Historical Perspective

My dear friend the Minister of Propaganda is sorely distressed. He, like I, is disappointed in the direction the country seems to be heading. We may have different reasons for this distress, but we both, like the rest of the Ministers here at Naked Villainy, are patriots who want what is best for the country.

Rob is not concerned about the Fundies' twisting of Jesus' teachings - he, after, all, believes that we Christians are chumps - but we both are concerned about where their intolerance leads the civil society.

(As slightly connected aside, let me congratulate the Maximum Leader for acknowledging that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong. He's on the right road. Eventually he will do some soul searching and discover that his blase acceptance of existing discrimination is also wrong. It troubles me that he downplays the importance of fighting for basic civil equality while at the same time sending dough to an organization dedicated to the unregistered ownership of rocket launchers, but I try to look at the bright side: at least he is a Packers fan)

The good Ally has commented on Rob's stridency. And, truth be told, I wish he would go easier on my pal Greg. But his anger is real. If you love your country and see it being hijacked, you are bound to get testy. And I'd remind Ally that there have been demagouges on both sides. Remember when the Republicans - with straight faces, mind you - claimed that the Clinton administration was the most corrupt in history?

If Smallholder agrees with Rob's general negative assessment of the religious right, you may be asking yourself, why is Smallholder weeping and gnashing his teeth: "Self, given that Smallholder and Rob both agree that the fundie movement is dangerous, why isn't Smallholder weeping and gnashing his teeth?"

I'm glad you asked.

The answer is simple: I'm a historian.

Well, honestly, I'm a historian given to trodding the halls of the academy with manure-spattered boots, but I think that still counts.

Culture wars are cyclical. We have seen backlashes before.

The Great Awakening was a backlash against the secularism symbolized by the halfway covenant.

The 1820s saw a backlash against the hardening of the North's industrial system and the South's peculiar institution.

Know-Nothing Nativism was a backlash against the New Immigrants.

The Scopes Trial was emblematic of middle America's concern over the secularization of society.

The conformity ethic of the fifties was partially an attempt to restore a sense of order destroyed by the agony of the World War.

The late sixties gave us the backlash against conformity.

Nixon's appeal to the "Silent Majority" wasn't all race-baiting "Southern Strategy" - though I'll admit that was a big part. It was also about a backlash against "dem dirty hippies."

So, to quote the Bare Naked Ladies, "it's all been done."

So, I'm not particularly concerned about the fundies. They will overreach and the pendulum will swing back in the other direction. I think, as I have already posted, that the Schiavo case may have already been the high-water mark. Time will tell if the tide is indeed going out.

Many modern commentators have predicted doom and gloom for the Dems. The Republicans have become so arrogant that they are going to abolish the filibuster for short-term goals. They will be in the minority again.

Remember when Johnson's decisive defeat of Goldwater signaled the end of conservatism? How did that turn out.

So, my dear Minister of Propaganda: It will be okay. America, in the long term, has always moved to expand the circle of protected rights. Short term blips like the Gentleman's Agreement and Prohibition aside, our system does work.

The DOI's white property-holding males over the age of 25 "all men" has morphed into all people over the age of 18. The march of progress will go on.

Small "l" liberalism has always triumphed. In fifty years, my Hollywood liberal friend, you'll be a conservative. Not because you will change - this is the mistake made by all those "it only takes a mugging" folks. We do become more conservative when we get older - because our youthful liberal goals have been achieved and must now be conserved against a new generation's youthful goals.