The Christian Right and Utilitarian Postmodernism

by emptywheel

Via Digby, I see Max Blumenthal has a post up about James Dobson's role in Jack Abramoff's schemes.

"He [Reed] got to Dobson who is going to mail Louisiana and get on the radio!"
--email from Jack Abramoff to Michael Scanlon, 2/6/02

As the Jack Abramoff scandal unfolds, it is becoming increasingly clear how extensively he collaborated with the Christian right to advance his casino schemes. Ralph Reed was paid no less than $4 million by Abramoff and his Indian casino clients to serve as a liasion to the Christian right.

Reed managed to lasso Focus on the Family President James Dobson into a series of campaigns to stamp out competition to Abramoff's clients. Though Senate subpeonaed emails seem to confirm that Dobson was manipulated by Reed and Abramoff, he and his employees have repeatedly claimed that his activism against rivals to Abramoff's clients was a complete coincidence. While I wrote about this for the Nation and Media Matters, there has been very little mainstream press interest on Dobson's role in Abramoff's schemes.

Blumenthal's post is worth reading in its entirety. I'd just like to add one point to Blumenthal's piece, a reminder about Dobson's "vote" on the Harriet Miers nomination.

You'll recall, of course, that Dobson split with the rest of the Christian right leaders in trusting Karl to trust Harriet.

Trying to reassure his flock about the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, James C. Dobson set off a firestorm last week when he said that Karl Rove had told him some things he "probably shouldn't know" that led him to believe Miers "will be a good justice." With the Right on a rampage over what some saw as a betrayal, Dobson spoke of "things that I'm privy to that I can't describe because of confidentiality."

Most Democrats, of course, assumed Rove had reassured Dobson that Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. But I thought then and think now that Rove told Dobson nothing of the sort. I think Rove simply told Dobson that Miers' nomination would reliably support the Utilitarian Postmodernists' bid for power, she would vote to increase the authoritarian power of the president. And Dobson got in line behind that assurance. The Miers nomination, IMO, provided useful evidence that Dobson, rather than a Christian leader supporting a compatible political cause, is a political operative playing-acting an expedient religious role.

Blumenthal and Digby raised Dobson in the context of ruptures the Abramoff scandal could cause in the right wing coalition. If the real Christians recognize that Dobson's beliefs go no deeper than his Machivellian scheming, they may split from him or stay home on election day. I'm all in favor of this. I would add just one thing, a response to the concerns apparently raised to Digby earlier, that we're unfairly trying to suppress turnout based on people's faith.

We can identify which of the Christian leaders are the political opportunists and which are the true faith leaders. James Dobson (and Pat Robertson, on numerous occasions) have tipped their hand. By focusing on those leaders who are obviously playing out a role, we can force the Christian right to either disavow a popular and powerful leader--as is increasingly happening with Robertson--or risk losing their political edge.

Comments

[old slacker]

Amy Sullivan recently did an article on the same subject and how Dems tried to introduce a history of the bible type class and repubs stopped it.the right was so afraid that the Dems were taking away their cane they came out against what they've said they've been for. between power and the history of the bible they choose power. I think the article was at washinton monthly.

[emptywheel]

To be fair, I don't think they're all about power. Some people are genuinely wingnut preachers.

But Dobson? He doesn't believe in that God stuff as far as he can spit.

[William Ockham]

[Disclosure - I am an active follower of the Way, a believer in Jesus the Messiah, and chair of the Deacons at my local church]

I think it is difficult for outsiders to fully understand the dynamics of the so-called "Christian Right". It is fundamentally a cultural rather than religious phenomenon. Formed in reaction to the tumult of the '60s, it is an amalgam of cultural conservatism, psychosocial "strong father" authoritarianism in religion and politics, and traditional American rugged individualism. This is most obvious in the adulation they give to Ronald Reagan, an almost completely irreligious man.

I think emptywheel's analysis is mistaken, in that she thinks that Dobson, the political opportunist, differs substantially from other "Christian Right" leaders. The movement has always been about political power to achieve cultural dominance, not theological dominance. To that end, the movement has papered over significant theological differences (many Baptists don't even think Catholics are real Christians, and, to a certain extent, the feeling is mutual). All the movement leaders are to some extent political opportunists, but don't think that they are less religious because of that. I'm not saying that there are no hypocritical con men (Ralph Reed certainly fits that bill), but it is a waste of time to use that as wedge against "Christian Right" voters.

What we need to do is break the power of the mass propaganda machine that supports the authoritarian right. One way to accomplish that is to drive a wedge between religious cultural conservatives and the irreligious right (Limbaugh, Hannity, Rove, the corporatists, and the neo-cons). I don't want to drive down the participation of religious conservatives in the political process. I want them to think for themselves, instead of blindly following the lead of the Rove & Co. The "Christian Right" has provided the shock troops for a cabal of rich white men who want to undermine our democracy. As long as we let the Mighty Wurlitzer determine the political agenda in this country, we let them manipulate people of faith. I think we are better served by exposing how the irreligious right has used and abused people of faith while demonstrating that our goals, while requiring no religious test, are completely compatible with Christian faith. We won't persuade all, or even most, religious conservatives, but we will destroy the false unity of the movement.

[John Casper]

Interesting take William. Roman Catholic canon law has always recognized the legitimacy of Xtian baptism in the Baptist Churches. When that changes you will know because when a Baptist wants to marry a Catholic the RC hierarchy will require the same number of dispensations from the "nonbaptized," Baptist, as they currently require from a semitic, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist,.... that wants to marry a Catholic. With that said, as someone raised Roman Catholic, I don't see any persuasive evidence that the Roman Catholic hierarchy, the male only, "priestly class," is "practicing" Xtianity.
"What we need to do is break the power of the mass propaganda machine that supports the authoritarian right." I agree.
What we also need is for the Xtian right to really read the canonical scriptures they claim to hold so dear. IMO "fundamentalists" who actually read the New Testament pretty quickly run into all the problems Bultmann did and discover that what they thought was "fundamentally," true was nothing more than a very selective form of "literalism." The Pauline call to a "personal relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," was echoed by Luther, because he understood the "idol worship," so transparently practiced by the Catholic Church he sought to "reform." It seems to me you accurately described the "idol worship" of Dobson and others.

[emptywheel]

William

I don't dispute what you're saying about religion as power as culture. (And as someone whose Irish bro-in-law married into hard right southern baptist culture, I'm well aware of how some preachers treat Irish Catholics and their northern, intellectual Irish-American lapsed Catholic wives as heathen. Oh boy do I know that!)

I'm saying there are a few--Dobson and Robertson--for whom the religion is even more of a charade. They're playing an important role in the Conservative Movement FIRST as a way to tap into the religion/power/culture of the Christian right. And that because those people reveal their role as the lynchpin tapping into the Christian right, they are a weak point.

I guess another way to put it--when the conservative right flock sees the emails from Scanlon, Reed, Dobson calling them idiots BECAUSE of their Christian belief, it may get them to stop believing in propaganda.

[Mimikatz]

There are promising alliances to be made with many evangelicals and other generally right religious on environmental (take care of God's creation and creatures) and poverty-related issues. The mega-television preachers are the opportunistic charlatans, more than the individual clergy. Support a la carte cable TV pricing as a way to cut off support for telepreachers.

I think that the organized Christian right wants to make the world safe for their religion--reduce temptations by reducing available choices in many spheres but subsidize religious choices wherever possible. Many are just out for power. But understanding the roots of the Christian Right as the anti-'60s suggests the importance of treating its adherents with the respect due any potential coalition partners.

[William Ockham]

John Casper,

I take your point (I did use the qualifier "to a certain extent"; there is definitely an asymmetry).

emptywheel,

While I would never defend Dobson, I think his involvement with Abramoff is substantially different from Reed's. More importantly, I think it's a losing battle to attack him as a charlatan. Tactically, I think it's much better to paint him as dupe than fraud. Attacking him as a fraud will only strengthen his position of control over his followers by playing into their very strong "us vs. them" mentality. If you stipulate his sincerity and point out the very obvious fact that he was duped by Reed and Abramoff into supporting gambling, you will undermine his authority much more effectively. To maintain his "strong father" authoritarian control over the "family", he has to display wisdom and discernment. Get his followers to question his judgement and you've defanged him.

[John Casper]

William, I found the point you made about attacking Dobson as a dupe, rather than a fraud, very compelling.

[landreau]

If this thread is not the most cogent analysis of what is generally called the "culture war," I have not seen a better one. William, I especially appreciate your understanding that Dobson's followers are basically sincere in their beliefs, both theological AND sociological. They must be convinced that their sociological views are wrong because they have been misled--any other path won't allow for whatever internal face-saving mechanism is needed to allow for change to happen.

[Chris]

Hey Great blog. Here is another blog site that is unique. I found it that it has sound also. Have your speakers on when you go there.
http://www.turnyourspeakerson.com/itisfinished.htm