Breaking down Citizens United

Published January 18, 2012 in Real Change:

http://www.realchangenews.org/index.php/site/archives/6194/

There's no such thing as a corporate citizen; only people deserve the right to free speech

Should corporations have the same rights as human beings, and also the right to buy elections? Two years ago, in its landmark Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court ruled yes. An overwhelming majority of Americans, however, say no. In growing numbers, they are calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not people and that the unchecked flow of cash does not equal free speech.

The undue influence of corporate and financial interests is deeply detrimental to our democracy. As we mark its second anniversary, the consequences of Citizens United are already painfully clear. The mid-term 2010 election saw record $4 billion spending, and the 2012 race is poised to leave this spending spree in the dust. Already, the parade of attack ads and toxic rhetoric has commenced its ugly march across our TV screens.

Overturning a Supreme Court decision is no easy process. It requires a constitutional amendment, which must be approved by three-fourths of state legislatures or by ratifying conventions in three-fourths of states. However, such an amendment would enjoy broad support across the political spectrum. According to a poll by Hart Research Associates, this support includes nearly four in five, or 79 percent, of Americans. This kind of popular backing has allowed for the swift passage of constitutional amendments in the past, including the amendments to end Prohibition and to lower the voting age to eighteen as teenagers were drafted into the Vietnam War.

Joining with state lawmakers across the country, Washington State Senator Adam Kline has introduced a bill to abolish corporate personhood. His Senate Joint Memorial 8007 states that Citizens United “has created a new and unequal playing field between human beings and corporations with respect to campaign financing, negating over a century of precedent prohibiting corporate contributions” to campaigns.

In the meantime, there are other effective ways to reduce the role of money in politics. One of these is to allow for clean elections, typically by offering public funds in exchange for an agreement to limit private donations. Clean elections already exist in several states, including Maine and Arizona. Modeling their proposal on these successful state initiatives, a bipartisan group of Congress members has introduced the Fair Elections Now Act (FENA) to create similar reforms at the federal level. With backers ranging from members of the Tea Party to the Sierra Club, the bill would allow federal candidates to run for office without relying upon large private donations. By freeing candidates from the pressures of constant fundraising, FENA would enable them to get back to the work of serving the people who elect them.

Transparency is another key part of the equation. After Citizens United, corporations and financial institutions can anonymously channel millions through Political Action Committees and 501(c)(4) organizations, which are classified as non-profit social welfare organizations. These groups—often with civic-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and Citizens United—can pool unlimited funds toward ads without disclosing where the money comes from. The DISCLOSE Act seeks to remedy this by requiring organizations involved in political campaigns to reveal the identities of major donors. Though the bill was blocked in the Senate, more progress can be found at the state level. In April 2011, the State of Washington passed legislation to enhance campaign disclosure requirements. Shedding light on money in politics will strengthen our democracy by helping voters to make informed choices.

In an era of angry partisanship, the poll numbers show that most of us agree on the need to take money out of politics. While ordinary Americans struggle to cope with the economic downturn, our nation’s capitol should not remain awash in special interest money. The more energy candidates spend pursuing campaign dollars and courting lobbyists, the further the needs and concerns of ordinary Americans recede into the background. By ensuring that our leaders are accountable to the people who elect them, not to corporate sponsors, we can make sure that they put the well-being of the people first.

Free Speech for Real People

Published in Z Magazine Vol. 24, No. 6 (June 2011)

http://www.zcommunications.org/free-speech-for-real-people-by-valerie-saturen

What happens to democracy when corporations are legal persons with the right to free speech? And what happens when free speech is equated with the unchecked flow of cash? In a 5 to 4 decision that flouted legal precedents and campaign finance legislation, the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC last year ruled that corporations have the constitutional right to spend unlimited money toward political advertising. “It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Democrat or Republican,” said Seattle-based MoveOn activist Patricia Daly, “Citizens United is turning over...our democracy in favor of corporations.” Daly is one of many people across the nation taking action to challenge the ruling, push for greater transparency, and promote clean elections.

The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is through a constitutional amendment. This is precisely what many democracy advocates are calling for. Amending the Constitution is not easy. A proposed amendment must be approved by three-fourths of state legislatures or by ratifying conventions in three-fourths of states. However, there is widespread bipartisan support for an amendment to overturn Citizens United. According to a recent poll by Hart Research Associates, this includes 68 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of Independents, and 87 percent of Democrats.

David Cobb, the 2004 Green Party presidential candidate, now travels the country galvanizing that support through “Move to Amend.” He points out that state legislatures from California to Vermont have introduced bills calling for a constitutional amendment protecting the free speech rights of people, not corporations. “This is really about a broad democratizing movement,” said Cobb. “Legal and electoral systems have been hijacked by ruling elites.”

In the shorter term, advocates want greater transparency. While the 2010 mid-term election saw unprecedented campaign spending, the public has remained in the dark about the full extent and sources of that spending. Further, many corporate interest groups hide behind civic-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works, and Citizens United. Requiring campaigns to disclose the identities of donors helps voters make informed choices.

Steve Breaux, a WashPIRG public-interest advocate, urges support for the DISCLOSE Act. The bill, which passed the House, but was blocked in the Senate, would require organizations involved in political campaigns to reveal the identities of major donors.

Like other states, Washington has introduced a bill to shed light on money in politics that has passed the State Senate and now has to clear the House. In 2010, California passed similar legislation, requiring disclosure for political messages that appeal to voters to approve or reject a candidate or measure, even if the ad doesn’t use the “vote for” or “vote against.”

Another way states are promoting clean elections is by providing candidates with a public alternative to corporate campaign financing. Publicly-funded campaigns have worked in seven states: Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, New Mexico, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts. However, clean elections face a tough fight, since their popularity and effectiveness has drawn the ire of corporate interest groups. Legislation in Massachusetts was later repealed and Vermont’s was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which is now ruling on the constitutionality of Arizona’s Clean Elections Act, which levels the playing field by using public funds to match the corporate funding of another candidate.

At the federal level, the Fair Elections Now Act (FENA) calls for public funding of Senate campaigns. The bipartisan bill would allow federal candidates to run for office without relying on large private donations, freeing candidates from the pressures of constant fundraising.

Building the momentum for these efforts requires public education and consciousness-raising, according to John Bonifaz of Free Speech for People. Although voters overwhelmingly agree that corporations wield too much political influence, few have even heard of Citizens United. Hart Research Associates found that only 22 percent of voters were aware of the decision. Some groups are informing the public through teach-ins and forums. Others are taking a more dramatic approach.

Americans are demanding an end to the cynical politicking that has tainted our democracy for far too long. They don’t want to see their elected officials up for sale. In these challenging times, it is essential that our leaders focus on creating jobs, getting our economy back on track, fixing our broken health care system, stopping multiple wars, and addressing ongoing environmental degradation. Putting democracy into the hands of the electorate can help ensure that our lawmakers put these pressing issues, and the wellbeing of the people, first.

The Real Class War (Review of Winner-Take-All Politics)

Reviewed: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, Simon & Schuster, 340 pp., $17.46

Published May 25, 2011 in Toward Freedom: http://towardfreedom.com/americas/2405-the-real-class-war

When then-Senator Barack Obama called for reforms to "spread the wealth around," opponents labeled him a class warrior intent on stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. What they didn't mention, and what too few Americans realize, is that precisely the opposite pattern has unfolded over the past forty years. Winner-Take-All Politics details this dramatic redistribution of wealth and shows how it is no natural outcome of economic forces. It is the result of political decisions. Increasingly dependent upon campaign funds from well-organized special interests, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have legislated in favor of the extremely rich at the expense of everyone else.

Hacker and Pierson back up their assertions with striking data. For example, the share of the nation's income raked in by the top 1 percent shot up from 9 percent in 1974 to 23.5 percent in 2007. The figures are even more remarkable at the very upper echelons: the top 0.1 percent has seen a fourfold increase in their share of the pie, from 2.7 percent to 12.3. Meanwhile, wages for the poor and middle class have stagnated and failed to keep up with the rising cost of living.

Experts often pin the growth of economic inequality on the shift to a knowledge-based economy, which has produced a large gap between the educated and uneducated. But Hacker and Pierson point out that extreme income disparity exists even among the highly educated. Further, the same level of disparity is not found in other developed nations. Clearly, an additional force is at work.

That force, according to Hacker and Pierson, is American government and politics. Since the 1970s, the tax code has become progressively less progressive. Not only have the super-wealthy enjoyed large tax cuts, but they have benefited from loopholes such as the capital gains tax. Since capital gains like investment income are only taxed 15 percent, private equity and hedge fund managers end up paying "a dramatically lower rate than their secretaries." Often, policy decisions go quietly unnoticed in the form of "drift": the government simply fails to respond to changing economic realities. The minimum wage is never updated to keep up with inflation. Legislation fails to address skyrocketing executive pay, which now approaches 300 times the earnings of average workers.

So why, if our democracy is based on the principle of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," have our policies so consistently favored the few? The answer lies in organization. In the past, unions provided a voice for the interests of working Americans. Yet while union representation has sharply declined (from 30% in 1960 to 13% in 2000), lobbyists representing corporate and financial interests have proliferated in the corridors of Washington. Unlike the fragmented and politically uninformed electorate, these special interest groups have banded together and pooled their vast resources to exert powerful political pressure. Hacker and Pierson describe the revolving door between Congress and K Street. Take Max Baucus, the Democratic chair of the Senate Finance Committee, who packed his office with pharmaceutical lobbyists. Or take John Breaux, former Democratic senator from Louisiana. After repeatedly undercutting progressive initiatives, Breaux made the smooth transition from elected official to lavishly paid consultant at a lobbying firm.

Despite the media spectacle that surrounds presidential elections, the growth of inequality has little to do with which party occupies the White House. In fact, it was under Carter that the dynamics of "winner-take-all" began to rapidly accelerate. Hacker and Pierson turn our attention from the presidential "horse race" toward the far more significant "politics of organized combat" that has consumed both parties. They describe a GOP that became incrementally more radicalized over the past four decades, most dramatically under the leadership of House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. While the GOP shifted further to the right--a shift that would recur with the emergence of the Tea Party--the Democratic Party was forced by the fundraising arms race to become more business-friendly. In turn, business interests were keen to court Democratic leaders who could stall or water down reforms.

Meaningful reform is made even harder by the structural flaws of a system predisposed toward gridlock. Since states have equal representation in the Senate, conservative small states hold disproportionate sway over less numerous but far more populous states. The increasingly ubiquitous use of the filibuster poses another roadblock, making it easy for the minority party to--with the help of a few bought-off colleagues across the aisle--stymie legislation. Such obstructionist tactics always benefit the minority party that employs them, convincing the public that the majority party is inept and that Washington is broken. During Obama's presidency, this has given congressional Republicans an incentive to block any reform-minded legislation rather than engage in bipartisan compromise.

If the problem is organization, Hacker and Pierson conclude, then organization is the solution. And it will have to be sustained. "Political reformers will need to mobilize for the long haul," the authors write, "appreciating that it is not electoral competitions alone that are decisive, but also the creation of organized capacity to…turn electoral victories into substantive and sustainable triumphs."

Citizens United against Citizens United

Local activists fight controversial Supreme Court decision

Published March 16, 2011 in Real Change (Vol. 18 No. 11)

http://www.realchangenews.org/index.php/site/archives/5424/

In a 5 to 4 decision that flouted legal precedents and campaign finance legislation, the Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. F.E.C., last year ruled that corporations can spend unlimited money toward political advertising.

What happens to democracy when corporations have the same rights as people, including the right to influence elections?

On March 10, the University of Washington hosted the forum “After Citizens United: What Now?” Enrique Cerna of KCTS 9 Public Television moderated the discussion, sponsored by Washington Public Campaigns.

Lynne Dodson of the AFL-CIO said Citizens United is part of the same “rapacious pursuit of profit” that caused the current recession. She said the ruling enables corporations to back candidates who support offshoring, deregulation, and fewer labor rights.

Several speakers emphasized that the issue extends beyond corporate free speech rights in the context of elections. Jeff Clements, general counsel of Free Speech for People, said the fundamental question is corporate power, including whether corporations should be treated as legal persons. He called for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling and establish that corporations are not people.

Amending the Constitution won’t be easy, the speakers agreed. A proposed amendment must be approved by three-fourths of state legislatures or by ratifying conventions in three-fourths of states.

Free Speech for People Director John Bonifaz pointed out that “overwhelming majorities” across the political spectrum would support such an amendment. According to a recent poll by Hart Research Associates, this includes 68 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of Independents, and 87 percent of Democrats.

Advocates worry about transparency in the short term. Steve Breaux, a WashPIRG public-interest advocate, urged support for the DISCLOSE Act. The bill, which passed the House but was blocked in the Senate, would require organizations involved in political campaigning to disclose the identities of large donors. In Washington State, a similar bill (SB 5021) is scheduled for a public hearing at 8 a.m. on March 16.

To challenge Citizens United, people can attend hearings and town halls, contact senators and representatives, write op-eds and letters to the editor, and form grassroots groups, said Claudia Kauffman of the Minority Executive Directors Coalition of King County. Temple De Hirsch Sinai’s Rabbi Alan Cook encouraged people of faith to get their congregations involved in the effort.

Bonifaz told of the late Doris “Granny D” Haddock, who turned 90 while walking across the United States to advocate campaign finance reform. For 14 months, she walked 10 miles per day through wind, ice, rain and snow until she reached the Capitol.

“When she was born, the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote had yet to be enacted,” Bonifaz said. “In the name of Granny D, it is time for us to stand up and fight … to ensure that ‘we the people,’ not ‘we the corporations,’ govern in America."

Evangelicals' Faith Leads Them to Issues of Environment, Social Justice

Published in YES! Magazine (Fall 2008: Purple America issue): http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=2845

A passion for environmental action and social justice is spreading in what some may consider unexpected places. Had you walked into Northland, A Church Distributed—an evangelical megachurch in Florida—one Saturday morning last August, you would have found parishioners in Kevlar suits sifting through the congregation’s trash. Their mission: to fulfill what they consider the biblical imperative to be good stewards of the Earth. Led by senior pastor Joel C. Hunter, an advocate of the pro-environment, evangelical Creation Care movement, the churchgoers sorted about 30 bins of trash in order to assess the congregation’s environmental impact.

After the church showed the film “The Great Warming,” featuring National Association of Evangelicals spokesman Richard Cizik, they wanted to take action. When they were finished assessing the congregation’s waste, they created a 140-page audit of the church’s solid waste, energy management, landscaping, and water use, which formed the basis of Northland’s strategy for lowering its carbon footprint. Creation Care at Northland didn’t end there. After services another weekend, the church held a Creation Care event with 30 environmentally-friendly vendors and organizations. Then, in February, evangelical leaders hosted an interfaith summit at Northland, training religious leaders to promote sustainability within their own congregations.

Rev. Hunter is one of a growing number of evangelicals creating an alternative to an evangelical political platform long dominated by hot-button issues such as gay marriage and abortion. While maintaining a socially conservative platform, Hunter and others are expanding their agendas to address concerns such as global warming, poverty, education, and peacemaking. His recent book, A New Kind of Conservative, sounds a call for social justice and compassion for the disadvantaged. According to Hunter, younger generations are avoiding the negative tone and single-issue focus of the Christian Right. “As a movement progresses and matures,” he says, “it begins to define itself by what it’s for instead of what it’s against. It starts to think of pro-life in terms of life outside the womb as well as inside the womb.” He likens this shift to the changes a person goes through while growing up. “When you’re in middle school, you define yourself as who you hate and what you hate. But when you grow up, you start to say, ‘Now, what do I like? What do I want to build? What do I want my life to mean?’”

Black and Hispanic evangelicals have played a major role in shifting the agenda. A 2004 poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Inc. for Religion & Ethics Newsweekly and U.S. News & World Report showed that while white evangelicals considered socially conservative moral values their first priority (37%), 41% of black and 34% of Hispanic respondents placed a different moral issue—the economy—first.

Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, leader of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC), believes Hispanic evangelicals serve as a natural bridge between the “righteousness platform” of white evangelicals and the “justice platform” of the black church. While the approximately 15 million Hispanic evangelicals in America often oppose abortion and gay marriage, many also hold progressive, populist views on issues such as poverty, health care, education, and racial equality.

Immigration is one contentious issue Rodriguez hopes to see depolarized. The NHCLC envisions a “middle path” between upholding the rule of law and exercising compassion toward the approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S. In response to HR 4437, the 2005 bill designed to rein in illegal immigration, NHCLC drafted a proposal calling for comprehensive immigration reform that would include penalties and the payment of back taxes while “bringing immigrants out of the shadows” and providing a path to citizenship.

Rodriguez’s concern for social justice stems from his upbringing in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, where he witnessed economic upheaval and the decline of industry. As the region transformed, he saw rising levels of violence and racial inequality that persisted as the city grew increasingly diverse. In neighboring Allentown, where the high-school graduation rate was only 60.7% in 2005, evangelical pastors are making efforts to become a “firewall” against gang violence and high dropout rates. In collaboration with Allentown mayor Ed Pawlowski, the NHCLC-affiliated Third Day Worship Center launched an initiative to address these problems, creating an after-school mentoring program for at-risk youth. The effort, coinciding with the creation of Allentown’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, was part of Generation Fuerza (Generation Strength), an NHCLC campaign to reduce teen pregnancy, dropout rates, and gang involvement. Generation Fuerza advocates will begin meeting with Congress in October to promote this agenda.

The social justice approach extends beyond the domestic sphere. Evangelicals for Darfur, a member of the Save Darfur Coalition, includes advocates across the political spectrum, from Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention to Jim Wallis, editor of the progressive Sojourners magazine. In 2006, the group ran full-page ads in 10 major newspapers entitled “Without You, Mr. President, Darfur Doesn’t Have a Prayer,” urging support for international peacekeeping forces and multilateral economic sanctions. In addition to pushing for action, the group solicits donations for relief efforts and promotes education about the genocide.

Other evangelical groups are advocating peace between Israelis and Palestinians. They urge a two-state solution to the conflict, offering an alternative to the approach of more visible leaders such as John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and senior pastor of the Cornerstone megachurch in San Antonio, Texas. Hagee is an influential proponent of Christian Zionism, which takes literally the biblical Book of Revelation and views an apocalyptic war in the Middle East as a necessary precursor to the Second Coming of Christ. As Christian Zionists, Hagee and his organization believe that Israel has a divinely sanctioned right to the West Bank and Gaza, and are actively involved in lobbying Washington to oppose “land for peace” and the creation of a Palestinian state.

Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding was founded in part to counter what the organization calls “a rising tide of Western interpretation of the nation of Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.” Its Executive Director, Leonard Rodgers, believes the key to understanding lies in forming personal ties between American evangelicals and Middle Eastern Christians and Muslims, which the group accomplishes through its Living Stones delegations to the region. The organization is especially committed to forging ties with Middle Eastern Christians, a community Rodgers says few Americans are aware of. “When you introduce them and they build a relationship, they begin to understand the Middle East through the eyes of a Middle Easterner,” he says.

Last November, about 100 leaders signed an open letter by Evangelicals for Social Action, a group devoted to social and economic justice. “In the context of our ongoing support for the security of Israel, we believe that unless the situation between Israel and Palestine improves quickly, the consequences will be devastating,” the letter reads, commending Israeli and Palestinian leadership for supporting a two-state solution. The letter reaffirmed the call for peace contained in a July 2007 open letter to President Bush signed by 39 prominent evangelical leaders.

A key factor in the changing face of evangelicalism is the appearance of a young generation that is more expansive in its social outlook. While they are likely to share the socially conservative approach of their parents, younger evangelicals are being shaped by the dynamic world of globalization, technology, and online social networking.

Ben Lowe, 24, studied environmental biology at Wheaton College and is active in several Creation Care groups on Facebook. Last year, he brought together student leaders from 15 campuses for the January 2007 Wheaton Creation Care Summit and participated in Power Shift 2007, joining tens of thousands of other young adults in Washington, D.C. to confront global warming. He now works for A Rocha, a Christian organization devoted to conservation. Although his peers sometimes express suspicion toward environmentalism, they often change their minds once introduced to the issue in a biblical context. “Once we show from the Bible that being good stewards of the environment is our privilege and responsibility,” says Lowe, “then my peers are usually very enthusiastic and supportive.”

Rowan University graduate Dan Lebo, 22, now attends Palmer Theological Seminary. He received a scholarship to work with Evangelicals for Social Action and helped distribute its call for Middle East peace. “The American political landscape can be a very frustrating place for younger evangelicals,” says Lebo, because the issues they care about fall across the spectrum. “It would be very hard to pigeonhole young evangelicals into any political sphere. However, at the same time we are becoming very politically engaged. We realize how important politics can be to the welfare of our society and our world and are understanding that being apathetic about politics doesn’t help anything or anyone.”

The 21st century's Joseph McCarthy

Daniel Pipes tracks our nation’s traitorous professors so you don’t have to.

By Valerie Saturen
February 27, 2008

Published on CampusProgress.org

Illustration by August Pollak

Have you ever suspected that your campus may be little more than the intellectual equivalent of an Al Qaeda training camp, dutifully churning out youthful armies of Osama Bin Laden-hugging, America-hating traitors? Well, fear not. Pundit and right-wing crusader Daniel Pipes is keeping an eye on your university and the treasonous activity percolating therein. Thanks to Pipes and his website, Campus Watch, you can rest assured in the knowledge that someone is working to bring your subversive, un-American professors/terrorists to justice, Joe McCarthy-style, and to replace their indoctrination sessions with a curriculum as fair and balanced as FOX News.

Pipes’ nostalgia for the Cold War may be hereditary. His father, Harvard historian Richard Pipes, headed Team B, a group of extremely hawkish analysts devoted to studying Soviet military and political strategies. A Boston native, Daniel Pipes enrolled at Harvard, where his father was still teaching, in 1967, to study mathematics. Unfortunately, the abstract world of numbers went over his head. “I wasn’t smart enough,” Pipes confessed, “so I chose to become a historian.” While his classmates staged sit-ins in the Harvard administration building to protest the Vietnam War, he wondered why anyone would walk out of classes or miss meals they had already paid for.

Upon earning his B.A. in history, Pipes spent two years studying Arabic in Cairo, and then returned to Harvard to begin working on his Ph.D. in medieval Islamic history. In the late '70s and early '80s, in the wake of the Iranian Revolution and the assassination of Anwar Sadat by an Islamist militant, he abandoned his initial interests and became obsessed with radical Islam.

Pipes held teaching positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard, and the Naval War College, but did not get tenure. The field of Middle Eastern studies was in the midst of a radical paradigm shift, brought on by the publication of Edward Said‘s Orientalism, that would embitter Pipes for decades to come. According to Said, Western portrayals of the Middle East—from paintings and literature to traditional scholarship—contained a supremacist ideology of “Otherness” that served to justify imperialism. Said’s book changed everything within the field. Suddenly, Middle Eastern studies professors began preoccupying themselves with cultural sensitivity, rejecting notions of Western superiority and the “primitive, exotic” Arab. Pipes decided that academia no longer had a place for him.

In 1986, he began running the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a hard-line think tank which would begin agitating for war with Iraq immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Since 1994, Pipes has been founding director of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, which “seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East” through an aggressive policy of military intervention. Its journal, The Middle East Quarterly, has published such enlightening pieces as “Western Feminists: At the Service of Radical Islam” and “The Arab Mind Revisited,”

which discusses the “inhibiting effects” of the Arabic language and stereotypes Arabs as having a “proneness to exaggeration” and a “tendency to blame others for [their] problems.”

Amid post-9/11 xenophobia and attacks on dissent, Pipes’ extreme views earned him celebrity status. The author of numerous books on Islam and the Middle East, he is a fixture on FoxNews and has appeared on CNN, the BBC, and Al Jazeera. His screeds appear in columns on “Islamofascism” for David Horowitz‘s Front Page Magazine and in an array of national publications, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The

Wall Street Journal. Pipes’ work can be read in languages ranging from Bulgarian to Kurdish on his website.

Pipes began his own personal "war on terror" with a 1995 piece in National Interest entitled “There are No Moderates,” which declared: “Unnoticed by most Westerners, war has been unilaterally declared on Europe and the United States.” Pipes made this statement shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing, which he and fellow right-winger Steven Emerson erroneously blamed on Muslims.

Pipes has been accused of spreading “Islamophobia” by organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which condemns his “history of hostility toward Muslims in general and to the American Muslim community in particular.” Pipes defends his statements, asserting that “the enemy is militant Islam, not Islam, the personal faith.” However, numerous statements reflect a general antipathy toward Muslims and a tendency to label all Muslims as supporters of terrorism. In an October 2001 speech at the American Jewish Congress Convention, he warned that the “increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims…will present true dangers to American Jews.” Around the same time, Pipes wrote a column for the New York Post, “Muslims Love Bin Laden,” which noted: “President Bush says bin Laden represents a ‘fringe form of Islamic extremism…rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics.’…Well, that ‘vast majority’ is well hidden and awfully quiet, if it even exists.”

Pipes is a strident supporter of U.S. intervention in the Middle East, promoting the view that it is through overpowering force alone that the region’s problems can be solved. A proponent of the Iraq war from the get-go, he said in an interview that the invasion would have a “positive effect” upon “militant Islam, the energy market, the Israeli conflict, the general problem of the Arab states modernizing, you name it.” He opposes any peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians and writes frequently about the need for Israel to “crush the will” of the Palestinians. In 1988, during the first Palestinian intifada, he published a New York Times column calling an eventual Palestinian state a “nightmare” for its intended beneficiaries. Statehood, he argued, “would hurt Arabs far more than Israelis.” Recently, he has set his sights on Iran, arguing in 2003, that the “situation has become crude and binary: either the U.S. government deploys force to prevent Tehran from acquiring nukes, or Tehran acquires them.” Of course, the recently released National Intelligence Estimate

on Iran’s nuclear capabilities has proved Pipes’ fears to be thoroughly overblown.

Given Pipes’ militaristic thinking and utter disdain for diplomacy, it struck many observers as deeply ironic when, in 2003, President Bush nominated him to the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace, a congressional institution dedicated to “peacebuilding.” Despite a maelstrom of controversy—Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), among others, vigorously opposed the nomination—Bush bypassed Congress with a recess appointment after the Senate session on his confirmation ended without a vote.

Pipes’ ideological crusade is not limited to the Middle East. It is a battle he has decided to take to college campuses throughout America, excoriating professors who fail to dutifully parrot the right wing’s ideology. In a November 2002 piece in the New York Post entitled “Profs Who Hate America,” he singled out a number of professors critical of going to war in Iraq. “Why do American academics so often despise their own country while finding excuses for repressive and dangerous regimes?” Pipes asked.

That year, he also created Campus Watch, a special project of the Middle East Forum. The Campus Watch website, condemned by The Nation as an example of modern McCarthyism, targets professors and students who hold views on the Middle East deemed unacceptable by Pipes. Campus Watch encouraged students to submit reports on teachers, which were published in “dossiers” on the site. Most controversially, the site published a blacklist of eight scholars and 14 universities. Among them was Georgetown University professor John Esposito, who has called for an examination of the root causes that lead to terrorism.

Subsequently, the blacklisted professors were attacked by spammers who sent large numbers of enormous files to their e-mail addresses. Among the victims was University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole, who reported that his e-mail had been disabled by thousands of hate messages the day after his name appeared on Campus Watch. In protest, over 100 professors around the country wrote letters denouncing Campus Watch for its “attempts to silence and muzzle dissenting voices.” Some insisted on being added to the list, in a gesture of solidarity. The website complied, listing the protesting faculty and distorting their protest, which he claimed was “in defense of apologists for Palestinian violence and militant Islam.” Eventually, Pipes removed the dossiers “in a gesture of goodwill,” but the site continues to update its “survey of institutions.”

Pipes swells with pride at the thought that his intimidation efforts may have had an impact. In a speech at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend in November 2003, Pipes remarked: “I flatter myself perhaps in thinking that the rather subdued academic response to the war in Iraq in March and April may have been, in part, due to our work.”

Indeed, the hysteria fomented by Pipes is far-reaching. In 2003, ripples of Pipes’ efforts reached Congress, prompting the House of Representatives to pass legislation (HR 3077) that would establish an advisory board to “study, monitor, appraise, and evaluate” university area studies programs. The bill also made federal funding under Title VI of the Higher Education Act contingent upon the “fair and balanced” nature of the curriculum. Pipes enthusiastically backed the bill, which was the result of a campaign by Stanley Kurtz of the National Review Online (a frequent publisher of Pipes’ work), who accused Middle Eastern Studies of tending to “purvey extreme and one-sided criticism of American foreign policy.”

The bill did not pass in the Senate, but its specter, along with the combined efforts of Pipes, Horowitz, and their ilk, has left a lasting impact upon college campuses. Their attempts to stifle debate continue to create an obstacle to serious discussion of crucial issues.

Memorable Quotes: The Wisdom of Daniel Pipes

On racial profiling: “For years, it has been my position that the threat of radical Islam implies an imperative to focus security measures on Muslims. If searching for rapists, one looks only at the male population. Similarly, if searching for Islamists (adherents of radical Islam), one looks at the Muslim population.”—“Why the Japanese Internment Still Matters”, New York Sun (December 28, 2004). (And yes, the article does applaud the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII.)

And: “There is no escaping the unfortunate fact that Muslim government employees in law enforcement, the military, and the diplomatic corps need to be watched for connections to terrorism, as do Muslim chaplains in prisons and the armed forces. Muslim visitors and immigrants must undergo additional background checks. Mosques require a scrutiny beyond that applied to churches, synagogues, and temples. Muslim schools require increased oversight to ascertain what is being taught to children.”—“The Enemy Within (and the Need for Profiling)”, New York Post (January 24, 2003).

On Iraq: Pipes wrote in the New York Post that Iraq needed a “democratically-minded Iraqi strongman” since its people “mentally live in a world of conspiracy theories” and were not quite ready for full-fledged democracy.—“A Strongman for Iraq”, New York Post (April 28, 2003).

On immigrants: “Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene… All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.”—“The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!”, National Review (November 19, 1990).

On black Muslims: Pipes referenced “a well-established tradition of American blacks who convert to Islam turning against their country.”—“[Beltway Snipers]: Converts to Violence?”, New York Post (October 25, 2002).

Valerie Saturen is a writer and activist with an M.A. in Near Eastern Studies from the University of Arizona. She can be reached at vsaturen@yahoo.com.

What Does Mike Huckabee Have to do With the Apocalypse?

Recent polls show the previously little-known Mike Huckabee now running a close race with contenders Mitt Romney and John McCain. Huckabee, who won the key Iowa race, owes his rising star to a surge of support from evangelicals. Comprising about 25% of Americans, evangelicals have formed the core Republican voting bloc since the 1970s. While most Americans are aware of the "family values" domestic concerns of this group, fewer understand its foreign policy agenda, which is tied to the powerful, yet little-understood phenomenon of Christian Zionism. Rooted in a literal interpretation of biblical "End Times" prophecy, this ideology carries profound implications for our role in the Middle East, and it is a crucial factor in the 2008 Republican race.

Christian Zionism stems from the belief that the catastrophic events depicted in the biblical Book of Revelation are humanity's literal destiny, and that two-thirds of the Earth's population will perish in an apocalyptic battle of good and evil while the "saved" are "raptured up" to heaven. For Christian Zionists, this catastrophe is a necessary precedent to the Second Coming. Followers of this ideology comprise an estimated 20 million Americans, a number that grew rapidly after September 11 and increased Mideast violence within recent years. Aided by a surge in sales of books such as the best-selling Left Behind series, which portrays Revelation as a modern-day battle, the view of Mideast violence as an apocalyptic "sign of the times" is rapidly gaining ground. Significantly, Huckabee has received an endorsement from Left Behind author and leading Christian Zionist Tim LaHaye.

While those outside of evangelical circles may dismiss such beliefs, they have played a critical role in influencing U.S. foreign policy, and they will continue to affect policy as long as the United States remains under Republican leadership that relies upon evangelical support. Christian Zionism has implications for the U.S. role in Israeli-Palestinian relations, a potential confrontation with Iran, and relations with the Muslim world.

For Christian Zionists, belief in biblical prophecy means support for right-wing Israeli policies such as settlement expansion and opposition to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Against the opinion of most Israelis, Christian Zionists view relinquishing any part of biblical Israel--including what is now the West Bank--as an affront to Israel's prophetic destiny. Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor who once declared "I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers…the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ," vowing in another speech to "take this nation back for Christ," shares this view. He has written that "the Jews have the God-given right to reclaim land given to their ancestors and taken away from them." Regarding a future Palestinian state, Huckabee has stated that he supports a Palestinian state--and it should be formed far away from Israel, perhaps in Saudi Arabia. This view is a step away from advocating ethnic cleansing, as it is unlikely that the Palestinians would voluntarily leave.

Evangelical foreign policy extends far beyond Israel. Inspired by the "Iranian threat," evangelical pastor John Hagee formed Christians United for Israel, which promotes Christian Zionism and advocates a militant policy toward Iran. In his book Jerusalem Countown, Hagee predicts a nuclear showdown with Iran that could be "the beginning of the end." Huckabee, who has said that Congressional approval is not necessary in going to war, argues that the U.S. must do "whatever it takes" to confront Iran, including a military option. If elected, it is likely that his evangelical backers will pressure Huckabee to pursue this option.

Like other evangelicals, Huckabee tends to view the "War on Terror" as a cataclysmic battle with apocalyptic connotations. "We need to understand that this is, in fact World War III," he has said. "Unlike any other war we've ever fought, this one is one we cannot afford to lose."

Whether or not Christian Zionists can predict the future, the human potential to create self-fulfilling prophesies is undeniable, and this is why Americans should pay attention to this ideology.

---

Valerie Saturen received an M.A. in Near Eastern Studies from the University of Arizona. Her thesis addressed Christian Zionism and U.S. foreign policy. Contact her at saturnv82@yahoo.com.

---

Copyright © 2008 The Baltimore Chronicle. All rights reserved.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

This story was published on January 23, 2008.

Thesis: Enticing the End: Christian Zionism & Its Impact on the Middle East

Abstract: The role of the United States in the Middle East is strongly impacted by the powerful, yet little-understood, phenomenon of Christian Zionism. Although the roots of Christian Zionism in the United States are as old as the nation itself, the ideology has grown in importance since the rise of the Christian Right as a prominent force in U.S. politics. While Christian Zionism appears steeped in concern for Israel and the Jewish people, its enthusiastic support does not come with no strings attached. Beneath the surface agenda of the evangelical-Israel alliance lies a deeper motive rooted in biblical prophecy and support for far-right policies such as settlement expansion and aggressive military solutions to the region’s conflicts. The ideology carries serious implications for Palestinians, Israelis, and Americans alike, promoting a policy of aggression toward the Palestinians, a belief in the necessity of sacrificing the Jewish people for the redemption of “saved” Christians in a chilling End Times scenario, and a hindrance of the ability of the United States to play a role in fostering peace in the region.

For a copy of the full text, e-mail me at saturnv82@yahoo.com.

September 11: The Day the Words Changed

Published in Days Beyond Recall special issue A Nation in Distress, September 11, 2006.

Few Americans who lived during the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 will ever forget the searing images that filled their television screens that day, nor will they forget the words they have come to associate with those powerful images. Almost immediately, the discourse that sprang up around the tragedy became deeply imbedded in the collective American consciousness, and few have questioned it due to its emotional nature and the fear of dishonoring the victims or eroding national solidarity by questioning its mythology. Because of this discourse, which arose from within the elite rather than spontaneously, Americans have been able to debate the implications of 9/11 only within the framework of several fundamental myths.

September 11 is perhaps the only date in American history, besides July 4, that has been deemed so significant that the date itself has become a national buzzword summing up a tremendous well of images, emotions, and associations. The immediate coverage of the 9/11 attacks cemented within the viewer’s consciousness a highly emotional memory that has since been invoked by political leaders seeking to use the potent mix of fear, anger, herd mentality, righteous victimhood, and religious feeling to forward their own agendas. The attacks were reported as a national crisis of epic proportions, prompting American viewers to feel as though they themselves were closer to the tragedy than most were in physical reality and to respond with crisis instinct rather than careful reasoning. This, in turn, has become a powerful rhetorical device; as long as leaders could invoke the memory, so too could they invoke that crisis mentality, whether crisis truly existed or not.

One of the central myths saturating the discourse on the attacks is the loss of innocence. In a 2002 speech before Congress, former Secretary of State Colin Powell asserted, “The world is a different place, a more dangerous place than the place that existed before September 11.” Later, in the same speech, he remarked that, “As a consequence of the terrorist attacks…a new reality was born.” Though the majority of Americans were indeed largely unaware of the tension that has for several decades surrounded U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East, the ignorance had been chiefly the result of official brushing aside of warning signs. Yet the attacks have been presented as random acts of irrational savagery that befell an uninvolved and unsuspecting nation quite literally “out of the clear blue sky.” Certainly, the direct victims were innocent and unsuspecting, but coverage maintained that the nation itself was the victim, presenting only a partial view of the larger picture in which the attacks were spurned in part by exploitative policies of the United States government.

The loss of innocence also meant the loss of a sense of complacency and security. No longer could Americans feel safe in their own homes and offices; no longer could they afford the luxury of opting for an isolationist approach to global affairs. “America’s determination to actively oppose the threats of our time was formed and fixed on September 11” George W. Bush remarked in his pivotal October 2002 speech extolling the necessity of invading Iraq. In the speech, President George W. Bush invoked the attacks by saying, “We must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On Sept 11, 2001, America felt its vulnerability.” He concluded the speech with a reminder that “the attacks of September 11 showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger.” The President has been able to invoke the attacks ad infinitum without criticism because one of the universal human responses to tragedy is to place a sense of sanctity around the issue of remembrance. In numerous speeches, Bush has peppered discussions of various issues by reiterating, “America must remember/never forget the lessons of September 11.” Since the vast majority of Americans feel compelled to honor the victims by preserving the memory of what happened, such rhetoric carries the uneasy implication that to oppose Bush’s agenda is to forget, and hence dishonor, those who lost their lives.

Despite the lack of evidence pointing to a connection between the Iraqi government and the al-Qaida network, President Bush continued to draw a parallel between the two situations, stating that “[Saddam’s atrocities] have killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people killed in the attacks of September 11” and “some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there’s a reason. We’ve experienced the horror of September the 11.” While he avoided overt references to collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaida once this was declared a dubious possibility, the President maintained the habit of discussing both in the same sentence, prompting many Americans to form an unconscious association. In the October speech, Bush mentioned Iraq and al-Qaida in tandem six times, asserting that “Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network share a common enemy-the United States of America.” The connection was further cemented by discussion of Saddam’s “arsenal of terror,” along with his potential to form “links to terrorist groups” and to “finance terror.” It would be a mistake to underestimate the impact of this rhetorical device, in light of a Zogby America poll revealing that five years after the attacks, 46% of Americans still believe that Saddam was directly involved with 9/11.

One of the most frequently repeated truisms about the tragedy was that “everything changed on 9/11,” or “the world changed after September 11.” In many speeches by government officials, political pundits, and journalists, one can find frequent references to “the world after September 11.” The concept of a new reality, though it was a reality created not by the event itself but rather by the response, has been echoed in a plethora of official speeches, offering justification for policies that had once been considered unacceptable. A new reality, the logic went, calls for new ethics; no longer can the United States rely upon outmoded codes of chivalrous warfare in the face of an unpredictable and inhuman enemy. The impact of the tragedy had little to do with the number of lives lost, as indeed recent history is filled with violent events leaving far greater casualties, but rather with the importance assigned to it by those with the power to shape popular discourse. In actuality, the U.S. invasion of Iraq has had a far greater impact on the objective reality of geopolitics, directly bringing about a dramatic increase in instability that will affect global politics for decades. Particularly important is that the creation of a new, socially constructed reality serves the Orwellian purpose of erasing history, with all of its valuable lessons and clues about the present. And that is why it is so vital that as we recall the tragedy of September 11, we also take care to remember September 10th, to remember the world we inhabited before this great shift in consciousness. Only those of us who lived through the change can preserve the reality the Bush administration is striving to erase, and transmit that reality to generations to come.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" Shows How Polarized This nation Is

Published July 12, 2004 in The Baltimore Chronicle

http://baltimorechronicle.com/071204ValerieSaturen.html

This battle of hysterias has contributed immensely to an even deeper, far more devastating loss: the ability to think critically and see the larger picture.

Driving through streets lined with new flags and billboards proclaiming "United We Stand" on the way to Michael Moore's blockbuster "Fahrenheit 9/11," one is powerfully reminded of the polarized atmosphere surrounding this election. In such a climate, dogma becomes rigid, loyalties are sharply drawn, and nuanced or moderate voices are often pushed to the side.

The irony is that, for all the finger-pointing, both sides rely upon the same emotional ploys, the same scapegoating, and the same "with us or against us" mentality in order to herd the American public in favor of their respective agendas.

As Moore successfully points out in his new film, the Bush administration was adept at using the vulnerable post-9/11 climate of grief, outrage, and fear to elevate his own political position. Many of us can vividly recall the images that filled our screens following the attacks: first the heart-wrenching scenes of carnage (accompanied by sweeping, mournful music), then infuriating images of the Enemy celebrating our pain. Finally, onto the screen would flash a resolute George W. Bush, against a backdrop of waving flags and moving renditions of "God Bless America." Whatever his faults in the arenas of policy making and word pronunciation, Bush demonstrated his expertise as a propagandist, effectively appealing to our emotions under the guise of apparent logic.

Unfortunately, in his urgency to expose the President, Moore resorts to many of the same emotional ploys he condemns in his subject. Among the opening scenes in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are sequences mirroring Bush's own visual rhetoric: the same devastating images of Ground Zero (insert sweeping, tragic soundtrack), followed by an enraging eyeful of another Enemy (Bush), reaping the rewards of our suffering against sinister music. The simplicity and black-and-white absolutism in the film stand in stark contrast with Moore's previous work, such as the ground-breaking and far more nuanced "Roger and Me."

It is important for people on both sides to foster an appreciation for the complexity of political situations, as well as the diversity of motives among those in either camp.

How are we to account for this change? Clearly, this aspect of "F-9/11" is largely a product of the growing polarization of American society and the extremely charged nature of the upcoming election. It is, perhaps, an element of human nature that prompts us to find unprecedented unity in the face of a common enemy. It is a trait that leads us-unfortunately-to act only when things have spiraled into crisis, and to raise our voices only when subtlety has already been made obsolete. Why did it take a tragedy of the proportions of 9/11 to bring out our unity as a nation? Why did it take a hasty, unnecessary war to send thousands into the streets in the affirmation of life against corporate greed?

In this election, few voters will be voting with their consciences. Rather, they will vote with their fear and outrage, not for an appealing candidate, but against an opponent. Liberals and Democrats, regardless of their support for John Kerry's platform, are mobilized to exfoliate Bush from the Oval Office; Conservatives and Republicans prepare to stand down the subversive, presumably un-American elements in their midst. Both sides are primarily moved not by their own intrinsic convictions, but by apocalyptic visions of the end of civilization as we know it.

This is understandable, in light both of America's vulnerability to further terrorist attacks and the steady diminishing of the very civil liberties that make us the great nation we are. However, this battle of hysterias has contributed immensely to an even deeper, far more devastating loss: the ability to think critically and see the larger picture.

We stand at a critical moment in American history, and our decisions now are sure to have dramatic repercussions for future generations. The level of crisis we face in such difficult times does not have to preclude the ability to think for ourselves, rationally, or to encourage this ability in others.

It is important for people on both sides to foster an appreciation for the complexity of political situations, as well as the diversity of motives among those in either camp. Americans who oppose the war in Iraq, for example, should be able to distinguish between the agendas of policy makers intent on reaping financial benefits from the conflict and the intentions of ordinary people who genuinely sought to bring democracy to Iraq. Conversely, those who support the war must recognize that many dissenters do indeed support our troops, precisely by trying to ensure that they are not sent to fight and die unnecessarily.

Among the strengths of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is its success in bringing to light many facts about the war that were previously unknown to many viewers. The disclosure of facts and information is the pillar of a truly enlightened, democratic society. Let's leave the conclusions to the people.

The Other Zionist Conspiracy: A History of Christian Zionism

Published February 2006 in Zeek: A Journal of Jewish Thought & Culture

http://www.zeek.net/christianzionism/

The 2004 U.S. presidential elections left little doubt about the rise of the Christian Right. Polls indicated that “moral values” topped the list of voter concerns, surpassing the economy, the environment, and even the war, and the symbolic campaigns against gay marriage and abortion mobilized broad sections of the electorate, in particular the "five million new Evangelical voters" whom Karl Rove promised, and delivered, to his president. A year and a half on, the rise of the Christian Right is keenly felt in many areas. Soon-to-be Justice Samuel Alito is certain to enshrine its moral agenda within the Supreme Court's new "strict constructionist" jurisprudence, which allows government much more latitude in regulating moral conduct, even as its "new federalist" doctrines constrict the government's regulation of economic conduct. The "mood" of the country is said to be drifting rightward. And, of course, Israel.

As Israel enters its own election season (and the Palestinians conclude theirs, with ominous and uncertain results), the role of the deeply influential phenomenon known as Christian Zionism is increasingly becoming better known. On the surface, Christian Zionism seems benign enough. It appears to be steeped in concern for the fate of the Jewish people and grounded in sympathy for the Jews’ long history of persecution and yearning for a homeland. Christian Zionist leaders often claim deep admiration for the Jews, describing them as “God’s Chosen people.” However, beyond the outpouring of support for Zionism and Israel that has long been part of the conservative Christian movement lies an apocalyptic motive that is troubling, even sinister, in its implications for both the Jewish people and the global community.

It is well known that Christian Zionism derives its ideology from the belief that the Jews have a role to play in the End of Days: the Jews' dominion over Israel is, itself, a sign of the impending apocalypse, and the presence of the Jews there is essential for the predicted apocalyptic drama to unfold. Less well known, however, are the details and history of that doctrine, and exactly how seriously it is taken today. In fact, predictions of apocalypse are taken very seriously. According to a 1999 Newsweek poll, 40% of Americans (45% of Christian Americans; and 71% of Evangelical Protestants) believe the world will end as the Bible predicts. And of that population, 47% believe the Antichrist is already on Earth, now. In other words, the apocalypse is not an abstract, far-off notion. Thus it is urgent to inquire after its history, and consider its consequences today.

A Brief History of the End of the World

Although Christian Zionist ideology draws from the Old Testament books of Daniel and Ezekiel, its primary inspiration is the New Testament's Book of Revelations. Revelations details a horrific vision in which Earth is largely decimated by a series of plagues, and an “animal with ten horns and seven heads” emerges to lead the peoples of the world into blasphemy and destruction with the help of another beast performing false miracles and bearing the mark (666 -- originally a numerological reference to the Roman Emperor Nero, but now, of course, bearing other connotations). Following the appearance of a Lamb, generally thought to symbolize Christ, a great battle ensues between the forces of good and evil. All of humanity is divided into the categories of “saved” and “unsaved,” the former of which are destined to be “raptured up” to God while the rest of humanity perishes in a gruesome scene of global carnage.

Although most Christians interpret Revelations as allegory, Evangelical Christian Zionists tend to adopt a literal approach. Of course, "literal" is itself not entirely literal, since chariots and fire are not exactly airplanes and missiles. However, when questioned about the discrepancy between John’s descriptions and the realities of modern life and weaponry, they assert that John was merely relaying what he saw through the only language he knew. Thus, helicopter gunships become “locusts” whose wings sound “like the noise of a great number of chariots and horses rushing into battle” (9:3-10), and nuclear missiles become “a great star [that] fell from heaven, blazing like a torch” (8:10). Indeed, it is thought that recent advances in technology account for much of the growing belief in apocalyptic prophecy, particularly as the world entered the nuclear age.

In America, Christian Zionist doctrines have their roots in 17th century New England, where millennialism (the anticipation of the Second Coming, preceded by a period of global turmoil) emerged among the Puritans. The Puritans, who viewed themselves as the new Israel, expressed interest in Jewish conversion and restoration of the non-converted Jews to Palestine. Increase Mather, and his son Cotton Mather, often couched his calls for absolute moral purity in proclamations about the impending Second Coming, which required the restoration of the Jews. While the movement was more fervent in England during the 19th century, the Americans began to match England’s fervor with the rise of dispensationalism, pioneered by defrocked Anglican priest John Nelson Darby. Unlike the millenialists before them, followers of dispensationalism maintained that the End Times had already begun. In Darby’s view, world history could be divided into seven distinct epochs, or dispensations, and humanity is rapidly approaching the dawn of the final age. (Mormons, Millerites, and many other sects had similar views.)

Toward the end of the 19th century, Darby collaborated with leading evangelist Dwight L. Moody to establish the Chicago Bible House, which transformed the premillenialist movement and became one of its major training centers. Moody’s sermons were filled with references to Jews, whom he regarded as the sinning sons of Israel who had disobeyed God, as well as the vicious crowd that had called for the execution of Jesus and cried out “his blood is upon us and upon our children.” His sermons contained an unmistakable element of antisemitism, and he also regarded the Jews collectively as a “greedy and materialistic” people, citing the Rothschilds as an example.

This period was also marked by the cultivation of Messianic Judaism, which Moody discovered to be a highly effective missionary strategy, enabling its converts to retain their ethnic identity as Jews while adopting Christian beliefs. Simultaneously, massively popular gatherings such as the Niagra Conferences and the International Prophetic Conferences aided the movement’s development. During one Chicago conference, speaker Nathaniel West reinforced his belief in Zionism by likening the suffering of the Jewish people to that of Christ himself. What many in the Jewish community apparently failed to grasp was that while the sentiment outwardly served as a moving display of sympathy toward the Jewish plight, by Jewish suffering to that of a man who was said to have died for the sake of Christian redemption, West also reinforced the symbolic role of the Jew as scapegoat.

Missionary activity among the Jews grew following the establishment of the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. The institution’s ambivalent attitude toward Jews was embodied by one of its early directors, James M. Gray, who outspokenly denounced anti-Jewish violence on the one hand, while on the other expressing the belief that the infamous Russian forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was authentic evidence of a global Jewish conspiracy. In 1891, Moody disciple William E. Blackstone bridged the gap between Christian Zionist belief and political activism by launching a petition endorsing Jewish restoration in Palestine. The petition, signed by 413 eminent American leaders, helped deepen ties between Blackstone and Jewish community leaders, leading to the formation of the Christian-Jewish Conference of 1890. Because of Blackstone’s support of Zionism and efforts on behalf of the persecuted Jewish community in Russia, he established lasting contacts with leaders of the American Zionist movement, such as Adam Rosenberg, president of the New York branch of Hoveve Zion (Lovers of Zion). Though Blackstone had, in his influential book Jesus Is Coming, attributed Jewish suffering to the Jews’ failure to accept Christ, he appeared frequently as an honored guest at Zionist conferences and had close relationships with Zionist figures such as Nathan Straus and Stephen Wise.

Later, in 1909, Cyrus Scofield published the Scofield Reference Bible, which became the Bible of the fundamentalist movement and the central text to which Christian Zionists have since referred. Scofield’s crystallization of what has been called “End Times Prophesy” emphasized the necessity of a Jewish return to the Holy Land (especially Jerusalem), the destruction of Islamic holy sites on the Temple Mount (Haram al-Sharif), the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, the imminent battle of Armageddon, and the mass conversion of the surviving Jews to the Christian faith.

====

Contemporary Fervor and Republican Politics

The 1967 war and the Cold War created a climate in which Christian fundamentalists were particularly receptive to Scofield’s views on Revelations. In the 1970s, his “End Times Prophecy” found an enormous audience thanks to author Hal Lindsey, whose 1970 The Late Great Planet Earth was a New York Times bestseller that sold over 18 million copies in English and 20 million copies in 54 other languages. Lindsey views are clear. “The valley from Galilee to Eilat,” he once declared, “will flow with blood and 144,000 Jews will bow down before Jesus and be saved!” The rest of the Jews, according to Lindsey, are destined to perish in “the mother of all Holocausts.”

Lindsey’s novel has sold well throughout the last three decades and even enjoyed a spike in sales in August and September of 1990, as fears peaked over Iraq’s Hussein regime and, according to a CNN poll taken at the beginning of the Gulf War, 14% of Americans believed they were witnessing the beginning of Armageddon. Lindsey’s success also signified the creation of a popular genre, including the influential work of Timothy LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, co-authors of the Left Behind series, in which Christian protagonists assassinate a former U.N. head who is revealed to be the Antichrist. The series has sold over 50 million copies.

The 1980s saw the election of Ronald Reagan, who had espoused Christian Zionist views in the past, and who enjoyed a close friendship with the evangelist Rev. Billy Graham. According to Reagan’s former legal secretary Herb Ellingwood, Reagan had developed a nearly obsessive fascination with apocalyptic prophecy, reading scores of apocalyptic novels. As governor, and later as president, Reagan became known for quoting Ezekiel, confiding to State Senate leader James Mills at one point that “everything is falling into place. It can’t be too long now. Ezekiel says that fire and brimstone will be rained down upon the enemies of God’s people. That must mean that they’ll be destroyed by nuclear weapons. They exist now, and they never did in the past.”

By the time of George W. Bush’s induction into the White House, approximately 40 million Americans expressed beliefs that fall within the scope of Christian fundamentalism, and that number increased dramatically following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Like Reagan, who often framed the struggle with Communism in language rife with religious overtones, George W. Bush has framed the War on Terror in a like manner, presenting the conflict in apocalyptic terms as “a monumental struggle between good and evil, [in which] good will prevail.” Along with frequent references to “evil” and “evildoers,” the President remarked in his September 20, 2001 speech before a Joint Session of Congress that “God is not neutral” in the War on Terror. Similar imagery has been echoed by evangelical leaders such as Falwell, who in 2002 infamously referred to the prophet Muhammad as a “terrorist” in a 60 Minutes appearance.

Evangelical Christianity and a steadfast belief in Biblical prophecy have been a driving force throughout the political career of George W. Bush himself, who in his late 30s became a born-again Christian and was formally converted by Rev. Billy Graham. Before announcing his candidacy, Bush met with Texas evangelist James Robison, confiding that he had given his life to Christ and felt that God wanted him to be President. According to Stephen Mansfield, author of The Faith of George W. Bush, he further revealed that he felt “something was going to happen” and the country would need his leadership during a time of crisis. Since assuming office, the President has been openly forthcoming with his religious convictions and the central role they occupy in his foreign policy decisions. According to veteran journalist Bob Woodward, Bush once declared that he would “export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great country and rid the world of evil,” and he also allegedly told Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas that “God told me to strike al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.”

Christian Zionist ideology also remains a factor in the growing inclination toward American unilateralism. Among evangelicals, mistrust of the United Nations is often reinforced by religious leaders such as Pat Robertson, who wrote in his book The New World Order that the UN and the Council of Foreign Relations may be part of a “tightly knit cabal whose goal is nothing less than a new order for the human race under Lucifer and his followers.” The connection between unilateralism and evangelicalism, also a prominent feature of the Christian Right during the Cold War, stems from references in the Book of Revelations to a one-world governmental body (symbolized by a many-headed dragon) led by the Antichrist. In the face of a conflict of interests between Christian fundamentalists and the U.N. or E.U., the latter organizations have sometimes become the biblical “many-headed dragon” haunting the imagination of the Christian Right. The theme of the U.N. or E.U. as an implement of the Antichrist has been reinforced in apocalyptic literature from Lindsey to Robertson, highlighting a climate of American unilateralism and mistrust.

The Fine Line Between Philo- and Anti-Semitism

One of the particularly troubling aspects of Christian Zionism is the existence of explicit antisemitism within the movement. While most Christian Zionists are not overtly antisemitic, and while many feel genuine sympathy toward the Jewish people, there exists an undeniable undercurrent of anti-Jewish sentiment within the Christian Right. At its core level, the Christian Zionist ideology has Jews play a sacrificial role in the redemption of the Christian world, whether they like it or not. Additionally, some of the movement’s most influential leaders have issued remarks that reveal a far less friendly picture of evangelical Christian attitudes toward the Jewish people on whose behalf they claim to fight.

The most recurrent anti-Jewish sentiments among members of the Christian Zionist movement reflect deeply rooted Christian stereotypes that date back centuries, pertaining to the refusal of Jews to accept Christ, myths of Jewish greediness and money-savvy, and fears of Jewish conspiracies toward world domination. In fundamentalist Christian sermons, Jews are often referred to as “spiritually deaf” or “spiritually blind,” and their status among the “unsaved” is an integral part of evangelistic belief. Rev. Dan C. Fore, former head of the Moral Majority in New York, once professed, “I love the Jewish people deeply. God has given them talents He has not given others. They are His chosen people. Jews have a God-given ability to make money. They control the media; they control this city.” The sentiment has been echoed by Falwell, who remarked during one sermon that “a few of you don’t like the Jews, and I know why. They can make more money accidentally than you can on purpose.” Others, such as Rev. Donald Wildman, founder of the American Family Association, have adopted the view of evangelical leader R.J. Rushdoony’s conviction that the mainstream television networks promote anti-Christian values because they are mostly controlled by Jews.

At the same time as these dark undertones exist beneath the surface, Christian Zionists are -- on that surface -- very generous in their temporal (and perhaps temporary) support of Israel. They support the Nefesh b'Nefesh program, which subsidizes the costs of immigration to Israel. They support Israel in its struggles with the Palestinians and others. And they are increasingly coming to Israel, in greater and greater numbers. The Likud candidate for Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has made a point of cultivating support among Christian Zionists, both to help him politically and to invest in Israel; he recently disclosed conversations to build a network of large, high-end hotels for Evangelical visitors, and a DVD interview with him is being sold on Hal Lindsey's website, which, like most Christian Zionist sites, assumes a pro-Israeli-Right political stance. Other Israeli politicians, and leaders of the Jewish Agency, are aware of the ulterior motives the Christian Zionists have for bringing Jews to Israel, but then again, since Jews don't believe in the prophecies anyway, they seem to feel that they have nothing to lose. Let the Evangelicals be disappointed when the Rapture doesn't happen; in the meantime, they are steadfast political and financial supporters of Israel. Whether this turns out to be a marriage of convenience or a "pact with the devil," of course, remains to be seen.

On the American side, the instrumental role formed by the Christian Right in U.S. foreign policy is rarely treated with the level of acknowledgment and importance it clearly warrants. In fact, the Christian Zionist movement has had a formidable impact upon American involvement in the Middle East. Christian Zionism, which is woven deeply into the fabric of American religious and political life, constitutes a rapidly growing movement that is certain to continue to exercise the considerable influence it exerts today. The movement’s ideology contains profound implications, and they must be examined closely, for the future of Christian Zionism may have profound consequences for the future of the world.