Joe Loconte does the twist

Maybe Joe Loconte just can't read.

I'm just trying to figure out why Loconte keeps insisting that Jim Wallis has been silent on topics he's written extensively about. Or why Loconte keeps employing out-of-context quotations to imply that Wallis has said things he's never said. Maybe Loconte's not really a dishonest, malicious hack. Maybe he just can't read and he doesn't realize he's offering a twisted misrepresentation.

Yesterday, Loconte recycled yet another variation of his caricatured attack on Wallis, the leader of the Sojourners community and the Call to Renewal.

Loconte's shtick is to argue that Wallis and other religious progressives are simply the mirror image of the would-be-theocrats of the religious right. That's an odd claim to begin with, since I don't recall ever hearing Wallis or any other religious progressive talk about "reclaiming Christian America" or declaring that "the separation of church and state is a myth" or using any of the other theocratic language of the religious right.

Loconte's New York Times op-ed piece yesterday -- "Nearer, My God, to the G.O.P." -- is only slightly modified from the version he wrote back in July, "From Gospel to Government," which was itself only slightly different than the Nov. 2004 version, "Prophets and Politics."

(Loconte is no environmentalist, but at least he recycles his column every six months.)

All three versions go after Jim Wallis by name, but not honestly. Take this, for example, from the first version:

Rev. Jim Wallis, who leads a coalition of churches devoted to social justice, usually sounds more like an operative for the Democratic National Committee. No matter what the social problem, their answer is always more government spending. But what about the decline in personal responsibility, the breakdown of the family, or a media culture that denigrates religious values? Democratic leaders almost never raise these questions, and neither do their faith-based supporters. ...

Religious liberals condemn the policies of Israel and the U.S. prison abuses at Abu Ghraib. But they remain absolutely mute about the human rights records of China, Syria, North Korea and other brutal regimes.

Perhaps you've heard of Sojourners magazine, which Wallis has been publishing for more than 30 years. Loconte has apparently never seen it. He's certainly never read it. If he had, he'd know the above claim that Wallis "never raises" questions about the family, or media culture, or human rights in China, Syria and North Korea is pure nonsense.

But again, maybe Loconte just can't read.

He doesn't seem to have read anything by Stanley Hauerwas, either. Loconte attacks Hauerwas as another theocratic Christian progressive who is captive to the Democratic Party and intent on imposing a left-wing theocracy.

"Professor Hauerwas," Loconte writes, "joins a chorus of left-wing clerics and religious scholars who compare the United States to Imperial Rome and Nazi Germany."

Nazi Germany, really? Where? Loconte doesn't provide an example.

Hauerwas is an intriguing guy who doesn't fit neatly into anyone's chorus of clerics, left-wing or otherwise. The belligerent pacifist from Duke University has written volumes about "the decline in personal responsibility, the breakdown of the family, [and] a media culture that denigrates religious values." He can be a tiresome scold on these topics.

But a major theme in all of Hauerwas' writings is his provocative critique of what he calls "Constantinianism" (see especially his most popular book, Resident Aliens, co-written with William Willimon). This critique certainly does compare the United States to Imperial Rome (and also, as in the title "Resident Aliens," to Babylon), but Hauerwas' focus is not on America, but rather on the church in America. The conversion of the Emperor Constantine and the subsequent attainment of temporal power by the Christian church, Hauerwas argues, was the worst thing ever to happen to Christianity. He argues, consistently and emphatically, against the idea of "Christendom" and against what he calls the Constantinian temptation.

Yet Loconte cites Hauerwas as an example of left-wing Christians who "invoke a biblical theocracy as a handy guide to contemporary politics" and thus "threaten our democratic discourse."

This would be laughable if it weren't for Loconte's additional, nasty suggestion that any comparison of the United States with Imperial Rome is the equivalent of comparing it to Nazi Germany. This is beyond twisted. In pretty much everything Christians have written about politics and the state since St. Augustine (if not since St. Paul), "Rome" has served as shorthand for "the state." Loconte suggests that this centuries-old metonymy is the equivalent of accusing George W. Bush of being Hitler.

But maybe Loconte hasn't read St. Augustine or St. Paul either. Maybe Joe Loconte just can't read.

Comments

[Mnemosyne]

But what about the decline in personal responsibility, the breakdown of the family, or a media culture that denigrates religious values?

Maybe it's because most Democrats and assorted lefties recognize these buzzwords for what they are: meaningless rhetoric that serves to rally the troops but doesn't actually do anything.

The "breakdown of the family" started occurring in the 1930s when the divorce laws were first liberalized. When no-fault divorce came in, divorces soared to about 50% in the 1970s ... and have stayed there ever since. It's not really a crisis if the situation has been in stasis for 30 years, is it?

[will]

Thanks for the great articulation of the facts. Like you, I was shocked (yet again) at Loconte's op-ed piece. I would love to believe it is due to his lack of literacy, but...

[JM]

Loconte is just a knee-jerk pundit who is afraid of seeing the democrats trying to imitate republicans victory strategy a bit too closely. That he comes off as ignorantly spouting away that, in effect, he'd rather continue to lose political offices to coordinated ultra-moralistic attacks from the right than admit that left-leaning folks might be religious enough to deflect some of these attacks and help woo the folks in the middle? Well, that's just the setup for his conclusion that "prudence, reason, [and] compromise" are the "democratic virtues that promote the common good". Really, his level of discourse makes punditry looks so easy... until you add in the ulcers and coronaries that are job requirements for getting promoted.

[J]

Christocrats--conservative religious folk, I mean--bat not a single eye before reading off biblical verses and insisting they apply directly to modern lives and politics. But they whine and spit whenever liberals do the same.

Although I've now realized that religion is a warmongering, misogynist lie and God is about as likely to exist as the Tooth Fairy, I still think that the book of Isaiah is the rock that conservativism stubs it's toe on. "Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves"--that ought to draw a few beads of sweat to the brow of Mr. DeLay right about now.

[J]

... still, I can't get entirely behind Rev. Wallis. His proposed remedy for the boring, destructive stalemate of American politics is a lot of social programs combined with moderate social conservativism. In other words, a left-right bargain to help the poor in exchange for bikini girls and swear words on TV.

My objections to that? Well, first of all I'd be much more amenable to the reverse set of priorities: Scale back social programs other than the established "biggies" (social security, medical assistance, food stamps, unemployment insurance) and declare an end to the Wars on Sex, Drugs and and Science. Frankly I'd sacrifice Head Start a LONG time before I'd ever give up the theory of evolution or a woman's right to choose.

It just makes my head burn whenever I'm told by a would-be liberal pundit that I'm what's wrong with the Democratic party: An educated, socially liberal city dweller. Gosh, I'm sorry to be so reluctant to place my wife's uterus and my gay friends' rights on the altar of liberty for burning.

So while I'm not an enemy of Jim Wallis and the Sojourners set, I'm not their friend either.

[J]

Woops: I meant to say, "...a left-right bargain to help the poor in exchange for LESS bikini girls and swear words on TV."

[Mnemosyne]

Okay, I can't resist:

Woops: I meant to say, "...a left-right bargain to help the poor in exchange for LESS bikini girls and swear words on TV."

Actually, you should have meant to say "fewer bikini girls."

Sorry, I'm feeling snarkeriffic today. :-)

[pharoute]

Fred: Thanks for the tip on Resident Aliens; I was just thinking this morning about Constantine's conversion and how the Prince of Peace became the latest God of War (a title that many Christians today don't seem to have a problem with)

[Garnet]

Religious liberals condemn the policies of Israel and the U.S. prison abuses at Abu Ghraib. But they remain absolutely mute about the human rights records of China, Syria, North Korea and other brutal regimes.

I've never understood this. American religious liberals live in America; they can affect the politics of America. What purpose is served by them constantly telling us that China is bad to is citizens? We all know it, none of us can do anything about it, and it's largely a waste of the group's time and money.

[hk-reader]

I hope you also sent this great post to the NYT "letters to the editor".

[Neil Young]

a left-right bargain to help the poor in exchange for bikini girls and swear words on TV

I don't get it. Where's the downside?

[McDuff]

They're still in the bikinis? And there's no kissing?

I'm with J, with some caveats. I'd rather not have either kind of religious pundit, but since this is America and I don't get that choice, I would prefer the Lefties to the Righties. It's not just that I agree with their politics, because that only happens sometimes. It's more that they agree with my politics, i.e. that the Church and State need to stay separate or it will destroy them both.

Of course, the more I look at Conservatism, the more I suspect that those on the right also believe that it will detroy them both and they just don't care, as long as they end up alright.

[NonyNony]

Fred -

You should send this in as a letter to the editor of the Times. I know that they probably wouldn't print it, but at the very least someone should point out this kind of dishonesty to them. I read that piece yesterday and was appalled - I know that OpEds don't get fact checked, but really a paper shouldn't be publishing something that so misrepresents Rev. Wallis (or anyone) the way that piece did.

[patter]

the equivalent of accusing George W. Bush of being Hitler

That's silly. Hitler killed millions.

[Scott]

Loconte's shtick is to argue that Wallis and other religious progressives are simply the mirror image of the would-be-theocrats of the religious right. That's an odd claim to begin with, since I don't recall ever hearing Wallis or any other religious progressive talk about "reclaiming Christian America" or declaring that "the separation of church and state is a myth" or using any of the other theocratic language of the religious right.

I have a subscription to Sojo that I'm letting lapse because Loconte is right on this (I'll give Wallis the benefit of the doubt concering China). Different rhetoric on the part of Wallis and Robertson isn't the point. Different words appeal to different groups of people - nobody on the left who wanted a 'theocracy' would dare take words w/ the baggage Robertson put on them.

I've read enough Wallis to know for myself that he and his ilk make the same "this verse from a Bronze Age monarchy mandates this govt program today" leaps the religious right does, hence the Sojos going into the trash.

An evangelical is an evangelical, left or right, they've all getting away from personal transformation and into "just make the govt force people to 'act' like Christians and I'll be happy".

If you want to see the evangelical left sound like the evangelical right, read The War for Righteousness: Progressive Christianity, the Great War, and the Rise of the Messianic Nation. Progressive clergy pushed the pointless slaughter of WWI with a language that was a cross between the usual Togetherness and Common Action rhetoric we get from the left w/ anti-German (and "we're gonna fix the world") language fit for a Republican talking about Islam or terrorism.

[Jason]

I'll join the chorus encouraging you to send this to the Times. Not being familiar with Loconte, I was scratching my head reading this Op-Ed because it seemed so, well, wrong. Then I got down to the bottom and saw that he was with the Heritage Foundation, and everything clicked into place. Thanks for helping set the record straight.

[Scott]

Slate.com - The Morals of the Story
Does Jim Wallis' leftist, Bible-based book get it right?
...Meanwhile, an important foundational layer of his argument requires the acceptance of a particular evangelical Protestant theological claim about the nature and character of God. Indeed, it is in the midst of this discussion that the "evangelical" character of the book shifts from the prophetic (calling to account) to the proselytizing (calling to conversion). Moreover, it is also in the midst of this discussion that "religion" morphs into what Wallis is really talking about: "the religion," that is, Christianity. If his intended audience is other evangelical Protestants, this elision is simply shorthand. If the audience is the rest of us, then we may have a problem.

For Wallis, religion is not one possible source among many for influential narratives of justice; the Bible is the source. (There is one place in the book where he speaks of "our biblical and other holy texts," but he doesn't elaborate or clarify the reference.) He does allow that the United States is a pluralist society and that it includes citizens who do not share his theology, his religious conviction, or his embrace of the Bible as Scripture. Moreover, he argues that Christians ought to engage in democratic public debate, to bring themselves under what he calls "democratic discipline," rather than attempting simply to take over the mechanisms of the state. Yet Wallis states again and again his overarching perspective: "The real question is not whether religious faith should influence a society and its politics, but how." Religious faith is no generic category here; it means biblical religion....

...In another example of epochal political change, Wallis argues that evangelical Protestantism was the moving force behind many of the great social and political reforms in the 19th and early 20th centuries, including women's suffrage—a claim that would certainly surprise Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Alice Paul, among others. Religion did play a crucial role in first-wave feminism, but neither was it decisive for that movement (which also harbored a strong critique of hegemonic Christianity), nor were the forms of religiosity (including the embrace of practices like spiritualism) likely to conform to Wallis' definition of what counts as "true religion."

But what is more troubling is the degree to which Wallis frames "religion" as the sole source of a legitimate political vision for social change in the United States. Throughout the book, he argues that "vision" only emerges from religious conviction and that everything else is either cynicism or complaint. One result of this framing is that he cannot describe the current regime's program as being grounded in a "vision," though clearly the neocons who are running the show possess quite a thoroughgoing one. (It may be a revolutionary, even fascist vision—but it is a vision.)

Moreover, people without religious convictions or affiliations are largely reduced in Wallis' schema to complaining secularists with "no vision." He calls nonreligious people "secular fundamentalists" with "absolutist" views on the separation of church and state, or else he describes them as "withdrawing" from "moral lessons" and "depriving" Americans of important debate about ethical issues. Wallis goes so far as to hold secularist critiques of Christianity in particular and religion in general partially responsible for Christian fundamentalism's right-wing character. By framing forms of political expression such as protest and dissent as mere iterations of "the politics of complaint," Wallis marginalizes and ultimately dismisses any nonreligious perspective as merely ideological or partisan, claiming for religion all of the terrain of "the politics of hope."...

[Passacaglia]

I saw Wallis at Harvard Divinity School last winter. He spoke, among other things, about protecting his young children from all the perversion and decadence in mass media. There was a cover of Sojourner's with essentially the same message.

So this guy would have to have not even glanced at the _cover_ of Sojourner's, never mind read it.

[J]

"I'd rather not have either kind of religious pundit, but since this is America and I don't get that choice, I would prefer the Lefties to the Righties. It's not just that I agree with their politics, because that only happens sometimes. It's more that they agree with my politics . . ."

I guess so too. What fries me is that the only argument we're being allowed to have is what KIND of theology should we substitute for politics. Why should we substitute ANYTHING for politics? (I'm mildly intrigued by the idea of substituting MUSIC for politics, but not on my more sober days . . .).
Others have said it before me: That if we replace politics with theology--no matter what flavor--we will simply be blinding ourselves to what might be perfectly good policy options that happen to contradict ALL theologies.

[wiseasserpent]

I think some of these comments are setting up some false choices. People act like Wallis wants to sell out all of modernity for some social programs--and then proudly say they'd prefer modernity. For example:

"My objections to that? Well, first of all I'd be much more amenable to the reverse set of priorities: Scale back social programs other than the established "biggies" (social security, medical assistance, food stamps, unemployment insurance) and declare an end to the Wars on Sex, Drugs and and Science. Frankly I'd sacrifice Head Start a LONG time before I'd ever give up the theory of evolution or a woman's right to choose."

Did Jim Wallis ever say that we should criminalize abortion in return for Head Start? Did he ever say we should teach evolution in the schools to get Fundamentalists to vote Democrat? No. The choices are not that stark. The truth is that many liberals are more committed to cultural liberalism than to social justice. Many of my friends refuse to budge an inch on gay marriage. I say "But if we delay this fight for now, we can win other battles--and support for gay marriage will only grow as the younger, more tolerant generations become a majority! We're setting the struggle for gay rights BACK with our singleminded focus on gay marriage." They refuse to budge, because pushing gay marriage--NOW, at all costs--is more important to them than the suffering of people in prison, the neglect of our nation's children. We say that conservatives are people who believe life begins at conception and ends at birth. Well, many liberals have become people who care more about the right to access porn than the right to access a lawyer, good schooling, and health care.

Where is your heart, people? With justice or with South Park? I think many liberals would rather reach out to the so-called "South Park Republicans" than politically moderate Christians. The evidence is in these comments. We'd rather build a coalition on the basis of laissez-faire morality than on a commitment to the common good. I believe that governments should stay out of moral crusades, I believe the War on Drugs is misguided, I recognize the dangers of self-righteousness. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the powerful potential of faith to call people to something higher than themselves. The Culture Wars have hardened liberal's hearts, made them so resistant to traditional Americans that they seem incapable of doing the reconciling work that our country needs so badly.

[Mrs Tilton]

Well, the upside of this Loconte guy's foolishness is that Fred was moved to write this post, which means I have now heard of Hauerwas, and can look forward to reading what sounds like a very important book.

[J]

"Did Jim Wallis ever say that we should criminalize abortion in return for Head Start? Did he ever say we should teach evolution in the schools to get Fundamentalists to vote Democrat?" No."

Yes, actually. God's Politics came across to me as a list of liberal principles, achievements, and rights that Wallis said we would be willing to sell to the Molochian Christians in exchange for a little more bread, a little more salt for the poor.

"The truth is that many liberals are more committed to cultural liberalism than to social justice."

Cultural liberalism is the purest form of social justice. If we don't have the right to control our own bodies, the right to form relationships as we see fit, and access to real science and information--even when it rather flatly contradicts religious teachings--then we really have no rights at all.

Many of my friends refuse to budge an inch on gay marriage. I say "But if we delay this fight for now, we can win other battles--and support for gay marriage will only grow as the younger, more tolerant generations become a majority! We're setting the struggle for gay rights BACK with our singleminded focus on gay marriage."

So what exactly do I say to my gay and lesbian friends? "I'll help you eventually--but for now I'm going to step on you in order to achieve some other goal." Yeah, that always works out well in the long run, doesn't it?

"We'd rather build a coalition on the basis of laissez-faire morality than on a commitment to the common good."

I don't agree with you at all on what constitutes either "lassiez-faire morality" or "the common good".

"But that doesn't mean we should ignore the powerful potential of faith to call people to something higher than themselves.

The only thing I've heard more often from Christians than "gays are evil" is "I hate paying taxes." I think you're barking at the moon if you think there's a great reservoir of tax-happy goodwill in America's religious population that could be tapped if only we're willing to give up on some civil, sexual and scientific liberties

"The Culture Wars have hardened liberal's hearts, made them so resistant to traditional Americans that they seem incapable of doing the reconciling work that our country needs so badly."

Guilty as charged. I officially stopped giving a shit about "traditional Americans" while volunteering for Meals on Wheels and a dirt-poor, devoutly Christian woman and her husband I was bringing food to went on a twenty-minute spiel about the evils of feminism and how giving women the right to vote was the beginning of all that is bad about America.

FUCK traditional Americans.

[Notebooki]

Very interested theme, with attention I will read following registration fees.