This text is partly based on the third part of my book " Cold Hatred," which documents the rise of the American far right from 1972 to 2012. [1]What's the point of revisiting that book since it doesn't address the extraordinary, unprecedented phenomenon that is Donald Trump , the political equivalent of black swans in economics? It's worth recalling that the black swan theory was developed by Nassim Taleb [2]to describe an unpredictable event with a low probability (called a "rare event" in probability theory) which, if it occurs, has far-reaching and exceptional consequences.
The metaphor often used around me (not everyone has read Taleb) is more like a nightmare from which one suddenly awakens, starting with the almost bewitched fanatics who follow him in his delusions. After all, I've been told repeatedly, we've seen this before, on a smaller scale, with Joseph McCarthy , the Republican senator from Wisconsin, an alcoholic and paranoid, who in 1950 denounced the communist takeover of the State Department. He had no proof whatsoever, but he launched a witch hunt that traumatized the United States for several years [3]. Writers, artists, the most famous, military heroes, all found themselves in the dock. General Marshall, the architect of the American victory in 1945, the author of the famous plan, the former Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, was subjected to fierce attacks for not having supported Chiang Kai-shek. Chek in 1946.
Until the day in 1954 when McCarthy attacked the entire military and directly threatened the foundations of the political establishment. He accused the Democratic Party of "twenty years of treason" (1933-1953), beginning with Roosevelt. McCarthy had gone too far. Republican senators were outraged. On December 2, 1954, McCarthy was censured by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 67 to 22, which passed a motion of censure and removed him from the chairmanship of the investigative subcommittee. Even though McCarthy retained his Senate seat, this decision definitively ruined his career. The nightmare was over. After all, it was a nightmare, just a passing dream.
And besides, he was only a senator. We look for historical reference points among kings, princes, leaders, Führer presidents, all delusional paranoids who descended upon their people like misery upon the world.
While several leading analysts had predicted the financial crisis, no political scientist had foreseen the emergence of the Tea Party , which seemed to have sprung from nothing, or rather, from the imagination of a blogger who, in 2009, called for a revolt similar to the Boston Tea Party against the taxes imposed on tea by the British monarchy in the 18th century . "Spontaneous" demonstrations of the movement ensued, and ordinary citizens protested against the deficit, taxes, and an overly intrusive government . Thus, this party was apparently formed. which, despite its name, is neither a political party, nor even a third party in formation that would one day sit in Congress alongside their Democratic and Republican counterparts. It is sometimes translated into French as "Les Parties du thé" (The Tea Parties).
The plural is appropriate because this is a movement that, at first glance, appears eclectic. Under the common banner of "Less tax, less government!" are gathered semi-delusional paranoids in speech and brutal in action, religious fundamentalists pounding the Bible with their fists, atheists waving the American Constitution, libertarians , young people unable to find work, mothers worried about their children, numerous pre-retirees with peaceful pasts, those nostalgic for an all-powerful America, panicked economists, social climbers seeking power, fame, and fortune, the illiterate and doctors of law or philosophy, and the inimitable "Joe the Plumber," who, buoyed by a two-minute television success, is vying for the Republican nomination in the House of Representatives. Later, the movement will include the indignant, who will share with the original group only the intensity of their indignation. But that's how it is with popular movements.
Diversity stops at skin color. The majority is white: direct insults are avoided, but a racist undercurrent is discernible, especially in the Southern states. Some of the signs waved by Tea Party members at heated meetings bear witness to this. Here are a few… among those deemed suitable for publication. Many invoke God: “God gave us a Christian nation,” “Speak for yourself, Obama: we are a Christian country.” Others are written in the ink of xenophobia: “USA out of the UN,” “Close the borders TODAY,” “What has a Muslim country ever done for you?” Religion is never far away, and we will return to this point. Signs proliferate around the theme: “An education without the Bible is useless.”
It is also a movement of immense popular anger towards those among the people perceived as freeloaders , those who take advantage of the system: immigrants, welfare recipients seen as lazy, shirkers, those feigning illness, etc. A recent and very interesting study clearly shows how anger was rarely directed at banks but became virulent when it came to the impoverished, deemed undeserving, who are supported by an entire working class [4]. Furthermore, it is easier for someone who works and lives modestly to attack welfare recipients, whom they perceive as living off their meager savings, than to attack a banker to whom they entrusted all their now-vanished savings. This should not surprise us: pickpocketing in department stores elicits far less indifference than the theft of a bicycle by a neighbor. Scams involving billions of dollars are practically unheard of, or at least too distant. Conversely, when a low-income taxpayer sees someone on welfare buying a case of beer at the corner store, boundless anger surges within them. It's an anger that has certainly been exploited, but it's sincere and visceral, as evidenced by all the slogans like "Work, lazybones! " and "Down with the parasites!"
The most virulent slogans and caricatures are reserved for the American President, who is accused of being, among other things, Hitler, Stalin, the Joker, or the Antichrist: " The number 666 [AS1] is engraved on Obama's forehead, " threatens one slogan in red letters. He is called illegitimate: "Obama is an imposter: he wasn't born in the United States." This is an important detail, since one can only be president if one was born in the United States. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former governor of California and famous actor, knows this all too well. Born in Austria, he was unable to run for president… much to his regret.
members of the Tea Party accused the President of hiding his African and therefore Muslim origins, casting doubt on his birth in the State of Hawaii where he was born, an American citizen, on August 4, 1961. It was a crazy rumor but one that forced the Democrats to go on the defensive, especially since very quickly, with the help of the media, everyone was talking about it .
Starting, of course, with the infamous, most conservative and aggressive talk radio stations that flourished after the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine imposed by the Federal Communications Commission . The mandate of this fair play doctrine was to expose the public to multiple viewpoints. It also required that presentations be made in a manner that was "honest, fair, and balanced."
Its repeal gave the green light to political programs, duly funded, that were anything but honest, fair, and balanced. It would be no exaggeration to say they were quite the opposite.
Conservative talk shows in the style of Ayn Rand proliferated to such an extent that by 2010 they reached 53 million listeners. 91% of these talk radio programs were conservative. 2,570 hours of conservative discourse are broadcast every weekday, compared to only 254 hours of so-called progressive programming [5]. We are entering the heart of a propaganda campaign that often takes the form of harangues, the violence of which astonishes those unprepared for it. A recent book on talk radio stars describes a verbal violence that evokes painful memories for Europeans, except that the scapegoats have changed. The diatribes target feminists, gay people, Muslims, Black people, and environmentalists [6]. One of the most virulent stars of these shows has added the mentally ill to the list. We will give only this example, not political, but indicative of a climate that is only getting worse: “Now the disease of the day is autism,” the Joker yells into his microphone. “Do you know what autism is? Well, I'll tell you. In 99% of cases, it's a spoiled child who hasn't been put in their place. That's autism. What do you mean, these kids scream or stay silent? Don't they have a father to tell them, ‘Stop your nonsense. It won't get you anywhere in life. Stop acting smart. Stand up straight. Grow up. And stop sitting on your backside bawling and screaming, you idiot.’ [7]”
And yet, autistic children don't always scream, or they're in good company when they do, because all the Jokers are shouting their comments. They do n't speak, they scream and shower insults on anyone who tries to call and protest. And the 50 million or so listeners who tune in keep asking for more.
Television is not spared, even if shouting matches aren't the norm. The far-right Fox News Channel gave the Tea Party a continuous platform [8]. It's worth noting that Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, is watched by 85 million American households. It is the most-watched cable news channel in the United States, surpassing CNN. Furthermore, it is the only news channel accessible to passengers on major luxury cruise ships.
Often accused, not without reason, of spreading more disinformation than information, she contributed, among other things, to the campaign surrounding the "scandal" of Obama's birth. Expert after expert was interviewed to provide substance to the accusation. One of them, the extremely wealthy Donald Trump, took advantage of the situation to begin his presidential campaign.
The other television networks played it neutral, thus lending legitimacy to the baseless rumor. They gave equal airtime to those accusing Obama of fraud and those who sometimes only stammered, "That's absurd! ", stunned by what seemed to them to be nonsense. This practice, explains sociologist Michael Schudson in his book *Discovering the News* [9], reflects the fact that American politics is bipartisan. The pattern is ingrained: every issue, even if it's not political, deserves a bipartisan debate.
“ A good journalist, ” one of them explained [AS2] , “respectfully gives a voice to two opposing opinions. We must listen to the wildest claims (the earth is flat) and then ask scientists to prove that the earth is round. Today, anyone can say anything and make accusations. If they say it loudly enough, they will be entitled to a debate that, in a way, legitimizes them.” Indeed, the Tea Party representatives redoubled their accusations, presenting evidence of highly dubious origin. When the original birth certificate was produced, they cried conspiracy, offering further evidence to support their claims.
“The most brilliant propaganda technique,” wrote one expert in the field, “ [AS3] will be unsuccessful if it does not employ this fundamental principle. One must be content with a few points and repeat them endlessly.” Hitler, the author of this advice, was right: repetition pays off. “ A survey showed that the majority of Republican voters in the South believe that Obama is not a Christian. In Alabama, only 14% say that Obama is a Christian, while 45% are certain that he is a Muslim. 41% are undecided. The same picture emerges in Mississippi. Of 656 Republican voters surveyed, 12% said that Obama was a Christian, 52% classified him as a Muslim, and 36% were undecided. [10]”
Political scientist Brendan Nyhan has conducted extensive research on these paranoid beliefs that constantly permeate American culture. He and his colleague Jason Reifler have shown that once a false idea is introduced, it becomes very difficult to eradicate. The worst way to combat it is to give it credence by agreeing to debate it. "The more you repeat the false idea, the more you spread it… It's very important not to spread it because people tend to believe what becomes familiar. [11]"
This is classic propaganda, well executed, enhanced by the spectacle that politics has become since that day in 1960 when a young and handsome John F. Kennedy met his presidential opponent on a television set: a Richard Nixon who looked like a grim reaper [AS4] . "It was one of those pivotal moments, where you could say history shifted dramatically in a single night," explained Alan Schroeder, a media historian at Northeastern University [12]. " Nixon was pale and had lost weight following a recent hospitalization. He looked sickly and was sweating, while Kennedy appeared calm and confident. Those who listened to the debate on the radio said Nixon had won. But listeners were in the minority. In 1960, 88% of American households had a television—a dramatic increase from 11% in the previous decade. 74 million viewers who watched the debate declared Kennedy the winner… unequivocally." Many observers said that Kennedy won the election that night [13].
Lakoff 's hypotheses : modern political messages address the metaphorical parts of the brain, leaving the cortex to itself, hesitant, weighing, clumsy and not at all media-savvy.
While the Tea Party enraged intellectuals, its image resonated well with the rest of the population. The Tea Party women , candidates for Republican nominations, were a spectacular sight. Attractive, they captivated audiences who often merely smiled when they spoke . Michelle Bachmann claimed to have personally met God twice and drew inspiration from these encounters to threaten, "I don't know what God has to do to get the politicians' attention. We've had an earthquake ; we've had a hurricane. It's as if God is saying to us: are you finally going to listen to me?" Sarah Palin, adhering to a rigid interpretation of the Bible, asserted, "Dinosaurs and humans lived on Earth at the same time, 6,000 years ago. Photos I've seen show human footprints within dinosaur footprints." Christine O'Donnell took on a moralistic tone: "It's not enough to practice sexual abstinence. You must practice total abstinence even when you're alone. The Bible says that lust is in your heart when you commit adultery. And when you masturbate, you are therefore falling into lust." She confessed in the same breath to having dabbled in witchcraft in her youth. Let's be honest: the statements of some of their male colleagues are of the same ilk, if not worse, but they are more telegenic, and according to a famous journalist, "We get more pleasure from visually dissecting women."
Whether uttered by men or women, extravagant or not, these statements are "publicity," and all publicity is good, not to mention that many of these statements are taken seriously. A segment of the electorate shares Sarah Palin's views on the theory of evolution. Researchers compared the results of a survey on the subject, conducted over several years since 1985 in the United States, Japan, and 32 European countries . "In the United States, only 14% of adults responded that evolution was 'definitely true' for them, while a third rejected it just as firmly. In European countries, more than 80% of adults said they accepted the theory without hesitation. [14]" Indeed, America is rife with beliefs that only seem crazy to Europeans. This is the country where people believe in flying saucers to the point where in 2012 a majority of Americans were certain that the White House was lying when it claimed not to have proof of the existence of extraterrestrials. "According to a survey, 99% of those interviewed believe that UFOs have visited our planet at some point in its history [15]." Furthermore, the vast majority of flying saucers that have been seen have been in the United States, confirming a widespread idea that extraterrestrials seem particularly interested in America.
It's also important to understand that even the most absurd statements cannot be discussed in an informed and rational manner, so deep is the anti-intellectualism in the United States. While the French appreciate their presidents publishing collections of literature or philosophy, the same cannot be said across the Atlantic. When George W. Bush made headlines with his numerous linguistic and semantic gaffes, known as Bushisms , some laughed, while others saw them as the expression of a "real" man, like "everyone else," far removed from the pedantry attributed to "eggheads" —thinkers with high, bald foreheads—associated with the aristocracy in a country where the aristocracy has been despised for generations.
The theme of Frank Capra's 1939 film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," which temporarily grants power to a sensible Mr. Dupont, is part of the American psyche and can be found in many other successful films. That said, in Suzan 's opinion Jacoby of the Washington Post [AS5] “The new wave of anti-intellectualism isn’t just a resurgence, it’s a flood.” It’s gotten to the point where all the 2012 Republican presidential candidates are trying to score points by promising to get rid of the “intellectuals,” invariably labeled “snobs” in Washington. It’s gotten to the point where some fear “totalitarian ignorance,” which, to borrow the phrase from the Spanish philosopher Fernando Savater, is paving the way for totalitarianism.
This declared anti-elite populism can lend itself to inappropriate comparisons. In a New York Times editorial, Robert Zaretsky compares the Tea Party to the anti-elitist movement launched by Pierre Poujade in France in the 1950s, who held seats in the National Assembly . For those who don't remember—and there are many, given how marginal the movement was—the Poujadists, made up of small shopkeepers and all sorts of malcontents, vehemently denounced, like their American counterparts, taxes, the "vampire state," its " souper-heads " (the high-ranking civil servants who "go to the soup kitchen"), and the intellectual elite. "In both cases, the despair and disconnect from politics are real, as is this tendency to offer simple solutions to complex problems," notes Robert Zaretsky, who concludes by stating that the two movements "They bring nothing to the ballot box except anger. [16]"
Interpretations based on cyclical bursts of popular anger reassure us by lulling us with their rhythm. They offer us familiar concepts that never challenge our basic frame of reference and therefore never disturb our future, or at least the image we want to have of it. We want to believe that "Men will always be men," that they all thirst for information, that democracy always prevails in the end, that the State will remain true to its etymological meaning and will always "stand tall," and therefore that populism will only last as long as a fit of anger. In fact, even though they generate a lot of discussion, only 11% of adult Americans consider themselves active members of the Tea Party and participate in the numerous demonstrations, some of which resemble carnivals or Halloween parties, complete with costumes, masks, and face paint. Many analysts predict that the movement, once the anger subsides, will dissolve after the 2012 presidential elections.
Indeed, Charles de Gaulle, who tended to view events with historical hindsight, considered Poujadism a mere hiccup in history. Arrogance certainly came easily to him, especially when it was justified, as was the case in the context of the 1950s. Pierre Poujade was more irritating for his poor metaphors than for his threats. It was a spontaneous popular movement that lived up to its name, without any clear agenda or objectives. Moreover, in the 1950s, the modern state and its regulatory and service functions were not only robust but appeared to us as an obvious necessity of reason, the yardstick by which all forms of human political progress are measured, a progress in which we still believed.
In the case of the Tea Party , the movement's popularity is only superficial . Heavily manipulated, it served to channel public anger toward the government, which was held responsible for the economic crisis. The messages disseminated are simplistic and highly effective: "If you lost your house, it's because of Obama," "If you can't find a job, it's because of the government," "If you don't have money, it's because of taxes." Amidst the jumble of statements that seemingly go in all directions, one message recurs like a litany. Thousands of signs quote Reagan: "Government is not the solution to our problem; it is the problem." Slogan after slogan repeats the laissez-faire mantra, with added spontaneity and popular enthusiasm. "The only just taxation is no taxation," reads one sign. "We want to be freed from the slavery of taxation," adds another. Yet another accuses: "Taxation is a new form of terrorism." Social programs, including health insurance, are pilloried: " Obamacare is theft." All regulations are condemned: "Obama, stop telling me what to buy. I'm free to eat what I want."
Not only does the Tea Party repeat the laissez-faire mantra, but it also provides what Georges Lakoff calls a "framework" within which all political discourse must take place. One becomes trapped in the bipartisan narrative: if you're not for total freedom, you're a socialist. Any attempt to manage the state reasonably is viewed through this lens. Here we find the simplistic ideologies that Isaiah Berlin described. Simple, yet so effective in a country where the words socialism and communism are so emotionally charged and confusing.
Let's add another association that's increasingly appearing in the speeches of the Tea Party and affiliated candidates: that of socialism and euthanasia. Sarah Palin had successfully promoted the idea of "death counseling" to which the elderly would be subjected under a health insurance system that is, by definition, always socialist. "Recently, one of the candidates for the American nomination, Rick Santorum , stated peremptorily that 10% of deaths in the Netherlands were by euthanasia, that 5% were involuntary, and that for this reason, elderly people didn't want to go to the hospital. If they had to go," he continued, without batting an eye, "they wore a bracelet that read: 'Please don't euthanize me!'" Everything is false, completely false, but effective because the aim is to discredit, through powerful associations, any study that demonstrates the superiority of European health insurance systems, not only in terms of quality of care but also cost. The Scandinavian model is particularly appealing because it is universal, free, and offers the dying the possibility of choosing their end of life, with medical assistance. It has only one unforgivable flaw in the eyes of ideological laissez-faire: it is socialist, and all socialism, as Ayn Rand said, sooner or later veers toward Marxism, that is to say, fascism.
The message is repeated endlessly: only freely chosen private health insurance protects the good people. Otherwise, they risk being slaughtered.
It's certainly populism that might elicit a smile if one only considers the surface. But those who have taken the time to analyze it have understood for some years now that populism was manipulated, or at least that its initial anger was fueled and sustained from the outside by two forces: financial forces, of course, and a force emerging from the shadows: religious fundamentalism. The Tea Party brought much more than anger to the ballot box.
INVISIBLE HANDS
Frank Rich, one of the best analysts of American political life, never doubted that "something was missing from this beautiful image of such a spontaneous and leaderless movement." Journalists had no trouble identifying those known as the sugar Daddies , those who love to offer sweets to innocent nymphets, those we've already encountered through foundations and lobbies, pulling the strings. They were always there, always as rich and always as generous, their pockets full of sweets.
“You’ve all heard of Rupert Murdoch,” he continued. “The other two are the brothers David and Charles Koch, who are even richer and whose fortune is surpassed only by that of the two giants Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. These three magnates are the recent embodiment of what historian Kim Phillips-Fein called ‘The Invisible Hands’ in her prescient 2009 book: these three figures financed far-right movements, which received millions from the DuPont brothers to overthrow FDR (Franklin D. Roosevelt). [17]”
Invisible hands dispensed hundreds of millions of dollars to the Tea Party from its inception, sums that astonished even the most jaded observers in Washington. Big business strategists needed this visceral anger, the anger of ordinary people against those who live off the state from which they receive income perceived as comparable to their own. "They needed their passion, their paranoia, their anger against the political establishment, their demand for immediate action, and their willingness to take a stand. At the same time, they needed to contain this anger by keeping it at such a general level that they would have free rein to draft laws that, while changing a few so-called moral aspects, would preserve the interests of big business : ' get rid of the deficit,' 'cut taxes,' 'close the borders to immigrants,' 'eliminate the budget,' 'put an end to overly generous donations.' [18]" to leave [AS6]
This anger and these passions were pre-politicized. The Tea Party is not a new political entity that emerged on the American scene. "For the most part, Tea Party members were members of the Republican Party long before the Tea Party existed. [19]" According to the director of the Gallup polling agency, it is a new name for the hardliners within the Grand Old Party (another name for the Republican Party), which is now firmly entrenched in Congress and supportive of one of its candidates for the American presidency.
His mission is accomplished, and he can disappear. In fact, a recent poll seems to indicate that support for the Tea Party is declining. We see far fewer of its activists with their face paint and pioneer costumes. According to Frank Rich, the marriage with the Republican Party is complete [20]. Except that, as we will see in the conclusion, the bride is not as docile as one might think. Part of the movement is looking to the Indignados movement and demanding that the banks be regulated and the wealthy taxed. This was completely unexpected, but history teaches us that popular movements are never entirely manipulable and that we sometimes fall for them.
In 2011, the alliance with the Tea Party was consummated , as Republican strategists had intended, around taxes and the federal deficit, which, according to the public, had become unbearable, ruining the lives of Americans, responsible for unemployment, and indeed, for all economic ills. Emboldened by this popular demand, the Republicans refused the (routine) legal authorization to raise the sovereign debt ceiling. They did so at the price of the unthinkable: provoking the country's insolvency. The federal government was held hostage: either it accepted the Republican Party's demands to reduce spending, or it would no longer be able to pay its employees and honor its debts. In the climate of instability surrounding the affair, the Standard & Poor's rating agency downgraded the United States, the world's leading power, by one A.
Wall Street celebrated the event, seeing it as proof that market discipline was about to be imposed on the world, starting with the United States. However, some of those enforcing this economic rule wanted to add not only another discipline—that of religion—but were beginning to dream of replacing government with a theocracy. The agenda was twofold, as it always had been, simply waiting for the right moment to reveal itself. That moment had arrived.
David E. Campbell, professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, and Robert D. Putnam, professor at Harvard, devoted the time and resources to analyzing the Tea Party . In their 2012 book, they explain that after membership in the Republican Party, what unites Tea Party members most is religion. “The generals who lead the Tea Party may say that their primary goal is to reduce government; but within the ranks, many want to maintain a government headed by… God. [21]”
This was not entirely on Milton Friedman's agenda, nor especially on Ayn Rand's, who repeated throughout her life, "I want to be remembered as the greatest advocate of reason and the greatest enemy of religion." "I am against God" was another of her themes, less figurative than Nietzsche's but just as powerful. She professed free love and the right for women to have abortions. "An embryo," she wrote, " has no rights . Rights do not exist for a being in formation, which is not yet a living being. A child has no rights before it is born. The living have precedence over..." Those who are not yet. Abortion is a moral issue and should be left to the woman's discretion; morally, nothing other than her will should be taken into consideration. Who can claim the right to tell her what to do with her body? [22]Ayn Rand should, from a religious perspective, be seen as the embodiment of evil. Not only is she not, but Obama is going to be designated as the Antichrist.
The Antichrist enters politics. The Tea Party has, in effect, sealed an alliance between two totalitarian ideologies: one stemming from a rigid reading of macroeconomics and the other dominated by a rigid reading of the Bible.
Let us remember . A small populist group that started from nothing, the Tea Party , duly funded by invisible but generous hands —the same ones that funded Ayn Rand—added this impassioned element to the ideology when it sought to deflect attention and anger onto a scapegoat, in this case, a herd of goats. Books were burned, effigies were hanged, insults were hurled, and certain words were systematically met with jeers, socialism chief among them. But let us return to the United States. Around these unfortunate scapegoats, and in an atmosphere of a feeding frenzy, strange alliances were forged between fundamentalists who wanted to return to a state religion (including one of the presidential candidates) and the new powers that believed only in numbers. This is one of those alliances that are often short-lived, but this time it risks becoming entrenched, insofar as the ideology of numbers and growth refuses to be burdened with the waste it produces: not only so-called natural waste, but also the waste represented by certain human beings, those whose survival is deemed unnecessary and costly and depends on the state (children with disabilities, the elderly, and the unemployed, homeless, and unhealthy). In the name of "compassionate capitalism," their care has begun to be delegated to families and churches, which will see the number of their flock increase tenfold in the coming years. The ground is fertile.
Another advantage of religion: a narrow reading of certain biblical texts allows one to sow doubt about certain scientific theories, such as that of evolution. From there, it's a short step to questioning all sciences, environmental science first and foremost, a step quickly taken by the industrial complex. The slide is pernicious: the theory of "intelligent design" is demanded to be taught alongside the theories of evolution. Consequently, one can demand that the conclusions of studies on the greenhouse effect, which one prefers to ignore, be taught alongside the handful of studies that challenge it. The refrain is: "This is a matter of opinion, and we live in a country of freedom of opinion."
A final advantage: sexuality, denounced by Republican candidate Rick Santorum , who is obsessed with it, allows for the most tightly knit groups and associations. Certain subjects, such as abortion or homosexuality, are indeed so emotionally charged in the United States that anyone who advocates a return to fundamentalist morality secures votes regardless of their economic and political platform. Market discipline and religious discipline go hand in hand during elections, especially since both relish nothing less than punishment, with a ferocity that some commentators, including Paul Krugman, are beginning to perceive.
Because order is needed in the great chaos of globalization, which cannot remain a vortex for long—this powerful but unstructured force. There is no world government to regulate the distribution of resources, coveted by an ever-growing number of entities. No court judges their increasingly destructive methods of exploitation. No prison houses the new types of criminals whose charges have not yet been drafted. For the moment, there are only old responses to this challenge: totalitarian laissez-faire, a barely modified version of social Darwinism; emerging nationalisms; hardline fundamentalisms; and mafias of all kinds, which thrive when disorder is at the height of their influence.
Europe, lost in the vortex, offers only nostalgic responses. Nostalgia, unfortunately, is neither an ideology nor a power. It is merely a long, drawn-out lamentation that reminds us of that autumn of the Middle Ages described by Huizinga [23]. When asked to accept the discipline of the market, it cannot refuse, not because it lacks the economic means, but because it lacks the conceptual tools to say no and propose a more suitable model. Its egalitarian liberal thought and its ideology of unlimited individual rights and entitlements were conceived in an era when borders and technologies made it possible to manage their application within a given territory, structured by public institutions. They are no longer viable. Trapped by the overly rapid construction of a European confederation coupled with a poorly drafted constitution, terrified by the flows of populations crossing its territory and by a jurisprudence that is not unlike glossing, Europe is incapable of being a State in the etymological sense of the term, which stands upright (from the verb stare ) .
So much for the pessimistic scenarios that otherwise fill the landscape of thought. And thought rules the world, as the economist reviled by laissez-faire, John Maynard Keynes, liked to repeat. He was reviled because he had made the State a de jure and de facto entity that stood firm, an essential counterweight to the overly powerful interests of special interests.
We stand at the crossroads of a near-Pascalian wager. Either we believe in an invisible economic hand that will spread prosperity and freedom across the planet, or we do not, and we rebuild and strengthen state structures around new national and international laws that allow us to manage access to the planet's natural and human resources locally and globally. Law or no law!
Legal thinkers don't have much time, not only because we have less and less space, but also because there are more and more takers for an ideology that promises immediate rewards. Perhaps, after dreaming so much about possible futures, we are heading towards an era where humans live only in the present. Isaiah Berlin called them the Barbarians: "Those who are not curious about where they come from, how they got there, where they are going, whether they really want to go there, and if so, why, and if not… why not."
Thus would fade the dream of the Enlightenment that made Kant weep with joy. "Humankind," he said, "has always been progressing and will continue to be so in the future: which opens up a perspective stretching as far as the eye can see into the future." Ayn Rand, the passionate advocate of absolute laissez-faire, called him "the most evil man in history."
The Antichrist enters politics. The Tea Party has, in effect, sealed an alliance between two totalitarian ideologies: one stemming from a rigid reading of macroeconomics and the other dominated by a rigid reading of the Bible.
A HOLY ALLIANCE WITH THE ODORS OF SULFUR
Let's emphasize the term "rigidity" because this isn't about an alliance between capitalism and the church in general. That would be meaningless. The laissez-faire approach we've discussed is just as totalitarian as the attitude of the fundamentalist church we're about to talk about. We're far removed from Adam Smith's laissez-faire and far from the Christian Church that speaks of compassion, sharing, and sacrifice. We won't be discussing the Church of the New Testament where Christ, in sandals, whips the money changers from the Temple. Nor is it the church of the Kennedys, of Jack, the first Catholic president, or that of Ted Kennedy, who, before dying in 2010, ensured that health insurance would cover those who couldn't afford it. This church was reviled by Ayn Rand. This church continues to lose ground, just like the capitalism championed by Republicans and represented by Ike Eisenhower.
We are entering into other manifestations of Christian worship, in a world where the Bible is punitive, where the world is traversed by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, a world with its terrible battles, including that of Armageddon. These are familiar passages in a country where half the population reads and consults the Bible. They are read and reread in the Southern states that form what is called the "Bible Belt . " It was there that a movement took shape a century ago, among the vast network of evangelical preachers and Bible teachers: those who established the so-called fundamentalist movement. Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and small independent churches all wanted to return to the foundations of the Christian faith .
The foundation is the Bible. It is important to know that in certain parts of the American territory it is the absolute reference, the framework from which all events are interpreted, whether it be September 11, the war in Afghanistan or the election of the president.
We're not talking about fringe reading [24]. A recent Time /CNN survey reveals that 36% of all Americans believe the Bible is the Word of God and should be taken literally. 59% are convinced the events predicted in Revelation will come to pass. Nearly one in four Americans believes 9/11 was foretold in the Bible, and almost one in five believes they will live long enough to see the end of the world. Even more significantly, more than a third of Americans support a pro-Israel policy because they believe in Jesus. will return to earth the day the Jews possess their own country in the Holy Land. Millions of Americans firmly believe that the future is written in the Bible and that the end of the world is near.
A whole interpretation of contemporary political events has thus been based on the books of Revelation. Matthew Avery Sutton, a history professor at Washington State University , invites us to this essential reading for anyone who wants to understand American political life. “ The criticism of the Bible,” he writes, “the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, the evolutionary sciences, and the First World War are all signs that the Second Coming of Jesus is imminent. Based on biblical prophecy, they have identified signs […] that foreshadow the arrival of the last days: the growth of strong central governments and the consolidation of independent nations into one led by a seemingly benevolent leader.”
" This leader, and they are convinced, is the Antichrist, who is leading humanity towards a second Armageddon.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt greatly troubled them. He had remained in power for three terms and was perceived as a staunch defender of the United Nations. Worse, he had created what was seen as a governmental empire so vast that one could think the time had come: he was the Antichrist incarnate.
“Fundamentalists joined forces with the libertarian right in their fight against Roosevelt [ …] For them, the world of 2011 resembles the world of the 1930s in many respects. International turmoil and a prolonged economic slowdown have fueled distrust of the government.
For some evangelicals, President Obama is even more troubling. His birthplace is not well known, he preaches internationalism, his support for Israel seems lukewarm, and on top of that, he receives the Nobel Peace Prize. His government-sponsored commitment to healthcare is seen as the final conspiracy: to create a vast empire that seeks to dominate everyone’s lives.”
"In 2008, John McCain, the Republican candidate opposing Obama, called him 'The One,' the name of the Messiah. McCain knew what he was doing. "
Here we are: the government is dominated by this satanic presence which seeks to supplant God and the churches through social programs, which practices infanticide and euthanasia, which destroys parental authority… going against the divine destiny of America, the nation which fights in the name of Christ the Redeemer against the infidels in the world.
That's not all. The Book of Revelation isn't the only story influencing politics. For some years now, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah has returned to haunt consciences to the point where sexual sin will play an increasingly important role in the 2012 election campaign. We invite those who might think this is an exaggeration to listen carefully to what Rick Santorum , a Tea Party star and Republican candidate who was once a leading contender for the Republican nomination, has to say. The support he has received leads us to believe that we are not dealing here with a mere marginal "enlightened" individual, as the French press claims, but with the representative of a hardline movement that is spreading throughout the world, a movement that challenges the separation between Church and State.
Georges Lakoff , more attuned than ever to language and its metaphors, also warns liberals who tend to underestimate the importance of Rick Santorum 's speech and the effect his words have on people's minds . His hypothesis is that all thought is physical. We think with something very physical: our brain, and we have no choice. Brain circuits are strengthened through repetition. And language, far from being neutral, activates the complex brain circuits that are rooted in the moral systems of conservatives and liberals. There is a conservative language that, when repeated, reinforces the circuits of the conservative brain. This is extremely important for so-called "independents," who are effectively both conservative and liberal. They will hesitate for a while, but the more they hear conservative language, the more its moral system will be ingrained in their brain circuits .
This is a speech whose outlines Reagan had sketched out. Psychologist Drew Westen explains what he says, directly, between the lines and between the paragraphs: “ Once upon a time, there was an America that was the beacon of humanity. Then the liberals came along and created a huge federal bureaucracy that shackled the invisible hand of the free market. They subverted our traditional American values and opposed God and faith.” For example, “instead of requiring people to work for a living, they siphoned money from the pockets of hardworking Americans and gave it to drug addicts and women who then drove around in Cadillacs. In place of the traditional American values of family, loyalty, and personal responsibility, they preached promiscuity, premarital sex, and homosexuality.” They did not maintain the armed forces that defended the world. On the contrary, they slashed military budgets, disrespected our soldiers in uniform, and burned our flag. Democrats have never responded to this subliminal message, always remaining at the level of information and reason. They demonstrate, strive to provide evidence, cite investigations, and are bewildered by what they perceive as bad faith or madness. They constantly appeal to reason and live by the great Enlightenment belief that the proper functioning of democracy depends on sound information; Machiavelli had tried to tell them: the common people believe only in appearances and entertainment.
They don't seem to grasp the power of symbols, images, and emotions, the strongest of which is undoubtedly the tribal instinct. Psychology professor Jonathan Haidt explains: “ Despite everything you learned in basic economics courses, people aren't always selfish. They seek to belong to a group. When they believe their group—whether racial, religious, regional, or ideological—is under attack, they rally to its defense, even at personal cost. Politics is a competition between tribal coalitions. The key to understanding tribal behavior isn't money; it's the sacred, whether that sacredness is a tree, a rock, an ancestor, a flag, a book, or a god. [25]”
A segment of America is rallying around religion. Why religion and not patriotism, "the last refuge of the scoundrel," according to Samuel Johnson? Undoubtedly because the "nationalist" angle had been stretched too far. George Bush tried it with the War on Terror, and it worked for a few years, but it's difficult to unite the nation around such a nebulous enemy. However, the War on Terror, because it was linked to a religion (Islam), gave rise to another point of convergence.
If you really want to understand what's happening in politics, Haidt concludes , "follow the trail of the sacred. The right has taken the lead in the war of Christendom and is preparing for holy war." Nothing is ever simple on the minefield of religions, which are compounded by internal conflicts. It's a holy war without the Pope. Catholicism is constantly attacked for historical and liturgical reasons: they absolutely don't want to hear sermons against the rich or calls for love of neighbor and the poor. The theme of social justice, championed for decades by so-called progressive bishops, is perceived as communist . And, as nothing is ever simple, there is dissension within the Catholic Church itself.
A holy war thus began, uniting all the fundamentalist factions of Christianity around the same enemy. And when the person you're facing is the devil himself, any compromise is sacrilege. Which is just as well: market fundamentalism doesn't tolerate compromise either. And so it was that a Republican presidential hopeful, Rick Santorum , emerged in 2012, rising up to fight on two fronts and wage holy war against the devil himself: Barack Obama.
At the beginning of the year, the turn the presidential campaign took by surprise many analysts who had expected declarations of support for laissez-faire policies. For a time, they believed it to be a passing phenomenon, but the first results of the primary elections confirmed that a groundswell of religious support was backing a candidate who had emerged from obscurity, and that this wave was here to stay.
As early as March 2012, Georges Lakoff warned political analysts: Regardless of who secures the Republican nomination for president, Santorum 's strategy will have succeeded . Rick Santorum is building an ideology based on clear and firmly repeated messages, messages that draw their strength from the depths of an accusatory and punitive religious interpretation, and it is a message that, when repeated, leaves its mark.
Rick Santorum is perfectly clear about his intentions: " I do not believe," he says, "in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church cannot have any influence or intervene in the functioning of the state is absolutely contrary to the goals and vision of our country. "
He is also very clear about what he criticizes in modern government: its protection and legitimacy of the sin of the flesh, which obsesses him. For he is obsessed. One New York Times commentator , among others, has followed the candidate's career since his youth through his interviews and speeches. Whatever the topic he is asked to address (the economy, civil liberties, taxes), he invariably returns to sexual freedom, the source, according to him, of all evils. " Woodstock," he says, "was the great American orgy. That's what the Democratic Party has become. It has become the Woodstock party. It exploits our most basic, primitive desires, sex first and foremost. It has created a culture of abortion. It's not about life. It's about sexual freedom. That's what it's about. Homosexuality is the same. It's about sexual freedom. Everything is sexual freedom .
He accuses Democrats of encouraging women to work, which he considers contrary to their vocation. "Respect for the housewife," he says, "has been poisoned by a toxic combination: the war waged by political elites against the family and the misogyny of extremist feminists who want only work outside the home to be valued." In this vein , one of his pet peeves is feminism, and he never misses an opportunity to say that "radical feminists don't want equality with men but want to take their place."
He accuses the government of promoting education to better manipulate the minds of young people: " The indoctrination taking place in American universities is one of the keys to the power of the left that holds America hostage. And it is indoctrination! "
He proposes giving parents back the power they have lost to educate their children according to true values: “ The government has convinced parents that education is no longer their responsibility. And in fact, they have been forced, in many ways, to abandon their children to public education. They have lost control. This must change, or the education sector will not improve in this country.”
Rick Santorum sets a good example in this regard, as his seven children do not attend public school and are homeschooled. It should be noted that he receives government subsidies for this, as homeschooling is legal and partially funded by the state. This movement has grown considerably in the United States. It was estimated that between 1,700,000 and 2,100,000 children were homeschooled in 2002-2003. This type of education is on the rise everywhere. A small percentage of parents do this for academic reasons (they consider the schools to offer a mediocre education), but the vast majority simply want to shield their children from the negative influences and ideas disseminated by schools. In particular, they want the theory of evolution taught alongside the so-called theory of intelligent design, a substitute for creationism. Santorum says he can no longer tolerate the dishonesty of those who teach Darwin's principles: " What we should be teaching are the gaps and what is not explained by the theory of evolution. These must be presented alongside the scientific perspective."
Above all, he wants the government to stop legitimizing sexual sin in all its forms. He promises to abolish all laws that allow gay people to marry: "Gay marriage," he says, "threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages. It threatens the traditional values of our country ." He promises to ensure that the state will not fund sex education or contraception, which he considers not only a sin but also one of the causes of economic problems: " I 'm going to talk about something no president has ever talked about; I'm going to talk about the dangers of contraception in this country... Many Christians see nothing wrong with it. But it's not acceptable. It's sexual license that goes against what should be."
He constantly attacks Planned Parenthood , one of the leading family planning groups, advocates for sex education and access to healthcare. A third of its funding comes from the U.S. government. He accused it, in April 2011, of being based on racism and eugenics. " I can't," he said, "imagine another organization receiving federal funding that is more toxic than Planned Parenthood." Parenthood . » He promises, of course, to ban it.
Finally, Rick Santorum promised to completely reform Social Security, which, according to him, had become an organization that encourages women to have abortions. In a March 2011 interview, he stated that Social Security was an imperfect system from the beginning but had become worse with the rise in abortions. "The reason Social Security is in such great trouble," he explained, "is that we don't have enough workers to support the retirees. Well, a third of all young people in America aren't in America today because of abortion, because one in three pregnancies ends in abortion."
That said, he is in no way suggesting that the government should, as it does, help women who choose not to have an abortion if they remain single. Single mothers are more than ever being scapegoats. “ Santorum wants women to be denied social assistance until they agree to a paternity test or reveal the father of their child. He would tell them, ‘If you don’t tell us who the father is, you are not eligible for any social assistance benefits, not even medical care. You tell us who the father is, or you won’t receive any benefits.’ He argued that this kind of measure would help single mothers curb their sex lives. ‘If the mother knows she won’t receive social assistance if she doesn’t tell us who the father is, maybe she’ll be a little more careful next time.’”
Are the enemies of my enemy my friends?
The motivations differ , and certainly the analyses as well, but it's clear that the rigid laissez-faire factions and the religious faction share a common enemy, for which they use the same word: evil . Let's not forget that this was the word used by Ayn Rand. Military strategists employ the well-known principle, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," but warfare has taught them that these alliances last only as long as a battle, or at best, a war. When dealing with two such opposing ideologies, it's possible to assume that the alliance will disappear with the election, but this is merely a military hypothesis .
Once the common enemy is identified, everything seems to set these two ideologies at odds. Ayn Rand wants to reduce the state to a mere comma, while Rick Santorum doesn't want to destroy it. He wants to replace it with a punitive state. If we listen closely, we understand that while he will certainly get rid of all social welfare services, he will clearly impose a host of laws that will be unacceptable to those who want to let the law of supply and demand find its moral equilibrium. This seems like an irreconcilable difference, but as we shall see, this unholy alliance, reeking of sulfur, has two advantages: to dogmatize science and to return the "providence" of the welfare state to the "providence" of the churches. This alliance will endure.
DOGMATIZING SCIENCE
Economism believes in science, technology, and education; these are the engines of growth. As is well known, in countries where they hold power, fundamentalists (of all stripes) have always subjected all sciences to the scrutiny of their beliefs. It is clear that Rick Santorum is determined to continue this tradition, with the help of large corporations. Indeed, laissez-faire, which believes only in numbers, would also like to subject science to the scrutiny of its postulates when science demonstrates that there are limits to exploitation, growth, and pollution. Laissez-faire cannot abide the word "limit."
Absolute laissez-faire and fundamentalism have thus found themselves another formidable enemy: science, or at least certain scientific discourses that they dislike. One refuses to even consider Darwin; the other cannot tolerate discussions about global warming, the greenhouse effect, the depletion of the water table, the effects of fracking—in short, anything that might hinder growth.
Large corporations are not interested in Darwin's theories, which they see as not hindering growth. One might even think that Spencer's application, known as "social Darwinism," is not entirely unwelcome to them. This political doctrine, known as evolutionary theory, posited that the struggle for survival among humans is the natural state of social relations. It advocated, in particular, the elimination of institutions and behaviors (charity, compassion, aid) that impede natural selection, which eliminates the less fit for the greater good of society. John D. Rockefeller was very fond of this, explaining that The American Beauty rose variety can only be produced in the splendor and fragrance that delight the beholder by sacrificing the first buds growing around it. The same is true in economic life. This is simply the application of a law of nature and a law of God .
The ideologues of extreme laissez-faire will nevertheless find it very useful to be able to question evolutionism, which will then allow them, by association, to cast doubt on all scientific discoveries that bother them. Sowing doubt is their specialty.
They won't do it openly and fund the so-called Young Earth creationism , which is too extreme even for them. This movement claims that the Earth was created in six days by God, about 6,000 years ago, that the evolution of species is a myth, that Adam and Eve literally lived and sinned in the Garden of Eden , and that the fossils found are objects created by God or the Devil to deceive human beings. It is associated with another movement that claims the Earth is flat, based on an interpretation of the Bible. For the Flat Earth Society, NASA, in cahoots with airlines, is part of a vast anti-Bible conspiracy. According to them, everyone knows that the moon landing was filmed on a Hollywood set.
The market zealots aren't so crazy after all, and airlines are too important to them. So they'll encourage and fund another form of creationism: that of "intelligent design." It's a "scientific theory," they claim, whose conclusions are as valid as those of Darwinism. With one of the great scientific theories thus called into question, many other meta-theories, such as those concerning the environment, can easily be subjected to the same scrutiny. Who would have thought?
Intelligent design is creationism "dressed up in cheap clothes," according to British biologist Richard Dawkins . Indeed, it rests on the assumption that "certain observations of the universe and the living world are better explained by intelligent cause than by undirected processes such as natural selection." Intelligent design applies only to the field of biology and does not address the origin of the universe. It differs from creationism by accepting a universe over 13 billion years old and the Big Bang theory. It does not pronounce on God but rejects the mechanism of random mutation coupled with natural selection as the driving force behind the emergence of new species . Its adherents readily cite Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, who believed that the emergence of the natural world required a mind, or Cicero, who saw in the stars and the adaptation of animals proof of rational design. More recent philosophers are not forgotten. In his book *The Design Revolution *, William A. Dembski even uses the criteria developed by Karl Popper to cast doubt on Darwinism. This would undoubtedly not have pleased the great epistemologist.
Other philosophers, very much alive and delighted by this renewed interest in metaphysics, "offered" their services for substantial fees. It was a rare moment when the reading of philosophy was so generously funded. For funds poured in. According to Above Top Secret, a discussion and research forum on beliefs, " Funding for the Discovery Institute (Center for Science and Culture) – and campaigns on intelligent design – is channeled through the Hudson Institute, which redistributes what it receives from corporations working in biotechnology, genetic engineering, agricultural research, pharmaceuticals, and other fields: Monsanto, DuPont , Dow- Elanco , Sandoz, Ciba-Geigy, ConAgra , Cargill, and Procter & Gamble . [26]"
Their sudden enthusiasm for philosophy might be better understood by reading the document produced in 1988 by the Center, The Intelligent Design Wedge. Strategy : “ The intelligent design strategy reframes creationism, redirects the evolution of the debate, and fulfills several strategic functions: neutralizing Christian scholars who assert that belief in God does not preclude acceptance of evolutionary science; maintaining and consolidating support from the religious right; creating the illusion of a scientific basis to circumvent tax laws that prohibit the use of public funds to finance religious activities; and, most importantly, sowing confusion in the minds of those who believe in environmental science and seek to understand the effects of industrial activity on life on the planet and the biosphere .”
Let there be no mistake, says Samantha Smoot , who heads the Texas Freedom Network and opposes the teaching of intelligent design in schools, This isn't a small, fringe group of the religious right operating only in Texas. "This is a national agenda. But the religious right has changed tactics. It's cloaking itself in the banner of creationism. We're now dealing with think tanks and pseudo-scientific information whose goal is to destroy real science."
The "intelligent design" theory makes life easier for all those who insist that the greenhouse effect is unproven and merely a hypothesis, if not a conspiracy orchestrated by special interest groups. Consider what Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry has to say on the matter: " I think there are a significant number of scientists who have manipulated the data to fund their projects. And I believe that every week, if not every day, scientists are challenging the hypothesis that humans are responsible for the greenhouse effect ."
At the start of the campaign, dissenting voices emerged, even within the Republican Party. Jon Huntsman , a presidential hopeful, gave a televised interview in which he criticized Rick Perry: " The minute the Republican Party became the anti-science party , we had a huge problem. When we take a position against evolution, when we take a position that goes against what 98 out of 100 climate scientists are saying about the greenhouse effect, I think we're on the wrong side of science and in a losing position." He was not only ignored but lost all his chances in the presidential race. Perry even went so far as to suggest to televangelist James Robinson: "I believe we're going through tough economic times for a reason: to bring us back to the right path of biblical principles ."
A distraught Paul Krugman confessed his dismay and concern in a 2011 article in the New York Times : “Today , we don’t know who will win next year’s presidential election. But chances are that one of those years, the world’s greatest country will find itself governed by a party that is aggressively anti-science, anti-knowledge. And, at a time of serious difficulties—environmental, economic, and otherwise—that is a terrifying prospect . [27]”
Equally terrifying – for anyone raised like Krugman on the idea of neutral human knowledge for the benefit of a better society – is the second foundation of the unholy alliance between laissez-faire and fundamentalism: poverty control.
PITY AND FERRULA
In October 2005, Le Monde diplomatique translated an article by John Kenneth Galbraith, "The Art of Ignoring the Poor [28]." Published twenty years earlier in English by Harper's Magazine , the great economist's thought had lost none of its relevance or clarity. In it, he describes " one of the oldest human exercises: the process by which, over the years, and even over the centuries, we have undertaken to spare ourselves any guilt about the poor."
Western policies are based on this guilty conscience, fostered and regulated by Christianity. In an article on the foundations of politics, Glenn Tinder reminds us that the word charity comes from the Latin * caritas* , meaning "love," a very particular kind of love for others: "Christian love," he writes, "has a very specific name, * agape *, different from other forms of love: * philia *, friendship, * eros *, or passion. [29]" The origin of charitable organizations, which are aptly named, rests on this definition. Enlightenment philosophers and Karl Marx tried to ground altruism on other bases, but, Tinder tells us , the fact remains that the aid and mutual support policies of modern secular states have their deep roots in * agape *. Here, he partly echoes the themes of Carl Schmitt, who undertook an analysis of the secularization of theological concepts in order to apply them to the theory of the state. Following this idea, the religious God becomes judge, while the miracle becomes the exception. "All the key concepts of modern state theory," he says, "are secularized theological concepts."
This is how the welfare state would have replaced almost all charitable organizations, redefining their modalities. Charity became an application of citizens' rights, including economic rights, creating what Gosta Esping Anderson called this "The World of the Welfare State," a complex world of direct and indirect aid that varies from one state to another . This shift in power must be understood as a loss for the churches. While the Sisters of Charity continued to help the most destitute, we are far removed from the time when charitable orders, funded by a Church that owned a third of the land in Europe, organized the social sphere during the Middle Ages .
That said, whether justified by "right" or " love," altruism is, for Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, an economic heresy for several reasons. Ayn Rand is blunt: altruism, in the words of one of her characters, is "a monstrous sentiment" exploited by "parasites" upon whom self-serving bureaucrats build their egotistical empires. For Milton Friedman, it is a misplaced sentiment that hinders growth and becomes counterproductive. Let the growth-builders have their way, and poverty will disappear, he says. Until those happy days arrive, laissez-faire, properly understood, accomplishes nothing. Laissez-faire is, first and foremost, a letting die.
Here we are again, faced with a contradiction: churches preach love of neighbor, charity, and altruism. The way some put these into practice may be open to debate, but the fact remains that the Christian world is founded on the agape (a shared meal). How then can Tea Party demonstrators , sincere members of a church, wave signs praising Ayn Rand, for whom, as Donald DeMarco and Benjamin Wiker tell us , sacrificing oneself for a child, before or after its birth, or for one's elderly parents or others, was simply anathema [30]?
The first part of the answer is simple, as it's merely a transfer of power that suits everyone: laissez-faire no longer wants the state to play the role of charity, and the churches are only too happy to regain control of what they had lost. The other aspect is a more complex corollary, but it can be summarized as follows: fundamentalist laissez-faire and Christian fundamentalism place moral responsibility solely on the individual. If someone can't find work, it's because they're lazy, says the former. And if they steal an orange because they're hungry, it's because they're listening to the devil, says the latter. The essential thing is to absolve society of all responsibility towards them, but also to ensure that the orange thief no longer steals the fruits of entrepreneurs' labor. Fundamentalist laissez-faire needs a punitive social order. Fundamentalism is only too happy to offer its services of guilt-tripping.
But first, we need to regain control.
Take back control.
Secularization has always been deplored by the churches, certainly because they lost territory, but also because the "law" lacked love. They joined in the chorus of criticisms of the bureaucracy, which is also accused of indifference and coldness. The law, it must be said, is designed to create a distance between facts and feelings. Max Weber explained that coldness and neutrality are a sine qua non for the transition from the feudal state to the modern state. It is essential: the price of democracy is bureaucracy, insofar as it applies the law "without hatred or passion, and therefore without affection or enthusiasm." In his latest work, Francis Fukuyama adds an interesting perspective to Weber's by tracing this neutrality back to priestly celibacy, which, he says, allowed the church to remove priests from the emotional hold that clan and family could have over them [31]. Agape was delegated in its demonstrations to missionaries and nuns whose long history has been documented by Georges Duby and Michèle Perrot in The History of Women in the West [32].
Neutrality had its advantages, particularly if we take as just one example unwed mothers who were no longer subjected to the sermons of obstetrician priests and nuns. But it also had its drawbacks for those who remember the boundless devotion of the latter in hospitals and hospices, such as those in Beaune, which were a model of management. When it comes to human suffering, agape is without rival.
Let's return to our secular century. All social services and hospitals are accused, sometimes not without reason, of incompetence, squandering of funds, and a lack of compassion. Even for the most socialist among us, hospitals can be the sites of those barbaric invasions that gave their title to Denys Arcand's beautiful film. Nostalgia being what it is, a pendulum swing was imminent at this critical moment when a strong conservative current wanted to give back to the nuns what, it said, was rightfully theirs. This was, moreover, reflected in the metaphors it commonly used. When businessmen were criticized for layoffs , dismissals, and other disciplinary measures—imposed, they said, by the market—they invariably replied, "We are not nuns."
The transfer of powers was formalized by George Bush in the 1990s: he called it "compassionate conservatism," a metaphor Doug Wead had chosen in 1986 to describe his father, Herbert W. Bush. In his first official speech, two weeks after his inauguration as President of the United States, George W. Bush announced his intention, as promised during his election campaign, to call upon religious groups active in the charitable sector to strengthen his government's social programs.
It seemed perfect at the time: "Bush's social policy was based on condemning the federal government, strengthening private initiative, and valuing the work done by religious organizations. These organizations, long confined to the private sphere, would be at the heart of the system put in place by the Bush administration to help those most in need." The state could afford to cease its role as a provider without a guilty conscience, since it would be replaced by something far superior: "an army of compassion" that would bring the poor and marginalized the necessary love, attention, and comfort. This "army," composed, according to Bush, of men and women imbued with deep religious conviction and unwavering altruism, would take the place of the "insensitive" and "inefficient" bureaucrats and civil servants.
He signed two decrees to that effect, "one to create an office in the White House to oversee aid to community initiatives, the other to establish coordination centers with faith-based organizations in five ministries (labor, housing, health, justice, and education) that deal with these issues. [33]"
It wasn't discussed much after that. The idea, however, had been launched: what had been taken from the church had to be given back. Santorum repeated this in every town he visited on his campaign: "Look at all these countries we come from. They are all dead from the point of view of faith. Go to Europe; church attendance can be counted on one hand. Why? Because the government has seized the prerogatives of faith [AS7] ." He carefully avoided mentioning that in the United States this had already happened: the powerful church to which his rival Mitt Romney belonged, the Mormon Church, had already regained near-control of charitable work, and had done so for some time.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (its official name) has its own tax system to fund its charitable activities: a tithe that lives up to its name, even if it doesn't use it. The Mormon Church collects 10% of the income of all its members. It is certainly not a small church, but a growing empire that deserves attention. The Mormon Church is by far the largest religion to have originated in the United States. Its growth rate is one of the fastest in the world. It has 4.8 million members in the United States and is growing at a rate of 4.7% per year (this rate is double that abroad, where there are already 4.9 million adherents). Sociologist Rodney Stark has calculated that in about 83 years, the number of Mormons worldwide should reach 260 million .
Its system of mutual aid is so robust that it is said no Mormon relies on federal welfare. The Church teaches that in times of hardship, a person's first duty is to solve their own problems and seek help from their extended family. If this is not possible, a bishop can provide cash or vouchers redeemable within the community. This generosity is not unlimited: the system also includes 97 centers that help people find employment, which they achieve in 10 to 12 weeks. The most remarkable aspect of this system is what underpins this temporary financial assistance program—used in rare cases of extreme need: once a month, church members are asked to forgo two meals and contribute the equivalent value to the mutual aid system. The money received is administered locally, so that each community can care for its own disadvantaged members. The community also helps by giving its time to the sick and the elderly, who are never left alone.
It's a church with internal rigidities, but it's not as closed off as some others. It finances its young people's studies at the best universities. The students certainly read the Bible, but also Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand, who is very popular in Mormon country. This is hardly surprising: the Chicago School, like the Mormon church, preaches the necessity for the individual to be solely responsible for their actions. People work a lot in Mormon country, whether managing their own businesses or working for the community (without pay). The mutual aid program was established, its founder said, so that "the scourge of laziness would disappear."
It's a wealthy, even very wealthy, church, with investments of around $6 billion, little of which is spent on the poor but is invested in schools and universities. It's a well-structured state within a state that is falling apart.
It is therefore not surprising that a Mormon, Mitt Romney, is running for the 2012 Republican nomination, even though certain aspects of the faith (such as polygamy, now outlawed) marginalized his religion for decades. Resistance has diminished, especially since this presidential candidate can, in good conscience, propose dismantling the American federal welfare system (the church will take care of the poor until they find work. He knows it works) while promising to devote all his efforts to growth and deregulation. He has a proven track record. This businessman He made a lot of money by buying bankrupt companies and reselling them at a profit . He implemented the staff reductions he deemed necessary, earning him the nickname "vulture capitalist" from some. His personal fortune is estimated at $200 million.
Indeed, he has considerable financial backing from major corporations. But for others, he isn't "conservative" enough, and they prefer Rick Santorum , whose economic program is hardly different and would also appeal to Milton Friedman. This is because Rick Santorum brings an element absent from Mitt Romney's speeches, which some consider too pragmatic and lacking in authoritarianism. Santorum, on the other hand, doesn't just promise to cut social programs: he wants to lecture, humiliate, and punish sinners… and especially female sinners. The time has come for market fundamentalists who want to throw the poor in prison to ally themselves with Christian fundamentalists who love nothing more than punishment.
YOU STOLE THE ORANGE FROM THE MERCHANT
Laissez-faire isn't kind to thieves, unless the swindlers are entrepreneurs or bankers, as Frank Rich sighs. Not that the doctrine sees them as agents of Satan. Thieves steal because they are selfish, like everyone else. Their crime is living off the wealth of others and thus joining the already swollen ranks of parasites who, in the 1960s, played the victim to excuse their crimes. If a thief steals an orange from the merchant, it's not because society is unjust and he's hungry. He could work, but finds it easier to parasitize this society that owes him nothing. If he persists in his crime, it's prison, life imprisonment for the third offense.
The Church has formulated this freedom of choice in different yet similar ways. Man must not be a wolf to man. Self-interest is sin, and the Church welcomes the poor. But when someone strays from the right path, whatever the reason, the individual alone bears the weight of their sin. If a thief steals an orange from the merchant, it is because he has succumbed to temptation. If he becomes a brigand, it is because evil resides within him. If a woman aborts a child she cannot feed, she commits a crime. Sin is never social but individual, and when there is forgiveness, it is spiritual; one might recall Jean Valjean in Les Misérables .
Since the cause of evil is never situational, preventive social solutions are not sought. In this sense, laissez-faire and the church seek to hold the individual responsible. This is a welcome swing back after several decades of what some have seen, not without reason, as an abuse of the principle that everyone was guilty except the individual. For at least two decades, victimhood, Steve Salerno tells us, "cast guilt in a bad light ." This was the era when the welfare state bore the ultimate weight of all responsibility, the time when the orange thief blamed his father, his mother, the school, and society.
The backlash is often violent. In the case at hand, it was all the more so because the desire to hold people accountable and punish them went beyond the realm of crime. You no longer need to steal an orange to attract wrath. The poor are punished simply for being poor. Paul Krugman admits: "It's frightening." The Nobel laureate in economics cannot understand the economic measures imposed by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which target the most vulnerable and impoverished. It makes no economic sense, he says. He states this very briefly at the end of an article : "It seems as if they are dealing with a need." " A profound and imperative need to inflict suffering, to expiate sin or something like that. [34]" He, usually so clear and precise, cannot find the words to say it.
Let's give it a name: hatred, the kind that lies deep within the human brain, as Laborit describes it : "Man continues to use his reptilian brain and his limbic system to maintain his domination over other men and over nature . " To confirm this domination, he needs to impose suffering, to witness it, and even to revel in it. "The aim of punishment," says Hobbes, "is not revenge but terror." Nietzsche wrote his most powerful pages on this theme. We are far removed from Thomas More's Utopian ideal, who loves nothing more than to see the happiness of others, from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's noble savage, or from Kant's concept of man whose soul yearns for the good. The theories of a social hierarchy imprinted on the suffering flesh of others are beginning to be corroborated by more recent anthropological studies.
In short, we would feel less rich if there were no poor people and if we didn't think they deserve it for their sins. We are human. "What men desire," Hobbes continues, "they call good, and what they hate, they call evil." If we so passionately desire prosperity for ourselves, the poverty of others is a hateful sin, proof of moral deficiency. Ayn Rand gave the rich permission to call wealth a "moral good." Rick Santorum gives them permission to call poverty a "sin" by associating it with sexual depravity. Ayn Rand granted this permission at a time when globalization was opening up possibilities for limitless wealth. Rick Santorum casts anathema upon the poor at a time when, after the economic crisis, their numbers are growing.
The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. The gap between rich and poor in the United States has widened in recent years. The wealthiest 1% of families possess, on average, 225 times more wealth than the average American family, according to the liberal Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in Washington. The difference between these two groups has never been so significant since the first series of studies, conducted in 1962. In 2007, the index was 181, and in the 1960s, it was 125. In 2009, the wealthiest 1% possessed, on average, some $14 million (€10.6 million). This represents a 27% increase since 2007. For the top 99%, it was a decline across the board.
growing unease as poverty becomes increasingly visible and potentially dangerous. "As the welfare state is dismantled, it is replaced by the harsh realities of the punitive state, with social problems becoming increasingly criminalized. The harsh values of this new social order are revealed by the ever-decreasing incarceration rates of younger and younger people, the modeling of public schools on prisons, and extremely harsh anti-immigration laws . [35]"
Prisons are overflowing with prisoners, as American criminal law has become increasingly repressive, particularly since the 1970s. Reagan popularized the slogan " Get tough on crime ." The incarceration rate, already one of the highest among industrialized countries in the 1970s, quadrupled in fifteen years: from 240,000 inmates in 1975 to nearly one million in 1995, and then two million in 2005.
For the ideology of hatred, it's a consecration, and let's even say that sometimes it's a pleasure. It's rarely, if ever, discussed, but how can we explain the history of humanity without this pleasure in destruction that runs through it from time to time? There is enjoyment in punishing, Nietzsche and Foucault told us this, but they didn't go far enough: there is also enjoyment in destroying a mountain, polluting a river, slaughtering endangered animals, and destroying forever cultures too weak to resist.
Economic warfare is not an empty metaphor.
NOTES
[1] Nicole Morgan. Cold Hatred: What the American Right Is Thinking? Paris, Le Seuil, 2012.
[2] Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: the impact of the highly improbable, Londres, Penguin, 2010, 2nde éd. (1re éd. 2007)
[4].Theda Skocpol etVanessa Williamson, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism, Oxford (Miss), Oxford University Press, 2012.
[5].John Halpin, James Heidbreder, Mark Lloyd, Paul Woodhull, Ben Scott, Josh Silver, S. Derek Turner, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio”, Free Press 20 juin 2007, http://www.freepress.net/resource/structural-imbalance-political-talk-radio
[6]. Rory O’Connor, “Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio: America’s Ten Worst Hate Talkers and the Progressive Alternatives”, AlterNet Books, 2008.
[8]. Matthew Butler, “Fox News' first 15 years of 'balanced' journalism”, The Guardian, 7 octobre 2011.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/07/fox-news-15-years
[9]. Discovering The News: A Social History Of American Newspapers, New York (NY), Basic books, 1981.
[10]. Chris Gentilviso, “Obama's Religion Still A Campaign Issue: Some Alabama, Mississippi GOP Voters Believe President Is Muslim”, The Huffington Post, 3 décembre 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/obama-religion-mississippi-alabama_n_1338990.html
[11]. David A. Graham, “The Problem With Polls About Whether Obama Is a Muslim”, The Atlantic, 13 mars 2012. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/the-problem-with-polls-about-whether-obama-is-a-muslim/254380/
[12] .Alan Schroeder, Presidential Debates, New York (NY), Columbia University Press, 2001.
[13]. Kayla Webley, “How the Nixon-Kennedy Debate Changed the World”, TimeUS, 23 septembre 2011.http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2021078,00.html#ixzz1p0JAKREP
[14] . James Owen, “Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Find”, National Geographic News, 10 août 2006. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html
[15].http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ufo-survey-reveals-many-americans-believe-the-obama-white-house-is-lying-when-it-says-the-government-has-no-evidence-that-extraterrestrial-beings-do-exist-2011-12-21
[16]. Robert Zaresky, “Tea Party Last Time” New York Times, 2 février 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/opinion/03zaretsky.html?pagewanted=all
[17]. Frank Rich, “The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party” New York Times, 28 août 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html
[18]. Daniel T. Rodgers, ““Moocher Class” Warfare, How four decades of radical individualism diminished society and gave rise to the Tea Party”, Democracy n°24, printemps 2012. http://www.democracyjournal.org/24/moocher-class-warfare.php?page=all
[19]. Dsvid E. Campbell et Robert D. Putman, “Crashing the Tea Party”, New York Times, 17 août 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html
[20].Frank Rich, “The Molotov Party. For the new GOP, conservative isn’t nearly radical enough. How four decades of radical individualism diminished society and gave rise to the Tea Party”, New York Magazine, 26 décembre 2011.
[21].David Campbell, op. cit.
[22]. “Of Living Death” in The Objectivist , octobre1968.
[23]. Johan Huizinga, L'Automne du Moyen Âge, Paris, Payot, coll. « Petite Bibliothèque Payot », 2002.
[24]There is a plethora of excellent books on religion in the United States. Among others , we can mention Daniel Williams, *God's Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right *, Oxford (Miss), Oxford University Press, 2010.
[25].Jonathan Haidt, “Forget the Money, Follow the Sacredness,” New York Times , March 17, 2012.
[26]“Origins and creationism ” “ Conspiracy ,” online debate from November 24, 2006. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread235145/pg1
[27]. Paul Krugman, “Republicans Against Science,” New York Times , August 28, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html
[28], "The Art of Ignoring the Poor," Le Monde diplomatique , October 2005. http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2005/10/GALBRAITH/12812
[29] Glenn Tinder, “ Can we be Good without God? On the political meaning of Christianity, The Atlantic , December 1989.
[30]. Donald De Marco and Benjamin Wiker , Architects of the Culture of Death, San Francisco (Cal.), Ignatius Press, 2004.
[31]. Francis Fukuyama, The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution , New York (NY), Farrar Straus & Giroux, 2011.
[32]George Duby and Michelle Perrot ( dir .), L'histoire des femmes en Occident , 3 vol., Paris, Perrin, 2002.
[33]. Jean-Guy Vaillancourt, « Le conservatisme compatissant du président Bush », Relations n° 668, mai 2001. http://cjf.qc.ca/fr/relations/article.php?ida=1753
[34].Paul Krugman, “The Urge to Purge”, New York Times, 27 juin 2011. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/the-urge-to-purge/
[35]. Henry A Giroux, “Trickle-Down Cruelty and the Politics of Austerity”, Truthout, 11 juillet 2011. http://www.truth-out.org/trickle-down-cruelty-and-politics-austerity/1310134880