You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
Bush Holy Rollers Rule Debt Crippled American Theocracy
2006-03-22
Writing American Theocracy
By Kevin Phillips

My underlying thesis in American Theocracy is that these are the three major perils of the United States in the early 21st century.
Socialism, secularism, and ... oh, that's not what you mean.
First, radical religion – this encompasses everything from the Pat Robertson-Jerry Falwell types to the attacks on medicine and science and the Left Behind books with their End Times and Armageddon scenarios. Second, oil dependence – oil was essential to 20th century U.S. hegemony, and its growing scarcity and cost could play havoc. And third, debt is becoming a national weakness – indeed, the “borrowing” industry in the U.S. has grown so rapidly that finance has displaced manufacturing as the leading U.S. sector.
Pat Robertson is overbearing and shallow, but Jerry Falwell and the Southern Baptists, etc contribute much to public debate on vital issues. Too bad that Red-State Republicans don't pay attention.
Financing has always been around. The Rothschilds did well. Modern financing has helped us to build a world our forefathers couldn't imagine.
After George W. Bush narrowly won a second term in 2004, ...
... having a won a majority of the vote, something no Democrat since LBJ has managed to do ...
... which meant four more years of Religious Right power, over-dependence on oil and over-involvement in the Middle East and the fattening of the debt albatross, I decided to shift my focus from the biases, failings and deceits of the Bush family, going back four generations, which had been my focus during 2004 in my book American Dynasty.
Now sitting on the remainder pile.
The new book would concentrate on the three perils to the U.S. – all of which, however, were closely related to the re-orientation of the Republican party that occurred under the two Bushes. Here readers should keep in mind that from 1980 to 2004. Only one presidential election (1996) did not have a Bush on the ticket as the presidential or vice presidential nominee. Between 1988 and 2006, the two Bush presidents put a particular stamp on the GOP’s regionalism, religious pandering and fealty to oil and finance.
Northern urban conceit or epiphany?
Progressive conceit, you find it everywhere.
A second major element of the new book is to look at the three perils in the context of the weaknesses of the previous leading world economic powers. All of them, from Rome to Britain, resembled the Bush era U.S. in imperial cockiness. They thought they were unique, that God was on their side and that they had transcended history. Ultimately, too much crusading, strutting, borrowing, luxuriating and interest-group entrenchment helped do them in.
Empires don't facilitate free elections for their subjects, while permitting freedom of expression. I would have imposed reparations on Iraq, and implemented disproportionate retaliation against post-occupation terror.
He also forgets how Rome was brought down: that era's progressives refused to fight to preserve the land, and hired mercenaries and barbarians to defend them. Disease took a major role (measles killed 1/5 of Romans in the 2nd Century AD). Continued war and strife with competing wanna-be emperors took its toll. It's like Mr. Phillips hasn't ever heard of, let alone read, Edward Gibbons.
The excesses of the Religious Right in the Bush years represent a particular danger.. Some 45% of U.S. Christians believe in the End Times and Armageddon, and Tim LaHayeÂ’s lurid Left Behind series helped mobilize them and shape Washington awareness of their importance. Centrist religious leaders believe itÂ’s a gross distortion of the Bible, but thereÂ’s no doubt that a large percentage of the Bush electorate believes that war and chaos in the holy lands (including Iraq) heralds the Second Coming.
The Left Behind series is escapist entertainment. It's harmless, and you only have to read it to recognize that. Guess there's another book Mr. Phillips hasn't read.
Oil was also central. Dick Cheney was very mindful of the coming shortfall, and during 2001 his Energy Task Force poured over maps of the Iraqi oilfields. The big U.S. oil companies were also desperate to have them, and since 2001, the U.S. military has increasingly taken up oilfield, pipeline and sea route protection. But alas, botching Iraq botched U.S. oil relationships.
Someone took a gullibility pill.
If only we had elected Al Gore, we'd no longer be dependent on oil.
The Republicans have profited from a weak opposition. Bluntly put, since the 1960s the Democrats have been the vehicle for the growth of secularism and irreligion among perhaps a third of the U.S. population.
It doesn't help the Democrats that, on the six major social issues in this country, their position is the minority position. There's a name for a political party that consistently takes minority positions: the minority party.
Strong churchgoers now vote Republican for president by roughly 3:1. As of 2005-2006, the new chance for the Democrats is to compete for the people in the middle – in particular, merely occasional religious attendees and moderates – who think that the liberals went too far in the 1960s and 1970s but that the Religious Right and the would-be theocrats are the danger now. That is certainly my anslysis, and it is developed at great length in American Theocracy.
The Secular State was the product of the religious wars of 16th century Europe. It was accepted by competing faiths, in the interest of institutional barriers to domination by one religion.
Secular doesn't mean irreligious, which is what the progressives demand. Secular means that all parties have a role, and no cardinal, grand vizier, preacher-man or rebbe tells the rest of us what to do and how to think.
Electorally, ItÂ’s useful to divide BushÂ’s supporters in two. On one side, the economic conservatives and centrist traditional GOPers; on the other, the true-believing religious electorate. HeÂ’s lost many of the middle-roaders with his Iraq, Katrina and Schiavo bungling. However, as long as he has most of his religious voters, itÂ’ll be hard to push him below 35-40% job approval in the national polls.
Islamist aggression will force a harder line on counter-terror, in the last years of the Bush administration. Traditional Seculars, who form the political Center, will support global security initiatives that Democrats have already squelched.
There's at least six different factions within the Repubs, and Bush continues to do well with several of them. Iraq isn't a bungle to most Republicans, and most Repubs see Katrina as a general failure of all levels of government.
Fear is likely to remain a Bush tactic.
As opposed to Howard Dean and Co., who never, ever use fear as a tactic.
His people have tried to polarize voters into seeing a fight between good and evil, stoking fear and a sense of global chaos. The doomsday preachers are on the same side.
Fear as "Bush tactic?" If anything, the President's perception of the evil of Islamism (for me: Islam, per se) is an indequate assessment of that vulgar ideology of murderous aggression and human enslavement.
Central to Bush administration policy, is the inclusion of Islamists - like Hamas - in "democratic" processes.
What we are seeing in the Middle East is Weimar type plebiscites on extremism and terrorism, which Mid East Muslims are embracing. Real Politick dictates that Reagan-security should trump sham Carter-liberty, as the cornerstone of US foreign policy.
The majority of Americans are not in their camp, but there is a large minority – certainly 25%, probably not 40% – that want more Bible and less science, abstinence rather than contraception, fewer drugs and more faith (faith-healing) and uphold confidence in fuel supplies and resources because God will provide.
This guy is good at his straw-men, isn't he? It's too bad he doesn't get out more; the kinds of people he slams are some of the nicest, most charitable people I've ever met.
Neither Al Gore in 2000 or John Kerry in 2004 was a strong Democratic nominee. Most of the time they had nothing important to say.
Got that right.
That's one.
That’s why I’m an independent now. The Republicans started losing me in the late 1980s, and lost me completely with George W. Bush. In this year 2006, they’re starting to show signs of change, but so far it’s much too little much too late. One of our Republican congressmen here in Connecticut, Chris Shays, complains flat out that the party of Lincoln has become “the party of theocracy.” Yes, the Republicans should be vulnerable in the 2006 Congressional elections. But so far the Democrats have been a lackluster and unimaginative opposition. Their capacities – or lack of them – should also be part of the 2006 debate.
They will be -- count on it.
Posted by:Listen to Dogs

#20  Note that thanks to Carter started pressuring the Shah with respect to human rights, we got Ayatollah Khomeini and his band of merry mullahs. And the Iranians were much more secular than Afghans are today.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2006-03-22 22:29  

#19  Zenster: I point to the thundering silence regarding Abdul Rahman as a sterling example.

I can't get too worked up about it. Defense of minorities is a fine thing, but the reality is that we have a friendly government in Afghanistan today. Another point is that perhaps 99% of Afghanistan is devoutly Muslim - so there's not even a token domestic minority constituency for religious freedom. The alternative is an unfriendly government. Note that we're not through fighting terrorists as yet. Did we quibble about Stalin sending people off to gulags during WWII? Or about Chiang Kai Shek's regrettable tendency to bump his political opponents off? We can start discussing these things once al Qaeda is beaten, and Pakistan isn't run by terrorist-sponsoring leaders. Before then, we can make a few concessions to political and diplomatic realities.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2006-03-22 22:26  

#18  Kevin Phillips is the left-wing "Republican" who's been predicting a Democratic surge for several decades now. He did it all through the Reagan, Bush and Clinton years. I guess one of these days, he'll eventually be right. The guy may fancy himself as once having been a Republican, but he was about at home in the GOP as Zell Miller was in the Democratic Party. The only reason this guy hasn't registered as a Democrat is because it would shred any tattered remnants of his pretense to impartiality when pronouncing on the doom of the GOP - any day now.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2006-03-22 22:17  

#17  Yet this guy is still worried that Jerry Falwell might think that the blue smurf is gay.

All smurfs are blue. And subject to bombing from the UN.

Falwell was griping over one of the Teletubbies. They're not gay -- just really freaking creepy.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-03-22 21:35  

#16  what a bunch of blah, blah, blah from just another loser who blindly adheres to his anti-American religion far more faithfully Christians do.

Some things are so obvious and one is that Muslim extremism, that brought down the WTC and has been responsible for untold terror worldwide. Yet this guy is still worried that Jerry Falwell might think that the blue smurf is gay. What a stupid putz.
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-22 18:11  

#15  Few fundamentalist Christians I have ever known possess anything even remotely resembling the degree of worldview and political awareness that the average Rantburger maintains.

You're right Zenster. Since (largely by choice) about 99%+ of the population lacks the political awareness of a Rantburger, that also means that your average athiest, truck driver, Hindu, and convenience store clerk also lack our political awareness. It's hardly a mark of distinction.

We are like freaking into it, man!
Posted by: Secret Master   2006-03-22 16:04  

#14  As I am both a regular Rantburger and what you would probably call a Christian Fundamentalist, I resent the elitism of #9.

Wanna compare eschatologies?

Posted by: eLarson   2006-03-22 15:43  

#13  I remember Kevin before the icepick incident.
Posted by: 6   2006-03-22 14:57  

#12  Wonder, too, if the carping about "debt" is going to eventually lead him into a full-bore rant about "fiat money" and "international Jewish bankers who control the world" and Carlisle Group and Skull & Bones and all that moonbat jazz.

Pssst, Kevin, . . . there's never been a better time to buy gold.
Posted by: Mike   2006-03-22 13:00  

#11  It's obvious he's never so much as met any observant Catholics or evangelicals, and he probably crosses the street to avoid walking by churches, lest he contract "Christer cooties" from getting too close. He is right about the danger from "theocracy" in one sense: Marxism is a fantasy ideology, just like Islamism, and the fanatical Marxists want absolute power just as badly as the Islamists do.
Posted by: Mike   2006-03-22 12:54  

#10  This guy is a nitwit urban intellectual with a persecution complex. If politics were the Gong Show this guy would have a bag over his head.
Posted by: Secret Master   2006-03-22 11:55  

#9   All of them, from Rome to Britain, resembled the Bush era U.S. in imperial cockiness. They thought they were unique, that God was on their side and that they had transcended history. Ultimately, too much crusading, strutting, borrowing, luxuriating and interest-group entrenchment helped do them in. Empires don't facilitate free elections for their subjects, while permitting freedom of expression.

Oh, puhleeese ... I stopped reading about here. All of you know my distaste for the overemphasis being placed on religiosity by the Oval Office. I point to the thundering silence regarding Abdul Rahman as a sterling example. However, I refuse to give the least creedence to this sort of hysterical twaddle.

The Left Behind series is escapist entertainment. It's harmless, and you only have to read it to recognize that.

I think you may (seriously) underestimate the number of people who take the Left Behind series seriously. Your own intelligence level well exceeds that of many other fundamentalist Christians who are reading this stuff. Few fundamentalist Christians I have ever known possess anything even remotely resembling the degree of worldview and political awareness that the average Rantburger maintains.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-03-22 11:50  

#8  A wild guess: Stalinists and their tools who fall for the tripe that the Constitution is under attack from religion.
Posted by: Creater Crater3500   2006-03-22 11:20  

#7  Secular doesn't mean irreligious... Exactly, it is the left that is irreligious. The right is less tolerant of Muslim integration of mosque and state. Sharia campaigns - in the guise of "Muslim Personal Law" - in South Africa, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, etc - were supported by the left and opposed by the right. Southern Baptists have a persistent demand: let us have real Secularism. And, I would argue, the SBs can deliver 5-7 million votes. So who champions Secularism?
Posted by: Listen to Dogs   2006-03-22 11:05  

#6  Well said. She's peddling another "ism" that seeks to divide and weaken the US from within. A hundred flavors of hatred with a common goal.

We became who we are because we were founded by people of good common sense, collective purpose, and who believed in individual Freedom created and protected by rule of law - including recourse.

I don't recall the Secularists being listed at Plymouth Rock or on the Jamestown rolls. They did not create America. They are simply yet another SIG. They are protected, equally, under our Constitution. Just like every other group, they deserve no quarter for attempting to impose themselves upon others. By rule of law, we should be earnestly working to remove them from any positions they have managed to acquire to advance their agenda.

She, and those of her ilk, who make the wild-eyed claim that the Constitution has been eroded by religion have not one shred of evidence to support it. None. It's pure dementia.

There is ample evidence, however, that those espousing Secularism have abused their offices and abused our institutions in their efforts to destroy what made American the home of Freedom for all.

There is also ample evidence that dementias converge.
Posted by: Creater Crater3500   2006-03-22 09:58  

#5  
This whole screed reeks of some sort of anti-Bush hatred; the author looking for a reason for his hatred, and is thus trying to attach himself to anything, and consequently is makign himself into an ass.

Well, it is from TPMCafe.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-03-22 09:44  

#4  Perhpas if he were no so busy with pejoratives like "Theocrat", and sliming with a broad brush anyone that hold religious bleiefs, he might realize that he is simply wrong.


This whole screed reeks of some sort of anti-Bush hatred; the author looking for a reason for his hatred, and is thus trying to attach himself to anything, and consequently is makign himself into an ass.

"Theocracy" is not a "peril" to the US. Not nearly as much as the militant secularist atheism that seeks eradicate religion and morality from public life. It has already destroyed the black community with it s"its ok to be a sngle parte, its ok to bear children out of wedlokc, there are no such thing as personal consequences to yourself or God for your actions".

THAT is the sort of thing that has nearly destroyed this nation, and indded, its the polar opposite of theism that the biggest trheat to this naiton: they seek to eratdicate the one thing they cannot stand against: religion in the marketplace of ideas. The ACLU and atheists like this writer are still fighting to get religion *excluded* from public life, and seem to be completely unaware of the consequencse.

Thank God that we do have the first admenment which provides for freedom OF religion, not FROM religion.

And I am thankful that we have a president who is appointing judges and justices that will adhere tightly to the constitution instead of fabricting things wholesale from outside of it.

And I'm thankful that idiots like Jeving Phillips are in the minority in this nation -and are breeding themselves out of existence.
Posted by: OldSpook   2006-03-22 09:34  

#3  Last time I checked, it was the dim-o-crat party that took the lead in limiting oil drilling (and coal mining, and nuclear power, and when they can, wind power(!)) in this country...
Posted by: Phil   2006-03-22 09:10  

#2  What a pack of BS.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-03-22 08:11  

#1  And third, debt is becoming a national weakness

All of them, from Rome to Britain, resembled the Bush era U.S. in imperial cockiness.

Nothing annoys me more than people who make historical comparisons and merely expose their ignorance of history. The British Empire went massively into debt to pay for the Napoleonic Wars. But once won, they enjoyed a century of unrivalled dominance and economic prosperity.
Posted by: phil_b   2006-03-22 01:20  

00:00