GOP: First Religious Party

This frankly deserves a lot more attention than what I can give it here in this quick post that am writing just before going to bed — this subject is certainly worth revisiting at length, which I certainly hope to do.

Kevin Phillips, author of American Dynasty, among other books, has recently published American Theocracy, which takes a close look at the relationship between the Republican Party and the religious fundamentalists right in America. Kevin Phillips goes even further than merely describing the relationship, however. In fact, he suggests that the Republican Party is now the first religious party in American history and that it is this phenomenon that has influenced the Bush Administration’s total lack of a policy apparatus — essentially, the Bush White House has given up on formulating a governing policy and, in stead, has catered to the demands of this extremely influential constituency within the Republican Party by using the White House as a political tool to consolidate control over the religious right.

Now, Kevin Phillips is not some media pundit writing about the Republican Party from the outside, as he’s been an inside player of the Republican Party as a member of Nixon’s White House team. It was during that time, in the early to mid 1970s, that Kevin Phillips began to observe the inroads that the religious fundamentalist right was making within the Republican Party — just around the time that Nixon was launching the Southern Strategy to courtship Southern Whites unhappy with the progress of the Civil Rights movement. Today, of course, the Republican Party is apologizing for its use of race as a wedge issue to courtship the bigot vote in the South; never mind that they continue to use race and other social wedge issues to divide the public, and to attract the bigoted and close minded elements to the Republican Party come election day.

All right, back to Kevin Phillips. As I mentioned above, with American Theocracy, Kevin Phillips does more than merely describe the nexus of religious fundamentalism and the Republican Party. He goes on to describe how the erosion of the manufacturing base, and the transformation of our economy to a finance centric one, are colluding to destroy the social and economic security that America’s middle class enjoyed for much of the twentieth century. This is how NPR’s Fresh Air, the program on which I heard about American Theocracy, describes the author and his book:

Kevin Phillips rose to prominence on the heels of Richard Nixon’s political triumphs. His 1969 book The Emerging Republican Majority was hailed as a visionary work of political analysis. But his new book, American Theocracy, argues that the Republican Party — and the country — is headed for disaster.

Subtitled "The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century," American Theocracy puts the trials of modern America into the context of other great historical powers. From Rome to Great Britain, Phillips identifies the keys to their decline — and draws parallels to modern America.

Phillips wrote a 2004 bestseller, American Dynasty, about the Bush family. American Theocracy is a harsh criticism of the current Bush administration and the Republican Party. Phillips, a senior strategist for Richard Nixon’s 1968 presidential bid, registered himself as a political independent in 2002.

I encourage every one to hear Kevin Phillips’ radio interview with Terry Gross, of Fresh Air. At one point during the interview Terry Gross asks the author to describe whether he’s now a Republican or Democrat, and he simply answers that he’s an independent. He then goes on to lament about how the Republican Party has been totally taken over by the religious right, and how the Dominionists’ apocalyptic end-of-days vision of the world has rendered that party incapable of dealing with the economic issues that he raises in American Theocracy. At this point Kevin Phillips, as if thinking out loud, offers that Democrats are equally incapable of addressing the same economic concerns, though for obviously different reasons. Now, here’s the part that intrigues me and, by the way, I have to agree with Kevin Phillips when he says that: Democrats are incapable of dealing with the economic issues, because they too receive big time money (though not the same amount as Republicans) from the financing centers that are pushing our economy away from manufacturing and into a finance centric one (an economic model that benefits multinational corporations at the expense of virtually everyone else).

So, where do we go from here? Now, I know that in the short term the goal is one chamber of Congress — hopefully both chambers. And then, there’s 2008, for sure. But both of these goals are easy by comparison to the more monumental task of creating one party — just one party — that’s responsive to average voters and, too, a party that’s not beholden to the big money interests that fill the election year coffers of our politicians.

Jesus Cares for the Poor…

It is encouraging to see that we, progressives, are finally figuring out that we must be more vocal and assertive if we’re to “win the hearts and minds” of our fellow Americans. With that in mind, South Dakota Democrats have taken to the streets:

Fundamentalism at Home

Candidates of BOTH political parties often attend church gatherings and are sometimes invited to speak from the pulpit; however, when they do, candidates of BOTH parties do not use that opportunity to make a blatant political statement — that is, they don’t attack or advocate one policy position or another. Now, clearly, this is a subtle distinction, since it goes without say that if a candidate of a given party is up at a pulpit, then most congregants can reasonably assume that there’s some sort of tacit endorsement being made. However, as I posted earlier from this article, what some activist fundamentalist Republican legislators are proposing goes beyond merely giving the church the ability to make “tacit endorsements.” Instead, what these Republican legislators are seeking is to completely obliterate the Church/State divide that has served our nation so well for over 200 years — which is what’s made us the most successful pluralistic democracy on earth. More specifically, the proposed Republican legislation would permit the clergy to ACTIVELY endorse candidates, and to ACTIVELY engage in other common political activities.

Now, from our current vantage, it may seem alarmist to suggest that we’re in the brink of a Theocracy; however, as an example, let’s acknowledge, as many have already pointed out, that the only reason why the federal government intervened in Mrs. Shiavo’s tragedy is because Republican politicians deemed it necessary to satiate the demands from the religious fundamentalists base within their party. Again, it’s not just some lone voices in the woods that are opining this; Republican Representative Christopher Shays said as much:

“My party is demonstrating that they are for states’ rights unless they don’t like what states are doing,” said Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. “This couldn’t be a more classic case of a state responsibility.”

“This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy,” Shays said. “There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them.”

Additionally, while we fight against Islamic terrorism, we’ve been engaged against fighting fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Iraq; and, too, our nation continually points at the perils of fundamentalism in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, it appears that while we fight abroad, some are perfectly happy and willing to institute our own brand of fundamentalism here are home. I, for one, cannot believe that the parallels are not being widely and publicly discussed. Finally, keep in mind that this is not about denying anybody their free speech right: the fact that our entire nation is enthralled by this tragic case is a clear example that no one’s free speech rights have been obstructed. Instead, the concern here is that adopting the fundamentalist tenets/values of one group puts in PERIL and UNDERMINES our pluralistic representative-democracy — basically, there’s a bunch of us living in our lovely country, with different religions, values, etc. and, if the arbiter between these groups (i.e., government) adopts one group’s fundamentalism over another’s, we run the risk of having a lot unhappy folks (running around questioning the legitimacy of the entire system). I’d hate to live in that type of society, and sincerely hope that we can avoid it.

“Party of Theocracy”

I’m a bit reluctant to proceed with this, as I know that a lot of people do not want to appear to be “confrontational” nor “insensitive to/dismissive of” the religious values that many of our fellow citizens hold. However, we — the American public — should now be extremely mindful of what’s taking place and, too, of the nature of the debate that a certain faction of — let’s be honest — the Republican party has foisted onto the national stage. Before going on, let me be clear about one point, reasonable American’s of virtually all political stripes agree on one thing: the Terri Shiavo tragedy is a PRIVATE FAMILY MATTER in which the federal government should’ve never interfered in — PERIOD.

Reasonable Americans need to be FULLY aware about the nature of the federal government’s actions — at the behest of a vociferous faction — in deciding to interfere in this private family matter. Moreover, we should not be timid nor reluctant in confronting those that would jeopardize our system of laws, plurality (religious, ethnic, etc.) and federalism. Now, this may sound merely as an academic concern; however, it is through a series of small, incremental actions that policies and our national direction can be changed — interference in the tragic Shiavo case is such an example.

Now, to demonstrate that my concern — and the concern of others — is shared across party lines, here’s what Republican Representative Christopher Shays has said on this matter:

“My party is demonstrating that they are for states’ rights unless they don’t like what states are doing,” said Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. “This couldn’t be a more classic case of a state responsibility.”

“This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy,” Shays said. “There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them.”

No Wonder We’ve Got Bush(ed)

Some just refuse to accept modernity. Given the following, it appears that any candidate (read: Bush) willing to pander and wear his religion on his sleeve, starts off with a about a third of the popular vote faithfully built in:

———————————————————————

*Gallup has been asking the following for many years, here are this year’s results*

EVOLUTION

Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is � [ROTATED: a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, (or) just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence], or don’t you know enough about it to say?

- Supported by evidence: 35%
- Not supported by evidence: 35%
- Don’t know enough to say: 29%
- No opinion: 1%

[...]

Yet, [evolution] is not just any theory. It is one of the most basic theories in science today, and most biologists and other scientists believe that the theory is so well supported by data that it is a basic part of the scientific firmament. As National Geographic stated in its November cover story: “The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

CREATIONISM

The poll shows that almost half of the U.S. population believes that human beings did not evolve, but instead were created by God — as stated in the Bible — essentially in their current form about 10,000 years ago:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings — [ROTATE 1-3/3-1: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?

- Man developed, with God guiding: 38%
- Man developed, but God had no part in process: 13%
- God created man in present form: 45%
- Other/No opinion: 4%

BIBLICAL LITERACY

Although 45% of Americans believe that humans were created by God pretty much in their present form at one time 10,000 years ago — a view that corresponds to the account of creation as presented in the Bible — only 34% of Americans believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word:

Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible — the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, or the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man]?

- Actual: 34%
- Inspired: 48%
- Fables: 15%
- No opinion: 3%

BELIEF IN A LITERAL BIBLE AND IN CREATIONISM

A segmentation of Americans based on their responses to the questions about creationism and biblical literacy finds that a quarter of Americans can be considered to be true literalists — believing not only in the literal interpretation of the Bible, but also in the creationist view of the origin of humans.

25% of U.S. population is considered to be biblical literalists and believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago. (These are the group’s major characteristics):

- Women
- Age 30 and older
- No college degree
- Conservative
- Republicans
- Weekly church attendees
- Protestant

20% of U.S. population is considered to believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago, but not biblical literalists. (These are the group’s major characteristics):

- 18- to 29-year-olds

9% of U.S. population are considered biblical literalists but do not believe humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago. (These are the group’s major characteristics):

- High school or less

46% of U.S. population are not biblical literalists and also do not believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago. (These are the group’s major characteristics):

- Men
- East and West Coasts
- Urban
- College graduates
- Higher income
- Liberal
- Independents
- Seldom, never attend church
- Catholics

THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF SUPPORT FOR DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION

% Who Believe that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Is a Scientific Theory Well Supported by the Evidence

*Subgroup*
————————
- Postgraduate education: 65%
- Liberal: 56%
- College graduate: 52%
- West: 47%
- Seldom, never attend church: 46%
- Catholics: 46%
- 50- to 64-year-olds: 44%
- Men: 42%
- East: 42%
- 18- to 29-year-olds: 41%
- Independent: 40%
- Democrat: 38%
- Moderate: 36%

———————————————————————

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=14107