The author was pretty clear, first by describing them as white evangelical conservatives and, second, by tracing a history in which white evagelicals underpinned progressive social movements at one time. Had Carrol read the article, he'd see that the author wasn't making any claims about Christianity being the reason for conservativism. Take this passage, for instance:
"the crude traditionalism-defensive version of Christian atavism among White fundamentalist Christian circles today has stymied the culture-innovative and humanitarian version of Christian revitalization, amounting to what he calls a "Constantinian-type Christianity" that allies with the imperialist-minded, oligarchic, greed-riddled corporatist elites in American society. What Cornel West is telling us is that today's rightist mode of the Christian atavism-ethos of reaching-back-to-traditionalist-Christian roots by Christian fundamentalist organizations and leaders (Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc.) is thoroughly reactionary in its systemic impact."
Sorry Chip found the subject line offensive. I took it from the title of the piece and, since I don't generally run around blaming Christians for anything and spend a good deal of time trying to explain how they think to people on the list in an effort to get others to understand where they are coming from, I guess I think that ought to be the context within which one interprets the subject line.
kelley
>I think Carrol asks an important question: is christian fundemenatlism an
>ideological resource ready to hand that conservatives gravitate towards to
>legitimate their conservatism or populist reactions? Or rather, is
>christian fundementalism that which produces conservatism and populist
>reaction? The former makes one want to ask the further question about why
>people come to hold conservative values and employ reactionary
>populism. The latter terminates the conversation.
>
>It seems the Repub strategists took the latter path to the former as did
>fundementalist preachers. Who new materialism would be taken seriously by
>the right and derrided by the left.
>
>Travis
>
>
>Carrol wrote:
>>Does their xtianity flow from their conservatism or their conservatism
>>from the xtianity, or do both flow from some X not covered in the exit
>>polls?
>>
>>What evidence is there that their religious belief is an independent
>>variable?
>
>To which M. Dawson replied:
>
>Everybody who's Carrol Cox or properly worships Carrol Cox knows that
>fundamentalist Christianity has no independent impact on American politics!
>Duh. Obvious!
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
"We live under the Confederacy. We're a podunk bunch of swaggering pious hicks."
--Bruce Sterling