Oh, and by the way, call me Frank.

by Frank Cocozzelli on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 01:16:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well done, Siguiriya!

by Frank Cocozzelli on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 01:22:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I believe that part of the problem for many Liberals is that they do not fully understand from where many of the Radical Right's pundits are coming from. While a David Gergen, Jim Pinkerton or a George Carey draw their cnservatism from the Founding Fathers (the same point of reference for Liberals), today's firebrands are basing their beliefs on anti-Enlightenment principles--particulary on the Catholic Right.

What Liberals have to do is what Fred keeps trying to pound into everyone's heads: learn everything you can about the other side. Just as General Patton read Rommel's book on tank warfare before engaging him in battle, we too must read about deMaistre, Willmoore Kendall, Christopher Lasch and Leo Strauss. Such knowledge will let us know their mindset when they make such wacky claims such there is no such thing as the separation of church and state.

And when they talk in deliberately vague language about the Enlightenment, using the Reign of Terror that followed the French Revolution, we must respond with tho obvious rebuttal: citing the relative order of our own American Revolution and the vibrant liberal democracy it provided us with.

by Frank Cocozzelli on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:18:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Frank writes:  " A good place to start is by defining them for what they truly are: Moral Absolutists."

In my experience they are only moral absolutists on issues related to sex and reproduction.  Other than that, forget about it.  

Conservative Christians supported the war in Iraq by a greater percentage than that of the general population.  Many are intoxicated by militarism, not worshipping Jesus but Mars, the god of war.  They support false science.  They bear false witness against other Christians.  They hold a false view of government and American history.  They enthusiastically supported the Bush administration in the midst of its many corruptions.  Many of them even supported torture.  Some of them have a reprehensible affection for people such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.  They support the rich over the poor.  From a Christian perspective they rarely reference Jesus or the gospels.

This is not moral absolutism; it is not even basic Christian morality.  Even some conservative Christians now realize this.

I must add a caveat. This sort of structure isn't necessarily set in concrete; people exist along a continuum of moral development level (or authoritarianism). People in the middle of the continuum or to the left tend to drop to a less sophisticated level of development (and become more rigid and authoritarian) as stress increases; more flexible (and able to think independently) as they become less threatened. Reality then has a chance to intrude and change perception. A good example of this is the popular support for invasion of Iraq when the threat level was high after 911 (fears were enhanced by the threat of WMD and domestic anthrax attacks). Following the "rules" (not being "unpatriotic,"  "supporting the troops") became important to "survival." For most people, when fear eased as a result of the failure to find WMD's and the lack of domestic attacks, the reality of the carnage in Iraq and the administration's deception began to sink in. Support for the war and for Bush dropped. (It probably would have done so earlier for the center to left group if we'd had a more aggressive - and less fearful! - press). However, as you may have noticed, the right core is still hanging in - the true believers.

These people, many from the religious right, are at the extreme right (authoritarian) end of the continuum. They're generally more fearful, more rule-based, less flexible in accepting change and more dependent on authority whether family, clergy or national leaders. They feel most comfortable seeing things in dichotomous terms: right/wrong, good/evil, etc. They'd rather not deal with the grays in life because gray - God forbid! -  implies anxiety-arousing uncertainty. Their fundamentalism and acceptance of biblical inerrancy is of a piece with their pursuit of certainty and security.

I raise these issues because it's important to think about who we're trying to reach, and why. I hope it's relatively clear from the above that, under normal conditions, the people who can be reached more easily with reasonable argument and solid information (such as Frank proposes) are those from the middle to the left end of the continuum. How many of these people are strong followers of Dobson, subscribing to his beliefs without thought? A recent Barna survey suggests not as many as we might think.

Almost six out of every ten adults (57%) said they had never heard of Dr. Dobson; in fact, nearly half of all born again Christians said they did not know who he was. Among those familiar with Dr. Dobson, 27% had a favorable impression and 8% had an unfavorable view. However, among evangelical Christians - the small but well-chronicled segment that is clearly Dr. Dobson's core constituency - his rating was 69% favorable, 4% unfavorable, and 21% who had never heard of him. (The other 6% did not have an opinion of him.)

It may be instructive to look at how Dobson has achieved such power with his core group (and perhaps marginally with some others). Basically, he meets their emotional needs (or at least the needs they think they have or he has inspired) - for a friendly, all-knowing father, a kindly "clergyman," a self-help guru and a successful, powerful man-of-the-world - one who never raises their anxiety by asking them to think for themselves. Got a marriage problem, unruly kids, worried about your own sexuality (or sex on TV), don't know enough to figure out who to vote for, concerned about your kids' school, confused by scientific and technological advances, afraid women are getting too uppity and independent? Not to worry. Dr. Dobson has a simple answers that he delivers in understandable language and with an avuncular chuckle (or through slick money-making books, videos, etc.). Debate about priority of values, moral relativism? Who needs it? Dr. Dobson tells them what their Family Values [TM] are and how to talk about them. And all of this, if not the word of God, receives a patina of authority by "anchoring" it in the religious right interpretation of the bible and religion.

So... are we trying to reach the more easily persuaded middle (who may not be much of a problem) or the hardcore right or both (in which case we're likely to need separate approaches). Suspect that tackling Dobson directly may be counterproductive - no matter how good it may make us feel. Those in the middle who haven't a clue who Dobson is or who think he's kind of a silly old man may write us off as cranks. His followers are likely to react with anger and anxiety to an attack on their cherished leader and become even more supportive and intransigent. If it ends up on his radar, Dr. Dobson is likely to help this along by sending out e-mails and talking about the evil liberals-with-no-values who are trying to discredit him. This is the way he dealt with Larry King's mild challenge on church-state separation and a critical newspaper editorial. This is what might be called "inoculation".

I wonder if we can think of ways to address the true believers that would be reassuring rather than anxiety provoking. In such situations, asking questions rather than making statements is often useful. Talking about what we believe and why in respectful, plain English while avoiding charged "code" words and intellectualized concepts might also be helpful. Does this make sense to anyone? Any other ideas about how to reach people where they are rather than where we'd like them to be?


by Psyche on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:51:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]