August 11, 2006

LOCK THE DOOR, MOTHER, THEM THEOCRATS ARE OUTSIDE AGAIN!

Theocracy, Theocracy, Theocracy (Ross Douthat, First Things, August/September, 2006)

This is a paranoid moment in American politics. A host of conspiracies haunt our national imagination, and apparent incompetence is assumed to be the consequence of a dark design: President Bush knew about the attacks of September 11 in advance, or else the Israelis did; the Straussians took us to war in Iraq, unless the oil companies did; the federal government let the levees break in New Orleans, unless it dynamited them itself.

Perhaps the strangest of these strange stories, though, is the notion that twenty-first-century America is slouching toward theocracy. This is an old paranoia: Back in 1952, the science-fiction libertarian Robert Heinlein’s Revolt in 2100 envisioned a religious tyranny toppled by a Freemason-led rebellion; in 1985, Margaret Atwood’s feminist dystopia The Handmaid’s Tale imagined America as a Christian-fascist “Republic of Gilead,” with its capital in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and its public executions staged in Harvard Yard. But the fear of theocracy has become a defining panic of the Bush era, reaching a fever pitch in the weeks after the 2004 election, when a host of commentators seized on polls suggesting that “moral values” had pushed the president over the top—and found in that data point a harbinger of Gilead.

Later, more cool-headed polling analysis suggested that the values explanation was something of a stretch: The movement of religious voters into the GOP played a role in Bush’s victory, but the uptick in his support between 2000 and 2004 seems mainly to have reflected national-security concerns. Still, these pesky facts didn’t stop Garry Wills from announcing the end of the Enlightenment and the arrival of jihad in America, or Jane Smiley from bemoaning the “ignorance and bloodlust” of Bush voters in thrall to a fire-and-brimstone God, or left-wing bloggers from chattering about “Jesusland” and “fundies” and plotting their escape to Canada.

The paranoia hasn’t yet burned down to embers. The term theocrat has become a commonplace, employed by bomb-throwing columnists, otherwise-sensible reporters, and “centrist” Republicans such as Connecticut’s Christopher Shays, who recently complained that the GOP was becoming the “party of theocracy.” And now the specter of a looming Khomeini’ism has migrated into the realm of pop sociology, producing a spate of books with titles like The Baptizing of America, Kingdom Coming, Thy Kingdom Come—and, inevitably, American Theocracy, the Kevin Phillips jeremiad that shot to the top of the New York Times bestseller list this spring.

Most of these books aspire to be anthropologies, guides for the perplexed that lead the innocent reader through what the subtitle of American Theocracy calls “the perils and politics of radical religion.” There isn’t perfect agreement on what to call the religious radicals in question: Everyone employs theocrat, but Kingdom Coming also proposes Christian nationalist, while The Baptizing of America favors the clunky Christocrat. Others have suggested Christianist, the better to link religious conservatives to Osama bin Laden—and of course there’s the ubiquitous theocon, suggesting a deadly mixture of Oliver Cromwell and Paul Wolfowitz.

This is a wonderfully funny and even-handed dissection of those who think, or are eager beyond words to be persuaded, that Billy Graham and The Taliban are soul mates.


Posted by Peter Burnet at August 11, 2006 6:14 PM
Comments

Go ahead, lefties, make up new slurs for Christians, all the better for us to be reminded that we must hang together or we shall surely go ad leones separately.

On another tack, we are reminded that the President has been accused of speaking in a "Chriatianist" code because he uses bibical phrases and allusions. Can you imagine it? Peppering one's speech or writing with code words--who would do such a thing!

Posted by: Lou Gots at August 11, 2006 7:02 PM

Lou...
It's a Kristianist code that we of the American Taliban are supposidly speaking in when we talk amongst ourselves.

Posted by: Dave W at August 11, 2006 9:57 PM

But on the other side of the ledger we have OJ making lots of excuses for Shiite theocracies in Iran and Somalia, and wanting Hezbollah to have a state carved out of Lebanon. If someone says that's "conservative" support for theocracy, I'd have to agree.

Posted by: PapayaSF at August 11, 2006 9:59 PM

"Margaret Atwood’s feminist dystopia The Handmaid’s Tale imagined America as a Christian-fascist 'Republic of Gilead'".

Isn't he the guy who has his own exercise show on ESPN? ;)

Posted by: Ed Driscoll at August 11, 2006 9:59 PM

Pap:

Yes, our "theocracy" works, what would lead anyone to believe theirs won't? in fact, those who insist that the Islamic states be "secular" are just wishing Europehood on them. It's brilliant as subversion, as David would point out.

Posted by: oj at August 12, 2006 12:03 AM

Our "theocracy" works because it isn't really a theocracy. It's a constitutional republic built on a blend of various flavors of Protestant Christianity and Enlightenment secularism. It's monotheist but not monolithic. The Islamic states desperately a dose of Enlightenment secularism, not because they need the bad parts as subversion, but because they need the good parts, like the "we don't kill people over religion anymore" part.

Posted by: PapayaSF at August 12, 2006 1:51 AM

Papaya:

Oh, they already have a big "dose" of Enlightenment secularism. That is why they are so heavily into totalitarianism.

I presume you mean a dose of decency and tolerance, both of which have existed in many parts of the Muslim world for long periods of time. I don't know why after all this time people keep conflating the two and why everybody keeps thinking the reform of Islam should be guided by Johnny-Jack Rousseau.

Are you really going to argue that the secular Enlightenment spawned a more peaceful, decent world? The spirit of religious tolerance in the West pre-dates it by about a hundred years. All the non-religious intolerances (nationalism, marxism, etc.) originate with it. The Enlightenment did a lot of things, but it was not about tolerance and decency.

Posted by: Peter B at August 12, 2006 7:32 AM

Like I said, I want the Muslim world to adopt the good parts of the Enlightenment, not the bad parts. Religious tolerance is only part of it. Separation of Church and State is another, something I think we can credit the Enlightenment for. (Yes, no doubt you can find the seends of that earlier, but certainly the Enlightenment led to it being codified in the Constitution.) And I don't want the Muslim world to simply be decent and tolerant in the way they supposedly were hundreds of years ago, because I also want to see things like democracy and equal rights for women, which aren't part of the Muslim past, no matter what the apologists say.

Posted by: PapayaSF at August 12, 2006 2:52 PM
« AS LONG AS HE'S NOT A BIG PURPLE DINOSAUR: | Main | #5 MIGHT BE THE BEST CALL, CERTAINLY THE BEST NAME: »