The ideologists of the conservative revolution superimposed a vision of national redemption upon their dissatisfaction with liberal culture and with the loss of authoritative faith. They posed as the true champions of nationalism, and berated the socialists for their internationalism, and the liberals for their pacifism and their indifference to national greatness.
-- Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of Germanic Ideology (1960)
Stern, a refugee of Nazi Germany, is a history professor and scholar of fascism. A few days before Bush's second inauguration (appropriately, "augur" has a religious connotation, a diviner of signs), he gave a speech during parallels between his former enemies and the American religious right ... speaking of the "pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics" that was key to Hitler's success. As Michelle Goldberg says in her interesting book Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism: "Fascism isn't imminent in America. But its language and aesthetics are distressingly common among Christian nationalists." Given the central role of energetic bases, therefore, her book is important ... as is the fact it describes a significant subset of society overall.
The use of "Nazi" to describe people, on either side, annoys me. Simply put, when I think "Nazi," I think of WWII (the death toll partially explains the "appeasement" of the 1930s) and the Holocaust. Now, if you fully believe that abortion is murder, it might seem appropriate to compare it to the Holocaust ... though generally, people understand the difference. [Extremists on another side at times call factory farming some sort of "holocaust."] But, no matter what you think of Bushies, they simply aren't quite on the level of the Nazis. "Fascist" perhaps -- Mussolini was no saint, but he is but a minor figure next to the horrors of Hitler and Stalin. We look at what might occur, avoid first steps toward perdition, but perspective should still remain. Still ... the 1930s simply are not beside the point these days.
[A Slate frayster provides a personal family account that fits in here. It is an impressive one and helps to explain his very strong take against the current administration et. al. But, a similar history or comparable one can lead to a quite different result. After all, his family was threatened by their own country, which responded to the current realities in another way. And, his final line is a bit scary -- is extremism ever a good idea? I wonder -- we might think we are fighting the good fight, but we are not demigods. We need to take due care ... extremism can come back to bite us in the ass. And, honestly, I am a bit turned off by the extreme nation of some of his rhetoric. Overall, his posts are excellent, but he might want to tone them down a tad.]
We do have certain markers -- like Vietnam -- that serve as imperfect symbols. This occurs in our daily life, so some person or event represents a key idea or value. This is where the "Nazis" come in and other somewhat less emotional markers. Thus, when we read of programs about "how to think," and the ideas and values promotes are abhorrent, well, you get bad visuals. The chapter on the move against homosexuals surely does this, especially since you know, gays were targets of Nazis too (think Cabaret ... Berlin was a favored spot for gay men in the 1920s). But, putting aside that visual, the serious effort (and sense of horror on the other side) against gays is as remarkable (in its breadth) as is it scary. Consider who is being harmed here. We are not just talking marriage by any means.
Her discussion about how the effort occurred hidden in plain sight is particularly notable. Other chapters discuss the war for intelligent design and other anti-science measures, governmental funding of conservative religious programs, their counterproductive war against sex, and the battle for the courts. Overall, it is an important book because it is a sort of sociological ethnographic look at a different culture, one that in many cases are filled with people we can respect, but who have an ideology and political movement that is a danger to American values. For instance, many (not me ... the polls were all too close) were shocked that Bush won along with a slew of anti-gay ballot measures. Where did this come from? Well, Goldberg notes, in part from mass efforts hidden in plain sight, such as in megachurches in Red America ... rather remarkable places really, worthy of a book itself.**
It seems sort of an alternative universe of good things such as the mention of the conservative "Presbyterian Church in America." This led me immediately to think of my online link to South Carolina, a member of the same thing, just lower case (just plain Presbyterian, John Edwards loving sort, she). S. does things like go to Sunday School and stuff (for us lapsed Catholics, that was left for the kiddies -- Catholics need a more concerted effort to get the whole family involved, other than you know, bingo). [There is a Presbyterian Church in mid-town, so I often pass by, and see pretty nifty names of the sermons. Traditionally, sermons were quite powerful influences on society -- it is sort of why many governments target religious dissidents.] Her church also has various community outreach measures that are appealing.
It underlines that -- as MG says in her introduction -- we are talking about our fellow Americans who often are quite nice people with pretty universal concerns. As suggested by the note, even the influence of religion on politics is not inherently a bad deal -- religion is a central part of our being, so how can our faith not in some fashion influence our politics in important ways? It is the particular path taken, including trying to answer the complex (and scary) nature of current realities in such wrong-minded ways. It underlines the problems with separation -- something the other side is surely not free from (the investigation probably was quite useful for the secular urban Jew author too) -- not of church and state, but of one group from others, even if they feel them to be among the damned.
[In fact, in various respects, "red" America is more broken than "blue," going by such things as family breakdown and poverty rates, which any inner city analysis will tell ya are clearly connected. It is ironic as well that sorts that might be supportive of those who becry the "victimization" rhetoric of some on the left are quite emphatic about their own victimization. They know, I guess, that even if Republicans control Congress, their favored faction still does not rule the day. Not with Justice Kennedy writing in support of gay rights etc.]
Not quite like Nazi Germany, but when different groups become so foreign from each other to the degree that it seems like a fight of good vs. evil, we are in deep trouble. At the very least, and this book helps (Joe Conason liked it ... how can it not?), it is important to understand each other, including those we find so scary.
---
* She notes without comment at one point: "Just as political Islam is often called Islamism to differentiate the fascist political doctrine from the faith, the ideology laid out in these papers could be called Christianism." This brought to mind the current controversy over the term "Islamofascists," which seems to be problematic because it simply does not cover the direct threat we are facing from Bin Laden sorts. But in some sense, though it is a problem we face ... the fact that our "allies" like Saudi Arabia have fascist regimes notwithstanding. Of course, it is problematic to associate our allies in this fashion with our enemies, but still.
** They call to mind my basic mind's view of a Southern Black Baptist congregation, in which the religious element is more dominating than that of traditional Catholic/Protestant faiths, who do not spend much time on that element of things. Catholics go on mass on Sunday for about an hour ... Baptists have hours long events with singing, food, and so forth. "The Sabbath" takes a bit more meaning there. This is the path of making religion a central part of one's being, helping explain why some think separation of church and state is ridiculous. One need not go down that route, but it is understandable all the same.