Conservative evangelical Christianity is the phantom menace of American progressives and Canadians, too. It is a phantom menace because, like the movie, most progressives don't know the scope and nature of the problem they are confronting. That makes its menacing character even more menacing. It is, nonetheless, important to engage conservative evangelicals precisely because they are a voting block that upholds Republicanism and has been particularly committed to Trump. Why is this and what can be done about it?
First, we need to concede that the task is stunning in its magnitude. Right now, however, the current approach to engaging evangelical Christians is not working. That approach is to point out to them -- over and over again -- on social media that they (1) are not well versed in their own scripture and, hence, (2) vote against the way they should be voting, and so (3) are being taken in by identify politics and charlatans. All of these points can be true. I'll leave my own views out of this discussion for the minute. But, saying them over and over again serves to confirm the perspectives of those who already oppose right-wing populism. Said differently, it confirms for people who are already against Trump and evangelical Christianity that they are right in their views. It does not dislodge or engage evangelical supporters of right-wing populism. I'd argue, in fact, that it can't.
Second, the magnitude of this task is complicated by the fact that we are, as it were, starting to watch a movie that is already in progress. What do I mean? This: the rise of the populist right in the US is not a matter isolated to Trump or his popularity. It is the product of its own extended history. Carol Anderson's White Rage and Kristin Du Mez's Jesus and John Wayne chart the political, religious, gendered, and cultural processes that brought us to this point. I don't want to make these conclusions too stark because that would involve its own drastic simplification, but if Trump had not already existed, he would have been invented. Said differently, the drift of the US right to populism -- and the drift of evangelical Christians along with it -- is not a new phenomenon. It has been conditioned both within the Republican Party and among evangelical Christians for a long time. People like me were surprised by Trump's popularity only because we had not been paying attention to those trajectories of recent American history.
I might have more to say about this as time goes by, but what it means for an anti-extremist counter political organization is this: there is a lot of work to do. It is not a matter of convincing, say, a retired steel worker with moderate politics to come back to voting Democrat. Instead, among evangelicals, what we are actually talking about is over a generation of populist views that are passed down from generation to generation. Instead, what is being asked something more akin to this: people in tight nit Christian families are being asked to disbelieve everything they have been taught, to disbelieve their parents, their pastors, their closest friends, their wives and husbands. They are being asked to disbelieve just about everything they have ever learnt. An effective counter politics needs to begin from that assumption: it is very late coming to the party and that lateness is a reason it has not been effective.
This is not, in my view, reason to despair or give up. It is, however, necessarily "pessimism of the intellect" (clear, cold analysis) that is the first step in a renewed engagement and a renewed politics.
The other important consideration is that progressives do not usually speak to conservative evangelicals. Part of this is that these two groups don't run in the same circles. The other part is that they don't operate through the same media. Conservative evangelicals maintain their own media systems, their own bookstores, conferences, music, speakers, etc. There is little interchange across that division. The problem here is twofold: (1) if you don't talk to someone, you can't have any effect on them. (2) Even if you can talk to them, you are one voice. The overwhelming weight of the voices they hear (through social media, churches, conferences, books) is the other way.
What is more that overwhelming weight has built in reasons for wanting to deflect any progressive message. They personally disagree with it. But, beyond that, they also economically benefit from the current situation. Marketing to evangelical Christians has become big business. By challenging their conceptions of, say, gender relations, one is actually taking on the livelihood of hundreds or maybe even thousands of authors, speakers, broadcasters, etc. The result is that new messages are not well received, particularly messages that challenge both viewpoints and bottom lines. Directly engaging evangelical Christians, then, will prompt a response and that response will not be an invitation to an open dialogue.
I don't want my point to be misunderstood. My point is not that evangelical Christians are stuck in a rut, obstinate, dinosaurs. My point is that attempting to communicate in ways that encourage re-thinking is a challenge for other reasons. This could be good news. It does not lessen the challenge but it does mean that the reasons people hold specific views likely relate to things other than bigotry and obstinateness. A conversation is possible and one that can change minds is possible. It is just difficult to get going.
Evangelicals have long held up the Republican Party in some measure because they are a sure vote. The Republicans know that they have evangelicals in their back pocket and the Democrats barely bother to try to engage them, likely for the same reason. There are a number of things that the Democrats need to do to counter the new Republican hegemony. They need to rebuild party organization. They need to abandon the celebrity endorsement politics on which they try to rely. They need to have real leadership contests and they need to take a long hard look at their policies. For reasons that are odd, the Democrats have made themselves into the last rung of defence of neoliberalism. That is not a good look and their compromise with neoliberalism is coming home to roost. It does not need to be like this.
I think, however, that they also have to carry the contest on the Republicans home turf. They need to engage evangelicals, communicate directly with people whose votes they are trying to win, carry on friendly conversations (don't reply to vindictive). In the short run, this approach is not going to turn the tide. In the longer run, it is a necessary step. Even if it is not successful, they will force the Republicans to direct time, resources and energies to races they thought were sewn up. That, in itself, would be something of a victory.
No comments:
Post a Comment