One Way The Left and Progressives can Defeat the Religious Right and Turn the "Red" States

By Steve Ongerth

I am no fan of electoral politics. I think casting a ballot is one of the weakest
forms of democratic, libertarian, collective actions that people can use in a functional
democracy. America, however, is not a functional democracy. It would take more
time than I have at the moment to explain why in great detail. It is sufficient
to point out that the powers that be, rich corporations and the US Government use
the results of national elections to claim a mandate on their privilege to wage
wars for oil and continue to concentrate wealth in the hands of the very rich whether
they actually have one or not. Elections merely represent a one-dimensional snap
shot of the minds of those casting ballots at best.

That said, there is no denying that the powers that be will (and have) read the
results of the 2004 Presidential election as a legitimization of George W. Bush
and his neo-conservative imperialist puppet masters. They will spin this "election"
as a positive referendum on the so-called war on terror and the Iraq invasion even
as the latter continues to grow increasingly untenable for the American occupation.
And, the already out-of-control American Taliban, the Christian Right will take
the results of this election as a sign that their tactics work and they will continue
to turn back the clock on social progress, social justice, and rational thought.
During the second Bush term we may well see the beginning steps of a full-fledged
theocracy in America. This is very scary to think about.

Forget for a minute that this election may well have been stolen as well as the
2000 election. In fact, the signs are that the theft of the 2004 election were
worse than the 2000 fraud. Even if we succeed in proving it, it's not likely to
result in a special election, because, to my knowledge, that would require an act
of Congress, and seeing as how the Congress is controlled by the Republicans, I
don't foresee them voiding the results (though we should continue to fight that
fight of course).

I think we need to look at the future. I think the left needs to be completely
honest with itself. Even if Kerry did win the presidency, he is not a leftist nor
would he do much if anything) to fundamentally alter the course that Bush and his
clowns have set for us. The only positive thing that could be said of John Kerry
is that he probably couldn't have done any worse than Bush.

How do we embrace the future?

Ironically we must set our sites on the deepest of the so-called "red"
states in America's heartland. This ever increasingly fearful and hysterical bastion
of religious fundamentalism is well described, in microcosmic fashion by Thomas
Frank in "What's The Matter With Kansas?" Essentially religious fundamentalism
has taken root and gained strength because the followers of the fundamentalist leaders
have been ripe for manipulation. The typical followers of religious fundamentalists
are not necessarily inherently right-wing zealots. Most of them are struggling
farmers and low-wage workers whose economic prosperity has been devastated by the
very same Republicans they so blindly and loyally follow. Why? Because the Democrats,
since 1973, haven't even really *pretended* to fight for the interests of the working
class or small farmer in America. The Republicans don't either. Instead they choose
to campaign on issues that appeal to the prejudices of the inhabitants these rural
states, because at least they can somehow show a difference between them and the
Democratic leadership who tend to be upper-middle class and not at all sympathetic
to workers, unions, and small farmers. The same could be said of business union
bureaucrats (though Thomas Frank doesn't discuss them in "What's the Matter
With Kansas?", the criticism fits them equally well).

Yet there is no reason why these rural working class Americans must be Christian
fundamentalists. 100 years ago, the ancestors of these current fundamentalists
were largely left-wing populists, Wobblies, and even socialists. Some of them were
deeply religious. Many had "backwards" views about some issues, but such
things can be unlearned over time. THey turned to the far left because there was
a vibrant left wing workers' and farmers' movement (in fact there were several)
which spoke to their immediate economic and material needs (unlike today). If a
similar movement existed today, no doubt many of these current fundamentalists would
not be fundamentalists. Sure, many of them may still be church-going devote Christians
who turn to their Bible for inspiration. Many of them would no doubt still oppose
abortion. Some of them would still have doubts about evolution as well. Yet, few
of them would follow these fascist charlatans who promise to "restore America's
Christian soul" (a lie) and few of them would be interested in legislating
morality, because they would have more immediate concerns, namely their well being.
It goes without saying that if most human beings have to make a choice of following
a charismatic fundamentalist minister who promises salvation after death but nothing
in the present or choosing a good paying job an d the chance of a better future
on Earth with the promise of eternal salvation still possible, they would almost
all choose the latter. It seems to me then that the way to destroy the demon of
theocracy is to steal its thunder. How do we do that?

Fortunately there is a golden opportunity staring us squarely in the face. America
is addicted to foreign oil and has a fossil fuel addiction. But renewable energy
offers a healthy alternative to this problem if we could only develop the resources.
The development of those resources would require manufacturing the equipment needed
to produce them, and that would create jobs. These would not be low-end Walmart
or McDonalds jobs, but good paying, highly skilled jobs. There would need to be
many of them. These could even be union jobs (and I think they should). It is
also an amazing coincidence that some of the reddest states are the plains states
where wind energy has enormous potential. In the current issue of the magazine
Solar Today (http://www.solartoday.com) Thomas Starrs, the chair of the American SOlar
Energy Society (ASES) notes that 'the United States has been called "The Saudi
Arabia" of wind energy because of the vast untapped potential of wind energy
resources across much of the North and Midwest.' States that not only voted for
Bush, but *heavily* for Bush including Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as weaker Bush States, such as
Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, and New Mexico are all ripe for wind energy systems.

These states would also be excellent locations for solar power, biomass energy,
and reclaimed methane energy (i.e. using the methane from cattle manure to provide
electricity). The agricultural states could also potentially be the source for
the growing demand for biodiesel or vegetable oil energy.

How can the left and greens frame the issue that fits our agenda as well as the
agenda of these followers of Bush and the fundamentalists? I figure we must do
the following:

(1) Learn as much as we can about renewable energy, including all of the technological
as well as economic challenges and obstacles that hold it back. Learn how to overcome
them as the strongest advocates are currently trying to do;

(2) Advocate for locating renewable energy manufacturing jobs in these "red"
states in communities where there is an acute need for jobs. Advocate for tax incentives
to set up such manufacturing plants (but make sure they're powered by renewable
energy as much as feasibly possible and that they are not themselves environmentally
harmful). This won't be easy at first, however. . .

(3) Draft ballot measures, lobby government officials, or run candidates for office
on a program of providing cheap, renewable energy for all. This can be done by
pushing for tax deductions for the entire cost of installing grid-tied personal
renewable energy systems on residential and commercial buildings, including wind,
solar, biomass, etc. The tax deductions will alleviate the installation costs and
create a high demand for the technology (thus alleviating the challenges I just
stated in point #2);

(4) Demand that existing utility providers diversify their production capacity with
renewables and demand tax incentives to switch to renewables as quickly as possible;

(5) Demand that the electricity grid be municipalized and owned in common. Allow
individuals and businesses that generate their own electricity to sell their surplus
energy into a collectively run pool which they can exchange for cash or energy credits
(the latter of which they can use later when they have a personal shortage);

(6) Establish apprenticeship programs for skilled workers including installation,
maintenance, and upgrading of energy systems at all points along the grid.

(7) Establish community run credit unions that provide low interest loans for the
establishment of locally owned renewable energy businesses. Provide greater incentives
for locally controlled, collectively run, unionized, environmentally friendly businesses.

(8) Demand funding for education programs aimed at K-12 education that teaches energy
and resources management and conservation.

(9) Where there are toll roads, allow free passage for hybrid, biodeisel, or hydrogen
powered vehicles.

(10) protect locally owned, family farms. Demand tax incentives or loan forgiveness
for organic farmers.

These ten points alone would be taken with skepticism or even outright hostility
at first, and likely would require us to demonstrate their effectiveness, but here's
how to spin the message; this program will:

(A) Create good paying American jobs;

(B) Provide tax incentives for small businesses, locally owned farms, and workers;

(C) Reduce America's dependence on foreign oil limiting the danger of terrorism
(whether that danger is real or not);

(D) Strengthen the local economy by restoring economic power to the people;

(E) Limit the power of banks, corporations, and the federal government;

(F) Help the environment without reducing anyone's personal freedom.

Notice that the issues of religion, guns, and gays are not discussed. That's because
in the red states, these issues are poison for the left and/or greens. That's not
to say they shouldn't be dealt with; they should, and they likely will.

Remember that most fundamentalists are followers. They are only looking for someone
to lead them to greener pastures. I suggest we show them a different path. The
program I have just suggested will utterly discredit the right. WHy? Because they're
likely to oppose this program because of their support for big oil. But who wouldn't
want economic security? DO you think that the conservatives will retain their base
of support if they try to deny their base economic benefits? I think not.

Of course, we should not make the same mistake that the right makes in how we address
these potential supporters. We should not seek to exploit them or use them for
our own personal gain. Instead we should seek to empower them to run their own
communities at the grassroots level. The benefit in doing that is obvious. A renewable
energy revolution will no doubt have a tendency to boom and bust cycles as well.
Such would be limited by local control and unions. If we simply enabled another
dot-com type bubble, the religious right would have another opportunity to move
in once our bubble burst. By enabling and empowering the grass roots we limit such
a future.

And what of the issues of god, gays, guns, and abortion? Prejudice dies hard.
But it is possible for people to agree to disagree. The left should not seek to
limit anybody's freedom to worship their god in whatever way they wish (as long
as our choices to do the same or not worship any God). The issues of gays, guns,
and abortion are more complex (and I realize that it is easy for me to say that
because I am not gay nor am I a woman), but I suspect that they only have the power
they do to divide because the American Taliban have exploited them. There are many
religious leftists who are quite unafraid of gays and understand the occasional
inevitability of aborted pregnancies. Likewise there are those that are religious
conservatives who are quite willing to live and let live. I suspect that most of
the followers of the religious right are easily liberated from such superstition
and prejudice if we could only learn to respect them as human beings.

Such a future is not a guarantee nor is it by any means easy. However if we dedicated
ourselves to it, we could turn the red states a deep green and utterly break the
back of the American Taliban. We would go a long way towards restoring the American
economy, rebuilding the labor movement, decentralizing power, and protecting the
environment as well. It would undermine many incentives for terrorism, whether
from our own government (because other countries would likely also decentralize
their energy systems as well) or any perceived threat of "Islamic" terrorism.
It certainly would undermine most possibilities of "Christian" terrorism
as well. In ten to twenty years we could make the religious right as irrelevant
then as Stalinism and overt Nazism are today. It would be a form of libertarian,
grassroots socialism that relies on a much freer market than anything promised by
contemporary capitalism. It would really be brought on by a wind of change.

Some suggestions for further research:

http://www.ases.org/ - The American Solar Energy Society

http://www.seia.org/ - Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)

http://www.solartoday.org/ - Solar Today

http://www.votesolar.org/ - Vote Solar

http://www.powerfromsun.com/ - Power from the SUn

http://www.awea.org/ - American Wind Energy Association

http://homepower.com/ - Home Power

http://www.localpower.org/ - World Alliance for Decentralized Energy

http://www.apolloalliance.org/ - Apollo Alliance

http://www.futureenergy.org/

http://www.rmi.org/ - Rocky Mountain Institute

http://www.altenergy.org/# - Alternative Energy Institute

Please note that by listing these sites I do not necessarily endorse any of them
nor do I necessarily support any of their political perspectives (I am certainly
aware that they would probably feel the same about me). I list them for your benefit,
so that you see just how big the potential is and how much has already been done.

Many of these sites promote traditional business models, but there is no reason
why these couldn't be adapted to unionized workplaces or even collectively run shops
(as long as it was viable and the participants dedicated to the cause).

For further reading, I suggest the two following texts:

(1) "What's the Matter With Kansas, How COnservatives Won the Heart of America"
by Thomas Frank, (c) 2004, Metropolitan Books.

(2) "After Capitalism, From Managerialism to Workplace Democracy" by Seymour
Melman, (c) 2001 Knopf.