Republican Gomorrah: Deconstructing the Radical Right

My copy of Max Blumenthal's new book, Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party , arrived Friday. It's an expose of the Radical Right -- detailing how the fundamentalist Christian movement infiltrated the Republican party, transformed it, and now dominates it.

Max spends a lot of time on James Dobson and Sarah Palin. But there are others too, from Tom DeLay to GW Bush, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig and Newt Gingrich. He explains how the leaders of the radical right "use authoritarian religion to excuse their personal hypocrisies." Max presents Sarah Palin not as a fringe player, but as one who represents the core of the GOP.


Max writes that he was inspired by the work of psychologist Erich Fromm who analyzed "how the fear of freedom propels anxiety-ridden people into authoritarian settings." Max explains how "a culture of personal crisis has come to define the radical right."

Another fascinating read on the topic of radical mass movements is Eric Hoffer'sThe True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (Perennial Classic.) , that I read in college and re-purchased a few years ago. (I also remember reading Fromm's The Art of Loving in those years.) Max mentioned Hoffer's book a few days ago in this New York Times op-ed and in this interview, talking about how President Eisenhower recommended it. Max says:

And the central thesis of Hoffer’s book, The True Believer, is that faith in a holy cause is really a substitute for lost faith in ourselves. And that’s sort of the thesis of my book and how -- and what I’ve discovered from the true believers of the Republican Party that I’ve been around for the past six years.

I wonder what Fromm and Hoffer thought of each other's work. Fromm was an educated student of Freud and Hoffer was a longshoreman turned self-taught philosopher. They were just a few years apart in age. Here are some Hoffer quotes and here are some Fromm quotes.

The Daily Beast has this excerpt from Max's book on Palin. It's an expose of her and her frighteningly radical, Pentecostal mega-church, Wasilla Assembly of God.

[One last note: I don't use the term "Christian Right" or "Conservative Christians" because those terms imbue them with legitimacy and mask that they are radical extremists and there is very little that is truly Christian about them or what they preach. Thus, I only refer to them as "radical right" or "extreme fundamentalists." ]

David Neiwert has an excellent review of Max' book over at Crooks and Liars.

Max's book is destined to be a seminal work on the rise of the radical right. I hope everyone reads it. We need to marginalize them and keep them from becoming any more dominant in our political future.

< What Are We Fighting For? | Van Jones : Prey of the Radical Right >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:51:15 PM EST
    I'm only going to say that I am totally on board with a woman who increased funding for Head Start as well as increased money for low income health care at a time when even Democrats are cutting being mainstream GOP.

    I disagree with Feminists for Life the group she is a part of on choice but I won't call them hypocrites. They were instrumental on the fight to get the Domestic Violence Act passed as well as the bill that went after deadbeat dads. I admired their bill that would have provided a safety net for young women who found themselves pregnant in college. (pparently, you can be a feminist and conservative, who knew? ;))

    What Sarah did in Alaska in regards to oil was pretty much what Dems were seeking to do. I even remember a debate moment where that was pointed out.

    All in all if people want to demonize her, you won't see me on board. Disagree with her? Sure. I even criticized her a bit for her hyperbole on death panels(although I'm not hypocritical enough to pretend our side doesn't do our own share of hyperbole). Is she hyperpartisan? I wouldn't agree. A hyperpartisan would have sent her two pro choice justice choices back and used it as an opportunity to rail. A hyperpartisan wouldn't have vetoed a bill discriminating against same sex marriage on the grounds of constitutionality. I don't see that.

    I'm all for her being the new improved face of the GOP brand and she's a huge improvement over someone like Jindal.

    For me this is all about moving the paradigm left(and that would mean moving the GOP back to a less extreme more socially liberal position)I'm no longer a party faithful member.

    You can remove this post if you think it doesn't pass the boundary test because I realize site strategy is to "push" the Democratic party left.

    Palin is a fraud and a clown (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by scribe on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 03:33:00 PM EST
    and only got the nomination because she was (a) reliable when it came to spouting the Rethug line  (it's all she knows) and (b) is - strike that: was - a piece of a*s who got Bill Kristol's d*ck out of suspended animation.

    To you (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:25:42 PM EST
    but I think an important point that Jeralyn makes, as does the post to which you reply in a different way, is that to dismiss the opposition is not the way to figure out how to effectively oppose them.

    For me, books such as this are a means to expand my understanding, not just reaffirm it.  And I haven't been converted by books by and about the right yet.


    You have to make me bite my tongue ;P (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:56:09 PM EST
    arrrrrgh it's killing me not pursue this line further.

    I like Jeralyn. I admire her accomplishments. I even agree with her quite a bit from a political standpoint. That being said.........I disagree with her philosophically on HOW to get what we need to accomplish.

    THIS is where I'd love to see a real debate on strategy.

    Off to shop and get stitches for my tongue lacerations. :)


    I agree, and if I can figure out (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 05:11:08 PM EST
    what social dynamics are leading to the current lunacy, then I have a chance at addressing the root causes.  I don't want anyone to feel so disenfrachised in my nation and so distrustful and vindictive that Jim Jones or Glenn Beck starts looking good to anyone.

    Avoiding right wing populism is important (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by lambert on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:21:00 PM EST
    Somerby summarizes the two essential right wing talking points like this, and I think there's a lot to be said for what he says:

    1. Big government never did anything right.

    2. Liberal elites think they're better than you are.

    It's unfortunate that "progressive" attacks on Palin last year dovetail so neatly with right wing talking point #2.

    NOTE For the record, I tried to do what this book claims to do (haven't read it) but couldn't get enough traction...


    It is way of viewing (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:39:15 PM EST
    my society problems and solutions that I'm literally addicted to using first.  And I have not run across anything so far that explains the psychology of the Christian Right and what continues to feed it.  It is hard for me to quit looking and it seems that Dan Savage is getting closer to something but I'm not sure what.  But I acknowledge that Somerby keys in on two held beliefs that as long as I'm refuting those two beliefs, nullifies all of their crazy arguments right now.  And when Obama bails out Wall Street and nobody else, he just fed that "liberal elites" think they are better than you monster.  And when Bill Maher snorts too much coke before air time and waves his finger in the air declaring that he expects Obama to act like that liberal elite that Bill intended on him being....yeah, that helps :)

    point one is wrong (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:07:52 AM EST
    but point two is correct unfortunately as was proven over and over again last year.
    When I was told over and over that I was an uneducated bitter sexually repressed gun loving religion clinging Appalachian lesbian for supporting Hillary, I finally understood it all.  There really is a large elitist bent in the democratic party that thinks anyone who is not a democrat is stupid and voting against their own interests.  Most of my friends assumed that the only reason to dislike Obama was because you were racist.
    What this group doesn't understand is that the majority of democrats who actually realize they are working class (unlike the "creative class" bloggers who are fooling themselves) are exactly the kind of people they despise and put down.

    I have been trying to (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 06:49:59 PM EST
    figure out how to stop these bullies.  It's sad.  In many schools today we do a program called "Bully Proofing Schools."    Yet in our predominantly conservative district, in this area where for years Dobson and friends have tried to bully teachers, the parents of these kids go to "tea bag" parties, bring their guns, and shout down anyone who does not think like them.  

    Years and years ago when I was on a picket line, I cannot tell you how many times cars drove by, screamed obscenities at me, told me what to do with the sign.

    These parents have come into my classroom and tried to intimidate me into teaching "creationism" along side evolution. I did not, I would not.
    One is religion; one is science.
    I have been shouted out and told by a parent whose child I caught copying from another student (she had the kid's paper on her desk...copying it) that her child is a "Christian" and does not lie or cheat.  

    The right wing, including many fans of Sarah Palin, are bullies...obnoxious, ignorant bullies.
    They get television shows on which they can use their bullying skills.   And radio shows.  Rush is not an entertainer.  He's an overgrown bully who probably loves it because he was always the kid other kids made fun of and now it's payback.

    I am so frustrated I could scream. I am substituting on Tues, Wed, and Thurs and the gal who I am subbing for gave me a heads up about Tues and the possibility of some angry parents.

    I am simply stunned at how far backward the right is dragging so many.


    I've witnessed some things (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:11:10 PM EST
    but was never directly in the line of fire between them and being strong armed to teach their children myths and fables in place of science.  I'm sorry you've been on the front lines and I do not doubt for a minute what you have been dealing with in Colorado Springs.  I still don't understand how such craziness can take over the place of my birth.  And I had hoped that in the past four years maybe it had toned down just a little.  Doesn't look like it though.

    I just gave you a 1 rating (none / 0) (#68)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:58:15 AM EST
    I will change it to a five if you can tell me why what you just posted was sexist.

    won't remove it but (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 03:27:01 PM EST
    you are limited in the number of times you may express this particular opinion, per the comment rules.

    No problem (none / 0) (#24)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 03:43:50 PM EST
    That's why I put the statement in there.

    I recognize that we don't share the same big picture.

    Here's to working together on policies such as health care in the interim.


    I don't see how supporting (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 06:40:36 PM EST
    a wingnut like Palin who is adored here in the shadow of Focus on the Family helps.  Sorry, the women is the face of hypocrisy and hurting other women.

    Isn't it only right (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by robert72 on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:53:58 PM EST
    (and Christian :0)) to judge people on what they do rather than on what other people say about them?
    Palin acted quite centerist as Gov. of Alaska. Funds for health care for children, educational opportunities, vetoing the anti-gay bill, putting a pro-choice woman on the SC, getting the oil companies to share profits with citizens, cleaning up the Republican corruption. Maybe she even acted rather leftist!
    The dems sent a hundred reporters to Alaska to find out nasty things about her. They tried to say she wouldn't pay for rape kits or tried to ban books - but she had little or nothing to do with any of this. It was just election crap.
    Even the very best mayors and governors make enemies. Perhaps the people in Wasilla who 'knew her' had their dogs picked up by the pound and blamed the mayor. Maybe those 'close to the governor' were fired for corruption or lack of skills in the jobs they held and blamed the govenor.
    I don't agree with many of Sarah Palin's personal stands - but I don't see any of these were defining factors of her leadership.
    AND, hurting other women was done by the santimonious left. The mysogeny was, and still is, horrific. See Scribe, above: b) is - strike that: was - a piece of a*s who got Bill Kristol's d*ck out of suspended animation.

    Perhaps What History Will Recall (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 08:31:45 PM EST
    as the most significant and defining factor of Governor Palin's leadership is that she resigned before the end of her term as governor.

    like a million other politicians (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:39:59 PM EST
    who are possibly considering pursuing a higher office. Meh.

    Our AG resigned to pursue governor here and it hasn't seemed to hurt him AT All.


    Can't Speak for Your AG (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 08:53:00 AM EST
    But in Governor Palin we have someone who ran for VP after serving a little less than two years of her first term as governor.

    And then resigned as governor about eight months after losing that election (for VP). That's hardly my idea of leadership.

    Her lack of commitment and scant record of service may not hurt Palin at all either. But if she succeeds in getting anywhere near an elected office again (assuming she even wants to) it will hurt her   constituents a LOT.


    we have a president (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:22:03 AM EST
    who never served a full term anywhere before he started running for the next higher office.  He started running for president as soon as he was sworn in as senator.
    So what exactly is your beef with Palin?  Jones seems to have taken a page from her resignation speech about how the constant attacks were keeping him from doing his job.  Where is the left's outrage about him quitting?

    Difference Between Obama and Palin (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 12:06:01 PM EST
    The question is what kind of leadership is Palin (or, by your question, Obama) demonstrating.

    He left his senate seat to get elected president, a more demanding job. And he was an effective enough pol to convince a healthy majority of voters he was equal to it.

    Like him or not, agree with him or not, even think he's doing a great job or an abysmal one, he left one form of public service for another one.

    I wouldn't criticize Governor Palin's leadership if the reason she resigned as governor was to serve as VP, or even if she had resigned to run for VP. Lots of politicians before her have done as much.

    But she quit office before the end of her term  after having clocked little actual time serving as governor; and left for no apparent reason--not (immediate) higher office ambitions like running for VP in a current campaign, not personal or family reasons. Apparently, she left to fulfill some greater ambition to make money and possibly develop a national image for future races.

    If that's what she wants, fine. But it's a poor example of good leadership. Many (most?) elected officials manage to work on those things while serving in the offices they were elected to.


    why? (none / 0) (#67)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:56:12 AM EST
    Jones just resigned giving the same general reasons.  I don't see any screaming hysteria on the left about his "real" reasons for being a "quitter".

    How is she hypocritical? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 08:23:25 PM EST
    She upholds the Republican Party platform plank on women's reproductive rights, if that's what you mean.  So that is not hypocritical of her.  (It's just so wrong, in my opinion.  But women get to disagree on this, just as men do, after all.)

    What is hypocritical is someone who claims to be a Dem and does not uphold its platform plank on women's reproductive rights (or other issues).  Or someone who promises one thing in the campaign but says another thing in office.  Etc.


    Well she is (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 09:40:58 PM EST
    right wing religious zealot who speaks of one way to live but does not follow it, which is typical of the Christian right.  I should have said she is ONE of the faces of hypocrisy as, imo, the religious right is the definition of hypocrisy.  She and her fellow righties here in Colorado Springs, when she was doing her visits during the run up to the election, consistently  spread the same old, same old.
    We are Christian; we are her to represent god in Washington. But we do not want government giving health care to people, we have a right to kill those Muslims who invaded us.
    I stand by my belief. Palin and her ilk, are hypocrites.  

    Ah, in that sense (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:11:16 PM EST
    I see and agree.

    But now I have to ask (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:13:08 PM EST
    how that hypocrisy of hers is specifically hurting women.  Don't men need health care?  

    Well I think (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:19:03 PM EST
    that whole notion of insisting on abstinence only hurts women a lot, and at a very vulnerable age.  
    Her daughter and many girls like her, whose parents push that insanity on them, instead of allowing them to use birth control have their lives changed early on.  

    I think men are hurt too but I think young women in particular get hurt by that mentality more than anyone.  JMO


    Palin does not` (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:24:59 AM EST
    support abstinence only education. And her daughter's actions do not make her a hypocrite.
    I am anti drug, tried to keep my kids from drugs and did not succeed 100 percent.  Does that make me a hypocrite?

    jeez (none / 0) (#70)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:15:07 AM EST
    exactly what values has she espoused that she did not live up to?
    BTW, please note she is not in favor of abstinence only education and she did appoint pro-choice judges to the state courts.  Do not mix up her churches positions for her public positions.

    jeez (none / 0) (#71)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:15:47 AM EST
    exactly what values has she espoused that she did not live up to?
    BTW, please note she is not in favor of abstinence only education and she did appoint pro-choice judges to the state courts.  Do not mix up her churches positions for her public positions.

    was the poster supporting Palin (none / 0) (#66)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:54:18 AM EST
    or just not being a hyper-partisan?  
    Misrepresenting Palin is either ignorance or will-fullness. The left's obsession with her and it's willingness to continue to be ignorant of who she is and what she has done is a gigantic turn off to many real feminists.

    She doesn't belong in the category of Dobson and others mentioned.  She is NOT a vagina cop or an anti gay homophobe.  In fact her record is better than Obama's on both choice and gay rights.
    What her church exposes is beside the point.  Most people who go to church disagree with or ignore in their everyday life some of what their church espouses.

    She is NOT in favor of abstinence only education. She did appoint pro-choice judges and she did protect gay rights in Alaska.
    Frankly I am sick to death of my fellow liberals looking like lying hypocrites or ignorant reactionaries on the topic of Sarah Palin.

    Jeralyn, you really should get to know the truth about this woman rather than being a member of the woman's auxiliary of the Old boys Democratic party club.

    Look at it this way, Ted Kennedy was a member of the RCC.  You can't get much more radically anti-woman politically or socially than the RCC.  But I have never seen anyone on the left tar him with that association.


    My favorite kind of reading material (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:00:37 PM EST
    I'm addicted to anything dissecting the psychology of our society :) It's better than chocolate.  What an obvious mess I am :)  And I don't understand this current Evangelical phenom.  They literally just make it up as they go along and the members are okay with that.  Watching the transformation of the Northern areas of Colorado Springs with Dobson playland up there was nothing short of freakish :) If I could only understand how going to church three days a week and tithing, hating gay people, and plastering the prayer of Jabez all over my house kept me safe from anything at all :)

    Being a rational creature... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:08:53 PM EST
    ...in a cold, largely irrational universe, is a great psychological burden for many people.  and when you are raised by a community similarly evangelized against this burden, you are pulled in even more strongly.  having attended the largest evanglical high school in the country (the real O.C. indeed), i can attest to how reflexively many "believers" will soothesay away and critical thinking that marginally verges on the, gasp, humanistic.  you should have seen the glare i got from my bible teacher when i commented how, with artificial insemination, that a virgin really could give birth.

    i might as well have said satan was my master.


    Because the U.S. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:17:20 PM EST
    at this time is a very cold mean society, and what divides the haves from the have nots is largely irrational.....is this making our Evangelicalization something that people need to have or participate in to even feel that they are relevant or matter?  I mean, I have to admit that this country is one cold b*otch anymore compared to other industrialized countries.  We literally care for nobody outside of ourselves.....except maybe soldiers - a solid American majority can squeeze a tear out for soldiers, and what is it that on the day they must really go to work that soldiers do?  I ask myself these things after reading your illuminating comment.

    yep (none / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:38:56 PM EST
    many people make the leap out of narrow thinking and grow.  but just as many, maybe more, don't.  and a lot of people, it seems, are teaching their children how to care only for a narrow set of types (like you said, the solidier, or the police officer, or whomever, generally, wears a uniform -- ah, the comfort of order and control, but don't tax me to pay for it, dammit.)  the right as succeeded in demonizing many things left, including the word left.  and liberal.  and humanist.  

    so many people are afraid, many for legitimate reasons, many more for reasons only god can create.  and the rational rest of us dirty humanist basterds?  we sigh and carry on.  i suppose.  


    "any" critical thinking (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:09:43 PM EST
    The right wing destruction (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by hairspray on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:11:59 PM EST
    derby was in full decade old swing before Sarah Palin was out of cheerleading digs.  Why these authors are highlighting her as the leader of the pack is probably designed to sell current anger and books.  The real architects were all in Bush's cabinet and then some. The stealth leaders are billionaires like Mellon Scaife and some others who funded the Arkansas project to get rid of Bill Clinton. These were the real powers and we don't even know their names.  Lee Atwater was their man.  George Bush's tenure should have shown the American public how corrupt these people and their ideas were, but almost 60 million people didn't vote for Obama. I think Sarah became the voice of the radical right during the campaign.  She certainly wasn't that kind of a leader according to much of the reports before the left went after her.  That being said, I would never vote for her or her type in a million years, but too much misogyny was exhibited by the left.  They used what they had left over from HRC bashing.  

    perhaps you should at least read (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 03:32:54 PM EST
    the free excerpt in the Daily Beast article I linked to.  And it shows that you are incorrect. And Max's version is in sync with other reports. A snippet, from her days as a local politician:

    To those who knew Palin, she was no ordinary hockey mom, but rather an evangelical foot soldier who spearheaded the [conservative Christian] movement's takeover of local government. Her power base was the Wasilla Assembly of God, a Pentecostal mega-church where she was baptized and spent over 20 years as a member.

    Guilt by association (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 06:58:00 PM EST
    Jeralyn, is no more attractive on the left than it is on the right.

    The issue to me is how she governed, and she did not govern as a wing-nut evanglical loon.

    I'll make the same disclaimer as those above, that I wouldn't vote for her for dogcatcher -- literally -- but demonizing her into something she never was is not only unfair and untruthful, it's a very handy distraction from the real danger here, which is a cynical, knowing right-wing movement that way pre-dates Sarah Palin and will outlast her for a very long time.


    The commentary on Palin... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by lambert on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:24:55 PM EST
    ... from "progressives" was so over the top that I just stopped reading because there was so way to sort out the truth from the "Any stick to beat a dog stuff." Too bad.

    Double Take (none / 0) (#48)
    by dead dancer on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 08:09:37 PM EST
    It appeared to read -- Jeralyn is not an attractive woman.

    I beg to differ!



    Oops! (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 06:23:18 AM EST
    Heh.  I see what you mean... sorry bout that!

    oh lord (none / 0) (#76)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:30:12 AM EST
    but that is opinion about Palin NOT backed up by facts nor her actions as Governor. Do you believe everything you read?

    BTW (none / 0) (#90)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:42:11 PM EST
    who are these imaginary people who "knew Palin"?
    Sounds like made up gossip to me so that the author could get in his paid for Palin criticisms.

    "According to much of the reports" (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:29:46 PM EST
    was part of the problem -- dismissing her as a hockey mom, a moose hunter, etc.  It was interesting to watch how many of those who diss the clueless media reporting about the left then trusted its reporting about the right.

    The linked info is another piece of a fascinating puzzle about the right got where it is, which has been in the works for a long time -- as also seen in analyses of takeovers of campus poli sci departments.  And that really takes long-term planning and implementation.


    Destroyed (1.00 / 0) (#9)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:20:23 PM EST
    Heh, the media is all about floating this meme routinely. I remember when the popular meme was that the Democrats were the party of the dead back when the GOP had the Presidency and Congress. How'd that work out? Unless Obama and the Democrats get their collective strategy together I would predict the wake is being held prematurely.  

    All this goes back to Pat Robertson and Atwater (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by BernieO on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 05:03:36 PM EST
    There has always been an element like this in the party, particularly after southerners abandoned Democratic party after over Civil Rights but these people were not all that politically active.

    Pat Robertson mobilized them when he ran for president. After he dropped out of the primaries he sold his extensive list of supporters to the party and Republican leaders used it to enlarge their base. These people were pretty easily manipulated and Lee Atwater had the tactics to do so. As a result the party had a core of very passionate advocates that they could motivate to contact the media, Congressmen, etc. and complain vociferously about whatever the Republicans told them to. The trouble is that these people became so powerful that the party is now controlled by them. The leaders are scared to death to cross them. A perfect case of the tail wagging the dog.

    It is clear from discussion among the Republican leadership that they are well aware of the problem but still use these people when they see fit, which only makes it worse because it pushes more and more moderates out of the party.

    Meanwhile the media is still afraid to stand up to these fanatics. Democrats are pushing back more but there protests still don't counter balance the vitriol from the right. Too many in the media are cowed by the bullying tactics and not a few of them seem to be suffering from some kind of Stockholm syndrome.

    Corporate America has also been intimidated by numerous boycotts so they kowtow to the "Christian" Right, too.

    Democrats need to realize what they are up against and start speaking up in larger numbers. The far right is not that large of a segment of the population, although they have been able to grow in the past because their outrageous claims have been allowed to go unanswered both by Democrats and the media. As a result of their willingness to speak out against all these "injustices" that are heaped on them, it seems like there are many more people who feel this way. If we all wrote letters to editors, ombudsmen, radio shows, Congressmen this perception would begin to change.

    Democracy takes a lot of effort from individuals. It is not a spectator sport.

    lost faith (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by souvarine on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 06:09:42 PM EST
    The Hoffer quote in Blumenthal's op-ed sums it up for me: "Faith in a holy cause, is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves."

    The extreme and wildly overblown reaction from the right to the very moderate Obama administration shows the deep desperation of a small portion of the population that has lost faith in our institutions, the vision of the founders, our very system of government and that ultimately have no faith in themselves. I am usually skeptical of psychological explanations for political movements, but the Republicans and their leaders have become so hysterical, so detached from any grasp of reality, so completely absent any consistent reasoning, that only psychological explanations can fit.

    You make a mistake (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:03:19 PM EST
    when you conflate the leaders with the followers.  The psychology is very, very different.  The leaders of the right wing are entirely cynical and don't actually personally believe most of the garbage they use to inflame the hoi polloi.

    Republican leaders (none / 0) (#47)
    by souvarine on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:56:03 PM EST
    Then what do Republican leaders believe?

    If your arguments are so incoherent that they are indistinguishable from Rush Limbaugh's or Glen Beck's then what does your party stand for? Movement conservatives harnessed the inchoate rage over post-industrialization and civil rights to an actual conservative philosophy. Conservatives like David Frum and intellectual historians like Sam Tanenhaus are pointing out, and even tools like Newt Gingrich realize, that an incoherent party cannot be effective in a democracy. The end-state of political incoherence is tyranny, which is an anathema even to conservatives.

    Movement conservatives cynically used racism to achieve political ends, cynicism is unremarkable in politicians, but Republican leaders have become incoherent. They aren't shaping the rage of their base, they are repeating it, and it is gibberish. They aren't cynically using it in the service of some ideology, they are being used by it.


    No (none / 0) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 06:22:26 AM EST
    They believe in two related things, social Darwinism and power, but they believe in being in power above all else and will say whatever they think will damage their competitors for power, however incoherent.

    It depends on which leaders (none / 0) (#59)
    by BernieO on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 08:44:05 AM EST
    Clearly guys like Newt and Tom Delay don't believe what they are saying - and they sure don't live what they preach - but some of them do believe. I am not sure about Palin but I would guess that she has been listening to right wing propaganda and has certainly not heard many counter arguments from the left against things like their free market fundamentalism or charge that abortion is murder. I know a lot of people who believe this kind of thing, not because they are stupid but because they have never heard strong counter arguments to Reagonomics and Christian Conservative beliefs.

    For example, the people I know who are opposed to health care reform have never heard that our infant mortality rate is pathetically low, behind that of our European counterparts and even Cuba. Nor have they heard that countries like Germany, and Switerzland have many private, non-profit companies insurance from which to choose and complete freedom of choice of doctors.

    None of them know that the VA has the highest satisfaction rate of any US medical system, followed closely by Medicare. They have not heard that the VA has a very low rate of drug errors. Most people confuse the VA with the Army's Walter Reed and the media has done nothing to disabuse them of this notion. When there are problems at VA hospitals the media is all over that, but they rarely cover the excellent system of care that the VA generally provides.

    Seniors have heard the fact that Obama wants to get savings from Medicare, but not that this is mainly by stopping the subsidies to insurance companies that participate in Medicare Advantage because they can't "compete" without an extra $1200 dollars per person over what government administered Medicare patients cost. I have a feeling that very few journalists know this, either.

    As for the economy, people are terrified by our national debt but have never heard that our debt after WWII was far higher as a percentage of GDP yet was quickly brought down to manageable levels even though we spent on the Marshall Plan, the interstate highway system, the GI Bill, etc. If having a large debt in a time of crisis is such an unsurmountable problem, how is it that the fifties were so prosperous?

    So I can't blame people for drinking the right wing Koolaid - even some of the Republican leaders. It is not like objective information about these issues is easy to come by. Democrats and the media have been terrible at getting the facts out.


    I would be interested in seeing some (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:35:37 AM EST
    links on your claim that most of Obama's savings is based on not using MedicCare Advantage.

    And if MedicCare Advantage saves seniors money, which is the only reason anyone would join, do you understand that many seniors would not appreciate his actions?


    medicare advantage is the privitization (none / 0) (#85)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:26:15 PM EST
    of medicare and it only saves seniors money if they don't get sick.  Not only is it privitized medicare but the tax payers are paying for it.

    Sorry, but that does not compute (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:57:46 PM EST
    Could you show some links, please?

    what I can do is explain it to you (none / 0) (#103)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 09:21:16 AM EST
    and let you find your own links at the various med sup and med advantage plan sites.

    All medicare advantage programs have co-pays and deductibles.  If you are sick and pay 15 to 30 or even 50 dollars every time you go to the hospital that adds up quickly when you are sick. Yes your premium might be low or even non existent but your out of pocket costs are only capped at anywhere from 3500 to 6000 dollars a year.  
    With a medicare supplement, if you get one that covers everything you pay about 1500 a year (if you shop for price rather than brand..if you get bc/bs you are paying more for their brand and shame on you since all supplements are the same)in premiums and no matter how sick you get you are covered and you can NOT be dropped and your premium can not go up on an individual basis because you used the insurance. The medicare supplements are highly regulated by the government.  The advantage plans are not so heavily regulated.  They can raise your premiums at will, they can decide from year to year what they will cover and at what percentage of cost.  They get you in at 65 when you are in open enrollment with cheap premiums, but then when you get sick and start racking up the high co-pays and deductibles, the medicare supplements which would cover you 100 percent do not have to take you because you are no longer in open enrollment and now you are what is termed "adverse selection".
    Here is an example of what can happen:  I used to work for a company that sold among other things, medicare supplements.  We sold our "J plan" (the most comprehensive plan available and the same no matter which company you get it from.) only because we could sell it for less than a company like Bc/Bs could sell even a lousy C or D plan.  I had a new customer about to turn 65.  Her husband had my companies J plan and was paying about 130 a months for it.  He decided to switch to a medicare advantage plan he could get for 15 dollars a month.  It seemed like a great idea until he got sick.  When I met with them, he had spent in the previous year just under 6k in co-pays and deductibles as compared to $1650 he would have payed in premiums to be 100 percent covered with our company.  Now which seems like the better deal to you?
    When I left he and she had both signed back up with my company.  
    Now here is the kicker... after doing the math for them he still thought she should go with the same crappy advantage plan he had.  Time after time after time men I spoke to were penny wise and pound moronic. I turned to him and asked him why he would want to do that to his wife and she said no, not only am I signing up with Teresa;s company but I am paying for you to do it too.
    Luckily for him the illness he had was not on the list of things that would preclude him from getting back in to a supplement.


    The base premise (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:42:17 PM EST
    I think is the same. You can still believe in the foundation. Stuff like Thou shalt not lie, Thou shalt not kill(which coincedientally doesn't seem to have a codicil that says except in cases where you are avenging someone or war, etc,etc). The premise that changes is that anything is forgivable. It is odd to me that Christians preach about the sin of homosexuality. IF it is a sin, and that to me is debatable, it can be forgiven anyway. Just as sins of say infidelity or sins of lying, etc, etc. So why not leave it between the individual and God?

    I consider myself a Christian just not one of the Jim Dobson variety. I'd rather align myself with the Mother Teresa types. She quietly went about doing what she considered the work of God and even was human enough to doubt from time to time. If there is a heaven I prefer to be in the comp-any of folks like her rather than those who use their beliefs as a bludgeon.

    I know what you mean (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:53:17 PM EST
    i spent my time in high school with the christian "literalists", while i identified with, and admired, those like you, who lived, or always strived to, by the metaphor of christ's life and teachings.

    forigive me if i am being presumptive with your beliefs or do a poor job of summarizing my take.


    Nope (none / 0) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 03:01:06 PM EST
    You've summarized me and my belief system pretty well.

    I just do the best I can with what He gave me to try and help others when I can and leave the judgement stuff to Him.



    please stay on topic (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 03:35:40 PM EST
    this is about Max's book and the radical right.

    I'll just excuse myself from the thread then (none / 0) (#25)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 03:49:16 PM EST
    Much easier that way. If we can't discuss ideology then I daresay we can have a discussion on what "radical right" means.

    I find it ironic if not disconcerting that Obama can keep the conscience clauise in place, hire someone who is anti choice as a HHS liason and somehow I am supposed to believe that Christianity is what makes the right "radical".

    It's your thread though. You get to decide the direction it takes. Good luck.


    My comment was in response to those (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 06:29:24 PM EST
    that followed yours, since deleted.

    I've had conversations with right wing (none / 0) (#32)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 05:45:15 PM EST
    so-called christians who have told me outright that Mother Teresa was not a christian because she not "born-again." They believe (and I think Jerry Falwell made this statement as well), that good works do not get you to heaven, only being born again. I think this is why these people can act in such a despicable manner and have such contempt for their fellow man. They believe there faith and belief is what gets them to heaven, not their actions.

    For the record, I'm a militant atheist. Got no use for jeebus and superstition.


    Right-wing (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:00:28 PM EST
    Christians are evangelical Protestants.  They consider Catholics just a sinful as Mormons or "secular humanists."  Good works do not matter.

    Have you ever attended (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:26:26 AM EST
    an evangelical church? I have and my experience is that good works are expected as part of being a Christian but good works by themselves do not make you a Christian.

    I think maybe too many people do not understand that distinction.


    I don't think you've been lately Jim (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:58:50 AM EST
    You are either with them fully or you are against them fully.  There is no half ground.  If you aren't with them you are being influenced by Satan and therefore tainted....poison.  And I've been to an Evangelical church lately because that is about all that there is where I live and they are interlaced within the community in many places.  Run most of the daycare for babies here when we need it for Zoey.  Catholics are in particular treated as vermin, the devil trying to parade around in Jesus clothing.

    Well, actually I haven't been (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:24:16 AM EST
    since yesterday.

    And I really don't know who you are engaging with, or perhaps my South is more easy going than your South. Or perhaps you are "picking" an argument? I mean I have never seen what you describe. Not saying you haven't. Yankee types emit a scent that sometimes cause Southerners to lose control. ;-)

    I would tell you that you are saved through faith and that it is that faith that commands you to do "good." If you do evil all the faith in the world will not save you. I don't think that is too far different that what is taught in most churches.


    Evangelicals talk and preach about the unseen (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:30:08 AM EST
    war around us, angels and demons duking it out invisibily around us and how they work through us.  If you aren't protected from the demons and Satan through your Evangelical specialness....you are tainted and the devil and his demons can work through you very easily.  They probably are working through me this very minute, causing my mind to think this way and my fingers to type these words.

    That sure is a strange church you (2.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:17:02 AM EST
    speak of. I have never seen or heard of such. The church I attend teaches from the bible about the life of Christ and the need of mankind to follow his teachings.

    Are you sure you aren't on a Hollwood sound stage left over from Elmer Gantry?



    No Jim (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:24:56 AM EST
    And Dobson teaches such things....every big name Evangelical leader at this time teaches such things and writes terrific books about 'Angels' and true angel experiences.  And sadly people who are part of the Evangelical movement of today fear shadows in the daylight and unseen forces doing strange unforeseen things to them and their lives and loved ones if they aren't ever vigilant for the unseen evil that will leak into their lives through a million tiny avenues.  That is why their political leaders can get up there and say complete batsh*t nuts things and they still follow them unquestioningly.  They fear that their own minds could be taken over if they were foolish enough to allow themselves to be breached by unseen evil forces.

    Who told you these people (2.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:37:38 AM EST
    are "leaders?" Keith Olberman?

    Tracy, just as the Right seeks to define the Left by claiming things about various members of the Left, so does the Left seek to do the same about the Right.

    The church teaching I know would tell you that the bible should be taught, not supposed religious "experiences" and the Elders would remove a preacher who tried to teach such things.

    Again, I ask you. Have you attended an evangelical church?

    And are you sure you are not on that sound stage?



    My father speaks in tongues (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:50:05 AM EST
    Though not so much anymore.  He was in a lot of pain after we lost so many of our family to a tragedy.  I've been to an Evangelical church.  I was also engaged when I was very very young to the nephew of a minister who ended up "teaching" with Benny Hinn.  And sadly the kid who I was engaged to ended up growing into a suicidal man because "the world was so evil".  He came to a point where he could not cope anymore.  I've been to an Evangelical church and I live to tell about it :)

    Oh, and can we talk about how (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    they pray for twelve year olds to be baptised by the holy spirit please (and I realize that I'm probably committing blasphemy by typing the words holy spirit with capitalizing but the devil runs me now).  They decide that it is your time to speak in tongues so they gather around you...a preteen child...and all these grownups then lay one hand on you while they hold the other one over their head like a God antenna and they start praying in tongues (a make believe language special to each one of them that the devil cannot decipher).  They do this until the holy spirit comes down and gives you the gift of speaking in tongues too, and then you too have your own special make believe language.  Now the twelve year old that I was just wanted all these nutso effing crazies to quit touching me, and it was a horrible breach of "self" to give into the charade, but if you have to sit there long enough with the crazies touching you eventually you decide to start talking gibberish.  And then everyone starts jumping up and down and praising the lord....and women cry....and the truth has been reaffirmed - that preteen kids will do just about anything for large groups of crazy adults to quit touching them :)

    Tracy, I have lived a more sheltered life than (2.00 / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 12:33:05 PM EST
    you, or perhaps you have read more than I.

    You are not describing anything I recognize outside some grade B movie attacking Christians.



    Someone who served doing something (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    naval aviation and living sheltered all at the same time?  Fascinating

    In my younger years (2.00 / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:16:54 PM EST
    religion was not at the top of my list.

    Although aviation of any kind will make you pray from time to time.


    Have a nice day!


    The indoctrination of the social conservatives (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 06:45:00 PM EST
    is pervasive and somtimes subtle and sometimes not.

    Most Evangelical Churches place a heavy emphasis on the End Times.  And the obsessive need to get people to admit that pure evil exists as a concept.  It really is an attempt to point to external bad guys--part of the elaborate self-validation of religious conservatives.

    It is interesting to note that many of the "conservative" commentators on this site are overtly religious.  For social conservatives, liberal policies represent an existential threat to their faith and their world view.  So, the health care debate at the townhalls was not about health care but about religion.....

    Palin is just like Glenn Beck.


    And the church you have regularly attended is?? (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:30:47 PM EST
    Evangelical churches stress teaching only the bible. Such things as "end times" are not considered to be part of the bible and are not taught. Politics and other cultural items are also not discussed.

    There have been some individuals that claim to be leaders who aren't. But the Left is always willing to consider them so, just as the Right is willing to find the villain of the day among the Left.

    BTW - I am a social liberal and have posted for over 6 years in support of gay rights, women's right to chose, restructuring our drug laws and a single payer national health care, etc.

    BTW - The debate at the town halls was fueled by some very stupid representatives/senators admitting they had no idea as to what was in the various planS instead insisting that people just "trust me."

    That didn't work very well since people don't trust Congress.

    In addition Obama decided that we would pay for it from Medicare. That also was stupid since anyone knows that if you take funds from a program there will be less services which has to lead to rationing.


    And the Google hits for (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:46:04 PM EST
    Left Wing Church is 2,180,000........

    I mean, reallyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.


    And the church you have regularly attended is?

    Don't worry. You can always pull an Obama and say you never heard a thing for 20 years......



    Well, I've attended all sorts of services (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:17:13 PM EST
    My favorite was a Tibetan Buddhist ceremony.  Perhaps because it seemed so exotic and thus interesting....  Studying religions is a hobby of mine...as a study in anthropology.  Religions tell me more about people--their hopes, fears and beliefs--than the eternal.

    I have attended Rick Warren's Chruch.  And, he has emphasized the existence of evil--he is among the subtle group.....I have attended other Evangelical services, and the End Times are discussed.  And how.

    Only the Bible.  Sola Scriptura.  Okay.  But you realize that the Bible contains the Book of Revelations, true?  I agree, as do most scholars I think, that Revelations was a symbolic, allegorical way of criticizing Caeser--and not at all about the evils of the UN and such....But the Evangelicals spend a lot of time on that....And there are a number of other places in the Bible where apocalyptic ideas are expressed.  By Jesus himself.  In Isaiah too.  The conservatives of course have interpretations of these verses that are absolutely certain--and make little sense to me.

    I have posted a number of entries on this blog favorable to religion in general and Evangelicals in particular.  But I harbor no doubt that the current Evangelical movement is a very reactionary one.....as is the current group of religious conservatives of all denominations....The authoritarian rule mongers have taken over religion in this country.


    speaking in tongues (none / 0) (#93)
    by kelsweet on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 07:09:46 PM EST
    is what they do in "holy roller" churches mostly. pentecostal and i think souther baptist. However, most of them do not believe in speaking in tongues. My ex mother in law is pentecostal and was convinced that the devil was after my kids because I didn't go to church. Silliest thing I ever heard. My family went to church of Christ, which is similar to baptist. Except that baptists believe that you are saved before baptism by asking Jesus into your heart ala Billy Graham, and the bible teaches that you are saved by baptism. Acts 2:38. The bible also address the tongue thang, and it was reserved for the apostles. Too much to address here, but... it seems you have been subjected to "holy rollers" not main stream.

    and the RCC (none / 0) (#86)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:30:20 PM EST
    doesn't believe that woman are worthy of being ordained and no one but them are going to heaven unless they come back to the catholic church.
    No one has a leg up on purity.

    The RCC has a heavy emphahsis (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 07:04:09 PM EST
    on social justice.

    And, Catholics are hardly monolithic in their views.....

    Evangelical Protestants buy into a whole world view that views government and progressive policies as inherently evil.  You can't argue or reason with such people.

    Social conservatives of a religious bent already know the truth.  Facts and logic are just tools to win a debate or an election--they are never to be used to question base assumptions.  It is the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.  A progressive will sift the evidence and review the facts, as they know them, to come to the best conclusion.  Because a progressive's conclusion is based on a review of facts that might change, his or her views will often be laced with caveats and conditions....a willingness to have an open mind is seen as weak an indecisive...

    Relgious Conservatives learned the truth on Sunday.  They use deductive logic (the smart ones do at least) to form conclusions from base assumptions learned on Sunday that cannot be questioned.  The truth they learn is absolute.  They self-consciously revel in the existence of, and their belief in, absolutes....They cannot be dissuaded by any amount of evidence to the contrary.

    Religious conservatives will say they would rather trust in the way and teachings of God--eternal and perfect--than the flawed reasoning of humans....And, they learn of the absolutes from--flawed humans....and rarely see the irony and weakness in this position.....

    You can never win an argument with social conservatives.  No facts or logic will ever be allowed to penetrate their God-given views. To admit that they could be wrong, is to admit that their faith could be wrong--and that is an existential crisis that they will never, ever entertain.

    What works?  The Da Vinci Code.  No kidding.  As told to me by a fairly prominent pastor.  Jesus was a man whose physical body was not resuscitated.  Jesus had a daughter.  They cannot survive such theories.

    Or, their son or daughter comes out.  That has a great impact.

    Reason?  Facts?  Meh.


    the RCC (none / 0) (#102)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 08:57:01 AM EST
    doesn't believe in the equality of women, period.  It does not allow for women to lead or to make their own choices in birth control.  Yes the members are not monolithic, but neither are the members of conservative protestant churches.  Of course if you do not believe that women's rights are human rights you might believe that the RCC is a better deal.  But the truth is that in protestant churches women are equal partners, allowed to minister etc...
    Social justice is not social justice when it applies only to men.

    PS... I live in the most catholic area of the nation.  They are no more reasonable or rational than the conservative Christian protestants. They are just as conservative too.  


    True (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:54:50 PM EST
    But there are more liberal Catholics than liberal Evangelical Christians.  If you consider Protestants across the board, you do have some remarkably egalitarian churches.  The Episcopal Chruch now has a woman Archbishop if I'm not mistaken....Gene Robinson is Episcopalian too.

    Evangelical Christians, however.....


    This belief (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by pukemoana on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:11:46 PM EST
    They believe . . . that good works do not get you to heaven, only being born again

    goes back to the rise of evangelicalism at the end of the 18th century.  What interests me between then and the US evangelical movement now, is that the late 18th-c/19th-century movement had a socially radical effect that's counter to the conservatism of the current movement.  Eg teaching the working classes to read so they could study and interpret the Bible for themselves, or women preachers (think of Dinah in George Eliot's Adam Bede)

    many were abolitionists too (none / 0) (#87)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:31:43 PM EST
    the "1" rating to this comment (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 06:36:27 PM EST
    has been deleted. Please do not rate comments a "1" merely based on point of view expressed.

    give me a break (none / 0) (#88)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:32:39 PM EST
    it was offensive.

    oops sorry, wrong comment (none / 0) (#89)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:33:55 PM EST
    this one was not offensive.

    Vice Versa (none / 0) (#1)
    by waldenpond on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:28:35 PM EST
    It looks like a lot of interesting reading, but I'm on my way out the door (going to go motorcycle riding in the mountains) so I'll read in detail when I get back..... I just wanted to make a personal observation that the Right would say that the left is fearful and self-doubting and looks to the government to rescue them.

    This should be an excellent read/informative book (none / 0) (#26)
    by AX10 on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:14:53 PM EST
    I will have to look into it.