January 2012 – Page 6 – Sheila Kennedy

The Puritans versus the Modernists–Now in Technicolor

In his column in this morning’s Star, E.J. Dionne made the observation that Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman represent the two strands of Republicanism currently at war with each other. Santorum represents the social conservatives and Huntsman the economic conservatives–or, as Dionne puts it–the “modernists.” (No one knows what Romney represents–he’s pandered so long and hard I doubt if he still knows.)

Back in 2007, I wrote a book called God and Country: America in Red and Blue, in which I examined the religious roots of public policy disputes and posited that a significant number of our most intractable debates can be explained by precisely this conflict between those I dubbed “modernists” and those I called “Puritans.” These differences are so intractable because they are cultural, not doctrinal–deeply embedded and wildly different views of reality rather than matters of dogma.

My research suggested that these differences are far more profound than we usually recognize, and they affect not just the political issues with visibly religious dimensions like abortion, gay rights, or the death penalty. Puritans and Modernists have utterly incompatible world views; they occupy starkly different realities. Those differences manifest themselves in (no pun intended) fundamentally different approaches to such ostensibly secular matters as economic policy, foreign policy, the environment and criminal justice.

Our contemporary Puritans are throwbacks to the early American settlers who came to these shores for a version of liberty that most of us would not recognize. The folks who braved the trip across the Atlantic came for the religious “liberty” to impose the correct religion on their neighbors. The notion that each of us should have the right to believe as we wished was utterly foreign to them. It would be another 150 years until the intellectual ferment of the Enlightenment would change our understanding of liberty to a more “live and let live” construction and would introduce mankind to the scientific method.

Most of us today live in a post-Enlightenment culture. We accept and value science. We understand liberty to mean our right to live our lives free of government control so long as we are not harming others, and so long as we respect the right of other people to do likewise. But there has been a persistent minority who never accepted these Enlightenment values, and they are represented by religious fundamentalists like Bachmann and Santorum who use the word “freedom” in the older, Puritan sense of “freedom to do the right thing”–and who believe it is government’s job to tell us what the “right thing” is.

(Interestingly, they never seem to doubt that they know precisely what God wants–that, as a friend once put it, God hates the same people they do. But that’s a phenomenon for a different post.)

Most religious folks, including most Evangelical Christians, have accepted modernity. They aren’t at war with science, and they are willing to argue for their vision of morality in a diverse and expanding marketplace of ideas. If the Republican party continues to embrace the Puritan worldview, if it becomes the party of the Santorums and Bachmanns, it will accelerate a process of marginalization that has already led so many of us to abandon the party.

And that’s not good for America.

Comments

The Power of Framing

During one hour of television tonight, I heard four repetitions of an ad in which Mitch Daniels explains that “this one simple law”–the deceptively named Right to Work law–will bring jobs to Indiana, and keep people from being forced to pay union dues. It was extremely well done. Once during that hour, I saw a much less persuasive ad calling Right to Work an “attack on working people.” Daniels had specific points to make; the opposing ad simply claimed the bill would be bad for workers. Advantage: Daniels.

Unfortunately for the policy process, Daniels’ specific points were simply untrue. The union ad would have been considerably more effective had it pointed that out.

Let’s begin with the way the administration is framing this issue. People shouldn’t be “forced” to pay “dues or fees” as a condition of employment. Put that way, it seems like a very reasonable position. But let’s ask a slightly different–and arguably more accurate–question: should some people be forced to provide services to their co-workers for free?

Let’s try an analogy: Let’s say you are a dues-paying member of a social club, and a guy you know says he want to come to the parties and enjoy the refreshments, but he doesn’t want to join the club. Fine, you say, just pay for your food and drink. But the visitor doesn’t even want to do that–indeed, he is highly offended by the suggestion.

That’s what Right to Work is really about–letting some folks “mooch” off the efforts of others.

Under current labor laws, no one has to join a union. But if you go to work in a union shop, you are required to pay your fair share of the costs of negotiation–your share of the amount paid to the people who represent you in dealings with management. You are required to pay for a benefit you receive. That’s it.

A lot of claims are being made by those who want to see this law passed, and most of them are either blatantly untrue or incredibly misleading. For example, the National Right to Work Committee has issued a “Fact Sheet” claiming–among other things–that job growth in Indiana was slower than the average job growth of Midwest states with Right to Work laws. Daniels echoes that assertion in his TV ad– but the claim is “true” only because one of those states is North Dakota, where oil fields were recently discovered, leading to a huge boom. If you exclude North Dakota, the remaining Right to Work States averaged a net job loss. Similarly, the Committee lauds Texas, a Right to Work state, for its job creation during the past decade–without bothering to mention that Texas’ job growth was all in the public sector, and entirely due to the growth of government–Texas private sector actually lost jobs during the past decade.

Other claims were similarly misleading. Independent research–as I noted in a previous post--finds absolutely no relationship between job creation and Right to Work laws, either positive or negative. The only documented effect of such laws is to weaken unions and reduce wages for both union and non-union workers.

So–one might ask–why is the Governor so determined to enact this legislation that he is willing to spend a fortune airing highly misleading TV ads? Why is he so intent upon ramming this through that he was willing to impose “safety” regulations that would keep union members from filling the Statehouse, until the public outcry made him rethink that tactic? The only reason I can think of is because such laws hurt unions, and unions generally support Democrats. It’s purely political.

But you’ve got to give Daniels and the Republicans credit: they are one hell of a lot better at framing this issue than the Democrats are in explaining it.

Comments

Out of Iowa

At least the Iowa caucuses are over.

The attention Iowa gets has long been a mystery to me. Sure, they’re first, but it would be hard to imagine an electorate less representative of America as a whole than this rural, virtually all-white state. And history confirms that Iowa’s choice of nominee (except when that choice was an incumbent) has rarely been predictive, rarely won the nomination.

I guess it’s sort of like reading the entrails of a small animal and looking for omens.

So–what did the omens tell us? Well, Pander Bear eked out an 8 vote victory over Vengeful God Theocrat. At Least I’m Authentic came in third.

Meanwhile, Marlboro Man learned that old, valuable lesson: better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. He and Crazy Eyes Lady finished at the bottom of the pack.

On to New Hampshire.

Comments

I Guess Their Safety Doesn’t Count…

According to this morning’s Indianapolis Star,

“A prayer group is getting special access to the Statehouse for the opening day of the 2012 session.

People attending Capitol Commission Indiana’s prayer day at the Statehouse can show a copy of an email message to skirt an expected large crowd of union members protesting the so-called “right to work” legislation on opening day Wednesday. News of the waivers emerged after state safety officials set a 3,000-person limit on the number of people in the Statehouse at one time.

Capitol Commission State Director Matt Barnes said Monday that his group isn’t getting special treatment, noting that anyone attending a scheduled Statehouse event can use a special entrance.”

So–let me see if I understand this. The reason the limit was imposed was concern for the safety of citizens who were coming to the Statehouse (formerly known as the “people’s house”). But as we learned a couple of days ago, the safety of lobbyists with special passes isn’t a concern. Okay–I can understand why the administration might not care about the well-being of lobbyists (although, if the lobbyists are injured, who will pay the tab at St. Elmos??) But religious folks who are coming to pray? Their safety isn’t important?

I’ve frequently used this blog to advocate for greater government transparency, but someone should tell Bosma and Daniels–I didn’t mean “transparently dishonest.”

Comments

Persistent Paranoia

Our daughter called me the other day, horrified. She’d somehow gotten on the mailing list of one of the crazy organizations that seem to thrive in our country–a group called “Freedom Watch,” headed by one “Larry Klayman, Attorney.” The letter was, as she said, vile; among other things in its overheated diatribe, it accused President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton–“the mullah-in-chief” and the “corrupt communist”–of treason.

Most sane citizens, whether they agree with this administration’s policies or not, find such paranoid rantings incomprehensible. But there have always been fringe groups of mentally unhinged folks who project their own frustrations onto the Presidency. FDR was accused of having foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor and allowing it to happen as part of a plot to lead America into war. The notorious hater Father Coughlin accused him of being in league with “the Jews and communists.”

As one historian has noted, this paranoia came from both ends of the political spectrum: “The Communist leader Earl Browder said that FDR was “carrying out more thoroughly and brutally than even Hoover the capitalist attack against the masses,” and the domestic fascist William Dudley Pelley called the President the “lowest form of human worm – according to Gentile standards.” One critic accused him of “blathering platitudes like a parson on vacation.” and another wrote to him savagely, “If you were a good honest man, Jesus Christ would not have crippled you.” It was in a formal address to the Chicago Bar Association, not in a harangue to an extremist rally, that a United States Senator from Minnesota did not hesitate to liken Roosevelt to the beast of the Apocalypse,” “who set his slimy mark on everything.””

Harry Truman was accused of employing a top Nazi from the Hitler regime as a covert advisor–not to mention his purported role in directing the cover-up of the crash of a UFO in Roswell, N.M. The John Birch Society insisted it had proof that Dwight Eisenhower was a member of the communist party. George H.W. Bush was accused of being a member of a “Trilateral Commission” that was widely believed to be intent upon one-world government and an assault on American sovereignty.

In the rant from Freedom Watch, such paranoia is on flamboyant parade–complete with accusations of “death panels,” “planting Marxists throughout government” and “canceling the National Day of Prayer in favor of Ramadan” among others. Klayman says that Obama “manipulated a deep economic depression” in order to fool Americans into voting for him. And he assures readers that he is working with Tea Party members of Congress–Michelle Bachmann, Allen West and Steve King are named–to submit articles of Impeachment against the President he calls a “treasonous tyrant.”

A quick Google check for “Larry Klayman” brought up a legal decision disciplining him for violation of the canons of ethics, and a report that the status of his law license in Pennsylvania was “on suspension,” as well as information about an earlier organization called “Judicial Watch” and assorted charges and countercharges between him and other fringe characters.

What do we make of this strand of unhinged hysteria in our body politic?

On the one hand, as even a superficial stroll down history lane attests, America has always had a generous portion of “the crazy.” On the other hand, it only takes a few of these demented souls to disrupt public meetings, intimidate lawmakers, mislead well-meaning but uniformed folks, or even trigger assassination attempts.

In a free country, even the most delusional citizens have the right to spew their venom. But it might be a good idea to put more resources into mental health services.

Comments