Dispatches from the religious left

by Frederick Clarkson

  The practitioners of neo-conservatism, whether Christian, Jewish and indeed, even atheist, are always on the offensive: condemning dissenters of good will, inveighing against sound science and preaching a generic but wrathful orthodoxy that is exclusionary to the point of bitterness. It is all an attempt to impose a new American morality via the power of corporate wealth to control the social policies of mainstream Christian denominations while essentially neutralizing the more progressive, but ancient teachings of Judaism. Their ultimate goal is a theocracy of sorts, based upon a conglomeration of traditionalist-but-wrathful Christian orthodoxies channeled to serve a foreign policy based upon American hegemony in conjunction with laissez-faire economics.

  Many neoconservatives argue that the framers of the Constitution erred by agreeing to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Irving Kristol is at the forefront of this Strauss-inspired argument. Like Strauss, Kristol believes that a strict, orthodox religion is vital to national cohesion. Not only is the "myth" of religious belief necessary to maintain societal order, but the "myth" to be imposed must be one that calls for a vengeful, furious deity that inspires fear in the governed.

  The greater issue, however, is modernity. Both Straussian-in- spired neoconservatives as well as ultra-orthodox Catholics rail against the supposed abandonment of neo-platonic, classical values in contemporary America. Embryonic stem cell research clearly interferes with this scenario because it demystifies science and, in their eyes, removes the virtue of human heroism. Such views have been ascendant in the Vatican since the installation of the neoPlatonist minded Pope John Paul II.

  However, reexamination of church doctrines in light of urgent modern needs and the advances of science are not, as the neo-Platonists and the neo-cons would have it, a form of apostasy. Instead, it is the quest to strengthen faith through reevaluation while we strive to make a better world for the people of God. Indeed, Jesus' healing of the sick and disabled was in accordance with the halakic notion of Pikuach nefesh-the admonition to save lives in being. There is a very similar concept in Christian thought known as Epikiea. Great thinkers of the Judeo-Christian tradition have always understood that doctrine can be a form of idolatry, such that we lose sight of the greater good. And seeing this is the nature of the change we now need to do the greatest good.

  FIGHTING BACK

  To counter the threats to liberal Democracy and enlightened Catholicism from neoconservatives and their allies such as Opus Dei, in 2006 I joined up with like-minded religious progressives to found an ecumenical think tank, the Institute for Progressive Christianity. I began also to blog regularly at the web sites Talk to Action (www. talk2action.org) and Cross Left (www.crossleft.org) about stem cell research and the broader dangers from neo-conservatism and the Religious Right. All of these activities have helped me clarify my own thinking and to network with religious and non-religious progressives.

  Together, our hope is that a Religious Left, embracing deeply held and broad moral principles, will seek to advance a common politics, one that is guided by moral outcomes and moral means of getting there, informed by advances in science and medicine, and adapted to our moment in history. A Religious Left serious about these things will also seek to understand the strengths and weaknesses of its formidable opponents, incorporating this knowledge into an evolving strategy, valuing our friends and coming to their aid when they are under attack. A strengthened Religious Left would defend these institutions against such attacks inside the churches, as well as outside in the public square.

  ARE WE MORE DEVOTED TO

  ORDER OR TO JUSTICE?

  KETY ESQUIVEL

  What would a politically dynamic Religious Left approach to immigration look like, assuming an active, interfaith political movement? I think in answer to that, we face a few profound, but simple choices: Will we choose to be fearful, greedy nativists or loving, patriotic people of faith? Will we be effective in our quest for justice, or will we fail to learn from history? Will we devote ourselves more to the established order, or to justice?

  I believe that the unprecedented immigration marches of 2006 can help us imagine what is possible and who we can choose to be. In the spring of 2006, religious and political organizations came together to defend the alien in this country. Over the course of four months, in more than one hundred cities across the country, millions of people gathered in the streets in opposition to unjust nativist legislation. In some cities, the protestors numbered more than a half million.

  We must remember our history, for our present is informed by all that came before. In 1492, Columbus brought Europeans to "the New World" and after him came successive waves of immigrants to a land already inhabited by an indigenous people. Some of these immigrants came voluntarily, some involuntarily. During each successive wave, many were met with prejudice and bigotry, and treated as aliens and/or outsiders.

  A LETTER TO US FROM BIRMINGHAM JAIL

  The history of African Americans is different than most of the other streams of immigration. To date, we are still striving to fulfill the prophetic dream of Martin Luther King Jr., but his words about the struggle speak through time in ways that can inform our current circumstances. "I must make two honest confessions to you, My Christian and Jewish brothers," King famously wrote in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail." "First, I must confess that over the past two years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Manner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to `order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: `I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.'

  Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress."

  The obstacles that King identified are similar to what we face today with regard to immigration. Do the current laws exist for the purpose of establishing justice, or are they dams blocking the flow of social progress? Are our moderate sisters and brothers in the pews more devoted to order or to justice? Will they be joining their immigrant brothers and sisters in the street demanding change? Will they be calling their representatives, voting or running for office with a prophetic vision of justice for the alien in their hearts and minds?

  Those with the most power to do justice are often reluctant to experience the discomfort of seriously addressing social change. We are divided by the usual obstacles of demographics and geography, as well as the exclusivity and reductionism of single issue politics. This is true in part because particular injustices are necessarily rooted in and supported by wider, systemic injustices that can be hard to understand and more than a little daunting when it comes to thinking about how to address them. We all know this, but getting underneath the immediacy of the issue to the systemic issues can be troubling.

  We have a long history of migration of labor and exploitation across the American border that is too easy to forget. The plan which brought massive numbers of Chinese to build the railroads in the nineteenth century was based on nativism and greed. The bracero program of 1942, which survived in one form or another until the 1960s, was accused of egregious human rights abuses. Any proposal that creates a two-tiered nation of citizens and immigrant hired hands free to work forever as guest workers, but never allowed to join our nation as citizens must be whole-heart- edly rejected by a Religious Left.

  As
people of faith we have a clear mandate to love and welcome the alien. Our scripture couldn't be clearer. In Leviticus 19:34, we are told that "the alien who resides with you shall be to you as a citizen among you." Deuteronomy 10:19 tells us to "love the stranger, for you yourselves were once strangers." In Exodus 22:21, it states that we can not "wrong or oppress a resident alien" because we "know the heart of an alien" since we were once aliens ourselves. And Jesus warns us in Mathew 25:43, "I was a stranger.... and you did not welcome me..."

  We must realize that scapegoating immigrants helps us to avoid addressing economic issues that run wide and deep. We can and must oppose the hatred, but we must dig further to address the systemic issues as well.

  Recent trade agreements are a source of much of the problem. I can tell you from personal observation that NAFTA has caused economic devastation in the home nation of many emigres. There are cities in Latin America which lack a significant male population, as the men have had to wander north to find work in order to feed their families because back home, there are no longer any jobs, in part because the jobs that had left the U.S. soon fled Latin America to go to China.

  The exploitation of workers at home and abroad in order to have the cheapest products possible is a game which by design, we will lose. There are always poorer, more desperate people who will work for less and countries that will do little to protect the environment and workers rights. As people of faith, we need to be able to confront our desire to enjoy an abundance of inexpensive products while turning a blind eye to outrageous exploitation.

  We must also know our history and take pride in the pivotal role of those who came before us in the struggle, such as the abolitionists, the Labor movement, the Civil Rights Movement and the Sanctuary Movement, to name a few. Inevitably, we will witness and encounter many of the same obstacles that King describes in his letter. In spite of that, we must press on.

  OVERCOMING OBSTACLES TO JUSTICE IN OUR TIME

  Believing that the solution could be found in politics and government, in 2003 I left an international corporate job and joined a presidential campaign. I was inspired by my candidate and the exciting promise of what can come from electoral victory. However, I soon saw that the way campaigns are currently run leads to "politics as usual." The positioning on issues becomes opportunistic and a litmus test is applied to determine what might garner the most votes. Positions are only rarely based on principle, and I soon found that there was little that I (and maybe anyone) could do to change this within the campaign system itself

  In response to this realization, I was drawn to the open sourcing of politics on the Internet and together with a friend in 2005, I created Cross Left (www.crossleft.org.) Soon after that came a grassroots think tank, The Institute for Progressive Christianity. As a Christian I recognized that the Religious Right was not going to do or say anything to correct the injustices I saw, and therefore they did not in any way represent the people of faith that I knew. So we created our own platforms for us to be able to speak from our own values as Christians.

  But as I engaged in the struggle, I came to a deeper understanding of King's Letter, and the kinds of resistances we encounter in the face of prophetic social change. I remember conversations with activists in San Francisco who were shocked by the massive immigrant led, pro-immigrant marches in 2006. Participants in the marches in the cities were, for the most part, people of color, youth and people of faith; and I remember being dumbfounded that with the exception of front page articles, the message did not go out into the suburbs nor did it permeate the progressive movement, which was focused on the war on Iraq. I remember telling my progressive friends that it was critical that we not see this proimmigrant movement as being in competition with the anti-war movement, but rather as a compliment to it.

  Taken together, these parallel movements suggested to me a re-imagining of what this great nation could be. If only, I thought, we could harness the energy of both movements: the pro-immigrant movement being mostly working people of color and their children, and the anti-war movement being mostly well-educated and white. I also remember thinking that there was a great opportunity for the message of these struggles to be brought into the pulpits of suburban places of worship so that we could unite on this matter of justice. But that was not to be. When these remarkable marches-the most visible marches for justice since the Civil Rights Movement-were over, normalcy returned, and they were soon forgotten.

  Now I find myself taking satisfaction in some victories, even as we have a long way to go. The Catholic Bishops have called for comprehensive immigration reform and the Methodist Affirmation is an inspiring one. And yet, we still have so far to go. For many in the pews, the topic of the undocumented still brings fear of the other, rather than the parable of the Good Samaritan to mind. Yet as a Religious Left, we seem to be nearly as atomized as ever; divided between issue priorities, as well as by race and class and certainly the lack of a wider sense of movement and an operational strategy.

  But as in movements which came before us, I think it is time for us, as a Religious Left, to begin raising our voices in inspiration. We have the voice of God within us, the light. Let it shine. Let us show those who think that it is easiest to scare people and therefore control them that we stand with our eyes wide open, creating our own destiny and calling for there to be heaven on earth, love, freedom and hospitality.

  Regarding immigration, Archbishop of San Antonio Jose Gomez has stated: "We are Catholics and Americans. We should never be forced to choose between these two identities. We must live every day in this culture as men and women of faith." I believe his words ring true for all people of faith. We must live as people of faith and good Americans, our faith informing our values, which in turn govern our politics. I contend a Religious Left has to approach the politics of immigration from the values of love and hospitality. We need to be prepared to call out those who are motivated by fear, greed and pride.

  Let us therefore, make immigration an integral part of a political agenda of a unified, politically dynamic Religious Left. Let us also allow our understanding of the many aspects of immigration to illuminate our understanding of the economy, and much more. Things pass from vogue, but we can not allow that to happen here. Let us hold ourselves, our elected representatives, and all parts of society to account, demanding palabras y hechos-words and actions-which support our vision of a just nation on the issue of immigration.

  PART III.

  Getting from Here to There

  WRONG ABOUT THE RIGHT

  DR. JEAN HARDISTY

  AND

  DEEPAK BHARGAVA

  Editor's note: Although some elements ofthis article may feel a bit dated, having originally appeared in the November 7, 2005 edition of the Nation, its main points remain as timely now as when they were written.

  The now dominant narrative about the right's rise to power holds that conservatives invested huge amounts of money in a number of think tanks over the past thirty years and brilliantly framed their messages in ways that were simple and resonated deeply with much of the American public. By embracing a top-down, hierarchical movement structure and relentless message discipline, the right was able not only to triumph at the ballot box but also to change the very terms of political discussion-demonizing "big government" and celebrating "tax relief," "personal responsibility" and "free-market capitalism." This account of conservative strategy has piqued the interest of a growing number of progressive groups, who argue that the left should adopt a similar strategy. And it is currently driving the activities of many major progressive donors.

  The difficulty here is that, as an explanation of the right's ascendancy, it is at best incomplete and at worst misleading. What's more, it is not clear that progressives should emulate all of the right's tactics, or that we will succeed by doing so. There are certainly lessons to be learned from the right-but for the most part they are different from those commonly assumed. Here is an alternative view of the insights progressives should ta
ke away from three decades of conservative domination.

  SECRETS OF THEIR SUCCESS

  1. Ideological Diversity. There is no monolithic "conservative" movement but rather a plethora of ideologies successfully harnessed together in a grand coalition. In the 1970s, as the New Right emerged from the discredited old right, a fragile truce was drawn among libertarians, economic conservatives, social conservatives and neoconservatives. Under the leadership of William F. Buckley Jr., editor of the influential National Review magazine and host of TV's Firing Line, tensions were negotiated and a "fusion politics" emerged that allowed for cooperation across differences. Such a truce is more easily maintained when a movement is winning, as the New Right was under President Ronald Reagan. Now, with the Bush presidency nearing its end, the fault lines are reappearing.

  The implication for progressives is that we ought to tolerate a diversity of views and think strategically about how to align them to common purpose rather than seek a homogeneity we falsely ascribe to conservatives. Conservatives also found that it's not always the most mainstream or moderate voices who win. Likewise, progressives with a more radical vision, while working collaboratively in the larger movement, must not let themselves be sidelined.

  2. Ideas, Not Messages. To the extent that conservatives were serious about ideas-and to be sure they were and are-they started not with "messaging" or "framing," two strategies currently in vogue among progressives, but rather with inquiry into core beliefs about race, government, family, markets and global economic and military domination. These core beliefs were at first far outside the mainstream of accepted political discourse. But by carefully constructing an ideological blueprint for their movement (despite lack of complete buy-in from every sector), the right has been working for more than twenty-five years with a set of unifying ideological principles to which their strategists and activists return time and again. Support for "family values," limited government, a strong military, white domination and the primacy of Christianity over other religions, when combined with a will to power, have served the right well.