THE WAR AT HOME

Matt Yglesias:

This has been hinted at elsewhere, but I think it's worth saying that there are some very direct analogies between the cultural backlash provoked by the American Northeast's efforts to reconfigure social relations in the American South in the 1860s and then the "heartland" writ large from 1965-onwards and the backlash against America's neoimperial transformative project in the Middle East. This is not to say that American social conservatives are the same as violent jihadis or even that American "Christianism" is the same as Arab "Islamism." Obviously, there are major -- and important -- differences. But there are also similarities. Nationalism is a powerful force. So is religion. In general, people are fairly wedded to their traditional ways of life. Even when people agree that some important element of their traditional political order (Jim Crow, Saddam Hussein) was bad and are glad to see it gone, they still resent outsiders who came in, wrecked the old order, put on airs of superiority, and start pressing for further changes.

Andrew Sullivan has more than hinted at the jihadist aspect of the culture war:

And for many of the true faithful, Bush is an almost messianic figure. At this year’s convention of the Texas Republican party, one pastor prayed: “Give us Christians in America who are more wholehearted, more committed and more militant for you and your kingdom than any fanatical Islamic terrorists are for death and destruction. I want to be one of those Christians.” That is the molten core of the Republican party.

...Who will win this religious war? It’s still too close to call. But inasmuch as people’s deepest and most mysterious beliefs are being dragged more and more into the public square, America loses. It is one thing to have religious rhetoric and language in public. That is the American way. It is another to base political appeals on religious grounds — whether crudely or subtly.

It is one of the saddest ironies of our time that as America tries to calm the fires of theocracy abroad, it should be stoking milder versions of the same.

A similarity that occurs to me is that many liberals don't seem to grasp that they have been declared war upon. Just as many Americans didn't comprehend the nature of Islamist jihadism before 9/11, many liberals don't comprehend the level of conservative hate towards them. If you doubt that war has, in fact, been declared, have a read:

For many decades, conservative citizens and like-minded political leaders (starting with President Calvin Coolidge) have been denigrated by the vilest of lies and characterizations from hordes of liberals who now won't even admit that they are liberals--because the word connotes such moral stink and political silliness. As a class, liberals no longer are merely the vigorous opponents of the Right; they are spiteful enemies of civilization's core decency and traditions.

...Having been amended only 17 times since 10 vital amendments (the Bill of Rights) were added at the republic's inception, the U.S. Constitution is not easily changed, primarily because so many states (75%, now 38 of 50) must agree. Yet, there are 38 states today that may be inclined to adopt, let us call it, a "Declaration of Expulsion," that is, a specific constitutional amendment to kick out the systemically troublesome states and those trending rapidly toward anti-American, if not outright subversive, behavior. The 12 states that must go: California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware. Only the remaining 38 states would retain the name, "United States of America." The 12 expelled mobs could call themselves the "Dirty Dozen," or individually keep their identity and go their separate ways, probably straight to Hell.

Leaving side the obvious fact that Mr. Thompson doesn't understand the concept of liberalism (here's a hint: you're soaking in it), I find the idea that the Red States should want to expel the Blue States extremely amusing. To illustrate the stark absurdity of this proposal, I've written a short play.

LITTLE ORPHAN ANNIE
You know, Daddy Warbucks, I just don't think this is going to work out. You can take your money and your atheistic elitism, and I'll take my conservative values and go back to living on the street.

DADDY WARBUCKS
Suits me fine. There are plenty of orphans to be had these days. There's a depression on, you know. Don't let the door hit you on your little orphan ass on the way out.

The End

Here's a state-by-state breakdown of federal dollars contributed versus those received. Guess who gets more than they give? Those self-reliant Red States. Guess who gives more than they receive? Those welfare-loving Blue States. If the Reds were to expel the Blues from the Union, I seriously doubt the tax revenues generated by NASCAR and the sale of Moon Pies and mayonaise would enable the Reds to continue enjoying the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed. The Blues, however, would have that much more money to spend on drugs, lube, and black masses, to say nothing of public education and health care.

Back to the main point, that American liberalism is under attack by a highly motivated and well-organized theocratic insurgency. The 2004 election was won, it turns out, mostly on the issue of terrorism and national security, as most expected it would. It was not won, as was thought immediately afterward, on "moral values." But that has not stopped these folks from acting as if it was. They are spinning this electoral victory into a Christian call to arms, and are intent on writing their illiberalism into the Constitution.

Look, I'm not equating the Islamist threat with the domestic conservative threat. That would be silly. The Christian Coalition is not al Qaeda, obviously. But the similarities in mindset are impossible to deny.

In some ways, I think the 2004 election will be looked back upon as the liberal 9/11. It will, I hope, galvanize us and bring into focus the threat gathering against us. In any case, we have no excuse for ignoring the threat any longer, or for misunderstanding its nature.

Friends, liberalism is the philosophy which underpins the modern, civilized world. The principles which define it, personal liberty, religious toleration, and government by consent, have made possible an era of freedom and economic prosperity unknown before in human history. It's time we liberals started acting like it.