Republicanism As Religion

[Prophet 451]

"I'm all out of faith, this is how I feel" ~ Natalie Imbruglie

I've been thinking about this for a while, ever since Ann Coulter released Godless: The Church Of Liberalism (if you haven't read it, don't bother). One can look at the polls and show that support for George Walker Bush continually hovers around the 30% mark. Not coincidently, that is almost exactly equal to the US population of evangelical fundementalists. However, it would be a disservice to claim that all evangelical fundementalists support Bush. Even if the majority do, there will always be a certain percentage that don't follow the lead of thir fellow travellers. What then, is going on?

Shortly after the 2000 election, the mainstream media was awash with assumptions that the Democrat's loss was a result of the "God gap". Now, firstly, both Al Franken and Greg Palast have throughly demolished that assumption and there's some very big questions over the honesty of the 2000 election but all of this seems to come down to the 24% (or thereabouts) of those exit polled which listed "moral values" as their primary motivation. Rarely can two small words have caused so much misunderstanding (with the possible exception of "gay marriage"). What the pollsters failed to understand was that in this case, the moral value in question wasn't compassion or tolerance or even freedom of religion. The only moral question which a good portion of those surveyed cared about was political affiliation.

To modern Republicans, political affiliation is far more than a measure of how one will vote, it is a measure of what kind of person one is, of whether one is worthy of compassion or neglect. The concept of liberalism and the person of Bill Clinton has been so continually maligned and misrepresented (seriously, Clinton still gets blamed for everything six years after the poor guy left office. Here, Blair had to stop blaming the previous Tory government for everything when Parliament started catcalling him every time he brought it up. There, it still works. Go figure) that a kind of reverse sainthood has been achieved: If liberals are continually evil, conservatives must be continually good and, if God always sides with the good (which is open to debate), then God must be a conservative. By that line of thinking, the Republicans became God's Own Party and Republicanism became a religion.

The process wasn't automatic. It started when modern Republicanism chose to emphasise socially divisive questions (roughly, God, guns, gays and abortion) over economic issues. While there are quite a few pro-life (for example) Democrats, the Democratic party generally is pro-choice and while there are some pro-choice Republicans, the Republican party is generally pro-life. Neither of those positions changed. What did change was the emphasis on them and the willingness to demonise one's opponants (and the blame for that can be laid entirely at the doors of Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist). The emphasis on those issues gradually drew religious conservatives into the Republican party and the simple expediant of continually linking conservatism with desireable traits and liberalism with undesireable ones, the allegiance of the religious conservatives was gradually transferred from their faith to their party. In the same way as Mormons describe themselves as Christian (that's not meant to be a slight on Mormons but from an academic viewpoint, it's distinct enough to qualify as a faith in it's own right), Republicans usually claim Christianity but it is a Christianity which owes little to Jesus and far more to Pat Robertson. Because the USA is so throughly Christianised, teh claim of Christianity is seen as somethign of a badge of merit, an assurance of good conduct but while giving lip service to the man often described as the "Prince Of Peace", modern Republicanism has, in many ways, directly violated the teachings of that man. I'm not a Christian but I'm quite familiar with both the Bible and Christian thought and from what I can tell, both were quite concerned with things like social justice, the welfare of the poor and so on. Jesus even endorsed the seperation of church and state ("Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and render unto God that which is Gods", Mark 12:17). Jesus was a liberal, to quote the late Molly Ivins: "The biggest, the best, the original bleeding heart". Yet, modern Republicanism, while trumpeting it's Christianity, pays little heed to such teachings. Thus, we have a faith which is no longer Christian but something distinctly other. I named it Christopublicanism but that slanders the name of Jesus (whom I have nothing against) by linking him with neocon policies. Suggestions of an alternative name are gratefully received.

It is often said that religion should get out of politics. To some extent, I agree with that as teh fusion of religion and politics tends to bring out the worst in both but such a statement also misses the point. Christopublicanism exists because of politics. It is, in fact, religiosised politics (or politicised religion, if you prefer). It exists as a very unusual hybrid. From a particular brand of fundementalism, it took overbearing self-righteousness, wilfull hypocracy, an overpowering rage that the world is not as you would wish it and an unearned and entirely unwarranted sense of victimisation (these are not just nasty words or my opinions, they are empirically proven fact, see John W. Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience). From extreme-right politics, it took core assumptions about economics and the willingness, language and framework to demonise one's opponant. The result was a religion which exists not to assure it's adherants their place in the afterlife or even to make them better people but to achieve and maintain earthly power for the extreme-right. Quickly, other traits began to show up. The fledgling faith rapidly developed an inherant and virulent anti-intellectualism, a strident evangelism. Both were originally rural phonomenena but because the new faith made a principle of attacking the "elites" and because rural folk have often resented city dwellers, the new rural converts brought that anti-intellectualism and evangelism with them.

From their, one can easily understand what the Christopublians so vehemently defend George Bush and Ronald Reagan. In fact, their defense of both men is wildly disproportionate to the criticism both received (at least, initially). Criticise either in the wrong circles and you can be assured of tirades of abuse (usually directed at your intellect or patriotism) at best and quite possibly physical assault. By contrast, while liberals often hero-worship Bill Clinton, we are also able to admit that the man made some big mistakes during his time in office (for example, he was a womaniser and NAFTA was probably a mistake). Reagan and Bush Jr. are sacrosanct, not a word may be said against them because both figures passed beyond politics into being Christopublican saints and from fundementalism (of a particular kind), Christopublicanism took that vastly disproportionate defense of it's idols. One could question why any Christian would still be Republican after teh party has (metaphorically) urinated on the teachings of Jesus but to ask that is to miss that the Bible is only one of Christopublicanism's holy books. The others include "The Earth is Flat" and "The Way Things Ought To Be". Every day, Christopublians can turn on their radio and listen to their high priest babble about whatever's on his mind today. They can turn on Fox "News" and watch a few slighter lesser priests and they can read the teachings of most of them. It's an entirely insulated package. If one chooses to, one need never come into contact with facts or opinions which are displeasing.

While many of us worry about the division of church and state, the Christopublicans have created a synthesis of the two. One nation, under God and George Bush, forever and ever, amen. And since George Bush is appointed by God (as he himself has hinted several times), what's wrong with him having total power? And since Bush is opposed to Clinton, teh Clintons must be the devil, incapable of doing anything good or right because they're the Clintons.

It truth, I'm not sure if the Christopublicans can be reached. The genuine conservative can be but then, the genuine conservative is increasingly unlikely to support Bush anyway (In fact, many of them have defected to the Democrats or just plain given up on politics entirely). It's difficult to punture the Christopublican's worldview. Point out Bush's failing and you'll either be ignored, punched or met with a tirade of logic twisted to breaking point to justify his failings (if you're not American, you'll also get tirades about how your country is no better (which is probably true but misses the point)). Point out how much Republican positions differ from Jesus's teachings and you'll be accused of twisting the Bible, told that you have to be a Christian (by which, they mean Christopublican) to understand the teachings of the Bible. Point out the failing of the economy, the lack of national security or public safety and they'll blame Clinton (like mainstream Christianity, anything good is of God (Republicanism), anything bad is of the devil (Clinton)), proclaim that things aren't that bad and attack you for daring to say somethign negative about Bush. Point out Bush's brushes with the law, alcoholism or coke use and they'll draw a comparison with Clinton's womanising and ignore the fact that Clinton's womanising was A) legal and B) an impeachable offence as far as they were concerned. The bubble of self-righteousness is so strong that I'm not sure anything could reach them. Perhaps the only hope is that, as a new generation comes of age politically, a generation that doesn't remember when the Republican party actually used to stand for something worthwhile, the Christopublians will die off, drowning in tar pits like dinosaurs or retiring to Florida or Beverly Hills en masse like aging rock stars. Perhaps then, the Republican party will rediscover genuine conservatism, will rediscover the works of Barry Goldwater, John W. Dean and their contemporaries. Perhaps there will be free beer tomorrow. Perhaps...