Cultural crusaders fervently denouncing
The 1920s battles over immigration, prohibition and evolution indicate that cultural wars thrive during good times. In his book Hellfire Nation, James Morone explains that while the 1920’s economic boom seemed to indicate that the reformers had indeed improved society, the resulting stock market crash of the 1930s abruptly changed the nation’s focus. In place of the moral crusades, the poverty of the Depression gave rise to the Social Gospel where, according to Morone, “the community shares responsibility for vice and virtue, for wealth and poverty.” By the 1932 election, notes Beinart, a focus on “identity politics…was a luxury
The communal responsibility emphasized in the Social Gospel lasted as
Today as the economy again spirals out of control, Beinart argues that Americans cannot afford to choose a candidate based on their stance on abortion and other “value” issues. Obama’s economic policies, an updated version of the Depression-era Social Gospel, have much more resonance with Americans frightened by an unstable economy than do Sarah Palin’s denunciations of immorality.
Beinart titles his article “Last of the Cultural Warriors.” However, his analysis seems to indicate that the economic situation has merely rendered them dormant for a time. Is Beinart’s analysis of the situation correct? Are we witnessing the complete extinction of the cultural crusader, or not? What would Morone’s opinion be of Beinart’s argument? Can “values voting” be tied so closely to economic ups and downs? Do religious values really only matter when the economy is doing well? Beinart’s assertion that Palin is the “last” cultural crusader seems to be a stretch; however, his theory provides an interesting contribution to our understanding of the intersection between religion and politics.
Posts
8 comments:
I found this article to be interesting. I don’t think there is an answer as to whether the “cultural crusaders” will remain dormant or become extinct. I would not completely distinguish Palin’s efforts though, because I think she really aided the McCain campaign. With that put aside, I would like to think that America is at a stage where policy is put before our cultural, religious, and moral differences. However I also know how important some of those issues are for voters. The article seems to suggest that Obama focused more on policy than anything else; maybe that was why he won the election… Of course there could be multiple factors that contributed besides that.
I agree that a poor economy has weakened religious political figures like Palin; however, I disagree that an era of financial woes is necessarily associated with the end of cultural crusaders. Cultural crusaders don’t suddenly stop fighting for their causes. It seems that Americans—and the media—simply tune them out and, as a result, these "cultural warriors" lose political power. Their strong connection with the Republican Party may have also watered down their support.
Despite the economy and the decline of the Republican Party, cultural crusaders are still influential. For example, last night three states had a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the ballot. Oddly enough, all three states—California, Florida, and Arizona—passed the amendment.
These “cultural crusaders” may be out of the political center but they are far from extinct.
This certainly is not the end of the culture wars. I agree that they will be pushed aside for more relevant issues, namely the economy. However, like Gabriela noted, the Christian Right will not die, just lose its influence. The issues of the culture war - abortion, stem cells, gay marriage, etc - have yet to resolve themselves. The article suggests that the '20s culture war ended for multiple reasons: the economic crash but also the assimilation of the Catholics into the rest of American culture. I don't see that this resolution has occurred within our current culture war. This says to me that it will come back with just as much if not more force than before. Worrying about the morality of the country is a luxury that Americans can't afford right now. This has nothing to do with the election of Obama, and the subsequent loss of Palin.
Material conditions certainly drive history – people must respond to economic crises. Also, I agree people really had to prioritize their main concerns during this election and the economic crisis certainly affected those priority lists. On the other hand, religious values have not completely disappeared. Rather religious people will use their convictions to respond to the material conditions around them. Similarly, Martin Luther King Jr. responded to social and economic persecution with religious principles like Biblical justice and Christian love.
Moreover, there is an assumption that economic issues are outside the realm of moral matters. On the contrary, some people include money issues as a top religious issue (Mark Noll includes it in his top 7 moral political issues). Still, progressive taxation does not have the same “moral crusade” tone like the fight against abortion. Instead, individuals might be making choices to focus on their moral obligations to better economic policies, but many religious groups already have the history and momentum to continue their fight against other social issues.
I do not think this is the end of culture wars in the U.S. Even in this economic meltdown, we saw gay marriage-bans across the entire nation. People who supported Prop. 8 fought hard for it, and even passed it in traditionally liberal California. So, no, culture wars are not dead. We will see many more of these crusaders come around, but right now, it the economy. I think we'll see many more show up when Supreme Court nominees come about. But until then, we can get some peace and quiet regarding the "sinful actions" or the American people and talk about issues that actually matter.
I agree with Beinart's argument to a point. Sure, the preoccupation about the economy took attention away from any "moral decay" arguments Palin may have touted, but she made that the ONLY thing she brought to the table. That probably helped secure a certain conservative demographic, but it also certainly cost the McCain campaign a substantial independent vote. Had someone like Mitt Romney (who proposed a same-sex marriage ban in Massachusetts and is strongly pro-life, but has much experience on economic issues) been tapped instead, outcomes might have been different. Moral issues DO matter; just look at Proposition 8 in California, a state that overwhelmingly voted for Obama. If gay marriage and abortion aren't culture wars, I don't know what is.
I think cultural crusaders CAN be electorally successful and relevant... as long as they have the executive skills to allow them the luxury of advancing a moral agenda as a secondary focus. Assuming that two candidates are on equal footing on an issue like the economy, other issues necessarily become important, so there will always be a niche for "crusaders." However, Beinart put it pretty well when he stressed that the GOP will have to find someone who "doesn't try to substitute identity for policy."
As most people who have commented so far, I agree with the article to a point. I definitely agree that economic issues took a much greater stance in the public's eye than moral issues did. In 2000 and 2004, it was definitely moral issues, because there wasn't a whole lot else to focus on. I also agree with many of you that this doesn't mean the end of cultural crusaders. Their voices may be muted or diminished for a time, while we get our country back on track. Once things calm down though and things get back to normal, they'll be right out there once again fighting for America's moral values just as strongly as before. It's in tough times that America comes together as one. When things are going easy, it's easier for us to bring up the points that potentially divisive. A very good and interesting article though!
Post a Comment