The religion of politics
May 8, 2007 Faith and Works, Politics and Poker
I woke up the morning after the [2004] election … and cried for three straight days. … Not because my candidate lost, which he had, but because of what it meant for the solutions to global warming.
Sean Bannion on the tears of Laurie David, distinguished booker for David Letterman,
wife to the real life (i.e., immensely wealthy) George Constanza and generator of thousands of private-jet hours:
I honestly don’t know what it is about left-of-center politics that makes every single political burp something devastating and personal. It only seems to make sense when you consider left-of-center politics (and especially the global warming jihad) as a religion complete with its own dogma, saints and unprovable beliefs.
Good point (especially on global warming and, regrettably to me, especially among assimilated Hebrews like Laurie David). Now, why don’t we see that on the right? Well, right-wingers fall into two broad types: Religious ones and the other ones. Religious ones, well, they have religion — or, if you must insist on bringing up the fakes and the hypocrites, they have a vocabulary of religion that spares us comments such as David’s. Religious people have faith in God, take their complaints to God, and if they’re fakes, well, you can be darned sure they’re not crying over election results.
That was easy.
And non-religious righties? Well, they have very good ideas about government, frequently. Indeed they’re often the smartest knives in the drawer. But at the end of the day, ah, they — typified by the brilliant but ultimately hollow P.J. O’Rourke, who’s quoted at Cold Fury in the link above — just don’t really care that much at all about any of it as long as they can pay the rent and shoot at cans in the back. They’re certainly not about to cry about an election if they’ve got a nice gig at National Review Online or an advance from Grove Atlantic.
That’s my working thesis, anyway. It’s also possible they’re just not big babies.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
I’ve seen this, too, but I had often struggled with the idea that somehow only the left’s ideology had become “religious.” It seemed arrogant beyond belief, and echoed many of the stupid comments I hear on a daily basis from both sides (*insert opposition* holds that *insert position*, but we *insert favorable adjective plus self-label* realize that *supposedly rational counter-position*).
I hadn’t considered the fact that the religious right actually already has a religion to follow, and thus political ideology didn’t really need to fill that gap. Makes sense to me, and explains why I don’t see the same sort of emotional investment in elections from the right that I do on the left.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:55 am
On the other hand, you might be overlooking what has been obvious to the rest of us for quite some time: that the politically active religious right-wingers (Dobson, et. al.) form the base of the modern Republican party.
By itself that doesn’t bother me. But when they insist that the traditionally parallel tracks of church and state converge, well, you are asking for a train wreck.
For example: when high government officials openly violate the constitution while saying that they are answering to “a higher father,” that should be your clue that it’s time to impeach, convict and remove them from office.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Who exactly is it, that is violating the constitution and saying that they answer only to God? I’d love to see a news story on that. (Sorry, CommonDreams.org opinion pieces don’t count as news…). Hey, if Dobson is the base, how can the vast majority of the elected Republicans stick it in his eye so often and get away with it? I’d say the religious right, that portion of the right that is actually politically organized around religious belief, is a much smaller chunk of the base, perhaps one third. Many on the right do have traditional religion, but you probably shouldn’t conflate the typical observant Catholic or Lutheran (who holds conservative views because it’s who they are) with politically organized televangelists and worshippers at the Gospel of Prosperity-infused political mega churches.
I have a simpler thesis for why the left is the way it is. In killing God, and in rejecting the notion of empiricism in favor of emotionally satisfying answers, the left has cut itself assunder from anything that can serve as a central, organizing belief. There is a hole in the left’s belief system that needs to find some other measurement of man, hence it looks to messianic politics. “We’re here to save the world… if you oppose us, you must be a Servant of Evil.” The right on the other hand looks to the Judeo-Christian god as the source of natural law, natural law as the source of orderly governance and universal human rights, and the government (when it is acting in its proper sphere, with proper restraint) as a logical outgrowth of this natural order. In the alternative, the other portion of the right looks to history, bitter experience, and empiricism, as a source of guidance on how the government should function. It should be noted that both approaches to government and politics are outgrowths of a natural law perspective. The religious conservative starts with the idea that nature functions in accordance with God’s authorization, while the more empirical or secular conservative starts by observing nature, and drawing conclusions about how we ought to live based on that. The only real difference is that religiously observant people on the right tend to go a step further in their epistomology, recognizing religious authority; and most secular conservatives and conservative/libertarians I’ve known make genuflections to traditional judeo-christian morality as a sound basis for social organization, based on the practical ultility of that ethos, in other words, there is a lot of good common sense advice contained therein.
That’s my 2c anyhow, but then I’m both mildly religious in outlook, and strongly empirical, a fan of Burke *and* Hayek. Yes, a dreaded fusionist. Evidently, we’re a dying breed, or so Bruce Bartlett and the liberal-tarians say.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Who exactly is it, that is violating the constitution and saying that they answer only to God?
I’ll let you answer your own question:
The right on the other hand looks to the Judeo-Christian god as the source of natural law, natural law as the source of orderly governance and universal human rights, and the government (when it is acting in its proper sphere, with proper restraint) as a logical outgrowth of this natural order. [emphasis added.]
See, here’s what is scary about theocrats (and I say this as an observant Jew):
There’s a HUGE difference between being born with certain inalienable rights and making the Judeo-Christian G-d “the source of natural law.” And these people skate right over the distinction.
Wow. Talk about a slippery slope.
The founders — on purpose! — didn’t put “the Judeo-Christian G-d” at the center of their system of governance. Don’t believe me? Check out how many times G-d is mentioned in the US Constitution: ZERO times. Holy cow! Newspaper publishers and reporters are mentioned more times than that!
The religious conservative starts with the idea that nature functions in accordance with God’s authorization, while the more empirical or secular conservative starts by observing nature, and drawing conclusions about how we ought to live based on that.
What you call a “secular conservative” today, was called a Deist back in the 17th and 18th centuries. And that’s who the founders were: Deists.
But I digress…
Bottom line: It’s all good. Worship Jesus, worship G-d, worship Maia, worship Zeus. Just don’t put them up and over the US Constitution.
Keep government and religion on parallel tracks. It’s the only way to preserve the strength of both.
May 9th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Friends,
Well, I have no problem with folks “answering to a higher power” as long as they follow the Constitution. The “religious right” is more of an invention of the left, a bogeyman to demonize their critics with, than a real, live voting bloc.
Lookit here: I find it absolutely mesmerizing to watch the left writhe in paroxisms of near-hysteria over the impending coversion of America to a theocracy. They fling epithets like “Christofacists” around so much that it’s a wonder someone hasn’t had their eye(s) put out.
Yet, Ron has it right (no pun intended) in that the left is as codified & dogmatized as any “theocratic movement” they rail against.
For example, let’s play stereotype. For every blow-dryed, swept-back hair wearing, bible-thumping, white-bread eating, “Praise God” uttering “Christofacist”, there seems to be at least an equal number of dreadlocked, Red Che T-shirt wearing, sandled and beaded granola-eating, global-warming, multicultural bullhorn shouter. It’s PC Politics! And itt was ever thus.
Byzantium had the Blues and the Greens, who made todays marches and rallies look like quiet reflective assemblies. Riots, beatings, burnings, and wanton destruction accompanied Byzantine elections, such as they were, from it’s earliest inception.
Al Gore is the living prophet of the left. He has the look, complete with blow-dryed, swept-back hair, the “suothern twang” the clean-shaving, moisturizing appearance, and the published, engraved in stone, must-be-correct because I SAID SO, thing down pat. He’s got an army of followers, clamouring for him to glance at them or sweep his gaze across their upturned faces. He has gangs of sycophantic scientists falling over themselves to sup at his table (and rake in the huge piles of grant money that comes with being his supporter) and he has the Universal Church of the United Nations to provide him with the ultimate pulpit.
No, anytime a leftist complains about religion, I feel the need to reach for a cluebat to set them straight.
Respects,
May 10th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Ara, I can appreciate your nervousness, no people has suffered worse at the hands of supposedly observant Christians than Jews.
I would point out, however, that natural law theory has roots in judeo-christian thought. Most of the Framers were followers of natural law theory (hence the refereces to the Creator, being born with inalienable rights in the Declaration) even though some of them were merely Deists or more or less atheists. The later philosopher Spinoza stands out because he was more or less conservative, fit the natural law template, but was a fairly adamant atheist.
In short, there’s a big distinction between saying the universe was created (or designed) by a supreme being, and decreeing that our interpretation of what The Supreme Being thinks should govern daily life.
May 11th, 2007 at 6:54 am
When in doubt, remember the parallel tracks of religion and governance.
The Constitution is at the apex of our system of governance. G-d, Krisha, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Maia, whomever, is at the apex of any individual’s religion.
And/But when it comes to governing, there are no dotted lines, no stovepipes, no backdoors allowed between the two.
Want to re-write the Constitution? Be my guest (and good luck with that). In the meantime, it is what it is.
Paraphrasing Justice Scalia: When governing, you follow the Constitution, not God, and if you can’t do that you should resign your public office.