Good fucking God (no pun intended version)
I rarely read anything anymore that really, truly surprises me. But this, via Kevin Drum, manages it.
Actually, what's shocking about Kevin's post isn't the information that Americans distrust athiests (I expect the respondants imagine an athiest as someone who spits on the Bible in public and stuff like that, not somebody who just quietly doesn't believe or is agnostic or "non-religious"), it's this bit of political history from 1987:
Robert Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
George H.W. Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
Wow. The stupidity, not to mention pure cynicism, of that exchange is just staggering. It's also a useful reminder to naifs like me, who sometimes look back in wonder at the pure distain Poppy Bush once evoked from liberals (from TNR's endorsement of Dukakis in 1988: "That this mediocre man [Bush] and his sub-mediocre running mate stand poised to become president and vice president of the United States is a sad comment on America's decadent political culture") that the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree. Actually, it's sort of interesting that outright athiest-baiting seems to have been dropped from the lexicon of "compassionate conservatism" -- Massachusetts-bashing, sure, but not athiest-bashing. Also that Dick Cheney seems to be an aberation in the modern Republican cycle of the vice president as small-man moral scold to the big man strong leader president (Bush to Reagan; Quayle to Bush.) If anything, it's the opposite with Bush and Cheney (i.e. big man kowtows to small man to prove small man's inner bigness).
I wonder though: could a mainstream Republican get away with those remarks today, even in light of the numbers reported in the University of Michigan survey? The thing is, Poppy Bush was almost certainly just pandering a la Dubya and the Federal Marriage Amendment. But Brownback and probably George Allen surely believe those words in the core of their souls. So will we get to find out in the 2008 GOP primary? Or would Lee Atwater's ghost advise his clients to keep their traps shut (and would they listen)? That might tell us something about "tolerance".
Actually, what's shocking about Kevin's post isn't the information that Americans distrust athiests (I expect the respondants imagine an athiest as someone who spits on the Bible in public and stuff like that, not somebody who just quietly doesn't believe or is agnostic or "non-religious"), it's this bit of political history from 1987:
Robert Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
George H.W. Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
Wow. The stupidity, not to mention pure cynicism, of that exchange is just staggering. It's also a useful reminder to naifs like me, who sometimes look back in wonder at the pure distain Poppy Bush once evoked from liberals (from TNR's endorsement of Dukakis in 1988: "That this mediocre man [Bush] and his sub-mediocre running mate stand poised to become president and vice president of the United States is a sad comment on America's decadent political culture") that the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree. Actually, it's sort of interesting that outright athiest-baiting seems to have been dropped from the lexicon of "compassionate conservatism" -- Massachusetts-bashing, sure, but not athiest-bashing. Also that Dick Cheney seems to be an aberation in the modern Republican cycle of the vice president as small-man moral scold to the big man strong leader president (Bush to Reagan; Quayle to Bush.) If anything, it's the opposite with Bush and Cheney (i.e. big man kowtows to small man to prove small man's inner bigness).
I wonder though: could a mainstream Republican get away with those remarks today, even in light of the numbers reported in the University of Michigan survey? The thing is, Poppy Bush was almost certainly just pandering a la Dubya and the Federal Marriage Amendment. But Brownback and probably George Allen surely believe those words in the core of their souls. So will we get to find out in the 2008 GOP primary? Or would Lee Atwater's ghost advise his clients to keep their traps shut (and would they listen)? That might tell us something about "tolerance".
2 Comments:
As a resident of the deep, deep Bible Belt, I can speak to some of your questions. (And please don't kill the messenger; I'm just describing reality, I didn't create it.)
Most of the people I know believe that there is no morality or ethical behavior apart from religion, and Christianity specifically. They believe that without the threat of eternal punishment in the hereafter, the average person will be completely depraved. Thus, an atheist is (in their worldview) not a trustworthy person by definition.
Atwater ran a winning (albeit evil) campaign for Poppy using the cultural wedges of the time and pummelling a lame Dukakis. So-called hot button issues work very well among many of the blue-collar people of small-town USA. Before you insult those people, consider this: they are correct that the national government will not create jobs or 'fix' the economy, but that it does have the power to prohibit a lot of behavior they disagree with. They are intolerant, not stupid.
As for 2008, the candidates of both parties will themselves talk like the cultured, polished elites that they are. The pandering to the base by the GOP will mostly be done by their underlings, who will go far and wide to assure the right wing that their man is really one of them, but obviously can't say so out loud because of the evil MSM. The Dem candidates will keep mum and hope they can pull a few of the bigots' votes on other issues.
Fact is, the political math is brutal for very small minorities, be they atheist or gay or other. They are few and they already vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats, while the votes that would be lost over a vocal, principled stand outnumber by far any to be gained thereby. Thus, the Dems have every incentive to try to finesse the matter while campaigning and then ignoring these people in office. The same numbers work to push the Republicans into increasingly hostile stands toward them. I see no solution, but believe that intolerance is on the rise here and that things will get uglier.
Great comment, nightshift.
Post a Comment
<< Home