> But Americans don't want creeping socialism; they want galloping
> Christianity. They don't want social benefit programs to guard them
> against the marketplace; they want to entrust their woes to their
> invisible friend God. E.g., consider this from an article in today's
> NY Times that focuses on "hip new churches" around the nation:
[snip NYTimes quote]
> Onward into the brave new Middle Ages! How pathetic can Americans get?
There is also a story in the NYT today about the gov't of Vietnam encouraging Vietnamese to revive Buddhist traditions, and describing the wealthier ones praying for prosperity at their temples at New Year's.
Religions have meant the same thing for most common folk for thousands of years -- a belief in some sort of invisible, tremendous power behind the universe which would guarantee prosperity, or at least relief from famine and hunger, to those who performed the proper rituals. I don't think it's particularly incomprehensible or surprising that Americans in 2004 would continue to behave in this time-honored way. We anti-capitalist radicals would prefer to have them get up off their knees and leave their churches, however "hip" and "post-modern" they may be, and fight the system. But what have we done to educate them in this direction? What concrete steps have we offered them to solve their problems in a non-religious way? What explanation have we given the American people, in simple-to-understand terms, of how the system works and what other system might work better?
Looking at this whole two-party vs. three-party or n-party dispute from a broad perspective, it strikes me that the U.S. working class, since Nixon at least, has been basically Republican-oriented. Workers have been quite happy voting for Republican Presidential candidates except when something really nasty happened which led them to vote reluctantly for the Democratic candidate.
They were very happy with Nixon until it turned out he really was a crook. They were ecstatic with Reagan, who had nothing to recommend him at all except his Irish charm and acting talent, for two whole terms. They turned against Bush pere, probably because of the poor economic conditions during the 1992 campaign (a momentary lapse into sanity, perhaps, but then the alternative presented to them was the egregiously phony Bill), but were once again charmed by the Texan macho, inarticulate personality of Bush fils.
By and large, then, this is, for the present, a Republican nation. Nothing for it but to face up to this fact. The problem we radicals have, before we can even begin to talk to American workers about overthrowing the system, is moving the U.S. working class from its fascination with personable rich Republican candidates (or non-personable rich Democratic candidates like Kerry) to a position where it might consider supporting a party which would actually fight for its interests, which (as I think most of us on this list believe) are basically incompatible with the system.
The reason workers are more willing to trust God to fight for their interests than a third party is, I think, that they have given up believing (as they generally did in the 30s and 40s) that any political party, first, second, or third, could do them any good. And, as we know, Republicans are definitely closer to God than anyone else. It's that whole world-view that needs to be replaced.
Don't ask me how; frankly, I'm baffled by the problem of confronting such massive irrationality. It's possible that the emerging issue of "outsourcing" and lingering unemployment is a sign that workers are starting to think about their actual situation in the economic system, but there is still no presence on the U.S. political scene of a party or candidate with a clear, persuasive anti-capitalist message. In the absence of that, God obviously makes more sense to most people.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A gentleman haranguing on the perfection of our law, and that it was equally open to the poor and the rich, was answered by another, 'So is the London Tavern.' -- "Tom Paine's Jests..." (1794); also attr. to John Horne Tooke (1736-1812) by Hazlitt