Part1 of Summary

As part of my returning to posting, I’ll be switching directions a bit.

I think that the answer to my original question is at hand, which I will summarize in three or four posts beginning below. After that, we’ll start to consider what's up with economics. In my opinion the field of economics is far from being a science. In fact, many of its fundamental beliefs, theories, and assumptions may be off course – and increasingly skewed to support globalism and its march to global hegemony and social stratification. I’ll be using this blog to 'think loudly' about this topic. You’re welcome to join in with your ideas.

If you’ve been following old posts, you know that this blog was conceived to understand why the American public could continually vote against its own interests over an extended period of time. It seems like we, as a nation, have encountered a 'perfect storm' of adverse political conditions that have interfered with people’s judgment and thought processes. The conditions which have brewed this perfect storm include:
- The movement of fundamentalist religion to co-opt greed as a desirable and honorable quality.
- The almost total loss of journalistic standards in this country.
‘Privatization’ of thinking.
- The commercialization of the legislative process in Washington D.C. and elsewhere.

I would suggest that a great number of conspiracies have been hatched and executed under the three umbrella gestalts above. But I would also suggest that the place, at which we have arrived, has been driven largely by Darwinian forces, and that the various conspiracies work together through groupthink accident rather than as part of an elaborate plan. Having said that; the accrual of power to a few, requires less accident of coordination every day. Put otherwise, ‘market forces’ in religion, thinking, news, and politics have created a world managed by a greedy elite, and this is the natural course unless common men and women stand up demand reasonable government, which necessitates regulation of the outlandish power of the few.

This article isn’t ready for http://www.wikipedia.com/, and probably won’t ever be. I'm not of a mind to do the scholarly efforts, but that doesn't mean it isn't ready for you to read, consider and discuss.

Rising Fundamentalism
Let's consider a simplified view of the rise of Fundamentalism in America since the 1960s. Fundamentalism gained a unique growth opportunity as our country grappled with desegregation, especially for Southern schools. Parents who didn't want their children integrated needed a schooling option, and fundamentalist churches and leaders provided this option. In contrast, in the North, where strong public school systems were more ingrained in the culture, suburban migration served as the outlet to parents who wanted to avoid desegregation.

At the same time, radio ministries were evolving into television ministries, and these were providing a path to riches for certain fundamentalist leaders. Fundamentalist religion was slowly evolving to become a growth industry with big payoffs (and no pesky shareholders or SEC).[1] Religious academies created a new and important channel to growing congregations and revenue.

Ultimately, this has culminated in the super-churches with congregations that number well into five-figures. Leaders of these super-churches spend their time as religious CEOs. They organize and oversee those who provide the ministry of the church, debate and agree on issue, priorities, and policies with their lay leadership and fellow religious CEOs. And they often spend time with politicians, travel by limo and private plane/helicopter, drive fancy cars and live in big homes.

Unfortunately for this thriving fundamentalist leadership, the Carter administration, and then the Regan administration, began to eliminate the tax-exempt status of religious schools due to the schools' segregationist policies. This threatened the growth prospects and revenue streams of fundamentalist leaders, while hindering these schools continuing efforts to offer a segregationist outlet. There was reason to be concerned if children returned to secular schools where they might be exposed to alternative points of view.

To counter this challenge, the religious leadership realized their need for political power in Washington DC. To these ends, they sought an emotional issue around which to rally the troops. Their core rallying issue became the elimination of abortion. And handily enough, it was a holier than thou issue that would appeal easily to fundamentalist followers. This came to pass despite the fact that, until this time, fundamentalist leaders expressed virtually no concerns about abortion. In fact many of them actually endorsed the decision in Roe v. Wade.

As with any growth industry, a time comes when it must break out of its niche to sustain growth. And, to do this fundamentalism had to confront reality – which is inherently secular. If too much of life can be explained without religion or 'faith', then the need for, and power of, religion naturally diminishes. Science and technology have brought us wonderful new understandings of the world around us. With understanding, we overcome fear which lessens the need for faith. So, the ongoing growth of knowledge actively shrank the audience of potential new converts. And new converts are necessary to feed the growth machine of modern American fundamentalism. Consequently, fundamentalism has had little choice but to wage an active war against ‘secular’ knowledge.

In a different, but related, vein, fundamentalism needed a base among the elites, of power and wealth, in order to develop its own power. Many of the teachings of fundamentalism have historically been at odds with, and distasteful to, those of power and wealth. Accordingly, the fundamentalist brand[2] had two challenges to confront in order to continue growing: 1) limit the impact of scientific knowledge, 2) and gain a base within the power and wealth elites.

The rise of health and wealth Christianity provided cover for the growing wealth of fundamentalist leaders, while providing an incentive for the rich and powerful to convert. The idea that success (no matter how derived) was God's reward for being good and pious (which amounts to making the claim that one is born again), provided justification for class stratification and the sanctified self-serving beliefs of the rich and powerful[3] It has also done much to force religion into politics, while simultaneously corrupting both.

Anything one does (even politically), to increases one’s wealth, is inherently godly behavior, because it leads to the rewards that demonstrate God’s favor. Some would argue that this is an unfair construction of health and wealth Christianity - but any such argument ignores the fact that this is how health and wealth Christians explain and justify their own behavior. Ultimately, their arguments smack of tautological thinking, but faith isn't constrained by the niceties of good logic.

Fundamentalism has always had an uneasy relationship with facts. It has always imposed bible literalism to deny observable reality. But, in the past, the key points of bible literalism served mostly to appeal to followers and maintain the control of religious leaders. Denying natural selection supported the idea that people (like you and me) are a special creation of God. From there it is a small step to take pride in one's life, no matter how limited or challenged. In essence, it had roots in populism whereby the lowly on earth would be the chosen in heaven. Creationism allowed one to join a club that provided the psychic rewards that made life worth living[4], even if many of these rewards came in the form of disdaining others who weren't part of the club. But it is common for all sorts of fundamentalists, all over the world, to rely on disrespect for others as a basis to overcome one’s own insecurities.

From this, it becomes clear how far health and wealth fundamentalism has skewed from its populist roots. Here and now, rewards on earth are a sign that one has earned ones ‘chosen’ status before the eyes of God.

Importantly, the fundamentalist rejection of facts also fit the needs of big business. We were reaching a point where the public’s knowledge about issues[5] began to interfere with the unfettered self control of big business. And thus was born an opportunity, and a point of synergy, between business and fundamentalism. Ironically, these two forces had long been at odds. But now the question could, without blushing, be asked: who should one believe? Should we trust the secular scientist who believed in facts and observation, or a business leader who declared his faith? And if business leaders were more acceptable than scientists, academics and researchers, then the influence of facts over political policy, and their ramifications for business, would be radically diminished.

Reinforcing this, facts were reinforcing inconvenient truths (thank you Al Gore), such as: the need for individuals to consume less and work together more cooperatively. In denying facts, we legitimize driving an oversize, highly consumptive and highly polluting vehicle (as just one example); thus serving individual egos and corporate profits. From this basis the synergies of reality avoidance become manifold, complex, and powerful.



[1] The scope of businesses around the fundamentalist movement is breathtaking if one isn’t already aware of this sector. Book publishing, educational materials and textbook publishing, media production companies, media broadcast companies, musical acts/venues/promotion/publishing, and religious materials all fall under this umbrella.
[2] Brand is a fair characterization in as much as fundamentalists are unabashed about their co-opting the discipline of marketing meet their needs.
[3] Such as that: greed is good; the rich 'earned' their wealth the hard way; and, the idea that everyone who isn’t wealthy is lazy, or dull.
[4] Ironically due to faith in the hereafter.
[5] Issues like: finite resources; pollution; and economic inequities.