God and the Right
Marian Maddox is an Australian expert on the intersection between religion and politics who teaches at Victoria University. Today, she has an op-ed in the Sydney Morning Herald, in which she describes how the National/Exclusive Brethren alliance is part of an international trend. She writes:
The Brethren’s glossy, professionally produced anti-Green and anti-Labour leaflets look familiar. In the weeks before John Howard’s re-election in October last year, half- and full-page advertisements appeared in local and metropolitan newspapers endorsing his Government and attacking the Greens. The advertisements echoed the content and style of Liberal Party advertising, but none of the endorsers’ names and addresses belonged to the party.
In the US elections, the Exclusive Brethren spent more than $US500,000 ($649,900) on newspaper advertisements supporting George Bush and the Florida Republican Senate candidate, Mel Martinez, known for opposing gay marriage and hate crimes legislation, and linked to the Republican strategy for turning Terri Schiavo’s 15-year coma into a “great political issue”…
In recent years, they have moved closer to the political activism of other fundamentalists and pentecostalists, including enthusiastic lobbying. According to them, God’s law rules out homosexuality, single parenthood, hate speech legislation and “big government”…
The Exclusive Brethren irruption into the New Zealand election points to a broader coalition of right-wing business, political parties and religion. Bush relies on the votes of evangelical, pentecostalist and fundamentalist Christians, who want conservative government in the Last Days to oppose evil abroad (Iraq) and at home (by cutting taxes and welfare). Howard’s support base for his 1995 return to the Liberal leadership included the conservative Christian Lyons Forum. The religious right has become increasingly outspoken within the party, with the Treasurer, Peter Costello, arguing that Australia’s problems will be solved not by legislation but a return to the Ten Commandments, and John Anderson declaring while deputy prime minister that without Jesus, “we’re a mob of dirty rotten sinners and we’re on the path to hell”.
In New Zealand, a loose coalition is now pushing New Zealand down a right-wing path, as seen not just by the emergence of the Exclusive Brethren, but by the rise of the pentecostal church-based Destiny Party, the “family”-focused United Future (formed from a 2002 merger of the centrist United party with Future NZ, an explicitly Christian party), the largely evangelical-funded conservative Maxim Institute think-tank, and even a branch of the Christian supremacist Parliamentary Prayer Network.
With conservative politicians, business and Christian leaders finding common ground, and heartened by electoral success in the US and elsewhere, no wonder even moderately religious politicians such as Howard and avowed agnostics such as Brash, the New Zealand National Party leader, are hitching their stars to the conservative Christian comet.
September 14th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
The Greens are the only party free from this taint, as they’re the only party that neither has ties to religious wackos nor has been in a coalition with the bastards.
September 14th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
What’s your point frog, Christians shouldn’t be entitled to vote?
September 14th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
My point is simply: “here’s an interesting article about the intersection between right-wing parties and conservative Christians: have a read”. Nothing more, nothing less. And of course Christians should be entitled to vote. I don’t know that many people argue against universal voting - but I’m certainly not one of them
September 14th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Frog:
Personally, I’d like folks on both the left and the right to get a grip on the notion that God doesn’t vote, and when people act as if he does, they only end up trivialising both politics and faith. That’s my not so humble opinion, any way.
There’s also a pretty interesting interaction between liberal politics and left-wing Christians - the Civil Rights Movement in the US is a vivid case in point. Whether you draw a conspiracy theory out of that is qite another matter.
September 14th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
Craig - for it to be a conspiracy it would have to be organized… and nobody could ever accuse the left in the USA of that!
respectfully BJ (who remembers Jacob Javitts throwing a NY election to the Republicans by splitting the vote on the left) .
September 14th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
forg, clearly you have a point, an intention with this post - you go as far as to put the label “alliance” on the fact that some Christians vote centre right.
Why the releuctance say what you mean more forthrightly?
September 14th, 2005 at 4:08 pm
c’mon sockboy that was hardly an example of an underlying agenda at work, much more like deliberate use of language to favour a point of view - i.e. in the same way that right wingers try to use the words “tax relief” rather than “tax cuts”. (which of course frog covered here:)
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/08/20/of-tax-and-justice/
September 14th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
BJ:
Based on my reading of the Weekly Standard, National Review and America’s more substantial right-blogs, getting the American right to decide what to have for lunch is nighmare enough…
I guess that’s why I alway tend toward cock-up theories over conspiracy ones - the latter are just too much effort. :p
September 14th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
CCTV recently called the Fox network impartial bc the director or whatever refused to restrict criticism on something stupid Maria Carey did, and they hold her contract, so they have the ability to do what they want withthe news. My point is you don’t have to agree on the niggly wee bits to hide an agenda….based on common sense you fool
(no offense intended)
September 14th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
CCTV btw is China’s Central Television..impartiality is there specialty..but no agenda..ok
September 14th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
Stuey, the irony is Labour picked up and used the “tax relief” phrase to rebrand their WFF rebates. That article was rather trite as the left and right have been playing these stupid spin games for ages. It was founded by totalitarianistic regimes and picked up by left wing radicals such as Alinksy, which is why the left were generally a bit better at it years ago. The right have more recently got into the game, but are fast learners. Life’s tough.
Yes, isn’t it interesting that there is an increasingly concerted effort to attack the Greens, and its an international trend (more people around the world consistently are worried about the Greens policies). Could be that there is an interesting intersection on using environmental policies to attack families and current social values is disturbing certain groups of people.
I think you’ll just have to get used to it Frog. Gone are the days when people thought you only wanted to preserve the environment. They can see you want to completely change society. Radical change can scare a lot of people, so expect to be scrutinised and critiqued a lot more in the future. If you build your base, you’ll find the scrutiny will intensify.
Whining about it is not a good look.
September 14th, 2005 at 11:31 pm
Of course theres a concerted effort to attack the Greens. Newstalk Newright ZB has it’s talk back hosts talking about “watermelons” green on the outside , red in the middle.
The right in America are well versed in this as are Howards lot. Well Americas god certainly looked the other way a fortnight ago and this summer Oz unfortunately will burn.
Whatever happens here I hope we are removed from the shit that will hit these 2 countries.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:04 am
Glenn wrote:
Well Americas god certainly looked the other way a fortnight ago and this summer Oz unfortunately will burn.
I reply:
*sigh* If you really dislike religious fundamentalists that much, it might be a good idea not to adopt their rhetoric. Don’t you know Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for all those homos and fornicators and sinful jazzmen doing the nasty in the French Quarter? And it’s only a matter of time before those bushfires get to Oxford Street and all those queers will get their first taste of the fires of Heck!
And why stick to those natural disasters? In the twisted world of Rev. Fred ‘God Hates Fags’ Phelps, 9/11, the Bali Bombings, the terrorist attacks in London - all the work of a vengeful God.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:26 am
Come on I don’t think GW is a homo and he plays string instruments not saxophones.
A right nutter who is a bit simple on any equation above 2+2 yeah well you would be right.
As i said…I hope we are removed from that shit.
I’m not adopting their rhetoric .
You never mentioned the first half of my statement.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:27 am
I’m flummoxed by the religious right stuff too. But it’s a mistake to think that the NZ and Australia are at all similar to the US on this front. It’s essentially impossible for an atheist to hold high public office in the US and this is because *way* more than a majority of Amercias are not only theists, they also believe that the common God of the monotheists is the source of all value, that literally no one can *really* be good without God in their lives (or at best, that atheists can only be good in virtue of spending, as it were, the moral capital that the religious have banked for the whole community over the centuries, so while parasitic good atheists may be possible, there’s no possibility of an autonomous good wholly atheistic moral community and economy). NZ-ers and Australians, even the theists among them, absolutely reject this idea - they feel good about religion in general and about what dimensions of meaning it can add to people’s lives, but vanishly few of us think that you can’t really be good without God.
Two cheers for us. Iit means that the medium for the religious right in politics does not exist here.
Of course, unlike Americans, NZ-ers and Australians have little use for or experience with reasoning from principles (and what they forbid, require, are consistent with etc.) and instead politics down under is almost exclusively centered on quibbling about what the best consequences are and how to get them (at acceptable costs). Whether a principles-centric political culture can grow in non-religious soil is still an open question at this point. Maybe Greens down under represent a start in this direction (for better or worse).
September 15th, 2005 at 12:27 am
Well, Zen, when those Aus pols start spouting Godstuff like that, do you think it’s appropriate? Return to the ten commandments? We’re all dirty sinners without Jesus? Frankly it makes my blood run cold.
Is it inclusive? Of course not… it’s for the “mainstream”!
Whatever one may feel privately about religion, there is absolutely no place for it in the formation of public policy. Left-wing Christians have understood this, by and large, which is why you don’t find them constituted into political lobbies or covert propaganda conspiracies.
The convergence between the Christian right and right-wing parties is logical enough; but whether or not it’s legitimate is an open question. Brash’s appeal to “mainstream” NZ contains an implicit appeal to “our common Christian values” … I’m sorry, this just doesn’t cut it any more. It’s a fundamentally divisive approach, an appeal to unthinking conservatism and an invitation to reject minorities of all sorts.
Could be that there is an interesting intersection on using environmental policies to attack families and current social values is disturbing certain groups of people.
Couldn’t quite parse the sentence Zen, but I get your drift : yay, you’ve twigged the fact that the Greens are not just about the environment, but about individual liberties too!
Personally, some of my best friends are Christians. But it’s like my gay friends: there’s no problem, as long as they don’t try to shove it down my throat.
September 15th, 2005 at 1:00 am
Glenn:
To be perfectly honest, I think the only watery ovoid objects getting airtime on Newztalk ZB at the moment are Bob Clarkson’s alleged testicles.
September 15th, 2005 at 11:22 am
bravo alistair, smart man
if we’re gonna go on about implicit motives in a party Zen why not twig your own party…’could be that the banner of personal responsibility has an underlying motive to attack families and current social values ( collective social responsibility..yoohoo haven’t you been around this century, Englands had a poor tax since 16th century)
But this is a blog about Christian encroachment into politics…anyone aware that Evangelical Protestant group in America were one of the main lobbyist groups in the build up to Iraq, ‘because they wanted to insure when Jesus returned to Earth the Jews would have their own kd’
UF coalitioned w Christian party, CHP, Destiny NZ and Exclusive Brethren supporting the opposition…concerted effort it is not, but definitely a worrisome trend…
September 15th, 2005 at 11:56 am
There was a book about you Zen..its called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, pretty heavy but also pretty contrdictory to what your position is…..maybe you should go over your chracter
September 15th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
ishy, I’ve read the book. My handle is ZenTiger. I’m happy with that name.
I understand your point about the “Christian encroachment into politics”. My point was noting the effect of this on the Greens. You may be misunderstanding an implied support as distinct from noting the non-environmental policies that are attracting the interest of other groups.
Attached to all groups are varieties of more ardent “supporters” that decide there is an overlap of interest, and piggyback, invited or not.
I’ve come across a couple of pure Communist web sites that support the Green movement as a tool to destroy capitalism. That’s the way its always going to be.
September 15th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
Rubbish like you just said there are more ardent supporters that do piggyback..yet you infer the greens piggybackers are much more representative then those fundamentalist, extreme liberals and right-out fascists that piggy back the mantra of personal responsibility like an elephant on heat.
Of course the extremeties are gonna relate better with those with a modest tendency toward their direction..but it is no conspiracy much less an organised trend…after all which is more powerful globalism or the ‘green movement’, i know which i see as more of an encroachment…
And like or not globalisation is hard-right capitalism isn’t it- property over people. If you have in fact read the book i find it discerning that you didn’t pick up on the ‘quality’ of diversity…maybe you’ll find that the weak correlation between ‘green movement’ and social insurance institutions are explicit
September 15th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
ishy, if you think my statement “a couple of” infers “the greens piggy backers are much more representative” then I’m not surprised at the subsequent mouth foaming rabidness.
What are you hoping I’m going to say? That the growing anti-Green movement has little to do with the social policies the Greens are espousing, that its an unfortunate blip, and the forceful and often bitter response from the Greens is fully justified?
Go Greens. Be Pure. Be Vigilant. Be Righteous.
Don’t let my observations get in the way of a full on rant at religious groups and the evils of capitalism and ownership of property.
September 15th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
point taken im just given the other side of the coin, a couple of examples of the other side
sorry too much of what i say is sarcastic and isnt actually intended to sound as bad as it might come out
but i do think by only naming one player and not mentioning the other is inference, a thing that i spose everyones responsible for, esp in the domain of politics