I can't think of many grooming strategies more effective in engendering the explicit or implicit embrace of authoritarianism than the ideologies that proclaim that there's a sky daddy watching your every move and ready to punish you but only because he loves you.
The parallels between the conservative death cult and the religious death cults are not an accident. To HamNo's point, Dems trying to govern and campaign like conservatives is doomed to failure.
I'd argue they are doing this because they are, in actuality, conservatives! Or atleast conservative by any objective measure of that word and not just relative to the other side of the aisle.
Even Barry Goldwater said the religious right scared the shit out of him, and bemoaned the party being overtaken by them. Ayn Rand lovers marry Bible Thumpers. And their evil spawn rule.
You explained the inherent problem with any party using affiliation with religion during campaigns and then trying to extricate themselves for the duties of office very well. While there are some religious groups that have a history of supporting the separation of church and state as well as strong progressive positions as well (UCC, UUA primarily)they do these things from a position separate from the pulpit. It's been extremely disturbing over the course of my life to see the explosive growth of Evangelical churches. I'm not a believer, but I went to a Presbyterian church that was so progressive they taught us about every world religion and why those expressions of faith should be respected. As well as to be respectful of those that don't have any belief. I really didn't understand at the time how unique being taught given that freedom and taught that respect was. What happened, exactly? What caused so many Americans to choose such a limiting and profoundly punitive version of Christianity? I just don't see the lure.
I've found it hard to engage even members of your own family on politics when religious beliefs are on the table. But I also know that at their core, these are not people who like feeling used. I think there's a way to get through to *some* of them, by clearly illustrating that the Republican party does not actually care about abortion, or fidelity, or anything to do with any God—these are only means to manipulate votes out of people to get richer. Not all conservatives are zealots, many just do what their parents did as the reflexive habit that is easiest and most familiar.
The issue I see is inherent distrust; the call needs to come from inside the house, to be incepted by someone who isn't as much of an outsider to their perspective as I am. In my head, this would be Bill Burr with a cowboy accent.
Or can I use sports as a metaphor to get in? I strive to eliminate all subjective data from my analysis. After all, no one likes when a college opinion poll or clandestine room of businesspeople are the main reason why their school can't be in a playoff. Opinions are the religion of sports, data is the science. Baseball umpires are religion, strikezone cameras are science. And sometimes things can be better by letting science lead.
This argument isn't blanket and the hardliners will dismiss anything that shakes their worldview or tradition. So these are the types of cracks in the foundation I'd rather see political hopefuls examine rather than committing the also-pandering Hamilton has described so well here.
Hamilton, the way things are shaking out I have to believe any politician with the guts to do as you suggest would be putting a target on his chest, back, neck or wherever a bullet with scripture engraved casing would be deemed most effective.
Oliver Cromwell, who created the first modern army, deliberately added Christianity to the way he motivated the soldiers. He said that no matter how rational your motivation for fighting was, if you really wanted your army to fight, you should tie your reasons to religion. Sorry I don't have the actual quote, but this is from Christopher Hill's histories of the English Civil War period.
"...getting religion out of government requires asserting the fundamental belief that faith is not a proper ingredient of the public decision-making process."
We had "faith" that all parties would abide by the Constitutional Establishment Clause - until it wasn't. Wouldn't a party platform asserting that religion not be part of the decision making process be subject to haters saying the Dems were against religious practices? We're at the point where every "do' or "don't" has to be spelled out explicitly or the right, in particular, will steamroll the process.
was just gonna say...Counterintuitively, 'damned if you do and damned if you don't" is an extremely freeing position to BE in. You don't have to overthink everything. You don't have to wring your hands with pointless worry, or waste time and money and brain power on endless focus-group-testing, you don't have to plan what YOU are going to do based on how you think the other side is going to REACT to it. SO many obstacles and unnecessary details simply evaporate when you face this truth...It also ends your ability to make excuses, so there's THAT to consider.
100% agree. There's this mush headed liberal dogma that is inherently hostile to moral clarity. Could liberals solve their "authenticity" problem? Yes, but it would depend on their ability/willingness to believe in something beyond their political careers, bank accounts and appearances of moral superiority.
Ask every current Dem politician if they believe in universal human rights and watch many of them viscerally react to the possibility of being hemmed into a definable position (beyond platitude or talking point) on Palestine, Sudan, the American working poor and unhoused, trans folks, etc.
They might then reasonably be expected to act, and THAT is not what the Democratic party is here for.
"liberal dogma that is inherently hostile to moral clarity"
spot on.
One of two things are in play:
1. They don't trust their instincts
2. They really ARE trying to avoid doing the right thing by looking for reasons not to.
I'm going to be uncharacteristically gracious and suggest #1. Even though I'm considerably left of the democrat-mean, I know I'm guilty of overthinking shit to the point of distraction. Its kind of a lefty proclivity. For better or worse we need to start going 'against' our initial instincts
If, instead of religious belief, we said "point of view" (religious or otherwise), would this help? Because all "points of view" emerge from our personal backgrounds. What influences and conditions us? Obviously, we cannot dispense with these things with a wave of the hand and enter a pure realm of democracy. But this is the liberal dream: that just following the right procedures will ensure good outcomes. The conservative dream is that the vaunted "free market" will lead to the promised land. Both are evasions. They are refusals to take responsibility for what people really need, like debt forgiveness and universal healthcare.
Excellent article, but I find it puzzling that secular neoliberal adherents and their magical thinking aren't recognized as religious fundamentalists. After all, capitalism is the true national religion.
J. Stiglitz deserved a lot more attention for his 2024 book "The Road to Freedom...", and his unassailable and overlooked observation that the same type of magical "thinking" that informs religious fundamentalists also informs neoliberal policy makers:
"There was still one more way in which neoliberalism was like a fundamentalist religion: There were pat answers to anything that seemed contrary to its tenets. If markets were unstable (as evidenced in the 2008 financial crisis), the problem was the government—central banks had unleashed too much money. If a country that liberalized didn’t grow in the way the religion said it should, the answer was it hadn’t liberalized enough."
I've lived in a theocracy - Saudi Arabia - for two and a half years (in the relatively privileged position of a US passport holder and licensed healthcare professional, but never the less.) It...um...wasn't great. My conclusion was that every one of these theocratic zealots should be forced to live in those conditions. My wager is they wouldn't last much longer than I did.
As I have posted a few times before, maybe here...
"If you're ever doing business with a religious son of a bitch - GET IT IN WRITING! - there's no way to tell how they'll try to screw you with the good lord in on the deal."
I know I brought this up last time you visited this subject, and I agree with the basic argument here, but I wish you wouldn’t use “religion” and “Christianity” interchangeably. Maybe especially on Rosh Hashana.
I do not use them interchangeably. Christianity is the dominant religion in the US and right wing Christianity in particular is the biggest religious political challenge in the US. The principle I discuss here applies to all religion but in our current political landscape this strain of Christianity is ascendant. Theocratic government of any type is bad. See the included chart also.
I can't think of many grooming strategies more effective in engendering the explicit or implicit embrace of authoritarianism than the ideologies that proclaim that there's a sky daddy watching your every move and ready to punish you but only because he loves you.
The parallels between the conservative death cult and the religious death cults are not an accident. To HamNo's point, Dems trying to govern and campaign like conservatives is doomed to failure.
I'd argue they are doing this because they are, in actuality, conservatives! Or atleast conservative by any objective measure of that word and not just relative to the other side of the aisle.
Elf On The Shelf. now in adult sizes!
Even Barry Goldwater said the religious right scared the shit out of him, and bemoaned the party being overtaken by them. Ayn Rand lovers marry Bible Thumpers. And their evil spawn rule.
You explained the inherent problem with any party using affiliation with religion during campaigns and then trying to extricate themselves for the duties of office very well. While there are some religious groups that have a history of supporting the separation of church and state as well as strong progressive positions as well (UCC, UUA primarily)they do these things from a position separate from the pulpit. It's been extremely disturbing over the course of my life to see the explosive growth of Evangelical churches. I'm not a believer, but I went to a Presbyterian church that was so progressive they taught us about every world religion and why those expressions of faith should be respected. As well as to be respectful of those that don't have any belief. I really didn't understand at the time how unique being taught given that freedom and taught that respect was. What happened, exactly? What caused so many Americans to choose such a limiting and profoundly punitive version of Christianity? I just don't see the lure.
I've found it hard to engage even members of your own family on politics when religious beliefs are on the table. But I also know that at their core, these are not people who like feeling used. I think there's a way to get through to *some* of them, by clearly illustrating that the Republican party does not actually care about abortion, or fidelity, or anything to do with any God—these are only means to manipulate votes out of people to get richer. Not all conservatives are zealots, many just do what their parents did as the reflexive habit that is easiest and most familiar.
The issue I see is inherent distrust; the call needs to come from inside the house, to be incepted by someone who isn't as much of an outsider to their perspective as I am. In my head, this would be Bill Burr with a cowboy accent.
Or can I use sports as a metaphor to get in? I strive to eliminate all subjective data from my analysis. After all, no one likes when a college opinion poll or clandestine room of businesspeople are the main reason why their school can't be in a playoff. Opinions are the religion of sports, data is the science. Baseball umpires are religion, strikezone cameras are science. And sometimes things can be better by letting science lead.
This argument isn't blanket and the hardliners will dismiss anything that shakes their worldview or tradition. So these are the types of cracks in the foundation I'd rather see political hopefuls examine rather than committing the also-pandering Hamilton has described so well here.
Hamilton, the way things are shaking out I have to believe any politician with the guts to do as you suggest would be putting a target on his chest, back, neck or wherever a bullet with scripture engraved casing would be deemed most effective.
Btw, happy Rapture day!
Oliver Cromwell, who created the first modern army, deliberately added Christianity to the way he motivated the soldiers. He said that no matter how rational your motivation for fighting was, if you really wanted your army to fight, you should tie your reasons to religion. Sorry I don't have the actual quote, but this is from Christopher Hill's histories of the English Civil War period.
"...getting religion out of government requires asserting the fundamental belief that faith is not a proper ingredient of the public decision-making process."
We had "faith" that all parties would abide by the Constitutional Establishment Clause - until it wasn't. Wouldn't a party platform asserting that religion not be part of the decision making process be subject to haters saying the Dems were against religious practices? We're at the point where every "do' or "don't" has to be spelled out explicitly or the right, in particular, will steamroll the process.
The Dems are already painted as being hostile to religion even though it's demonstrably not true.
Lean in and stake out a morally clear and consistent position. Something that centrist liberals are chronically incapable of doing.
was just gonna say...Counterintuitively, 'damned if you do and damned if you don't" is an extremely freeing position to BE in. You don't have to overthink everything. You don't have to wring your hands with pointless worry, or waste time and money and brain power on endless focus-group-testing, you don't have to plan what YOU are going to do based on how you think the other side is going to REACT to it. SO many obstacles and unnecessary details simply evaporate when you face this truth...It also ends your ability to make excuses, so there's THAT to consider.
100% agree. There's this mush headed liberal dogma that is inherently hostile to moral clarity. Could liberals solve their "authenticity" problem? Yes, but it would depend on their ability/willingness to believe in something beyond their political careers, bank accounts and appearances of moral superiority.
Ask every current Dem politician if they believe in universal human rights and watch many of them viscerally react to the possibility of being hemmed into a definable position (beyond platitude or talking point) on Palestine, Sudan, the American working poor and unhoused, trans folks, etc.
They might then reasonably be expected to act, and THAT is not what the Democratic party is here for.
"liberal dogma that is inherently hostile to moral clarity"
spot on.
One of two things are in play:
1. They don't trust their instincts
2. They really ARE trying to avoid doing the right thing by looking for reasons not to.
I'm going to be uncharacteristically gracious and suggest #1. Even though I'm considerably left of the democrat-mean, I know I'm guilty of overthinking shit to the point of distraction. Its kind of a lefty proclivity. For better or worse we need to start going 'against' our initial instincts
“Religion is like masturbation. You are free to do it, but not on the floor of the legislature.”
A well written article, and sorry for being pedantic: Architects do NOT design bridges. That is the domain solely of civil and structural engineers.
You're right about this, editing that.
If, instead of religious belief, we said "point of view" (religious or otherwise), would this help? Because all "points of view" emerge from our personal backgrounds. What influences and conditions us? Obviously, we cannot dispense with these things with a wave of the hand and enter a pure realm of democracy. But this is the liberal dream: that just following the right procedures will ensure good outcomes. The conservative dream is that the vaunted "free market" will lead to the promised land. Both are evasions. They are refusals to take responsibility for what people really need, like debt forgiveness and universal healthcare.
Excellent article, but I find it puzzling that secular neoliberal adherents and their magical thinking aren't recognized as religious fundamentalists. After all, capitalism is the true national religion.
J. Stiglitz deserved a lot more attention for his 2024 book "The Road to Freedom...", and his unassailable and overlooked observation that the same type of magical "thinking" that informs religious fundamentalists also informs neoliberal policy makers:
"There was still one more way in which neoliberalism was like a fundamentalist religion: There were pat answers to anything that seemed contrary to its tenets. If markets were unstable (as evidenced in the 2008 financial crisis), the problem was the government—central banks had unleashed too much money. If a country that liberalized didn’t grow in the way the religion said it should, the answer was it hadn’t liberalized enough."
Excerpt from "The Road to Freedom..." here: https://lithub.com/survival-of-the-wealthiest-joseph-e-stiglitz-on-the-dangerous-failures-of-neoliberalism/
Science, facts, and logic are a threat to the certainty and security that fundamentalists of all stripes like to promise.
I've lived in a theocracy - Saudi Arabia - for two and a half years (in the relatively privileged position of a US passport holder and licensed healthcare professional, but never the less.) It...um...wasn't great. My conclusion was that every one of these theocratic zealots should be forced to live in those conditions. My wager is they wouldn't last much longer than I did.
We need an E Pluribus Unum movement.
This in god we trust bs is for the dogs.
I'd put a lot more trust in Dog.
This would be a third party?
As I have posted a few times before, maybe here...
"If you're ever doing business with a religious son of a bitch - GET IT IN WRITING! - there's no way to tell how they'll try to screw you with the good lord in on the deal."
-William S. Burroughs.
I know I brought this up last time you visited this subject, and I agree with the basic argument here, but I wish you wouldn’t use “religion” and “Christianity” interchangeably. Maybe especially on Rosh Hashana.
I do not use them interchangeably. Christianity is the dominant religion in the US and right wing Christianity in particular is the biggest religious political challenge in the US. The principle I discuss here applies to all religion but in our current political landscape this strain of Christianity is ascendant. Theocratic government of any type is bad. See the included chart also.