Re: ANYT THOUGHTS ON AMERICAN PBS SERIES

At 04:34 PM 7/1/99 -0700, Elson wrote, responding to me:

>> Well, the religious right in the U.S. may have more in common
>> with the Iranian fundamentalists than you think. At least
>> factions of the religious right mistrust globalization of the
>> world economy in much the same way as the Iranian
>fundamentalists
>> opposed U.S. "imperialism."
>
>What they don'have in common is the most important issue: the US
>MM are among the oppressors, the Islamic Fundamentalist movement
>is a reaction by the oppressed against the US.  This doesn't mean
>that progessives support fundamentalism, obviously not.  But it
>does mean we see the difference between wholy irrational (because
>exploitative) religious-based collective action and less
>irrational (because struggling against oppression)
>religious-based collective action.
>


I dunno--I think the religious right (a coalition not limited to the Moral
Majority organization BTW), whether correctly or incorrectly, sees its
members as being deprived of their religious rights.  In this sense, it
sees itself as representing an "oppressed" group.  Furthermore, and without
data on the subject ready at hand, it isn't clear to me that the religious
right's grassroots voters come from the same social strata as the
capitalist "oppressers" I assume you are referring to above.  In fact, many
of the voters who buy Christian right arguments are working class (e.g.,
so-called "Reagan Democrats").  Generally, I daresay, they are at best
petit bourgeoisie (e.g., indebted farmers persuaded by the sorts of
quasi-fascistic arguments from Robertson that I mentioned in my previous
post).    Many of these people have been experiencing relative deprivation
during the last two decades because increasing inequality and because of
the farm debt crisis of the mid-1980s, now succeeded by the collapse of
commodity crises.  Finally, the people who compose at least some factions
of the religious right can hardly be considered foursquare behind an
activist U.S. policy overseas (I assume that's one of the connotations that
"imperialism" has for you).  These factions have historical linkages to
U.S. isolationists of the 1920s and 1930s.  Since the end of the Cold War,
their isolationism has reasserted itself--Pat Buchanan opposed the Gulf War
and was a critic of the bombing of Yugoslavia.

Without resurrecting an argument that you've already had with Richard
Hutchinson, I should note that your notion of "scientifically rational"
behavior, while comprehensible within a world-system framework, is not one
that I share.  It sounds like "scientifically rational" behavior is
behavior that is palatable to you politically and nothing more.


Elson continues:

>You points are off the mark.  Neither Pat Buchanan nor Pete
>Wilson are members of the Moral Majority or fundamentalist
>christians.  

(A).  I never said Pete Wilson was a Moral Majority member or a
fundamentalist.  I referred to him as a person widely considered to be a
member of the Republican "moderate" wing, although I consider that in
other, more enlightened eras, he would have been considered pretty darn
conservative on immigration and race.

(B).  Pat Robertson is definitely affiliated with the religious right.  Not
only has he attempted to appeal to it in his presidential campaigns
(campaign number three is on the way--oh, joy!  I'm stocking up on barf
bags already!), but it was none other than ol' Patsie who gave the infamous
speech at the 1992 Republican convention declaring the religious right's
"war for America's soul".  

Elson goes on:

The latter failed because they have utterly lost the
>momentum that they had in the '80s.  In fact, many of the Moral
>Majority leaders have explicitly acknowledged this.  As for the
>strength of the right wing, this is an entirely different issue.
>

As I said, they've had a temporary setback.  Nevertheless, I don't think
the fiend is dead, but sleeping.  I hope the sleep is a long one.

Elson continues:

>> Furthermore, I do not necessarily accept Elson's argument that
>> the religious right has not appealed to the post-1960s
>> generations.
>
>My fault: I left out the qualifier "most" in front of "post-1960s
>generations" (though did insert it in front of "pre 60s
>generations."
>
>Beyond that, it is, I point out again, an error to equate the
>right wing with christian fundamentalism, as you do below again.
>


I'm afraid I don't see your point in raising this issue.  I believe I
simply pointed out (a). One consequence of the failure of the religious
right and its allies (to the latter of whom I didn't specifically refer) to
secure Mr. Clinton's impeachment is, for now, a strengthening of the hand
of moderates in the presidential politics of 2000; and (b). that Christian
fundamentalist organizations on campus, although not necessarily political
themselves, sometimes attract conservative individuals, and thus serve as
means of transmitting right-wing religious propaganda (which I meant to
connote political as well as more specifically religious views).  

It is, of course, true that not all Christian fundamentalists are
politically conservative--I don't believe I said anything to the contrary.
There is, for example, a fundamentalist organization called the Soujourners
which has relatively liberal political views.  And, of course, many
Baptists are political liberals.

--
Jeffrey L. Beatty
Doctoral Student
Department of Political Science
The Ohio State University
2140 Derby Hall
154 North Oval Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210

(o) 614/292-2880
(h) 614/688-0567
Email:  Beatty.4@osu.edu
_________________________________________
Only between equals can there be justice.
                     The Melian Dialogue