Junte-se ao Nosso Boletim Informativo!
X
December 2006 -- Kevin Phillips. American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century. (New York: Viking, 2006), 462 pages, $26.95.
If you want to read a challenge to the pervasive influence of neoconservatism in the Bush administration and to its pandering to the religious right, then Kevin Phillips’s American Theocracy may be just what you’re looking for.
In 1968, Phillips first made a name for himself as an astute political observer with publication of his then-contrarian book The Emerging Republican Majority. At the time, when the GOP was very much the minority party and still recovering from the Goldwater debacle of 1964, Phillips predicted that economic, cultural, and demographic changes would eventually result in Republican political ascendancy. He was right, but he now bemoans the consequences, because the Republican elephant of 1968 was a very different beast from the one that now controls Congress and the White House.
In those days, the party of Goldwater and Reagan stood in opposition to the growth in government that was epitomized by LBJ’s “Great Society.” And the religious right was not even a blip on the political radar. Now, according to Phillips, the party is in the thrall of religious extremists with a destructive political agenda, and it presides over the biggest expansion of government since the aforementioned Great Society.
The central theme of American Theocracy is that American dominance in world affairs will soon run its course, owing to a confluence of forces largely of its own making. According to Phillips, these include: the neocon pursuit of war to secure and maintain U.S.-Anglo domination of global energy supplies; the controlling influence of the religious right on the GOP; and the specter of debt and its consequences to the long-term economic interests of the United States. Phillips posits that these forces feed upon and support each other, thereby creating a “perfect storm” (my words) that will lead to a very bleak future for America as we proceed into the twenty-first century.
In the main, I findhis thesis compelling and believe it warrants the attention of anyone concerned about the future. But the first part of his argument, concerning foreign policy, is the one most likely to raise eyebrows and hackles, even among many advocates of limited government.
Phillips contends that the U.S. blundered badly in Iraq, and the outcome thus far certainly would appear to support that contention. More intriguing, if more controversial, is his theory as to why Bush launched his preemptive war in the first place. After all, its main purported justification—dismantling Saddam’s WMD arsenal—turned out to be, to put it kindly, an error. Another justification was to destroy Iraq’s ability to wage a war of terror against the West, despite the facts that (a) Saddam’s secular regime had as much or more to fear from al Qaeda as any Western nation; (b) it kept a very tight lid and effective control over the machinations of radical Islamists within its own borders; and (c) there were no credible links between Saddam’s government and al Qaeda, or the horrific events of 9/11.
When the harsh light of reality evaporated those rationales, the administration found new reasons to justify the war—e.g., that establishing a democratic government in Iraq would bring stability to the Middle East, and that freeing millions from tyranny was worth the price. Concerning stability, U.S. policy has created the poster child for political instability; and as far as liberating millions from the grip of an evil tyrant, why is this being done in Iraq but not in other countries with regimes even more despotic, such as North Korea and Iran?
Burgeoning religious zealotry preceded the decline of many empires.
Phillips’s answer is unambiguous: oil. His theory is that U.S. foreign policymakers are obsessed with maintaining U.S. and British hegemony over world-wide oil supplies, and that the conquest of Iraq would ensure a plentiful and cheap supply, while breaking the back of OPEC. The theory seems at least plausible. Compared to the reserves of Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, Iraq’s oil supplies are relatively untapped and represent low-hanging fruit when it comes to the costs of extraction. Phillips cites James Paul of the Global Policy Forum, who declares, “Iraq’s oil is the world’s cheapest to produce, at a cost of only $1 per barrel.”
Moreover, Phillips maintains that Saddam was negotiating (contingent on lifting the Iraq trade embargo) lucrative oil deals with French, Russian, German, and Chinese oil interests, at the expense of America and Britain. If true, this would go a long way toward explaining the opposition of those countries to the Iraq war.
In light of the unintended consequences of U.S. war policy—which clearly did not anticipate the insurgency and its consequent sabotage of Iraq’s oil infrastructure—what might explain continued support for the war among a large minority of Americans? Here Phillips references the influence of Christian fundamentalists, who see the conflict in the Middle East as one of biblical prophecy, and as an Armageddon—a titanic struggle between the forces of good (Christian) and evil (Islam)—preceding the Second Coming of Christ.
While waging war for oil and supporting the Second Coming would not sit well with the American electorate—which, Phillips maintains, is why these reasons have not been stated publicly as rationales by war advocates—Phillips does provide some impressive polling data to show that ongoing support for the war is indeed highest among the religious right.
All that said, Phillips’s theories about oil hegemony and biblical prophecy do not exhaust the possible reasons for the administration’s launching the war in Iraq, and many supporters of the war effort will dismiss those theories as straw men.Other nations either provided or relied upon the same pre-war intelligence that painted Iraq as a WMD threat and possible supporter of terrorist groups. Even if a criticwishes to ascribe to the Bush administration only nefarious or religious motives for starting the war, he must acknowledge that there were additional reasons that, at the time, appeared credible and compelling to some non-administration analysts.
Phillips seems on less controversial ground as he turns his attention to the role of the religious right in shaping the GOP’s domestic political agenda. The traditional emphasis of American conservatism on less government spending has given way to a whole raft of moral issues, whereby the religious right seeks to impose its beliefs and values on society at large, using the coercive power of government force. This coercive agenda includes banning abortion; teaching abstinence in schools as the best (indeed, the only morally justifiable) way to combat sexually transmitted diseases; banning gay marriages and civil unions; teaching “intelligent design” and “creationism,” and opposing the theory of evolution; denying the right to die to the terminally ill (witness the Terri Schiavo case); opposition to stem-cell research; posting the Ten Commandments in public buildings; calling for public officials to assert that America is a Christian nation; increasing fines on broadcasters for irreverent or obscene utterances; stamping out pornography; and regarding drug and alcohol abuse as sins, to be dealt with through punishment not treatment.
Phillips provides a wealth of evidence to support his contention that the religious Right has captured the GOP. According to polling data going back to the 1980s, the GOP base has become increasingly dominated by evangelical and fundamentalist Christians—Mormons, Pentecostals, and Southern Baptists. Simultaneously, there has been an erosion of support from moderate, mainline Protestants and secular Americans, who are drifting away or being driven to the Democrats. Today, fully 65 to 70 percent of the Bush electorate regards itself as “born again.” A look at the electoral map shows that Republican support is strongest where the religious right is strongest, and weakest in more secular parts of the country.
For anyone adhering to the limited-government principles upon which the country was founded, it is time to say: “Houston, we have a problem.” The religious right seeks to curtail personal liberties, while the Democrats, true to form since FDR, seek to limit economic freedom.
The third part of American Theocracy deals with the issue of American indebtedness. Phillips blames the problem on the erosion of America’s industrial base and the rise of the financial-services sector of the economy,which, in his view,doesn’t create wealth but makes a bundle lending it to those who do. Phillips claims that America is mortgaged to the hilt, has spent its way into a false prosperity, owes trillions in outstanding debt to foreign nations, and produces less and less to trade, thanks to the decline in its industrial base.
Certainly indebtedness is cause for concern. The burgeoning federal budget deficit and the looming insolvency of Social Security and Medicare augur an uncertain and scary future.
Perhaps the most intriguing thesis in American Theocracy is that America is likely to be dethroned as the world’s preeminent economic power within this century, because it insists on repeating the mistakes of great powers that have gone before it. The parallels Phillips cites are the fall of Rome, Spain, the Netherlands, and Great Britain. In each case, the rise of religious fundamentalism, the dramatic accumulation foreign debt, and military adventurism all coalesced to bring down these once-great empires.
Of course, each case has to be examined separately, and lessons cannot necessarily be applied across-the-board. For example, Rome’s fall was not due to military expansion, as it was in the throes of contraction when the empire fell. Likewise for Holland, which had war thrust upon it by France and Spain and can thus be absolved of the sin of pursuing military conquest to achieve economic or ideological ends.
Sixty-five to seventy percent of the Bush electorate regards itself as “born again.”But the genuine parallels are indeed noteworthy. The final triumph of Christianity in the late Roman Empire certainly played a significant role in its demise. The generally tolerant, polytheistic state religion of Rome’s past was replaced by an intolerant, hegemonic Christian religion that polarized Roman society, created deep resentment in the traditionalist pagan minority, and divided allegiances between state and church. Likewise, indebtedness and oppressive taxation were prominent features in the bleak economic picture that enveloped late Rome as it borrowed recklessly to pay others for its defense, or to pay tribute to its rivals.
Rather than strengthening Spain, gold and silver bullion from the New World became its undoing. Phillips argues that its industrial base withered as it used its wealth to replace indigenous products with imports from other nations.Simultaneously, its rulers succumbed to the temptation to spend its riches on wars to make Europe safe from Protestantism.
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, England spent prodigiously to maintain and expand its empire and to extend the reach of the Christian faith, with a huge up-swelling of missionary zeal and activity within its vast domain.
What all this bodes for the United States can only be the subject of intelligent speculation and debate. But if Americans simply assume that their country is destined to remain on top indefinitely, they need to think again. All great powers, throughout history and without exception, have fallen from grace. And at least the ones highlighted by Phillips all assumed, at the high-water mark of their wealth and power, that they were destined by none other than God himself to remain that way. Burgeoning religious zealotry unerringly preceded the decline of these empires. It’s as if religiosity, in its zeal to spread or to force “the word” upon others, drives nations to reckless excess.
Once decline sets in, so does disillusionment. In Spain, Holland, and Great Britain, regular church attendance today averages around twenty percent of the combined adult population. Spain, the once-stalwart defender of conservative Catholicism, recently legalized gay marriage. In fact, of all Western countries, only the U.S. is experiencing a rise in religious activity and fervency—an ominous parallel to what befell other countries in similar circumstances.
Does this mean that America is likely to fall under the control of a strict, narrow theocracy? I don’t think so, and neither does Phillips, despite his book’s provocative title. The country is too big and diverse for that to happen. But the theocratic drive to exercise political power under the GOP can lead not only to the demise of the GOP, but also to a demise of the nation’s position of economic and political leadership.
However, a free and prosperous nation need not have the world’s largest economy. Global economic forces may dictate that China will someday assume that role. But if the U.S. loses its preeminence because it has frittered away its standard of living with unchecked growth in government spending, unfunded government liabilities, and a culture of consumer debt that worships at the altar of immediate gratification, then it will have only itself to blame.
Worse, if the U.S. abdicates its moral leadership as a country founded on the principles of limited, constitutional government, then who and what will step into the breach? If, say, China becomes ascendant, what principles will guide its dealings with others? I venture to say that it probably won’t be the writings of Thomas Jefferson or Ayn Rand .
This is the peril to which thoughtful Americans should take heed, and to which American Theocracy serves as a warning: read the tea leaves and take corrective action.
spiderID=1570
.png){kind=icon}
