(First, my apologies for posting this discussion diary so late.)
This is the second installment of the newly formed "DailyKos Reading Club". This "club" is just forming and all are welcome to participate---even people who have not yet read this month's reading. In this diary, we'll be discussing this month's reading. Then in a diary to be posted tomorrow we will discuss and vote on a reading for next month.
Reading to be discussed this month: Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy by fellow Kossack Frederick Clarkson.
This month's discussant: shock.
As well as being very educational (in my opinion, it should be required reading for democrats!), this month's reading is highly relevant to the current battle for the SCOTUS nomination. So I believe many Kossack's might like to check it out. And, since we are fortunate enough to have the author himself participating in the discussion (assuming I wasn't too late in posting this!), it should be an especially informative one!
Please, come on in and join the discussion!
(Note: all boldface in all blockquotes was added by shock.)
All throughout this last month, I've been kicking myself for not reading this book sooner. I don't know what kind of effect it would have had on me when it was published in 1997, but I think it is a huge irony that I am fairly certain that the "me" that existed back then would have probably resisted reading this work (at the least) and perhaps even fought against it! It is amazing to me how much I have changed personally since then. As I've diaried about in the past, I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian, about as far right as you can get, and have gradually moved left since leaving home. However, the key word in that last sentence is
gradually. In fact, 1997 was the year immediately before my conversion began to accelerate. To give you some idea where I was back then, in that same year, I'm embarrassed to admit that I was part of the so-called "million man march" that the Promise Keepers (discussed in chapter 9) staged on Washington, DC. Anyway, I write all that as background (and I've written more elsewhere) to get to the point where I can say that, as someone who was
inside the religious Right and part of the larger theocratic movement for a large portion of my life, I believe that Frederick Clarkson has nailed it in this book. Not only does the book show a great and carefully researched understanding of the world-view and political strategies, but it also has a fabulous chapter (10) detailing what a proper and practical response might include.
First and foremost though, this book is a map of the people, groups and organizations that make up the religious Right, from the mainstream to the fringes, and the academic Clarkson is a master cartographer. As I was reading it, I felt like I did when I took my first flying lesson at my local airport and was able, for the first time, to see a bird's-eye view of how my house fit into my neighborhood and how that fit into the city. On that day, I got a new perspective of the geography of my life and how I fit into the world around me. As a good map should, Clarkson's book has given me a new perspective on the politics of my life and how I fit into broader political and religious movements.
Unfortunately, the depth and quality of scholarship behind this "map" also makes it hard to summarize. I do not think I can do it justice here. For that, you will have to read the book. (I will say a few more words about it at the end though.) Instead, in my discussion, I will focus on the many meta-level issues addressed by Clarkson about how the religious right operates that have made these organizations politically successful.
Perhaps the best summary I can give of these aspects of the book is to quote a passage from chapter 8:
The Christian Right has been active in American politics for hundreds of years. It has, in recent years, developed a very effective electoral strategy that enables a minority to win big in both local and national elections. . . . Its scholars have created a coherent body of written work that lays out their ideology and vision of Biblical law. Its activists have worked to disrupt and destroy such important democratic institutions as jury trials and public schooling. They have demonized their opponents to provide justification for their activities. And some are acting on that justification to carry out terrorist violence and assassinations as the first shots in what they hope will be a new civil war to overthrow democracy.
Unless the movement can dent the commitment to democratic values held by the majority of this country, its ultimate impact may be limited, but the progress Christian Right activists and scholars have made in controlling the terms in which these issues are debated is as impressive---and alarming---as are their other accomplishments. Even a relatively small but well organized and ideologically unified movement can dramatically affect politics and culture in any society, whether or not it becomes the dominant faction.
(p. 163)
Clarkson explores and analyzes each of these points in detail. The book is organized much as the first paragraph of this quote.
I will discuss each of these points briefly here. Then I will close by highlighting some of Clarkson's practical suggestions for effective counter-strategies.
Electoral Strategy
The Christian Right has developed a very effective electoral strategy that enables a minority to win big in both local and national elections.
The first few chapters detail the rise of the religious right as a political force to be reckoned with in recent times, beginning in the 1980s. The so-called "New right". Clarkson first makes the point that the christian right (e.g., the Christian Coalition) is smaller than the media has given them credit for and furthermore, they are definitely not a unified front: there are "fault lines everywhere" (see pages 27-31). Yet they have somehow managed to grab a disproportionate influence over the mainstream political process. How? Clarkson takes us through this amazing rise.
One passage that struck me came in a description of the political situation in 1991:
. . . Even in high turn-out presidential election years ... only 15 percent of the eligible voters determine the outcome. Of all eligible adults, only about 60 percent are actually registered. Only half of those cast ballots. "So," [Guy Rogers] continued, "only thirty percent of the eligible voters actually vote. Therefore only fifteen percent of the eligible voters determine the outcome...In low turn out elections," he concluded, "city council, state legislature, county commissions---the percentage of the eligible voters who determine who wins can be as low as six or seven percent."
Such thinking did not originate with Ralph Reed . . . Two years before the Coalition was founded, Christian Right theorist George Grant ... presciently showed how a theocratic minority can begin to seize political power. "Since only about 60% of the people are registered to vote and only about 35% of those actually bother to go to the polls," wrote Grant, "a candidate only needs to get the support of a small, elite group of citizens to win. It only takes 11% of the electorate to gain a seat in the House or the Senate. It only takes about 9% to gain a governorship. And it takes a mere 7% to gain an average mayoral or city council post." . . .
(pp. 20-21)
But of course, it isn't so simple. Clarkson goes on to talk about how the religious right was able to leverage stealth campaigns to incrementally gain footholds in higher and higher branches of government. A big part of the answer to the question of how this relatively small "fringe element" managed to gain such a disproportionate influence over the mainstream political process boils down to getting proponents elected without overt campaigning in the media by, for example, instead mobilizing church congregations with "voting guides". (Aside: I am personally very familiar with these guides.)
. . . (The Helms campaign is at the center of a 1996 lawsuit filed by the Federal Election Commission which charges that the Christian Coalition illegally assisted the campaigns of George Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Oliver North as well as that of Senator Helms. The FEC also cited a speech by Ralph Reed in which he advised the Montana Christian Coalition to heed the advice of ancient Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu. "The first strategy and in many ways the most important strategy for evangelicals is secrecy. Sun Tzu says that's what you have to do to be effective at war and that's essentially what we're involved in, we're involved in a war. It's not a war fought with bullets, it's a war fought with ballots.")
There is nothing new about these half-page, inexpensive guides that are highly biased comparisons of positions of the candidates on selected issues. But the Christian Coalition has perfected mass distribution through networks of churches. More importantly, the voter guides would not have been successful without the two decades of political consciousness developed in the conservative churches---from which many, if not most of the candidates, campaign workers, and other activists emerge. . . .
(p. 24)
This was amazingly effective. Consider this mind-boggling statistic:
. . . The efficacy of the strategy of mobilizing religious conservatives on behalf of the GOP ... is suggested in a major study by the Pew Research Center for the People & Press, which found that the percentage of white evangelical Protestants, among registered voters, rose from nineteen percent to twenty-five percent between 1987 and 1996. Over the same time span, the percentage identifying themselves as Republicans jumped from thirty-five to forty-one percent. Only thirty percent of all respondents [including non-voters] in the 1996 study identified themselves as Republicans. . . .
(p. 69)
You may want to read that again and then do the math. I found that stunning. That's not small change! (Think about how close elections have been in recent years.)
Coherent ideology and vision of Biblical Law
Christian Right scholars have created a coherent body of written work that lays out their ideology and vision of Biblical law.
Note that this says "coherent", but not necessarily honest. The foundation of this movement is the idea, prevalent on the christian right, that they need to "restore" the country to its "Biblical roots". This involves constructing an alternative historical framework.
Historical distortions are a key ingredient of the success of the Christian Right to date. This effort to somehow discredit the historical relevance of Jefferson is part of a larger effort to revise American history to suit their contemporary religious and political objectives . . .
There are many deceptive propaganda ploys ... to fire up the prospective constituents of the Christian Right. They are often difficult to address, not only because they can be such a tangle of lies and distortions, but because few outside their primary intended audience pay much attention. The effect of all this is the systematic alienation of conservative Christians from mainstream society and the creation of a counterculture which believes that somehow "the truth" has been kept from them through various conspiracies. Thus when those indoctrinated ... turn up at school board meetings, or run for office, their premises about American history and contemporary political reality are profoundly at odds with everyone else's.
(p. 17)
The invocation of the Bible and the Founding Fathers is a powerful ingredient in religious-nationalist demagoguery. However, among the stark flaws of Reconstructionist history is the way Christian revisionism distorts historical fact.
(p.83)
. . . The falsely nostalgic view of a Christian Constitution, somehow subverted by modernism and the Supreme Court, generally holds sway. Christian historical revisionism is the premise of much Christian Right political and historical literature. . . .
(p. 86)
And they have largely been successful in doing this:
The influence of Reconstructionism is far wider than is generally thought. Joseph Morecrast told journalist Bill Moyers in 1987, that "the groups we've touched" go far beyond anyone who would call themselves Reconstructionists---including Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians and Catholics. "Denominational affiliation means very little in this whole movement today...our influence goes into many of the leading conservative organizations of the New right...[and] it has become one of the most influential and one of the fastest growing movements in American Christendom." . . .
(p.107)
What is important to understand about this movement is that it is fundamentally at odds with Democracy (hence the title of the book). For example, one flavor of this is referred to as "Godism":
. . . Zahkem [the U.S. Ambassador to Bahrain starting in 1986] distinguished himself by granting an interview at the U.S. Embassy with the publisher of the Moon-owned newspaper, the Middle East Times. In a bizarre explanation of U.S.-Arab relations, Zakhem invoked (the Moon doctrine of) "Godism" as something that the U.S. and the Arab world have in common.
The role of "Godism" in politics was explained by a Unification church official in 1983: "Democracy arose out of the lack of absolute values, absolute power, and absolute being. When there are no absolutes, the majority opinion is considered the best idea. . . ."
(p. 62)
In this world-view, God has handed down the law (to Moses and a few privileged others) and it doesn't matter what the majority of the people want. (Of course, we still need priests/pastors/religious-leaders to interpret and enforce this law for us, so don't worry... there will still be a role for "politicians" wielding power.)
Clarkson is right to point out that, while not everyone on the religious right has such extreme views, those who do are very influential. And these views have diffused through the rhetoric of leaders more near to the political mainstream as well. I find this true in my life experience. I seriously doubt I would have recognized the names of over 98% of the so-called "leaders" of the religious right in the 1990s (for example, Pat Robertson was just a name to me... I thought he was some fringe televangelist). Yet I cannot miss their rhetoric! It influenced just about everything I thought and did in political contexts. How was this influence exerted on me? Through the pastors and elders of my church, primarily.
Characteristically, Gary North thinks it's too late for anyone to do anything to stop or slow down the Reconstructionist movement, and has declared victory. "Our ideas are now in wide circulation," he writes. "They no longer depend on the skills or integrity of any one person... We are a decentralized movement. We cannot be taken out by a successful attack on any one of our institutional strongholds or any one of our spokesmen. Our authors may come and go (and have), but our basic world-view is now complete. We have laid down the foundations of a paradigm shift."
"The main theological battle is already over," he declares. We are now in the 'mopping up' phase."
(p. 100)
From my experience, he is right. This was probably the scariest part of the book for me, given the extreme nature of what this movement is working for (e.g. "Biblical justice", like stoning of homosexuals).
Destructive Activism
Christian Right activists have worked to disrupt and destroy such important democratic institutions as jury trials and public schooling. They have demonized their opponents to provide justification for their activities. And some are acting on that justification to carry out terrorist violence and assassinations as the first shots in what they hope will be a new civil war to overthrow democracy.
This part of the book probably hits closest to home to the phase we are in today. Clarkson writes here with authority based on his personal experiences with anti-abortion violence. (He worked with the national offices of Planned Parenthood Federation of America in New York during 1994-1995 (e.g., see p. 167).) I cannot detail here the various accounts of violence and anti-democratic campaigns that have been waged -- Clarkson does a good job of this -- but I will consider briefly two things that stood out to me as to why this has been successful.
First, the religious right has framed this as a battle between Good and Evil (even Satan!) and used this to actually demonize (in the literal sense of the word) the other side. (See pages 125-131.) To them, it is and has been all along a religious war (again, in the literal sense of the word). It is this mindset that allows them to justify lying and violence in service of their cause and is what makes them very dangerous.
. . . Christian Right theorist Gary North sees a permanent religious war in which there is no possible reconciliation, and that "there can never be more than a truce or temporary cease fire...." "This is a war for the hearts and minds of men," he concludes. "It is also inevitably a war for the lawful control over all of mankind's institutions" (emphasis in the original). Those who oppose the "legitimacy" of the biblical theocracy, according to North, "are affirming the validity of... some variation on the society of Satan." This "political-theological war," he says, has been "going on throughout history."
(pp. 129-130)
Second, their goal is no less than the destruction of Democracy (capital D). In this respect, they actively work (covertly and overtly) to undermine any and all democratic institutions. One way they do this is to create "brushfires", small crises that they then use as levers and wedges to turn people against and undermine the institutions:
Reconstructionist strategists see opportunities to build influence through an activist response to the crises in established institutions, from the public schools to democracy itself. This "decentralist" activism is not necessarily "independent" or "grassroots". Political brush fires can be set and are, in fact, "a fundamental tool of resistance" according to Gary North, "but it takes a combination of a centralized strategy, and local mobilization and execution."
This is precisely what is being carried out by the Christian Right. From lawsuits ... to stealth---and open---takeovers of school boards, the effort is to subvert the normal functioning of society in order to make room for the growth of theocratic evangelicalism.
(p. 109)
A case in point here is the crusade against "judicial tyranny" that the likes of James Dobson have been leading in recent years. Their stated goal, from a position statement on their website, is to get judges with "strict constructionist" philosophy who will defend "religious freedom". But this is not what their efforts are really aimed at. For them, "religious freedom" means tearing down (or denying) the wall between church and state, and the version/interpretation of the constitution that they want the judges to defend never existed because it would define a Theocracy and NOT a Democracy!
Counter-strategies
What makes this book so much more than just and educational primer on the religious right is the practical suggestions that Clarkson gives on (counter-)strategies we should follow.
Clarkson's counter-strategy includes the following elements:
1) Reclaim American History, and the Theme of Religious Freedom
2) Register and Mobilize Voters
3) Research
4) Identify and Expose the Christian Right's Contradictions and weaknesses.
I'll leave discussion of most of these to the comments, but I want to say that his book already goes a long way on all four of these. (This is why I think it is so important to read.) Probably the most invaluable service he performed was in the category of Research where his scholarship appears to be very thorough.
In this respect, his research allows us to get a handle on exactly what the influence of the christian right has been and can be. To reiterate a point he makes (and was highlighted by another reviewer), we can neither underestimate nor overestimate their influence. Our strategies have to be based on real knowledge of the movement -- that is, reality (hmm....where I have heard that before?):
That most of us did not know that the religious right was not really dead in the late 1980s is an important lesson. But overreaction to their rebounding political successes remains a problem. A major progressive conference in 1996 had a panel titled "The Right-Wing Juggernaut." . . . Like other aspects of the terminological gridlock...how the Christian Right is characterized, just as what it is named, can play a significant role in the psychology of how to deal with it. It is not necessary to make monsters out of movements in order to take them seriously. By way of contrast, a 1995 article by Jean Hardisty referred to "the resurgent right," and better captured in a phrase the seriousness of the situation without overreaction.
Knowledge---that is, factual and sound analyses of the Christian Right and the cultures and communities that support it---combined with seriousness of purpose, is more likely to lead to empowerment, effective civil discourse, good reporting, and well crafted strategies to defend democratic institutions. Ignorance, exaggeration and laughing it off, lead to business as usual and risk political defeat.
(pp. 42-43)
And this knowledge includes an understanding of the organization structures themselves and how they interact:
Although knowledge of the opposition is critical to the formulation of good strategy, few state or national organizations of the center or the Left do much in the way of systematic opposition research.
(p. 210)
This last passage struck me. In reading the book, I constantly found myself wanting to make sketches and block diagrams of the relationships between people and organizations that Clarkson was illuminating. In my opinion, such a resource would be invaluable. We already have a start of this with dkosopedia. I'm hoping that one positive thing that can come out of this discussion is a commitment by some (myself included) to enter more if the information from this book into dkosopedia. Furthermore, I am going to work (in my "spare time") on ways to visualize relationships such as these. As a concrete example of how valuable making such connections explicit can be, Clarkson highlights several instances in the book where the exposure of the influence of Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church caused leading Republican politicians to back away from political events or withdraw their support from organizations or certain statements.
With that, since I am already way overdue with this diary, I'll turn it over to you all and close by quoting Clarkson one last time:
The threat is great and the time is now---and probably for the rest of our lives.
(p. 216)