|
In War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning, veteran New York
Times war reporter Chris Hedges challenged his audience
to stare deep into the spiritual abyss out of which our
lust for war arises. His compassionate meditations used
rich literary references to warn of war’s addictive
qualities — of the exhilaration and purpose that
war gives to those who feel hopeless, of the ways in which
people come to prefer the certainty of moral absolutes
that govern kill-or-be-killed situations over the moral
ambiguity and emotional pain of everyday life.
In his latest book, American Fascists: The Christian Right
and the War on America (Free Press, $25), Hedges asks
us to look even more deeply into the “national malaise”
that confronts the United States, and to admit how perilous
a place this malaise has delivered us to. Hedges argues
that the suffering of millions of working class Americans
who have seen their living standards decline precipitously
over the last 30 years has inspired a growing number of
people to turn to a “theology of despair.”
Mobilized by a neo-Calvinism or Dominionism harkening
back to 17th-century Puritan theology, they have become
the shock troops for the hard edge of the Christian Right.
They do not seek freedom of worship or limited government,
but a Christian state that will help prepare the world
for an apocalyptic, violent cleansing that precedes the
rapture and ascent of Christians into heaven.
American Fascists is an angry book, less meditative and
more polemical than War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning.
In his interview with Real Change, Hedges reflected this
spirit of gravity. And while he diagnosed the ills in
unequivocal terms foreign to mainstream politics, his
description of what to do was limited to unlikely proposals
to prohibit hate speech. Beyond that, he left it largely
to the reader to decide what can be done to halt the rise
of American fascism before it is too late.
Real Change: What personally motivated you to write the
book?
Hedges: I think there’s a certain amount of anger
in the book, and that comes because I was raised a Christian.
My father was a minister, my mother graduated from seminary
although she wasn’t ordained, she was a college
professor, and I graduated from seminary myself. And while
I’m not a very orthodox Christian, while I have
a very troubled relationship with the institutional church,
nevertheless the church and the Christian faith very much
informs who I am.
And because I’m Biblically literate, which most
of the critics of the Christian Right are not, I’m
a little more attuned to what it is they’re promoting
and how grossly they’ve distorted and misused the
Bible to sell an ideology that is at its core about bigotry,
intolerance, hatred, and a deep lust for violence, especially
apocalyptic and cataclysmic violence that will cleanse
and purge the world of everyone who does not support or
submit to their belief system. In my mind, they hollowed
out the guts and the heart of the Christian religion in
the same way they hollowed out the guts and the heart
of the open society or the democratic society. And while
they still use the language and the trappings, they seek
to destroy what is best about both.
RC: How is this different from traditional evangelical
Protestantism?
Hedges: Traditional evangelicals, or traditional fundamentalists,
do not go after political power, at least within the United
States. As a matter of fact, certainly within American
fundamentalism, there’s a call to remove yourself
from the contaminants of secular society and shun political
power. Traditional evangelicals like Billy Graham always
called on followers to be very wary of political power.
This was something new and different.
And coupled with the flight of manufacturing jobs, the
way whole sections of the country were being dispossessed,
the rise of an American oligarchy, and now the subsequent
assault upon the middle class, these despots were empowered
because they know and understand how to manipulate this
despair and hopelessness.
So while even now it’s hard to take such apocalyptic
rhetoric seriously, this movement — and I look at
it as the most dangerous mass movement in American history
— has moved from the fringes of American society
to the center and into the halls of power.
RC: How have critics of the religious right misread them?
Hedges: I think many of their critics are willing to give
them a kind of religious legitimacy I’m not willing
to give them. This is a theology of despair that says
nothing in this world is worth saving. And the greatest
moment in human history will be of course the end of human
history, when apocalyptic violence will cleanse and purge
the earth, believers will be lifted up into heaven in
a kind of spiritual Darwinism, and the rest of us will
be destroyed. And that comes out of a deep despair by
people for whom the real world does not work anymore.
That ability to remove the masses from the reality-based
world and lock them into closed, hermetic systems of indoctrination
— which is what Christian radio and television have
become — is exceedingly dangerous for an open society.
Now this movement cannot come into power unless there’s
a prolonged period of instability or crisis. But that
probably will come. Having covered Al Qaeda for a year
for The New York Times, there wasn’t an intelligence
official that I interviewed here or in Europe that didn’t
talk about another catastrophic terrorist attack on American
soil as inevitable. And if that happens, this movement
stands poised to reshape America in ways we have not seen
since the nation’s founding.
RC: To be clear, you’re labeling Dominionism and
the revival of Puritanism as fascist, not all evangelical
conservatives.
Hedges: Dominionism is a better word for it. Because we
use terms like evangelical or fundamentalist, but that’s
not who these people are in the traditional sense of the
word. They are something very different. What they’ve
done is taken the Christian religion and acculturate it
with the worst aspects of American imperialism and American
capitalism. It’s a total perversion of the Christian
religion.
It’s a complete rewriting of American history. The
notion that the Founding Fathers embraced this kind of
Christianity is farcical. They were all terrified of the
Puritan state. They had seen what a tyranny that was.
They were determined not to repeat it.
RC: What difference does it make to call the Christian
Right fascist?
Hedges: Because it’s not a neutral word. It’s
a slur. It’s a way of saying these people are not
Christians and they are not democrats…. There’s
a kind of neutrality in the response to them that I think
makes them appear more benign than they are.
I think the movement is properly called fascist. It’s
overused. It has historical connotations that confuse
people. But at the same time, I wanted the book to be
an assault against a movement that I think has misused
or misappropriated the faith tradition that I come from
and wrapped themselves in the cloak of that tradition
and American patriotism, when in fact their goals are
the very destruction of those two traditions.
RC: You note in your book that one way in which people
miss the change is because the Christian Right uses familiar
language.
Hedges: These movements always speak in the comforting
language by which a country defines itself; in this case,
Christianity speaks of liberty and tolerance. But when
you look closely, they’ve redefined these concepts.
Liberty is no longer liberty in the traditional sense
of liberty but the liberty that comes with complete submission
to Jesus Christ. So they speak in a common vernacular
that is reassuring to us. But to the initiated, it’s
a kind of constant code because it means something else,
and President Bush has been quite clever about doing this.
RC: What do you think of the Democratic Party’s
response to this?
Hedges: The Democratic Party has failed to understand
the movement and has given it a kind of religious legitimacy
that it shouldn’t have. Number one, these people
are not interested in a dialogue. Number two, they are
not capable of a dialogue because they promote an irrational
belief system. And by giving them religious legitimacy,
we are delegitimizing ourselves.
The proper way to deal with it is start to restrain it,
passing hate crimes legislation, making it impossible
for them to preach for the disempowerment or stripping
of citizens of their civil rights because of their sexual
orientation, for instance.
RC: So you would extend hate crimes legislation to cover
speech as well?
Hedges: I think it should be against the law to use public
airwaves to talk about how whole segments of American
society have no legitimacy in a Christian state. They’re
poisoning the civil discourse in tens of millions of homes
and there’s nothing to counter this hate message.
It’s a form of indoctrination and ultimately it’s
preaching sedition. It’s preaching a kind of civil
war. It says ultimately there are two kinds of Americans:
Christian Americans, who are legitimate, real, and have
a right to run the country and be heard, and non-Christian
Americans, who have a right to either conversion or ultimately
extermination. That’s what the message is.
RC: In your book, you describe the economic dislocations
of the last 30 years as having produced a “national
malaise.”
Hedges: That’s what despotic movements are built
on. There’s been a Weimarization of the American
working class. They’ve been completely abandoned
by the Democratic Party, by state and federal assistance
agencies. Whole parts of this country look like the developing
world. They have no hope. The jobs where they can be paid
$50 an hour with retirement benefits and health plans
are a distant memory. They know their children will never
get that. And they’re ripe to be sucked into this
world of magic realism of angels and miracles and healing.
And that’s what totalitarian movements do. They
prey on that despair.
It’s described as a mystery to many people: What’s
the matter with Kansas, how can people vote against their
interests? They’re not voting against their interests.
The Democratic Party a long time ago stopped representing
the interests of the working class. They continued to
pretend to speak on behalf of the working class after
they sold them out and betrayed them.
RC: In a liberal democracy, it’s sometimes hard
to distinguish fascists from those who fight them. Both
groups say we’ve supposedly been too liberal. We’ve
been too tolerant. There’s a threat inside our society
that we need to root out and if we don’t, then we
will lose our freedom.
Hedges: You’re exactly right. They do use the same
language. But you have to look at what it’s in defense
of. What they do is they get up and say, “Homosexuals
are sick and perverted and they need to be cured of their
same-sex attraction, or they need to be isolated in our
society.” And then if somebody calls them on it,
they say, “You’re intolerant. I’m practicing
free speech.” And they use that very argument to
defend the right to talk about the marginalization or
silencing of whole sectors of the society. That’s
a classic example of how they have effectively manipulated
the language of a democratic society and tolerance to
protect intolerance.
RC: Do you anticipate resistance from more mainstream
Christian groups?
Hedges: I don’t have a lot of hope that the mainstream
churches are going to respond. I think they’re pretty
bankrupt. They really won’t take on any major social
issue. The most virulent opposition will come out of the
evangelical church, people who are fairly radical in terms
of their worldview, but smell the corruption and despotism.
And they will be the first people who are silenced because
they will be the most dangerous. I think liberal society,
and this is often a prerequisite for these movements to
succeed, liberal society has shown such complacency that
by the time they wake up, I think it will be too late.
RC: So you think there’s been a Rubicon moment?
Hedges: I guess I’m an eternal optimist and that
I hope not. But unless we address the economic and social
disparities that are so vast in this country, then we
aren’t going to be able to blunt this movement that
is a product of that despair. The creation of an American
oligarchy means the death of the American democracy. Plutarch
wrote this. It’s not a new idea. You can’t
have those kinds of disparities in a country and have
a democratic state.
|