In a typically disingenuous, but extremely revealing, editorial last week, James Taranto confirmed my theory about his support for the Christian right: he sees them as little more than a political utility to the top-heavy, pro-big business wing of the Republican party which he represents. Indeed, while Bush's most controversial judicial picks espouse all kinds of obscurantist views on social issues, they are also tools of the National Association of Manufacturers who will eliminate any regulations they can. Taranto is really interested in the "business friendly" aspect of Bush's judges, however, by defending a group of supposedly persecuted Christians, he can preach from the moral high ground. Check it out:
I am not a Christian, or even a religious believer, and my opinions on social issues are decidedly middle-of-the-road. So why do I find myself rooting for the "religious right"? I suppose it is because I am put off by self-righteousness, closed-mindedness, and contempt for democracy and pluralism--all of which characterize the opposition to the religious right....
In the past three elections, the religious right has helped to elect a conservative Republican president and a bigger, and increasingly conservative, Republican Senate majority. This should make it possible to move the courts in a conservative direction. But Senate Democrats, taking their cue from liberal interest groups, have responded by subverting the democratic process, using the filibuster to impose an unprecedented supermajority requirement on the confirmation of judges.
Translation: "I am not religious, but those folks who call themselves the religious right got a bunch of Republicans elected. And I sure am Republican. Back in Goldwater's day, all we had we're rich geezers and conspiratorial Birchers. But thanks to abortion and homo-hate, we've got working people on our side. Thank you, Jesus!"
Taranto goes on to cite my article in the Nation over a week ago in an attempt to debunk the notion that the Christian right has theocratic intentions:
Last week an article in The Nation, a left-wing weekly, described the motley collection of religious figures who gathered for Justice Sunday. A black minister stood next to a preacher with a six-degrees-of-separation connection to the Ku Klux Klan. A Catholic shared the stage with a Baptist theologian who had described Roman Catholicism as "a false church."
These folks may not be your cup of tea, but this was a highly ecumenical group, united on some issues of morality and politics but deeply divided on matters of faith. The thought that they could ever agree enough to impose a theocracy is laughable.
As a testament to Taranto's willful ignorance about the Christian right, he refers to career politician and current Family Research Council president Tony Perkins as a "preacher." That's about as accurate as calling him a used car salesman. Taranto also brushes off the fact that Perkins's signature is on the $82,500 check that purchased David Duke's phone bank list. Six degrees?
And I fail to see how the Christian right's inherent contradictions prove it's not a theocratic movement. Once again, I'll point Taranto to the Moral Majority's founding document:
There is no false unity based on papering over doctrinal differences.... Our very right to worship as we choose, to bring up families in some kind of moral order, to educate our children free from the interference of the state, to follow the commands of Holy Scripture and the church is at stake. These leaders have concluded that it is better to argue about denominational differences at another time. Right now, it is the agenda of those opposed to the Scriptures and the church which has brought us together.
As I said yesterday, true conservatives (if there are any left) ignore the Christian right's theocratic intentions at their own peril.