Excerpt: American Theocracy
This book’s title, American Theocracy, sums up a potent change in this country’s domestic and foreign policy making—religion’s new political prowess and its role in the projection of military power in the Middle Eastern Bible lands—that most people are just beginning to understand. The rapture, end-times, and Armageddon hucksters in the United States rank with any Shiite ayatollahs, and the last two presidential elections mark the transformation of the GOP into the first religious party in U.S.
We have had theocracies in North America before—in Puritan New England and later in Mormon Utah—but except in their earliest beginnings, they lacked the intensity of those in Europe, such as John Calvin’s Geneva or the Catholic Spain of the Inquisition. The United States is too big and too diverse to resemble the Massachusetts Bay Colony of John Winthrop or sixteenth-century Geneva or even nineteenth-century Utah. A leading world power such as the United States, with almost three hundred million people and huge international responsibilities, goes about as far in a theocratic direction as it can when it satisfies the unfortunate criteria on display in Washington circa 2005: an elected leader who believes himself in some way to speak for God, a ruling political party that represents religious true believers and seeks to mobilize the churches, the conviction of many voters in that Republican party that government should be guided by religion, and on top of it all, White House implementation of domestic and international political agendas that seem to be driven by religious motivations and biblical worldviews. -Kevin Phillips
End-times prophecy fueled a fifth dynamic at work as the forces for the Iraqi invasion gathered, because many Christian fundamentalists dismissed worries about oil or global warming out of belief that the end times were under way. The Bible lands were what mattered. Events were in God’s hands. Even Senator James Inhofe, the Oklahoma fundamentalist chairing the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was reported saying, “I don’t believe there is a single issue we deal with in government that hasn’t been dealt with in the Scriptures,” while declining to discuss his belief in the imminence of end times.
Partly as a result, GOP political strategists had no desire for a far-reaching debate on either global warming or peak oil. The religious right had its own rapture chronometers and apocalypse monitors reporting how many months, days and hours remained. Tom DeLay of Texas, the Republican majority leader in the House of Representatives and widely regarded as the most influential fundamentalist in Congress, had on his office wall a poster that read: “This could be the day.”
This true-believer endgame has been accelerating for many decades, especially since the creation of Israel satisfied the biblical prophecy of the Jewish return to Palestine. As we will see shortly, the growth during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s in the numbers of Protestant fundamentalists, evangelicals, and Pentecostals was explosive. Many became Republicans and helped to give the GOP an increasingly religious coloration. Although the stunning sales of the Left Behind series grabbed most of the cultural attention, other books and videos during the late nineties descrived how Saddam Hussein was rebuilding Babylon, the citadel of evil. Still others pondered whether the antichrist was already alive and who he might be. (Saddam himself was a frequent choice.) Nearly one-quarter of Americans polled in 2002 even believed that the Bible had predicted the events of September 11, 2001! While these beliefs were surely a factor in Republican invasion planning, they are difficult for politicians to acknowledge—and they are especially tricky to discuss publicly, so they are instead quietly promoted in clandestine briefings or loosely signaled by phrases and citations that reassure the attentive faithful.
" tricky to discuss publicly</i> Absolutely! I saw Bush dance away from this question on tv the other day, and watching that performance confirmed my belief that for Bush invading Iraq was a win-win. If it is the "end times" then he's on the right side by helping things along. If it isn't the end times then we get the oil anyway. It's as logical as anything else he's suggested as a reason to invade. WMD - nope! Connections to Al Queda - nope!
The problem with the "true believer endgame" for left wing intellectuals is that it seems so bizarre that they can't take it seriously, so they don't address it seriously. I think they have a blind spot. There's also the vague idea that calling someone else's belief's into question is just, you know, not done.
Truth is there's no difference between Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists. It's the same animal.
March 23, 2006 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is one thing I don't quite understand, and that is why these people believe this stuff so intently. There seems to be no discussion of how it is that SO MANY others in the course of history, some not that long ago, had laid out some pattern of how "prophesies" had been fulfilled, and the end was coming. It sounds like the economic bubble in 2000, and how "this time it's different". What is it that makes these people believe that their vision is somehow superior to that of others before, or to those today that don't happen to believe their vision? Do they not understand that believers before KNEW the end was near just as certainly as our current crop, and the fact that we are here discussing it calls into question the certainty they hold to?
dc
March 23, 2006 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although my political leanings are certainly to the right, I can honestly say that religion is an area that is as fascinating as it is dangerous. It would seem a bit presumptuous to label Bush as as some sort of self-appointed divine leader. Though he has not shied away from professing his faith and the possible benefits of practicing it, such a personification does not fit with others who label him as a puppet leader or businessman with tunnel vision. He cannot be all of these things. Perhaps it is a coincidence that a prepoderance of his religious rhetoric happened to fall during election years but I do not believe it is. Bush, in point of fact, has continued to disappoint the evangelical Religious Right which tipped the scales in his favor in both 2000 and 2004.
On another point, I am not convinced that America is growing more religious. The Baby Boom generation has certainly tried but Generations X and Y seem not to be any more "fanatical" or "devoted" as their parents. Younger Americans tend to be noticably more liberal than older Americans and that trend is certainly continuing today. The religious devotees in the United States are a problem but I don't see any cause for alarm with regard to possible collusion between church and state. It makes sense that this argument would arise when the Regligious Right happened to tip the scales two elections in a row.
March 23, 2006 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
<i>Though he has not shied away from professing his faith and the possible benefits of practicing it, such a personification does not fit with others who label him as a puppet leader or businessman with tunnel vision. He cannot be all of these things. </i>
Why can't he be all of those things? Christian fundamentalists have tunnel vision about many things. If all you've got is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
March 23, 2006 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kevin,
Just wanted to let you know how much I am enjoying your run through briar patch. Thanks. Sorry Drum can’t decide if you are a crank, a Bush hater or a sage. I tried to explain a little bit of the theo part he doesn't seem to see here:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28098#comment-107564Hey gang, here are a couple recent interviews with Kevin - from NPR and Democracy Now.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/21/1418243http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5290373
March 23, 2006 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Until more Americans learn to think critically they're going to be susceptible to all sorts of irrational ideas (e.g. Bush knows what he is talking about).
Tom
March 23, 2006 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be too sanguine but might this be the Third Great Awakening? A reaction to the uncertainties and rapid changes that have occurred in the past century? While potentially difficult especially in as multicultural country as ours and in an increasingly global world but the two prior Great Awakenings came and swept up the country but then disapated.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
March 23, 2006 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and "goes about as far in a theocratic direction as it can when it satisfies the unfortunate criteria on display in Washington circa 2005:"
I think you are wrong here. This is just getting off the ground. Look at the past and look at the trend lines, this can go much further and will- if not through the ballot it will through the courts. Honestly what will stop it? Do you think Falwell and Dobson are getting weaker or have peaked? I don't think so. Save time and bandwidth, some of my reasons why are here:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28098#comment-107564March 23, 2006 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I’m not a theologian and can in no way be called particularly religious, and I may be going someplace I shouldn’t, but I have something I want to add to the conversation. It seems that the return of Christ has been imminent for more than 2,000 years; the disciples thought they would see it in their lifetimes. In Matthew 24, Christ says of the end of time “But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” If the world is to end in the way fundamentalists and evangelicals believe with the tribulation, the rapture, and Armageddon, it seems that only God knows for sure when that time will be. The signs Christ described in Matthew 24: “And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all [these things] must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places” have been with civilization ever since we started walking upright. Since only God can know when the end will come, it seems that our time would be better spent as stewards of what we’ve been given.
An overarching theme in the New Testament is love. I hear very little of what I would call love in the rhetoric of hardcore fundamentalists. Mostly, I hear hate and prejudice. Christ associated with people on the lowest rung of society. He instructed them lovingly. The only anger I recall him showing was with the religious establishment because they had turned religion to their own purposes. I’ll end with what Paul wrote to the church at Corinth:
But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
March 23, 2006 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I keep wondering is how those true believers avoid the possibility that the "Rapture" happened in 946 AD, for example. Those "left behind" would surely continue to procreate, and wouldn't that mean we are all now consigned to "left behindedness"?
You would be correct to assume that I find it utterly impossible to participate in a serious discussion of this subject.
Hoppy in Sacramento
March 23, 2006 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel
It would be truly ironic if it were indeed a Third Great Awakening considering most American Christians are not afraid to drink, do drugs, and have loose sex on Friday and Saturday nights before Church on Sunday. But then again, everything is relative. I hope we don't go down the religious path again...the U.S. is slow enough to change as it is. Hell, the Emancipation Proclamation was only 143 years ago.
March 23, 2006 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're last paragraph outlines something Democrats would be wise to exploit in the upcoming election. It is glaringly obvious that the issues that exercise most fundamentalists (anti-abortion, anti-gay and anti-gun control) are fomented by hate and fear. This is a long, long way from Jesus' message. Why aren't more Democrats saying so? I think it's because of the blind spot they have about religion. Only Clinton could do this with ease. I'm hopeful Gore will run again because I think he could do it, too.
Dems need to take the Republicans on! Shout it from the rooftops: "the Jesus I know didn't hate homosexuals. The Jesus I know wouldn't judge a woman who gets an abortion. The Jesus I know would say, "make your guns into plowshares" There are so many issues that make up core Republican issues that are so anti-Christian that it's about time someone said so.
March 23, 2006 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's because of the blind spot they have about religion.
++
This very point has been being discussed in several of these threads, and a light seems to be dawning.... ;-)
March 23, 2006 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, bring it on, I say. It's not before time. I'm hoping Phillips' book will create a ground swell.
March 23, 2006 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
SherryB
This is from one of the most inspiring, tears in the eyes, speeches I have heard in years.
A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper — that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.
Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America — there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
-Sen. Barack Obama
If we can find someone to unite us, we have a chance to overthrow the corruption, the corporatists, the military/industrial CEO's and take back our country.
If not, we may see the US implode from the years of mismanagement and corruption.
March 23, 2006 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
SherryB
When we talk of a theocracy we must not forget that the Bishops of the Catholic Church were threatening members of their church if they voted for democrats. It isn't only the Christian Fundies that think their religion should be the law for everyone. Jehovah Witnesses also believe we're in the end time, but they don't vote. Catholics don't think we're in the end times, but just want everyone to be a Catholic or at least vote like one. I consider myself secular.
March 23, 2006 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Catholics are complicated like everyone else. For instance, the Council of Bishops was one of the first groups that had the courage to publicly oppose Bush's invasion of Iraq. I'm definitely secular but my background is Catholic. I know many Catholics who don't approve of the what the Church does at its worst .
Tom
March 24, 2006 5:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've got that right. The Democrats need someone with the knowledge and stature to debate Christian principles with the Religious Right. So many of them are hung up on a few passages in Leviticus that support their prejudices, and ignore the overwhelming themes in the New Testament. I've said it before, but...anyone who supports repeal of the estate tax has not really bought into Jesus' philosophy as captured in the New Testament.
March 25, 2006 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be much more helpful if we stopped looking for a politician to 'save' us, and all actively got involved in party politics at the local level. When a majority of people are involved in the party, the party will start to reflect the views of the majority of people.
March 27, 2006 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink