Last week, I saw a little booklet that was part of an essay series. It was entitled God and Caesar in America: An Essay on Religion and Politics by Gary Hart. Since Hart has seemed of late to been a reasonable elder statesman sort -- including his part in a commission on national security right before 9/11 -- I picked it up. Hart can add an interesting perspective in part because of his own religious background, the conservative side suggested by the fact he promised his mom that he would never smoke. And, claims to have not. Movies also were a no no.
The booklet was of some interest, but limiting because it was another effort to underline the dangerous of the fundamentalist approach, something even the likes of evangelical Jimmy Carter is apt to address. Hart pulls no punches, so much that I -- no big fan of the movement -- feel a need to defend them! To wit:
Fundamentalism is a retreat from action and responsibility. It is a means of avoiding accountability. It says that all must adhere to our laws, our rules, our codes of conduct. ... Fundamentalism is exclusionary, divisive, and destructive. Fundamentalism is ultimately incompatible with democratic principles of equality, justice, and fairness. ... Religious fundamentalism warms no heart.
I am inclined not to think all fundamentalists are "unfair" or "cold of heart." But, the general leanings of the movement are worrying, including the idea that because freedom might cause them some unhappiness, it is akin to "violating their rights" in some fashion. Thus, let's say the right of women to choose an abortion in some fashion is equivalent to forcing the women to have a child -- I don't quite understand that assumption, but it comes out in their rhetoric and sense of victimization. Basically, they seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.
Likewise, some of the leaders of the movement are quite sneaky. Hart discusses the point -- which I talked about in the past myself -- about the use of "values," using the term "dog whistle" nicely. IOW, we hear about "value voters," which sounds pretty nice and all, but what values are less evident. The assumption turns out to be that there is only one definition of "values" and it comes out that it is conservative/fundamentalist. Thus, he prefers less pointed terms such as "ideals" or "principles." But, to use that word, he too has "values":
core of my philosophy as a human being and an American are justice, fairness, courage, honor integrity, duty, idealism, and compassion. Politically they also include commitment to constitutional democracy and the principles of the republic.
Likewise, akin to Sen. Obama's speech on religion/values in the public square, Hart warns us the difference between personal faith and governmental power:
[P]ersonal faith must be translated into the political context and not politics translated into the religious context. ... Faith in God does not guarantee special insights on governance in the secular world, especially when those claiming the faith act contrary to history and experience. ... Reason is not the enemy of religion, unless that religion insists on national politics contrary to reason.
But, sometimes, "religion" does run counter to reason. Everything in moderation is not always deemed the best policy when dealing with things like "religion." BTW, providing an idea of what that word entails, he notes religious revivals involve: "An instinct for apocalypse, a resort to spirituality, attendance at worship, and the search for meaning...." One can see a broad range there, including "fundamentalism" from the left.
Anyway, an essay over at TPM furthers the theme:
The lessons of the Bush years have little to do with the size of government. They have to do with governing. Reliance on dogma produces failure. Effective government comes about from dedicated leadership committed to accomplishing the goals that voters have endorsed over time through the political process. Success almost invariably arises from pragmatism, open debate, bringing together sometimes competing constituencies, recruitment of top-notch talent, and deep awareness of what has failed and succeeded in the past. It's the conservative movement’s repudiation of history, ironically, that is proving to be its undoing.
The "pragmatism" of fundamentalists -- part of the problem in Hart's eyes to the degree they mixed faith with politics in a destructive sense -- suggests that the movement is not as "fundamentalist" shall we say as the essay suggests. After all, how else could they sign with some of the characters in the Bush coalition? Lip service, poison as it might be, about anti-gay marriage amendments notwithstanding.
Still, the essay was of some interest ... wish it offered a more universal discussion of the topic though.