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]
Yes, a number of the MM/Christian Right are isolationist, which I
mentioned.  However, Reagan and his crowd were strong supporters
of, and strongly supported by, the MM/Christian Right, which
vastly outpaced any isolationist tendencies.

Second, and this does resurect the earlier discussion not posted,
I never mentioned "scientifically rational behavior" but rather,
mentioned "rational" behavior.  The analysis of rational behavior
hinges, in part in this case, on scientific analysis of
oppression, e.g. as done by Marxists, W-S, etc..  Behavior can be
said to be rational when opposed to oppression that is discoverd
scientifically, and irrational when not, regardless of whether or
not the means of collective mobilization involve idea systems
which are not scientific, e.g. religion, nationalism, etc.
Hence, fundamentalists opposed to oppression are behaving more
rational than the fundamendalists who support the oppression.


> 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.

[elson]
Our discussion was about the MM and fundamentalist christian
right.  YOur examples were of Pete Wilson and Pat.  I'm pointing
out that those examples are off the mark: not related to the
discussion.

> (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] Sure he is, and hence I didn't disagree with your raising
him as an example.

> 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]  Well here we disagree.  Not a temporary setback in my
view.  The revolution utterly collapsed.  Nearly all their aims
failed: school prayer, pro-choice, family values (marriage is at
an all time historic low).  The real ongoing problem is,
obviously, the rightwing/world bourgeoise.

> 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.
> >
>
>
> [beaty] 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.

Clinton's impeachment is an incident that occurred AFTER the fall
from grace of the religious fundamentalist right movement, if not
also the coming to power throughout the Europe of the moderate
left, Germany, France, GB, in particular.  It is Clinton's
election which, at the very latest, marks the end of the
movement.  As for Christian fundamentalist on campus, so what?
That's no indication of the strength, or rather, lack thereof, of
the movement on a national/world scale.