Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Articles
Democratic Underground  
SEARCH DU
Powered by FreeFind

THE DU T-SHIRT OF THE WEEK:

Click here to purchase DU Merchandise

Sweatshirts, mugs, and mousepads also available!

DONATE TO DU!
We rely on donations from our readers to run this website. If you think we're worth it, give us your money!

SUBMIT ARTICLES
Authors - we publish a wide variety of new material six days a week. If you would like us to consider your article for publication, click here.

BOOK REVIEWS
Find out what other Evil DUers are reading. And buy through our Amazon Affiliate Program.

LINKS DIRECTORY
We have over 1,000 progressive websites listed in our Links Directory.
· Democratic Party
· Forums/Communities
· Government
· Humor and Parody
· Issues and Activism
· Merchandise
· News/Commentary
· Personal Homepages
· Research and Dirt
· State and Local
· Add a link!

GET DU GEAR
Check out our fabulous range of T-shirts, mugs, baseball caps... etc.

The Armageddon Policy
April 3, 2002
By punpirate

Hubert Locke's commentary in the March 29th edition of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer should act as a firm reminder of two things: first, that as long as the world is generously populated with nuclear weapons, all the troubles they imply are still with us, governmentally, militarily, environmentally and economically. Second, protestations in favor of war, even of a generally-accepted but undeclared one, mean that governments and militaries of all sorts begin to think in strategic and tactical terms, of their manpower, supplies, and their stockpiles of weapons, and of the directions given them by government.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that policy about such weapons is governed by all the necessities of war, one of which is expediency.

What has been lost, completely, in the discussions about the latest Nuclear Posture Review, is that of the necessity of war, now and in the future. Avoiding war is the means to avoiding the use of such weapons. Actively engaging in war, or serious talk of war, opens the lid to Pandora's Box. Once the daemons have been let loose, one can't get them into the box again.

The moral of that fable is to think first, even if one's self-interest seems of paramount importance at the moment.

Many commentators have speculated that the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq would possibly engage the Muslim world against the United States. Possibly? Thinking first, one would, of necessity, phrase it as, "certainly." The reason for not thinking so, however, is not so apparent to Americans. For a great deal of the last three decades or so, our country has engaged in a love affair with the right wing, who themselves adapt their policies and campaign speeches to the requirements of an increasingly strident minority in their midst, Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals.

Nothing to do with the latest talk of war? Our current President, in varying terms likely crafted from polls to extract the greatest emotional response from the most people, has repeatedly suggested that ours is a holy war, a war against all evil, and that invoking God's help is necessary for victory. Is this, in any real sense, differently motivated than the war that Muslim fundamentalists wish to wage against us?

Let us not dismiss lightly that the President, in the early days after the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., chose to use the word "crusade" to describe our future intentions and acts. Only after it was pointed out to the administration that this choice of words was impolitic, given the history of the first Crusades as viewed by the non-Christian world, that different means of saying the same thing were devised.

Admittedly, it sounds quite silly to suggest that current events are the result of two warring fundamentalist clans, one Wahhabi, one Christian, but it's also silly not to acknowledge the religious undertones of the rhetoric, and dangerous not to acknowledge that governments, and politicians, have their own irrational prejudices which do inevitably find their way into policy and speechmaking.

In a book by the late Grace Halsell, little-remarked on at the time in the mainstream press, Prophecy and Politics: Militant Evangelists on the Road to Nuclear War, published in 1986, Ms. Halsell quotes a TV evangelist of some note at the time, James Robison:

"'There'll be no peace until Jesus comes. Any preaching of peace prior to this return is heresy; it's against the word of God; it's Anti-Christ,' says TV evangelist Jim Robison, who was invited by President Reagan to deliver the opening prayer at the 1984 Republican National Convention."

A July, 2000 USA Today article relates, "During his father's 1988 campaign, Bush specialized in religious liaison work, and Wead says 'nobody comes close to George W. Bush' in cultivating clergy. In the run-up to his own 2000 campaign, Bush quietly scheduled numerous sessions with small groups of ministers. His own religious counselors run to evangelical personalities like fiery Fort Worth evangelist James Robison..."

Robison is variously described in other pre-2000 election stories as being one of the prime movers, along with Billy Graham, in George W. Bush's conversion to born-again status.

Let us also remind ourselves of the times. Odd and sometimes absolutely crackpot ideas have sprung up at each millenium. A current one among fundamentalists and evangelicals, despite certain anti-Semitism in the past, is that Israel is the Biblical seat of God's power, and if the Arab world attacks Israel, such would be a signal of the Second Coming.

Most of the intellectual commentary at the time of the release of Halsell's book concerned remarks by former President Reagan. It is not known at this time if George W. Bush agrees with some of the wilder of recorded Reagan pronouncements on the subject of Armageddon and government policy.

There's also that matter of oil, and the odd coincidence of oil and evil seeming to reside in the same neighborhoods. Just speculating, but perhaps the administration thinks there's nothing wrong with hedging one's bets if the Rapture fails to come off according to schedule, no matter how determinedly some have sought to induce it.

Nevertheless, it's troublesome business for many Americans when one begins to think government and religion might be just a bit too cozy. While many in the country look askance at, for instance, the ACLU's dogged determination to prevent prayer at public-school events of all sorts, it's also true that the spirit and intent of the 1st Amendment is to both provide for the private expression of faith, and to keep that faith quite far from unduly influencing national policy.

And yet, during the Reagan years, there was an eerie confluence between Reagan's indifference to environmental standards, regulatory process, skyrocketing national debt, his occasionally taunting remarks in the direction of the former Soviet Union, and the lust of the evangelicals for Armageddon and the Rapture it is purported to bring. As Edward Johnson mentions in "The Journal of Historical Review," Armageddon and policy might be subtly entwined:

"At a 1971 dinner, Reagan told California legislator James Mills that 'everything is in place for the battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ.' The President has permitted Jerry Falwell to attend National Security Council briefings and author and Armageddon-advocate Hal Lindsey to give a talk on nuclear war with Russia to top Pentagon strategists.

"If Mills, Halsell and other observers of the presidency are correct, Reagan's personal belief in the Dispensationalist scenario explains the mystery of the seeming fatalism of so many of his military, domestic and monetary policies. According to Mills, Reagan's attitude can be summed up as, 'There's no reason to get wrought up about the national debt, if God is soon going to foreclose on the whole world.'"

Activists and ordinary citizens have decried the Bush administration's increasing retrenchment from open government, its steady erosion of environmental policy, its utter indifference to budgetary common sense in favor of gross militarism and its calloused hints of nuclear war against Iraq as it looks the other way while Israelis and Palestinians seek to destroy each other.

In terms of effects of policy administration, there seems to be little to distinguish Bush and Reagan from one another, nor does there seem to be much difference in their closeness to the Christian fundamentalist and evangelical movements, except that Bush's overtness about his own conversion and his Biblical language make him the more troublesome of the two for citizens worried that church and state need some separation.

There are other explanations, of course - the right-wing's abiding distaste of government interfering with the affairs of the rich, corporate and individual, its belief in the quasi-religious mandate to use the resources of the world to enrich the Elect, and its almost automatic support for any sort of militarism and military spending to support that perceived mandate - but, it's worth musing on the possibility that, moving like a subterranean river, there is the constant tidal tug of fundamentalist determinism on today's United States government and on George W. Bush. To the faithful, the ones believing the Rapture awaits them, thinking first is last on their list of priorities.


punpirate is a New Mexico writer, longing for more democratic times.

Printer-friendly version
Tell a friend about this article Tell a friend about this article
Discuss this article
Democratic Underground Homepage

 
© 2001 - 2004 Democratic Underground, LLC
 

Important Notice: Articles published on the Democratic Underground website are the opinions of the individuals who write them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC