How SoCons Can Win the Culture Wars - Lessons from Ultra-Orthodox Judaism

[DC Al Fine]

Lately I've become concerned with how Evangelical culture war methods have failed; not creating major change in the culture at large and even failing to prevent liberalism from growing within evangelicalism itself. This got me thinking about what alternative strategies might be pursued. An article about Ultra-Orthodox Jew's political influence in liberal NYC was published in the New York Times a few weeks ago. Here are some relevant snippets.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This article highlights a few key lessons socially conservative Christians can take from this.

1) If you want to win the cultural war, you need soldiers, and that means babies. Lots of them, birthed young, with subsequent generations following in the same path. Women will need to marry men and start having babies at a much younger age than normal.

2) You need to minimize population losses, which means
a) Running your own schools is essential as the public schools with preach values contrary to your own.
b) Having a rituals and/or clothing that set the group apart from the general population, encouraging solidarity and making the transition out of the faith more difficult than it is for your typical lapsed Catholic or Evangelical.

3) Concentration for political purposes is important. Politicians follow votes, even though pastors cannot tell people how to vote from the pulpit for fear of losing tax-exempt status. But what the Ultra-Orthodox do is particularly notable: rather than worry about national politics where their votes are diluted in a sea of others, they care and focus on local politics, and get results for it

The Ultra-Orthodox Jews have had success with this strategy, but not every conservative Christian group will be able to apply it. Evangelicals lack the church polity and discipline to implement the strategy. Too many Evangelicals are wedded to aspects of the "liberal" lifestyle, like having 1-2 kids, and it's too easy for them to drop out of the community. In my view Evangelicals are prime candidates for liberalizing and have already begun to do so.

More likely candidates are smaller, more disciplined groups that are already acting in a very conservative manner. Fundamentalist Protestants (the real kind, not the atheist slur kind), orthodox Calvinists, and very conservative Catholics (the ones who eschew birth control and/or like their masses in Latin) all possess high birth rates and avoid public schools a bit already. Groups like this can create pockets of conservatism where they are already concentrated.

Thoughts?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Looks like wishful thinking.  The trend, as of now, is not on the side of the conservatives, and that's in spite of the fact that the media portrays all Christians as a bunch of old white conservatives and tricks people into thinking they can only be religious conservatives or secular liberals (similar, in a way, to how they suppress third parties by not reporting on them).

I also find it quite rash to assume that a child will be a conservative Christian simply because their parents are.  Heck, they could turn out to be militant atheists for all we know.  And as long as folks like Pat Robertson remain the symbol of modern Christianity (you can blame both Christians and the media for that one), both liberals and conservatives will pay the price for it.  You cannot simply "make the transition out of the faith more difficult" by segregating people.  In fact, you risk alienating more people in doing so, hurting the religion even further.

As far as the culture wars go, even the most conservative of Christians are beginning to concede them.  One of the biggest reparative therapy centers, Exodus International, closed its doors and the president apologized for the harm it caused not too long ago.  The more the fundamentalists alienate themselves, and the more battles they concede, the brighter the future for religious progressives alike.  All we have to do is not make the same mistakes the religious right made.

[TJ in Oregon]

This is essentially the argument that traditionalist Catholics make against the Second Vatican Council: it removed the separate social stigma and identity from Catholicism and remade us as generic Americans. Prior to that point, the use of Latin, strict fasting rules, not using public schools, and a general segregation from society at-large. Then in the 60s, Catholics dropped much of this and were integrated. The hopes at the time were to solve a myriad of minor problems, and, if there was one vague far-reaching one, the reunification of Christianity.

These are effective ideas for how one could hope to shape a revolution for the long term, but bringing about a drastic change to how we interact with society, walling ourselves off so to speak, is not something that can easily be done without risking a discontinuity in our practices that will lead others to confusion and cause more disarray. Additionally, a distinct part of Christianity, is to not wall ourselves off from the world. Christ didn't wall himself off from sin. We may have issues with the prevailing culture and we can never blindly consent to it. But we also have a responsibility to live as imitators of Christ in our world. I don't think Christ would have advocated this strategy.

[TJ in Oregon]

I also find it quite rash to assume that a child will be a conservative Christian simply because their parents are.  Heck, they could turn out to be militant atheists for all we know.  And as long as folks like Pat Robertson remain the symbol of modern Christianity (you can blame both Christians and the media for that one), both liberals and conservatives will pay the price for it.  You cannot simply "make the transition out of the faith more difficult" by segregating people.  In fact, you risk alienating more people in doing so, hurting the religion even further.

I think you missed his point Scott; if we took the lifestyle of the Orthodox Jews as our model, renouncing the faith would require basically disowning everything about your life, from your family to your home to your school. If we created a bubble as the Orthodox Jews do, it almost certainly would achieve that purpose as it has for the Orthodox Jews (or at least enough of one that their population is rapidly rising).

[Kitteh]

A couple things:

1) Not clear how what works for a tiny minority group will translate to a many orders of magnitude larger section of American/Western society.

2) The political goals of the ultra-orthodox are different from the goals of conservative Christianity and the social conservative movement as a whole. The Hasidim are mainly trying to preserve their own religious and cultural traditions in their enclaves free from outside influence. They're not trying to influence society and politics at large, or to win converts. See for example how much of an effect extreme opposition from hasidic groups to marriage equality in NY had. Segregating off from society seems like it's much more effective for achieving the Hasidims' goals than for achieving mainstream conservative christian goals.

3) It's not clear that where the ultra-orthodox have waded into politics they've been successful. The growth of places like Kiryas Joel (not too far away from me, actually) has upset quite a few people in the surrounding areas. While these groups may be culturally homogenous enough and maintain enough of a voting bloc to keep from being overpowered, they've probably made a lot of enemies in the process from people who might otherwise be sympathetic or at least neutral (i.e. Rockland County non-hasidic Jews). Israeli politics might be an example of how this can backfire; while the situation in Israel is extremely different and unique, the debate over the ultra-orthodox draft exemption seems like it has a lot of parallels here.

tl;dr interesting idea, but not at all clear it would work and could backfire

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I also find it quite rash to assume that a child will be a conservative Christian simply because their parents are.  Heck, they could turn out to be militant atheists for all we know.  And as long as folks like Pat Robertson remain the symbol of modern Christianity (you can blame both Christians and the media for that one), both liberals and conservatives will pay the price for it.  You cannot simply "make the transition out of the faith more difficult" by segregating people.  In fact, you risk alienating more people in doing so, hurting the religion even further.

I think you missed his point Scott; if we took the lifestyle of the Orthodox Jews as our model, renouncing the faith would require basically disowning everything about your life, from your family to your home to your school. If we created a bubble as the Orthodox Jews do, it almost certainly would achieve that purpose as it has for the Orthodox Jews (or at least enough of one that their population is rapidly rising).

But will this hold true for people as they enter adulthood, and are no longer tethered to the customs of their families or of their communities unless their financial situations coerce them to be?  Even then, you can say you are part of the faith, but completely disown it all on your own terms, even behind those who hold you to it the most.

I mean, we need to account for the evolving attitudes of religion in general as well as differences in heritage.  This strategy may have worked for Orthodox Jews thanks to centuries of persecution that helped them maintain a sense of unity, but I don't think you can get Christians to all say, "Okay, we'll just mimic the Jews," and then expect similar outcomes.

[TJ in Oregon]

The thing is with that sort of a social ideal, you wouldn't settle down on your own in adulthood, unless it was in a neighborhood of the same sort. College would be the same way, if you went at all it would be to an institution of the same viewpoint surrounded by people of the same viewpoint.

However, you are correct that you couldn't get all Christians to agree to do this (this idea is already based on the premise that you're letting the 'progressive' strains leave the reservation and go evolve on their own to begin with, not the relationship between Hasids and Reform Jews, but forget that point for now and just assume its only 'conservative' Christians), which is one of the main issues with it. I obviously want the socons to win these types of battles, but that did not stop me from moving to Madison and trying to get a PhD. This career path would simply not be available in the setting DC is describing.

[TJ in Oregon]

DC, I think the way we might want to go about this type of thought isn't to match the Orthodox Jews, but to match the Mormons. They maintain their religiosity not by running away from society but by immersing themselves in it when they require everyone to spend time as a missionary. Their missionaries aren't particularly successful, but what the idea really accomplishes is that it takes young adults out on their own for the first time and places them in a structured environment focused on their faith, rather than throwing them into the population at large. The young adults spend those months establishing a life ethic on their own, and then subsequently go on to live careers acclimated to their social surroundings.

[Beet]

1) This is why Im against fecundism as a legal matter.
2) This is not new; the Quiverfull movement, much closer abreast to Evangelicals than either Haredim or Mormons, has been trying this since the 1990s.
3) Easier said than done! The Haredim have their own schools and economies; legal system, police, means of production, doctrines of separation. they have a great tolerance for living in poverty and isolation. One does not just pick up and recreate all of these habits and institutions with the clap of the hands.
4) The Haredim are motivated by more than winning "the culture war"; if anything, such is alien to them. Their behavior is self contained and not directed at some outside ends, else it would have collapsed long ago. No one is idealistic enough to impale himself for generations on end on the spike of asceticism for the sake of a Baby Boomer fiction; others is a matter of ethno religious identity as well as a discourse genuinely centered on their religion as a thing in itself.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This isn't something that could really work for evangelicals.  Regardless of whether they take reactionary or liberal views, one thing that is fundamental to the evangelical movement is evangelizing.  Unlike the Hasidim, evangelicals are forced by their religion to confront the secular world.

[pbrower2a]

Lately I've become concerned with how Evangelical culture war methods have failed; not creating major change in the culture at large and even failing to prevent liberalism from growing within evangelicalism itself. This got me thinking about what alternative strategies might be pursued. An article about Ultra-Orthodox Jew's political influence in liberal NYC was published in the New York Times a few weeks ago. Here are some relevant snippets.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This article highlights a few key lessons socially conservative Christians can take from this.

1) If you want to win the cultural war, you need soldiers, and that means babies. Lots of them, birthed young, with subsequent generations following in the same path. Women will need to marry men and start having babies at a much younger age than normal.

2) You need to minimize population losses, which means
a) Running your own schools is essential as the public schools with preach values contrary to your own.
b) Having a rituals and/or clothing that set the group apart from the general population, encouraging solidarity and making the transition out of the faith more difficult than it is for your typical lapsed Catholic or Evangelical.

3) Concentration for political purposes is important. Politicians follow votes, even though pastors cannot tell people how to vote from the pulpit for fear of losing tax-exempt status. But what the Ultra-Orthodox do is particularly notable: rather than worry about national politics where their votes are diluted in a sea of others, they care and focus on local politics, and get results for it

The Ultra-Orthodox Jews have had success with this strategy, but not every conservative Christian group will be able to apply it. Evangelicals lack the church polity and discipline to implement the strategy. Too many Evangelicals are wedded to aspects of the "liberal" lifestyle, like having 1-2 kids, and it's too easy for them to drop out of the community. In my view Evangelicals are prime candidates for liberalizing and have already begun to do so.

More likely candidates are smaller, more disciplined groups that are already acting in a very conservative manner. Fundamentalist Protestants (the real kind, not the atheist slur kind), orthodox Calvinists, and very conservative Catholics (the ones who eschew birth control and/or like their masses in Latin) all possess high birth rates and avoid public schools a bit already. Groups like this can create pockets of conservatism where they are already concentrated.

Thoughts?

First of all, Hasidic Jews have a well-defined culture. Christian Protestant fundamentalists have nothing so distinctive. Second, they do not consider themselves ultra-Orthodox. They don't go 'beyond' Orthodoxy.

 But point by point --

1) Those babies don't get to vote until they are 18.  If Hasidic Jews can get away with early marriage and childbirth they still have a rich cultural and educational heritage. For most others, early marriage and childhood implies the end of any intellectual development.

2a) That is costly. Private schools make sense if one is above average in income, but not if one's group is poorer than the average. Private schools with a strong ideological bent imply that one must recruit teachers from outside. Some of them might subvert the thoughts of some of their students in the interest of their welfare.

2b) Christian Protestant fundamentalists would need to develop their own tailors to create distinctive clothes not available at Wal*Mart, JCPenney, etc.

3) The Hasidic rabbis act as power-brokers and go for whoever serves the concern of the day. Christian Protestant fundamentalists have largely sold out to the GOP and have little left to offer.     

[Oak Hills]

Although this idea probably wouldn't work, the more important objection to it is that it is immoral. I think it is immoral to isolate children from other parts of society in order to indoctrinate them. Indeed, I am of the opinion that that is borderline child abuse. I also think it is immoral to intentionally make it difficult to leave the religion in order to preserve its power. This is the sort of stuff cults do, in fact I would argue that any group that adopts this behaviour specifically to achieve the ends DC is alluding to is by definition a cult.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Orthodox Judaism and "conservative Christianity" (how vague can you get?!) of course have precious little in common theologically, historically, or culturally.

The problem with (white) American "evangelical" Protestantism is that it's clinging to a cultural/religious heritage that never really existed, certainly not like Orthodox Judaism, which, at the very least, is clearly defined in terms of theology, tradition, culture, and history.

Consider the reality of America bing a place of continuous reform and change in terms of its culture, and it becomes obvious why an attempt to be rigidly and dogmatically "conservative" in this cultural context would be contradictory and hypocritical.

[pbrower2a]

Orthodox Judaism and "conservative Christianity" (how vague can you get?!) of course have precious little in common theologically, historically, or culturally.

Indeed, Orthodox Judaism has its traditions, but although it has stuck to some very strict rules on ritual and dietary practices, it has been extremely permissive on technological innovations. It allows extensive freedom on what the Torah and Talmud does not specifically prohibit. But it has very old traditions. In contrast, "conservative Christianity" is mostly "conservative" on political issues and has at most a century and a half of existence in theology.

With 'conservative' Christianity, Biblical inerrancy mandates the denial of scientific discoveries that in any way contradict the literal WORD in any detail -- including the chronology and the extreme ages of early characters of the Bible. This, contrary to its claim to tradition, is comparative novelty. Even the word Fundamentalist dates from 1922. In contrast to Orthodox Judaism, which is the original Judaism (and both Modern Orthodox and Reform Judaism recognize Orthodox Judaism as the original Judaism), Fundamentalist Christianity is a break from older Christianity.

The 'conservatism' is more on politics than on ritual or even living ways.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Protestants wish to rediscover the old Christianity whence Protestantism appeared, then the Roman Catholic Church awaits them. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All current Protestant denominations are either heresies of the Roman Catholic Church or are heresies of other Protestant denominations.

[afleitch]

All current Protestant denominations are either heresies of the Roman Catholic Church or are heresies of other Protestant denominations.

And Roman Catholicism is a heresy of the early Judeo-Christian church.

[DC Al Fine]

To the posters suggesting this wouldn't work for Evangelicals, I absolutely agree. It's groups like Ultra-Orthodox Jews, orthodox Calvinists, Mormons that would be able to make this plan work. Evangelicals by their very nature aren't inclined to separate and their church structure would make it very difficult to do so even if they were inclined to be.

I'll try to address the rest of your concerns when I get a chance but right now I'm swamped.

[minionofmidas]

To the posters suggesting this wouldn't work for Evangelicals, I absolutely agree. It's groups like Ultra-Orthodox Jews, orthodox Calvinists, Mormons that would be able to make this plan work. Evangelicals by their very nature aren't inclined to separate and their church structure would make it very difficult to do so even if they were inclined to be.

Not by their nature as Evangelicals - by their nature as part and parcel of American mainstream culture. To become a well-organized minority group with considerable minority influence, you'll first need to be a minority community, divorced from the majority culture.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To the posters suggesting this wouldn't work for Evangelicals, I absolutely agree. It's groups like Ultra-Orthodox Jews, orthodox Calvinists, Mormons that would be able to make this plan work. Evangelicals by their very nature aren't inclined to separate and their church structure would make it very difficult to do so even if they were inclined to be.

Not by their nature as Evangelicals - by their nature as part and parcel of American mainstream culture. To become a well-organized minority group with considerable minority influence, you'll first need to be a minority community, divorced from the majority culture.

Depending upon how exclusive one wants to be with the term Evangelical, it not difficult at all to define them a minority today.  However, even with them being a minority, Evangelicals by their very nature cannot divorce from the majority culture, for to do so would be to abandon evangelism.  That's the point that is being made here.

[Hatman 🍁]

Proof that "SoCons" are on the losing side of the culture wars. They can't win with logic, so they have to resort to having more children.

[DC Al Fine]

Proof that "SoCons" are on the losing side of the culture wars. They can't win with logic, so they have to resort to having more children.

C'mon Hatman you're better than this and you know it. As anyone who works around politics should know, a heck of a lot more than truth and logic affects public opinion.

[All Along The Watchtower]

To the posters suggesting this wouldn't work for Evangelicals, I absolutely agree. It's groups like Ultra-Orthodox Jews, orthodox Calvinists, Mormons that would be able to make this plan work. Evangelicals by their very nature aren't inclined to separate and their church structure would make it very difficult to do so even if they were inclined to be.

Not by their nature as Evangelicals - by their nature as part and parcel of American mainstream culture. To become a well-organized minority group with considerable minority influence, you'll first need to be a minority community, divorced from the majority culture.

Depending upon how exclusive one wants to be with the term Evangelical, it not difficult at all to define them a minority today.  However, even with them being a minority, Evangelicals by their very nature cannot divorce from the majority culture, for to do so would be to abandon evangelism.  That's the point that is being made here.

I think "minority" was not being used in the literal sense but in the cultural sense here-ie White evangelicals are essentially indistinguishable from the dominant culture of America.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think "minority" was not being used in the literal sense but in the cultural sense here-ie White evangelicals are essentially indistinguishable from the dominant culture of America.

While Christianity is the dominant American culture, Evangelism is not, save in some parts of the Bible Belt.  Of course to an unrepentant pagan heathen like yourself, the cultural differences between Evangelical Christians and other Christians may seem so minor to be insignificant, but they exist and they have definitely grown wider in my lifetime.

[DC Al Fine]

I also find it quite rash to assume that a child will be a conservative Christian simply because their parents are.  Heck, they could turn out to be militant atheists for all we know.  And as long as folks like Pat Robertson remain the symbol of modern Christianity (you can blame both Christians and the media for that one), both liberals and conservatives will pay the price for it.  You cannot simply "make the transition out of the faith more difficult" by segregating people.  In fact, you risk alienating more people in doing so, hurting the religion even further.

I think you missed his point Scott; if we took the lifestyle of the Orthodox Jews as our model, renouncing the faith would require basically disowning everything about your life, from your family to your home to your school. If we created a bubble as the Orthodox Jews do, it almost certainly would achieve that purpose as it has for the Orthodox Jews (or at least enough of one that their population is rapidly rising).

But will this hold true for people as they enter adulthood, and are no longer tethered to the customs of their families or of their communities unless their financial situations coerce them to be?  Even then, you can say you are part of the faith, but completely disown it all on your own terms, even behind those who hold you to it the most.

Scott, despite the stereotype about kids rebelling against their ultra-conservative parents, the children devout regular attenders have higher retention rates than their irregular counterparts. Part of the reason you hear about people rebelling against their fundamentalist parents is because it's somewhat abnormal and a bit controversial. An essay about someone attending the Episcopal church once a month before drifting away in college would be quite boring to read!

I think you've heard that you make it through end undergrad years as a Catholic, Evangelical, Atheist etc, you're probably going to stay that way for the rest of your life. For the less devout, it's fairly easy to convert to something else and requires little change in lifestyle. By creating a "bubble" you make the quitter put a bit of effort in to leave and make staying the path of least resistance.

[DC Al Fine]

First of all, Hasidic Jews have a well-defined culture. Christian Protestant fundamentalists have nothing so distinctive. Second, they do not consider themselves ultra-Orthodox. They don't go 'beyond' Orthodoxy.

 But point by point --

1) Those babies don't get to vote until they are 18.  If Hasidic Jews can get away with early marriage and childbirth they still have a rich cultural and educational heritage. For most others, early marriage and childhood implies the end of any intellectual development.

2a) That is costly. Private schools make sense if one is above average in income, but not if one's group is poorer than the average. Private schools with a strong ideological bent imply that one must recruit teachers from outside. Some of them might subvert the thoughts of some of their students in the interest of their welfare.

2b) Christian Protestant fundamentalists would need to develop their own tailors to create distinctive clothes not available at Wal*Mart, JCPenney, etc.

3) The Hasidic rabbis act as power-brokers and go for whoever serves the concern of the day. Christian Protestant fundamentalists have largely sold out to the GOP and have little left to offer.     

Indeed, which is why I suggest that groups with a slightly more distinct heritage would be ideal candidates for this route (Mormons, strict Calvinists, certain Catholic groups etc.)

1) I't's a long term project and many other groups have similar heritages.

2a) Part of the church's ministry in this scenario would go towards running/subsidizing these schools. The sect would surely push for vouchers as well. Also, ideologically impure teachers hasn't really been an issue in the Christian schools in my area at least. They all seem to be staffed by nuns/devout laypeople from the sponsoring church.

2b) Pretty small issue. Tailor shops/sewing at home isn't that hard to set up or do.

3) If Evangelicals stopped showing up at the polls, the GOP would be screwed. Plus they still have the pull to primary people.

[pbrower2a]

First of all, Hasidic Jews have a well-defined culture. Christian Protestant fundamentalists have nothing so distinctive. Second, they do not consider themselves ultra-Orthodox. They don't go 'beyond' Orthodoxy.

 But point by point --

1) Those babies don't get to vote until they are 18.  If Hasidic Jews can get away with early marriage and childbirth they still have a rich cultural and educational heritage. For most others, early marriage and childhood implies the end of any intellectual development.

2a) That is costly. Private schools make sense if one is above average in income, but not if one's group is poorer than the average. Private schools with a strong ideological bent imply that one must recruit teachers from outside. Some of them might subvert the thoughts of some of their students in the interest of their welfare.

2b) Christian Protestant fundamentalists would need to develop their own tailors to create distinctive clothes not available at Wal*Mart, JCPenney, etc.

3) The Hasidic rabbis act as power-brokers and go for whoever serves the concern of the day. Christian Protestant fundamentalists have largely sold out to the GOP and have little left to offer.     

Indeed, which is why I suggest that groups with a slightly more distinct heritage would be ideal candidates for this route (Mormons, strict Calvinists, certain Catholic groups etc.)

1) It's a long term project and many other groups have similar heritages.

2a) Part of the church's ministry in this scenario would go towards running/subsidizing these schools. The sect would surely push for vouchers as well. Also, ideologically impure teachers hasn't really been an issue in the Christian schools in my area at least. They all seem to be staffed by nuns/devout laypeople from the sponsoring church.

2b) Pretty small issue. Tailor shops/sewing at home isn't that hard to set up or do.

3) If Evangelicals stopped showing up at the polls, the GOP would be screwed. Plus they still have the pull to primary people.

A big point -- the Hasidic Jews have a glorious intellectual tradition. They have something to keep the people capable of thinking in the fold, namely a respect for secular learning.  A Christian Protestant fundamentalist who develops a curiosity about the world beyond the pat answers must either abandon the quest for knowledge or break ranks.

Roman Catholics and Mormons have no such problem. The Catholic Church has plenty of excellent universities and colleges; Jesuit education of youth is very good. Mormons have Brigham Young University, a fine institution -- if one can adhere to Mormon strictures.

Being distinct from the rest of humanity as defined by attire is a fortress -- and a barrier to success. Hasidic Jews, the Nation of Islam, and the Old Order Amish have their own worlds, nearly-complete economic universes. Christian Protestant fundamentalists don't have that yet and are far from achieving that.