious Funduhmentalists? Ah, I didn’t think so.

Yes, it must really suck to be right wing and religious right now. Because no one in government does anything for you except, you know*, giving you two Supreme Court justices, Abstinence Only education, support for intelligent design and a ban on Stem Cell research, national prayer day, a compliant FCC and constant (and I argue, sincere) attempts to make gay marriage against the law constitutionally. Wow. How I wish the democrats would disregard my wishes on such a massive, insulting level.

I’m not saying that Fundies are controlling the whole country yet. But if anyone here can name another interest group (aside from the Credit Card companies and the oil industry) who exercises a similar amount of cultural and actual political influence, while at the same time enjoying the benefit of a strange sort of political correctness that demands you cannot actually argue with them, because you would be disrespecting their beliefs (thus rendering any meaningful debate impotent), I’ll buy you a coke.

Which brings me back to my deep and admittedly entrenched cynicism. I admit I’m very embittered, but I find it very odd that, just before a crucial election, news would emerge that suddenly paints Bush in a less than fanatically christian light. It seems suspicious, in the same way the recent sharp drop in gas prices (similar to the drop that occurred about this time in 2004) does. I’m not saying it’s deliberate, but it is rather fortunate that, just when Bush is in danger of losing a significant number of voters who aren’t crazy, he-is-coming-soon freaks, suddenly word comes out that makes it clear he isn’t actually on their side.

So, will this news keep them home? Maybe a few but for the most part, I doubt it. Their eyes are on the prize. They know that as long as Republicans keep winning, they’ll get the only prize that matters – Supreme Court Justices who hate Abortion, Feminism, Secularism, sexual liberty and birth control.

My apologies, because I don’t have much of a conclusion. Just let me ask you all reading this – What’s your take on this news? Do you think it fits? Do you think I’m being stupid and paranoid (I’ll gladly accept that. I’m rather embarrassed at my skepticism). Are the religious right really just a bunch of dupes?

And here’s a couple of more serious questions:

1) I think Barak needs to STFU about how we need to court these people. We’re liberal. They’re not. They will never vote for us. Am I wrong? What should the left do about the religious divide, and political ramifications of that divide?

2) Does it matter if the religious right stays home? Is it short sighted to hope to win an election based upon diminished turnout? Is there anything that can be done to cultivate our own rock solid interest groups? And if so, what are those groups?

*I thought greg would enjoy my using this expression.


posted by Ross Lincoln on October 12, 2006 @ 5:51 pm

12 comments »

  1. Whew!!

    Amen..er… right on, Brotha!

    Keep up the cynicism, it fits you well!

    peace

    Comment by Miles — October 13, 2006 @ 9:05 am

  2. You can add, to the list of gifts:
    1) The Supreme Court authorizing 1 of 2 10-commandments displays on government property
    2) The recent congressional attempt to squash freedom-of-religion lawsuits by eliminating monetary damages, to include attorney’s fees

    I agree, those poor, poor, christian fundamentalists.

    Comment by Aaron — October 13, 2006 @ 9:07 am

  3. Obama’s first name is Barack, and I think he wants what many Dems want: to get the idea that faith/spirituality/religion/God/whatever is a Red-state virtue the fuck out of here. I don’t think he’s trying to court religious conservatives. And I. D. is falling with a thud.

    Comment by tommytimp — October 13, 2006 @ 9:35 am

  4. thanks for the correction. That’s a mistake of spellchecking, and what I get for posting late. Greg, could you correct for me? Thanks!

    Comment by Ross — October 13, 2006 @ 11:52 am

  5. I don’t think you’re being paranoid enough, Ross – if there isn’t an Osama/Al-Qaeda/You-get-thedrifta tape that ‘surfaces’ 3 – 6 days before the election, then I’ll buy *you* a coke. Hopefully, this time, the cries of wolf will go unheeded.

    As far as a low-vote turnout, don’t forget that it was the Gay Marriage ballot item forced onto the ballots in all those otherwise sensible states that got bush elected. (not re-elected – we know how it went the first time). I think that in the short-term, a low turnout election might work well for Dems, but let’s be honest. Liberal or Conservative, in the long term we are going to have to convince at least some of that base that the message we are trying to send is one that they can sink their teeth into. I think Obama may be naive to think he can ‘court’ the right wing fundies, but the founding principles of this country include toleration of all ideas and ideals. That’s the fight, in my opinion – ridding the rhetoric and punditry of all the vitriol and remembering why the Mayflower crashed into Plymouth Rock in the first place.

    Comment by FreedomByChoice — October 13, 2006 @ 11:52 am

  6. “We’re liberal. They’re not. They will never vote for us. Am I wrong?”

    If you want to give up that’s fine and cynical, suit yourself. But don’t disparage those liberals who keep fighting the good fight by pointing out that war, favoring the rich, torture, etc. are not things Jesus would be down with. You are basically ceding the argument to the demagogues. Call me naive (I know you will), but I think the average middle american “christian values” voter generally has voted R recently because D’s have been so ham-handedly triangulatory in their messaging – courting these voters by foolishly attempting to play by the R’s rules (Hillary supporting flag-burning amendments – wtf?). I think (hope) Obama and others are taking a different tack by showing how traditional D values really are just as Christian, and I think it’s an important distinction to make. I’m with you mocking Hillary, but Obama – not so much.

    Comment by John I — October 13, 2006 @ 12:36 pm

  7. The D’s won’t get Johnny (My Second Home is a Mega) Church to vote for them. However, the R’s won’t get African-Americans to vote for them. Why did the R’s make parts of their national convention look like diversity training? To make it seem they’re open-minded. I believe the D’s appeal to regular church-goers should be pretty straight-forward, after all the Bible talks a lot more about feeding the hungry than hating teh gays. So, it’s not a perfect analogy. However, you won’t get the brain-dead, but you’ll convince the middle-of-the-road voter you’re not a prayer-hater.

    Comment by American Citizen — October 13, 2006 @ 12:55 pm

  8. I think the strategy is to use the factions of the Religious Right against each other. The fact that the Catholic League is allied with groups like Focus on the Family will not be the case when conservative Catholics and Evangelicals remember they hate each other.

    That’s the weakness with insane religious movements trying to take hold in an essentially populist society – you need a lot of different factions to ally themselves together, where each faction believes all the others are going to Hell.

    Comment by Raznor — October 13, 2006 @ 1:56 pm

  9. Hey John,

    I hope I’m not ceding the argument. And I don’t think I argued anywhere to give up. Far from it. I think I’m having a different conversation than the one you want to have. The problem I have with Obama’s argument is that he’s not calling for them to come to us. He keeps claiming that Dems and libs don’t appeal to them, and further claims that we’re rejecting them, actively. In other words, he’s basically reiterating republican talking points.

    I’d like for him (and people like him) to fucking point to just one, just ONE prominant Democrat or politically important Liberal who has ever dissed the religious on the basis of their faith. Seriously. Because they don’t. Hell, even the majority of Secular Humanists and assorted Atheists don’t actually argue with them because they believe. We do it because of what they believe, and I believe that’s a valid difference.

    I do think a case can be made that our values are compatible with the stated values of Christianity, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I am saying that we will never get the fundies to vote our way reliably, because we have incompatible values. Unless the Dems want to repudiate the pro-choice position and embrace opposition to gay rights, we’re going to have to accept the loss of most voters who fall into the category.

    I’d argue that Christians DO NOT have a monopoly on “values”, and that our problem is allowing the conversation to be framed as though they do. That’s why I’m uncomfortable with appeals to religion. I’m tired of people being able to claim that values and morals come from religion, implying that without religion, you’re not a moral person.

    We shouldn’t have to kiss up to someone because they worship Jesus. We should just be able to do, and argue for, the right thing, and let them make their own decision. And we should proudly argue for our positions as moral goods.

    And ultimately, what I’m frustrated by is the constant whining victimization of the pampered and extremely rewarded religious right. Because I would love for the Democrats to treat their base like a desirable support group, instead of an embarassment.

    And in conclusion, I definitely do not argue for anyone to give up the fight. But some battles aren’t worth waging.

    And also, I really believe that we’re being lied to, again, and that this is just another conveniently timed coincidence desinged to help the republicans win again.

    One thing – I don’t know why you’d think I’ll call you naive. If anything, I’m over-concerned about my own cynicism. Sorry if something I said implied I’d be that rude.

    Comment by Ross — October 13, 2006 @ 2:16 pm

  10. Oh, and one more thing – By Using “Billary”, I wasn’t actually mocking Hillary – I was mocking stupid right wing sore losers in the early 90s who insulted Bill Clinton by implying that he was less of a man for having a strong wife. It’s the same nonsense that led to my old tyme favotire bumper sticker: “Impeach Clinton and her husband too!” yuk yuk. Get it? Bill obviously wasn’t a man. Because having a smart, strong woman means you’re obviously a dickless pansy.

    Comment by Ross — October 13, 2006 @ 4:07 pm

  11. Ross, I not only think you’re onto something, I’m one up on you in paranoia. I posted on this post, and I added that if this is indeed the strategy, then outing Foley might have been part of it.

    Comment by Amanda Marcotte — October 15, 2006 @ 11:12 am

  12. Just over from Amanda’s..she gave you high marks.
    Personally… a little paranoid/conspiratical [you]
    but probably not much.
    Be well nice post….
    former Bircher, so
    (I know about ‘conspiratical’)&
    (and I love! ‘religionic crowd’)

    Comment by Has_te — October 16, 2006 @ 8:20 am

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)