Not the lie, but the myth (Slightly revised)

As a sage once put it: The enemy of truth is not the lie, but the myth.

Each day, we face anew a familiar question: How do we engage in a dialogue with political adversaries entranced by an utterly addled view of political reality -- or should I say all reality?

To summarize a situation we all know: When Republicans filibustered Clinton's judicial appointees, no-one on the religious right uttered any sighs of dismay. Now rightist politicians want to do away with the filibuster -- but only when this device is used to fight Bush-appointed nominees. Filibusters are still considered fine when used for legislative purposes.

Framed in that fashion, the issue obviously comes down to a matter of Machiavellian tactics. But the rightists prefer to frame the situation differently. Democrats, they say, want to stop Bush's appointees not because we think the President has made some crummy, ill-qualified choices, but because liberals hate religion.

The powerful pastor James Dobson -- displaying his usual "flexible" interpretation of the commandment against false witness -- told a cable news audience that the Republicans had never filibustered a Democratic nominee. A lie. But what else can we expect from a fundamentalist preacher?

Not long ago, the GOP hatemongers mounted a campaign aginst the AARP -- the A-freaking-ARP -- in order to create support for Bush's disastrous Social Security reform effort. The ads did not even discuss the actual issue of Social Security. Instead, a respected advocacy group for the elderly was pictured as a quasi-Marxist "cell" devoted to supporting gay marriage and undermining our troops.

During the election, radio rightist relentlessly conveyed the impression that John Kerry supported gay marriage. He did not and does not. But that didn't stop our pious brethren from buying into the myth.

One of Bush's appointees, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, has recently declared that people of faith are engaged in a "war" against (oh no, not this again!) secular humanists.

(A side note: This is the same woman who called the New Deal the "triumph of our socialist revolution." Here's a history lesson, Justice Brown: That "revolution" led to this country's most prosperous period, 1940-1970. During that time, the average person's living standards kept rising, and Communism was consistently opposed. Since the Reagan revolution, living standards have sharply declined and the work week has lengthened -- and China now controls a large chunk of our economy.)

Ah yes. The threat of secular humanism. That brings back memories...

If you're over 30, you may recall the religious right's weird hate campaign against this particular straw man. The meme was quite popular in the 1980s and early '90s. Basically, this wacky notion holds that anyone not of the fundamentalist persuasion must be a card-carrying member of an alternate religion -- recognised as such by the Supreme Court, no less! -- called "Secular Humanism." This religion is supposedly devoted to the deification of Man and the denigration of Jesus.

The 80s-era preachers who fed their flocks dire warnings of the "secular humanist" conspiracy usually veered into ultra-bizarro territory: Marxism...gnosticism...Satanism...the Illuminati. Beware, brethren! The Secular Humanists are coming! They're going to burn all the churches any DAY now!!

Now we have a Bush-appointed judge reviving this nonsense. Once more, we will face the annoying task of educating the public: Liberals who want to keep church and state separate are not part of a conspiracy. We just want the theocrats to leave us alone.

Much of the problem comes down to the fact that rural voters and evangelical church-goers refuse to read objective journalism, and thus do not understand the issues. Their nescience leaves the propagandists free to re-frame those issues in the most outlandish, supernaturalistic, conspiratorial and fear-filled terms.

Thus, a debate over Social Security gives way to the crankish myth that the AARP hates our soldiers. Thus, judges like Brown, who want to impose one religious ideology on the entire nation, are held up as the antidote to a (supposedly) ideological judiciary. Thus, a judge addressing the issue of church and state gives voice to a notoriously nutty conspiracy theory.

Alas, these tactics work. Because ill-educated people are naturally insecure, they present ripe targets for any sharpie who appeals to their fears. That's why false claims of persecution always sway gullible evangelicals.

Some of you may recall some of the other "scare stories" circulating in televangelistic circles during the 1980s and 1990s. For example: According to a rumor popular at the time, the liberal elites had drawn up plans to round up all Bible-believing Christians and herd them into concentration camps. I've met people who sincerely believed this nonsense.

Such camps are now a fact of post-9/11 life. Of course, they do not -- and never will -- house fundamentalist Christians. (Will they soon house progressives? We've all seen the ominous signs...)

A little web-surfing reveals that many fundamentalists still hold to this "Christian concentration camp" fable. Fundies love to picture themselves in the "false underdog" position. They have a psychological need to play the victim. They cannot conceive of themselves as victimizers.

How can we get through to the indoctrinated? Is that task even possible? Do we still possess a shared vocabulary, or a common frame of reference sufficient to permit dialogue?