Another Embattled Minority Heard From
Peter Beinart in The New Republic points out that conservatives, long in the habit of sniggering at political correctness and group whining, have found a disrespected minority of their very own: evangelicals. Yeah they have, haven’t they.
Mind you, in the usual obligatory ritual, Beinart hands a little ground back, which he shouldn’t have.
To be fair, occasionally liberals do treat evangelical Christians with condescension and scorn. Conservatives frequently, and justifiably, expressed outrage at a Washington Post news story that called followers of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “largely poor, uneducated and easy to command.”…On November 4, in The New York Times, Garry Wills suggested that America now resembles the theocracies of the Muslim world more than it resembles Western Europe, which is offensive, not to mention absurd.
Well is it false that followers of Falwell and Robertson are largely uneducated? I don’t know any statistics on the subject, but it seems on the face of it unlikely that F & R would appeal to educated people – unless one has a slightly special definition for ‘educated’. And as for the next part, ‘offensive’ is irrelevant – in fact its irrelevance is part of the point of the article, so it seems absent-minded of Beinart to use the word.
But then once he’s got that ‘to be fair’ stuff out of the way, things pick up.
What these (and most other) liberals are saying is that the Christian Right sees politics through the prism of theology, and there’s something dangerous in that. And they’re right. It’s fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them–as much as possible–in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise, you can’t persuade other people, and they can’t persuade you. In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can’t be theological.
That’s what I keep saying – and I keep being surprised at how much resistance there is to that idea among some intellectuals (those ‘educated’ people again). But it seems so obvious. If you tell me a given piece of legislation would be a good thing because Moloch says so, why should that carry any weight with me? Why would you expect it to? Why should it make any difference if you substitute the generic word ‘God’ for Moloch? They both mean the same thing, after all – ‘the deity I have decided to believe in’. It’s just not reasonable to expect other people to believe in the supernatural being you have chosen to believe in, therefore that being’s word doesn’t carry any weight in public political discussions. Or rather it shouldn’t. Of course, when people use the word used by the majoritarian religion for its deity, they think they are referring to someone that everybody ought to pay attention to – but that’s a kind of trick of the light, an illusion, caused by familiarity and failure to question. And then that illusion goes on to become resentment and truculence.
What many conservatives are now saying is that, since certain views are part of evangelicals’ identity, harshly criticizing those views represents discrimination…Identity politics is a powerful thing–a way of short-circuiting debate by claiming that your views aren’t merely views; they are an integral part of who you are. And who you are must be respected. But harsh criticism is not disrespect–and to claim it is undermines democratic debate by denying opponents the right to aggressively, even impolitely, disagree. That is what conservatives are doing when they accuse liberals of religious bigotry merely for demanding that the Christian Right defend their viewpoints with facts, not faith.
Just so. That’s that special status for religion thing that I keep mentioning. Harsh criticism is not disrespect, and pretending it is is a way of trying to rule out disagreement. Exactly. Of course, it works, so needless to say conservatives are going to go right on doing it, and accusing atheists and secularists of elitism into the bargain, but at least the rest of us can point out how bogus it all is.
OB, your point is forcefully made but you are showing a tendency to slip into the very kind of rhetoric you criticise.
‘so needless to say conservatives are going to go right on doing it, and accusing atheists and secularists of elitism into the bargain, but at least the rest of us can point out how bogus it all is.’
Not all conservatives are going to do this. Some conservatives are atheists and secularists. I was forcefully struck by an item on Mark Kaplan’s blog, Charlotte Street, in which he quotes Derrida. The piece is, I think, worthy of Butterflies and Wheels in its denunciation of ‘simplistic binary oppositions.’ A beautiful irony considering the (deserved) pasting that Derrida has taken here.
Incidentally, is this harsh criticism? I have been trying to work out the difference between harsh criticism and what would, presumably, be gentle criticism. Having thunked, I am now of the opinion that criticism based on evidence and reason is just criticism. It doesn’t come in different flavours. One can add some emotive assertions to the critique, but then it is the assertions which are harsh or gentle.
You know what’s hilarious?
After all the fuming aggression about the politically correct, what survives is the attitude with other contents conveniently attuned to the new fashionable nonsense.
Okay, Mike, fair point. I should have stipulated ‘the conservatives who go in for this kind of rhetoric will go on using it because it works.’ I’m sure you’re right that not all do it – but I have to add that it often does surprise me how many conservatives do who ought to know better, just as it often shocks me when conservatives who profess respect for education, scholarship, rationalism, and the like, also profess admiration and respect for Bush. It seems to me the two are in tension. I have a lot more respect for conservative rationalists than I do for either conservative or leftist irrationalists. That’s one reason I find the left-right division too simple…
JoB, what fuming aggression about the politically correct? What are you talking about?
Beinart, as usual, nails it.
This whingeing by evangelicals has been going on for quite some time. What’s funny about this recent bout of right-wing self-pity is that it comes on the heels of a major political victory in the U.S. I’ve heard of sore losers before, but sore winners?
The quote you have provided is a good one, pointing out the need to ground an argument properly in evidence or mutually accepted bases of some kind, such as moral propositions.
I don’t know how it is in ordinary America or the UK, but in Australia I felt it very difficult to admit Christianity openly in the workplace; it was not ‘OK’ in my idea of what people accepted. (Like being a gun owner.) It took two years to find out on a home visit that my own boss was Christian too. Maybe that we were both geologists and despised creationist and other anti-science nuts contributed to that need for concealment.
I am more comfortable with public acceptance after ten or so years, and find the tolerance extended to gays is also mine if I just assume I am tolerable and don’t give deliberate offense.
My perception of the case however is NOT that there is dispute over grounding arguments, or the invalidity of religious-type grounding.
Rather it appears that it is suddenly fashionable for Democrat-supporters to speak in open contempt for their fellow citizens, based only on the fact of their religion.
They can dispute groundings all they like and I will quite likely agree, but that is pre-empted with abuse before any debate.
I know my IQ is not an issue, and my mind is at least as open to reality as anyone who thinks Bush is a puppet of secretive Jewish financiers at the same time as he is in the pay of Saudi princes and profit-obsessed on behalf of a few thousand Halliburton shares he sold long ago!
Fuming aggression by the right pundits.
JoB, oh, that. I wasn’t sure if you meant here. I mostly avoid the term ‘political correctness’ so that’s why I wondered.
“Rather it appears that it is suddenly fashionable for Democrat-supporters to speak in open contempt for their fellow citizens, based only on the fact of their religion.”
Really? Well, perceptions differ, but I would have said it was the other way around. I seem to hear and read an awful lot of exhortations from Dem-supporters to get religion and then avow it a lot. There was for instance a lot of hand-wringing among Democrats and liberals about the worrying lack of obvious religiosity in Howard Dean. In fact some of it went beyond hand-wringing: it was more like scolding. ‘How dare you be secular unlike the majority of the population you horrible elitists you?’ And this was from the liberal side!
“Really? Well, perceptions differ, but I would have said it was the other way around.”
Well, you are on the ground. I am stuck in the bush reading bloggers who selectively report the sneers (right) or do the sneering (left).
Must get out from under my rock more ;-)
In the recent Australian election we have a new party, ‘Family First’ who got a member up. Very evangelical, though the smokescreen was of the ‘Why yes, all of us DO seem to be christians don’t we?? What a coincidence!” Media filtering of means they haven’t said anything until they rant against abortion or something. Interesting that the abortion debate was triggered by the Liberal minister Abbott and the Governor General weighed in with full media ‘stir’ – Family First were nowhere in it.
I’m not all that much on the ground. I do my best to ignore a lot of media stuff. But there was and still is a lot of ‘the Democrats must catch up to the Republicans in the religion department’ lecturing going on. I’m afraid it annoys me dreadfully.
I, too, have noticed the Democrats belatedly trying to jump on that Old-Time Religion bandwagon these last two weeks. They are shying away from basic liberal values and trying to base their every policy on biblical grounds, in a transparent–and vain–attempt to peel off a few votes from the holy rollers. It’s pathetic and embarrassing and I wish they’d stop. They aren’t very convincing, nor should they try to be. They’d be much better off denouncing sicko video games and the atrocities of the jihadis from a secular, liberal perspective than pretending they’ve walked with Jesus and been Born Again. It’s not as if Christian fundamentalists own the copyright on contempt for sleaze and hatred of Middle Eastern fascism.
And it’s also not as if the correct response to losing an election is automatically to try to be as much as possible like the party that won. I understand the temptation, I realize people want to win and all, but what is the point of electing Democrats (of their ‘winning’) who have turned themselves into Republicans? That would make sense if winning were the only meaningful goal, that is, if elections were the exact equivalent of a game; but that is not the case.
And this religion bandwagon thing has been going on a lot longer than the past two weeks, too. The Dean stuff was from last winter, and in The New Republic among other places (American Prospect tends to say that kind of thing a lot too). Though of course the last two weeks produced a new spasm of it.
Totally agree. IMHO the Dems would have won if they had presented a credible alternative, both on character and policies. Lieberman seemed to be such a person, for instance.
If the diagnosis is faulty (God-botherers swung the election) the prescription will be dead wrong, and that seems to be the case here. Christian voters are still just voters. Make a solid case, get the votes.
“And it’s also not as if the correct response to losing an election is automatically to try to be as much as possible like the party that won.”
Quite so. As Harry Truman supposedly said, people will always choose a real Republican over a fake one. But where there’s overlap as to goals (as occasionally there will be), at least the party of supposed secular rationalist values can offer compelling secular rationalist reasons for its common goals. You’ll never win over the hard-core fundamentalist types, but there are always those critical swing voters to be persuaded. That’s what’s pissing me off about the childish temper tantrums so many Dems have been throwing since Nov. 2nd. They’re driving away all those moderate-centrist voters. They’re committing political suicide. The fools.
Did Truman say that? I like that. I’m bored senseless by the Truman cult (plus I seriously don’t agree with it), but I like that.
Well, I’ve heard people say that Truman said that, but I’ve never found the exact source. I agree with you about the Truman cult.
Ah. I’ll file it mentally under ‘Truman (apoc.)’ then.
“That’s what’s pissing me off about the childish temper tantrums so many Dems have been throwing since Nov. 2nd.”
Amen. Far too many people (particularly Democrats, this time around) view politics as some kind of therapy through which they can work out their personal problems. And when things don’t go their way, they flip out and behave like naive, spoiled children. If these people were acting in a vacuum, it wouldn’t matter very much; but unfortunately they’re a deleterious influence on the party as a whole. (Here’s a helpful hint: Insulting the swing voters who didn’t vote your way this year may be emotionally satisfying but, as a political tactic, it’s astoundingly stupid.) To be effective in politics, you need to be thick-skinned, tough-minded, clear-eyed, and willing to do the long, hard, tedious groundwork of building and maintaining a base while simultaneously appealing to the uncommitted middle. Crybabies and wishful thinkers need not apply.
And you need to remember that it’s politics, it’s about what the government does and does not, it’s not your future family or friends or affinity group or world view or drinnking buddies or team mates or who is coming over for dinner. It’s not about who is more ‘likable’ or even about who is more ‘elitist’ – or who is prettier or taller or More Like Us or nicer or more fun. Well, it is, of course, in practice, but it isn’t of its nature. It is in practice only because campaign ‘strategists’ and advertisers and PR people have managed to convince everyone it is.
I have to go take my bad-temper medication.
Yup. Life in America today is just one long session with Oprah and Dr. Phil. Or maybe a group hug with Jenny Jones and Stuart Smalley. Yechh.