Progressive America is now strong, and getting stronger, but we should not forget the lessons of history whose unfolding has given us this opportunity. Social dynamics are called dynamics for a reason - they change, and pivot, and interact in ways often contrary to linear extrapolations of present circumstances. I see the seeds of one such pivot in the internal convulsions of the Republican Party.
Today the GOP remains an aristocratic / corporate organization that only uses religious extremists as expedient foot soldiers, but that arrangement will not last. However insane we view the GOP at present, it remains largely under the control of industry, and therefore guided by at least amorally rational forces that can be deflected and controlled. But ultimately the inmates will take over the asylum, and despite our inclination to dismiss religious extremists as fools, when that happens they will be an even greater danger to the republic than their predecessors. That is why it is crucial that we proactively shape the evolution of our enemies in this transitional period.
Consider the following factors:
- The progressive coalition underlying the Democratic party relies heavily on racial minorities, particularly African Americans, many of whom are devoutly religious as a community. What primarily keeps them in our corner despite heavy strains of social conservatism are two things: The legacy of the GOP's racist Southern Strategy, and its zero-sum championing of the interests of the wealthy, which puts it at odds with communities that are disproportionately among the working class.
- A Christian Dominionist leader in the Republican Party with the rhetorical skills to sound humble rather than judgmental (despite his intentions), inclusive rather than exclusive on racial matters, and who can appear to champion the common man against "godless corporate interests" would make substantial inroads. This would pivot American rage against industry to the advantage of the right by portraying it as a result of Christianity having lost influence in the business community, rather than lacking common-sense regulation.
- Arrogant business elites, threatened from the left with loss of the power they had accumulated over the years, would increasingly be willing to support the largely symbolic populism of the religious right. They would do so in full knowledge that they would continue to hold power within their domains provided they did lip service and made a show of going along with the new emphasis on alleged Christian values. E.g., rather than paying their workers decent wages and adhering to safety regulations, giving slightly more to charity and making out like bandits while earning praise for their "compassion."
- The decline in economic mobility, should it continue, will shift economic power away from successful entrepreneurs and toward inherited wealth, which tends to be psychologically more amenable to religious views justifying itself. This augurs a regression, to one degree or another, toward medieval social paradigms with religion supplying ideological justification for the distinctions between rich and poor, and cloaking its promotion of poverty in "charitable" endeavors that actually cement the power of the wealthy over average people. A tax on the wealthy is, after all, something taken by the people as an exercise of their sovereignty, while charity is something given or withheld at the discretion of the ownership class, affirming their power.
- While demographically, the proportions of devoutly religious are declining relative to secular / unbelievers, they appear to be gradually radicalizing and losing social cohesion with non-religious society. While religious extremists are always a minority, the danger is that over the long-term, they will become so isolated, and yet have enough critical mass, to become a self-sustaining and yet aggressive phenomenon - e.g., a cancer.
- To the degree that religious people remain connected with mainstream society, their children may gravitate away from radicalism, but if they cordon themselves off, it becomes its own little world, and talented, intelligent people may end up pursuing the causes of that community as a matter of identity rather than ignorance or fanaticism. This, I think, is the reasoning behind President Obama's efforts to reintegrate the religious right into American society through active engagement - to keep them from coalescing.
---
What we can do about it:
The cliche says that people always prepare for the last war they fought rather than the next one, and that is what we in the Democratic Party are doing with our continued focus on clowns like Limbaugh. These holdovers may either adapt to the new circumstances or fall by the wayside, but either way they will not be the driving force of the new threat as it shapes up over coming years and decades.
Identity narcissism has always been a fundamental pillar of conservative psychology, and one of its most powerful strengths in taking control of societies. The current right-wing paradigm is failing because the identities upon which it is relying are losing relevance: America as a white, wealthy, and ideologically capitalist country. Whether or not they are losing truth is another matter, but white people care less and less that they're white, faith in economic mobility is declining, and support for dogmatic capitalism is waning as most people find their rights and interests being brazenly attacked by its champions.
Most of the GOP leadership clings to their current paradigm, however, because they are products of it, but they will increasingly be replaced with a different kind of right-wing radical. These radicals address an identity that remains strong in America, despite the growth in secular progressivism: Christianity. Polls consistently show a level of intolerance toward the non-religious that would be unthinkable to find toward racial minorities in today's environment.
Fortunately, the vast majority of the religious radicals in the GOP today are beyond moronic, which one would expect given that they grew up in an open society and yet still somehow ended up believing what they do - something that only happens when someone is either dimwitted or insane. But that is likely to change as the Republican paradigm shifts from race and wealth to religion, and highly talented and opportunistic figures begin to see the percentages in making everything about Christianity. The left, predictably, would break into two camps - one pursuing a broadly anti-religion strategy, and the other arguing that Christianity actually supports liberal values.
Unfortunately, both approaches would strengthen the encroachment of theocratic influence on government: The former because it makes believers of all stripes uncomfortable and feel attacked, and the latter because it implicitly appeals to religion as a justification of political viewpoints, which is exactly the state of affairs the religious right wants to impose: Religion determining the validity of political views.
In other words, this is a turn of events that must be avoided at all costs. If the GOP succeeds in transforming itself into the Christian Party - and I don't mean a shrieking "You're the devil!" Palinist party, but a party insidious enough to appear enlightened on just enough fronts to become a platform for Palinist types to seize control - that is a conflict we could not win on any meaningful time scale. So, we must simply prevent the right-wing political environment from becoming strongly theocratized.
I say "simply," though I of course do not mean "easily." The best solution, as far as I can see, is to carve up the Republican Party into several ideological Third Parties that serve a given region, but are only marginally capable of cooperation. We do not want to drive the GOP into being a unified rump party, because it is in that state where evolution occurs rapidly, and its products can suddenly spring on the scene and turn the tables.
Rather, I would suggest the following: We should subtly and clandestinely support Libertarian Party efforts to take offices from the GOP that we deem not worth expending the resources to acquire ourselves. However it plays out on the local level in those areas, government vs. anti-government is a debate we will be overwhelmingly winning for a generation or more on the national level, so it is beneficial that we keep that binary debate as forefront as possible. Primarily this would take place in rural areas of the Mountain and Desert West, but some parts of the Midwest and South might also apply.
While Libertarians are virtually useless economically and on quality of life issues, they would make a fine bulwark - or at least a speed bump - against Dominionism in blood-red areas with an otherwise strong libertarian streak. As we have already essentially annihilated the basic assumptions of their platform on a national level, I feel the risk in training them in how to organize and win elections would be minimal on any meaningful timescale, and have profound defensive benefits. A strong Libertarian Party could never take over the urbanized areas we control, but they could disrupt the rural base of the GOP, where the roots of religious radicalism are flourishing.
My discussions with Libertarians tell me they are utterly clueless about how to actually take and hold government offices, and don't know how to talk to people to persuade them of their views. I think it would be in our long-term interest to cure them of this ignorance, and introduce an obstacle from the right to the growth of religious radicalism.
Furthermore, it would behoove us to further dissociate the right by encouraging the rise of a Southern nationalist party so that energies that might otherwise be directed into a more generalized Christian Dominionist movement were diverted into regional and racial rather than religious identity, preserving our current advantages.
However successful we are now or will be in the next few years, be prepared for the right to suddenly pivot into "humble" religion and "charity" as its buzzwords (however difficult we may find this to imagine now). "Compassionate conservatism" was a warning shot that we barely dodged due to the utter incompetence, arrogance, and savagery of the Bush regime, but a Dominionist leader who knew what he was doing and wasn't a savage psychopath (yes, it is possible to be a non-evil fanatic) could have crushed us with such a meme, especially in our weakened condition 2001-2005.
We are in a better position now, but still unprepared. Palin, Bachmann, C Street, et al are a sideshow to a much broader phenomenon - keep an eye on Mike Huckabee, and watch out for Republican campaigns that try to "out-compassion" the Democratic candidate with an emphasis on Christian charity. If you live in a blood-red area with Dominionist strains and think it unlikely for any level of progressive effort to penetrate, find Libertarians and start training them.