In his last book, the late Marvin Harris, a prominent anthropologist of the time, wrote that "the attack against reason and objectivity is fast reaching the proportions of a crusade." To save the American Dream, "we desperately need to reaffirm the principle that it is possible to carry out an analysis of social life which rational human beings will recognize as being true, regardless of whether they happen to be women or men, whites or black, straights or gays, employers or employees, Jews or born-again Christians. The alternative is to stand by helplessly as special interest groups tear the United States apart in the name of their "separate realities' or to wait until one of them grows strong enough to force its irrational and subjective brand of reality on all the rest."

That was written 25 years ago, just as the radical Christian right was setting out on their long march to political supremacy. The forces he warned against have gained strength ever since and now control much of the United States government and are on the verge of having it all.

It has to be said that their success has come in no small part because of our acquiescence and timidity. Our democratic values are imperiled because too many people of reason are willing to appease irrational people just because they are pious. Republican moderates tried appeasement and survive today only in gulags set aside for them by the Karl Roves, Bill Frists and Tom DeLays. Democrats are divided and paralyzed, afraid that if they take on the organized radical right they will lose what little power they have. Trying to learn to talk about God as Republicans do, they're talking gobbledygook, compromising the strongest thing going for them - the case for a moral economy and the moral argument for the secular checks and balances that have made America "a safe haven for the cause of conscience."

Indeed.

Fear has also paralyzed many of those affected by the religious right's drive for power. Ignorance has been a factor as well. The paralysis of fear and ignorance has prevented many of us from learning the things we needed to know, so we could do the things we most needed to do.  

One of the great mistakes was when many of us resorted to name calling -- actually believing that if we just called "them" the right name in our "sound bites," somehow "they" would be discredited, and people who were leaning their way would some how start leaning our way. Exactly who the "them" and "they" are, usually went unlearned, and certainly unstated.  Focus group generated "messages" substituted for understanding the nature of the opposition, and developing an appropriate strategy and subsidiary tactics.  We can see the results.

At this point in our history, it may be difficult to believe that many Democratic Party and liberal interest group leaders actually believed that cheap name calling and sloganeering would be sufficient.  Fortunately, things are changing, but I would say, not fast enough.  A few weeks ago, I wrote about how there are lessons to be learned from the successes of the Right.  But as Jean Hardisty and Deepak Bhargava wrote recently in The Nation, it is possible to draw the wrong lessons.

They emphasized -- correctly I believe -- the need for more serious grassroots organizing -- with the emphasis on organizing.

"Organizing has always had an uneasy place not only in the broader culture but also in progressive circles. It has frequently been sidelined by expert-driven advocacy or by charismatic figures who lead short-lived protest movements, and today it is at risk of being displaced by a focus on think tanks and communications strategies. Perhaps more alarming, however, is the relative decline of organizing as a strategy relative to mobilization. The work of many 527 organizations prominent in the Bush and Kerry campaigns of 2004 (America Coming Together and the Media Fund, for example) seemed to be about parachuting into communities and soliciting votes, with little thought about what would be left behind."

These efforts in fact, left nothing behind.  And the leaders who are invested in this approach to politics are unlikely to change their ways. Unlikely, that is, unless popular grassroots movements emerge to offer powerful and persuasive alternatives to big money, top-down politics that soak up resources and activist energy for one "campaign" and leave nothing behind.

What then do we need to do? I will offer my ideas about this over the next few weeks.  But as we go forward, here are three important principles.

One is that we have to overcome our own ignorance about the religious right and how it has risen to power. To do that, we need to rely on cool, level-headed analysis, based on what Public Eye editor Abby Sher has called "solid, unexaggerated research."  

Second, we need to learn to discuss what we learn, using language that is not hyped, and not based on generating fear and panic in people, or in demonizing and unfairly labeling people with whom we disagree.

Third, in order to do the things we have to do, we must, as Rev.Dr. John Dorhauer recently wrote, be unafraid.  

So.

Let us first, not be paralyzed by ignorance and fear. And let us not spread ignorance and fear to others. Let us offer no support and encouragement to those who engage in these practices.  Let's not allow our concerns about threats to  democracy and democratic institutions, to be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Let's imagine and create movements of hope and strength.  The vast majority of Americans do not want a theocracy, or anything like a theocracy. But in order to reach them, we need to do a much better job of understanding the theocratic factions; persuading people of the nature of the threat to their interests; and organzing effective counter movements.

This is one of the central tasks of our time. How well we carry our this task -- will have everything to do with how the history of the future gets written.