Year-end Summary, political — Rockridge Nation

Year-end Summary, political

Created by kim on Sunday, December 24, 2006 04:11 PM

Fellow Rockridge Nation participant, GravityLove, suggested that I share this piece with you. I didn't write it, but I think it's a good summary, and offers some hope. It was was written by Sara Robinson, a guest host at a site called Orcinus:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
I think everything she writes is great. Here is her year-end summary:


All Over But the Shouting
 

Sara Robinson

2006 may go down in history as the year the Religious Right finally jumped the shark, going over the top so high at last (as every Great Awakening in history ever has) that even some of their own followers noticed that their utopian fantasies were, finally, unworkable. Unmoored at last from the real-world concerns of their own moderates, and convinced (as authoritarians usually are) that the only answer can ever be more intrusion, more patriarchy, and more control, they've given us some singularly gobstopping moments this year, as a stunned nation finally stood in shock and awe, taking in the fully revealed and spectacularly bizarre details of their version of a Christianized America.

We saw the reductio ad absurdum of the idea that life begins at fertilization, which brought us false tragedy of frozen "snowflake babies," and the real tragedy of Michael J. Fox's frozen features -- and, ultimately, the thawing awareness that if America turns its back on stem cell research, it is doing nothing short of opting out of the biggest revolution in medicine since the discovery of germs.

We saw the pro-choice activists -- who have been telling us for years that the real target wasn't Roe but Griswold -- proven catastrophically right, as South Dakota tried to ban all abortions and the National Right to Life Foundation openly put itself on record as opposing most forms of birth control. Many of us were quite surprised. And quite a few of us weren't, because we knew they'd never stopped saying this kind of thing to each other in private since the days of Margaret Sanger.

We finally saw the media take a good hard look at longstanding experiments in radical patriarchy like Quiverfull families and fundamentalist Mormonism. And we realized that among patriarchy's greatest perversions is the way it fetishizes women as children, and children as women; and that men who gravitate to these extreme forms too often have some very weird psychosexual shit going on that makes them unsafe around minor girls.

And if there was any doubt about that, we saw videos ricocheting around the Internet of earnest young women at "purity balls" publicly pledging their chastity to their daddies -- and daddies, in turn, publicly swearing to "cover" (a choice word that means one thing to fundies, and quite another to anyone who grew up where livestock were bred) their daughters by holding them to it. And we watched, and shuddered, and the only word that seemed to fit was creepy.

We heard from the anti-environmental extremists who are learning in church that global warming isn't an issue, because God will fix it. (Would this be the same God who once deliberately drowned his entire creation in a flood? Just asking.) And we realized that the right-wing War on Science is not only real; but that it has already been more deadly than the war in Iraq -- and we have yet to see the full magnitude of the disaster.

We finally faced up to the size of the conservative movement's walk-in closet, which is big enough for Mark Foley and Ted Haggard and Ken Mehlman and a whole lot of Congressional aides, and we wondered once again just what Jeff Gannon was doing during those nights at the White House.

Alongside this, we saw the deeply venal corruption of the most "Christian" members of Congress, who betrayed the futures of the poor and middle class -- both in America, and elsewhere -- on behalf of their wealthy friends, even as they attempted to tear up the Constitution and institute Government by Divine Fiat. And we learned -- bitterly -- that the bigger and brighter a public figure's faith or patriotism appears to be, the more likely it is that they have never actually paid much attention to what's really in either the Bible or the Constitution.

And, to cap This Year in Hypocrisy, we've got the Department of Health and Human Services telling Americans under 30 to just stop fooling around. At which point pretty much everybody in the country knew that we'd ascended to a whole new shark-jumping level of whackadoodlery, and stopped being gobstopped, and just started rolling their eyes and laughing. Our self-appointed moral scolds finally overplayed their hand. No need to hold it back any more -- it's OK now to giggle and point. In fact, we have a moral duty of our own to do so, loudly and long, whenever we're confronted with this sort of reactionary absurdity.

The recurring theme in all these stories is this: The Religious Right, overweening in its self-righteousness and drunk on hubris and power, is no longer making even the slightest effort any more to keep its crazies in the closet. Free at last from any accountability to reason, they're increasingly taking positions that are guaranteed to alienate ever-wider swaths of the American electorate.

Over 90% of American women will use contraception at some point in their lives (most of them, ostensibly, with the support of their male partners). A National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association study done last spring found that even 80% of anti-choice Americans support giving women access to contraception. Likewise, 70% of Americans consider themselves environmentalists; and 88% think global warming poses a serious future threat. Two-thirds of us think the government should support stem-cell research. The election showed that most of us had had about enough of the GOP's devotion to charity for the upper classes only. And now, this week, it's being reported that 95% of all Americans engage in premarital sex, and have been doing so rather robustly for several generations now.

When you set the opinions of the vast majority of Americans against the extremist views the religious right staked out this year, you have to wonder: What are they thinking? Surely, they can't believe that staking out such extreme positions is the way to recover their political clout, and win back hearts and minds?

Actually: Yes. It is quite possible that this is exactly what they believe.

Remember that while the soft core authoritarian right was drawn to the movement for reasons of security in a time of fear (and is equally susceptible to being drawn away if their own perception of threat changes, as it is now), the smaller and more enduring hardcore has a different agenda. These people are lifelong right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) because they believe that a world without strong authority enforcing black-and-white rules is a world in which chaos must reign. To them, the only authorities worth following are those that place the most stringent demands from their followers. Rigidity and extremism are a sign that their leaders care enough to set high standards; punishment is a sign that they are noticed and loved.

Because of these beliefs, the first authoritarian response to any failure -- a lost election, dropping ratings, or a stymied legislative agenda -- is to demand that ever-stronger authority step in to enforce even more draconian standards. At this late hour, when their three-decade-long party is finally showing signs of breaking up, the hardcore RWAs are increasingly the only ones left. Drunk on the hard stuff, this is how they think: The more they lose, the more obstreperously they will insist on doing more of whatever it was they were doing before, back in the days when they were succeeding.

Opposing abortion was a 30-year winner. If we're losing support now, it's because we got too soft; so let's regain the moral high ground by opposing contraception and stem cell research, too. If opposing environmentalism made us powerful friends in the past, then opposing global warming should attract quite a few more. If our emphasis on family purity and patriarchy attracted millions of members, then making a public spectacle out of our oversized families and our prepubescent daughters' virginity oughta really wow the crowd.

Stay tuned. It's only going to get weirder for a while. We're probably going to see even more Fundie Follies in 2008, as the realization dawns that their social and political clout are fading. The more acutely they feel the loss, the more outrageous their attempts to push old favorite themes to new extremes will become. Which will, of course, only speed the continued loss of clout and followers, and turn up the volume on the general derision level. Which will, in turn, lead to even stranger pronouncements and more aggressive attempts to ship us all back to the 19th century, the shuddering machinery throwing off bolts and sparks and passengers with every accelerating and doomed orbit.

The good news is this: The stranger it gets, the closer we are to done. This is how Great Awakenings end in America -- with the last handful of remaining True Believers yelling ever-crazier things on street corners, while the sane and sober citizens sidestep them on their way to doing the real work of the country.

Update: Old Hickory's Weblog puts the above post (which focuses on the Christian Right specifically) into a larger context with the secular authoritarians of the Bush administration, who are of course caught in pretty much exactly the same authoritarian logic trap. If you are following the God-ordained One Right True and Only Way, then deviating from that way is simply not an option. Faith demands that you stay the course, even if that course is leading you directly into Hell. And if what you're doing isn't working, the only acceptable option is to do it bigger, deeper, louder, and harder until the superiority of your position is made clear to all those recalcitrant unbelievers. To admit that your mission is in error is to deny the very truth of God -- or, in Bush's case, his Divine Right as king. Victory is inevitable. Failure is impossible. Turning back is unthinkable.

Hickory points out that things at the White House are likely to get weirder this coming year as well, for precisely the same reasons. That grinding, ripping sound you hear is the wings coming off as fantasy descends to ground level, approaching its final brutal encounter with the reality down here. The only good news (if we survive the impact) is that the longer their denial holds out, the crazier their corrective maneuvers become, and the more memorable the final explosion turns out to be, the longer and more thoroughly the whole conservative enterprise will stand discredited. With a big enough boom, the right will not be able to rise again until the last person old enough to remember this disaster has left the scene, heels first, sometime very late in the century -- longer if we don't forget to warn the grandkids.

It could go other ways, of course. The future is never knowable. But the pattern's a familiar one, so consider this the trendline -- the most expectable future out of many that could occur.

Not specified

N/A

Not specified
collapse all   |   Show as "new" comments posted within the last:  

Framing?

collapse Posted by kencomer at Monday, December 25, 2006 04:10 AM

Regarding the "snowflake babies", I think that good counter-frame terms might be "cellular clusters", "blastocysts", "fertilization therapy by-products" or "back-up implantation clusters/blastocysts/embryo(?)/resources"

From what I could tell from a brief glance around the net, "chastity balls" are nothing but "abstinence programs" conducted outside the purvey of the government-funded education. A father and daughter dress up, she says she won't have sex until entered into a marriage (using a lot of value-laden language, probably) approved by her father and the father says that he will try to protect her through word and deed from the horrible fate of having had sex before marriage. This does not seem to be an issue of broad political importance--the ceremony is done without sanction of the state and certainly falls within the province of religious freedom--but it does fit with the "stern father" frame that Dr. Lakoff associates with the conservative movement. The oath of the father:
«I, [daughter's name]'s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come.»
A link about a "purity ball" http://tinyurl.com/mvjec (which seems to be the same thing as a "chastity ball" as reported by one blog http://tinyurl.com/ydljom )
===================================================================================

While I had not heard the terms "snowflake babies", "purity balls" and the related term "cover", or "right-wing authoritarians" before, it does not appear that any of these terms originated with this source. Nor are these discussed in depth. I also had not heard that the "Right to Life" group had come out against birth control. If the whole point of this posting was to show that these terms have currency (or, in the case of "right-wing authoritarians", should have currency), then why not excerpt those parts so that we could concentrate on them?

Does this article describe a basis upon which I have reason to believe that the people using the word "cover" meant it in the "livestock" sense? No.

Someone else might agree with me here--and I hope they will point it out if they do--but the purpose of this site is not to whine about the legion of ills facing the planet/Americans today, but to discuss the language that is used which slants the perception of these ills in one direction or another.

reply to kencomer

collapse Posted by kim at Monday, December 25, 2006 08:10 PM
Kencomer
As I stated at the top of the post, it was suggested by GravityLove that I post this here because he thought you all would find it interesting. I looked around for where to post it, and the "framing stories" section seemed to be the only section where guests could post.
Our history is that GravityLove and I met through the previous Rockridge Blog -- where we were among the last holdouts who posted often right up until the blog disappeared (without any warning). So we may have a slightly different idea of what this is all about than you do.
Sara Robinson has many really great essays, and this was just the latest -- and it was a year-end summary, which is often done at year's end. It was clearly labeled as a year-end summary. You didn't have to read it if you weren't interested.
If Rockridge thinks it's inappropriate, I'm sure they will remove it.

The term "snowflake babies" is one W used when talking about why he is against stem cell research. He even appeared on the news with one or two of them. "Purity Balls" appeared in a video that went around the blog circuit a while back -- they were really weird, kindof two-faced, like the word "covered". Why did they choose that word, which, to any farmer also obviously means, uh, "bred"? The video, which the Purity Ball people themselves made, so it's what they think is positive, has eerie overtones of sanctioned incest and creepy father-worship, etc. I hope you get to see it.
The overall point that Sara is making is that the tide is turning, and the Religious Right is going off the deep end, and that is a hopeful sign. These were illustrations of her point.
Obviously, if we come up with the right ways of talking about this stuff we can help them over that cliff. So, thank you for your efforts in that direction, and for beginning the brainstorming session on it. I hope others join in.

cover

collapse Posted by kencomer at Sunday, December 31, 2006 04:44 AM

I can't comment on the video, but the oath given above clearly shows a context that where "cover" and "covering" had absolutely nothing to do with "breed". I'll include it again with my emphasis:

«I, [daughter's name]'s father, choose before God to COVER my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and as the high priest in my home. This COVERING will be used by God to influence generations to come.»

One observer of the September 11 hijacking attack on the Pentagon said that the plane "came in low and fast like a cruise missile". Conspiracy theorists made a big deal about the "cruise missile" and talked about it as though this literally meant that someone saw a cruise missile.

This sounds to me like the same thing... Nothing but a poorly chosen word taken out of context and supplied with a lurid interpretation.

You could be right about the meaning of "cover" but, on the basis of the evidence I have been able to find, I remain extremely skeptical. I am mostly anti-religion (yeah, I'm one of the god-hating atheist liberals) and disapprove of the sort of wacko daddy-rules-over-baby's-loins junk even more than I detest... Well, just leave it there, but accept my word that I'm not one to take the side of deists on general principle. That isn't evidence that I am right and you are wrong, but I still think either your precepts or your investigation could use a bit of adjustment.

snowflakes (TM)

collapse Posted by kencomer at Sunday, December 31, 2006 05:59 AM

Upon investigation, I learned that "snowflake baby" adoptions are being promoted by nightlight.org, an organization that regrets that it is unable to rescue all 400,000 of the frozen embryos sitting around in nitrogen. Some of the adopters are likely just couples who want babies but cannot get pregnant on their own (bear with my usage of "couples" getting pregnant--I'm not promoting gestation by males) and cannot afford the $12,000 to harvest and fertilize ova from mommy-wannabes. Nightlight, while claiming to be a Christian organization, specifically notes in their FAQs that they welcome non-Christian clients both as "adopters" and embryo suppliers. Nightlight implies that at least some of the "adopters" are adopting to save these precious little bundles of smiling blastocysts.

"Snowflakes" is a registered trademark for their "adoption" program. Doubtless, their trademark attorney is having a cow at the widespread unauthorized use of the term "snowflake babies"--even by the USA President, no less--and scrambles endlessly day and night practicing due diligence to protect their claim to the mark. It must be Hell for her/him, especially during winters.

I once wrote a satire about how the problem of embryonic stem cell (please--can we just call them "blastocyst stem cells" so no one will care any more?) could be solved and--you're probably way ahead of me--now I find out that part of it has come to pass in this funny thing we call Reality(TM). Some parts of that satire still have not come to pass, so maybe there's hope. In the satire, I suggested that the fundy wackos be permitted first dibs on embryos (except those held on orders of the donors) that were about to be cast out. Any blastocysts that had not been claimed after release by the donors for more than 10 months (a nice round number) would then be sent to stem-cell researchers and programs in return for a small donation ($10? $100?) to a fund for adoption agencies and foster care agencies for hard-to-place children (e.g., pariahs like blind babies, crack babies, babies born missing a limb or who lost a limb in his/her early years, etc.). Donors who wanted to cease storage of their blastocysts but who were unwilling for these cell bundles to be used in medical care or research could order them flushed away after paying the same fee that a certified researcher/care provider would pay. Apparently, I was bespoken by God Almighty at the time of that writing, and may His Will come to pass.

Tell your Congress-critters of this proposal which could help bring joy and health to everyone. Be sure to mention that this stem cell research program was prophesied several years ago and is the result of Divine Inspiration.

Tag Cloud
Common Good Congress Economy Education Environment Equality Fairness Freedom Foreign Policy Gender Health Housing Immigration Integrity Iraq Justice Labor Media North Korea Other Religion Responsibility Security Strategic Initiative Taxes Terrorism Thinking Points Trade Transportation Values Voting
Latest Content
A credit score is a frame by Think4myself, Monday, April 21, 2008 05:34 AM
0 comments
Inner Contentment and Peace by Moriji, Sunday, April 20, 2008 06:51 PM
0 comments
Green Jobs for America: good jobs and protecting the environment go together by glacier, Saturday, April 19, 2008 09:40 PM
0 comments
What are we doing here? Rockridge posts and communication modes by Arcadian, Friday, April 18, 2008 09:29 AM
13 comments
Ann Coulter mentions George Lakoff! by Moriji, Thursday, April 17, 2008 06:11 PM
4 comments
All recent content… RSS Feed
Reasons to Give
"Heal the poisonous political atmosphere of the day, and restore the word Liberal/progressive as a term which identifies a person as a caring, thinking, doing actor on the political stage of American and global life."

—Paul, Rockridge online donor from California