Fundamentalist Polarization: A Ground-Level View

In my previous two columns (see March and April issues of Whatcom Watch), I traced a half-century of escalating polarization in our country’s political, economic and social sectors. The cynical intent of this schism falls on a cabal of billionaires and their multi-millionaire underlings, whose “trickle-down” campaign has succeeded in putting America’s citizens at odds with one another and their federal government. The result is a cultural standoff at a national grassroots level, which is fostered by a mindset that perceives nothing amiss with a corresponding rise in disparity of wealth and opportunity across our troubled land.

These unfathomably wealthy oligarchs have tactically adopted “conservatism” as their banner, despite unending evidence that there is nothing conservative about them or their intentions. Conservatives from the fifties wouldn’t recognize them. Yet, in true Orwellian fashion, everyone calls them conservatives. Even progressives permit them the charade, acknowledging their conservatism as they in turn are maligned for the flimsiest expressions of the liberal ethic — tepid attempts to lessen inequities between rich and poor, lip-service support on behalf of labor, or token regulations on corporate behaviors that exacerbate social injustice and wreak irreparable harm on the natural environment.

The magical spell rightwing think-tanks hold over followers inspired me to center April’s column around the image of the cult. A similar us-versus-them paranoia fuels the “conservative” trickle-down: from inflammatory labeling to a personal antipathy between ordinary Americans. Thus, it seems fitting to end this three-column sequence with visceral manifestations of the trickle-down effect we owe to the rightwing polarization campaign.

Symptoms of the effect aren’t always noted as such, given the contentious climate of our national culture. They often seem simply to reflect human nature, and far from a rightwing plot — which in many ways is sadly valid. Our tribal gene is hyper-receptive to polarizing suggestions, a tendency the conservative cult manipulates as it fans the flames of moral outrage polarizing Americans. In the March column, I recounted Paul Weyrich’s creation in the early ‘70s of both The Moral Majority and The Heritage Foundation, arguably the most under-appreciated power wedding of the last century. The politically-arranged marriage of religious fundamentalism and Republican conservatism evangelized conservatives beyond the stodgily dutiful church-going of their parents. Conservatism has never been whole-heartedly compassionate, but it was more so in the fifties. Rights movements since then have generated momentum on waves of heartfelt compassion. Christianity itself is premised on love and compassion. Yet judgmental fundamentalism is blind to that humbling fact. How could it not be, when funded by the cult?

All rights, whether civil, racial, gender, health, immigration, suffrage, collective bargaining, regulation of weapons, or any other form of social security, are desired for others in the spirit of compassion. But polarization nullifies compassion. What we must weigh as citizens is the basic moral dilemma: our group’s wants, or the wellness of us all? Is it “moral” to judge others harshly, or to wish them all fairness and justice?

Weyrich understood that a low-but-loyal voter turnout was the best strategy for Republicans, along with name-calling and a fickle liberal electorate. Red state faithful are dumbed down from childhood by distortions in what passes for their education. Kids are home-, church- or charter-schooled into believing things about history, science, religion and life in general that are downright scary. Meanwhile, voting laws are rewritten and voting districts are gerrymandered to elect selected legislators — half of them already millionaires. Yet knowledge of these subterfuges remains unknown or disbelieved by the otherwise over-credulous “conservative” base, who are busily loathing “leftwing elitists.” Among polarized populations, manufactured beliefs trickle quickly down to disgust and distrust.

One such set of misbeliefs has abetted the cultists’ crusade-to-the-death against the ACA, or Affordable Care Act (meaning against the health of their loyalists as well, since polarization divides classes as it does warring political bases.) The billionaires’ crusade against healthcare is intended to demonize the president as it ridicules anything positive the government may play a role in providing. “Conservative” leaders have pledged to expose the Act not as improvably flawed but as evil, by torpedoing anyone’s attempts at trying it. The uber-rich Koch Bros, through the trickle-down machinations of their think-tank, Americans for Progress, have lavished millions on disinformation to prove Obamacare unhealthy for Americans. Among the ads they’ve funded, one in particular illustrates how lowly they esteem their trusting base.

Julie Boonstra of Dexter, Michigan, became the poster-child of AFP’s deceptions only because of their blatant disregard for the truth. Fox alone aired her double-barreled video attacking the ACA and Congressman Gary Peters for supporting it. A leukemia sufferer, she’d improved under her five-year treatment, until “I received the letter. My insurance was cancelled due to Obamacare.” Her new plan was unaffordable, she said, and the president had lied that she could keep her physician. Yet after investigating Boonstra’s story, The Detroit News reported that she would save at least $1,200 a year on Obamacare, and could retain her University of Michigan oncologist.

When informed of the news, she replied, “It can’t be true. I personally do not believe that.” Fox News watchers are unlikely to believe it either.

Yet denying facts isn’t a cost-free defense mechanism. It temporarily lulls to sleep our inner awareness of being lied to, but as we stay loyal to the cult, and as our twisted beliefs trump the facts, how can it be healthy for us? How many stories are there like Boonstra’s, for whom the only option is to disbelieve the enemy?

A set of trusty generalizations is a positive asset — as long as they’re balanced and put to the test, however long they’ve been trusted, whenever new information dictates the need. That part of us wise enough to hold on to the genuinely good is our healthy inner conservative. The part that is open to the good that comes our way is the healthy inner liberal. Choosing isn’t to be polarized, unless it’s always the same slavish choice.

Just thinking….