Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Republican Raptures

By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted April 11, 2006.


Author Kevin Phillips discusses the growing power that the Christian Right has over the Republican Party.
thie
"American Theocracy" by Kevin Phillips (Viking, 2006).

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jan Frel

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Ever since former Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips published the bestselling "The Emerging Republican Majority" in 1969, the announcement that he's written a new book has typically been first met by political observers and the press with a kind of hushed awe, and then a mad rush to read it. Phillips' books tend to give comprehensive overviews of politics at the national level, and macro social phenomena that shape our national interest. His latest book -- his 11th -- is no different.

In "American Theocracy" (Viking), Phillips examines three crises affecting the country: The dangers that growing instability and shortages in global oil markets pose for our petro-dependent society; the threat that our massive debts and deficits may collapse the dollar and the American economy; and the growing power that the Christian Right has over the Republican Party.

I was curious to hear what Phillips had to say about the rise of the Christian Right, since he came into the Republican Party at a time when it didn't rely on the Bible Belt to keep its elective pants on.

Jan Frel: You say the GOP has been transformed into the first religious party in the United States. Do you mean something like we've seen with the Christian Democratic Party in Germany or something else?

Kevin Phillips: Yes. Actually, the argument was used by John Green, a well-known political scientist with an expertise in religion at the University of Akron. He suggested in 1988 that things were moving in that direction as people who were high-attending believers of the different Christian denominations were generally more Republican and this tended to parallel in what you might see in the Christian Democrats in Italy or Germany.

Frel: Those religious parties in Europe have no tradition of being anti-democratic …

Phillips: Oh no, they aren't. What happened in the sense of the United States, generally, is that the denominations in the United States have been on different sides. If you grew up in New York or New England in the 1950s -- at that point, the protestants were largely Republicans and the Catholics were largely Democrats. What you're getting now is that religious people now -- across the range of Christian, which is to say biblical denominations are Republican. The Democrats have these people who think in a secular way.

Frel: You also say in your book that 40 percent of the Republican voting bloc is made up of very religious Christian denominations. Who are the other 60 percent?

Phillips: Well, we have to be careful what description we're using. For example, if you take born-agains. The percentage of born-agains in this country is something like 42 or 43 percent. With Republicans, it's 10 points higher, and with Democrats it's 10 points lower. Just a guess. I would say that 40 percent of the Republican coalition is fundamentalist evangelical and Pentecostal. Now, there would be a larger group that would be born again, who wouldn't quite consider themselves in some of these dimensions.

Frel: Where do they diverge in terms of their political interests? Do you think there's enough distance between these groups to prevent some kind of takeover? You call it the "emerging Republican theocracy" at one point in your book.

Phillips: Well, I was just on an interview with Richard Land, and we were talking about the trends and what they represented. And as more and more people, should this happen, have a sense of end times approaching because of war in the Middle East or tsunamis or plagues or AIDS or anything like this, as that happens, people are going to pay less attention to things other than salvation, and they are going to be more concerned with having a churchly government that their preachers are telling them what's happening and what to do. So that could push things a bit further in the direction of a theocratic tendency on the part of the people who are really worried about where the earth is heading and thinking about things in terms of raptures, end times and Armageddon. And it's a large group of people.

Frel: It seems to me so far that at this point, though, this group of people who have these apocalyptic fantasies have been co-opted by more sophisticated business interests and political opportunists.


Digg!

Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Phillips misses or errs on various topics.
Posted by: wli on Apr 11, 2006 1:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The role of religion and neo-Confederacy as upheld by Phillips are overstated by Phillips, largely by omitting other convergent influences. In particular, covert intervention in domestic politics and social structure are ignored, such as COINTELPRO, right-wing philanthropy, right-wing thinktanks, the IRD's and CIA's connections to televangelists, the Powell memo, WACL, and the social wings of the "global rollback network" more generally. There is a large array of influences on par with religion to be ignored at one's peril.

Furthermore, the political degeneracy Phillips described predates the charted ascent of the religious right by numerous decades. The foreclosure of the prospect of democratic participation occurred just after WWII, in essence to prevent the ascendancy of another FDR, and efforts to that effect had long been in progress prior to then. The US-backed movements to similar effect in Europe (Gladio) Latin America (various coups d'etat, death squad campaigns, etc.), and elsewhere effectively serve as a large-scale exhibit of evidence that democracy was being systematically wiped off the face of the earth.

Phillips falls down instantly on the seizure of oil rationale for the Iraq war, and in particular the economics thereof. When it takes a barrel of oil to pump a barrel of oil, it's over, no matter what the price of oil. This error is so grave it borders on discrediting the entire book in one sentence.

Phillips assigns undue influence to Skull & Bones, though he fortunately avoids conspiracy theories surrounding it, largely by omission of other prestigious elite social fora, such as country clubs and similar in influential communities like the Hamptons and Manhattan, Bohemian Grove (don't start with the conspiracy theories), Jupiter Island, and the like. Skull & Bones is not unique; it's one of many elite social fora.

Philliips also presents the 1980 October Surprise as an outright coup d'etat. It may technically qualify; however, it represents something more closely approximating "palace intrigue" than a genuine shift in the course of either policy or leadership. Indeed, significant shifts had occurred prior to Reagan, and Carter's own late-term shifts in both the domestic and foreign spheres presaged essentially all of Reagan's policies save "starve the beast."

Phillips' economics are flawed in a number of respects. First, economic inequality as a factor in loss of social cohesion and civil unrest is downplayed. Second, the impacts of trade relations are oversimplified. There is an effort to deliberately bankrupt or severely indebt the federal government in order to render it hostage to transnational institutional investors, and furthermore to undermine national sovereignty around the world in a similar fashion, particularly under the auspices of the World Bank, IMF, and WTO. The trade deficits are very much intentional outcomes of efforts to carry out such a program in the US. One could even say that the right wing are economic hitmen by virtue of "starve the beast." Third, the comparisons to historical imperial precedents need to be very heavily qualified far beyond what he's done. The contrasts have a wealth of useful information far beyond what was offered for discussion. In fact, there are numerous other imperial precedents neglected in the discussion, such as the French, German, Japanese, Portuguese, and Russian empires, beyond the Spanish, Dutch, and British empires, which would have been immensely useful for discussing empire in general beyond the "global hegemony;" even the Mongol empire would have been useful for such. The comparisons are also lacking, as the British empire's use of "free trade" is a clear precedent of hegemonic domination exercised via globalization and neoliberalism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ArthurTHimmelman
Posted by: ArthurTHimmelman on Apr 11, 2006 5:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A critique of Kevin Phillips' American Theocracy suggested that "Phillips falls down instantly on the seizure of oil rationale for the Iraq war, and in particular the economics thereof. When it takes a barrel of oil to pump a barrel of oil, it's over, no matter what the price of oil. This error is so grave it borders on discrediting the entire book in one sentence. " I would appreciate some additional elaboration and elucidation of this "discreditation of the entire book." Thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Historical Parrallel
Posted by: zincb on Apr 11, 2006 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 1930's, the New Republic was born in Spain. It got rid of corrupt officials, laid off fat cat military officers, and split the Catholic church into a separate entity. Up till then, clergy salaries were paid by the Spanish government and religious education was the mainstay of the public school system. Heck, it even improved the economy simply by being fiscally responsible.

The church fought back, allying itself with the wealthy elite. Mix in the turmoil caused by a worldwide Depression, and half a million lives were lost in civil war. The religious forces won, reasserted their control, and the Spanish peoples endured decades of harsh repression.

Moving to the present, the US government has shown itelf rife with officials firmly in the pockets of wealthy contributors. We sow the seeds of economic disaster as we borrow billions from the Chinese and then exchange those dollars for cheap Chinese goods that displace US workers. We further weaken our economic footing as we borrow more billions to produce nothing but chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As Mr. Phillips notes, we also have fanatical religious forces in the US. They openly seek to control the US government and they want to force "Spiritual Correctness" on the peoples of America.

The only missing element in this parallel is that our military is unlikely to participate in a coup.

The religious right conveniently forgets that nearly half the passengers on the Mayflower were not "pilgrims", but were fleeing forced religion of ALL kinds & just wanted to be left alone!

All of us forget that the those guys we worship, the ones with the buckles on their tall black hats, were considered TERRORISTS in Great Britian -- they were a nasty lot of Pat Robertson-style demagogues who upset public order and who even hanged a King. They would stop at nothing, do anything, if they thought the end result would bring society "closer to (their) God". Times, they ain't a-changing...

Hopefully one of the remaining independent legs of our government (the supreme court or voters) will reassert the constitutional intent of Thomas Jefferson.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Historical Parrallel Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Historical Parrallel Posted by: Aslan
» RE: Historical Parrallel Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
WAWA's been warning you about the neo-christian right
Posted by: eileenflmng on Apr 11, 2006 6:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fundamentalism must be confronted by those within the same faith path.
When I tell people WAWA's mission is to WAKE UP USA Christians to how they have corrupted and misused Christ for political gain, I am told:
"GOOD LUCK"

I don't need luck:
I need a miracle.


"In 1996, Netanyahu and Likud ideology dominated Israeli policy and 17 evangelical USA pastors pledged their support of illegal colonies in the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and full support for a Jerusalem under sovereignty of Israel.
The Christian Zionists launched a PR campaign under the banner: “Christians Call for a United Jerusalem.”

They ignored the fact that they were in conflict with American policy and the Oslo process as well as a direct attack on Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant unity with the Churches for Middle East Peace that called for a Shared Jerusalem.

...The Reagan White House hosted a series of seminars from the Israeli lobby and Christian right. This was when Hal Lindsay, Pat Robertson, Jerry Fawell and the Moral majority infiltrated the West Wing.
-excerpted from April 4, 2006 WAWA BLOG:
http://www.wearewideawake.org

The neo-christian zionists who believe The Left Behind series of fiction [and its corrupted theology] and that they can bring Jeusus back via a nuclear war/Armageddon are a greater danger to the future of humanity than any militant corruptor of the Koran, for they have ascended the rungs of political power in America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Madness is rampant
Posted by: chasaturn on Apr 11, 2006 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Trying to define or validate the actions and beliefs of anyone who chooses to believe in fairy tales like that whole Jesus thing is folly. Perhaps more of a folly than even their convoluted view of reality. Once they have you engaged in discussion of theosophical tripe, they win - you have allowed the validity of their delusion. View the Christian Right as a criminal attempt to take over the U.S. by subverting the constitution. Put the hateful, bigoted, hypocrites on the pulpits in prison for sedition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, there's 'religion' and then there's 'organized religion.'
Posted by: Sojourner on Apr 11, 2006 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Institutional religion consists of non-profit corporations. They survive in a competitive economic framework just like every other corporation. So, yes, they have lobbyists and an interest in public affairs. And, yes, they represent political interests.

Such connection as there might be between the institution and religion is contingent, depending on the individual, one at a time.

The Martin Marty Center for the study of American religion demonstrates clearly that fundamentalism is primarily a political institution. Not solely, just primarily. Its purpose is to achieve, or try to maintain, a Christian nation. In other words, its goal is to lead everybody to become just like them.

At a time when our ballots have a zillion choices, a lot of people want to be told who to vote for. And a lot of preachers are willing to tell them. So it all comes down to who the voters are listening to.

Those of us who don't want to be just like them are called names and blamed for everything that's wrong with the US. We're used to that. What we haven't been used to in a while (and our current conditions, not long ago, were commonplace) is institutional religion campaigning for votes.

Every politician wants someone campaigning for them. Only voters can decide who the phonies are. Some, like our president, don't even know and cannot see how phony he is.

Religion is the opposite of phoniness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Christian religion IS a bad name Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
Born Again and Again and Again
Posted by: mistery509 on Apr 11, 2006 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The way I see it:

There is only one God or spirit over the whole world. We can call Him by a different name, we can worship Him differently but there is only one God. People have gone to war over the way we worship Him but there is only One God. He can be a Moslim God or a Catholic God but there is only one of Him.

We do not need cathedrals and mosques to worship in. Jesus gathered his flock on the banks of a river and his cathedral was the universe.

What is Born Again? How many times can you be Reborn?
Would you go to church on Sunday and then rob a bank on Monday and then be Reborn the next Sunday? How many times can you do this? Is there a limit?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The official Rulebook says... Posted by: LeonDion
» RE: Born Again and Again and Again Posted by: famouspipeliner
» RE: Born Again and Again and Again Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
muggles5
Posted by: kenhymes on Apr 11, 2006 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kevin Philips, and many other critics of the GOP, are letting understandable fear cloud their vision of the tactical situation. A lot of damage has been done to the body politic through the GOP's craven use of code and dishonest local organizing to rally right-wing churchgoers to their side. But it should be clear, if one thinks it through, that DELIVERING a theocracy in any form would be a disaster for the GOP.

This is true for two primary reasons. 1: if it becomes federal policy to privilege Christianity (God forbid, and I'm a Christian myself), then it will no longer be necessary for people to vote Republican in the hope of achieving this misguided victory. 2: if the small hard core of right-wing evangelicals ever got what it wanted, the rest of the country would be shaken out of its stupor and assert the true mercantile, secular character of the US.

This is NOT a Christian nation, it is a nation of people who mostly describe themselves as believers in the Bible. Unfortunately, most don't read the New Testament or the history of their own religion very carefully, or they would know that the idea that God wants to "win" in a material or temporal sense is blasphemy and heresy.

A separate but related issue:
It's understandable, but unfortunate in the extreme, that early Christians felt compelled by persecutions and executions to cut a deal with the Roman Empire. It's worth remembering that the pressure to do so was extraordinary and brutal, extending over several centuries. But it led to so much misery in the name of Jesus, who must have wept over the Inquisition and the forced conversions and the "holy wars." And the capitulation to the state also led to the notion that Jesus and the government can be buddies, or that profit and status are some kind of byproduct of faith.

"Not one stone shall be left on top of another."

"No man can serve two masters."

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

"Leave your family, sell all your posessions, and follow me."

I could go on, but the point is, Christianity may be compatible with coercive state power and corporate exploitation of labor and narrow punitive approaches to evil and sin.... but following Christ most certainly is not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Amen! Posted by: chasaturn
otto
Posted by: otto on Apr 11, 2006 5:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jimmy Carter's book "Our Endangered Values", brings this point out very clearly. As a Baptist, he feels that fundamentalists have almost taken over their Church; as a lliberal, he shows how these views have empowered the right and how "sick" these views are - even religiously. He points out how they pick out a few Scripture texts (anyone can do it) that seem to back their line of thinking and then condemn anyone who dares to disagree. Carter makes a great point of how we should be able to disagree on things but respect the other person; it's not really the way of Jesus to condemn all who think differently and refuse to dialgue with them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religious Right group invited to indoctrinate students at public high schools
Posted by: Don on Apr 12, 2006 3:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Below is a copy of an actual e-mail circulated by students at a local high school, in response to an assembly program by an outside group invited to the school. Names and places have been deleted, but otherwise the text is unedited.

Subject: A political-religious-musical assembly held in a public school in (city)

Dear Mr. (principal),

At today's assembly, the group you had "perform" was unbelievably
offensive to me. At the beginning of the assembly, I had noticed that the
band started to utter phrases such as "Jesus saves", ".god" and other
Christian religious phrases. Following their musical performance, they
presented their Christian beliefs as fact and forced them onto the student
body i.e. abortion is wrong, homosexuality is an abomination. This group's
speaker also stated his beliefs in such a way as to construe the fact that
young women who get raped had it "coming to them." He also made a mockery of
the political beliefs of the Democratic Party and of liberals in general. He
stated as fact that the beliefs of students who are listening to me, watch
the 1%'s lives go straight down the tube." He took a language and an
attitude that is inappropriate to speak to students with; he is not the
parent of anyone at this school and has no right to speak to the student
body in such a way. He also did not support his facts with any sources, no
organizations were cited, no proof was offered for his claims. He did not
even cite the source of his quotes. At the end of the assembly he even
passed out religious materials.

Not only was this speaker offensive, he was belligerent; and uncouth
in his speech and even presumptuously yelled at one of the faculty members
in front of the entire student body of the school. I find that the sheer
fact you allowed such a group of uncouth reprobates on our campus speaks a
lot about your role as chief administrator. By your actions, you have shown
that you are unfair and un-objective; you present your own beliefs and do
not regard the beliefs of members of the faculty or of the students. I
believe wholeheartedly that your actions today were illegal and violated
federal law by bringing a religious group to preach to the school. It shows
a lack of tact and wisdom.

You would not allow a satanic assembly or a pro-liberal
demonstration. So why would you allow this right-wing Christian conservative
organization come to the school for an assembly. I ask for one of two
things. One, either you apologize to those students who found offense from
your poor decision or allow an assembly of equal status to a liberal secular
organization. It is only fair and proves you have some objectivity. For
those of us students who were offended and decided to leave the assembly,
you should not have behaved in a rude manner when we tried to voice our own
opinions to each other. No one who disagreed with that should have had to
sit through a mandatory assembly. It is wrong and so are you.

Sincerely,
The free-thinking un-brainwashed students of (name of) High School


Here is a link to the website of the group that put on the program.

You can run but you can't hide

First, students were accoustically assaulted with an hour of dangerously loud, hearing-loss inducing "music" and special effects, followed by a two hour political/religious rant.

Ever heard of this outfit? According to their website, they have been spewing this garbage in public schools for several years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]