Blogs and Stories

Lee Siegel

Who Made Frank Rich God?

Frank Rich Matt Carasela / Patrick McMullan After eight years of fulminating against the religious right, now Frank Rich tells us the culture wars are over. Lee Siegel on the Times columnist's sudden conversion.

The way the news cycle’s impatient dynamic fabricates its own news is, well, newsworthy. For example: Imagine that you’ve been bravely pounding your breast for the past eight years over the religious right’s brutal domination of American public life, and suddenly, 50 days into a new administration, you realize that the religious right has disappeared.

Just five years ago, in a typical outburst of alarm, Frank Rich saw Mel Gibson’s The Passion, came back home, and hysterically worried in a column that “America is 82 percent Christian, and 60 percent of the population believes the Bible is historical fact. (The Jewish population is 2 percent.)” These terrifying statistics, combined with the fatal catalyst of Gibson’s blockbuster, actually made Rich “feel less secure as a Jew in America than ever before.”

Rich exemplifies the smug liberal belief that behind every conservative belief is a nihilistic opportunism. In this view, all it takes to dispel the gloom of religious sentiment in public life is a burst of happy rationalist sunlight.

But now Rich has some great news: Everything has changed! It’s safe to be a Jew in Manhattan once again.

This past Sunday, Rich wrote a column in the New York Times titled “The Culture Warriors Get Laid Off.” For Rich, Obama’s election as president has radically changed the cultural climate. His proof? When George W. Bush received an intelligence briefing on August 6, 2001, with the subject heading, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” he ignored it, and instead delivered a major speech three days later condemning stem-cell research. What a contrast with today.

Now, Rich writes, “when Barack Obama ended the Bush stem-cell policy last week, there were no such overheated theatrics.” There was “no hysteria from politicians, the news media, or the public.” You see? Big difference. According to Rich, just as the Great Depression drove the religious right and their moral crusades from political life, so our current economic crisis will do the same. And so having declared the cultural climate radically changed, Rich asks “What has happened between 2001 and 2009 to so radically change the cultural climate?”

It’s a good question, since as recently as weeks before the election last November Rich feared that McCain and Palin, who were playing the culture card with wild explicitness, were going to win. Now that a Democrat is in the White House, however, it’s not enough for Rich to breathe a sigh of relief that Obama won thanks to the perfect convergence of economic calamity, the opposition’s two-knucklehead presidential ticket, and the seeming desire of the Republicans to allow the Democrats to take the White House and to thus take the fall during a remarkably bad historical moment.

Rather, Rich is in the trend-proclaiming business, and so he has to proclaim a trend: The culture wars are dead, religion has lost its influence in American life, progressive secularists will run the country for another “40 years.” All in the space of eight years—during most of which time Rich loudly lamented the power of the culture wars, the authority of religion, and the seemingly permanent ascendancy of right-wing fanatics.

Rich exemplifies the smug liberal belief that behind every conservative belief is a nihilistic opportunism. In this view, all it takes to dispel the gloom of religious sentiment in public life is a burst of happy rationalist sunlight. The enemy is deluded; we are authentic and real. Rich and his ilk refuse to entertain the idea that along with the usual political gamesmanship, there is such a thing as decent and principled opposition to issues like abortion and stem-cell research. They refuse to accept the fact that the “culture wars” are anchored in competing outlooks on life.

Part of this absence of empathy is an incapacity for self-examination. Last October, Rich referred to a passage in the now-famous speech on race that Obama delivered in Philadelphia a year ago. In an effort to quiet fears about his association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, fears provoked by Wright’s black militancy, Obama referred to his forgiveness of his own white grandmother’s occasional bigotry, to “her fear of black men who passed by her on the street.”

Rich sank to the occasion. With pious self-regard, he wrote that Obama “hit a chord because many of us have had white relatives of our own like his, and we, too, see them in full and often love them anyway.” Oh really? How much less condescending it would have been for Rich to confess, with more plausible psychological truth, that many of us ourselves—white and black—have felt the same fear when, in a bad neighborhood, late at night, a black man or men passed by us on the street. Obama’s empathetic genius in that speech was to candidly imply a universal experience, not self-righteously condemn a particular one. But Rich has too much invested in the public display of his own virtue to ever risk putting it in question.

Such complacency leads Rich in his latest column to reinterpret American history in the light of his newly proclaimed trend. The result is an outrageously inaccurate picture of history.

In Rich’s view of the American past, the Great Depression led to the New Deal, which led to the defeat of religion’s influence on public life. “After the humiliations of the Scopes trial and the repeal of Prohibition,” Rich writes, “it did take a good four decades for the religious right to begin its comeback in the 1970s.” This is nonsense.

For one thing, the “religious right” forcefully asserted itself just a few years after FDR died, in the early 1950s, with Joseph McCarthy, whose anticommunist crusade was fueled by religious sentiment, especially that of right-wing Catholics. The seeds for that particular political movement had, in fact, been planted during the New Deal, most explicitly by the demagogic radio personality, Father Coughlin, the Rush Limbaugh of his day. Roosevelt’s (rational and humane) policies created a divide in American social and political life that was exploited by the political and religious right again and again, by Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes.

More important, the religious right never made a “comeback” in the 1970s. They had nothing to come back from. Their rise to political power, consummated by President Reagan, was the first time they had ever wielded direct political influence. In the pendulum motion of American politics, the breakdown of one social barrier after another during the '60s opened the door to religion’s ascendancy in public life. But up until that time, religious people in this country never felt that they needed to be represented in Washington, for the simple reason that religious authority was never in serious dispute. Religion didn’t need to be assertive in politics because it discreetly ruled civic life. Eisenhower was not voted into the White House in 1953 by masses of atheists and agnostics. The Cold War was seen in this country as a struggle between the God-fearing and the godless. The idea that FDR drove religious sentiment from playing a consequential role in politics is absurd.

For Rich, trends are an all-or-nothing proposition. He cannot accept the idea that at a time of economic crisis, economics will be uppermost in people’s minds, but that this does not mean that the same people will abandon values and beliefs embedded their hearts and minds. No, for Rich, economic issues are in, cultural issues are out. Everything changes in an instant. Limbaugh is a buffoon, and the GOP is a mess.

Well, Coughlin was a buffoon, too, and in 1932, the party of Herbert Hoover was also in disarray. Yet after FDR died in 1945, the Republicans and their (mostly) religious constituents controlled the White House for 37 of the next 63 years, beginning in 1953—and three of those five Democratic presidents were unabashedly practicing Southern Baptists, one was a devout Catholic, and one was a member of the Disciples of Christ.

As for our current president, he has a team of evangelical pastors on hand to advise him, and he invited Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the benediction at his inauguration, a savvy political move for which Rich— a culture warrior to the very end—still cannot forgive him.

Cultural “trends” come and go, the news cycle spins and dries and spins again—but cultural attitudes are, if not forever, stubborn and persistent. So is the power of belief, even--imagine!—among people we don’t agree with, or even like.

Lee Siegel has written about culture and politics and is the author of three books: Falling Upwards: Essays in Defense of the Imagination; Not Remotely Controlled: Notes on Television; and, most recently, Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob. In 2002, he received a National Magazine Award for reviews and criticism.


View as Multiple Pages
Back to Top
March 16, 2009 | 10:10pm
Comments ()

This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.

|
|
Reply
11:24 pm, Mar 16, 2009
jaspeterson

In your third to last paragraph---"one was a devout Catholic." To use the word "devout" when describing JFK and his association with Catholicism, one must be on crack. You really had me until you wrote that line. I'm having a hard time containing my laughter.

|
|
Reply
12:13 am, Mar 17, 2009
treetracker

"For one thing, the "religious right" forcefully asserted itself just a few years after FDR left office, in the early 1950s, with Joseph McCarthy, whose anti-communist crusade was fueled by religious sentiment, especially that of right-wing Catholics"

Interesting Mr. Siegel that you chose this particular example of something being "fueled by religious sentiment." I can neither agree nor disagree with you regarding the comment, as I do not know the much of the history of Sen. McCarthy other than he went on a relentless witch hunt throughout the country, to include soldiers, the media and Congressmen.

If he is your chosen example of right wing religious zealots, all the more reason to make sure they are no longer represented in our government.



|
|
Reply
2:35 am, Mar 17, 2009
conradelledge

3/16/09
Dear Lee,
Somehow I can't imagine who would buy your interpretation of Frank Rich or of his article you dance around but fail to comprehend. I read what you wrote straight through six times and still can not see what you are trying to say. Is it that religious extremism is good and has helped to make the world better, or that, a meager would like to be may attack anyone on anything with any idea of what they are saying.

It may be that you are an ugly imbecile or that you are simply a poor slob struggling to pay your rent and phone bill but surely you could do better for yourself and your fellow man than this weak nothing that allows you no recognition more than to insult a man clearly beyond your own imagination for the purpose of your own agrandizement at the expense of your fellow man. Would anyone have cared you would have been weighed and found wanting.
Conrad C. Elledge

|
|
Reply
2:51 am, Mar 17, 2009
MattePgh

another great example of right-wing catholics involvement in secular public policy could be:
1. pogroms
2. crusades
3. Henry VIII

|
|
Reply
6:37 am, Mar 17, 2009
wolverine1987

"But up until that time, religious people in this country never felt that they needed to be represented in Washington, for the simple reason that religious authority was never in serious dispute. Religion didn't need to be assertive in politics because it discreetly ruled civic life."

This statement is objectively true, and can't really even be debated by intellectually honest people. It does show a misreading of history by Rich. But what I hope for (in vain I'm sure) is that these wars do subside, and that people actually acknowledge that there are people of good will on both sides, that have competing views of what makes for a better society. Instead of "us" vs. crackpots.

|
|
Reply
7:54 am, Mar 17, 2009
wolverine1987

MattePgh:

Really? Middle Ages references? What a tired refrain. come on, you can do better. By your worn out argument, democracy itself is corrupt since it once sanctioned slavery and land-taking. In reality, we have all evolved and overcome past prejudices and have become better, church included.

|
|
Reply
7:59 am, Mar 17, 2009
Sedona

I find Frank Rich, like so many in the far left media, despicable. I wouldn't read an article by him anymore than I would an article by EJ Dionne, Jonathan Alter, Paul Krugman, Eleanor Clift, Joe Klein, and a few hundred other fire-breathers on the left. Hypocrites .... all of them.

|
|
Reply
8:46 am, Mar 17, 2009
Ritarita


'For Rich, economic issues are in, cultural issues are out..'

I think Frank Rich nailed that one.

|
|
Reply
9:20 am, Mar 17, 2009
genoftheheart

@MattePgh- you left out the Inquisition and the Holocaust.

Kennedy- a devout Catholic! I laughed too.

|
|
Reply
9:36 am, Mar 17, 2009
muddog


Get a CLUE!.

What Rich is referring to is the current administration will NOT be run by right wing religious whack jobs. Bush allowed a fringe minority to push their nutty ideology on the MAJORITY, so yes, Science is IN Tom Delay style religion is OUT.

Mr Siegel claims.......

"There is such a thing as decent and principled opposition to issues like abortion and stem-cell research. They refuse to accept the fact that the "culture wars" are anchored in competing outlooks on life".

Really?. Where is the decent and principled discussion from the right you are referring to the last 8 years?, hell the last 20?.

Mr Siegel is like the rest of the whining right wing that cannot fathom how fear, hate, bigotry, lies, deceit cannot win you elections like they did in the past. Obama has his work cut out but hopefully America will continue to say NO to HATE and IGNORANCE.

|
|
Reply
10:01 am, Mar 17, 2009
wolverine1987

muddog,

Thank you for making the point of the article, and showing that there is really no hope left for civil discourse and disagreement in America. People on the right are "hateful" "evil" and "ignorant". Congratulations, you've made another contribution to the coarsening of the public square, not to mention showing your own narrow minded brand of yes, ignorance, as well as hate.

|
|
Reply
10:23 am, Mar 17, 2009
barbsid

Frank Rich also said in his op ed, "The family values dinosaurs (Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Reed) are now either dead, retired or disgraced."
I question what makes the man think those people speak for the heart of America? The Liberals make the mistake of lumping all people of faith under one umbrella, then dismissing the whole lot as feeble minded.
'Believers' are as diverse a group as any other, with centrists and fringe members, far off the Bell Curve. Few, if any, of us are using "Culture wars as a political crutch" as Mr. Rich stated. I don't think a Liberal, excuse me, "progressive" thinker can fathom the idea we are not looking for political gain by machination, but simply speaking from a sense of core values they seem to lack.

Muddog is oh so typical of hate and bigotry, but Sedona, it is dangerous to just "not read" articles by left-leaning writers. A centrist viewpoint has suffered in recent years because we are quieter, counting on 'good sense' to prevail in a world where radicals are constantly on the attack. We need to speak up, logically as Mr. Siegel has so competently done, to refute the exaggerations and all-encompassing judgments laid on us as 'fact.'

|
|
Reply
11:07 am, Mar 17, 2009
Ritarita


@Sedona

Eleanor Clift is a 'firebreather' ?
You're revealing
that you have never actually
read ANY of the hypocrites
that you claim to have
so much disdain for.

|
|
Reply
12:27 pm, Mar 17, 2009
danfromtexas

The best Sunday column in the United States is written by Frank Rich. No one comes close. I hope you read this, Maureen Dowd.

|
|
Reply
12:51 pm, Mar 17, 2009
AliceJ

Sedona, if you wouldn't read an article by any of the columnists you name, how do youknow they are all hypocrits? Just blanket condemnation?

Frank Rich can be very smug and self righteous; however I found the same self righteous tone in this article.

|
|
Reply
12:51 pm, Mar 17, 2009
joymars

Who the hell was the devout Catholic? I can not for the life of me think the blogger meant Kennedy.

Anyway, in typical ritwingnumnuts form, the blogger writes:
"there is such a thing as decent and principled opposition to issues like abortion and stem-cell research"

This he pulls out of his ass to describe Conservatives. What? Who said those issues define anyone? He's bashing Rich for doing the exact same thing: fabricating political ideology and playing with it. I personally do not fall into any one extreme, but leaning toward the left I have not abandoned "decency" and being "principled."

Blogger, you fail! Start learning how to think -- then maybe you'll be able to write something worth the ether it's written on.

|
|
Reply
1:58 pm, Mar 17, 2009
Mary50

Well, the author is right that culture wars are far from over. We have yet to expose and confront the cultural facism of the left and gender apartheid. Now that will be an eye-opener.

|
|
Reply
2:04 pm, Mar 17, 2009
deanpaul1

If Mr Siegal had an ounce of Mr. Rich's writing talent, this piece might have come across as more than bitchy bluster, but since he doesn't, it doesn't.

|
|
Reply
2:19 pm, Mar 17, 2009
eat5vegetables

What a rant . . . and a disorganized one at that! Exactly what are you so angry at Rich for? Seems like a shallow and poorly presented arguments from a conservative finding it hard to watch reason and intellect rule . . . finally. You're right though, Siegel, that Democrats do have to clean up the mess brought by decades of conservative incompetence, and there is a chance for failure that will bring the right wing establishment glee. Hmmm. Seems like a pretty nihilistic sentiment to me . . . and historically congruent as well. What else is it when you get a presedent like Reagan saying, "government is the problem." His distain for precedent, history, constitutional law and basic sound ecomnomic policy was unprecedented.

|
|
Reply
2:48 pm, Mar 17, 2009
MattePgh

MattePgh
another great example of right-wing catholics involvement in secular public policy could be:
1. pogroms
2. crusades
3. Henry VIII

wolverine1987
Really? Middle Ages references? What a tired refrain. come on, you can do better. By your worn out argument, democracy itself is corrupt since it once sanctioned slavery and land-taking. In reality, we have all evolved and overcome past prejudices and have become better, church included.

OH, I am sorry. Would you like some more modern references. That might require copious blasphemous research.

1. 2009 (Reuters) - Jewish leaders will meet the pope on Thursday to discuss strains in Jewish-Catholic relations since the Vatican lifted the excommunication on a bishop who denies the Holocaust.
2. 2006 (BBC) - Pope Benedict XVI has said he is sorry that a speech in which he referred to Islam has offended Muslims.
3. 3/17/09 (IHT) Pope Rats-in-a-burgher asserted that the Roman Catholic Church was in the forefront of the battle against AIDS. "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope said aboard his plane to Cameroon. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

Mr Woverine--you might feel that you have evolved but the doctrine you follow has not. Keep saying that rosary though, it might help you drown out all rational thought.

|
|
Reply
3:09 pm, Mar 17, 2009
liviapeacock

My interpretation of rich's column is that we are clearly in a new era where science and reason are valued and are to be the foremost ways this administration will make its decisions. A complete turn around from the old administration, who used ideology and populism.

Frank Rich is one of the best.

Siegel, keep trying.

|
|
Reply
4:00 pm, Mar 17, 2009
DavidBarron

Culture, like Art, resorts to the senses/emotions, which is great. But it also means that culture is interpreted differently by different people.

"Culture War": where some people try to impose their interpretation on others without a good reason.

Leave the culture wars to the Old World. In a liberal democracy like America, culture should be liberal. Let culture and art flower, and enjoy it responsibly. America should focus on as many schools of thought as possible, then sort them out using reason.

|
|
Reply
4:46 pm, Mar 17, 2009
Seaweed

I don't say this to inflict pain, but consider that a significant portion of our population goes to church weekly and performs a rite of ritual cannibalism of their god, and no one seems to find this the least bit odd, speaks directly to how deeply ingrained these bizarre rituals are within our society (Note: Eating his body, drinking his blood - yes, that's what its called when you do that). The idea that there is a god mighty enough to create the universe and everything in it, but yet he (it's male?) cares how wear our hair or that we have beards, is far beyond infantile. That some otherwise kind and gracious neighbors advocate preemptive nuclear war against nations out of fear of what they might do (i.e. the indiscriminant murder of millions) - shows a disturbing blindness to the reptilian fear (and if allowed, evil) that still lurks in our national subconscious. Sadly the Culture War is theirs, it's global, and it's not over. Frank Rich is suggesting that the pendulum has swung back to science/reason from dogma, and this may be true, but I would suggest that this was but one culture battle - the war is much larger and no outcome is assured.

|
|
Reply
4:59 pm, Mar 17, 2009
torontodad

I'm a secular liberal. (In Toronto, we can mention this without putting ourseves in any jeopardy at all.)
Just a comment in response to Lee Siegel's statement about decent and principled opposition to abortion and stem cell research: I have no problem with buying into conservative decency and principle. My problem is with those who allow their religious beliefs to make them dumb about science and human relations.
Decent, yes. Principled, yes. And Dumb too.

|
|
Reply
6:51 pm, Mar 17, 2009
Leave a Comment
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments
Leave a comment

Please log in to leave comments.

Who Made Frank Rich God?

by Lee Siegel

Info
RSS
Lee Siegel
Emails
|
print
Multiple Pages
|
text
-
+
Facebook
 | 
Twitter
 | 
Digg
 |