Fear and the Republican Party

Historically, traditionalism has always been a reaction to change. Christian fundamentalism arose out of a climate that had become increasingly progressive via higher criticism, liberal theology, and philosophy. Feeling the need to defend their orthodox beliefs, fundamentalists have worked to repudiate the advances of modernity and emphasize the value of tradition. In the last 30 or 40 years, we've seen the Republican Party of the United States adopt a very similar modus operandi. Republican leaders of the distant past, like Lincoln, Roosevelt, and even Eisenhower, each had political philosophies of their own, which they would typically justify through reason. Yet beginning in the Reagan era, reason has increasingly been abandoned in favor of emotional and religious appeals, with a large focus on that elusive beast, "American tradition."

I believe it's accurate to say that a significant component of traditionalism is fear. The fundamentalists fear what might happen if their biblical values are lost. The GOP fears what might happen if "family values" are lost. Traditionalism means one is fearful of change that could supplant the individual's favored traditions. We don't appeal to tradition because it works (otherwise it would make more sense just to say that), but because we find tradition familiar, nostalgic, etc., and we fear what is unfamiliar, new, and different. A certain kind and amount of fear is not unfounded, however, and it can be a good thing to fear the effect that an action will have, which may lead to being better prepared, or eliminating the undesired effect altogether. But there is also a definite point where the line is crossed. If fear has no basis in reality or is concentrated only in those with specific prejudices, then it is unreasonable to give into fear.

As the Republican Party has developed a heavier rhetoric for tradition, we have seen fear start to play more and more of a central role in Republican politics. In recent news, GOP candidate Rick Santorum has been the subject of attention for statements made in 2008 about Satan attacking the United States. [1] This struck me as particularly important because Satan is not just a symbol of evil for many people, but also a strong symbol of fear. Though believers may deny fearing the devil out of religious pride, it wasn't that long ago that "Satanic conspiracies" fascinated and terrified the American public, leading to incredible injustices like the West Memphis Three. Satan is a symbol of fear that superstitious people invest with all they consider profane, and so expressing the opinion that Satan is attacking the United States shows tremendous fear about the condition of America.

Rick Santorum's fears are unfounded, though, built as they are on homophobia and sexism. We've also seen the Bachmanns offer their homophobic views, we've seen Newt Gingrich say some highly sexist things, and more than a few of the candidates have made racially insensitive remarks. Fear is what seems to drive the current Republican Party, and it's not all that surprising that the Religious Right has virtually taken over the GOP in the last 20 or 30 years. As many have said, religion appears to be based upon fear of death, fear of the unknown, and so forth. The prophecies and certitudes of religion have proven popular in part because they provide comfort and serve to subdue our fears.

This is one of the biggest problems I have with the Republican Party today: it places value on tradition for tradition's sake. But longevity is not a reason to accept an idea over another. In religion, many people tend to associate truth with the antiquity of a belief - just look at the Muslims who try to pretend that Islam has always dominated the world, claiming that Abraham was even a Muslim. Tradition can be fun, and I have no issue with going along with something because it's a fun tradition, but when it comes to important matters of policy that drive social and personal well-being, there has to be a better justification for our positions than mere tradition. For all the complaining of the GOP candidates about Obama's freedom-hating Socialist behavior, it will be fear that will truly enslave and exploit us if we give into it irrationally.

Huckabee: Natalie Portman 'Glorifies' Unwed Pregnancy

Mike Huckabee has been an interesting person for me to watch since he announced his candidacy for the 2008 election. Unlike Romney, McCain, or most Republican politicians, he seems relatable, like someone you could go out and have a beer with. I'm also not alone in thinking this, as polls taken among conservatives show that Huckabee is overwhelmingly liked as a possible choice for the 2012 election. I've even heard some liberals say that he seems more 'level-headed' than most other Republicans. But remembering Huck's speech about amending the Constitution to fit with the bible [1], I know that he's just as far right and crazy as most other GOP candidates.

And now he's showing that side of himself again, by criticizing Natalie Portman for 'glamorizing' unwed pregnancy [2]. Huckabee told Michael Medved, a conservative radio host...

"She got up, she was very visibly pregnant, and it's really it's a problem because she's about seven months pregnant, it's her first pregnancy, and she and the baby's father aren't married, and before two billion people, Natalie Portman says, 'Oh I want to thank my love and he's given me the most wonderful gift.' He didn't give her the most wonderful gift, which would be a wedding ring! And it just seems to me that sending that kind of message is problematic."

Portman is engaged to Benjamin Millepied, a choreographer she met while filming The Black Swan. The two have been engaged since at least December of last year, when the announcement was made to the press. Typically an engagement ring is a big part of a couple getting engaged, so Huckabee may be dead wrong about Millepied not giving Portman the 'most wonderful gift.' However, I'd still have to take issue with his statements, even if Portman and her beau were not already engaged.

What would be the benefit of having a child in wedlock as opposed to having one out of wedlock? Child support may become an issue for some unwed parents later down the road, if they part ways, but even married couples may divorce and have to face child support. Huckabee brings up the expenses involved in having a child and notes that, "Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care." And marriage, which isn't exactly cheap, will resolve this how?

It cracks me up that these 'small government' types - even though they may not advocate government intervention in areas like this - still so often act like they know what is best for you better than you do. If a loving and financially stable couple wants to have a child without getting married, what's the harm, and who is Mike Huckabee to tell them it's wrong? He has no business telling a celebrity couple to set an example for poor single mothers. Perhaps he'd like it if they undid their evil unwed pregnancy by having an abortion? Maybe not.

If Huckabee is truly concerned about the financial burden of children on unmarried parents, the solution is simple: let's educate more men and women about the costs of pregnancy and childcare. Telling them to get married before having kids won't do a damn thing, nor will telling rich couples to be better role models. But Huck's focus is not on the financial burden of single parents, because, if it were, he wouldn't care about the parents who are stable enough to make it work. His focus is on the sinfulness of sex outside of wedlock.

Portman did not glorify or glamorize unmarried pregnancy, she is only happy to be a mother, which seems like it should be something that the 'family values' crowd would appreciate. The 'most wonderful gift' to her was not a baby outside of marriage, it was just a baby, and the odds are good that she would've said the exact same thing if she'd already been married for years. Huckabee can't be happy for Portman because what he sees is a sin: a child born outside the 'sanctity' of marriage.

Huckabee is a very skilled rhetorician. He knows just what to say and how to say it to make himself come across like a good and sensible guy, but his underlying beliefs are much more fundamentalist than he's letting on. I've watched interviews with Huck on Bill Maher and the Colbert Report, and it's been fascinating to me to observe how centrist he acts on liberal shows, while his appearances on conservative shows, like this one with Michael Medved, usually seem to produce a quite different and controversial side of him that is a lot more far right leaning.