I have of late been giving thought to whether freethinkers of all stripes—atheists, agnostics, secularists, and others—can viably maintain a politically conservative stance. Superficially, it may seem that these two branches of thought (and action) have little to do with each other. In the past, we have seen such conservative or libertarian thinkers as Ayn Rand and Allan Bloom (The Closing of the American Mind) openly embrace atheism. But I believe we have entered a new and more alarming period where this kind of straddling is becoming more and more untenable.
If the public hearings of the January 6, 2021, committee have taught us anything, it is that the current Republican P arty—fueled by its denial of facts and science and, more vitally, its denial of the legitimacy of its political opponents—has descended into full-on autocracy. The Big Lie of a “stolen” 2020 presidential election is infecting the party from top to bottom, with dangerous consequences for the future. Doug Mastriano, the G.O.P. candidate for governor of Pennsylvania, has bluntly stated that he will appoint a secretary of state who will simply declare his party’s presidential candidate the winner of the 2024 election regardless of the actual vote count in the state. He is saying openly what other Republicans are plainly hinting at—and the result, unless they are stopped, is a constitutional crisis that may well fracture this nation.
Then there is the fundamentalist/evangelical crowd. It is not only embracing the Big Lie and see in Donald Trump its once and future messiah, but it is hankering to do much more than merely engage in continual protest. One church leader, in reference to those who actually accept that Joe Biden is our legally elected president, stated, “I think there’s a certain punishment for treason in this country, and it’s not jail.” Perhaps this is all just talk and will not lead to any action—but after the events of January 6, one has to be naive in thinking so.
The fact is that, at the present moment, the difference between liberals and conservatives is no longer a matter of opposing policy prescriptions but a matter of one side believing in the democratic process and the other believing that it, and it alone, has the right to govern. Take the abortion issue. Can anyone seriously claim that the overturning of Roe v. Wade was anything but a raw display of judicial power by the right-wing Catholics on the U.S. Supreme Court, at least two of whom were appointed illegitimately? Several other decisions they have forced down our throats lately make it quite clear that they intend to eviscerate the Establishment Clause—a clause that I hope conservative freethinkers are intent on maintaining, if only for their own self-preservation. In short, the company you keep matters. Personally, I’d much rather be associated with a “woke mob” (whatever that exactly is) than with a bunch of theocratic fascists.
And how about immigration? The apocalyptic talk on the Right would be grotesque if it didn’t have such tragic real-world consequences. If you really think that an influx of immigrants—most of whom just want to work hard and provide for their families—amounts to an “invasion,” I suggest you look at recent images of a city called Mariupol.
“But liberals are addicted to cancel culture!” In making this tired claim, conservatives are harboring a serious misconception: they imagine that freedom of speech is equivalent to freedom from criticism. If you say something stupid or offensive, that is certainly your right; however, if I respond to your stupid or offensive comment, that is my right, isn’t it? And if large numbers of people criticize you, it is worth reflecting whether you bear some responsibility in stoking people’s outrage.
And do you not think that your side engages in a much more vicious form of cancel culture? I could point to the obvious examples of Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who have been ostracized from the Republican Party for their commitment to democracy and their refusal to kneel to Donald Trump. These are bad enough, but let’s go a bit farther afield, shall we? I suggest that you try to be an opposition politician in Xi Jinping’s China, Vladimir Putin’s Russia, or Viktor Orban’s Hungary and see how well you fare. (It is not surprising that Orban is now known to have funded and even hosted gatherings of right-wingers from the United States. After all, he and Putin are all hot for “traditional values”—which derive from the most primitive elements of the Judeo-Christian tradition, which I hope few freethinkers wish to see infiltrating our own nation.)
Conservatives have spent several decades trying to convince the public that their platforms—that tax cuts are the magical solution to all our ills, more guns somehow make us safer, climate change is a hoax or fantasy, immigrants and the LGBTQ community need to be legislated out of existence, women should be forced to give birth whether they want to or not—will usher in the millennium. To their frustration they instead find that these policies are no more popular than before. So now they feel their only option is to force them upon us by hook or crook, whether it be by packing the courts or by imposing them on states they have gerrymandered out of recognition. I predict that if they try this on a national scale, they will fail—and fail spectacularly. Any political party that has lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections has no business dictating policy to the rest of us.
While I frankly regard the conservative position on most social and political issues as intellectually and morally bankrupt, I am happy to debate these issues with conservative freethinkers (although it is a bit difficult to carry on a discussion with someone who thinks you’re a Satan-worshiping pedophile). But unless you loudly and decisively repudiate your party’s inexorable lurch toward theocracy and autocracy, I have nothing to say to you.
I have of late been giving thought to whether freethinkers of all stripes—atheists, agnostics, secularists, and others—can viably maintain a politically conservative stance. Superficially, it may seem that these two branches of thought (and action) have little to do with each other. In the past, we have seen such conservative or libertarian thinkers as Ayn …