Al Gore, in his book: The Assault on Reason, says this about the Bush political coalition: "...we have a political faction disguised as a religious sect, and the president of the United States is heading it." (61) Chapter Two, "Blinding the Faithful," is so rich in commentary about George Bush and the Bush coalition that it needs this separate diary just about the coalition. There are two parts. First, according to Al Gore, who and what make up the right's coalition? Second, based on Gore's analysis, who is part of this coalition but not mentioned in the book?
This is not, strictly speaking, an installment of my discussion series based on the book. That will continue on Friday at 3 pm, PDT.
Part 1: From Al Gore's: The Assault on Reason
Gore takes simplistic thinking about George Bush to task: "Some mistakenly malign the president as not being smart enough...Others seem convinced that his personal religious conversion experience was so profound that he relies on religious faith in place of logical analysis."(61) Gore says he knows that Bush is "plenty smart" and is convinced that his thinking has "...more to do with his right-wing political and economic ideology than with the Bible." (61) In fact, Gore believes "...Bush has stolen the symbolism and body language of religion" (62) to further the interests of "...a coalition of interest groups that have little in common with one another besides a desire for power..." (63)
According to Al Gore, who and what are in that coalition?
First, the "economic royalists." These are people who want elimination of as much of their own taxes as possible, removal of regulatory obstacles, an end to the "fiction" of the "public interest" because it places unfair burdons on the wealthy and powerful, emasculation of laws and regulations unless they are useful for this group (this can be done most effectively by making sure officials tasked to enforce these laws are dependable loyalists) and a work-dependent labor force. Economic royalists worry that government services and programs counteract work incentives. This group, in particular, provides the financial resources that support the front groups that provide media and intellectual cover for the coalition.
Second, the "foreign policy hawks." These are people who want to maximize United States power worldwide through either invasion or economic imperialism. This group is against treaties and other diplomatic agreements for much the same reason that economic royalists are against laws: they interfere with unfettered exercise of power. This is the thinking that led to the Geneva Conventions being "quaint" and torture as policy. On the other hand, this group supports the idea that anything the president does is legal.
Gore says that there is one central doctrine these two groups agree upon: "Government is very bad and should be done away with as much as possible- except for the parts of it that redirect money through big contracts to industries that have won their way into the inner circle." (66)
Third, there is a media faction that conspires against Americans that support progressive politics. Gore refers to them as the Limbaugh-Hannity-Drudge axis. This group encourages mass hostility against those who do not hold views acceptable to the coalition. This group uses religious connotations to political points. In effect, progressive politics is beyond wrong; it is demonstrably evil. This can create a bizarred form of relativism, however. Gore describes how Neal Boortz proclaimed after Katrina that it was better for a woman to be a prostitute than to "(suck) off the taxpayers." (68)
And fourth, the ultraconservative religious leaders, "...who are actually primarily politicians." (69) These people provide political manpower and voter turn-out. On the dais, they cover the coalition's political agenda with religious declarations. In particular, Gore named Falwell and Dobson as politicians who use their religion. Gore does acknowlege that some conservative religious leaders are genuinely concerned over changes in our society; he notes that some have begun to criticize the right-wing agenda on religious grounds.
Part 2: Who else would agree to this? (Where do the votes come from; extrapolating from Gore's analysis)
Economic royalists:
- Hard-pressed middle class and working class people are enticed by lower taxes.
- Smaller business owners who believe their biggest obstacles to success are regulatory, not product, presentation, marketing or the economic climate.
- Anyone who believes "public interest" means more personal taxes and/or benefits to others, but not to themselves.
- People who want to rise by serving the interests of the royalists through government positions (the new Monica).
- People who believe government involvement in business just means a rise in the costs of labor.
- Anyone who serves the interests of this group and are financed to do so.
Foreign policy hawks:
- Military contractors, or any other companies that help exert physical or economic power overseas.
- Monopolistic capitalists.
Media
- Wannabees? Those who are not "in the group" but who want to be.
- Those who want to achieve influence, wealth and fame by serving the interests of the coalition. For every Ann Coulter, there are others who see her as a model for success.
The religious
- For the weak or powerless, connection to a vibrant preacher or religious organization can provide meaning in an otherwise difficult, or just ordinary, life.
- As in the times of pre-Columbian Europe, those who cannot inherite or achieve power through politics or secular economics can attain them in the religious realm. Falwell and Dobson created organizations; organizations mean jobs.
Questions:
- Can you add to this?
- Can you think of any way that these people would ever side with a progressive politician?