[Please welcome Craig Unger in the comments. As with all guest chats, please stay on topic and be polite. Any off topic discussions should be taken to the prior thread. Thanks! — JA]
Yesterday, at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall described "the GOP Triangular Trade, in which Southern evangelicals provide the votes for a party financed by and run on behalf of Wall Street and with policies devised by a gang of New York intellectuals and scribblers." In its essence, what this means is that, "Richard Scaife provides the money to help keep his taxes low. Bill Kristol comes up with the ideas. And Mike Huckabee provides the votes."
Later in the day, at Huffington Post, the veteran political reporter Tom Edsall warned that this Triangular Trade might well flounder on the Huckabee candidacy: "Huckabee has demonstrated a willingness to defy party leaders, whom he dismissed as a ‘wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street,’ a statement that goes beyond heresy to apostasy."
How the Triangular Trade came to be the bedrock of an ascendant Republican Party—and how it has begun to fracture, not only under assault from the pseudo-populist Huckabee, but more importantly under the weight of the failed George W. Bush presidency—is at the heart of Craig Unger’s splendid new book, The Fall Of The House Of Bush.
Craig is, of course, the author of the national best-seller House of Bush, House of Saud, published to great fanfare by Scribner in 2004. An award-winning investigative journalist, he has had his work published in The New Yorker , Esquire, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and many other publications. The former deputy editor of The New York Observer and editor of Boston magazine, he is currently a contributing editor at Vanity Fair.
As it happens, I’ve known Craig for almost fifteen years. I am proud to count him as a friend, but I also know him as one of the best and bravest investigative reporters in America. Along with Murray Waas, Craig broke the story of how the Reagan-Bush administration provided Saddam Hussein with arms and intelligence during the mid-1980s. For his efforts in uncovering the true story behind the Iran-Contra affair, Craig found himself in court, sued by former Reagan national security advisor Bud McFarlane. What should have been a high point in his career turned into a low point. Like his friend Bob Parry, another brave investigative reporter, Craig found himself virtually hounded from the profession.
Today, as I write, Craig has the wind at his back, with news of former Arkansas Governor and Baptist preacher Huckabee’s triumph in the Iowa Republican caucuses and word that the New York Times has made the arch-apostle of our bloody Middle Eastern adventure, Bill Kristol, a weekly columnist on its op-ed pages.
In that sense, Craig’s book is not history. It’s the front page. Or, rather, it’s one step ahead of the front page. There is no better primer for understanding the Republican Party of today than this book.
But make no mistake about it, The Fall of the House of Bush is great history. Here, and in exquisite detail, Craig lays out the improbable story of how an army of evangelical Christian millenialists led by Jerry Falwell and Tim LaHaye found themselves in the service of the neocon crusade to remake the Middle East and, in the process, became the club shaped by Karl Rove and wielded by those two unabashed power-freaks and unreconstructed Nixonians, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld.
The short answer to how all this happened is, somewhat strange to say, George W. Bush. Strange because Bush the younger is one of the weakest characters ever to have occupied the White House. In contrast, even the wretched Warren Harding looks good precisely because Harding knew so well his own limitations, constantly fretting over his very inadequacy to be president. This president, it would seem, neither knows nor frets. He, of course, decides.
First, though, consider the neocons. To me, there’s not a better or smarter chapter in this book than, "Dog Whistle Politics." For here we see in detail how the second generation neocons, embodied by this same Bill Kristol, have come to have so much power and influence while wielding so few popular votes.
"Even though their ideology was obscure at best to the vast majority of Americans, these three families [Kristol, Podhoretz and Kagan] alone promoted the neocon cause at the Weekly Standard, the New York Post, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, Commentary, the Coalition for the Free World, the American Enterprise Institute, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, West Point, the Project for a New American Century, the National Security Council—not to mention the White House in no fewer than five administrations beginning in 1981."
Serving as a safe haven in good times and bad "was the neocon infrastructure, a conglomeration of well-funded, heavily ideological institutions that were often obscure to the general public but provided secure oases for scores of right-wing policy intellectuals and one echo chamber after another to reinforced their ideology." It all made for "a cozy, tightly knit affluent intellectual community," a "closed loop intellectually, personally and socially."
Unwittingly, I was myself witness to the rise of one of the most prominent of the neocon dynasties. As a grad student at Yale in the late 1970s, I observed the blossoming Kagan dynasty. The author of a celebrated four-volume history of the Pelopennesian War, Don Kagan was then in his mid-forties and already one of the great personages in the Yale history department. In another guise, he was also the authoritarian-minded master of one of Yale’s undergraduate residential houses. His tenure as master was short-lived.
In those years, I used to see the Kagan boys, Bob and Fred, at the Yale Elizabethan Club. Discussions over tea with their undergraduate friends tended to focus on rehashing the Vietnam War, finding lessons there that almost no one among my friends believed were the right ones. In a word, we thought they were crazy.
A decade later, I returned to the Yale campus to report on the dying days of the Benno Schmidt presidency. By now, Kagan was dean of Yale College—and Schmidt’s right-hand man. The campus was in an uproar, not least over Kagan’s authoritarian rule and the neocon ideology that he was pushing. Part of the package was a multi-million dollar gift from the billionaire Bass family from Fort Worth. The ostensible goal was to fund an undergraduate program intended to reinvigorate the ideals of a classical education. The real goal, as most everyone knew, was to create jobs for worthy neocons and purge the curriculum of "soft" ( i.e., liberal) courses. Kagan also didn’t hesitate to purge the faculty of those he deemed leftists.
But when Benno departed for Wall Street as head of the Edison Project, a scheme for marketing for-profit schools, Kagan was sent into exile—he took a sabbatical—at Cornell and was finished as dean.
He left it to the Younguns to carry on the crusade. And crusade they did.
Bob Kagan went on to co-found the neocon Project for the New American Century (PNAC) with Bill Kristol. Typical of the neocon lot, Bob Kagan married the daughter of another Yale professor, the famous medical school professor and author Sherwin Nuland. The Hon. Victoria Nuland went on to become George W. Bush’s ambassador to Turkey and is now ambassador to NATO.
Younger Brother Fred is a resident scholar at the neocon American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the author, along with retired Army General Jack Keane, of the vaunted "Surge." His wife Kimberly, a Yale Ph.D., teaches military history at West Point and is the executive director of the Institute for the Study of War. Like her husband, she writes regularly for the Wall Street Journal op-ed pages.
Well, you get the picture.
* * *
If George W. was an underachiever for most of his life, the Kagans were classic overachievers. If he was ignorant and lazy, ever satisfied with his lot, they were bright and endlessly hardworking, ambitious beyond measure. How then did W. and the neocons happen upon one another? Whatever did they see in the other?
At Yale, George W. Bush didn’t even measure up to the typical "Gentleman’s C", averaging instead a barely passing C-. He was intellectually lazy to the point of shiftlessness.
He bore well his cheeky frat boy personality; the ever-present smirk; the clubby competitiveness, especially with his revered but awe-inspiring Oedipal father and much younger and brighter brother Jeb. But always lurking beneath the surface was the touchy insecurity of one who was privileged, but also lazy and ignorant. A C- intellect combined with the open-sesame of Skull and Bones membership and Bush family connections should have marked him early on as a dangerous man. But it didn’t. The grim and dangerous side was hidden behind the grin.
How then could such as he be befriended, advised and almost altogether co-opted by the likes of the nerdy, Jewish, Phi Beta Kappa crowd that were the neocons? The answer is much the same as with his relationship to Dick Cheney, the failed Yalie. Because, as Craig so rightly puts it, different as Cheney and the neocons were, they alike saw George W. Bush as an empty vessel. Cheney for his grandiose plans to restore the Imperial Presidency; the neocons for their Middle Eastern adventures.
And precisely because George Bush was ignorant, he was game for those, like Cheney and Rumsfeld who played on his insecurities (whispering what sweet nothings in his ear we know yet not), built up his ego, and did the hard-lifting that he so despised doing.
* * *
But what of the religious right?
As a child and young person growing up in the 1960s, I spent much of my life perched on the hard edge of a Baptist church pew. My very Southern hometown, set in the piney woods and red clay hills of East Texas, was overwhelmingly Baptist, white and black alike. From the pulpit, a generation of bluff, red-faced Baptist preachers—they all seemed to come from Mississippi, from places like Laurel and Picayune, after having served time in the Marine Corps—would thunder at us about the evils of Catholicism. Other favorite sermons featured, "Sex, Communism and the Coloreds," as a pamphlet from those days had it. A starlet’s tragic death led to a classic "sermonette" that the church then had printed-up: "The Twenty-One Things I Learned from the Death of Miss Marilyn Monroe, America’s Sex Goddess."
The writer Willie Morris, who would later be famous for his North Toward Home, arrived in my hometown in the summer of 1960. His goal: to try to gauge how John Kennedy’s Catholicism would affect that year’s election in the Baptist South. Well, he certainly got an earful. The local, white Baptist ministers, Morris reported, were apoplectic. Morris’ piece occupied most of the next issue of the liberal Texas Observer, of which he was then editor. "East Texas Sojourn," he called it.
Morris knew whereof he spoke too. I well remember the aptly named Brother Flynt’s cousin sermonizing about a recent trip to Rome. The Mississippi minister claimed to have watched pilgrims, "bleeding at the knees," make their obeisance before the Papal Throne, the back of which, he swore, bore the "mark of the Beast," XXX. It was all, I later surmised, a lot of hooey, but it caused many a mouth to drop open, circa 1960, including my own.
The Jews were fabulous creatures limited to the Bible. When it came to flesh and blood human beings, we knew none. To my knowledge, there was not a single Jewish family in my town.
Sermons, as I have said, were mostly devoted to the issues of race, Communism, Catholicism, sex and booze. Old Demon Rum was still very much on the radar. Prohibition had never ended in Cherokee County. The Rapture and Armageddon were, however, if not tangential, then certainly not at the forefront. Today, they are. And, along with countless American flags hanging from church rafters, bumper sticks handed out after church that proclaim "Bless God, America!" and right-wing Republican ideology served-up in heaping helpings in both live and televised sermons, this is where Baptist America finds itself today.
How that change took place is central to Craig Unger’s book. And it is of the utmost importance in understanding the political landscape of this country today.
Related posts:
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Charles R. Morris : The Sages
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes David Cole, Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes William Greider, Come Home America
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Matthew Kerbel, Netroots: Online Progressives and the Transformation of American Politics
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Paul Starobin, After America: Narratives for the Next Global Age





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Craig, John welcome to the Lake.
Welcome to the Lake, Craig!
Welcome, Craig! Hi, John, and everyone else!
Hello and welcome to FDL, Craig and John…
Welcome to FDL Craig & John
Thanks so much for being here today, John and Craig. We’re delighted to have you.
A warm welcome to Craig
Great to be here. Fire away.
Welcome, Craig and John! Sorry for the delay, but so glad you could make the time for the community.
As always, folks, please keep the conversation and question on topic of the book. Other discussion can continue in the thread below this one.
I found it almost surreal to see your book under attack in the Times for your well-founded Oedipal reading of the Bush père and frère relationship. This is the same newspaper that regularly runs Maureen Dowd’s Oedipal readings of the same relationship.
John, that is an amazing prefatory post!
Here’s a question: How is it that Cheney came to fight so indefatigably for the “Imperial Presidency”? Did he ever think that he would become President himself?
Great introduction to a spectacular book. Mr Unger, do you see the Huckabeast, unleashed after Iowa, ever being contained by the CorporateCons and the NeoCons this primary season? Or is this TheoCon victory an Iowa aberration, like Pat Robertson’s in 1988?
I agree. As I was reading it, this was exactly what was going through my head.
What I struggled with was trying to make sense of where things will head for the GOP in the next year. Reading about the grooming of Bush 43 pre-2001 makes me wonder who the Cheney-Addington folks are looking at in 2008. The evangelicals are the most obvious in their preferences (Dobson slamming Rudy, for instance), but what about the neo-cons? They’ve been pushing back against Huckabee (see Novak, for instance), but where are they placing their bets? I don’t see Cheney & Co. riding off quietly into the sunset on Jan 21, 2009. Any guesses who he’d like to see in the White House next?
You expected consistency in The Times? Actually, it doesn’t bother me that they speak with many different voices. More to the point, there are deep tensions between Bush 41 and Bush 43. I had written critically about Bush 41 for more than 15 years, and, as a result, had been persona non grata in his camp for many years. But sources close to him began talking to me last year and think that is one measure of how deeply distraught they are about the policies of Bush 43
I think it is too early to call the Republican nomination, but I think Huckabee’s ascendancy shows the degree to which the Republicans need the machinery of the Christian Right.
Craig, thank you so much for being here today. And John, as always, it’s good to see you as well. It is a fantastic book — well-documented and laid out in a logical, methodical fashion.
As I was reading it, I kept wondering how many reporters tell you privately what they learn from the book or how something was shocking and/or intriguing. And then how often you later read or see their reporting only to have them gloss over whatever point they discussed with you from the book?
I don’t need names, btw, although if you want to dish, feel free…but just in general terms. So often when we were in DC covering the Libby trial, I had that experience talking legal intricacies with reporters only to see them completely blow the description in print or on air. Beyond irritating…
Thanks also for the copious footnotes, which should well insulate your work from criticisms similar to the Times’.
this book sounds not only like must reading, but a must for history to recognize. Because if what has happened to America, to the world is not well documents and written about, then future generations will be left to wonder how this all hapenned.
Question: I have been trying to fit Bill Clinton into the Bush dynasty and why he would make friends there, or why they even return the favor. Does Bill’s education, even though from a different class, mean he has the secret password?
I cannot connect, in terms of the moving wheels of the neocon ideals and Bush dynasty, where Bill Clinton fits in and why they would become friends.
Is there some connection I am not seeing?
“I had written critically about Bush 41 for more than 15 years, and, as a result, had been persona non grata in his camp for many years. But sources close to him began talking to me last year and think that is one measure of how deeply distraught they are about the policies of Bush 43.”
Indeed, to the extent that the heroes of this book, as such, are the old school Realists of Bush 41.
I guess I see the GOP today as a creature of the alliance between the Christian Right and the neocons. Obviously, the neocons would love Giuliani but he’s sinking fast. In any case, they will try to attach themselves to any Republican who wins the nomination.
i’ve also done a bit of research on this family and the people who surround. what or who could make them fall. is there a smedley butler in the wings? will someone from the inner circle come forward? or will they just continue to implode on themselves?
Thanks. As you can imagine, it is astoundingly frustrating to write a book annotated with 1,500 source notes–none of which have been challenged– and then to have the Times say it is poorly sourced…
Craig — That sources close to 41 started talking at all is enormous, given how ruthlessly they enforce loyalty in that crowd. I noticed that as soon as the national security crowd started grumbling in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq that the usual “cone of silence” requirements suddenly stopped applying.
Craig, Thanks for being here today. Enjoyed your House of Bush House of Saud tome and my copy is making the rounds among friends.
In terms of the political future of the Bushes, how will the current problems with FL’s money mkt fund losses and Jeb’s relationship with Lehman Bros. affect his future?
These people cannot seem to stay away from bad business deals and conflicts of interest.
I have always assumed that Bill Clinton’s friendship with the elder Bush is a tactic to disarm the Bushes (and the right) in terms of Hillary’s campaign.
How is it that Cheney came to fight so indefatigably for the “Imperial Presidency”? Did he ever think that he would become President himself?
Sounds like a GREAT book. I am very interested in the insider truth of the Bush presidency. We got an earful from O’Neil in his book. Do you think there are insiders who will tell all when this mess is over?
Having read this book twice through, I am still astonished by the Times review. It’s as though we had read two entirely different books.
Nixon
For the most part, I think the Bushes have run their course–God knows, the country seems to have Bush fatigue. But the larger point of the book is that two historic forces came together under Bush 43–the neocons and the Christian Right–and they are very much alive.
Right now, as the prinmaries get underway and Obama fever sweeps the country, I think America is getting lost in the illusion that once Bush is out, this nightmare will end. But my larger pt in the book is that the neocons and the Christian Right are extraordinarily powerful forces that have deep roots in American history. Sadly, they will be around for a long time to come. I think the unspoken issue, on the Democratic side at least, is which candidate is best equipped to fight them.
Craig, let me add my kudos for your courage to speak the truth.
Question: How would you explain/characterize the current lack of support for thorough inquiry and impeachment among dems in the house? Any insights on this when there seems to be so much public support for holding these guys accountable? Has the Repub reign so cowed them? or have they all sold out?
I understand that he began this project when he was in the Nixon White House. I am wondering about his personal motivations for aggrandizing the executive at the expense of the other two branches.
and there’s so much more in the footnotes, just the listings of who’s where getting Wingnut welfare is astonishing (from the footnote on page 60.)
I always wondered how much of Bush 43’s hostility towards Joe Wilson came from Brent Scowcroft’s decision to take Wilson’s October, 2002 article from the San Jose Mercury News opposing the idea of war in Iraq down to the White House and swat Junior over the nose with it.
The conflict between 41 and 43 is decidedly Oedipal, and how stupid that only Maureen Dowd gets to talk about it.
Craig — this morning I pulled a quote from the middle of the book regarding the return of so many of the neocon criminals from the Iran-Contra days in the Reagan Administration: Ledeen, Poindexter, Abrams…and their patron, Dick Cheney. How is it that these people keep getting recycled within the Beltway, given their penchant for spectacularly exploding failures?
You included this Bill Kristol quote,
Seems to me one could substitute “Chicago school disaster capitalist economists” for “religious people” very easily. Or “Former trotksyist neo-conservatives.” But his next sentence, as you quoted on page 150, was very rich, given who’s going to need to be accommodated now:
Aren’t the TheoCons in the driver’s seat doing the accommodating now?
Craig -
Quoting from John’s post -
What do you think were the purposes of the neoconservatives’ Middle Eastern adventures?
I love the details that you use to fill in the broad outline of the story we all know. The footnotes alone are a great read. It’s a great reminder of the overarching power of the human condition to screw up the best laid plans, with good intentions.
I’m struck anew by how a relative handful of charismatic individuals are behind the hard right turn we’ve taken, and how they’ve managed to persuade so many others to tag along. The ties that bind these guys, in politics and religion, are deep and strong – Falwell, Robertson, the old gang, and Hagee and others, the new one. Will the splintering Republican alliances make them pull back again? Will Huckabee keep them churning forward?
So, what the heck happened to the vaunted Liberal Machine that inspired Weyrich and his friends to replicate and surpass it with one of their own?
They *are* alive, and very much in conflict. I have real doubts as to whether they will be able to come together behind any likely GOP nominee.
You quote the Israeli counterintelligence officer (Fhantich) as saying, ‘Relgion is the most powerful gun of all’.
You then show — in US, in Israel, in Arab nations — how some segments of the population place their religious laws above secular (state) law.
Your book offered the most insightful description of this dynamic that I’ve encountered. You provide some convincing evidence to show that the tensions between secular laws and religious laws (Biblical law, Rabbinical Law, Sharia) lie at the heart of many current events.
Do you feel this dynamic is continuing to build, both in US and in ME?
Splendid book!
In the book, I trace Cheney’s view of the imperial presidency back to Watergate which he saw as a liberal plot to curtail the powers of the executive branch. I write at some length about Cheney and Rumsfeld in the administration of Gerald Ford, and their machinations to redress these grievances. You also see the neocons hard at work during this period, distorting intel through Team B, and undermining the CIA. All of which prefigures the neocon machinations and Cheney’s in the Bush administration. I think understanding all this is essential to figuring out what the next president will face.
Mr. Unger, Your Book, House of Bush, House of Saud is on my coffee table in my reception area. If the public knew one fourth of Bushista corruption, nefarious relationships and back-room dealings you discuss in that book, Dubya would never have gotten anywhere close enough to steal the 2000 election. Further, Poppy would have never been elected either. Yours is a voice in the wilderness. I loved that book and I can’t wait to read this one. Thanks. You are a great writer. Your writing style is smooth and you keep things interesting. I am not worthy. : )
Me, too. I’ve always wondered if Scowcroft went down there with Joe’s article at Poppy’s behest…and said so.
Did the thawing of Bush 41 folks towards you happen at the same time the Iran-Contra steaming turd was rejected?
Hey, Congress is looking into steroid use in baseball. You want more than that?
More seriously, I wish I had the answer. I can’t defend the weakness of the Democrats in Congress. But I do think to some extent they are haunted by the specter of Max Cleland. After all, he was a triple amputee war hero who stood up against the war in Iraq, and they managed to conflate him with Obama and Osama–ruining his political career.
I’ve read their policy papers in some depth and I think there are two reasons behind their policies– regional security(Israel) and strategic resources(oil).
I think liberal hawks got carried away with the rhetoric about democratizing the Middle East and the fact that Saddam was right out of central casting as a villain made that easy. But in the end, the neocon vision is really about strategic domination of the Middle East.
It’s not just the relationship between 41 & 43 that is so fraught.
The background is littered with small-town sinners and True Believers, former pornographers and current pedophiles, who rail against a culture of “permissiveness” they are powerless to resist.
Craig, What do you make of Our Huck? We know from your book that W and his fellow co-religionists spoke what was, in effect, a coded language in public that was designed to cloak their real goals. Is Huckabee engaging in this same wink-and-a-nod game, do you think?
in 1933 prescott bush and a group of fascists (major corporations) plotted a take over using the military. butler stepped up and exposed them. do you think the american public can handle the deep corruption connecting prominent democrats and republicans even if it comes to the light?
Thanks, that’s what I meant!
Mr. Unger you mentioned that the corporatists could be leaving the republican party and I have believe that the money pouring into the dem cofers is just that — corporate money. And that Bill and Hillary thought they could take the corporate approval and run with it, like Bill did in 2000. But they forget how badly Bush has messed up everything.
Could the win of Bill Clinton in 2000 have really been the finally spark that set their plan in motion to overcome the federal government and take it over? Because that is what the neocons have done.
To your knowledge have 41 and 43 ever had a heart to heart over Iraq?
If not, do you have an explanation for this father and son failing to discuss this matter?
True, there are certainly real fissures and contradictions. But I think we are in a very fluid, very dynamic situation. A serious threat(another terrorist attack, Islamists get the nuclear bomb in Pakistan) can change the dynamics radically.
OK, thank you. And I’m out on a limb here… but do ou thnk there’s any truth to rumors that the dems and even repubs in congress are being held hostage by scandalous sex exploits that folks like Abramoff engineered? sorry if this rumor is …well.. beneath your consideration. I just wonder sometimes what could possible cow them so.
I have a question about the 26 percenters who will support Bush no matter what. Is this mostly the religious Right? If so, how is it that they can do this? I mean Bush has pretty thoroughly betrayed them with the most corrupt Administration in our history. He has done nothing for their agenda. When was the last time anyone talked seriously about the Office of Faith Based Initiatives? And he has stuck it to them on economic issues. Now I can understand why they would like Huckabee. He is one of their own. But if the 26 percenters can abandon the Wall Street/neocon sides of the party, how come they can’t quit Bush?
My second question is about Kristol and the NYT. Pinch Sulzberger, Bill Keller, and Andrew Rosenthal love them some neocons. It is the only way to explain why they keep Michael Gordon and make the op-ed pages freely available to any neocon able to lift a crayon. But even they have to realize that the neocons are toast at least for now. So why do they continue to give them sanctuary? It is as if the dead tree media want to make it to oblivion as fast as possible. It would appear that even at the Times (and similar to the religious Right) ideology trumps economics.
Do you think that non-insane people who have been staunch Republican voters are starting to become convinced that “the GOP Triangular Trade, in which Southern evangelicals provide the votes for a party financed by and run on behalf of Wall Street and with policies devised by a gang of New York intellectuals and scribblers” really just reflects the practical banruptcy of “conservative” ideology? Or, conversely, do you think that they are convinced that “conservative” ideology is just fine, if only it were implemented better?
Aw shucks. But frankly I’d like not to be so alone in this wilderness…
Certainly this administration has been unmatched in unshirted, raw, and illegal power. They make LBJ/Kennedy/Clinton look like amateurs. Starting with the master, genial Baker in Florida and then the Court in the Gore decision. That said, I do wonder if the extent of the abuses (torture/destroying evidence/not complying with subpoena) in itself can become a warning and cautionary tale. I do not recall this level of both abuse and outrage.
You said a mouthful there. Pablum for the rubes – They do whatever they damn well please – morally justified or not.
Oh Huckabee’s scrap with Limbaugh is loaded in code. It has less to do with policy and more to do with a way of communicating to members of his community, however. Quite tribal.
I can’t predict the future. All I can say is these are very fluid, dynamic times. If there is another terrorist attack, or if oil needs become so great, the dynamic can change radically and quickly. And religion (and neocon equivalent– a patriotic romantic nationalism) will become a powerful force bringing the right together again.
We see the religious right dealing with various contradictions now–there are environmentalist evangelicals, liberals like Jim Wallis. But they still have about 80 million adult evangelicals and 200,000 pastors who can operate like precinct captains come election time.
why didn’t bill clinton investigate iran contra? therein lies the rub.
No, the thawing happened just last summer. There are wonderful people in the State Dept, etc, who are incredibly frustrated and have been doing everything they can to stop Bush.
Obviously, a lot of critics like to see what I write in partisan terms but the fact is the hero of the book is Brent Scowcroft and a lot of my sources were life long republicans who are fed up and feel betrayed by how the neocons hijacked the party.
Is Chuck Norris part of the code? Does he mean something to the evangelical home-schoolers or the 26 percenters? He doesn’t seem to be anywhere but in-frame with Huck.
Mr Unger, do you see the Huckabee campaign as unmooring the evangelicals from their leaders? I wonder if the people are doubting the men at the top of their pyramid — so many of them seem to have selected candidates that must be difficult for the peeps to understand.
Oh, but according to NeoCon orthodoxy, the failures were never theirs.
The failure might have been Bush 41’s for not finishing the job in Iraq, or the media for stirring up trouble and thwarting true american heroes like Ollie North, or Congress for getting in the way, or . . . well, just about anyone else except for them.
Its a good question and I really don’t know the answer. I think he may have been making a bet that they would lay off him if he layed off them. In which case, he bet wrong.
Jane, I’m fascinated by the fear that Huckabee instills in the Club for Growth crowd–embodied by the Wall Street Journal edit board and their assorted minions. For reasons I can’t entirely divine, they are scared shitless of Huck-Huck-Huckabee. I’ve always said that the Wall Street Republicans (the Club for Growth crowd) would only make peace with McCain if they absolutely thought that they had to. I think that moment has probably come.
Fred never got out of the gate, Rudy is in free-fall and Willard is just an empty suit. That leaves . . . Big John.
Bush 41 and 43 never really talked policy to my knowledge. Everyone seems to agree on that. On some level, it seems like one of those emotionally constipated father-son relationships. In addition, Bush 43 really disagreed with his father over going after Saddam.
They’ve got the Catholics working for them too. I rec’d a congressional “questionaire” intended to help members choose candidates that would not support legislation that would destroy a human embryo.
No Chuck Norris is just dumb enough to get up in front of Huckabee’s supporters and say that as a rich guy, he thinks he should pay more taxes (very Elvis-like, a Southern legend) so he supports Huckabee’s FairTax plan. Like he’s some kind of great populist. I don’t think he’s being disingenuous, I think he’s just too stupid to know that makes no sense.
The UK’s Daily Telegraph did side by side stories on the top 100 US conservatives and liberals. Here’s what they said about Chuck Norris, who came in at number 71:
Emphasis added, for those who don’t hear the dog whistle.
No, Chuck’s a true believer. See my 71.
(One of these days, I’ve got to try to find more on this . . .)
It’s fascinating too to see the WSJ edit pages inching away from W. Memorably there was the editorial entitled, “Pinata Gonzales.” And they’ve certainly been beating The Decider up over Korea; not to mention his failure to “support the troops” by not invading Iran.
What do you think, Craig? When it’s all said and done, and W comes out of this universally derided as the Worst President in History, will the WSJ put him to the wolves? As in, if only had listened to John Bolton and Wolfie . . . .
I don’t put it past them.
I think is something that many progressives kind of hang our hats on when we start to get overwhelmingly pessimistic about where we’re headed. Do you have a sense for whether, and to what extent, this is also true at the Department of Justice?
The neocons enmeshed us in expensive wars we can’t win.
Wall Street got everything it wanted and has managed to push us to the edge of recession.
The relgious Right, as I said above, sanctioned the most corrupt Presidency in our history.
All of the pillars of the Republican party have failed. There is no group that can turn to another or assert leadership. They are like rats fighting it out with each other for the last scrap of garbage. But I agree none of them are going away. In 4 years maybe 8 all of them will be back with the same failed policies. The faces will be the same. Only the terminology will be different. That is why it is so important to use the memory of the internet to make sure that next time we don’t allow them to sneak back into power but nail them early and often with their past histories and failures.
Do you get the sense that the narrative is that Bush embodied a bankrupt ideological framework, or just that he enacted it wrong?
In response to Hugh, one of the mistakes secularists (their term) make is they apply reason to the the faith-based Christian Right. I interviewed many evangelicals and I realized their support for Bush is based on the fact that they share belief systems. In the Sixties and Seventies, if you had long hair, listened to Bob Dylan and, god forbid, inhaled, chances were a hundred to one you would not vote for Nixon. The Christian Right has its belief system and they want one of their own in office.
And by the way, I think Bush has done more for their agenda than you realize–look at the judiciary. Those judges are going to be around for a long, long time.
As for your second question, I frankly disagree. Alas, I think the neocons are going to be around for a long, long time. Within the Times as an institution, I would trace their power back to when William Safire got his column in the Nixon era. Even though his column is gone, his power lingers on. Americans don’t like to think about ideology and that ideologues can dominate the press, but the neocons have consolidated their power in the media more than ever and are stronger thane very before.
From Hugh:
I have a question about the 26 percenters who will support Bush no matter what. Is this mostly the religious Right? If so, how is it that they can do this? I mean Bush has pretty thoroughly betrayed them with the most corrupt Administration in our history. He has done nothing for their agenda. When was the last time anyone talked seriously about the Office of Faith Based Initiatives? And he has stuck it to them on economic issues. Now I can understand why they would like Huckabee. He is one of their own. But if the 26 percenters can abandon the Wall Street/neocon sides of the party, how come they can’t quit Bush?
My second question is about Kristol and the NYT. Pinch Sulzberger, Bill Keller, and Andrew Rosenthal love them some neocons. It is the only way to explain why they keep Michael Gordon and make the op-ed pages freely available to any neocon able to lift a crayon. But even they have to realize that the neocons are toast at least for now. So why do they continue to give them sanctuary? It is as if the dead tree media want to make it to oblivion as fast as possible. It would appear that even at the Times (and similar to the religious Right) ideology trumps economics.
One of the most reassuring aspects of your book, Craig, is the presence of people like Scowcroft and Pat Lang, the former Defense Intelligence Agency expert on the Middle East. We sometimes forget that there are good folks on the other side of the aisle. Conservative constitutionalists, one might say.
Mr Unger, you mentioned the dead Bush baby sister once, I believe, in the context of 43’s stubbornness about stem cells. Kitty Kelley digs deeper into the absent parenting of W as OldBar and the future 41 dealt with their grief in any way they could that didn’t involve their surviving son.
Do you care to speculate on the deep-seated nature of the alienation of affection between 41 & 43? Do you imagine it could stem from issues of abandonment 43 rightly feels from childhood as well as Poppy’s overshadowing achievements?
Also, do you think 43 thought he could get away with his hijinks in the Texas Air National Guard because 41’s heroism story was, perhaps only en famille, tainted as well?
Do you have a sense that Dubya has been close to his mother, but not his father and that Babs was perhaps the driving force in the family. Babs seems to have benefited from a formal education. In your opinion, has Dubya demonstrated having had any higher education?
kinda shifting gears here, but will Prince Bandar’s legal troubles for allegedly taking a billion in bribes from BAE in the UK reach the Bush Family?
I think the Club for Growth is scared shitless because when the Clampetts move in the whole structure of power and privelege change. I doubt they’re as worried about the economic policies Huck might implement as they are by loosing leverage and relevancy.
the more i read, the more i think they were connected. there are forensic economists around the world connecting the dots. inside this web lie the names all the major players of this country. it’s overwelming to see and hear intellectuals outside of this country put the financial puzzle together.
A thing that always amazed about that decision was that my Step Father, a CO in WWII in a CCC camp, was furious at Bush I for not pursuing Saddam. That event has always made me pause and look at things from various perspectives.
Clearly the neocons are fundamentally loyal to their ideology more than Bush. Famously, in Vanity Fair, they blamed Rumsfeld, Bush, etc for poor execution, and the liberal hawks have joined in.
Obviously, I think what is wrong here is the neocon vision itself– and that’s why I want their history to be out there for the next election. It is remarkable they way they can go into hiding and escape blame for this disaster.
Well, this is the question. Obviously, I think the whole neocon ideology is horrifying. But I think the press at large is trying to make it seem as if it was just a matter of bad execution.
I doubt it.
The neocons escape accountability and go into hiding because Democrats elect “bygones” Presidents.
Which we much not do in 2008.
Investigate
Indict
Convict
Imprison
240 federal trial and appellate judges to be exact. And they had plenty of help from a complicit, spineless Democratic Congress with some of those judicial confirmations, although many of them before 2006 got out of Judiciary on a party line vote 10-9. But Roberts didn’t. He got through SJC with only 5 Democrats oposing him, which was a collosal mistake. There though, Republicans had the 10-9 majority on the SJC.
I’m late to this, but I would really appreciate comments from Mr. Unger on what to me has evolved into a spineless 110th Congress, where the Democrats vote after vote after vote, seem to facilitate whatever Addington, Cheney, Fielding, Gillespie now, and Bush as advised by them want. Harry Reid’s pushing Telco immunity is one example in S. 2248 in a couple weeks.
Thanks very much for writing an informative book.
this would make the lot of them quite,,, well… mad, wouldn’t it?
what would the Age of Reason founders thnk?
I come from a Catholic background which, according to some evangelicals, means I’m not Christian. Can you tell me if I have this bit of evangelical doctrine right: You don’t have to be a good person, do good works, as long as you accept Jesus as your personal savior?
If I understand it correctly, that explains a lot, right there.
It’s a replay of Vietnam. It was all someone else’s fault. If only Johnson and McNamara had stuck by their guns, if only the South Vietnamese leadership hadn’t been so weak, if only the lefties hadn’t stabbed The Boys in the back, if only, if only, if only.
I couldn’t agree more: These folks are going to go back into their well-cushioned lairs, collect their checks, turn out position papers, and wait for the morrow.
What I find so unforgivable about the Times’ hiring Kristol is that they’re abetting the scheme. And that’s exactly what it is too: A conspiratorial scheme.
In your book you raise questions concern the timing of W.’s rebirth as a Christian?
Do you have any questions concerning the sincerity of his rebirth?
Beyond the judiciary appointments, I think the TheoCons like much of the anti-science policies that Bush has set up. His stem-cell research policies, the no-condom approach to overseas AIDS funding, “abstience-only” sex education, etc.
This often worked because of the corporateCons who also had beefs with science, and didn’t want any pesky facts to get in the way of their moneymaking (energy industry and global warming comes to mind, as does the EPAs recent decision to deny CAs request for stricter standards on regulating greenhouse gases).
I don’t do much pop psychology, but clearly W. was NOT the favorite son and people close to the family told me he was desperate to win his father’s approval and surpass him–win a second term, take Baghdad, etc. As for his father’s phony heroics, I suspect W. did not see them as phony.
Craig, Do you have some upcoming appearances on Book TV or other venues you can tell us about? You are great on TV, too, by the way!
Of course they are. Otherwise the media would have to admit that crazy people are running the country, and they’d never noticed before. Must better to stay quiet and hope it all goes away. Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, and all that.
I think he is probably sincere. But I think one can also be a genuine evangelical and still lie or distort the truth.
Mr. Unger,
Loved your Salon articles that made up the premises of sections of the book under discussion. Thanks!
Philip Weiss is reporting about the growing ranks of Jewish intellectuals who are balking at continuing to support the neo-con and ultra-Zionist modality. Partially – among conservative and moderate Jews – because Bush’s neo-con agenda has failed so miserably; and partly – among liberal Jews who support Israel – because of their discomfort with continuing human rights violations by the IDF in Palestine, and by our armed forces in the Middle East.
Is there similar pushback against the idiocy of the Bush version of governing from segments in the Fundamentalist/Evangelical bloc, and from the Wall Street bloc?
Most evangelicals do not believe that infant baptism is legitimate — only “believers’ baptism.” That is, you have to be mature enough to choose it for yourself. Thus, if you were not baptized as an adult, you aren’t a Christian in their eyes. You might be good, nice, and do good nice things for others, but you didn’t get baptized the right way — so you’re not Christian.
Thanks. Nothing is scheduled now, but you can check my website(www.craigunger.com) and (if I update it..) I’ll try to keep people informed. Also, you can find me on Facebook, where I try to alert people….
Fortunately, my sense is that science/technical/biomedical agencies in the executive branch have been less corrupted by dismissal of expert career civil servants and appointment of right-wing political hackfucks at the operational level than other agencies. I know for a fact that this is true at the National Institutes of Health. So if we get a non-insane President who understands that ideology and wishful thinking cannot determine the actual nature of reality, we can get back to functional government in this areas pretty quickly.
Unfortunately, I get the sense that this is not so true for agencies dealing with social, economic, and geopolitical issues.
Fundamentalists and evangelicals, for the most part, are NOT pushing back against Bush’s Middle East policy precisely because Christian Zionism– the notion that Biblical prophecy says the Jews must retake the Promised Land before Christ can return– is at the heart of their theology.
Wall Street Republicans, obviously, are less tied to theology, but I can’t really answer your question. I think the coming recession won’t make them terribly happy.
So. nothing on the washington sex scandal hold dems hostage thing? You haven’t heard anything at all about this in DC? My lawyer pal with friends on the Hill sez it’s true. Scary, that if so. Anything?
Greetings Craig. Thank you for your research and examination of the two most influential groups controlling our government – NeoCons and the religious right. There are similarities between them. Both fanatically believe they know what is best for the rest of the world, including us. I find both the NeoCons and religious groups are both cults. There is no way the NeoCons nor the religious right can see the flaw and sinister component of their intolerant views. Both view others with contempt and demand obedience. That sums up CULT to me.
If you would ask me which is most dangerous I would have to say the propensity for destruction is about equal. Both are driven by some deep seeded self-destructive force. Both are negative and pessimistic.
I don’t think that Bush and the religious Right to share value systems, unless both of them espouse corruption and criminality. As for the judiciary, in particular the Supremes, the majority is Catholic and conservative, not evangelical. Now this doesn’t make a whole lot of difference to me, but I think it does to Baptists.
As for the second point, I agree the neocons will be around a long time. The MSM as represented by the Times, I am not so sure about.
Thx for earlier response.
P. 146, you mention that the evangelicals were deeply opposed to peace in ME (b/c of the ‘Abramahic Coventant’ w/ the Jewish people for that land).
Fascinating to me that this remains so territorial.
Do you see any signs or comments that the evangelicals will shift on this view…?
I would think this view gives Wall St and the Bush41 group heebie jeebies. Did they ever discuss it with you?
Do these people truly believe this at a level of gut appreciation of factual reality?
If Huckabee is the nominee and gets punished in November, what effect do you think that will have on the evangelical vote?
And do you think the neocon/evangelist end times theories dovetail… to a point then crash and burn? (But they ignore that for now)
Great minds think alike… ;-)
Cross commented.
The Stab-in-the-Back is a wonderful theme that has hauled out again and again since it was used in the Weimar Republic (the dolchestosselegende, if my non existent German is right.) Harper’s Magazine has a couple of good articles on this and I think we might expect it to return in one form or another. For the time being, the Iran NIE has seemingly taken the idea of going to war with Iran off the table. But don’t be surprised if a new threat materializes before the election.
the coming recession…..
Heh. That’s a charitable description of our economy.
Craig, Could you talk a bit about the Rapture and the centrality of this to the Falwellians and their ilk?
This is, ironically, the ground where the neocons and the good people of Mayberry come together.
Seems to me they’ve tried the “Iranian weapons are killing American troops” argument, and they’ve tried the “imminent Iranian nukular threat” argument. All that’s left is a “Gulf of Tonkin” argument, which shouldn’t be too troublesome to whip up in a hurry next summer, do you think?
The real Fundamentalists will never change on this. Its in the Bible and they believe in Biblical inerrancy. That’s why, in the book, I say that we have reframe the entire debate about US policy in the Middle East. It is not a matter of Islam vs the West so much as Fundamentalists(Christian and Jews as well) vs. a modern, post-Enlightenment world– and the Bush administration is on the wrong side of the debate.
The Bush 41 people did discuss it with me and they were completely pissed off about Bush 43. It is extraordinary to talk to some of the people in the State Dept–they are the most measured, prudent people in the world– and to go back to the same people ten or fifteen times and by the end of my discussion you could tell they were apoplectic. These are people who are dyed in the wool Republicans(at least some of them are) but they felt compltely betrayed by Bush and the neocons.
and here’s the rub for the jews who support the evagelicals. after the jews take the promised land, jesus comes back and only takes the saved to heaven with him. Jews, not so much unless they convert. that part has always made me thnk the jews think an alliance with evagelicals will somehow work out in their favor anyway, despite prophecy. ahhhhh maybe its cause the neocons will see to it that AFP takes care of the evangels so then jesus will see which side his bread’s buttered on.
Craig, do you believe that the Neocon/Wall Street Repubs will throw some wrenches in Huckabee’s gears if it looks like Huck may win the nomination? There are some Huck scandals that can be exposed, expanded and disseminated to the masses. They do own the media after all.
Excellent question!
One of the basic tenets of fundamentalist thnking of any ilk is the Us-vs,-them mindset. To this extent all fundmentalists find common ground with each other until all they have left to defend against is other fundamentalists, then the sh8t hits the fan.
I am thinking that the Jews allying with evangelicals don’t think Jesus is coming.
Hi Craig
My son crashed the computer just as I was about to butt in earlier. Sorry I have been busy reading other books for review, so not got round to yours yet, but I wonder from the comments if we are underemphasizing a major factor in the GOP coalition. The NeoCons get to play with foreign policy in return for conceding the “moral” mostly domestic agenda to the Evangelists, but the money for the project, as suggested earlier comes from a hard core of oldstyle rabid anti-New Dealers. It is not just the Scaifes even if they are funding what passes for the intellectual power houses of the right, but the overall “Captains of Industry.” One of the books I have just reviewed is Bob Monks “Corpocracy,” which points out how the Business Roundtable with its membership of CEO’s has suborned governments and institutions to undermine both corporate governance and government in the larger sense. these are the Old Conservatives, who seem happy to see the NeoCons parading on stage for them.
The result is vaulting CEO remuneration, dodgy deals with accounts, sub-prime mortgages and so on.
Of course the problem is that, apart from Bernie Sanders and a few others, most of the Dems are suckling from the same corporate teat, and so have not been forthright in tackling this crucial issue of robber barons looting the economy. Not does it help that so many leading Democrats buy into the NeoCon foreign agenda as laid down by Scoop Jackson.
So the Dems fudge on their strongest foreign policy issue, the Iraq War, and don’t even go into the ring on their best domestic issue, the declining wealth and security of most Americans in face of looting on a millennial scale.
To some extent the GOP Coalition is breaking down, with even people in Kansas asking why… but their answer is Ron Paul, which could be even spookier.
I debated Paul ten years ago about the UN — he was charming, pleasant, and totally inconsistent apart from a Know Nothing isolationism. Can he pull more votes from middle and working class dems based on his opposition to the establishment that the official dems are so busily courting
I think they’re already doing it.
AFP = ?
It started with the “loss of China” Luce and the other old China hands used it to hammer Truman while Mac Arthur did his best to put us in a position to nuke the shit out of them. Then came “die for a tie” in Korea with Vietnam shortly to follow.
BTW: Isn’t that something else the neocons and Bush and the religious right all had in common: That they often spoke in code?
you’re right. both groups are using the other’s belief system against them while posing as allies. As Eddie Izzard sez: How weird is that?
sorry, American Foreign Policy
Not to beat the relgious Right angle into the ground but my perception was that they wanted religion to be up front and part of the everyday business of government. Vetoing stem cell bills is nice but they were hoping for overturning Roe, not nipping at it. They wanted to ban gay marriage and maybe gays, not just have a few cosmetic votes on the subject. And they wanted money which the Office of Faith Based Initiatives rather spectacularly failed to deliver. Even on the Israel angle, Bush has been mostly indifferent. Yes, he has backed Israel but so have most Presidents of either party for the last 40 years.
Hickabee strikes me as a guy who doesn’t have any policy priorities that would prevent him from cutting a deal with the neocons or $$-cons. But he can’t walk away from the theology. My impression is that the Republican Powers that Be don’t think he can win in Novenber. Is this a reasonable guess?
Everyone speaks in code.
Ian — Was just looking at a blurb on Corpocracy the other day and wondering about it. May have to pick it up. Sounds as though it would tell a lot of the flip side perspective of Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine — interesting stuff to dig into. Thanks for your take on it…appreciate it.
Ah, the Rapture. One of my finest moments reporting was going undercover with the Tim LaHaye and his crowd(I passed for goy) and traveling to Megiddo, Israel(aka Armageddon) where the Final Conflict is to take place.
It’s kind of hard to explain it in depth in one of these short missives, but the Rapture is where those who are born again will be “raptured” up to Heaven just before the Final Conflict takes place.
Actually, what brings the Christian Right together w/ the neocons really is their belief in Christian Zionism, the belief that Biblical prophecy has it that the Jews must retake Israel before Christ can return. (Amazingly, even though this is an extraordinarily powerful political force behind the Iraq War, I found it had NEVER appeared in the NY Times in the last 30 years.)
More specifically, in the book of Genesis, you have the Abrahamic Covenant, where God says to Abraham I give unto you and your seed forever more this land from the Nile to the Euphrates. If you believe in Biblical inerrancy, that’s the whole ballgame.
I happened to have this passage at my side the same day I read A Clean Break, one of the seminal neocon papers outlining their grandiose vision of remaking the Middle East, and I realized it was pretty much a secular version of the Abrahamic Covenant. The Israeli Right (starting with Menachem Begin) and the neocons realized it as well and that’s how the alliance took off.
so no answer to my sex on capitol hill question? i think this explains a lot about chickeny dems. nobody? Craig? You hear any rumors in DC?
then i’ll not bother anyone with this anymore….for now
Lest I forget to mention it, this book can be awfully funny: Catch the discussion on p. 88 regarding the full flowering of Christian product lines: “For married evangelicals with more adventurous tastes, there were Christian ‘intimacy products’ such as flavored Christian condoms . . . edible Christine underwear, and Christian ‘happy penis’ massage cream. An online intimacy store for Christians . . . even offered sex aids such as the ‘Screaming O’ Christian cock ring, a disposable vibrating ring for the penis designed to supply ‘dynamic stimulation to the clitoris,’ and the “Double Humm Dinger,’ with dual vibrating bullets designed to provide forty minutes of continual vibration.”
Did someone say sex??
I’m not sure we’ve seen accurate sums regarding all the Faith-Based cash flows. There’s offices in most cabinet departments and federal agencies now, in addition to the White House, all of which shovel tax money at churches. It’ll be nice to see an accounting, if we ever do. I think some of the fundies’ complacency over lack of concrete progress on Roe and teh gays has been purchased with money — and of course, judges at all levels.
Then one should take a good look at 9/11, since it so conveniently came along and enabled their policies to all fall into place….Just sayin’.
I think you are probably right. Pat Robertson was one of the first fundamentalists to really show how much power the Christian Right had, but he was far too overt to win either the nomination or the presidency. Bush 43 was perfect in that he could walk the walk, talk the talk,b ut he still had a name that was reassuring to Wall Street Republicans.
I sense that Huckabee is somewhat in the middle–closer to Robertson than Bush. After all, he was a Baptist preacher.
Well, you are a Texan! I failed to mention that my friend, Mr. Unger, hails from Big D. But then Harvard got in the way. Of course, Harvard did produce Bill Kristol.
YES! as a student of american foreign policy, my iranian prof never let go of this and he was right on. i see all AFP through this lens and have for ten years or more. it’s the only way to make sense of the senseless.
Right. Forty minutes. I’m reminded of the old blues songs about A Sixty Minute Man.
The economic angle is overlooked. Bush shoveled all this money into corporations and the rich. The result is an economy so shaky that even the Wall Street types can’t gloss it over. The rich will definitely stay rich but a lot of their investments are in danger of going kerblooey because neither they nor the Administration could do the math.
I keep coming around to the psychological underpinnings of all this madness (hat tip to Jane Hamsher, CHS, Pach, and Digby for more insightful analysis of this aspect of the problems with ‘tribal’ politics. I agree that they DO really believe these things, but your book helped me understand why the evangelicals get so nuts over the “LAND for peace” part of the equation. (That had mystified me previously.)
FWIW, your comment: These are people who are dyed in the wool Republicans(at least some of them are) but they felt compltely betrayed by Bush and the neocons.
Speaking as a West Coaster, I bought your book at an indy bookstore in an affluent suburb the week of Christmas. One of the employees said, “I have to put that book at the top of my list! I can’t believe how many copies we’ve sold this week — in hardcover!”
Presumably, many buyers were folks whose homes back up against the golf links. These are NOT traditional Dem households, and I don’t think they’d have purchased this book a year ago. I’m seeing — in a very, tiny small way — the phenonmenon you describe. (Finally!!)
I simply don’t think the national polls really get at the anecdotal, narrative layer of people’s worldviews. Your ability to do that is one of my favorite things about your book — I felt that I could really ‘hear conversations’ and that was a very rich aspect of the book for me. (Well, that plus the citations ;-)
Mr Anderson is quite correct — Mr Unger quite masters the snark.
sooo… one just googles ’screaming o” or what??
You failed to mention that I went to summer camp with President Bush at Camp Longhorn in 1959.
We were both elected Campfire Lighter of the Week.
That sounds like they are advocating post-enlightenment sexual mores for x-tians. Only for married hetero x-tians, of course. Everyone else who wants sex can burn in hell.
I TOLD you this was all about sex. this is the most hung up country on earth. homophobes reign in DC, and they’re all in the closet too.
jeesh
I went a little crazy with the googling at times. By that I mean, I realized that the evangelicals had mastered so many Madison avenue techniques that they had market niches for every evangelical imaginable. So I would google “evangelical church” with just about anything–skateboarding, Harley Davidson, heavy metal, etc– and I found an evangelical church for every taste.
I’m sure there’s even one for East Texas wine geeks.
Coming from the South and most of my family still living in the South, I receive all their e-mail messages trying to get me to see the Lord’s new path. Yes, he carries a sword and he will smite all of us down who are not true believers. The Jews are his chosen people and whatever the Jewish state does is with the Lord’s approval. The Lord says smite them down.
On inerrancy of the Bible, the religious right believes that any changes made by others in the rewriting of the Bible (new interpretation) may be different from the original but it is still without error because god would not allow an error in the Bible. This is the defense for the new beliefs being preached.
Dealing with this issue is the bane of my existence.
Where do people like Eric Prince, CEO of Halliburton, and from a evangelical family, and who is now cashing in fit in to the evangelical right and neocon world?
Sounds like George W’s type of election — two winners.
Ah, sex.As long as we are on the subject, the abstinence campaigns by evangelicals were not terribly successful. In Lubbock, Texas, for example, where there was a massive abstinence campaign, STDs went through the roof thanks to a huge increase in anal sex.
Don’t forget that Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine, Brother Unger.
Frankly, I don’t know that much about Erik Prince. But you do see serious attempts to bring evangelicals into the military. Mikey Weinstein knows a lot about this.
Don’t forget that Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine, Brother Unger.
Yes, some excellent snark between the covers, so to speak ;-)
Most of the money that went to the Office of Faith Based Initiatives for faith based groups was already available to them. David Kuo who worked there wrote a book on it. Most of it was a con. Something to be trotted out by Karl Rove when he wanted to appease the fundies.
I keep harping on this because i feel it is the key to unerstanding the madness…
These guys are neoCalvinists. That means if you’re poor, it’s cause you’re a sinner, If you’re rick, no matter how you got there, you’re blessed by god.
that’s why there’s no guilt with thievery. God gave you the brains to steal and get away with it. Read Calvin and it allcomes clear. Distortion, true, but that’s what crazy people do. And these folks are really mad as hatters.
How much of the religious right currently in power is about Dominionism, specifically? The stealth nature of their campaign scares me, frankly. Everyone denies they want that, publicly, but the code says something else. It’s OK to lie in the service of their ideal.
Do you remember him to be an incurious anti-intellectual fart-joke afficionado?
The Israeli Right (starting with Menachem Begin) and the neocons realized it as well and that’s how the alliance took off.
Ilan Pappe, the Israeli historian who has researched and written about the newly released papers in the Ben Gurion Library, finds evidence of Ben Gurion investigating this angle back in the Mandate days.
STDs went through the roof thanks to a huge increase in anal sex.
shall we ask ‘among whom’?
yeah, like they’d admit it.
I grew up as a Baptist in the piney woods of Nawth Louisiana, not far from East Texas. But a few years before Mr. Unger. In those days the Baptist church was tolerant to the point of blandness. The Bible was divinely inspired, of course, but everyone could sit down with it and decide what it meant for themselves. Evolution was OK, if a little suspect. They were big on separation of Church and State. Nobody talked about abortion. The horror was premarital sex, which was a big temption if you were “going steady”.
In response to the cultural wars of the 60’s, the doctrine of “inerrancy” came in. I don’t remember a word about Israel and the retaking of the Holy Land. There was an obscure controversy about “premillinealism” versus “postmilinealism”, but nobody took is seriously.
We’ve come a long way, baby.
Actually, the weird thing is that there came a point where the “preachers” and the whole idea that there is a “personal relationship with God”, became more evident (I noticed it in the late 60’s – Jesus Freaks)…if you choose him as your savior, you are automatically saved; the sense of belonging (a cult); the furthering of the Protestant rebellion of the Catholic Church, and then that which became more blatant and more mainstream, in my lifetime, was the idea of taking literally the words of the Bible and creating alarmist interpretations of it focusing on Revelations and the teachings of the Old Testament; calling on Jesus right and left but not teaching what Jesus “taught”, and manipulating large groups of people with it, from whom you’ve just conned into “tithing for God”….
The whole thing makes me sick.
Joining late without lurking. Hope I am not repeating earlier questions. Are you saying that the Bushs are going out of politics, no Jeb, no Jeb II the fluent Spanish speaker and who knows, perhaps a little Bushette, the Yalie one who studied history and did respectably, so I am told.
I am wondering because if there is a possibility of a brokered convention, tapping the reluctant Jeb, Southern. Catholic, Hispanic wife, with good fundy credential for his protection of Terry Sciavo’s right to live…and now at Lehman Bros, methink, but you know better. Of course the current freezing of state funds that were badly invested is mark of incompetence but it’s the cities of Florida, not Wall Street who are suffering. It’s unimaginable to us but to them it’s a solution, a kind of Hail Mary with a Hispanic vote twist on it.
Thanks. I grew up in Dallas surrounded by evangelicals, but, like many secularists(their term), if I saw a televangelist on TV, I’d turn the channel as quickly as possible.
Ultimately, one thing I tried to do was to listen to their world. I think the terms like red state-blue state and culture wars don’t really do justice to the cultural divide in this country. It really is like two separate nations on the same landmass. I thought I grew up in the country that sent a man to the moon, that unraveled the human genome, that invented the iPod. But it is also the Western country which most disputes evolution, that believes the world was created 6000 years ago, and that believes the world might end any minute now.
There is actually a phenomenon called “Texas virgins.” My daughter was a health educator after UG and was floored to learn about this way of “preserving” oneself.
God gave you the brains to steal and get away with it. Read Calvin and it allcomes clear.
Please. This is not even close to true.
A reference to proselytizing at the Air Force Academy.
Craig, John,
Thank you for coming to the Lake and spending time with us.
Well, to go even further back, it is shared iwth Christian Zionists in England in the early 20th century–David Lloyd George, Balfour, etc. In fact this alliance between secular Zionists(Theodore Herzl, Chaim Weizmann) in England, and Christian Zionists in the British govt(Lloyd George, Balfour, Mark Sykes of the Sykes-Picot agreement) prefigures the neocon-Christian Right alliance.
Not only was it not successful but when you attend the religious right’s churches and meet with the people who belong to them who oppose contraceptives for women, they themselves have one or two children. Many had one child. So, I asked why didn’t they have more children if they are opposed to contraceptives. Most of them said they didn’t know any better when they were young but now they do so they want to make certain to “save” other women from their error. How convenient!
It also tells me they want others do practice abstinence but they were’t about to do that themselves.
It is heir distortion of calvin, not calvin’s teachings themselves. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Jane – Your reference didn’t link to Joe Wilson’s Oct. 2002 article.
I found it on TruthOut though. It’s interesting, after reading it, just how belligerent Joe Wilson actually was. And although he doesn’t hint at all about whether his trip to Niger falsified one report of Saddam having nuclear ambitions, it’s clear he thought that Saddam likely had some WMD’s. He, as well as many others, swallowed the CIA’s Summary of the National Intelligence Estimate. Of course, Wilson couldn’t have known just how much the CIA data had been manipulated and stove-piped. That only emerged to Wilson’s mind when, in Bush’s 2003 SOU Address, his personal contribution to that web of intelligence was used (erroneously) as a principal element for the invasion. THEN he realized just how far the Administration was willing to go. That may have been amplified when the so-called “Niger Contracts” were demonstrated to be forgeries by the IAEA.
That’s when Joe Wilson became anti-Bush.
Where Wilson and Bush diverged was that Wilson suggested that we should not threaten Saddam’s regime with annihilation IF he allowed the inspections and destroyed any WMD capability. Bush kept insisting that Saddam step down. Wilson said that he wouldn’t and would fight back with everything he had. Which turned out to be be “not very much”…unless that meant a protracted guerilla war. But perhaps Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, knowing that they had utterly inflated Saddam’s WMD capacity, thought that the war would be a “cakewalk”.
Joe Wilson was not a “peacenik”, or even part of the anti-war camp until 2003. He was willing to go to war with Saddam. But he didn’t believe the essential threshold had been crossed. He advocated “tough diplomacy”…a sort of Reaganesque “peace through strength” and “negotiate, but verify” approach.
I think that scenario is highly unlikely. The Republicans have a weak field and one can find compelling reasons to disqualify each candidate, but I don’t think another Bush is in the cards.
True, but the Ben-Gurion papers pertain to his interest in American Christian Zionists, not British, IIRC. I’ve got Pappe’s book loaned out, so I’ve got to be careful about misquoting,
P. 349 Jeb Bush: Yo no tengo futuro.”
Further, they’ve infiltrated the military.
The right-wing think tanks have mastered SEO as well. It is difficult to find opposing policy views even in the EU on the web.
Would that it were so. There’ll be all kinds of re-writing history in the next four years, along the lines of “Who Lost Irak?” that will smooth the way to a restoration. Perhaps a young-un, not Jeb. But the House of Bush has, unfortunately, not fallen.
Thank you, Mr Unger and Mr Anderson, for this delightful afternoon!
Thank you both so much for being here today, Craig and John. We really appreciate your participation. What a great discussion.
Tahanks to hosts, author, and all!
Many thanks to you all for joining us. And thank you, Old Friend, for this wonderful, smart book.
Thank you Craig and John, was a great discussion.
Good question. All I can say is that they are quite brilliant as bureaucrats. One thing I bring up in the book is the degree to which many of them were once Trotskyists. (David Brooks criticizes anyone who does so as an anti-Semitic conspiracy nut, but….) My point is not that to red bait them or suggest a conspiracy but that many of them have real training in internecine, sectarian battles. They know how to purge their enemies. They know how to grease the wheels of a bureaucracy, or bring them to a halt when necessary. Look how Cheney and then neocons took over the national security apparatus. It was quite breathtaking to see them take over a $40 billion a year bureaucracy and twist it to their ideological ends.
In addition, institutions like the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson, Heritage, etc. and the right wing media give them enormous support. It is a powerful, well-funded ideological movement.
Many thanks to everybody!
Best,
Craig Unger
Thank you so much to Craig for being here and for this fantastic book. I’m going to be using bits and pieces of your exceptional research in this for quote a while, and I thank you for all the work that went into this. Also, thanks to much to John for the great intro today — wonderful stuff.
I highly recommend this read, folks.
I haven’t read the book yet, but I will shortly. A lot of progressives seem to feel the Bush 41 administration has just carried out long existing goals of the Bush familey. I’m glad to see that you explain the division between Bush 41 and Bush 43, which I thought apparent because of all the Bush 41 Admin. rationale for not occupying Iraq. Bush 41 delimma seems Shakespearean to me. Should a true patriot tell the nation that his idiot son is a terrible danger. I took Scowcroft’s editorials during the buildup to be something along that line. Are Scowcroft & Bush 41 still cordial to your knowledge|?
Also, I see too much made of the Bush $1 Clinton “friendship”. Do you think it is anything more than the formality of continued public service?
My thanks as well for an interesting discussion.
Scowcroft and Bush 41 are still quite cordial, I’m told. Which is precisely why I think it is clear there is a sharp division between father and son.
And I agree with you that too much is made of the Bush-Clinton relationship– though I would suggest it might help Hillary a bit.
Cinamonape–
That link didn’t work for me. But I think this links to Joe Wilson’s 2002 Speech: What I Didn’t Find in Africa
Mr. Unger–
Thanks for a book that sheds light in a lot of the places the media hasn’t, just as you have in your journalism career.
The Republicans are on stage now, asserting how Christy and how long (forever) they intend to keep the slaughter of Americans and Iraqis and loss of treasure going–at little personal cost to themselves.
McCain’s kid may go there–Romney’s sons are quintissential for American Chickenhawk offspring.
One interesting facet of the Democratic debate tonight on ABC:
There are only four and the format is better. Applause forbidden and they are encouraged to talk to each other–although we never really have classic debates–they’ll always be sound byte pushing.
Democrats debating tonight after Republicans:
Edwards
Obama
The Nation’s Newest Obama Girl Hillary Obama Girl Clinton–”I gotta findout if change was discussed at Wellsley–anybody got a dictionary—cause I’m Hillary Change Change Change Clinton. What does change mean?”
Richardson
The neocons and theocons play very different roles, of course. The neocons are essentially and intellectual vanguard that hopes to play the role of policymakers in each administration. But they’ve never really had electoral clout and don’t have it now–they simply attach themselves (or try to) to whichever candidate wins. They even cozied up to Clinton (James Woolsey got the CIA, you’ll recall.)
The theocons still have enormous electoral power. So even though most of the leading GOP candidates were NOT genuine evangelicals, they were forced to pander to them. As a result, we see almost comical alliances such as Giuliani and Pat Robertson.
Right. I loved the phrase “dog whistle politics,”– I used it as a chapter title. But it was coined by a Karl Rove colleague to talk about speaking in code.
I do. As I mentioned, a number of people close to Bush 41 started talking to me last summer. I suspect a whole lot of secrets will unravel once they are out of power.
Good question–but its the subject for another book–or several. In brief, organized labor has been disintegrating for the last thirty years. In addition, I think victories by the Left–in civil rights, gay rights, and feminism– have paradoxically robbed the Left of its passion. An important case in point is abortion. Roe v. Wade was a huge victory for feminists, but it ignited the passions of the religious right and became the most important event in politicizing the Christian Right.
Craig, if you are still here, are there any similarities bewtween House of B House of S and this new book? Does this book take off where the other ends, so to speak? How do you feel about House of B House of Saud in retrospect? I think it is a wonderful piece of work.
I have no idea. The neocons will want to get jobs with whoever wins the nomination, so if Huckabee looks like a winner, they may hitch their wagons to him…
This is sort of a sequel to House of Bush, House of Saud. In any case, the Iraq War was just starting as I finished HOBHOS, so I added a chapter on it. I’m pleased to say that I think it holds up quite well, but I realized I certainly did not get to the root causes of the war, and I think even though there have been many excellent books about the Iraq War, for the most part they don’t explain how and why we went there. It’s amazing how much they ignore the ideology of the neocons, their history, how they came together with the Christian Right.
In retrospect, I’m quite proud of both books. The first appears to have done better commercially, but I think this tackles more important historical themes.
I got nothing on this.
Thanks for taking the time to be @ FDL today, Craig. Late to the party- just finished reading the comments & will be ordering your book shortly from Amazon.
Just FYI, John Anderson & others on this thread, Pat Lang is a lifelong Democrat, albeit a somewhat conservative one.
I’m a relative, so know his politics very well.