Author Frederic C Rich tells the tale of a Christian takeover of the US in his recent novel, Christian Nation. How does this story hold up as fiction, and how does it hold up in representing the goals of the religious right? My opinions and answers after the orange thing...
Christian Nation tells the story of what might have happened if John McCain had won the presidency in 2008, but died shortly after being sworn in, leaving us with Sarah Palin as our new president. It's a novel, told from the viewpoint of a New York City attorney.
As progressives, most of us would probably categorize any novel about the presidency of Sarah Palin as horror. As a fan of the science fiction sub-genre of alternate history, I'd classify it as alternate history fiction. As alternate history, it has weaknesses, and those weaknesses are acknowledged by the author in his afterword:
Critics of this book may suggest that it overstates the influence of the dominionist and reconstructionist theologies...and thus exaggerates the probability of theocracy should the Christian right obtain the political power it has long sought. Were this novel intended as a prediction...that criticism might be deserved...instead, it is intended as a warning that such an outcome is possible.
The bottom line is that the author has taken the words of the dominionists and reconstructionists, and projected the future that they would create if they were given the power to do so. In order to get to that point, the author makes several somewhat implausible leaps, starting with McCain's death, and continuing with a second major terrorist attack on America occurring at just the perfect time to rescue a flailing and failing Palin presidency, allowing her to get reelected. As alternate history, I could undoubtedly pick it apart, but that's really not the point. The point is that this is a story of what is possible, not what is probable...and it should be read with that in mind.
As fiction, it does work -- I was drawn into the story, and came to care a great deal about what happened to the two major characters, Greg (the narrator) and Sanjay (the founder of an organization, "Theocracy Watch", that battles the religious takeover in this novel). It's not great literature by any means -- characterizations are generally not really deep, for example. The story occasionally drifts into preaching at the audience, as well. But, again, it ultimately did draw me in and had me in suspense as to what the fait of the major characters was going to be. The fait of the nation, on the other hand, was never in doubt -- the entire purpose of the author, after all, is to show what would happen if the most extreme elements of the religious right took power.
Now, on to the political aspects of this book. The "Christian Nation" that the US becomes is all in to the most extreme versions of conservative Christianity, complete with stonings (probably the most unpleasant section of the book to read), fire bombing the Castro district of San Francisco, the death penalty for adultery, homosexuality, abortion, and other violations of "Christian" laws, and a pretty thorough lack of tolerance for any alternative, non-Christian views.
And while some might argue that these things could never happen here, I have to side with the author for a couple of reasons. The first is a continuing theme of the novel: that the theocrats said what they would do, and then they did it. And, absolutely, I think most of us have seen or heard the quotes from the extreme of the Christian right advocating most of these outrageous things. In particular, I remember watching a documentary produced by People for the American Way in 1984 that included a clip of a right wing preacher calling for the death penalty for homosexuality.
The second reason is because I believe that theocracies generally do tend to the extremes. After all, how many moderate theocracies exist today? And how many have ever existed? The moderates aren't the ones with the intense drive to use the force of law to inflict their beliefs on everyone else...it's the extremists who want to do that. But the extremists know that their more moderate counterparts also don't really take it entirely seriously when they use harsh rhetoric...which gives these people more power than they should have for the number of people who actually agree with them.
And for those who might complain that this book presents Christianity in an unfair light, I would also disagree with that complaint. Yes, Christianity is portrayed negatively in this book, but the views expressed by those Christians are all views that really have been expressed by actual Christian leaders in recent years -- and not just isolated jackasses like Fred Phelps, but also people with real connections to political power like David Barton (who regularly pushes to get his distorted version of history included in text books).
And the author does note the inconsistency between what these Christians do, and what their religion really says:
They rule in the name of a religion that has love as its core value, and yet they came to power on a wave of hate. They preach peace, and came to power by violence. They venerate the Constitution, but subverted its core principle of inidivudual rights...
And the author quotes someone else, as well, as a reminder of how innocuous words can lead to a horrible outcome:
The national government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built up. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life.
No, not a Republican candidate catering to the base. The time is February 1933, and the speaker is Adolph Hitler.
Christian Nation is an important nation not because it's going to happen here -- but because it has happened elsewhere, and it could happen here if we don't take the Christian right at their word.