The Oogedy-Boogedy Gap, Defined
Frederick Clarkson printable version print page     Bookmark and Share
Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 03:06:05 PM EST
It was not so long ago that liberals and Democrats were wringing their hands about how more deeply religious voters were tending to vote Republican.  This was called the God Gap. The Party was also horrified to learn from national polls that it was widely viewed as "hostile" to people of faith. Much scurrying has ensued to try to correct this perception.

Meanwhile the tensions within the Republican Party and the Religious Right are spectacularly boiling out, (as such things often do when a political party searches for reasons for historic losses. )

It is in that sense that a recent piece by conservative columnist Kathleen Parker is an important moment.  It is significant not only because it gives voice to the longstanding discomfort of conventional conservatives with the excesses of the Religious Right -- but their discomfort with the  Religious Right itself. Most remarkably of all, it was stated in terms that stray deeply into territory that if it had been expresed by anyone any less conservative, the howls about "anti-Christian bigotry" would have been heard around the world and non-stop on Fox News.

What this situation has revealed is an  Oogedy Boogedy Gap, which we may define as the absence of outrage when a conservative enages in an act of religious bigotry that would have had them an uproar had something similar said by a liberal.
But in searching around, I was unable to find much outrage -- even from the Religious Right. Imagine what the reaction would have been if say, Michael Moore, or Katha Pollit or a Democratic candidate for office -- anywhere -- had written this:

"As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.

Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D...  the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.

Simply put:  Armband religion is killing the Republican Party.... the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so ... has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners....  the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows.

The silence is deafening -- with two notable exceptions: Steve Waldman, editor of BeliefNet and Jonah Goldberg editor of The National Review.  

Goldberg denounced

"...the quasi-bigotry that has you calling religious Christians low brows, gorillas and oogedy-boogedy types... [and he demanded that she]... drop the nonsense about how the G-O-D people or the Palin people are low brows and beasts. There are low brows and beasts everywhere, on every side of the ideological spectrum.

Waldman:  

The rest of the column engages in gross stereotyping of religious conservatives. The party is "increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners" and has surrendered "high ground to its lowest brows."

So, religious conservatives are crazy, dumb and scary, says Parker.

Meanwhile, Christine Todd Whitman referred to the "social fundamentalists" as "hostage takers."

Remember when David Kuo wrote that inside the White House the non-evangelical conservatives mocked Christians as useful stooges? Maybe he should have said Useful Ooogedy-Boogedies.

Before liberals get too smug, we should remind ourselves that it was not so long ago that calling conservative religious people with whom we disagreed (from non-violent nuns praying in front of clinics to Ralph Reed to the Aryan Nations) meaningless epithets  like "religious political extremists" was considered state of the art politics. Inside the Beltway consulting firms were paid big bucks to craft this and similar focus-grouped  epithets (read, "messages"). Later, liberals and Demorats were shocked, shocked to find out that the electorate viewed the party as "hostile" to people of faith.  

The fact is that religious bigotry, both subtle and overt, exists across the religious and political spectrum (including that obnoxious variant, anti-religionism). That this is surfacing so spectacularly in the Republican Party and in the conservative movement is an opportunity for progressives.

Let's remind ourselves that religious equality and toleration have, along with absolute respect for the right of indidvidual conscience and separation of church and state,  long been core values for both religious and non-religious progressives.  If we want to be able to gain and hold the moral, intellectual and political high ground in defending and advancing our values, it is essential to know (or at least to seek to know) the difference between fair criticism and religious bigotry. It is difficult to hold the moral high ground against the religious bigots of the Religious Right, if we think, act and speak like religious bigots ourselves.

The Oogedy-Boogedy Gap provides us with an extraordinary opportunity to define ourselves in ways consistent with the values of the rights of individual conscience and separation of church and state that made possible the coalitions that forged the Constitution of the United States from Article 6 that proscribed religious tests for public office, and later, the First Amendment.  



To discuss this story, sign up for a free account

Display:
The Oogedy-Boogedy Gap, Defined | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)
The Oogedy Boogedy Gap (5.00 / 1)
Draft Definition:  The absence of outrage that occurs when a conservative enages in an act of religious bigotry that would have had them an uproar had something similar said by a liberal.

by Frederick Clarkson on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 03:27:07 PM EST
Fred, here's one thought : (none / 0)
The "because we can" factor ; the right has methodically developed its own dedicated media that has no counterpart on the left, and so the message projection capability on the right is greater. The Internet may be leveling the playing field slightly, and Air America doesn't hurt. But the media environment nonetheless seems more conducive to factually dubious or hyperbolic claims put out from the right.

by Bruce Wilson on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 05:33:11 PM EST
Parent
yeah, all true but (none / 0)
I think this one is different.

Kathleen Parker is not a creature of the internet age. She is old school print, and her collumn's home base is The Washington Post, and her other hat is as a teacher of writing that is part of the extended Buckley family (as in William F. et al) Her vulgar outburst is important because it comes from such a considered perspective.

I think what is at issue for us is not so much overall media capacity of the right, which is certainly greater, but getting folks of the center/left to recognize what is happening with Parker is more than just moderate convervatives blaming the RR for their recent electoral losses. Parker's piece illuminates the ugly side of their values -- the ones that allowed them to join with the RR in gaining  political hegemony in the first place. Parker et al have benefited from and helped enable the rise of the religious right.

But times have changed and power has shifted. And Parker et al are scramblig not to get, umm, left behind. But in her haste, she reveals her true self.

by Frederick Clarkson on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:55:21 PM EST
Parent

OK, I'll buy that... (none / 0)
One way of rapidly summing up your point, if you think this characterization has merit, might be to say that Parker has claimed that she has  manners and supports pluralism.

by Bruce Wilson on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:04:26 AM EST
Parent
One might say that.... (none / 0)
One might also say that Kathleen Parker is an ureconstructed religious bigot of the Old School, whose sulphurous attitudes spew when frustrated and angry.

by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 09:29:11 AM EST
Parent


This is true (none / 0)
I recall that Kathleen Parker received a lot of angry letters and emails from professed conservatives when she dared to suggest Sarah Palin was perhaps not the best choice the GOP could have made for the vice-presidential ticket. The angry Religious Right was all over Parker about that, and sent her much hate mail about it.

by khughes1963 on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 07:08:45 AM EST
Parent



otherwise known as IOKIYAR, religious version (none / 0)
IOKIYAR = "It's O.K. if you are Republican"

I am mostly amused by the sight of Republican circular firing squads. I thought that was a Democratic monopoly....

by NancyP on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 10:31:19 PM EST
Parent



As one of that "Obnoxioous variant"... (none / 0)
....I can see a need to make the church/state and even church/society boundaries less fuzzy. The RR is so far over the line that there is little  disagreement that they are over the secular boundary, but there are many here who have also used Secular to mean atheist or non-religious (in the not thinking about religion sense rather than the not involving religion sense that is the real definition) and had reactions in me as those who have lumped all deeply religious folk with the RR would have in the religious left.

When one is drowning, one does not worry about damp feet, and the damp feet are a lot less annoying, but annoying none the less. I often side against the Atheists who see no use in any part of religion, but a country where nearly half think that the earth is 6,000 years old has a serious issue about their choice of encyclopedia, and that can have negative effect on the whole society.

With the old Marxists saying that Religion is the opiate of the people and we need to eliminate it, and the Neocons saying that Religion is the opiate of the people and we need to pump out as much opium as possible, it would seem to me that a much more nuanced conversation is called for.

While I find much to discuss and learn in all religions I draw the line at the point where the religion becomes an encyclopedia, easily when at odds with scientific observation, but also when asserting as fact what cannot yet (or ever) be observed. I know you would ban "That obnoxious variant" from the site, but I think that the brighter the line the easier it is to know when you have crossed it from either side.

by FreeDem on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 09:55:47 AM EST


They are religious, political, and extreme (none / 0)
... meaningless epithets  like "religious political extremists" was considered state of the art politics. Inside the Beltway consulting firms were paid big bucks to craft this and similar focus-grouped  epithets (read, "messages").

Oh? Can you name a specific example of such a campaign, and who paid whom to coin which labels?

And since you claim this was a Democratic project, please specify whether it was done under the leadership of Carter, Clinton, or which other supposedly anti-religious fanatic?

That the Democrats should be perceived by what we now so delicately call "low information citizens" as sworn enemies of all that is holy can be ascribed to the work of that other party, one we might dub the "disinformation citizens". Whose interests does it serve for this blog to echo this slander?

My (perhaps fallacious) memories of the "religious political extremists" tag have it that this line was used by your (and my) former employers at Planned Parenthood - which was, and is, under endless attack by people for whom "RPE" is, if anything, a euphemism. Just how would you propose a group or movement in the crosshairs of the (very) religious (hardly ever) right describe their antagonists?

by Pierce R Butler on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:52:49 PM EST

First of all, there is no single "they" (none / 0)
And as long as anyone thinks there is only a "they" (AKA "them") there is little room for increasing our knowledge, let alone the efficacy of what we do politically.

In any case, we have been over this ground before. But to refresh your memory it was  Celinda Lake who for years in the 90s trotted out new slogans for her clients, including Planned Parenthood, until the post 911 world made the labeling and denomiization of people with whom one happens to disagree as extremists became transparently wrong headed. Yes, there are people of extreme views and people whose modus operadi are extremist, and certainly PP has been vicitimized by them. But many people who are critics of PP do not merit the label.  

It may be as Lake claimed that "research" showed that in the narrow confines of her parameters, one term is better than another. What her research  did not cover, was how people who used terms of demonization as gross generalties would come across. (Answer, not nearly as well as they thought they were coming across; conveying messages about themselves that were unanticipated.)

Part of the point here (beyond the above mentioned points about labeling and demonization that have been much discused on this site, such as here http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/1/19/235149/867) there is a difference between fact and propodanda.  Some people come to believe that terms of propaganda reflect reality; others come to adopt propaganda terms, almost as a fashion statement -- using such terms as often as possible to show how "in the know" they are. Unfortunately, the routine invocation of such terms often limit thought, conversation and the capacity to aquire knowledge, and thus limits our ability to evaluate formidable opponents and thus undermimes political effectiveness.  But one of the main problem with labeling and demonization techiniques and terms is that there can be a lot of blowback. And I believe that is what happened in this instance.


by Frederick Clarkson on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 10:53:30 AM EST
Parent

what do anti-choice activists have in common? (none / 0)
Imagine yourself in a women's clinic, with Randall Terry and friends howling outside one window, the American Life League chanting on the sidewalk, Missionaries to the Preborn playing paramilitary off to the other side, and anonymous heroes of the Army of God tossing suspicious packages at the back door. A reporter calls up and asks you for a comment on the situation, and you say,

"We're surrounded by ... ____"

Just how would you complete that sentence?

by Pierce R Butler on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 08:53:59 PM EST
Parent

fill in the blank with "hyoptheticals" (none / 0)
PP staff did not need an expensive and out of touch PR firm to be able to desecribe mobs, criminals, terrorists, and sure, extremists (when those things were present.)

I maintain that PPFA and others made an error in thinking that one size fits all when it comes to basic vocabulary about the Religious Right, and believing that labels and smear tactics are an appropriate or adequate substitute for knowledge.

The tactic backfired, and even Celinda Lake now advises people against using it. It is important for those who are serious about these things to learn from the mistakes of the past, and at the very least, not insist on continuing to make them.


by Frederick Clarkson on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:24:22 PM EST
Parent

a matter of purpose (none / 0)
... PPFA and others made an error in thinking that one size fits all when it comes to basic vocabulary about the Religious Right...

Perhaps the major part of our contention here arises from different motivations. You seem to be seeking an analytical taxonomy; I respect that, but have greater need of a rhetorical handle.

For you, "religious political extremists" is too vague. I more regret its failure because I'd enjoy labeling militant fundies as "urpies" (RPEs) - or anything else pithy, disrespectful, & street-useful.

It's highly unlikely the same lexicon could meet both requirements, but neither function lacks validity.

by Pierce R Butler on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:39:27 PM EST
Parent

actually my point is different (none / 0)
I say that we need accurate terms of description and the knowledge to back them up so we can even have coherent conversations, let alone have effective political strategies.

I maintain that the religious political extremists phrase (and other similar ones) politically backfired; offended vast numbers of people unnecessarily, and too often made (and make) the peope who use them come off as bigoted and ill informed.

Additionaly, these terms of demonization also function as thought stoppers, which goes to my point above. Sometimes people who come off as bigoted and ill-informed, actually are.

by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 01:01:27 PM EST
Parent