The rise and fall of America's political right

by Larry Beinhart:

There is no real name for the movement that took over America six years ago and continues run it. That's part of the reason for its success. Its very vagueness makes it hard to attack.

In actuality, it is not a single entity.

It is made up of three main parts.

Corporatism, which is based on the belief that whatever makes money is good--and should not be restrained.

Neo-con megalomania, which is the belief that American power is absolute, irresistible, and always good, and should therefore be used--without restraint.

And right-wing religion, which is the certainty that this movement's form of Christianity is God-commanded; therefore it should rule America and, through America, the world--and any restraint against it is opposition to God.

To add to the confusion, this movement did not stand out on its own.

Its proponents entered into the existing Republican Party and the old Goldwater-Reagan conservative movement. They brought those people along with them (roughly half the voting population) and ran for office under the guise of being Republicans and conservatives.

Most of what they said they stood for was in the mainstream.

Capitalism is good. Being strong is good. Education, financial security, and trade are good. America is a good, idealistic country. It's good that America defeated its enemies in the past, like the Nazis and the Soviets, and it's a good idea that we remain capable of doing it in the future. Faith and belief in a higher power is good. We should be careful about foreign military adventures, though once we are attacked we have to be vigorous in our response and fight them over there before we have to fight them over here.

All that sounds reasonable, appealing, and familiar.

What distinguishes Bushism from old-line Republicanism and reasonable conservatism is not the names on their beliefs, it's the quality of their beliefs. The beliefs of Bushism are theological.

Theological thinking creates powerful and convincing rhetoric.

There are two reasons for this.

People with theological beliefs don't mind lying. It's for the greater good.

This has been combined with the corporate attitude toward truth: "Coke adds life!" It doesn't matter if it's true or false, or absolutely meaningless. If it moves the product, that's what you say.

The result is spinning, which is more effective than straight-out lying. For years, Bush was a master of spin. If you analyze his speeches, it is exceedingly rare to find an outright lie that you can nail to the table. Yet he was able to lead his listeners to conclusions that were absolutely false.

The classic example is in his 2003 State of the Union address, in which he said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The substance was absolutely false. He had been told as much by the CIA. The consequences of creating a false impression were vast, tragic, and intensely stupid. Yet, by putting the opening clause on it, citing the British government--whose intelligence service did, at one time, think there was reason to believe it--it is not, technically, a lie.

People with theological beliefs routinely lie to themselves.

In their theological minds, the theory is always true. Only reality is flawed.