Reverend Greg

The Day the Enlightenment Went Out

The Day the Enlightenment Went Out
By GARRY WILLS

Published: November 4, 2004

Evanston, Ill.

This election confirms the brilliance of Karl Rove as a political
strategist. He calculated that the religious conservatives, if they
could be turned out, would be the deciding factor. The success of
the plan was registered not only in the presidential results but
also in all 11 of the state votes to ban same-sex marriage. Mr. Rove
understands what surveys have shown, that many more Americans
believe in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin's theory of evolution.

This might be called Bryan's revenge for the Scopes trial of 1925,
in which William Jennings Bryan's fundamentalist assault on the
concept of evolution was discredited. Disillusionment with that
decision led many evangelicals to withdraw from direct engagement in
politics. But they came roaring back into the arena out of anger at
other court decisions - on prayer in school, abortion, protection of
the flag and, now, gay marriage. Mr. Rove felt that the appeal to
this large bloc was worth getting President Bush to endorse a
constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (though he had opposed
it earlier).

The results bring to mind a visit the Dalai Lama made to Chicago not
long ago. I was one of the people deputized to ask him questions on
the stage at the Field Museum. He met with the interrogators
beforehand and asked us to give him challenging questions, since he
is too often greeted with deference or flattery.

The only one I could think of was: "If you could return to your
country, what would you do to change it?" He said that he would
disestablish his religion, since "America is the proper model." I
later asked him if a pluralist society were possible without the
Enlightenment. "Ah," he said. "That's the problem." He seemed to
envy America its Enlightenment heritage.

Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently
in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened
nation?

America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of
Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for
evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders
differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then
modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the
Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the
opinions of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any
more, when a poll taken just before the elections showed that 75
percent of Mr. Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely
with Al Qaeda or was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.

The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the
fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had
experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble
those nations less than we do our putative enemies.

Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity,
religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in
France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the
Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists.
Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous,
so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear
jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.

It is often observed that enemies come to resemble each other. We
torture the torturers, we call our God better than theirs - as one
American general put it, in words that the president has not
repudiated.

President Bush promised in 2000 that he would lead a humble country,
be a uniter not a divider, that he would make conservatism
compassionate. He did not need to make such false promises this
time. He was re-elected precisely by being a divider, pitting the
reddest aspects of the red states against the blue nearly half of
the nation. In this, he is very far from Ronald Reagan, who was
amiably and ecumenically pious. He could address more secular
audiences, here and abroad, with real respect.

In his victory speech yesterday, President Bush indicated that he
would "reach out to the whole nation," including those who voted for
John Kerry. But even if he wanted to be more conciliatory now, the
constituency to which he owes his victory is not a yielding one. He
must give them what they want on things like judicial appointments.
His helpers are also his keepers.

The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even
to nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things. It is not
too early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment.

Garry Wills, an adjunct professor of history at Northwestern
University, is the author of "St. Augustine's Conversion."

Posted by revgreg at November 4, 2004 07:46 PM