The New Republic lowers its standards.

In today's online edition of TNR, there appears "Radical Multiculturalists, the Christian Right, and Pluralism --Same Difference" by Ian Reifowitz, which includes the startling claim that "the primary domestic threat to American pluralism comes from the Christian right," and the even more astounding assertion that the "Christian right" is of a piece with "[e]xclusionary movements, such as the Know-Nothing movement of the late 1840s and 1850s, the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s, and of course the entire infrastructure of Jim Crow." The evidence for this sprawling slander is presented in a single paragraph:

"The theocratic right defines its values as the only values acceptable for true Americans and seeks to enshrine those values in law. Anyone who doubts this need only look at the words of the movement's leaders (tracked closely by organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Theocracywatch.org). George Grant, former executive director of Coral Ridge Ministries, a key organization within the Christian right, described the goals of the movement as follows: 'Christians have ... a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ--to have dominion in civil structures. ... Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. ... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land--of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.' The National Reform Association, another Christian conservative group, states that an elected official in the United States 'derives his authority from God and he is duty-bound to govern according to the expressed will of God. The civil government of our nation, its laws, institutions, and practices must therefore be conformed to the principles of Biblical law as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.' Advertisements for 'Justice Sunday' falsely claimed that 'people of faith' were being forced to choose between serving Jesus and serving America. In reality, the Family Research Council and its allies hope to make it impossible to serve America without serving their version of Christ. After all, conservative nominees to the bench are not under attack from liberals for holding Christian beliefs; they are under attack for advocating a judicial philosophy that would impose those religious beliefs--on same-sex marriage, on abortion, on stem-cell research--on other Americans."

The first serious offense against rational argument that Professor Reifowitz mounts is to define a broad term, "Christian right" by reference to the statements of one individual and one group --neither of which is in any way representative of the broad group. It would be as if I made a claim that the Democratic Party believed "x" because Michael Moore and the Greenpeace Board of Directors said "x." Actually, it is even much worse than that, as Michael Moore and Greenpeace do represent fairly large constituencies within the Democratic Party, but Mr. Grant, of whom I have literally never heard, and the National Reform Association --sorry, but I have never heard of it either-- simply do not represent what Professor Reifowitz intends them to represent. I suppose the professor might reply that it is not consequential that I have not heard of this man and this group, but that he has. Except that, as a reporter on religion for more than a decade, evangelical Christian and consumer of a great deal of information on the "Christian right," and as an evangelical myself, I am in a position to say "blather" when I hear it. Quote me Colson, Dobson, Rick Warren, Chuck Smith, Al Mohler or any of scores of well-known national leaders from the evangelical community, and there will be an argument presented. Don't doubt that the professor didn't try. But he had to settle for obscure sources because he had a neat little bit of propaganda to push which will no doubt impress the Rank and Tenure Committee when the time comes, but which get an undergraduate a flunking grade by any serious teacher concerned that grave accusations or sweeping generalizations at least not be laughable.

The second major assault on reason mounted by the professor in this single paragraph is his closing absurdity: "After all, conservative nominees to the bench are not under attack from liberals for holding Christian beliefs; they are under attack for advocating a judicial philosophy that would impose those religious beliefs--on same-sex marriage, on abortion, on stem-cell research--on other Americans."

How, exactly, these nominees would impose their views on same-sex marriage --when in fact their views on same-sex marriage are probably presumed by the professor to be hostile to same-sex marriage and when same-sex marriage is nowhere the law of the land except Massachusetts where it has been imposed by hyper-activist judges-- is nowhere explained, perhaps because it cannot be explained. It is a stupid assertion, and one that does not deserve the attention of the TNR readership unused to crude propaganda.

As recently as 1999, it appears that Professor Reifowitz was graduate student Reifowitz, and was busy protesting aid cuts to history grad students at Georgetown. Given the quality of this piece, it is too bad the aid wasn't cut sooner. Now he is a "mentor" at Empire State College, spinning who knows what in the way of slanders against his political opponents from the front of a classroom. It is no small thing to compare tens of millions of Americans with whom he disagrees to the racist Know-Nothings, the KKK, and the supporters of Jim Crow (and no small irony either, given Robert Byrd's leadership in the filibuster of the nominees Professor Reifowitz slimes.) If that's the level of accuracy Professor Reifowitz aspires to, he can be an East Coast Ward Churchill.

UPDATE: Ramesh Ponnuru posted on Professor Reifowitz minutes before I did. His verdict: " unintentionally hilarious."

IAN REIFOWITZ [Ramesh Ponnuru]

has written an unintentionally hilarious piece for the New Republic comparing today's Christian conservatives to the "radical multiculturalists" of the 1990s. The latter were threats to "American pluralism," in their day, as Christian conservatives are today. (Wait a second. Weren't the Christian conservatives supposed to be threats to American pluralism back in the early 1990s, too?) I won't linger on the thesis, since it's unassailable--as long as "American pluralism" is identified with New Republic-style liberalism, and Christian conservatism requires a commitment to views that are not held by, say, a majority of opponents of abortion. (Stanley: You'll be delighted to see that the word "dominion" gets mentioned.)

Odder is this passage: "[C]onservative nominees to the bench are not under attack from liberals for holding Christian beliefs; they are under attack for advocating a judicial philosophy that would impose those religious beliefs--on same-sex marriage, on abortion, on stem-cell research--on other Americans" (emphasis his). What world is Reifowitz living in? Where is the judge who has said that he would ban abortion or stem-cell research or same-sex marriage even if the public wanted to allow these things? Justice Scalia hasn't said anything like this. Nor have the mainstream opponents of judicial nominees such as Bill Pryor and Priscilla Owen--until, that is, this weekend, when Mario Cuomo made the same bizarre claims in the Democratic response to the president's radio address. Maybe Reifowitz is getting his information from Cuomo? In reality, the people who want judges to overturn or block democratic decisions in this area are our liberal "pluralist" friends.

The amusing part of the article comes at the end, when Reifowitz explains the strategy for defeating Christian conservatism: "[L]iberals will have to reach out to conservatives who care deeply about pluralism. . . . We are starting to see signs of dissent among Republicans and conservatives, most notably in recent comments by Christie Todd Whitman, Christopher Shays, and John Danforth. (Andrew Sullivan did his part in last week's TNR cover story.) Whitman, a moderate former governor and EPA chief, called her book It's My Party Too. Shays, a member of the House since 1987, commented on March 25 that 'this Republican party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy.' Danforth, in an eloquent New York Times op-ed on March 30, argued that religious conservatives have 'hijacked' the GOP. 'Republicans,' he wrote, 'have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. . . . [I]t has become the political extension of a religious movement.' Whitman, Shays, and Danforth should receive support from liberals in these efforts." Oh, they do.

What they don't receive is much support from actual self-described conservatives, who tend to see them as has-beens whose hold on their party was defeated a long time ago.

I wrote two posts about Senator Danforth's op-ed that I may as well link here. I would add that we should resist the devaluation of the word "eloquent" into a word of empty praise for anyone who has said anything with which we agree.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.