Michelle Goldberg has done the impossible. She's written a serious, scathing, eye-opening expose of the ongoing takeover of our country by right-wing Christians -- and somehow managed to make it witty, funny, and humane.
-- Katha Pollitt on Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism
I don't know about "impossible," but Pollitt has a point -- Goldberg is quite serious that there is a threat as shown by her repeated citations of The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt. Her concluding chapter makes this clear as well as her sentiment that those concerned cannot just play nice (a theme of various New Republic sorts) or expect some middle ground (such as economic populism) to be found to solve things. She finds appeals to the " 'moderation' that is said to be at the heart of the American character" not enough -- "reconciliation or healing" will not stop the threat. Instead we need: "electoral reform to give urban areas fair representation in the federal government [this would require constitutional change], grassroots organizing to help people to fight Christian nationalism on the ground, and a media campaign to raise public awareness about the movement's real agenda."
[There is a bit more hope to obtain control in a few "Red" states than Goldberg suggests. For instance, Nevada is actually a "purple" state, suggested by the fact the Democratic Senate Minority Leader comes from there -- Bush did not win the state by much. The split in Florida is well know, of course, but even a state like South Carolina (suggested by the winner in West Wing) has progressive possibilities. My SC link suggests the point. Heck, even a significant of Texas -- the Molly Ivin brigade etc. -- is reachable. Such things are quite important in congressional races and with the right candidate, possibly essential in the '08, when a few Red/Purple pick-ups are mandatory. OTOH, some tinkering of how we pick federal officials, including changing electoral vote counting in some fashion -- even a district by district vote in Florida could have changed things -- could help in this respect as well.]
She wants "a group whose values are routinely trashed by the country's rulers" to step up and stop feeling like victims. Turnabout is fair play -- a bottom-up action to take control "back" was the name of the game for those the book is concerned about, starting with the Goldwater campaign (ironically, Goldwater Republicans -- including one involved in a Dover, Pennsylvania intelligent design controversy -- often find "Christianists" almost as scary as the left) up till today when top congressional leaders and the President suggest they are now almost "mainstream" (or rather, official) voices. It is time for the liberals to step up, to refuse to accept the labels or warnings that they have to compromise.
To cite Glenn Greenwald's book, they should school others on how to be a patriot. And, do so from the bottom up, if necessary. This is why Howard Dean's "50 state" campaign is so important -- we must look to the future. I would add strategy might require certain techniques that are not required to obtain the support of certain members of those more concerned with a reasoned secular state with various essential liberties than a faith based program. Thus, I myself am firmly against Bush et. al. first and foremost because they simply leave a bad taste in my mouth. All this talk that just being "anti-Bush" was not enough, notwithstanding. But, sure, as TPM and others note, incompetence and failure can be a more useful rallying cry. For some, Jesus telling Thomas that faith is to be honored more than those who need to see things (especially the remarkable) with their own eyes will be their guide. Hopefully, a majority will not.*
But, Goldberg's book is also humane. It surely was not neutral -- her sympathies are evident, and she is a senior writer at Salon, which is clearly a liberal publication. [She looks rather young in that jacket photo.] All the same, she does not view the other side as faceless evil automans. A value of the book is that she personalizes them, not just giving us a visual image of various people discussed (many of whom she interviewed -- it's harder to de-personalize that way), but suggesting many of their sentiments arise from reasonable fears and concerns. In fact, in various cases, they are sympathetic characters.** [Not always enough -- if faith based charities discriminate against people of different faiths, some success alone does not mean they merit governmental funding.]
How they handle things might seem foreign to us and their mind-sets makes it that much harder to provide bridges between groups with comparable concerns. Nonetheless, the human face -- not always evident when various sorts speak of "them" -- is quite useful, including in determining how to deal with such individuals. It also results in a more interesting and engaging book. Goldberg underlines btw that an important weapon for liberals (broadly speaking) are organizations that provide the resources and know-how to fight the good fight. An imperfect resource, not mentioned in the book, is Air America. Thus, a bridge ...
To follow-up on my Air America post, let's examine the new schedule that will begin next Monday. As the 1600AM signal in NY ekes into my home -- you know other than weeknights and all -- the new schedule is mostly to be expected. Rachel Maddow is moving to evenings (6-8) with David Bender's "Political Direct" (heard it a couple times; kinda dull) and Betsy Rosenberg's "Ecotalk" shows having an hour each afterwards. Mike Malloy's (10-midnight in NYC) replacement is to be announced. The one hour theme show idea is nice, though perhaps some working issue theme (or perhaps other issues) could be mixed in as well. Perhaps, a sort of rotation thing? Meanwhile, they did take my "liberal morning drive" (commentary/entertainment) idea, but the local station is sticking with Armstrong Williams/Sam Greenfield (along with overnight shows, WWRL is keeping their stuff before 9am). I don't think the cooking show is on any more.
Again, I wonder how Sam Seder feels to be following them (at least in NYC). I'm all for balance -- except perhaps on a "progressive network" -- but he is a bit more doctrinaire than me. There was a particular amusing tidbit relevant to this matter on yesterday's show. Melanie Sloan was on for her weekly political corruption spot [Lawrence O'Donnell was on afterwards and actually wasn't too dismissive of the 9/11 docudrama] and one of her issues respected the use of reporters as paid government propaganda agents. Armstrong Williams was mentioned in passing, though he was not the primary concern this time around. It was left unsaid that he has a show on the station, but directly following the segment, there was a promo for his show! The next day the promo was slightly different -- it is a "WWRL" morning show.
Overall, this is a mixed bag. I think Sam Seder actually works better evenings -- with a young child and a bit edgy flavor, is he really ideal for a mid-morning show? I find Springer distasteful, but his show might have actually fit the slot better (after all, it is about when his t.v. show is on) ... if nothing else, Maddow (in her original slot to boot) might be a better fit. Also, again, the signal stinks. As does Armstrong Williams. OTOH, Springer is gone from NYC, the "Young Turks" idea for morning drive sounds interesting, and the evening shows might be a good mix. I sorta worry about them though.
Oh well. Good luck at any rate. I see btw the updated schedule is not on the website yet. It was noted in the radio section of the NY Daily News.
---
* Just as Goldwater conservatives can be liberals strange bedfellows these days, post-modernism appears to have support not only on the fringes of the academic left. The idea here -- I'm not a big philosopher but the book covers this ground -- is that we should not let facts bind us. Or, rather, reality is what we make of it ... it is not truly objective. This sort of thing allows one to truly believe creationism is factual, even if reality dictates against it. See also, the infamous Bush insiders scorn at the "reality-based community." The press aids this all -- facts are but one side of the debate. Something "one side" says. The fact such enablers can also be made into enemies of the right only adds to the irony.
** Thus, an abstinence promotion advocate came off as a pleasant sort, but had twisted ideas that overall would lead to problematic consequences. The fact that such people did reach various troubled individuals underline that we have something to learn from them -- a full-fledged planned parenthood resource, for instance, needs to address the needs of those who deep down have conservative views on family planning. They might not find some clinics friendly in this respect.
Overall, the drab nature of various government offices that serve the public (even comfortable seats for those waiting for jury duty at the local courthouse is a useful thing) is an infamous thing. Surely, we see this raised in respect to public schools. The danger of leaving such things to questionable sorts is underlined by the Hamas scenario.