David Neiwert at his Orcinus blog has highlighted Sugg's article: Reconstruction's push 12/07/05. With some additional links.
I've talked here before about Christian Right apocalyptic theories (see Pat's paranoia - and bigotry 07/15/05). What Sugg points out is that the "premillennial" concept of the End of the World that has made Christian Right organizations the most rabid supporters of the most hardline rightwingers in Israel is not accepted by the "Christian Reconstructions". And the latter group is gaining significantly in influence.
But in the case of the Christian Reconstructionists, that's not good news. Their embrace of what is known as the "postmillennial" viewpoint leads them to be even more aggressive in their desire to make the American government a Christian theocracy.
How influential are the Christian Reconstructionists? Here's a glimpse from Sugg's article:
George W. Bush has called Reconstruction-influenced theoretician Marvin Olasky "compassionate conservatism's leading thinker," and Olasky served as one of the president's key advisers on the creation of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Bush also invited Reconstructionist Jack Hayford, a key figure in the Promise Keepers men's group, to give the benediction at his first inaugural. Deposed House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, though his office won’t comment on his religious views, governs with what he calls a "biblical worldview" - one of Reconstruction's signature phrases. And, for conspiracy buffs, two heavy contributors to the Chalcedon Foundation—Reconstruction's main think tank - are Howard Ahmanson and Nelson Bunker Hunt, both of whose families played key roles in financing electronic voting machine manufacturer Election Systems & Software. Ahmanson is also a major sponsor of ultraconservative politicians, including California state legislator and 2003 gubernatorial candidate Tom McClintock.
Sugg calls attention to a feature that the Reconstructionists share with the Communist Party of earlier decades - or at least is taken from their perception of it:
The old left - the Communist Party and its many splinters - used organizing tactics called popular fronts, in which people were recruited through specific causes into a movement tacitly guided by the Party. Reconstruction has married those Leninist tactics to the causes of the right—abortion, evolution, gay marriage, school prayer. Gary North wrote in 1982, in an effort to reach Baptists, "We must use the doctrine of religious liberty ... until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God." Nowhere at the Restore America rally [discussed in Sugg's article] did anyone hoist a banner for Reconstruction; those attending came to develop a united front supporting such things as displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings. But they were also introduced - and recruited - to the broader program.
This reminded me of the analysis of the John Birch Society (JBS) made by Harry and Bonaro Overstreet in their book The Strange Tactics of Extremism (1964). They wrote about a program for the JBS written by founder Robert Welch called And So, Let's Act. Reviewing it point by point, they write:
The fifth point in the Welch program is frankly Leninist: ""We would organize fronts—little fronts, big fronts, temporary fronts, permanent fronts . . .
"This front business, like a lot of techniques the Communists use, can be made to cut both ways."
Lenin called such fronts "transmission belts" because the Party could, by means of them, reach vast numbers of people who would balk at accepting the Party itself as a guide. And fronts could be used, also, in reverse—as "belts" by means of which to move non-Communists into the Party by gradual stages.
There is no mystery about why a conspiratorial body, working to mislead people into serving its purposes, should find such fronts invaluable. But why does Welch need them? He insists in The Blue Book, p. 130, that while he and those who work with him are "opposing a conspiracy," they are not "making use of conspiratorial methods." Then why borrow from the Communists a method that has never been other than conspiratorial?
I should mention that the Overstreets' books have to read with the realization that they apparently considered the late J. Edgar "TuTu" Hoover to be near-infallible. In this case, it's actually not entirely true that the use of "front groups" was exclusively conspiratorial. If I'm not mistaken, the term "front group" emerged from the Comintern (worldwide organization of Communist Parties) policy in the 1930s of the "popular front". That main thrust of that policy held that Communist Parties should attempt to make alliances with other non-Communist parties and groups, like Social Democrats and even conservative parties, to oppose authoritarian and fascist movements. However sinister one may consider the Communists' parties programs to have been, the Popular Front strategy was by no means inherently conspiratorial.
But it's certainly true that many political groups, particularly small parties at the political extremes, as well as cult groups of various kinds use such "front groups" in a secret or even conspiratorial manner.
And Chrisitan Right groups of various kinds also use such an approach, encouraging supporters, for instance, to run for local school boards as "stealth candidates" who don't publicize their hardline Christian Right views before they are elected. But then they are expected to push for movement goals like forcing "creationism" to be taught as science in science classes once they are elected.
The resemblance of Christian Reconstructionist schemes to features of the JBS is not entirely coincidental or a result of indirect influence; there is also some direct influence. As Sugg writes:
Reconstruction's major impact has been through helping to found and guide cross-denominational and secular political organ-izations. The Council for National Policy - a group that holds meetings for right-wing leaders, once dubbed "the most powerful conservative group you've never heard of" - was founded in 1981 as a project of top John Birch Society figures ... . Its members included [Christian Reconstructionist patriarch Rousas John] Rushdoony, Gary North, Tim LaHaye, former Reagan aide Gary Bauer, and activist Paul Weyrich, who famously aimed to "overturn the present power structure of this country."
No comments:
Post a Comment