A reader asked me recently if I ever grow frustrated in arguing politics with right-wing ideologues. I had to think a moment before answering, and then realized that I do often find myself extremely frustrated when engaging in heated discussions with those whose views on political issues fall far to the right of mine.
I might add here that I do not consider myself a left-wing ideologue. Rather, I place myself to the left of center on an American political spectrum, but not all that far left on most issues. (The fact that I often get criticism from those who feel I’m too conservative on various issues would seem to verify my characterization of my political leanings, such as they are.)
In any event (and regular readers can form their own conclusions on that not-all-that-important question), I certainly can relate to the point my reader makes. To argue with an ideologue (of either stripe, but here we’re talking about those on the right) is a good way to get a headache or to lose a good night’s sleep.
Those folks don’t give an inch, and they rarely even acknowledge the reasonableness of their opponent’s views. Emblematic of their perspective are the inflammatory books authored by the queen of far-right ideology, Ann Coulter (“Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism,” “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” “Godless: The Church of Liberalism”), who, it’s probably safe to say, never met a non-conservative whose patriotism, let alone, sanity, she trusted.
What gives with these people? Why are they so opposed to anything that smacks of a liberal political position? How can they be so dogmatic, even in the face of failed policies that embraced their professed positions (the war in Iraq and the current economic meltdown being the two most recent of a multitude of historical examples)? Why is everyone who disagrees with them either a socialist or an atheist or both?
These questions and others like them would be unworthy of consideration were it not for the fact that far-right ideologues comprise a sizeable minority of the American populace (probably somewhere between 25 and 30 percent, if polls and election results are an indication). And because of the vagaries of apportionment in our representative democracy, they also command a sizeable minority of the U.S. Congress, perhaps even more than their percentage of the total populations would otherwise suggest.
Moreover, to the extent that they are amply represented in the media (particularly on talk radio and the Fox News cable network), they tend to dominate public discussions.
This phenomenon dates back to the Reagan presidency, but it became especially prevalent during the Clinton administration, when folks like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich were ascendant, the former spewing political trash-talk that attracted a large following of otherwise casual political observers, the latter mouthing a distinctly intellectual philosophical line that appealed especially to readers of the National Review and the Wall Street Journal. Together, these two men (aided by other lesser lights) created a political orthodoxy that is very much akin to a fundamentalist’s religious beliefs.
And that point is the cause of their intransigence and dogmatism. For them, the conservative ideology is sacrosanct. It consists of a belief in “the invisible hand” of free market capitalism and the essential necessity of a faith-based society.
Stated simply, the ideology of the far right in American politics is tied irrevocably to Milton Friedman’s brand of economics and Pat Robertson’s view of God’s role in America’s destiny. (Friedman was the principal proponent of the Chicago School of economic theory; Robertson best expressed the late 20th century view of Christian-evangelical political thought.)
Chicago School economists rail against any effort to disrupt the natural flow of a wholly market-driven economy. They abhor all government intervention, be it in the form of regulation, taxation (all but the bare minimum necessary to preserve the peace and secure the nation’s safety) or government spending. They will espouse the virtues of free enterprise, even when free enterprise, given its complete freedom, crashes and burns (as the current economic meltdown evinces).
Thus they cry “socialism” in response to the Obama budget and economic recovery plan. For these ideologues, attempts to re-invigorate the economy through government intervention is viewed as blasphemy, not because it might succeed, but because it departs radically from the “invisible hand” that, for them, is sacrosanct.
Evangelical Christianity has been readily evident in American politics for at least the last 35 years, dating back to the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. That single decision essentially created the movement, marking, as it did, the intrusion (from the ideologues’ perspective) of government into the part of life that is controlled by the will of God.
The movement has expanded its horizons in the intervening years, continuing to fight for repeal of Roe, while also taking on other Biblical battles, such as the right to pray in schools, opposition to gay marriage (or any other form of government-recognition of the lawfulness of homosexuality), support for teaching creationism (or its “scientific” twin, intelligent design) as an alternative to evolution, and, most recently, adamant opposition to embryonic stem-cell research.
Obama is as good as an atheist, never mind his self-professed Christian identity, for the disciples of Pat Robertson and his ilk. Even if he claims to seek ways to reduce the number of abortions and to oppose same-sex marriage, Obama is an enemy of God’s almighty power for his support of abortion rights, civil unions and embryonic stem-cell research.
And so the portrait of the right-wing ideologue explains the frustration that is bound to result from any attempt to engage in serious debate. They can’t tolerate any thought that violates their basic beliefs, albeit those beliefs are based entirely on theoretical constructs (free markets work best; God knows best).
True believers rest their case on imponderable suppositions. For them, those suppositions are unshakeable. Hence, any effort to dissuade them with practical arguments or even with irrefutable evidence fails to move them.
They are wedded to their beliefs. They cannot deny them anymore than they can deny themselves.
Gee Ed, you can’t be talking about me. I agree with you on a lot of things, including your views on the flexibility of how people are allowed to live under our wonderful Constitution. I’m with the Founding Fathers however, who realized it wouldn’t work if the people lost their faith in God.
You’re dealing with a practicing (if I ever get it right) Roman Catholic. I’ve had my bouts with Evangelicals and fundamentalists all my life. They think my faith is from the pit of hell. A belief system that gave them the Bible as we know it, scientific method and universities as academics know it, international law as currently being worshipped by one-worlders, and a solid basis for even jellybrains to cling to. If I believed a tenth of what they say I believe, I’d have to agree with them.
I think I told you Purgatory is for them… not questioning their salvation, but God has to deal with all that “protesting!” Can’t have that past the Pearly Gates. Kind of like taking a shower before you meet your girlfriend, if I recall. (Bear with my jaded sense of humor.)
Your views on the free enterprise marketplace are interesting. Government does have a vital role in the process, but its not in telling executives and business owners how to run their operations or what to pay their help. I’m thrilled at the idea of Barney Frank picking out my next automobile, or rickshaw as the case may be. (You can have any color you want, as long as its pink.)
Christians have been slow in understanding their role as stewards of the land and resources, but they’re in the game now. Stewardship includes responsible use of what God has given us to ply, discover, use and share with the world.
Back when the Berlin Wall came down – thanks to Ron, John Paul II, Frank Fitzsimmons and Lech Walesa (Gorby got the Nobel Prize); a CNN cameraman caught a rat’s eye view of the line of 3 cylinder Loda’s waiting in line on the East Berlin side to cross into the West. They were all belching smoke that only the people’s paradise could tolerate. Lefty’s aren’t real good at stewardship, just bitching and moaning about evil Christians.
For your benefit, Imhelt and his ilk have been sure to give you ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and PBS (at my expense) to promote your views and assure a good market for wind turbines. All we hear is folks whining over FoxNews which does a pretty good job of providing opposing viewpoints without piling on 3 to 1 when a hapless conservative agrees to appear on a show. Ever watch the View? My wife punishes me with it.
There are notable exceptions as with Tim Russert and Tony Snow – gee, good Catholics like O’Reilly, Ingraham, Hannity, Kelly, Steve Ducie, Megan Kelly and Brian Kilmeed. You can have Pelosi, Kennedy(s), Dodd, Daschle and Bieden – except for entertainment value that has made Ann Coulter a bundle tweaking left-brainers and their humorless lives.
As an academic, i don’t understand why you dislike Limbaugh, except that he never went to college to get brainwashed. When my old Friend, Morton Downey Jr., who had his problems with his temper got fired from KCRA/Sacramento for calling a Chinese Station board member a “stupid chink,” the station looked for a replacement at the grand salary of $25k/year. Limbaugh took the job. He certainly got it right, coming from a family of distinguished lawyers who never understood why he loved radio until he proved himself as a dropout who loved his work.
Downey, from Hyannisport, grew up with the Kennedy’s and was part of the JFK transition team. He became staunchly pro-life when Jimmy Carter wouldn’t take a stand against abortion. He had a homosexual brother. Their Dad (the great Irish tenor) often beat him in a drunken rage. Sean (his real name) took a few beatings defending him and even had him on his combat TV show.
After two generations of outcome-based education, the concept of the United States of America being a Republic has given way to the common perception that it is a democracy. We have been paying the price since children are no longer taught basic economics, the difference between capitalism and socialism, sound moral values, competition with the possibility of failure and the consequences of bad behavior.
As problems arise, the natural tendency of people in a democratic society is to look to the state and central governments, rather than local or free market solutions. The worse the problem becomes, the more its solutions are centralized. The more they are centralized, the worse they get, until the system collapses into despotism. Today, the process has become a worldwide phenomenon.
The things the government should have supremacy and competence in are:
1. Laws based on a firm foundation such as the Constitution with unchanging moral bases.
2. Infrastructure such as highways, electrical, gas, sewer and water utilities, well regulated and coordinated whether privately or publicly managed.
3. Honest monetary system based on money created against value not borrowed into existence.
4. Common defense, recognizing there will always be “wars and rumors of wars” until the end of the age and emergencies from various natural and manmade disasters.This includes the right of citizens to arm and defend themselves – a solid Christian concept… Jesus was quoted twice in the Gospels.
There are three areas where government has little or no competence save for short term emergency involvement:
1. Health – Technological advances have more than kept up with government interference in the medical field. The ominous presence of trial lawyers has greatly escalated medical costs. This is passed on to the clientele, mainly insurance costs, private or welfare. Government intrudes and the care for the poor and indigent is taken from the normal church/community responsibility to the far more costly, wasteful and uncompassionate hand of bureaucracy.
2. Education is the responsibility of the family first and the community. It’s understandable that a state would want involvement to assure equal opportunity for all children. When the federal government started putting its heavy hand on the helm, it was inevitable that special interests, especially teachers’ unions would create a totalitarian power base resulting in the dumbing-down of nearly 3 generations of youth who have been taught to almost hate capitalism, the founding and basic elements that made the nation successful while wiping out the moral basis that James Madison said was the only way a republic could survive. Now we can have a democracy of the insatiable mob.
3. Welfare has overshadowed personal responsibility and the basic human drive to succeed and protect its property. The new administration is now moving to remove tax deductibility of charitable donations, the life blood of community outreach and involvement. They believe government should provide all the needed human services, including raising children, by taxing the generous and starving the charities and churches. The welfare industry has destroyed more lives than it has ever helped.
With the morphing of the Republic into a democracy these areas of public contact are necessary for government to “help” the poor and “the children.” Yet, all the great hospitals, schools, orphanages and homes for the aged were initiated by religious organizations, or individuals driven by a desire to serve God by helping others. This includes the great foundations such as Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, W. K. Kellogg, deRance and literally thousands of others.
We may question why being a Republic is so important, but it comes down to priorities and personal responsibility. As a democracy becomes more and more centralized, priorities switch from personal responsibility to the state providing for every need.
The American economy really took off after World War II, when the Eisenhower Administration launched the “National Defense Highway Act.” This became the Interstate Highway system which made the free flow of goods and personal travel both economical and fast. With an efficient power grid, clean water and modern means of waste disposal, recovery and recycling, a free enterprise system has the basics on which to succeed.
Yes, government does have a role in a free enterprise society. But, as Rudy Giuliani noted yesterday when reminded of how his administration cleaned up NYC, said Obama is going about the recovery process in exactly the opposite direction.
That’s a problem for all of us.
Having been to the left of the spectrum my entire life, I can easily see your point where the far right hold immutable beliefs and I spent much time dismissing them just because I perceived them as so rigid. As I spent more time listening and talking to the “dark side” for ammunition to support my position, I found myself moving all over the place. My friends to the right still thought I was a pinko-Commie and my left friends started thinking I had lost my way when I stopped just nodding along.
While befriending both camps, I learned that both are entrenched and each thinks the other side is nuts. I saw clear ugly from Democrats and Republicans during the Primaries and that really shifted my core. I lost my identity as “one of the good guys.”
During the last few years, I picked up on the beating drums of “talking points” from both sides and that really scares me. I am scared by the mere passing of political talking points because it tells me too many people just “Bah” along. I am just going to hover down the middle and pick and choose the best from each side.
I agree with Kelly. The last elections certainly exposed more than ugly actions on both sides.
It became nauseating towards the end, with such ”below the belt” cruelty on both sides. It was sad to see the Democratic process reduced to such immaturity, and cut throat tactics.
Choosing our leaders should not be a choice between hardcore (fill in your party choice) thinking or lemming behaviour based on (fill in your past party choices) what our grandparents traditionally stood for.
If you dare to suggest a universal health plan, you are immediately labelled a socialist, with strong witchcraft brewing tendencies to communism and should be burned at the stake.
Sign me, still waiting and watching…