Godless grifters: How the New Atheists merged with the far right
The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.'"
She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrives with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
I don't think it is about facts either (and clearly they often aren't facts).The "general tenor of the show" and "Mr Carlson's reputation" are not limited only to when Carlson supposedly presents facts. are such that, imo, it is his 'statements' in general that don't meet your standard ("the conclusion of an argument, and they clearly provide the reasons that are meant to justify their positions and address counter-arguments")
Again, this was simply about those two particular choices, not about ther existence of reasonable counter positions. I could have included more details in my response to frame it better.
My point here is that you're creating judgments about these individuals not on the basis that you presented ("he generally presents his views as the conclusion to an argument, where he clearly provides the reasons that are meant to justify his position and addresses counter-arguments"), but rather on other standards (general impressions).
On the other hand, I've read books by all four main New Atheist thinkers, and they all clearly seem to me serious thinkers who write for a popular audience (with Harris being the slightest of these). My judgement on Harris is not that he is an important intellectual, but that he is not a grifter, in the sense of saying stuff he doesn't believe. He writes/talks about controversial issues, but I don't think he is arguing in bad faith about them, for the reasons you quoted.
I think the inclusion of the anti-religion viewpoint is fair. However, I would say that the anti-religion viewpoint can be seen as the outcome of the values rather than the primary goal.
To me, New Atheism was more than just "Religion = bad." It was "This other way of thinking/being = good, and therefore religion = bad." I think from that perspective, it was more than an anti-religion movement, but a pro-other-things movement. And that's where the "grift" kicks in, as does our disagreement.
If New Atheism were nothing more than anti-religion movement, I would agree with your perspective. But I would say that it postured itself to be something more. And the grift is that it wasn't.
To me, New Atheism was more than just "Religion = bad." It was "This other way of thinking/being = good, and therefore religion = bad." I think from that perspective, it was more than an anti-religion movement, but a pro-other-things movement. And that's where the "grift" kicks in, as does our disagreement.
If New Atheism were nothing more than anti-religion movement, I would agree with your perspective. But I would say that it postured itself to be something more. And the grift is that it wasn't.
There was a sense among atheists of this time that merely being against god or against religion wasn't enough - you also have to be for something. But there wasn't much of an agreement about what this was beyond a vague appeal to "science" or "rationality." In part this is why New Atheism became irrelevant - it was mostly just an against movement, and once people started thinking about what they were actually for, it splintered and wasn't able to sustain any kind of consensus.
To me, New Atheism was more than just "Religion = bad." It was "This other way of thinking/being = good, and therefore religion = bad." I think from that perspective, it was more than an anti-religion movement, but a pro-other-things movement. And that's where the "grift" kicks in, as does our disagreement.
I also think the right has given up overtly using religion as justification or a reason to hold a political position because it failed so spectacularly with things like homosexuality. For things like abortion and trans rights even hardcore evangelicals seem to get that justifications beyond their particular religion will be required to form a coalition to push for what they want.
The impact of Trump can be overstated since McCain and Romney also weren't natural fits for right wing christians, but in the decade plus since Bush left evangelicals seem content to be first class passengers on the Republican ship where as it really seemed like they were the captains in the Bush era. All of that has put religion on the back burner as a national issue.
In part this is why New Atheism became irrelevant - it was mostly just an against movement, and once people started thinking about what they were actually for, it splintered and wasn't able to sustain any kind of consensus.
New Atheism became irrelevant because the leaders lost their following. It had less to do with being an against movement (such movements can go for much, much longer than the New Atheist movement lasted). I would argue that it has much more to do with the leaders of the movement being the people that they are and staking out the positions that they did, than merely running out of steam being anti-religious.
I think that if Sam Harris were not Islamophobic or if Dawkins could actually make meaningful statements about things outside of his area of academic training that showed some vague sense of empathy or humility, it would be possible that the New Atheist movement would have coalesced into something more sustaining. But the simple fact is that the disappointment that is expressed in the original article with the leaders of the movement is a very important piece as to why the movement fizzled out. The people just didn't stand behind what the leaders were up to. You might call that "splintering" but I would call it "a lack of good leadership." The people in the movement decided that they didn't like the leaders of the movement.
Here's a short essay from 2015 that I think better captures some of the nuance. I think the disillusionment is real, and it's not just the author of the original article.
https://blog.oup.com/2015/11/legacy-new-atheism/
But there’s a much darker side to the legacy of the New Atheism that stems from its imperialist and xenophobic tendencies, to say nothing of some thinly veiled Social Darwinism and arguments for eugenics. Sam Harris in particular is now known more for supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestine and ethnic profiling at airport security than for his science-based critique of religious faith. Richard Dawkins’ personal legacy has taken a heavy hit in the past few years, as his rambling criticisms of feminism and Muslim “barbarians” on Twitter have led to charges of sexism, racism, and general arrogance and intolerance. On many social and political issues, the New Atheists are on the same page as the Christian Right.
Many young atheists have discovered that the atheist thinkers they admired turned out to have a lot in common with the worst aspects of the religions they railed against. The result is that the movement has lost a good deal of steam, at least in its New Atheist form. Many atheists today want to move beyond bashing religion to emphasizing the more positive and constructive aspects of atheism, but there’s little agreement about what that means exactly. The conservative narrative of western cultural supremacy and science-driven social progress favored by the New Atheists and a growing constituency of right-wing libertarians has come up against a grass-roots movement of younger activists who tie atheism to ideas about equality and social justice. The dominant trend, however, is still the old militant one, which leaves younger atheist who are disillusioned with the old prophets of scientism wondering if this is the right movement for them.
Many young atheists have discovered that the atheist thinkers they admired turned out to have a lot in common with the worst aspects of the religions they railed against. The result is that the movement has lost a good deal of steam, at least in its New Atheist form. Many atheists today want to move beyond bashing religion to emphasizing the more positive and constructive aspects of atheism, but there’s little agreement about what that means exactly. The conservative narrative of western cultural supremacy and science-driven social progress favored by the New Atheists and a growing constituency of right-wing libertarians has come up against a grass-roots movement of younger activists who tie atheism to ideas about equality and social justice. The dominant trend, however, is still the old militant one, which leaves younger atheist who are disillusioned with the old prophets of scientism wondering if this is the right movement for them.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...-live-atheism/
I regarded myself as a New Atheist, too, for the longest time (heck, I’m even cited in The God Delusion, making me pretty damned New Athey, I would think), although for the past few years I’ve mainly been criticizing the direction it’s been taking. Too much blithe sexism, too much flirting with racism, far too much association with regressive conservatism, way way too much ****ing libertarianism. The captains of the ship have been steering it into catastrophe while being too busy polishing their uniforms.
https://www.salon.com/2017/07/29/fro...the-alt-right/
There were also instances in which critiques of religion, most notably Islam, went beyond what was both intellectually warranted and strategically desirable. For example, Harris wrote in a 2004 Washington Times op-ed that “We are at war with Islam.” He added a modicum of nuance in subsequent sentences, but I know of no experts on Islamic terrorism who would ever suggest that uttering such a categorical statement in a public forum is judicious. As the terrorism scholar Will McCant noted in an interview that I conducted with him last year, there are circumstances in which certain phrases — even if true — are best not uttered, since they are unnecessarily incendiary. In what situation would claiming that the West is engaged in a civilizational clash with an entire religion actually improve the expected outcome?
Despite these peccadilloes, if that’s what they are, new atheism still had much to offer. Yet the gaffes kept on coming, to the point that no rational person could simply dismiss them as noise in the signal. For example, Harris said in 2014 that new atheism was dominated by men because it lacks the “nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men...”
For me, it was a series of recent events that pushed me over the edge. As a philosopher — someone who cares deeply about intellectual honesty, verifiable evidence, critical thinking and moral thoughtfulness — I now find myself in direct opposition with many new atheist leaders. That is, I see my own advocacy for science, critical thought and basic morality as standing in direct opposition to their positions.
Despite these peccadilloes, if that’s what they are, new atheism still had much to offer. Yet the gaffes kept on coming, to the point that no rational person could simply dismiss them as noise in the signal. For example, Harris said in 2014 that new atheism was dominated by men because it lacks the “nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men...”
For me, it was a series of recent events that pushed me over the edge. As a philosopher — someone who cares deeply about intellectual honesty, verifiable evidence, critical thinking and moral thoughtfulness — I now find myself in direct opposition with many new atheist leaders. That is, I see my own advocacy for science, critical thought and basic morality as standing in direct opposition to their positions.
To emphasize this point, it's not just that the New Atheists are still seen positively, but are just not influential. They're actively disliked. If they just ran out of steam, they would still be seen positively, even if they weren't leading anything. But a lot of them are just viewed so negatively now because of the crap that they've put out since their peak popularity.
I also think the right has given up overtly using religion as justification or a reason to hold a political position because it failed so spectacularly with things like homosexuality. For things like abortion and trans rights even hardcore evangelicals seem to get that justifications beyond their particular religion will be required to form a coalition to push for what they want.
All of that has put religion on the back burner as a national issue.
Yeah... no... you might be too far-removed from right-leaning folks to see that there really hasn't been much change on that.
Did you read any election analysis at the end of 2016? And throughout 2018? And leading into the 2020 election? It has been all about white evangelicals for the last five years.
[quote[Okay? I strongly doubt your ability to accurately represent right wing thought as well.[/quote]
As far as I can see, the basic arguments they have put forth haven't changed. Very little has been added to their rhetoric. In fact, I would say that "religious liberty" (the freedom to apply your religious perspective as the basis of various aspects of public life) has expanded over the last five years, and that this has emboldened the religious-central argumentation that they had developed. Also, they've ramped up their socialism is a godless economic mess rhetoric.
If you disagree, I welcome you to present an argument that is being made by religious folks for various things that is substantively different from what they made before.
Did you read my post? Evangelicals are certainly part of the "deplorable coalition" but not in charge like it seemed during the Bush era.
But if you talk to them, they think they're still winning by supporting him. They are the core of the GOP base, and even more so because of the people who are stepping further away from it. They think that he has their back and that it's a mutual thing. (And that he'll be back in office in September or something like that.)
They care just as much about gay marriage as in 2005 but they've had to give up largely because only evangelicals seemed to care that much about stopping it.
Lol ok buddy. A bunch of social critics said X is a major cause of problems and has too much influence in society. After 15 years X has much less power to influence society. What a strange definition of win! I don't think any of these guys ran for office and the whole movement is fairly obscure in terms of politics and society as a whole. It's hard to imagine any reasonable way things could have gone better for their ideas.
I think you unwittingly made my point for me. I agree that "religious freedom" is a big deal for them now; but that's only a concession that more and more of the country disagrees with them. In the past they were trying to get the whole country to abide by their morals (ie the Federal Marriage Amendment) Now they no longer even try to convince you homosexuality is wrong or the law should ban gay unions. They just want to be able to personally discriminate against gays as part of their fringe religion. That's quite a different argument.
This predates Trump like I was saying. McCain was a moderate on social issues and once called Bush a "Pat Robertson Republican" as an insult. Romney was Mormon. Both times there were candidates with far better evangelical cred (Huckabee and Santorum) that lost.
Sure, Qanon is big in evangelical circles. But unlike Bush era neo-conservatism even many pastors and other evangelicals are saying "guys this is crazy". We don't need Oxford University Press to publish a popular level book about how Qanon is insane. Unsurprisingly new atheism has faded away over the same time period.
Again, this just proves my point. Back in 05 just evangelicals caring about something meant it was in the Republican platform. Now, not so much. Part of this is demographics, but more fundamentally they were just wrong about homosexuality and unable to convince anybody else based on the merits of their argument. That a healthy majority in the US now see this has reduced the influence of new atheism.
As far as I can see, the basic arguments they have put forth haven't changed. Very little has been added to their rhetoric. In fact, I would say that "religious liberty"(the freedom to apply your religious perspective as the basis of various aspects of public life) has expanded over the last five years, and that this has emboldened the religious-central argumentation that they had developed. Also, they've ramped up their socialism is a godless economic mess rhetoric.
If you disagree, I welcome you to present an argument that is being made by religious folks for various things that is substantively different from what they made before.
If you disagree, I welcome you to present an argument that is being made by religious folks for various things that is substantively different from what they made before.
The only reason they're not "in charge" is because they sold their collective soul to Donald Trump, and nobody is in charge of Donald Trump except Donald Trump.
But if you talk to them, they think they're still winning by supporting him. They are the core of the GOP base, and even more so because of the people who are stepping further away from it. They think that he has their back and that it's a mutual thing. (And that he'll be back in office in September or something like that.)
I hope you will realize that this is a poor analysis. They were pretty much the only ones who cared about it. They mostly gave up because they lost. And they blame Obama for it (even though it's a demographic thing). They've shifted their attention to other aspects of the more general sexuality debate, such as LGBQT+ rights. God still made them man and woman, and we shouldn't mess with that. (They're going to lose that, too. Again, it's demographics.)
To emphasize this point, it's not just that the New Atheists are still seen positively, but are just not influential. They're actively disliked. If they just ran out of steam, they would still be seen positively, even if they weren't leading anything. But a lot of them are just viewed so negatively now because of the crap that they've put out since their peak popularity.
Both the Weinstein's have podcasts (Bret has been on Joe Rogan at least once), and weren't even part of New Atheism back then. I don't know how much longevity they'll have though.
Dawkins would fit your description though, if he didn't keep refusing to disappear into the night...
What about extremely popular social Conservatives, like Steven Crowder or Candace Owens, for example? I don't know if they are what ecriture was referring to or not, but they are not evangelicals, while still identifying very much as "conservative Christians", and their strongly anti-lgbt messaging is not broadcasted using religious language. Isn't that a change? Or would they fall into the broader group despite not technically being evangelicals?
This question I find utterly baffling.
Up until this post I'm making now, I had two of the thirty-six posts in this thread.
One of the posts was agreeing with Trolly (a pretty rare event).
The other was asking Trolly what he meant by the phrase, "Biblical literalist". How is that "making the thread about me."?
Thanks.
addendum: I forgot to answer your question. The answer to your question is, "No."
Up until this post I'm making now, I had two of the thirty-six posts in this thread.
One of the posts was agreeing with Trolly (a pretty rare event).
The other was asking Trolly what he meant by the phrase, "Biblical literalist". How is that "making the thread about me."?
Thanks.
addendum: I forgot to answer your question. The answer to your question is, "No."
eta (for clarity) ...yet is a favourite of yours.
That's why.
If you believe the topic of biblical literalism has nothing to do with the topic, you'll have to take that up with Trolly since he brought it up.
By the way, I'd like to thank BF for attempting to make this thread about me.
Lags, this is a pretty well-known term of art that you can look up for yourself if you’re confused.
Sorry, I'd meant to specify 'academically'.
They're both probably only known because of Bret W's involvement in the Evergreen University debacle several years ago involving a group of overly entitled college-aged children.
They're both probably only known because of Bret W's involvement in the Evergreen University debacle several years ago involving a group of overly entitled college-aged children.
If you were a big fan of new atheism 10 years ago and feel grifted because you thought it would always be an ally of the left on social issues, I think a fair question is "Why"?. Seems more like you were wish-casting personal views onto prominent authors than being grifted.
Lol ok buddy. A bunch of social critics said X is a major cause of problems and has too much influence in society. After 15 years X has much less power to influence society. What a strange definition of win! I don't think any of these guys ran for office and the whole movement is fairly obscure in terms of politics and society as a whole. It's hard to imagine any reasonable way things could have gone better for their ideas.
I mean, I guess it's like saying that you had a good season because you went 1-15 this year, but last year you were 0-16. WINNING!
I think you unwittingly made my point for me. I agree that "religious freedom" is a big deal for them now; but that's only a concession that more and more of the country disagrees with them.
This predates Trump like I was saying. McCain was a moderate on social issues and once called Bush a "Pat Robertson Republican" as an insult. Romney was Mormon. Both times there were candidates with far better evangelical cred (Huckabee and Santorum) that lost.
Evangelicals are certainly part of the "deplorable coalition" but not in charge like it seemed during the Bush era.
You seem to be saying that McCain (2008) and Romney (2012) being non-Evangelicals implies something about the Evangelical influence being diminished in some way. But GW Bush identifies as Methodist (mainline Protestant). McCain identified as Baptist (which could either be a mainline or Evangelical label). That there were people who wore their Evangelical identity that were not the nominee doesn't really speak to anything in particular.
I think W had 70% of the white Evangelical vote in 2000, then 80% in 2004. And I don't think it's tapered much since then. It has been the most reliable and most influential voting bloc over the last two decades, and probably even through most of the 1990s.
So I don't understand what you're arguing here.
In the past they were trying to get the whole country to abide by their morals (ie the Federal Marriage Amendment) Now they no longer even try to convince you homosexuality is wrong or the law should ban gay unions. They just want to be able to personally discriminate against gays as part of their fringe religion. That's quite a different argument.
Sure, Qanon is big in evangelical circles. But unlike Bush era neo-conservatism even many pastors and other evangelicals are saying "guys this is crazy". We don't need Oxford University Press to publish a popular level book about how Qanon is insane. Unsurprisingly new atheism has faded away over the same time period.
Again, this just proves my point. Back in 05 just evangelicals caring about something meant it was in the Republican platform. Now, not so much. Part of this is demographics, but more fundamentally they were just wrong about homosexuality and unable to convince anybody else based on the merits of their argument. That a healthy majority in the US now see this has reduced the influence of new atheism.
In fact, it's rarely the case that things like this are structured around the "merits" of one argument or another. Such an argument quickly falls into the morass of attempting to define morality.
Interestingly, I think the appeal to "science" or "rationality" was precisely the thing that they were trying to be pro about to be a stance against religion. You may call it a "vague appeal" but I would say that such things were rather explicit and central. Specifically, it was what set they used to themselves apart from the religious-types because the religious-types were (supposedly) not those things.
I disagree with your analysis here, but only somewhat. I think it's more that you're missing an important piece of the movement.
New Atheism became irrelevant because the leaders lost their following. It had less to do with being an against movement (such movements can go for much, much longer than the New Atheist movement lasted). I would argue that it has much more to do with the leaders of the movement being the people that they are and staking out the positions that they did, than merely running out of steam being anti-religious.
New Atheism became irrelevant because the leaders lost their following. It had less to do with being an against movement (such movements can go for much, much longer than the New Atheist movement lasted). I would argue that it has much more to do with the leaders of the movement being the people that they are and staking out the positions that they did, than merely running out of steam being anti-religious.
Once these books fell off the bestseller list and people lost interest in talking about religion and god, the movement died out. And of the leaders who lost relevance, it was mostly due to age and death.
I think that if Sam Harris were not Islamophobic or if Dawkins could actually make meaningful statements about things outside of his area of academic training that showed some vague sense of empathy or humility, it would be possible that the New Atheist movement would have coalesced into something more sustaining. But the simple fact is that the disappointment that is expressed in the original article with the leaders of the movement is a very important piece as to why the movement fizzled out. The people just didn't stand behind what the leaders were up to. You might call that "splintering" but I would call it "a lack of good leadership." The people in the movement decided that they didn't like the leaders of the movement.
Of the others, meh. Dennett never was a leader in the movement. Hitchens died as popular as ever. And Dawkins just hasn't published anything of significance since the The God Delusion.
Here's a short essay from 2015 that I think better captures some of the nuance. I think the disillusionment is real, and it's not just the author of the original article.
https://blog.oup.com/2015/11/legacy-new-atheism/
https://blog.oup.com/2015/11/legacy-new-atheism/
Here's another take by ex-New-Atheist PZ Myers:
And another article from the Salon (albeit from same author as the original article but written four years ago):
https://www.salon.com/2017/07/29/fro...the-alt-right/
https://www.salon.com/2017/07/29/fro...the-alt-right/
My point with these is to make the case that it wasn't just that it was an anti-movement that ran out of steam from being anti. The people in the front were no longer trustworthy leaders because they proved themselves to not actually be the things they claimed to be. They lost credibility because they no longer represented intellectual honesty or intellectual rigor. They argued for a better morality, but their lived morals appeared no better than those they argued against. They lost support because they took positions that were not supportable. They simply became unworthy of the position in the eyes of their followers.
To emphasize this point, it's not just that the New Atheists are still seen positively, but are just not influential. They're actively disliked. If they just ran out of steam, they would still be seen positively, even if they weren't leading anything. But a lot of them are just viewed so negatively now because of the crap that they've put out since their peak popularity.
To emphasize this point, it's not just that the New Atheists are still seen positively, but are just not influential. They're actively disliked. If they just ran out of steam, they would still be seen positively, even if they weren't leading anything. But a lot of them are just viewed so negatively now because of the crap that they've put out since their peak popularity.
What about extremely popular social Conservatives, like Steven Crowder or Candace Owens, for example? I don't know if they are what ecriture was referring to or not, but they are not evangelicals, while still identifying very much as "conservative Christians", and their strongly anti-lgbt messaging is not broadcasted using religious language. Isn't that a change? Or would they fall into the broader group despite not technically being evangelicals?
1) Catholic
2) Mainline Protestant
3) Evangelical Protestant
Catholics are... well.... Catholics. They're often viewed skeptically by both classes of Protestants as not necessarily even being Christian.
Mainline Protestants are Protestants that fall into a range of denominations, and are probably best described as non-Evangelical Christians.
Evangelical Christians are... complicated. Theologically, they basically fit within a certain set of belief parameters known as the Bebbington Quadrilateral. Within those four walls there's still plenty of diversity, so this can be thought of as a "big tent" label. In term of practical demography, here is a reference for how this identification works:
https://www.nae.net/what-is-an-evangelical/
The NAE/LifeWay Research method includes four statements to which respondents must strongly agree to be categorized as evangelical:
* The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe.
* It is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior.
* Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin.
* Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.
* The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe.
* It is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior.
* Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin.
* Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.
As far as Candance Owens and Steven Crowder, I don't find them self-identifying as Evangelical anywhere. However, Steven Crowder has been other-identified as Evangelical:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/com...vative_steven/
And Candace Owens gave a Convocation speech at Liberty University and apparently self-identifies as a Protestant Christian (I didn't listen to the podcast at all, just going off of the title).
So whether or not they're strictly-speaking Evangelicals, they hold markers that make them appear to be so.
Uhhhh... I'm losing your argument. Here's where you started:
...
So I don't understand what you're arguing here.
.....
Again, they aren't trying because they lost on the legal front. Thanks to Obama and the activist Supreme Court. But don't worry. The new Conservative Supreme Court will return these conservative values to their rightful place.
...
So I don't understand what you're arguing here.
.....
Again, they aren't trying because they lost on the legal front. Thanks to Obama and the activist Supreme Court. But don't worry. The new Conservative Supreme Court will return these conservative values to their rightful place.
Looks like I quoted the wrong part of your comment above, I'd meant to highlight this:
My question was about the 'evangelical' label - whether it was being used to refer to the general religious right (broadly, all socially conservative Christians, such that it would include non-evangelicals like Crowder/Owens, and not strictly just evangelicals)?
I brought up Crowder/Owens because there does seems to be a clear presentation difference between them vs. evangelicals, in that they mostly avoid religious language whereas evangelicals embrace it. I have wondered if the Crowder/Owens types are using less religiously-oriented language to deliver the same messaging to non-evangelicals (and even the non-religious) intentionally.
Ok, here's what I'm asking your perspective on: right wing personalities like Crowder/Owens are delivering socially conservative messaging that is essentially the same as, say, Jerry Falwell from a couple of decades ago, but without any of the Biblical fire and brimstone. To the extent you're familiar, do you see these newer personalities as a separate (v popular, and growing) wing of the right that "just so happens" to be Christian, or is it still the Religious Right, but choosing to present as religiously neutral for perhaps stealthy political reasons?
I brought up Crowder/Owens because there does seems to be a clear presentation difference between them vs. evangelicals, in that they mostly avoid religious language whereas evangelicals embrace it. I have wondered if the Crowder/Owens types are using less religiously-oriented language to deliver the same messaging to non-evangelicals (and even the non-religious) intentionally.
Ok, here's what I'm asking your perspective on: right wing personalities like Crowder/Owens are delivering socially conservative messaging that is essentially the same as, say, Jerry Falwell from a couple of decades ago, but without any of the Biblical fire and brimstone. To the extent you're familiar, do you see these newer personalities as a separate (v popular, and growing) wing of the right that "just so happens" to be Christian, or is it still the Religious Right, but choosing to present as religiously neutral for perhaps stealthy political reasons?
I brought up Crowder/Owens because there does seems to be a clear presentation difference between them vs. evangelicals, in that they mostly avoid religious language whereas evangelicals embrace it. I have wondered if the Crowder/Owens types are using less religiously-oriented language to deliver the same messaging to non-evangelicals (and even the non-religious) intentionally.
You can probably put this in an even broader context by considering the prehistory of all this in the rise and "fall" of the Moral Majority. It was before my time, but it seems like they used more of the language you expect from religious conservatives genuinely trying to get 50%+ of the country in the 70s on board ie we're not going to spend all our time bashing gays or feminists, we will just go and on about the value of traditional families where a married man works and his wife stays home and raises their kids. While their positions haven't really changed, the lib bashing rhetoric has obviously increased since the 70s/80s.
"Evangelical" (as used by demographers) is a distinct category from "the general religious right" (or "socially conservative Christians"), though the labels have significant overlap.
For example, there are socially conservative Catholics that would be classified as "the general religious right" but would not count as Evangelicals. And there are a growing number of Evangelicals that are not socially conservative.
I brought up Crowder/Owens because there does seems to be a clear presentation difference between them vs. evangelicals, in that they mostly avoid religious language whereas evangelicals embrace it. I have wondered if the Crowder/Owens types are using less religiously-oriented language to deliver the same messaging to non-evangelicals (and even the non-religious) intentionally.
I would expect that Crowder/Owens don't use that language because they know it's alienating. When you choose to talk about the world in that way, then you limit your audience to those who want to hear the world talked about in that way. More effective communicators will use a better coded language to draw up those images without directly using those words.
Ok, here's what I'm asking your perspective on: right wing personalities like Crowder/Owens are delivering socially conservative messaging that is essentially the same as, say, Jerry Falwell from a couple of decades ago, but without any of the Biblical fire and brimstone. To the extent you're familiar, do you see these newer personalities as a separate (v popular, and growing) wing of the right that "just so happens" to be Christian, or is it still the Religious Right, but choosing to present as religiously neutral for perhaps stealthy political reasons?
Crowder/Owens are not speaking their message specifically to Christians. Their goal is not to move specifically Christians to engage in politics, but to actually engage with politics. In that sense, their religious perspective is more incidental. It's part of their way of identifying with the religious base that they want to connect with, and they have no reason to shy away from that identification. But it's entirely possible (likely?) that their positions are not as "theologically grounded" as someone like Jerry Falwell might be. In a real sense, they simply don't need it to be in order for them to be effective in what they want to do.
I think the example of Rush Limbaugh (that ecriture d'adulte has already discussed a little bit) is a good example to contrast this with. His target audience included Christians, but it was not specifically Christians. It's absolutely true that he leveraged the conservative Christian ecosystem to grow his brand, but they were not his sole audience.
All this said, I would view this as a continuation of the religious conservative political movement. The underlying structure and message is consistent, even if the language is secularized. And it's not like this is a new thing. It's two different systems that are working together to accomplish different (but related) outcomes.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE