MAKING SENSE OF THE CULTURE WAR

Election eve in Alabama is an appropriate time to return to the big picture. I think it will help us make sense of what is going on in politics and in the schism in South Carolina. The two are not unrelated. I argue they are very much related. They are both part of a much bigger phenomenon, a great culture war in contemporary America (and really in the world). If we get a better understanding of what is going on, we will have a better chance at dealing with it in the best way.

There is a great culture war going on in America. For simplicity's sake, I will call the two sides in conflict the democratic force and anti-democratic force. They are at war in both the civic state and the Episcopal/Anglican state. Let me explain.

The twentieth century was the most transformative period perhaps in all of human history, but certainly in modern times (I would argue that the life of Jesus Christ was the single most important event in human history). The century can be broken down into halves. In the first half, three monumental events occurred to destroy the old structures. 1-the First World War. It ended the monarchical system and its attendant supporting class structures. 2-the Great Depression. Shook capitalism but ultimately reaffirmed it. Also introduced the principle that it is the function of the civic state to provide for its people (populism). 3-the Second World War. Destroyed the anti-democratic forces of fascism, nazism, aggressive militarism, racism, and, in delayed action, communism (USSR fell in 1991). The democratic political system became the operative norm around the world (even impacting on important non-democratic systems). The call for human rights arose.

The second half of the twentieth century brought the effects of the three great early events. I call it the Great Democratic Revolution. This was the incorporation of the triumphant democratic principles in society and culture. In America, there was the post-War rise of the great middle class, the G.I. Bill, the rise of education for the masses, the Civil Rights movement, the women's liberation movement, Medicare (for the old), Medicaid (for the poor). The landmark event in the women's movement was Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the legality of abortion (woman's right to control her own body). The democratic sweep went on to extend to homosexuals equal rights and inclusion into society. This led to the U.S. Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015. Thus, the Great Democratic Revolution swept America, and in large measure the world, from about 1950 at least to 2015. As a result, culture and society are profoundly different now than they were a century ago.

All social/cultural institutions in America had to react to the democratic sweep of the twentieth. Historically, the Episcopal Church had been largely indifferent to the sins of commission and omission in the society all around it. However, at mid-century, the Church made a dramatic reversal and resolved to throw itself into the forefront of the human rights revolution. It started with Civil Rights. Then came a new, arguably democratized, prayer book. Also it turned to women's equality, including ordination. And, finally the Church turned to inclusion of and equal rights for non-celibate homosexuals. This resulted in the Church's adoption of marriage equality in 2015.

The democratic revolution in the civic state and in the Church were majority movements. The reforms were made through the old standing institutional structures. In the government, the Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court all played roles in carrying out the reforms. In the Church, all reforms were made by the General Convention. The changes were made legally, honestly, above board. However, while the reforms were supported by majorities in both state and church, there arose strong minority oppositions in both. There were plenty of people who objected to one or more of the changes going on.

In the civic state, the sweeping changes moved headlong through the 1950s and most of the 60s. However, 1968 brought a truning point. Its assassinations and widespread street violence led many people to fear the reforms had gone too far and had been too disruptive of the social fabric, perhaps even leading to chaos and anarchy. A feeling of counter-revolution began to grow. This was first evident in the Republican Party's Southern Strategy which sought to capitalize on the anti-Civil Rights backlash among southern whites. Under the slogan "law and order" southern whites began their inexorable trek from the Democratic to the Republican Party and blacks from the Republican to the Democratic. Backlash against women's equality led to the defeat of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment and the rise of the anti-abortion movement in the 1970s. President Reagan, in the 1980s, presided over a certain stabilization as he transferred wealth from the middle to the richer classes and adopted an aggressive foreign policy. He was immensely popular. 

Then, by 1990, another great change occurred. With the dissolution of the old Soviet Union, the U.S. became the world's only super power. The world arrived at the Pax Americana, imperfect as it was. This rivaled earlier solitary power periods, as the Pax Romana (0-200) and the Pax Britannia (1800s). The problem that inevitably appears in a "Pax" period of unrivaled power, is that the internal fractures of a society are left exposed. Once the external unifying factor of foreign threat is removed, there may be little to hold together competing interests within a society. I think this is the case in America today. In a way, we are the victims of our own success. Without a serious foreign threat, we are turning against each other. Some people call this "tribalism." We have even developed our own sets of reality and "facts" that are strikingly at odds. Fox News and MCNBC describe two different worlds. 

In the civic state, the rising internal divisions can be seen very clearly. In the 1990s, the polarization first became clear as the nation divided on how to react to President Clinton's character flaws. He was impeached but not removed from office. The fractures only grew as the Supreme Court stepped in to rule the election of 2000 for the Republican even though he was not the choice of the voters. Even the attack of 9-11, in 2001, did not change the dynamic. "Terrorism" was too vague to unify the country for long. Who were the terrorists? In 2008, the election of the first president of African heritage accelerated the backlash against the democratic reforms. Obama was the very personification of the reforms. The Tea Party organized a resistance. After Obama Care's passage, the Republicans in Congress refused to pass any other significant act in his presidency. On the far right, Donald Trump stoked the myth that Obama was an illegitimate president. This was racist backlash. 

Thus, from the 1960s to the early 2000s, the U.S. went through monumental reforms for human rights but also experienced serious backlash. In history, every great revolution is followed by a lesser counter-revolution. After the counter runs its course, a sort of compromise settles things down but leaves the bulk of the revolutionary reforms in place.

With the election of 2016 and the rise of Trump and Trumpism, this counter-revolution took a new turn. Since the conservative forces were unable to stop the wave of reform, they took to attacking the very institutions that had made the reforms. Trump is leading the charge. Steve Bannon calls this the "deconstruction of the administrative state." And so, Trump appointed many cabinet members who are opposed to the very departments they are supposed to lead. He attacked right off the intelligence community and the diplomatic corps. He has also campaigned against the FBI and the free press which he called the enemy of the people. He has denounced judges. He has fought openly with members of Congress, even of his own party. He is trying to transform the constitutional system into an autocracy. He openly praises dictators around the world. The investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government is apparently closing in on Trump. His supporters are demanding the sacking of the lead investigator, Robert Mueller. Thus, the counter-revolution has changed from simply opposing the reforms of the state to opposing the structure of the state. This is frightening.

On a more local level, Roy Moore represents the same deconstruction. As chief justice of the Alabama supreme court, he declared that federal law did not have to be obeyed. He did this twice, once in defiance of a federal court order and again in refusal of a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. He adamantly refused to bend on both and was removed from office on both. To Moore and his followers, the U.S. Constitution is inferior to their own view of the state, which is really a theocracy.

In the Episcopal Church, something similar occurred. From the 1950s to 2006, the counter-revolutionary forces in the Church fought to stop the hated reforms. They lost on every turn, especially on new prayer book, women's ordination, and inclusion of non-celibate homosexuals. What brought this to a head were two highly visible events, the affirmation of a non-celibate gay man as a bishop in 2003, and the election of the first woman as presiding bishop in 2006. These personalized the complete victory of the human rights reforms of the Episcopal Church, similarly to the way Obama's election did in the civic state. 

Realizing their final defeats, the most defiant Episcopalians decided, as the Trumpians were to do, to deconstruct the state as their last resort. From 2007 to 2012, five dioceses voted to leave the Episcopal Church and form a new anti-Episcopal Church, called the Anglican Church in North America. It was obviously meant as the beacon to draw out the rest of the anti-democratic irreconcilables from the Episcopal Church. It was devoted to reversing at least the most most hated reform, for homosexuals. (They failed to agree on women and are now collapsing on that unresolved issue.) 

Thus, the counter-revolution against the democratic reforms came in two phases, first, warfare against the reforms and second, deconstruction of the state. It had only very limited success at the first. The counter-revolutionaries will fail at the second too although it is too soon to know just how much damage they can do to the established institutional structure. Trumpism is a serious threat even though Trump has only about a third of the American people supporting his deconstruction tactics. Still, as president he has enormous power to proceed on with his ideas of changes. So far, he has the open support of the Republican leaders in Congress, and they have the majority vote in both houses. It may very well be that a major constitutional crisis is looming, especially if Mueller reveals incriminating evidence that Trump, or his close aides, colluded with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election. 

I believe the civic state and the Church are structurally strong enough to survive the attacks on them. Nevertheless, the counter-revolutionaries can, indeed already have, inflict great harm on the institutions they hold responsible for the hated reforms. 

As I have said before, from what I see now, I think the schismatics in South Carolina will carry out their deconstruction of the Episcopal Church to the bitter end. I see no sign of their willingness to compromise and make peace. Quite the opposite, DSC has brought a new lawsuit and an announced appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The anti-democratic forces know they cannot reverse the great reforms that have became embedded in the civic and religious states. I think what they are trying to do now is inflict as much harm as they can on the institutions that they blame for making the reforms. The motivation for this could be pure revenge, or could be an attempt to block any possible new reform.

I think it helps us understand the schism in South Carolina if we put it in the broader context of the culture war going on in America. The great democratic reforms in state and church have been made. I for one am tremendously proud of both for their records in championing human rights. It was the right thing to do. Yet, I also understand why others may not agree, indeed even why they want to tear down the institutions that made the reforms. I understand their positions, but I do not agree with them. They are on the wrong side of history.

So, Moore may carry the election tomorrow in Alabama and Trump may fire Mueller, but neither can stop the progress of history.