Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Nick Gillespie of Reason, who attended the Beck rally and interviewed many of the attendees, responds to Hitchens' take on the racial element of the event and the larger Tea Party movement in general. He seems to agree with my take on it, that race is just one of the many possible manifestations of a broader atmosphere of fear and insecurity.
Hitchens is right that Christians - or even believers more generally - do feel endangered, as if religion is less in the public square than ever. This is empirically wrong: As Cathy Young noted back in 2004, it's secularism that is conspicuously missing from contemporary politics. The attendees that I and my Reason.tv colleagues spoke to at Saturday's rally were emphatic that any sort of faith (most pointedly included Islam in their list) was a mitzvah (sorry) and that secularism or atheism, which they saw as running the field, was a bad thing. "We've got to turn back to God," various people said with a lot of feeling but not a helluva lot of clarity.This sort of ecumenicism is a massive shift from 30 or so years ago, when evangelicals routinely accused Catholics of belonging to the World's Greatest Cult. There are some echoes of this in attacks on Beck's Mormonism from Christian believers, but overall, it was a real Kumbaya crowd when it came to the Beck rally.
And on the racial aspects:
But what of Hitchens' point above, that since religion is doing just fine in public discourse, the real message has something to do with race? I think that the sense of loss (and nostalgia) promoted by Beck and others reflects a huge amount of anxiety and worries about displacement - not by an Other coming from Mexico, say, or by a secret Muslim in the White House but by a system that has resolutely shown it doesn't really care about any of the cogs in its machine. Most of the folks I talked with offered up George W. Bush as an idiot who got the ball rolling with bad and corrupt policies. Obama is pushing that all to the next level. Three years of recession, massive amounts of corporate bailouts, useless stimulus spending (under Bush and Obama), and more will do that to people.
I think this is mostly right. The kind of demagoguery going on here is a classic directly out of the conservative playbook. The archetype being pushed is obvious, it's the Paradise Lost myth. People who are insecure about the present are quite prone to remembering a mythical past when we were in Eden, before all these troubles began, a past that must be restored.
Gillespie also makes this important observation:
For me, the strangest and most off-putting element of the day was the disjuncture between the anti-authority dimension of the rally - our leaders have disappointed us and must be called to account! - and the whole-hog deference to militarism - we need to thank our soldiers for following orders so honorably and self-sacrificingly. While there were plenty of wounded soldiers on the stage, there was absolutely zero discussion of why these guys were being sent overseas and whether we should expect the same pols who lie to us on domestic policy to be any better on foreign policy.
But this, too, is explainable by reference to dominant archetypes. The traveling companion of the Paradise Lost myth is often the Protective Father myth (and just as often, the Noble Warrior myth; could the Biblical allusions be any more clear?
The reason that the crowds at this rally cannot see the inconsistency in those positions is because those two positions are feeding into two (or three) different archetypes, the belief in each of which is being driven by a pervasive feeling of insecurity. If our society is under attack from The Other then surely we need the Protective Father and the Noble Warrior to defend our way of life from the gathering hordes.
Politics
Comments
Regarding that sense of religion being driven from public life - of course it's not true. Almost the opposite is true.
But it's easy to get confused, depending on your point of reference. As we are aware, public protestations of God-belief are absolutely mandatory in a way they weren't not very long ago*.
On the other hand, the gay rights fight is in its last stages; the Americans have crossed the Rhine, the Russians are shelling Berlin, and there's nothing left to do but play a role in Hitler parody videos. So in that sense, the feelings of being driven out of the culture have some validity. They're not doing much better with creationism, either.
Secularism is in decline, but ecumenism is on the rise and that makes older, mainstream Christians quite uneasy. Mormons leading Protestants? Muslims attending the same prayer breakfasts? "Happy Holidays" to make sure Jews and others feel included at Christmastime? Egads!
I disagree that religion is disappearing from public life. But I can how some people - especially those with a particularly narrow definition of religion - could convince themselves that it's so.
_______________________________
* Not that you would gain public office by proclaiming atheism. But you could get a way with a sort of DADT policy, or make only the most minimal gestures toward religion, and still be a Republican president (see GHWB).
Posted by: Scott Hanley | September 2, 2010 11:23 AM
Enh, I used to be sympathetic to this line of argumentation. But if you look at the demographics of the Tea Party, it is not disproportionately represented by the poor and uneducated and generally disenfranchised, which is what you would expect if the anxiety were really about exclusion from the system. Rather, the Tea Party is disproportionately middle class and somewhat (but not very) educated.
No, I'm sorry, it's fear of the Other that drives the Tea Party, not disenfranchisement.
Posted by: James Sweet | September 2, 2010 11:26 AM
Maybe fear of disenfranchisement?
Posted by: MikeMa | September 2, 2010 11:50 AM
I'm a Christian. I don't feel endangered. I'm getting quite tired of those who do because they can't make this country into a theocracy. IMO, if their faith is that weak, they might as well forget about it, because it's meaningless.
Posted by: Ellie | September 2, 2010 11:50 AM
James Sweet "No, I'm sorry, it's fear of the Other that drives the Tea Party, not disenfranchisement."
How about it's fear that The Other is disenfranchising them (which is the diplomatic way of phrasing "they won't be able to keep The Other disenfranchised")?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 2, 2010 11:53 AM
And MikeMa says what I said while I was writing it.
In any event, every time I hear "disenfranchise" I think "What, ketchup?", which I can only assume is a joke just for me, by me. I'm the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 2, 2010 11:57 AM
Ed Brayton: But this, too, is explainable by reference to dominant archetypes. The traveling companion of the Paradise Lost myth is often the Protective Father myth (and just as often, the Noble Warrior myth; could the Biblical allusions be any more clear?
And don't forget that the Fall from Paradise is usually the result of the perfidy of evil-doers, often Traitors in Our Midst.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 2, 2010 12:13 PM
James Sweet asserts:
A Gallup poll published in Mar-10 shows Tea Partiers demographically mimic the country including on education though with one exception, they attract blacks at half the rate while failing to analyze Hispanic participation.
A NYTs/CBS poll published just a few weeks later argued that that Tea Partiers were disproporationately, white, male, married and older than 45.
James Sweet:
I don't think these are mutually exclusive. I also think Tea Partiers are easily led given they are conservatives. Therefore fear of the other is a way for astro-turf groups to motivate people to join or support the Tea Party movement to defend from the disenfranchisement of the astro-turf groups' current power over government. Particularly when it comes to people like the Koch brothers and other old energy executives who seek lower tax rates, continued negative externalities financed by taxpayers, rent seeking at the expense of green energy, and power over politicians to stack the deck against the green energy industry in other ways.
In addition the Tea Party
sheepmembers also perceive a risk of being less enfranchised given their perception that a black Democrat seeks to serve their perception of his tribe since that's what they do. They can't conceive of him actually serving the country; the country as his tribe is an idea they can't process*. This last one shows how delusional they are since I think there's little evidence Mr. Obama favors those they hate but is instead merely working for the national interest.The Tea Party is a perfect example of Thomas Franks' incredibly prescient thesis regarding how some plutocrats can garner political support from people who will be directly harmed by supporting these plutocrats' agenda. The only new twist to Mr. Frank's thesis is that these plutocrats are now dependent on an increasing number of politicians who really believe the Tea Party crap rather than merely pandering, making them wildcards when it comes to how they'll actually behave in office, e.g., Sarah Palin as the new breed vs. Dick Cheney as the breed described by Franks (with George W. Bush being a transitional character). I'd argue this is a far worse reality since the changes of unintentionally bad consequences goes up enormously since the new breed really are a bunch of know-nothings devoutly wedded to a failed ideology we know would cause catastrophic consequences to the economy and national security.
*Which is why I think Sen. McCain's 2008 presidential campaign slogan, "Country First" miserably failed to resonate. They don't care about the country; they instead care about their personal interests ineptly perceived and having a government which ostracizes other Americans they don't like.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2010 12:49 PM
The poor and disenfranchised are used to being poor and disenfranchised. The teabaggers are in large part people who belong to what used to be the middle class and fear that the middle class (or at least the place of people like them in the middle class) is in danger.
Middle class once included trades, for instance. Today it's more and more the province of people with Masters' degrees in engineering, and even they're feeling the strain. This makes them easy meat for the "keep the Government off our [1] backs" schtick.
And, yes, in terms of policy this means that they're working directly against their own interests. Nothing new there.
[1] Where "our" actually means people making an order or five more than they do.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | September 2, 2010 1:38 PM
This is true fascism in its purest form. I mean that in a technical sense, not as an insult.
Fascism is a right-wing populist authoritarian movement that appeals to an idealized past culture, where the Folk were more pure and virtuous, before corruption by the Other caused the Fall. It is always wrapped in militarism. It is always authoritarian. And the solution is always to purge the Folk of the Other and return to the virtues of the past. Mussolini looked back to the glory days of Rome, the Nazis to the pre-Christian Germanic tribes.
It is this populist cultural element that dinstinguishes true fascism from other right-wing authoritarian movements, such as corporatism.
Posted by: shargash | September 2, 2010 2:04 PM
My usuall description of fascism also includes an alliance between big business and the authoritarian government. Anyone got a take on how the tea party interests dovetail or not with big business interests?
M Duran
Posted by: Mark Duran | September 2, 2010 2:20 PM
Anyone got a take on how the tea party interests dovetail or not with big business interests?
Well, some probably do and others probably don't. One of the interesting things about capitalist competition is that it tends to scrape way the biases in favor of a more mercenary attitude - they don't care what color the president is, his education, what party he is, what sex, or anything else...as long as he's pro-business. Now, the down side is that business will probably happily use any lever they can to get him to be pro-business - including appealing to bigots. But unlike the tea baggers and the far right, they will probably not object or fight any business-neutral policies merely because of who he is. In contrast, I think other posters or Ed have mentioned that Obama has promoted policies that Bush promoted and the right still fights him on it. I would not expect this sort of behavior from businesses; they are unlikely to reject pro-business policies merely because the guy promoting them is a democrat...or black.
Posted by: eric | September 2, 2010 2:45 PM
Mark Duran "Anyone got a take on how the tea party interests dovetail or not with big business interests?"
"Taxation is theft" & "Regulations strangle business" (and "Drill baby drill" & Rand Paul's "Criticism of BP is unamerican"). Also, the Teabaggers are funded by them.
The main place where they part ways is potentially the Teabaggers will let Big Businesses that fail fail (although, tellingly, they were only mad about TARP after Obama inherited it, if memory serves). I doubt they'd have boo'd the GM bailout if OB wasn't the signer ("Like a Rock" and whatnot), but I can't say for certain because I'm not wildly reactionary.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 2, 2010 2:50 PM
Riffing off Michael Health ... he's right not to call the Tea Partiers "sheep." They're more like a frightened herd of cows beginning to stampede. Very dangerous, very unpredictable, very hard to stop.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | September 2, 2010 3:48 PM
This is as good of a description of the authoritarian right as any I've ever read.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | September 2, 2010 4:11 PM
But I was under the impression that religion is being driven from public life, so the fears of the Christian majority is real. Now it may only be from 98% to 90%, but that is still a decrease. And there is more demand for consideration of other religions and atheism than there used to be. Anything other than complete control is unacceptable to these people.
Posted by: j a higginbotham | September 2, 2010 6:24 PM
It's still all about the '50s in some ways, isn't it? It's one of the reasons I find even the small presence of members of minorities supporting the Tea Party somewhat ironic. If they remembered where they or their parents were in society in the idealized past the Tea Party looks back to could they really support the movement?
Posted by: Jim Satterfield | September 2, 2010 10:38 PM
"Ironically, members of the Tea Party coalition welcomed the draconian restrictions of personal liberties implemented during the second term of the Palin administration, arguing that non-Christians should not be granted the liberties described in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, ostensibly because they were the enemies of the Christian Republic of America. Under the leadership of the newly elected Speaker of the House, Michelle Bachmann, and Senate Majority Leader, Sharon Angle, Congress narrowly passed the Respect Christians Act, which made it a federal hate crime to criticize Christians or any aspect of the Christian faith[1], punishable by fines and prison time--including the possibility of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The controversial act passed only after the Speaker agreed to drop a provision mandating the death penalty for repeated acts of blasphemy."
[1] Which by 2018 came to mean solely Protestant fundamentalism. Catholics and Mormons found themselves targeted for persecution, much as in the 19th century, after religious clerics, appointed to the newly reconstituted Supreme Court, ruled that Catholics, Mormons, and other Christian sects were not genuine Christians, and "therefore were not to be accorded the rights enjoyed by true citizens of the Christian Republic."
Source: Xao et al. The Rise and Fall of 21st Century Christofascism. Beijing University Emedia (2113).
Posted by: hje | September 2, 2010 10:53 PM
The Beck rally only maintained a sense of ecumenism by sticking entirely to vague feel-good statements about faith and belief. While questioned participants were at pains to stress the religious dimensions of the rally (just as Beck had been at pains for weeks to stress that dimension to them from his various media outlets), not only were the uninterested in discussing in depth the religious concepts which inspired the rally, they also very quickly turned to discussing politics in relation to these feel-good religious pronouncements, at least from what I have seen.
To my eyes, this is the true nature of the rally; a rally disguising itself behind pretty words about religious unity and rebirth that, in reality, was about reinforcing separatism, promoting self-identification with tradition as positive (and thus, painting their opponents as non-traditional and negative), and instilling a sense of divine destiny and purpose among the participants.
Posted by: Julian | September 3, 2010 8:51 AM
Satterfield: It's about stuff much earlier than the 50's. The Republican establishment wants desperately to overturn everything FDR, Rayburn, and Johnson managed to do during the New Deal and Great Society eras to prove that those politicians were the failures and bad guys they always painted them as, and guys like Glenn Beck want to go back even further and overturn the very limited regulations put in place by Wilson and (though they won't say it because he's one of the few genuinely heroic Republican politicians of the 20th century) Theodore Roosevelt. When you consider the evisceration of anti-trust laws we have seen since Reagan, and the growing agreement that regulation of industry is objectively evil, much of Teddy's legacy has already been undone.
Posted by: Julian | September 3, 2010 9:00 AM
My usuall description of fascism also includes an alliance between big business and the authoritarian government.
I think almost all forms of right-wing authoritarianism have some form of cooperation, even merger, between business and the state. But I think it is important to draw the distinction between the Tea Party and, say, the Bush family. Both are right-wing and authoritarian, but the Bushes are explicityly corporatist and almost entirely lack the cultural element that is distinctive to true fascism.
I find the tension between Beckian fascists and the Bushist corporatists fascinating. You can see the tension in the immigration debate. Immigrants are cheap labor, which is heaven to the corporatists, but it means opening the doors to the Other, which is hell to the fascists.
IMO, the fascists are far less powerful, but more dangerous. We know what we'll get from the corporatists -- erosion of liberties, unequal passage/enforcement of laws, and debt peonage (we know, because we're already getting it).
Posted by: shargash | September 3, 2010 10:29 AM
Posted by: RBH | September 4, 2010 12:54 AM