Those PK's

["Max B. Sawicky" <maxsaw@xxxxxxxxx>]

The political and intellectual ineptitude of the
left in addressing the Promise Keepers is striking
and not a little distressing, since it basically
tells all these fellows the left has no use for
them.  It reinforces my suspicion that the U.S.
left, liberal and radical, is basically scared
to death of white male workers.

One tip-off to the confusion is the contrast
between the reactions to the PK gathering and
the Million-Man March/'Day of Atonement.' In
content these were deeply similar events, but
the reactions to them were quite different.  In
the PK case, the critics seem relatively confident
and glib about the PK's deficiencies, whereas in
the case of the MMM, there was much less consistency
and firmness in response.  In the latter case, the
dominant criticisms were pretty limited, though not
trivial:  that women weren't invited, and that
Farrakhan's role was inappropriate.

There is a long historical tradition of mass
evangelical movements in the U.S., of which the
PK's are but a modern example.  The essential thing
about the PK's is not that they are a device of the
political right (they are), not that they are homophobic
(ditto), and not that they would invoke male supremacy
in the household.  The essential thing is that they
reflect a healthy alienation from acquisitiveness
and hedonism as supreme  principles in favor of
a particular concept of virtue.

I would boil this concept of virtue down to
two items for the sake of this post:  the
father as an involved, contributing (time as
well as money) member of the family, and
anti-racism.  There is a lot of good in these
focuses, including a positive political by-
product from the point of view of the left.

I'm no feminist rocket-scientist, but for
women who want to be or stay married, it
seems arguable that the expected good features
of the PK's could offset the bad ones.

I've seen the criticism that the PK's don't
"attack institutionalized racism" but reduce
it to personal relations.  Well, hardly anyone
attacks institutionalized racism, in great part
because of the state of personal relations between
races.  So that is not a bad place to start; not
the only place, but not a bad one either.  Would
you rather pose an affirmative action argument
to someone before or after a PK conversion
experience?

I will stipulate that the movement is steered to
some extent by people with ulterior and highly
unpalatable political motives.  The nature of a
mass movement, however, is that when such leaders
try to impose a more narrow, focused agenda, the
movement's unity crumbles.  Diverse individual
ideas of what the movement is about are forced to
surrender to the new, specific idea coming down
from on high.

Paradoxically, the strength of the evangelical
right in politics is the Republican Party's biggest
liability.  It taints their nominating process at its
core and leaves the center to the Democrats.  It
gives the scandal-ridden Clinton Administration
60 percent approval ratings.   A similar
problem afflicts GOP legislative initiatives.  I grant
that the centrist alternative is nothing to cheer about,
but the political handicaps of the far Right should not
be inflated.  That doesn't mean the movement could not
become dangerous and should be ignored.

The most negative, imminent by-product of this movement
is likely to be homophobia and related sexual preference
issues, not the subjugation of wives by husbands.  Here
as well, however, my hunch is that if the exaltation of
the proceedings we've seen thus far is replaced by a
negative campaign against sexual non-conformists the
movement gets into trouble.

The subjugation of women is the easiest argument against
the PK's, since they are relatively open about it, but in
practice I wonder how important it will turn out to be.
Why will men who have heretofore declined to dominate their
households now find themselves able and willing to do so?
If it's by invoking a virtuous framework of conduct for
themselves, aren't they then submitting themselves to a higher,
external authority, as opposed to pushing women around?  Don't
they open up their own conduct to criticism by their spouses?
Maybe the letter of this principle will turn out to be more
important than its practice, but I'm skeptical.  I welcome
civil, illuminating criticism of this point.

Thus far the PK's claim to be above and beyond politics.
I think the best thing to do is take the rank-and-filers
at their word and investigate the hypothesis that these
guys may in fact be MORE susceptible to left politics than
the average drinkin, cheatin, sleep-late-on-weekends Joe.
Crying wolf before the wolf arrives is just as bad as
crying wolf when there is none.  I acknowledge that there
is a wolf, but whether it gets here in its full, negative
incarnation is another question.

Regarding one of the religious communities' political interests
goes, the treatment of missionaries, their rights to operate should be
defended and regimes that curtail them should be identified for the
odious affronts to democracy and labor rights, among other things,
that they in fact are (e.g., Sudan, Vietnam, PRC/China, etc.)

MBS





===================================================
Max B. Sawicky            Economic Policy Institute
maxsaw@xxxxxxxxx          1660 L Street, NW
202-775-8810 (voice)      Ste. 1200
202-775-0819 (fax)        Washington, DC  20036
http://tap.epn.org/sawicky

Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute other than this writer.
===================================================