Ironies of Class in Fundamentalist Cultures

[Soldier of the One]

(OK, JFC, this one is for you! :D)

One of the ironies of conservative and fundamentalist Christian culture that I cannot wrap my head around is that of class. And it seems to be all-pervasive: from the distrust of the Tea Party crowd to anything remotely 'progressive' down to the paranoia of fundamentalists concerning 'Marxism'.

The irony is enhanced by the fact that many of these families and individuals embrace an über-capitalist ethos (bordering on Ayn Rand-ian 'Objectivism') that does not only seem to directly contradict some of Christ's most central teachings, but that also completely contradicts their own class position.

In short: how can working, lower-middle and middle-class people embrace an ideology that is so hostile to social and/or social democratic values? They are voting and acting against their own political interests!

A few specifics:

- The fear of 'Communism'. First of all, in the post-Communist era, this fear seems entirely preposterous. There is no 'thread' of Communism in today's world. If anything, there is a thread of excessive corporate globalization.

- The incorrect defining of 'Socialism'. Whatever people may think of Socialist ideals or political theory, I wonder if fundamentalists would recognize Socialism if it hit them in the face. They seem to think that Socialism - in its ideal form (and let's still to the ideal here, for the sake of argument) - is by definition repressive and totalitarian while one could argue that Socialism, at least in its ideal form, is about the maximalization of democracy.

- Their distrust/suspicion of Big Government. Now, again, I am not saying that 'Big Government' is a virtue in an of itself (whether in an ideal form or a practical reality) but why the suspicion? Big Govt, for all its flaws, has some measure of transparency and is under some degree of democratic control. Can the same be said for Big Business?

- Fundamentalism and food. Sure, there are some real issues with how post-industrial Western culture deals with its food production and consumption. And if conservatives and fundamentalists agree with that, then you'd expect them to support the FDA and a higher degree of regulation. Yet, that loops straight back into their disapproval of Big Govt.

- Children, family and healthcare. Again, given their focus (if not obsession) with children and family, you'd expect them to be fully supportive of generous and inclusive healthcare options. Better healthcare leads to healthier families and healthier child-bearing wives. Lack of access to healthcare and lack of adequate health insurance coverage can literally lead to death. Why would they be so distrustful of that?

- Cultural reformation, consumerism and capitalism. For those fundamentalists who embrace the notion of 'Cultural Reformation', you would expect them to decry rampant consumerism/commercialism. If frugality is such a core value to them, then why embrace a capitalist ethos of profit? If they claim to live their Christian values, then shouldn't they be highly critical of power and greed?

- The Bourgeois Ideal. Why do they embrace this individualist, materialist Victorian bourgeois ideal?

In short: will someone help me understand? I'm intrigued :)

[desertvixen]

Again, given their focus (if not obsession) with children and family, you'd expect them to be fully supportive of generous and inclusive healthcare options. Better healthcare leads to healthier families and healthier child-bearing wives. Lack of access to healthcare and lack of adequate health insurance coverage can literally lead to death. Why would they be so distrustful of that?

Because it doesn't count if you don't do it ALL yourself. BOOTSTRAPS, baby! (Literally, in some of the cases we talk about here.) If they took help, they'd be tainted by those other evils (that aren't really so bad or threats).

I mean, I'm not saying milk the government dry, but if you need aid, take it. I like to think of my taxes putting food in kids' tummies.

[Austin]

It's astounding that this group has been so convinced to vote against their own interests, time and time again.

[Mythicwings]

I don't understand it either. It is very confusing. The healthcare one that you mentioned is one of the ones I find to be the most hypocritical of them, because if at best they have health insurance, they have to have the kind of family plan that covers "n" amount of children. If they don't have that kind, or if they have no insurance, they would need to use a state-funded insurance for children, the kind that congress passed I think last decade and that I'm sure a lot of them take advantage of - while yelling about governmental laws and intrusion. The only ones who in any good conscience would NOT take advantage of this for their children and for the mother's sake, and for the father's sake who makes the money, would be the ones who are anti-medicine and refuse medical treatment of any kind. But it's the normal hypocritical stance - be against anything "socialist" until you need it, then use it.

It's like when the whole ugly health care "debate" was going on, which of course was nothing more than most of us having to hear lies screamed at us about death panels and all that. I have a friend who married into a family who is probably QF, and she dabbled in it, submitting to her husband, using Babywise, and predictably was against any government health programs. ok, consistent so far. Then she said that she was thinking she may need to go on disability, and if she did their helath care would be set because her husband is part native american and so he and I think their kid (one so far) get free health care at the reservation clinic. Really? And someone else said on a tea party site that she is against national health care, because she is on disability and so has the government in her life enough :idea: So they take it when they need it but have NO problem denying it to everyone else. And simultaneously don't seem to understand that disbility and reservation clinics ARE government health care.

And then we wonder why we are so confused about them!!!!!

[alba]

The threat of Communism is my favourite. I've got a Southern Baptist friend, so her congregation on the whole isn't hardcore fundamentalist, but definitely conservative and possibly fundie-lite. Anyway, she says that a lot of the elderly women in her church pray daily that Obama won't turn the US into a Communist state. I find this outrageously hilarious because, as a Brit, I think of Obama as right-wing and conservative :lol:

[desertvixen]

was against any government health programs. ok, consistent so far. Then she said that she was thinking she may need to go on disability, and if she did their helath care would be set because her husband is part native american and so he and I think their kid (one so far) get free health care at the reservation clinic. Really? And someone else said on a tea party site that she is against national health care, because she is on disability and so has the government in her life enough So they take it when they need it but have NO problem denying it to everyone else. And simultaneously don't seem to understand that disbility and reservation clinics ARE government health care.

It's like the crowd that doesn't consider WIC welfare (mostly because they use it). One of my coworkers is a whiny white boy libertarian (I got mine, never mind my upper- to middle-class background, losers!) who got WIC when their child was small and his wife did not work. He doesn't consider it welfare because it's hard to abuse. WTF?

[debrand]

Urg. My husband rides to work with a family friend who is conservative. For the most part, my husband ignores this man's rare rants.(The guy is actually really sweet) One day, though, the man started talking about how people who like socialism should take a look at what happened to the Soviet Union. The USSR was proof that socialism didn't work and hampered people's freedom. My husband quietly reminded our friend that the former USSR was communist not socialist. He said that particular topic was dropped quickly.

[emmiedahl]

Why poor people might be conservative?

They might be very proud (rightfully so) of their pluck and sacrifice and hard work, and feel that everyone needs that.

They might be worried that they will be taxed to the point of poverty to support someone who is lazy (either now or in that imaginary future in which they are blessed with wealth because of their hard work and vigilance).

They are socially conservative on other issues and simply buy the Republican party line as a matter of course. Consider: if they were religious and yet into liberation theology, they would have to deal with a lot of cognitive dissonance regarding: do they vote for the party that cares for the poor, or the one opposing abortion, or what? Keep it simple!

They do not trust the government and want it to have less control, not more, even if this means going without healthcare.

They are not as poor as they think they are, and honestly believe that a *real* poor person's problems could be solved by more hard work and less reckless spending. ie, lack of awareness about real poverty.

They are afraid that someone, somewhere, will get a crust of bread that they did not earn.

They are worried that providing minimal survival will make people less motivated.

They think that poor people are poor because they are lazy, frivolous or somehow inferior and that it is unfair to punish the hardworking and frugal by taking their money away in taxes.

They don't realize that many victims of poverty cannot get out of it, that they are children or disabled or simply lack life skills.

I really believe that many Christians see poor people as being Godless sinners who have dug their own hole. They want to see those people punished, not rewarded. We see this attitude all the time in threads on FJ. The fundies start out reasonable, but it always ends up that socialism means some black woman with 5 kids by 8 different daddies is going to spend her food stamps on Twinkies and manicures.

[Soldier of the One]

Thanks for all your insights!

But the Christian aspect still baffles me. I am hardly an authority on Christianity and the New Testament but wasn't Jesus the guy who criticized the rich and stoop up for the poor?

How do they read Scripture through the lens of their politics?

[emmiedahl]

They ONLY read scripture through the lens of their politics. When reading the NT, you have three choices: Jesus was right, Paul was right, or this is a bunch of bullshit. They choose "Paul was right" because it lines up with their political views.

[Soldier of the One]

They ONLY read scripture through the lens of their politics. When reading the NT, you have three choices: Jesus was right, Paul was right, or this is a bunch of bullshit. They choose "Paul was right" because it lines up with their political views.

That's a very interesting way to put it.

If I'd had to make a choice as a Jew, I'd go with 'Jesus is right' :lol:

Christians, please pitch in on this on: did Paul have more socially conservative views in the NT than Jesus did? Does the divide hold up on all accounts?

[alba]

That's a very interesting way to put it.

If I'd had to make a choice as a Jew, I'd go with 'Jesus is right' :lol:

Christians, please pitch in on this on: did Paul have more socially conservative views in the NT than Jesus did? Does the divide hold up on all accounts?

As a former Christian, I'd have to say Paul is way more socially conservative than Jesus. He's the one who spouts the misogynist bullshit. Stuff like you should be a virgin but, if you can't handle it, 'it's better to marry than burn'. Jesus, on the other hand, had a well-known friend who was a prostitute. Jesus also says something like 'love others as you love yourself, and love God. On these hang all the laws and commandments'. I've always imagined Jesus as a bit of a hippie; even though he's not into any sort of hedonism, he's all about loving others and benevolence. Paul, on the other hand, lines up pretty well with a lot of socially conservative view points. I'm not really sure if he ever absorbed Jesus' command to 'judge not, lest ye be judged'.

I rather suspect that Paul's only in the bible because the final line-up of books was decided by men living in a rather sexist culture.

My break from Christianity had nothing to do with Jesus (whom I still think was a pretty cool guy) and everything to do with no longer being able to justify the existence of a god on a logical level.

[Mythicwings]

That's a very interesting way to put it.

If I'd had to make a choice as a Jew, I'd go with 'Jesus is right' :lol:

Christians, please pitch in on this on: did Paul have more socially conservative views in the NT than Jesus did? Does the divide hold up on all accounts?

I would say Paul was, but then again, most of the new testament is a Paul-influenced collection of books/letters. He re-wrote Jesus in his own image and made Jesus some kind of greek mystery cult hero, descended from David. The stuff that survived from the apostles who refused to follow Paul is probably closest to what Jesus thought, but the whole thing is so mixed up. But even so - Jesus comes out looking way nicer than Paul.

[JesusFightClub]

(OK, JFC, this one is for you! :D)

One of the ironies of conservative and fundamentalist Christian culture that I cannot wrap my head around is that of class. And it seems to be all-pervasive: from the distrust of the Tea Party crowd to anything remotely 'progressive' down to the paranoia of fundamentalists concerning 'Marxism'.

The irony is enhanced by the fact that many of these families and individuals embrace an über-capitalist ethos (bordering on Ayn Rand-ian 'Objectivism') that does not only seem to directly contradict some of Christ's most central teachings, but that also completely contradicts their own class position.

In short: how can working, lower-middle and middle-class people embrace an ideology that is so hostile to social and/or social democratic values?

False consciousness, comrade (you knew I was going to say that, didn't you? ;))

The relationships between humans and the way economic systems work and morality have got all screwed up in their minds. It's like PETA's "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy"..."apple pie is Mom is capitalism is God". To many people if you are talking about capitalism vs communism you aren't talking about competing economic systems but about Good vs Evil. That is why even people who are basically speaking against capitalism and for a more agrarian mindset will defend "capitalism" to their last breath. The alternative is wicked and evil, and there are only two choices.

It doesn't help that many people have an extremely confused idea of what capitalism actually is. I have had people tell me "capitalism is as old as humanity" and on further questioning I realise that they think any form of trade, barter or exchange is capitalism. Or declare proudly "I am a capitalist" when they actually mean "I work for minimum wage at McDonalds and vote Republican." With such confusion about terms, who can find common ground?

Left terminology is even worse. The "Obama is a Marxist" thing was absolutely bewildering to me. I know from Marxists, and while he has certainly been acquainted with a few, he is not remotely Marxist himself. But it was absolutely impossible to explain this to people. I got either ignored or told I was part of the Marxist conspiracy. And it makes sense from their perspective...why would you trust someone who admits being Evil to speak about other Evil people?

The language barrier, encouraged and reinforced by the ruling class, causes this problem.

[AnnoDomini]

Complicating the matter is the belief that God, not man, wrote the Bible in its entirety, and the various men who penned the books, did so simply by divine inspiration/direction; the words did not come from them. There is Biblical evidence for this, but then again there seems to be Biblical evidence for just about any belief people can think up.

[YPestis]

Need anyone need reminding that "Joe the Plumber" was once on welfare as a child? When asked if it was hypocritical of him to be hold anti-welfare opinions when his family had to take welfare as a child, he replied that his family needed it back then, but now most people are just taking advantage. As others stated, it's a "I got me some, so I don't care if no one else gets theirs" attitude.

I do see alot of welfare abuses and there are people who make poor choices who end up needing welfare. However, I also think alot of people don't realize the consequences of cutting off welfare. Kids won't get fed, pregnant women don't get prenatal care, sadly, some parents are so careless if healthcare isn't "free", they won't attempt to seek care for their kids. I've worked at the county hospital where we have to essentially find reward system to get parents to comply with vaccinations, check ups etc. However, misbehavior of some doesn't mean the idea of welfare is bad, it merely needs to be modified. Many people depend on these programs to get by.

[Soldier of the One]

False consciousness, comrade (you knew I was going to say that, didn't you? ;))

Oh yes, I was waiting for that one! :D

The relationships between humans and the way economic systems work and morality have got all screwed up in their minds. It's like PETA's "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy"..."apple pie is Mom is capitalism is God". To many people if you are talking about capitalism vs communism you aren't talking about competing economic systems but about Good vs Evil. That is why even people who are basically speaking against capitalism and for a more agrarian mindset will defend "capitalism" to their last breath. The alternative is wicked and evil, and there are only two choices.

It doesn't help that many people have an extremely confused idea of what capitalism actually is. I have had people tell me "capitalism is as old as humanity" and on further questioning I realise that they think any form of trade, barter or exchange is capitalism. Or declare proudly "I am a capitalist" when they actually mean "I work for minimum wage at McDonalds and vote Republican." With such confusion about terms, who can find common ground?

Left terminology is even worse. The "Obama is a Marxist" thing was absolutely bewildering to me. I know from Marxists, and while he has certainly been acquainted with a few, he is not remotely Marxist himself. But it was absolutely impossible to explain this to people. I got either ignored or told I was part of the Marxist conspiracy. And it makes sense from their perspective...why would you trust someone who admits being Evil to speak about other Evil people?

The language barrier, encouraged and reinforced by the ruling class, causes this problem.

Don't get me started on the 'Obama = Marxist' epic logic FAIL. As despicable as Obama might be to his more extreme opponents, objectively, he's hardly a Marxist. Then the banks would not have been 'too big to fail'! :lol:

Yes well, as for the whole 'Good versus Evil' thing... life is a lot more nuanced than that, even for Marxists ;)

Barter and trade is not the same as 'capitalism'. Intrinsically, there's nothing wrong with money from a Marxist perspective, if money is just an easy way to barter the value of one product to another. (It's kinda hard shlepping your barley for your neighbor's cow!) It's when a profit motive is attached and when the capitalist starts earning a 'surplus value' on the means of production that things become more sticky from a Marxist perspective.

The long and short of it is that the conservative and fundamentalist American proletariat (to stay in JesusFightClub-lingo ;)) is shooting themselves in the foot. If anything, it is their homes, jobs and livelihoods that are under thread. Austin put it more eloquently than I did.

[edited for riffles]

[bananacat]

Two words: prosperity gospel.

Once upon a time, there were two groups of people. One was rich and didn't want to pay their fair share to society through taxes. The other group was socially conservative and extremely authoritarian. So to get more power, the first group stuck a deal with the second group. The rich and greedy would promise to enact laws about "family values", and in exchange the poor group would vote for them and look the other way while the rich group was robbing everyone blind. And thus was born the modern Republican party.

The simpler version is that fundies are by nature authoritarian, and the rich "fiscal conservatives" fit nicely into the role of leader, which is the thing authoritarians want most. There's also a gigantic dose of identity politics here. Authoritarians are extremely hateful of out-groups. They see any social programs as benefiting the big scary OTHERS, and not themselves. It also helps that most fundies are white and so are most conservative politicians. They want some powerful father figure to keep the outsiders away from them.

[Soldier of the One]

Ah, the theological and moral monstrosity called 'prosperity theology' had briefly been blocked out of my mind.

Thanks for reminding me, bananacat... I guess... ;)

[Rosa]

I don't believe in false consciousness. It's not that they don't know the truth - it's a purely emotional response. Knowing they can't get a really fair share, not in their lifetimes, people have a number of responses - one is to work for a distant, fairer future, reformist or revolutionary. One is to try to make their little piece of the pie somewhat bigger. One is to emotionally justify their own good fortune ("We needed it, everyone else is undeserving"). One is lateral aggression - making sure nobody next to or below them gets a slightly bigger piece, so they can feel as good or better off than their immediate peers.

[Soldier of the One]

I don't believe in false consciousness. It's not that they don't know the truth - it's a purely emotional response. Knowing they can't get a really fair share, not in their lifetimes, people have a number of responses - one is to work for a distant, fairer future, reformist or revolutionary. One is to try to make their little piece of the pie somewhat bigger. One is to emotionally justify their own good fortune ("We needed it, everyone else is undeserving"). One is lateral aggression - making sure nobody next to or below them gets a slightly bigger piece, so they can feel as good or better off than their immediate peers.

Rosa, those are all good points to consider. I think the truth is probably somewhere in between. For some it might be 'false consciousness' while others may know 'the truth' and react to it in the permutations you described. Perhaps the main distinguishing feature is the role of personal morality and ethical concern. 'We needed it, everyone else is undeserving' is hardly a moral response.

[emmiedahl]

I don't think they are all assholes. I have a few TP friends online who, when prodded, admit that people like me should receive some kind of help because we made the right decisions and just kinda were victims of the times. The issue is that they see me and my family as an anomaly, and they firmly believe that if the government were not offering help then the churches and private charities would step up. Historically, this is not the case (and historically we are not an anomaly at all). I think a lack of education and awareness is definitely part of it.

I think my family will make it. I really believe that. And that kind of held me in the political moderate category for a few years. We work hard, we will make it, and other people should do the same. But someone here pointed out: intelligence is inherited. Not everyone can write for a living; not everyone can stay up all night working and then ace a test. Personality is also inherited; I am one of those people who can get smacked down and pop right back up, like those punching toys, and especially so when you are talking about whether my kids have a home next month. Even with a combination of traits that seems built for my situation, I still falter. I still have crippling anxiety, I get depressed, I feel guilty, I have so many negative emotions right now that I can barely function.

But this is all beside the point. The point is that no one should go without a warm, safe bed and a full stomach. No one should be expected to pull themselves up by the bootstraps when they have untreated illnesses or no access to education.

I have started getting confrontational with these people. I tell them my situation and ask them why my kids should not eat. This is how I know that liberals are morally superior: Conservatives refuse to answer the question, while liberals are like "wtf? Of course your kids should eat! They should probably eat better!" Very telling.

[Soldier of the One]

Gosh, emmiedahl, thanks for sharing that - that was very poignant. I don't really know if there's anything I can say to help you at all except that I utterly sympathize. I hope things become easier for you and your family real soon.

Of course they are not all 'assholes', God forbid. There are good people to be found everywhere (or well, mostly everywhere) even if we think of each other as misguided. But I also agree with your analysis. No-one should go without basic human rights. Food, shelter, safety and education are part of those.

{{{hugs}}}

[CanticleoftheTurning]

Once upon a time, there were two groups of people. One was rich and didn't want to pay their fair share to society through taxes. The other group was socially conservative and extremely authoritarian. So to get more power, the first group stuck a deal with the second group. The rich and greedy would promise to enact laws about "family values", and in exchange the poor group would vote for them and look the other way while the rich group was robbing everyone blind. And thus was born the modern Republican party.

.

I absolutely love this. I really do. I'm so tempted to share this on Facebook, but I have a fair number of conservative republican friends and this may start up a flamewar :dance:

Do you have one for the Dems, too?

[Burris]

It's astounding that this group has been so convinced to vote against their own interests, time and time again.

I agree. I can't even begin to answer the OP's question, because I have no idea why these people vote the way they do.

They often vote against their own interests, and yet they do so for apparently selfish reasons.

It's as if the vast majority of fundies don't recognize the reality of their class status, and believe they can level up if they collaborate with their oppressors. They accept nearly unbelievable levels of corruption and avarice in their own leaders, both political and religious, while at the same time looking for ways to fly-speck opponents for lesser sins.

Maybe the rampant anti-intellectualism is what allows them to be swayed so easily and so often by such obvious horseshit.