The release of new research last month indicating that activists from the religious right and religious left occupy two separate universes prompts me to reflect yet again on the extreme difficulty of attempting to find meaningful common ground positions, except on sky-is-blue issues like opposition to human trafficking and state-sponsored torture.
There are occasions in life in which polarization simply means that the opposing parties should try harder to forge common positions. This is not one of them. An inconvenient truth here is that religious conservatives often sacralize their positions in ways that make them immune to compromise, whereas many religious liberals are only too willing to yield on their positions. This makes for an unstable mix (or, in biblical terms, an unequal yoking) in which conservative positions steadily gain ground, issue after issue.
Health care reform provides a good case in point. A significant part of the conservative community is determined to insert a hard prohibition on federal abortion funding into the final reform legislation—a provision that will remove existing access to abortion services from the insurance plans of millions of women. Conservatives unhesitatingly frame this as an issue of fundamental conscience. In response, many good liberals bite their tongues and go along for the sake of the supposed greater good of achieving universal coverage.
The silencing of a progressive religious voice for the sake of creating an imaginary common ground is also evident in the informal agreement to remove entire issues—marriage equality, for example—from the table. Whereas abortion can be admitted to the conversation on the right’s terms, equal rights for sexual minorities cannot be admitted at all. The religious right’s position, “we’re not even going to discuss this,” becomes tacitly accepted by everyone else.
It wasn’t supposed to work this way. Four and a half years ago, after the religious right’s pivotal role in reelecting George W. Bush spurred a frenzy of anguished discussion and planning among progressive religious leaders, the operative rationale for building new “open source” structures was that progressives would slowly domesticate the conservatives; tempering their rhetoric if not actually winning them over to more moderate positions. But there is scant evidence that anything like this has happened. What has happened instead amounts to moving the goalpost rightward: some notably sex-phobic evangelical and Roman Catholic individuals and entities have been rebranded as the progressive forces watch, while actual progressives (solidly feminist and pro-LGBTQ religious leaders) have disappeared from view.
The silencing of the religious left is so effective that even to call attention to the rebranding process is to make oneself persona non grata. Some colleagues have dressed me down both publicly and privately on more than one occasion for pointing out that certain men with long histories of indifference or hostility to the concerns of women and gays should not be lifted up as exemplars of progressive religious leadership.
In seeking to understand why rubrics like “dialogue” and “search for common ground” are wildly inappropriate for what actually happens when religious liberals and religious conservatives engage one another, it helps to bear in mind what has been going on among American conservatives generally. According to the always-astute Neal Gabler, the conservative movement as a whole has been subject to “religification” over the past 30 years to the point that American conservatism is no longer really about politics, with all of the “limitations, hedges, and forbearances” that a healthy politics implies.
As Gabler writes:
You cannot beat religion with politics, which is why the extreme right “wins” so many battles. The fundamentalist political fanatics will always be more zealous than mainstream conservatives or liberals. They will always be louder, more adamant, more aggrieved, more threatening, more willing to do anything to win. Losing is inconceivable. For them, every battle is a crusade—or a jihad—a matter of good and evil.
Gabler correctly views the extreme polarization of national political life as an extension of the polarization that characterizes our religious life. Why, then, should anyone expect conservative religious types to be interested in forming any kind of common ground with moderates or liberals on difficult issues? They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose in admitting that others might also have a conscience; or that there might be something godly in the liberal insistence that women’s capacity for moral discernment is equal to that of men.
The way religious conservatives punish those of their own who deviate from the Righteous Path should tell us everything we need to know about a cast of mind that has no interest in “dialogue.” I have heard the anguished stories of more than one Evangelical leader who was put out of the fold—and whose illusions about Christian love and forbearance were shattered—when they began to show signs of thinking for themselves.
With joblessness and foreclosures continuing to surge, conservative religion can be expected to cement its hold on millions more of our fellow citizens over the next few years. The Christian Right is also clearly reverting to its racialist roots after a brief show of pretending to care about racial reconciliation.
These people are not content merely to occupy the right: they also intimidate and police what there is of the religious middle. Which is why I maintain that liberals make nice to them at their own peril. They, and those whom they are able to intimidate, are not operating in the same psychological/spiritual space as we are. We believe we are struggling toward the light; they believe they already have all the light they need. We seek a place at the table for everyone; they claim to know who is worthy and who is not worthy to be invited. We cringe to see the civil state colonized by religion; they have no hesitation at all about using the civil state to advance a sectarian agenda. It seems to me that the only common ground here is a killing ground for democratic aspiration.
Tags: common ground, pew forum on religion and public life, progressive religion, religious right
Looking at the basic assumptions of Christians (see http://andgulliverreturns.info) we can assume that all, or certainly most, Christians have as a basic assumption that there is a God. The second assumption, that Jesus is God, is shared by most. It is in the third assumption, that the Bible is true, where we find huge variations of beliefs. The conservatives are more likely to believe in the literal truth of the Bible, while liberals are more likely to view it as allegorical with the general message being true but perhaps not all the stories or prophesies as being true.
Atheists, like Dawkins, criticize the creation story by citing the scientific findings of evolutionary biology, the evidence of paleontology, geology, etc. Liberals may accept this as criticism of the historical accuracy of the Bible. Conservatives cannot. If a gospel says that Jesus told his disciples that "what they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" it gives Catholics a strong reason for accepting the dictates of the popes.
Since basic assumptions can be neither proved nor disproved, the two factions can only agree on two of the three assumptions. The question is whether the conservatives will ever question the literal truthfulness of the Bible. Biblical archeologists often see conflicting evidence, philosophers of religion often ask questions about contradictions in the Bible and of the omniscience and omnipotence of the God of the Book. Unless both sides can agree on the evidence relating to the literal truth of the Bible there will be no agreement.
I think that is the difference between religion and science. In science even the basic assumptions can be challenged, and are sometimes overturned, although science has been so carefully refined through the centuries by removing those assumptions that can be proved false it is hard to ever challenge the basics anymore. The purpose of religion is to give answers for that which can't be proved one way or the other, so in an age where science is making such great strides they have a problem because the whole point of religion is never admitting a mistake.
No, I accept none of what you assume. No way.
Peter,
Great article. As a non-believer I have been waiting for progressive Christians to choose sides. After all, if you compromise with total insanity what can you hope for?
Dear Peter,
It would be helpful if you would name the names of those religious progressives (individuals or organizations) who are mistakenly calling for common ground when none is available.
Meanwhile, Peter, I hope that you will help the Network of Spiritual Progressives build our national conference in Washington, D.C. June 11-14, 2010, and lead a workshop on this very topic! The focus of our conference: Supporting Obama to BE the Obama We Voted For--NOT the Inside-the-Beltway "pragmatist/realist" whose compromises have led him to lose public support. Our goal is both to challenge the Obama administration and to project our own ideas about what should happen to use the continuing economic crisis as a springboard to visions of an entirely differnt and spiritually coherent economic and social system.
Peter, would you please help us recruit as many spiritual progressives as possible to come to this gathering and help us together shape a strategy for the remaining time in the Obama Administration [because if he doesn't return to the idealism that excited Americans while he was running for office, but instead becomes the president who brought us the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the president whose health care "reform" became a wild give-away to the insurance companies (who will make trillions off of a plan that forces everyone to buy insurance but does not have a mechanism like single payer or a very strong public option to force the costs of insurance down to affordable levels) he is likely to be a one-term president.]
So far, the following people have agreed to play a role in this conference: Sister Joan Chittister, Rev. Jim Winkler (Board of Church and Society, United Methodists), Father John Dear, Jonathan Granoff (expert on nuclear disarmament issues), former NY Times war correspondent Christopher Hedges--and of course, we will have more (in fact, Peter, you are invited to help me plan this and decide who else to invite). The reason I'm writing you this way is because I can't locate your email address.
Blessings to you, Peter, and to anyone else reading this who wishes to help us build the voice of spiritual progressives.Please contact me with your ideas and let me know what role you can play in building our conference or our Network of Spiritual Progressives (but first, please read out Spiritual Covenant with America and our Campaign for a Domestic and Global Marshall Plan both at www.spiritualprogressives.org).
Rabbi Michael Lerner
RabbiLerner@Tikkun.org
Editor, Tikkun Magazine www.tikkun.org
Chair, The Network of Spiritual Progressives
Author of the 2006 national best-seller: The Left Hand of God--Taking Back our Country from the Religious Right
Many of my left-liberal Democratic friends and I in Eugene, Oregon also have been concerned with what appears to be an over-emphasis on “pragmatism” and even a catering-like behavior toward the political right, not to mention continuing the mindless tradition of giving-out choice ambassadorships to big political campaign contributors and considering the possibility of expanding the the troop levels in Afghanistan.
I voted for and encouraged others to vote for Obama, not for his eloquence, though that is refreshing, but for the moral and political substance of his vision.
We saw Obama, as presidential candidate, draw on the prophetic stream within the biblical tradition that historically informs American culture.
After nearly 40 years of a near-continuous neo-conservative establishment—which transformed the United States into a brutal imperial republic abroad and a soft despotism of the wealthy at home—Obama’s campaign represented hope.
But even before the election was over and the morally as well as politically difficult practical realities and multiple competing commitments any president has to face once in office set in, Obama’s vision of hope—the prophetic side of the American tradition—began to fade into pragmatism and indeed, for some of us, verge on cynicism, though I try to fight cynicism because it's not helpful.
Many Americans doubt we have enough in common to be able to mutually talk about our central aspirations and concerns. I believe we do. But bullshit obscures it.
The 2008 Democratic National Convention made me realize just how much we - "progressives" and "conservatives" - are alike, and not in a positive sense. Here is a clear example of where Obama and those who control the Democratic Party distance themselves from the prophetic side of the American tradition.
Almost every speech at the DNC not only evoked but also emphasized the central American myth that in America if you work hard you can be anything you want, with Barack Obama as Exhibit A. That and other standard American individualist themes were everywhere at the DNC.
The idea that you can be anything you want is a lie.
Obama had a white mother, caring white grandparents and good white schools, all of which gave him the cultural capital that, together with a very high IQ, made possible what he has become. Most poor people, especially racial minorities, do not have that kind of cultural capital. Many will end up dead or in jail by the age of 20—that’s not what they wanted to be.
We need to get past the bullshit—left and right—to see what we share in common, in a positive sense. That’s not easy, especially if we participate in and perpetuate such social self-deceptions in the name of pragmatic, political realism.
But the question remains: When is it appropriate to emphasize the prophetic to offset the weaknesses and blindnesses of the pragmatic and vice-versa? And how and when will Obama tap, as president, the biblical side of the American tradition that offers a hope rooted in the prophetic tradition, in Christopher Lasch’s words, “that some higher set of standards” will prevail “and that these, at least,” will not be “flouted with impunity”? (Christopher Lasch, “Religious Contributions to Social Movements: Walter Rauschenbusch, The Social Gospel, and Its Critics.” Journal of Religious Ethics 18 (1): 7-25)
But of course this is not just a story of an individual president. For it is largely up to us as citizens, not just Obama as president, to see that he—and we—continue to hold the prophetic as well as the pragmatic aspects of the American tradition in creative tension. It is also an unfolding drama of citizens acting together, a story of social as well as individual responsibility—as, ironically, Obama has said all along.
I'm eager to support Rabbi Lerner's call for a June 2010 gathering focused in the way he describes. I hope we won't waste energy fussing about our disappointment with Pres. Obama per se, because it's not the individual candidates but the rotten plutocratic system that is the problem. With corporate money dominating the policymaking process, it is meaningless for any candidate to run as an outsider or talk about taking on the special interests and their lobbyists. Those special interests (Big Pharma, for example)find all such campaign rhetoric highly entertaining. As with domestic policy, so with foreign and military policy. Civilian control of the U.S. military is increasingly in doubt, as we are seeing vis-a-vis Afghanistan. The good news is that spiritual leaders (clergy and laity) still have opportunities to engage people about these ugly realities in settings that are relatively free of spin and propaganda. Not just from the pulpit (in fact, better NOT from the pulpit) but in intimate small-group settings. I hope the June conference (and all meetings of this kind will help clergy in particular understand this as both a privilege and a responsibility. Clergy should be encouraged to understand that this is not about bringing "politics" into the house of worship but about giving people permission to be active citizens once again.
And Michael: I will make sure you have my private email and phone - I have yours!!
Peter
The phrase “the rotten plutocratic system” is spot on. The way our campaigns are financed today creates and sustains the rule of those who run large business corporations. In chapter two of the second volume of Democracy in America, “How an Aristocracy May be Created by Industry,” Alexis de Toqueville, already in the 1830s, talks about a “manufacturing aristocracy which we see rising before our eyes….”
Although he moderates his criticism when he characterizes this “manufacturing aristocracy” as “one of the most restrained and least dangerous,” he stresses that “the friends of democracy should keep their eyes anxiously fixed in that direction. For if ever again permanent inequality of conditions and aristocracy make their way into the world, it will have been by that door that they entered.”
Tocqueville, in warning against this kind of “soft despotism,” sees “individualism” – a word Tocqueville coined – as “the Achilles heel of the American experiment,” in Robert Bellah’s words, because if everyone withdraws into their small circle of family and friends and leaves the greater society to look after itself, tyrants or oligarchies will rush in to fill the vacuum.
The key mechanism that sustains “the rotten plutocratic system” is, as Laarman writes implicitly if not explicitly, the way political campaigns are financed. We citizens won’t ever find common ground without campaign finance reform along something like the following:
Campaigns for high political office must be publicly financed conditioned on not using any personal or donated funds, appearing side by side and regularly debating with your opponent(s) at venues throughout one’s district, state or nation as well as on TV and radio. No 30 or 60 second negative spots or, more to the point, no television advertising, which creates most of the pressure on politicians to raise money, the U.S. Supreme Court’s equating free speech with money notwithstanding. And the issues should be debated under the supervision of a person with Walter Cronkite-like integrity.
TV networks and stations don’t own the airwaves. Free television time for candidates is essential, but improving political campaigns also involves mandatory spots of at least five minutes and, most important, side-by-side presentations and debates by the candidates.
Candidates should be given money for direct mail as well as free TV and radio time. When they sign up to run for the nomination, they should agree to appear side by side on television, radio and in public meetings. Adversarial campaigns ("adversarial" is not a dirty word but just to make it clear we can add: mediated by civility) under these circumstances will promote discussion of substantial issues, instead of fear-inspiring slogans and character assassination.
Campaign finance reform is essential for our democracy. I hope it will be a - if not the - central topic of discussion and action in D.C. next June. The Network of Spiritual Progressives must become aroused by the vulnerable fragility of – and the imminence of the lethal danger to – our democracy that the reigning corporate oligarchy – and the system of campaign financing that keeps it in place – currently poses. Glad to hear Laarman accepted Lerner’s invitation. Good luck to you both!
Samuel C. Porter
It is important to impress upon new writers that grand generalizations do not help the reader understand the topic. In this case, the young writer refers to Christianity up front, but does not say this. He only speaks of the religious right and left. When speaking of religion, it is important to look past personal ignorance/bias and to state obvious specificity.
As someone who frequently finds himself taking on religious conservative who behave in just the ways that Peter Laarman describes here, I find this essay enormously insightful. And yet it also causes anguish.
The anguish rests in the fact that part of what defines progressive religion is a set of values that includes such things as the rejection of in-group/out-group ideologies, an affirmation of a shared humanity that unites us, and a commitment to resolving conflicts by looking for integrative solutions, by being open to the possibility that one's own position needs to be revised and that the opponent has insights that should be acknowledged.
Being true to these values requires that progressives resist viewing the differences between conservative and progressive religious communities as creating an unbridgeable divide that in turn generates conflicts for which integrative solutions are impossible. It requires that progressives be open to seeing where and when their own convictions might need to be modified. It requires openness to the possibility that conservatives have some truth that deserves to be honored.
And yet being true to these values also requires saying NO, powerfully and consistently, to those practices of religious conservatives that affirm in-group/out-group ideologies, that reject even the search for integrative solutions, that shut off any openness to admitting error, that refuse to see any good or truth in the other side.
Doing both of these things at once is not impossible, but in practice it is enormously difficult. In my own experience, doing both effectively requires finding a way to move beyond the issues and doctrinal disputes so that persons from opposing camps can connect on a level in which the sharing of selves--of personal stories and feelings--can really happen. The greatest enemy of ideological intransigence is a real human connection across ideological divides in which compassion and empathy flow freely.
But the public arena, in which policy debate takes place, is not the venue in which this kind of work--the work of building human connections and mutual empathy across ideological divides--can really be done. At the same time, it is crucial for progressives to engage conservatives in this public arena. If they don't, then they concede that territory in a way that can only lead to progressive values being trampled on the public stage.
So what is the answer? Here are a few thoughts. The search for integrative solutions should not be confused with a willingness to make expedient compromises. Just because your opponent is intransigent on some point doesn't mean you should accept that point if you have been given no reason to think it is sound.
Openness to being proved wrong is entirely consistent with standing your ground. If you haven't been presented with arguments that you really find compelling, then don't concede ground just to prove that you're the kind of person who is open to being proved wrong. Likewise, don't try to show that you're the kind of person who can see and honor truth in the opponent's perspective by honoring something you don't think is true.
But do listen. And attempt to honestly reframe and reflect back what you heard--both what was said and what wasn't said. And if you disagree, explain why. And if you hear something that you can agree with, acknowledge it and consider openly how, if at all, it influences your perspective.
None of this is likely to convince entrenched ideologues, but at least one is engaging them in a manner that reflects progressive values. And those who look on may be moved in ways that will influence public policy for the better.
Eric,
You are open to the possibility that conservatives might have some truth that deserves to be honored. How about non-believers? Is it possible they might have something to teach you about God? I don't think they can be excluded. But if they are included, would they be accepted by the conservatives? If the conservatives reject them, then it seems to me you are forced into a position where you have to choose.
It is absolutely possible for religious progressives to learn from non-believers. I am convinced that in the course of writing my response to the "new atheists"--even though my book was a critique of them--I was challenged and my thinking honed in ways that it would not have been without that challenge. And this continues.
Your question, however, is about the impact that a progressive religious person's openness to being moved by insights coming from non-believers has for their capacity to engage in conversation with conservatives. Is your worry that if religious progressives engage in this open way with non-believers, this will further deepen the gulf between religious progressives and conservatives?
I suppose that may be a consequence. But if that is not an intended consequence (if that has more to do with the choices that conservatives make in the light of progressives living out their values), then progressives are not violating their value commitments as they engage with conservatives.
All I can do is refuse to live and act in terms of an in-group/out-group ideology according to which truth is the proprietary claim of the in-group. I cannot control what others do in response, as much as I might wish I could.
Great, good to hear it. I think my concern might have been the opposite of what you said. If progressives engage with non-believers, conservatives will push hard to drive a wedge between the progressives and the non-believers if they can, and if they can't they will drive the wedge between themselves and the non-believers, and if that doesn't influence you progressives some then as a last resort they will deepen the gulf between themselves and you. Hopefully that clears things up a bit.
This concept of there being no more middle ground in Christianity, is that new? I don't recall that ever being brought up before a few days ago. Anyway, it is a refreshing idea and gives me hope.
We need to build alliances based on common interests and use the bridges we build as opportunities to "evangelize." No matter how thoroughly authoritarian religions have externalized the locus of values and control, people still have an innate, evolved sense of right and wrong. We can still connect with that and help the conservatives to cathect it.
In the worst case, we can get allies for issues where our interests already intersect.
My local congregation of the mainline Disciples of Christ stinks with right-wing images and rhetoric. A giant national flag dominates attention during worship. The idiot music director loves using the Yankee battle song, The Battle Hymn of the Republic: several times a year.
The retired CEO of a local chain of cafeteria restaurants used to buttonhole me to proclaim his version of marked fundamentalism. Members of Sunday school classes and small groups sound like Glenn Beck. It is an awful experience to go to services and small groups. Just awful.
I would go to the Unitarian services except that they make me laugh. Their services are filled with silliness and nonsense. Plus, they don't do communion.
Sadly your experience is not unique, Ted… But at least you are an adult with established beliefs, may I presume. The damage they do to young people’s minds is enormous. I often quote a few of my college friends that used to say ”it was easy for you to become a Christian ,for you never had to deal with a typical American church .It can turn anyone who has an ability to think into an convinced atheist” ;) ( I came to US 3 years ago)
"The fundamentalist political fanatics will always be more zealous than mainstream conservatives or liberals. They will always be louder, more adamant, more aggrieved, more threatening, more willing to do anything to win."
This can not be emphasized enough- if your premise is faith, those who have more of it will win. If you value belief, those who believe more fiercely will win, both out of their own conviction, and also in the general cultural perception as long as faith and belief are the valued touchstones of the general view of religion.
The only answer is to throw it all out the window- to recognize that blind belief is idiotic and faith in religion is misplaced because god just doesn't exist. The liberal religious postition is hopelessly muddled and unstable. Going half-way to critical thinking is never going to work.
I suppose those of us who "sit on the fence" as the Religious Middle probably want to say: Can't we all just get along?"
Not quite yet. We haven't finished with that old liberal vs. conservative Christian issue yet, and now we also have LBGT vs. the haters, mormons vs. those who can't see the light, Indians vs. nobody because nobody wants to fight them, and next week the promise of evolution vs. creationists. I say give it a little more time and we might see some progress. Thanks RD for being here.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.