SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Rise Of The Christian Right

OPEN UNIVERSITY SEPTEMBER 6, 2006

The Rise Of The Christian Right

BY TNR STAFF

by Bill StuntzSorry to be late to the party, and thanks to TNR for allowing me to participate.

I yield to no one in my contempt for originalism or Madison-worship (I've long wondered why none of my evangelical friends regard this legal movement as idolatrous: It fits the usual definition), and I agree that the federal government is remarkably unproductive. But I don't think the constitutional structure is to blame, and I don't think a parliamentary system would help much. The federal government has done great things in the past--the 35 years beginning with FDR's first inauguration were chock full of them--under the same rules that apply now. What's the source of the problem? I'm not sure. I think ideologically monolithic parties are one possibility: They may make it harder to build the broad coalitions necessary to do big things. Another possibility hits closer to home for me: I think the rise of the Christian right and its identification with one of the two major parties has poisoned politics in deep ways, made all political arguments into battles of good against evil. No legal rule or constitutional amendment can fix that.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 8 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

8 comments

Actually, I would think that an effective way to reign in both the bipolarization of politics and the influence of the extreme Christian Right is to reform ballot access laws. If we can enable "minor" parties a more fair shot at getting elected, the debates (and group dynamics as well) can be changed in a (hopefully) more constructive direction.

- epackard

September 6, 2006 at 4:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

However, epackard, the "First past the post" rules are for more important for keeping minor parties down than any ballot access laws. As long as people feel the need to form broad coalitions to get elected into Congress, the two party monopoly will continue.

- prometheusnox

September 6, 2006 at 4:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a little confused as to what the "problem" in our political system is. Is it that the federal government "is remarkably unproductive," or is it that the federal government is passing policies and appointing nominees that most of the readers of, and the contributers to, The New Republic find distasteful? I was under the impression that the problem was more of the latter than the former. Perhaps we think that the "federal government has done great things . . . [in] the 35 years beginning with FDR's first inauguration" because the "great things" that they did corresponded with our world view.

I agree that the monolithic Christian right has made it harder for the Democrats to win elections because of their unfailing devotion to the Republican party. Maybe the best we can do is to moderate our economic policies to win over some of the Republican supporting business right (I am a free trade proponent). By winning more elections I am sure that we can solve the real problem that plagues us, bad legislation.

P.S. - thanks for this blog. It is great to read these insightful, well written posts.

- burntedge

September 6, 2006 at 4:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The rise of the Christian Right can be attributed to the establishment and rise of the Atheist left -- most visible in Universities -- decades prior. I think that if Democrats were capable of dropping religion as an issue (and not sounding the alarm when the inevitable prayer-in-school bills are passed), the Christian right would cease to be a powerful political entity. The question is whether other issues (health care, retirement, economy, terror) are important enough to concede defeat on religion?

- fejta

September 6, 2006 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There left has it's own subtle codification requirements. To the extent that one might well and rightly consider these same to constitute a dogma worthy of a religion. I am slowly becoming disabused of the idea the the proponents of these kinds of manipulative control markers, after all is said and done, really know that they are being intellectually dishonest. I used to be sure of it. Now I suspect that they really don't see the gaping hole in such dispositions. In truth there are many such on all sides. I just find it surprising that a nice little lions share of shallowness comes from academia. Our bastions of enlightenment shine rather darkly these days with demands of open mindedness....as I define it. How is it I might properly employ a kind of Campbellian relativism to ratify truth and service a politcal means? Oh the woe and weight!

- boxofrox

September 6, 2006 at 9:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The question is whether other issues (health care, retirement, economy, terror) are important enough to concede defeat on religion? Yes. Not being vulnerable to losing one's savings and home (due to loss of health insurance, or corporate weasels plundering pension funds or retirement benefits) is worth a mass. As is taking back the White House and our nation's foreign policy. The only areas where we should draw the line vs the fundies are regarding science education and government-backed scientific research. On all the other religious issues we should fudge where possible, genuflect where necessary, and change the subject at every opportunity. In other words, what most of us (atheists) do in the presence of our deeply religious parents.

- teplukhin

September 7, 2006 at 6:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If we have to put up with creches on public property, BFD. Souljah the ACLU on that one. I'm tired of losing elections because we can't convince the working classes of this country that we're on their side. Not least because we allow idiotic, symbolic non-issues to crowd out earth-shaking issues like security for the nation and for its vulnerable families. ie the majority

- teplukhin

September 7, 2006 at 6:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you dislike " ideologically monolithic parties ", you would hate a parliamentary system. Here in Soviet Canukistan party disipline is the first duty of all politicians. To blame the secular side for the culture war is disengenuous at best. They are not trying to force science into the churches. It was Judge Roy Moore who broke into the Alabama courthouse and had himself videoed installing a multi-ton 10 Commandments monument. I've always found it difficult to reason with a person who believes that his imaginary friend created the universe. Even a four year old has more respect for other peoples intelligence.

- boko999

September 7, 2006 at 10:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close