(DV) Charles: An Amoral Morality Play

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

An Amoral Morality Play
Republicans present the left with a major, strategic and tactical problem: How to regain control of the political process without collapsing into their own brand of fringe politics.
by James Charles
www.dissidentvoice.org
April 14, 2005

A rigidly conservative friend of mine, a die-hard Republican who thought Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry embodied all that is wrong with liberal public policy, called me the morning after Congress passed and President Bush signed legislation directing federal courts to review the Terri Schiavo case.

"This is the most cynical, disgustingly dehumanizing thing I can imagine," he growled through the receiver. "What the hell are Republicans thinking?"

Thinking had little to do with the meaningless Schiavo legislation. It was pure politics that inspired the midnight ride of George W. Bush as he made the mad dash from Crawford to Washington to sign the Schiavo bill a few weeks ago. That's what 66% of America believes, telling pollsters that Congress should butt out of private affairs, particularly the Schiavo tragedy. People in red states and blue, Christians and Jews and non-believers, liberals and conservatives, saw the special legislation -- in a parliamentary system, it would have been a "private member's bill" and probably hooted down -- as politically motivated, unnecessary, intrusive and disturbing.

Was trying to prevent Mrs. Schiavo from dying with what dignity remained of her life merely politics as usual? Or was something more sinister at work?

On the one hand, few politicians of any stripe can avoid the temptation to grandstand, especially when their solemn pronouncements are sure to thrust them into headlines and appeal massively to core supporters -- in this case, politically hyperactive Christian fundamentalists. Still, hearing Rep. Tom DeLay lecture the country on moral and ethical issues is a bit like being lectured on fire prevention by Emperor Nero, and if Dr. Bill Frist over on the Senate side offered patients a diagnosis based on watching a few minutes of home video as he did in Mrs. Schiavo's case, he would be sued and have his medical license revoked.

At the same time, the Schiavo affair reflects something much more revealing and menacing about the unholy alliance of Christian fundamentalists and neo-conservatives, and their near-total takeover of the Republican Party. Born in the revival tents of the southern Bible belt in the early days of the 20^th century and transformed into a national political movement over the last 15 years, the axis of weevils is creating an American theocracy as intolerant of dissent, scientific reason, Constitutional rights, an independent judiciary and genuine liberty as any Iranian ayatollah. As a result, wherever one looks -- from 9/11 to Iraq to judicial nominees to Mrs. Schiavo's bedside -- Republican fundamentalists seem intent on forcing the country to play parts in an amoral morality play, all supposedly sanctioned by their righteously narrow version of God.

Along the way, the ultra-conservatives dominating the Republican Party have created a major conundrum for Democrats and moderate Republicans: How to regain control of the political process without moving too far to the left of the rest of the country yet without abandoning traditional core values? If it doesn't find a way, What's The Matter With Kansas? author Thomas Frank's next book might be What's The Matter With America?

As far back as 1986, sometime presidential candidate and television preacher Pat Robertson sent a memo to his political organization calling on followers to "Rule the world for God." It took just 14 years for them to turn words into the minister's deeds in Washington. When asked by Bob Woodward if he consulted his father, the elder President Bush, before going to war in Iraq, Bush The Younger told him, "I consult a higher father." Tom DeLay wields tight-fisted control over the House of Representatives because, he said, "He (God) is using me all the time, everywhere, to stand up for a biblical worldview in everything that I do and everywhere I am. He is training me."

How eerily delightful: The United States now is blessed with government by divine guidance and intervention. "In God We Trust" has a whole new meaning.

No wonder Chip Berlet and Margaret Quigley, senior analysts at Political Research Associates, coined the term "the theocratic right" to describe the phenomenon, unique in American history, where the overriding political goal is to implement an ultraconservative, theological agenda and establish it in a secular society. Out at its farthest fringes, the theocratic right says that it envisions what amounts to an authoritarian society ruled by extreme religious ideas. Basic rules of democracy, science and free expression can be trampled because the theocrats believe they are doing God's work.

Facts Or Beliefs?

Nowhere is this more visible than in the battle over teaching evolution to high school students now raging in 19 states: A fight over textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia, a requirement that alternative theories be taught in Dover, Pennsylvania, a review of science standards in Kansas by a newly-elected, ultra-conservative school board. According to a Gallup Poll conducted last November, only one-third of Americans believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is supported by hard science despite the fact that it has been tested and peer reviewed for more than 100 years.

Ken Ham, who runs a fundamentalist organization called Answers In Genesis, told Jeffrey Brown of the PBS NewsHour in a segment broadcast March 28, 2005, "Who was there to see (evolution) happen? Who was there to see life arise from matter? No one. How did they know it happened? It's their belief. Who was there to see the big bang? No one. How did they know it happened? It's their belief."

Except it is not "their belief." Like many theocrats, Mr. Ham ignores or dismisses well-established science. In the case of the big bang, echoes of the universe-creating explosion still rattling around the cosmos can be heard by radio astronomers; the two Bell Laboratory scientists who discovered and proved the big bang happened won a Nobel Prize for their work following intense peer review. Other scientists, measuring the shift of the red scale visible electronically in deep space astronomy, can nearly pinpoint when and where it happened, give or take a thousand years or so.

As for evolution, Mr. Ham's belief is that man was created by God 8,000 years ago, and dismisses the discovery of 40,000-year old bones of early homo sapiens as "theory". But he does not bother to explain how he reconciles this with his new "creationist" museum, where an exhibit suggests that human beings may have been riding domesticated dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Apparently, Mr. Ham's "belief" is that Jurassic Park was just a pre-historic version of the Wild, Wild West.

Still, he is right in one sense: Evolution is a theory. But so is gravity and science proves how, why and where it exists, and how much of it there is across the universe. The speed of light, relativity, cell theory, plate tectonics and a host of other scientific realities are called theories even though they can be measured and proved. Mr. Ham would know this if he would read something other than the Bible once in a while.

To the Republican theocracy, it is much simpler to believe in beliefs than in facts even though, so far, the courts continue to stymie them.

The Discovery Institute in Seattle tries getting around the thorny issue of both God in the classroom and what is tested science by producing a DVD that uses small, selective bits of legitimate science which are coupled to pure hokum to prove that "intelligent design" is how man came into being. Intelligent design is a carefully crafted bit of wordsmithing to avoid mentioning what is really being offered to students: God and creationism. From this comes the argument of the institute's Stephen Meyer that "the controversy" over evolution versus intelligent design should be taught in schools.

But there is no controversy among biologists and anthropologists who actually conduct genuine scientific research. Telling students that there is implies that Darwin's findings are suspect. Guess what? This is precisely the point Republican theocrats want to instill in us.

No reasonable person suggests that people who believe in creationism must also believe in evolution, just that they should know about it. School is the perfect place to teach and discuss evolution, and church is the perfect place to teach believers that God created the world in six days. What creationists and their allies in theocratic Washington want is that their faith-based beliefs be taught in schools alongside accepted science, as if they have equal weight. But they aren't equal and suggesting that they are ignores a reality that the purpose of education is not just to teach facts but also to challenge students to think creatively and confront their conventional wisdoms.

But challenging a student's conventional wisdom is the last thing the theocratic right wants. Instead, they need a "perception (and faith) based world -- not your reality based world," to use the dismissive words of a White House assistant quoted in the New York Times before the 2004 election, to maintain a stalwart group of devout, unthinking followers.

Beyond The Conundrum

Regardless of whether one is a progressive Democrat, a moderate Republican or falls somewhere in between, the Republican theocracy running all three branches of the federal government and a growing number of state houses presents a major, strategic and tactical problem: How to regain control of the political process without collapsing into their own brand of fringe politics. A radical would likely argue that it's neither desirable nor possible so a pox on all your houses. But sticking to and acting upon that point of view only serves to strengthen and consolidate the reactionary extremes controlling the Republican Party, helping to ensure that moderates, liberals and progressive Democrats remain a weakened and confused minority.

As Thomas Frank documents in What's The Matter With Kansas?, conservative Republicans and their theocrat allies have done a very good job of convincing voters to cast ballots that are against their personal, economic and social interests. The slender victory margin George Bush had in Ohio, which returned him to the White House, is just the most recent example. A battery of party and church phone banks managed to get just enough working people to show up in the minutes before the polls officially closed to vote for Bush and against their best personal interests.

In finding a future path and direction, it is always helpful to dissect the past.

Perhaps the best place to start is by remembering that the continent was first settled by religious fanatics who were basically tossed out of England and sent to America where they would not do any harm. Today's religious extremism has its roots in the very establishment of the country. For the past 400 years, religion has dominated politics from the Salem Witch Trials to the Scopes monkey trial in the 1930s to Madelyn Murray's court fights to recognize atheists in the 1960s to today's battle over Mrs. Schiavo's right to die. Constitutional religious freedom may be absolute but day-to-day support for it is thin: Jews, Mormons, Irish Catholics and now Moslems have all found religious tolerance in America a fleeting thing. A telling example: Before the U.S. entered World War II when Franklin Roosevelt learned about Nazi concentration camps being filled with Jews, he told Harry Hopkins and Bernard Baruch that he couldn't use the information because "this is a Christian country, and if people thought I was going to war to save the Jews I'd be voted out of office."

In other words, Republican theocrats start with a historical base of people for whom believing in belief outweighs believing in facts.

The second thing to remember is that Republican theocrats play to emotions and the left has been fighting emotion with facts. Emotions will win every time. Hollywood has understood this for 100 years, which is why it makes far more tear-jerking dramas than documentaries. Through George Bush, Karl Rove did the same thing, recognizing that since Bush wouldn't be able to make people feel warm and cozy about the world in 2004, then he had to scare the bejeezus out of them. Play to people's emotions, ignoring facts which, in Bush's case, were highly inconvenient and often embarrassing. Bill Clinton understood the power of emotions; Al Gore and John Kerry didn't. Much to the fury of the right, and to more than a few on the left, Clinton was a master at deftly using emotional appeals. When Clinton drawled, "I feel your pain," he drew snickers from the chattering class but from the people at whom he directed the comment came knowing nods of recognition -- and millions of votes.

As long as the left tries to rebut emotion solely with facts, it will remain marginalized in the political process.

The third component to remember in the rise of the Republican theocracy was its ability to strike compromises with people on the same side of the political coin but who differed on many issues. Fiscal conservatives, small government proponents and religious fundamentalists embraced each other, not because of any natural affinity or even because they agreed with one another. Rather, they recognized that the way to charge up Capitol Hill and move into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. lay with the voting power they could each deliver. By themselves, they could not elect the majorities they now enjoy, let alone nominate federal judges who share their point of view. Not surprisingly, a nearly-identical strategy of forging unnatural alliances is how Democrats controlled Congress for decades, and occupied the White House for 40 of the 68 years between 1932 and 2000.

That John Kerry captured the Democratic nomination and nearly won the presidency in 2004 shows the power of forging electoral alliances with political factions you would never invite to your home for a weekend barbeque. Since the election, Democrats, liberals and progressives have been engaging in too much squabbling over about how far left or right to move before 2008, and how to be more "pure" to core arguments. The more pure a political movement becomes, the fewer voters it attracts.

The final element exploited successfully by Republican theocrats in their drive to power was their savvy recognition that a significant number of ordinary people think that they are losing control over their lives. A combination of factors contribute to this: Technology, terrorism, rising prices, failing schools, bullies harassing their kids, telemarketers calling at dinner time, drugs, gay marriage. The list is long and what is on it varies from person to person. No one or two factors alone could create the sense of an out of control world, but put together they leave people feeling adrift, purposeless and, as my maternal grandmother frequently said, "at sixes and sevens" meaning generally frustrated and frightened but with no apparent or obvious cause. With the promise of a peaceful, less complicated and fulfilling life by surrendering thought and deed to a higher power, Republican theocrats enchant voters. How else can one explain the contradiction between polls showing that a majority of Americans believe women should have the ability to have an abortion on demand with the number of votes cast for candidates who say they want to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Too often, the left plays into the hands of the Republican theocracy by providing juicy examples to people of just how little control they have over their lives. Three examples illustrate the point:

* When a university president makes a thoroughly intemperate and ill-advised remark in a public speech and it is turned into a national cause notorious by the politically correct speech police on the left, it leaves millions of moderate voters shaking their heads in bewildered confusion.

* When the dean of a highly rated law school is forced to resign by feminist activists merely because she asked incoming women students if they understood the personal sacrifices they'd make by becoming lawyers, countless average Joes and Marys around the country understood perfectly the point she was trying to make but were alienated by elements of the left who publicly seized on the issue to trumpet their own agenda.

* After a six year old boy innocently kissed a girl in his kindergarten class on the cheek, he was suspended for "sexual harassment" under the school's Zero Tolerance policy. Yet all around the country, ordinary mothers and fathers -- who'd been six themselves once and could recall the mysterious thrill of a stolen playground kiss -- wondered what was wrong with what the boy did while activists said it is never too early to teach children about sexual harassment. Clearly, they missed the point as well as the attitudes of many Americans and the demands of childhood sexuality as studied and chronicled in great detail by Desmond Morris.

It was this sort of "my way or the highway" approach that contributed at least in part to the current health care crisis. Had Hillary Rodham-Clinton been open to compromise in 1993, and not insist that Congress take her health care proposal as is or leave it, chances are very good the US would have a national health system of some sort in place now. Millions of currently uninsured people would enjoy at least a modicum of protection. Yet now that Senator Clinton has shown that she learned from her mistakes and is one of the few members of the Senate who is willing to cross the aisle to forge a compromise on matters important to her constituents, often she is chastised by the left for being unfaithful to her principles. When she suggested that liberals and conservatives ought to discuss finding a middle ground on abortion, the right was silent but the left went over the top. She didn't say that a compromise was available or that there should be one, only that Republicans and Democrats ought to discuss possibilities. But that was enough to send activists to their e-mail and bloggers to their websites to launch a venomous rant against her.

I'm not suggesting that Senator Clinton is the ideal candidate for higher office, or that abortion rights should be modified; I am only saying that she is one of the few on the left who at least talks about trying to find a middle ground. And if the left is to have any hope of recouping its electoral losses and turning its agenda into legislation, it needs to do a much better job of widening its appeal by recognizing what makes people vote the way they do and adjust accordingly.

If liberals and progressives fail to find a way to do so, then we and our children's children will be forced to be unwilling actors in an unending, increasingly intolerant, amoral morality play written and directed by the Republican theocracy. It is time to begin working at it now, before Mr. Frank feels compelled to write What's The Matter With America?

James Charles is a writer living in Toronto. His next book is Life In The Dominion: An Ex-Pat American’s Affectionate Look At Living In Canada. Reach him by e-mail at: TheCurmudgeon382@hotmail.com.