Opinion of this sage Reddit post on Evangelicalism and right-wing politics

[Indy Texas]

This has been getting a lot of upvotes on Reddit (not exactly a perfect microcosm of America/the world, granted):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd be particularly interested in hearing from the religious Democrats and the social liberal/not-very-religious Republicans and conservatives.

[bedstuy]

Sounds about right.  But, I think that's just how religion in America tends to be.

I just read a book on Mormonism and one of their big points was how Mormonism was born out of the American tradition of folk theology and anti-Clerical spirit.  America was a society cut off from a lot of the bureaucracy of the church in the old country.  So, people got used to being independent on religious matters and our government encouraged that with freedom of religion.

So, I think America, especially protestant white America, has always had a unique anti-Clerical bent.  People are independent and they want to decide for themselves how they feel about welfare, abortion, gay marriage or global warming.   You know that phrase "cafeteria catholic," I think that describes most people.  They want to pick and choose their favorite parts of religion and use what's useful to them.  They don't want some religious leader telling them what they're supposed to think.  So, religions try to tailor their message for their audience.  Liberal churches present a liberal message.  Conservatives churches present a conservative message.  That's how a Democratic, free market religion marketplace works.  I don't see how that's much of an insight.

[Meursault]

One of the things I like about some strains of European right-wing politics, including fascism, is its willingness to completely break with Christian populism in favor of an identitarian approach to politics.

I'd be much more amenable to the Right were it not married to Abrahamic monotheism, which is not even a traditionally European worldview.

[IceSpear]

What is sage about this? It sounds like a correct explanation.

[Indy Texas]

One of the things I like about some strains of European right-wing politics, including fascism, is its willingness to completely break with Christian populism in favor of an identitarian approach to politics.

I'd be much more amenable to the Right were it not married to Abrahamic monotheism, which is not even a traditionally European worldview.

You can't take an identitarian approach to politics in a country like the United States that has never been a conventional ethnically or linguistically homogenous nation-state, never can be and was really never intended to be.

To the extent that America has attempted to ape that sort of Far Right ideology, it has inevitably fallen back on culture, which is something people choose, rather than on ethnicity. The Buchananites who were once a vocal minority in the GOP are the only example I can think of. And when you think about it, the definition of "white" that people like Pat Buchanan use is so broad that it encompasses everything from Irish Catholics to Midwestern German Lutherans to Yankee Episcopalians - in Europe, people would say that "identity" was totally meaningless. And even to the extent that racism exists in the American Right, it is rooted in culture: black people aren't the problem (they liked Herman Cain and Ben Carson just fine) - if they acted like conservative white people, there would be no problem. Compare that to Europe's right-wing nationalists who literally do not want anyone who is not of the proper lineage to be in the country any longer than for a vacation. Even if they learn the language and the customs, they don't belong.

[Meursault]

Perhaps it's that I see the distinction between the European and American Right as being essentially backwards: Europe has culture; I can certainly understand, say, a German who wishes to conserve the culture that produced a Goethe and a Schopenhauer and a Mann, even if I regard the nationalists identification of the Westphalian nation with that culture as arbitrtary.

America has no culture, and this is reflected in the case history comparisons of America's farthest-right organization, the Klan, with the fascist movements of Europe. None of the leading Nazis were ignorant men: Hitler was a typical middle-class Austrian intelligence; Goebbels was a novelist; Goering was afforded higher education by virtue of his aristocratic heritage. The movement further attracted intellectuals like Julius Evola and Martin Heidegger.

This is obviously different from the Klan, a lowest-common-denominator group. Even the non-racialist Right in America seems incredibly dumb in comparison to the European Right.

[AggregateDemand]

Not accurate.

The Republican Party sold out to the AEC lobby, particularly the fundamentalist wing in the Bible-belt, who often quote everything but the red letters. Republican politics doesn't shape religious doctrine. On the contrary, religious doctrine/dogma continues to shape the Republican platform, often for worse. Democrats have complained about it since the Reagan Revolution. Moral Majority and so forth.

Furthermore, the notion of a permanent underclass was not a myth. Prior to welfare reform, over 10M Americans collected Welfare as a perpetual paycheck. Since the recession, many people, not just religious factions, are worried that the Old Democratic Party is trying to reassemble its vote buying mechanism from the past, rather than promoting growth.

The reason for the upvotes: I'm upset with the Republican Party. I don't like the Religious Right. This post sounds intelligent and I want to be associated with it. Upvote.

[Sol]

Perhaps it's that I see the distinction between the European and American Right as being essentially backwards: Europe has culture; I can certainly understand, say, a German who wishes to conserve the culture that produced a Goethe and a Schopenhauer and a Mann, even if I regard the nationalists identification of the Westphalian nation with that culture as arbitrtary.

America has no culture, and this is reflected in the case history comparisons of America's farthest-right organization, the Klan, with the fascist movements of Europe. None of the leading Nazis were ignorant men: Hitler was a typical middle-class Austrian intelligence; Goebbels was a novelist; Goering was afforded higher education by virtue of his aristocratic heritage. The movement further attracted intellectuals like Julius Evola and Martin Heidegger.

This is obviously different from the Klan, a lowest-common-denominator group. Even the non-racialist Right in America seems incredibly dumb in comparison to the European Right.

Lol. Heard of Woodrow Wilson?

[TJ in Oregon]

There is definitely some truth behind the main point they're making here: a lot of so-called socon interest groups are really just Republican interest groups. I remember when I used to get he email newsletter of one of them, I think it might have been Family Research Council, and they'd try to get me to sign petitions on things that have nothing to do their issue base but onstead on things like tax pledges.

I think the same can be said for almost every so-called special interest group in this country; they're all really partisan interest groups pretending to be something else.

[Person Man]

The bottom line is that republicans are trying to prove themselves that their policies make them good people, not bad people. With their policies, the only way you can do it is by saying "God is a Republican".

[Meursault]

Woodrow Wilson wasn't actually a Klansman.

To express it another way: I am not a Rightist, but, if I were, the European far-right, for all its racialism, is much more attractive to me than what passes for even the centre-right in the States. The former tends to have a very high level of discourse; it isn't uncommon for discussions to play out almost like genealogies. It's also modernist in its approach, sometimes moreso than the Left. Note that this applies mainly to actual neo-fascists, and less so to Americanized anti-Islamic populists and the like.

What is the American Right in comparison? They are almost uniformly Christian Fundamentalists - an abomination in itself - and either willfully ignorant rubes or mawkish sentimentalists, every bit as stereotypically emotion-driven as a 'bleeding heart liberal', and both deeply unmodern.

It may be a stylistic preference, but politics is as much aesthetics as anything else.  And my politics are purely Art Deco.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Woodrow Wilson wasn't actually a Klansman.

To express it another way: I am not a Rightist, but, if I were, the European far-right, for all its racialism, is much more attractive to me than what passes for even the centre-right in the States. The former tends to have a very high level of discourse; it isn't uncommon for discussions to play out almost like genealogies. It's also modernist in its approach, sometimes moreso than the Left. Note that this applies mainly to actual neo-fascists, and less so to Americanized anti-Islamic populists and the like.

What is the American Right in comparison? They are almost uniformly Christian Fundamentalists - an abomination in itself - and either willfully ignorant rubes or mawkish sentimentalists, every bit as stereotypically emotion-driven as a 'bleeding heart liberal', and both deeply unmodern.

It may be a stylistic preference, but politics is as much aesthetics as anything else.  And my politics are purely Art Deco.

This is one of the best apologias for the American right I've ever read.

'[L]evel of discourse'. For Christ's sake. What pretentious drivel. This sort of thing is an insult to the people to whose lives and livelihoods politics is actually important. Any decent politics is vernacular. It can be other styles too if it really wants to--part of the beauty of vernacular architecture is how varied it is!--but it has to at least be that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The European far-right is made up of illiterate, thuggish brutes just as much as its American equivalents. Sure, they add a few "intellectuals" in the mix, but so what? The Movement Conservatives had their William F. Buckley too.

[Lurker]

The European far-right is made up of illiterate, thuggish brutes just as much as its American equivalents. Sure, they add a few "intellectuals" in the mix, but so what? The Movement Conservatives had their William F. Buckley too.

You mean the racist, homophobic, intelligent design supporting, Franco/Pinochet loving Buckley?
I always find it amusing that he is used as an example of moderation and reason within the American conservative movement.

[traininthedistance]

The European far-right is made up of illiterate, thuggish brutes just as much as its American equivalents. Sure, they add a few "intellectuals" in the mix, but so what? The Movement Conservatives had their William F. Buckley too.

You mean the racist, homophobic, intelligent design supporting, Franco/Pinochet loving Buckley?
I always find it amusing that he is used as an example of moderation and reason within the American conservative movement.

He's an example of learnedness rather than moderation, which is a very different thing.

Though it is worth mentioning that his decision to refuse to engage with paleo anti-Semitism and not allow them on the pages of NR was, if nothing else, a pretty solid tactical decision in terms of making his brand of rightism seem respectable.  That's probably what most people are thinking of when they call him a moderate.

[Cassius]

Woodrow Wilson wasn't actually a Klansman.

To express it another way: I am not a Rightist, but, if I were, the European far-right, for all its racialism, is much more attractive to me than what passes for even the centre-right in the States. The former tends to have a very high level of discourse; it isn't uncommon for discussions to play out almost like genealogies. It's also modernist in its approach, sometimes moreso than the Left. Note that this applies mainly to actual neo-fascists, and less so to Americanized anti-Islamic populists and the like.

What is the American Right in comparison? They are almost uniformly Christian Fundamentalists - an abomination in itself - and either willfully ignorant rubes or mawkish sentimentalists, every bit as stereotypically emotion-driven as a 'bleeding heart liberal', and both deeply unmodern.

It may be a stylistic preference, but politics is as much aesthetics as anything else.  And my politics are purely Art Deco.

I think that you somewhat overestimate the capacity of the European far-right's intellectual equipment. I mean, you referred to the 'actual neo-fascists' as conducting their discourse upon a higher level. Well, when it comes to genuine neo-fascists and Nazis (as opposed to the hard-right 'populists' that you'll find in the PVV and FN, though of course, there are undoubtedly a few of the former in those parties as well), probably the most well-known example in modern Europe is the Greek party Golden Dawn. Their standard of discourse basically amounts to beating up their opponents.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Woodrow Wilson wasn't actually a Klansman.

To express it another way: I am not a Rightist, but, if I were, the European far-right, for all its racialism, is much more attractive to me than what passes for even the centre-right in the States. The former tends to have a very high level of discourse; it isn't uncommon for discussions to play out almost like genealogies. It's also modernist in its approach, sometimes moreso than the Left. Note that this applies mainly to actual neo-fascists, and less so to Americanized anti-Islamic populists and the like.

What is the American Right in comparison? They are almost uniformly Christian Fundamentalists - an abomination in itself - and either willfully ignorant rubes or mawkish sentimentalists, every bit as stereotypically emotion-driven as a 'bleeding heart liberal', and both deeply unmodern.

It may be a stylistic preference, but politics is as much aesthetics as anything else.  And my politics are purely Art Deco.

I think that you somewhat overestimate the capacity of the European far-right's intellectual equipment. I mean, you referred to the 'actual neo-fascists' as conducting their discourse upon a higher level. Well, when it comes to genuine neo-fascists and Nazis (as opposed to the hard-right 'populists' that you'll find in the PVV and FN, though of course, there are undoubtedly a few of the former in those parties as well), probably the most well-known example in modern Europe is the Greek party Golden Dawn. Their standard of discourse basically amounts to beating up their opponents.

I assume he's thinking primarily of people like Alain de Benoist and I guess maybe Julius Evola. These people are hardly preferable to anybody on the basis of their image or style or whatever in the first place since that basically amounts to being really pretentious at best and indulging grandiose delusions at worst, and the idea that they make up a significant proportion of the European far-right as it actually exists seems ludicrous based on what I know.

[angus]

opinion of dragging threads from other fora into this one:

FF (normal)
HP (Hitler Youth)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

A few words on the selected passages in the post.

Work is addressed consistently in Paul's letters.  I have no desire to go through each passage, but from what I've read most theologians agree that Paul was referring to a 'spiritual idleness.'  That is, many in Paul's time who had anticipated Jesus' Second Coming stopped working.  (After all, why work if Jesus is going to come down and sweep everyone into Heaven?)  Naturally, the laborers of the time were displeased that the most productive members of society no longer contributed.  Paul insisted that everyone share the workload.  It has absolutely nothing to do with welfare or charity.

But, that aside, the post is pretty dead-on.  The cherrypicking of Bible passages is nothing new here.  Bad theology is bad theology.

There is definitely some truth behind the main point they're making here: a lot of so-called socon interest groups are really just Republican interest groups. I remember when I used to get he email newsletter of one of them, I think it might have been Family Research Council, and they'd try to get me to sign petitions on things that have nothing to do their issue base but onstead on things like tax pledges.

I think the same can be said for almost every so-called special interest group in this country; they're all really partisan interest groups pretending to be something else.

This is extremely true.  I remember when one pro-life group (NRLC?  LifeNews?  Something like that) endorsed John Raese in the WV Senate race back in 2010.  They acknowledged that Joe Manchin had the same abortion position in the endorsement statement, but justified it by saying that they didn't want the "pro-abortion party" in control of the Senate.  NARAL does the same thing by endorsing pro-choice Democrats over pro-choice Republicans.

Funny enough, the only special interest groups that can generously be described as "non-partisan" are the pro/anti-gun control groups.  The NRA usually endorses a handful of Democrats every cycle and the Brady Campaign has occasionally endorsed Republicans.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The European far-right is made up of illiterate, thuggish brutes just as much as its American equivalents. Sure, they add a few "intellectuals" in the mix, but so what? The Movement Conservatives had their William F. Buckley too.

You mean the racist, homophobic, intelligent design supporting, Franco/Pinochet loving Buckley?
I always find it amusing that he is used as an example of moderation and reason within the American conservative movement.

This is not, in any way, what I said. I despise Buckley as much or more than anyone on here.

[King]

I can explain this in less words:

Evangelicals only care about stopping abortion and gay marriage.
Republicans only offer them stopping abortion and gay marriage.
Evangelicals contort to make the rest of the Republican platform Biblical.

Good night.

[IceSpear]

I can explain this in less words:

Evangelicals only care about stopping abortion and gay marriage.
Republicans only offer them stopping abortion and gay marriage.
Evangelicals contort to make the rest of the Republican platform Biblical.

Good night.

Basically. If Republicans are "holy" on abortion on gay marriage, they must be on everything else as well.