Dave Silverman, president of American Atheists, is a self-identified conservative. So is Jamila Bey, who sits on AAs board, and who last year gave a speech at CPAC, the annual right-wing clown circus attracting virtually every conservative shitweasel dedicated to ruining life on Earth for everyone (except themselves of course).
Samantha Bee sent a crew to cover Dave Silverman and American Atheists’ presence at this year’s colossal shitshow. It’s a hilarious segment. (If you haven’t been watching her new show Full Frontal on TBS, it is the genuine heir to John Stewart’s The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.)
My favorite part is when AA’s Amanda Knief says this about Silverman (@1:28):
Dave is what we call a firebrand. In any movement, we need people who are dicks. Who are assholes.
Perhaps this is true. But it is also true that there are different kinds of assholes. And movement atheism, which likes to consider itself a “Big Tent,” is already so chock full of them that many, many good people have been driven away and quite understandably want nothing to do with it.
This fact was highlighted in a recent podcast by one of my awesome new colleagues here at FtB, Trav Mamone at Bi Any Means. Trav was interviewing some d00d named Justin Scott, who has recently made a splash trolling all the presidential candidates by asking them their views on religious freedom. Scott had volunteered with American Atheists at CPAC this year, which prompted this question from Trav (@4:18):
TRAV: Don’t we have enough asshole atheists without bringing the conservatives on board?
ME IN MY APARTMENT: YES! YES!
JUSTIN SCOTT (WHO PROBABLY FEEDS SQUIRRELS) FOR THE REST OF THE ENTIRE PODCAST: NOOOOOOOOOOOO.
I disrespectfully disagree.
Silverman & Co. apparently do not realize it, but they cannot have it both ways.
About AA’s presence at CPAC, Silverman said last year:
The core principles many conservatives value—fiscal responsibility, individual freedoms, small government, low taxes, a free market—have nothing to do with the issues crusaded for by the religious right. Conservative lawmakers push away millions of atheist voters who want a responsible, small government and a free market, but can’t and won’t support religiously motivated laws that make our government bigger and more personally invasive.
Gosh, that sounds reasonable! Fiscally conservative, yet socially liberal!
Except for one little problem: that position is utterly, laughably, fatally incoherent.
Greta Christina did an excellent job deconstructing it in a piece for AlterNet titled 7 Things People Who Say They’re ‘Fiscally Conservative But Socially Liberal’ Don’t Understand, wherein she points out that self-professed fiscal conservative/social liberals (“FC/SLs”) are depressingly common. You should read the whole thing, but in summary, as she says right up front:
You can’t separate fiscal issues from social issues. They’re deeply intertwined. They affect each other. Economic issues often are social issues.
Now if you are the kind of person who is open to persuasion by evidence and reason, Greta’s piece will be extremely compelling. Notice I said if—and that is a very big IF. Because as I noted previously, conservatives have an unfortunate propensity to cling to their false and illogical views even more tightly when confronted with rational appeals.
Posts like Greta’s are exceedingly worthwhile to the extent they can reach reasonable people who genuinely care about injustice and oppression—but who, for whatever reason, have not thought through FC/SL very carefully. However in my experience, such people are vanishingly rare, and most self-identified FC/SLs are not, in fact, reasonable people who genuinely care about injustice and oppression. As I wrote previously:
I operate under the assumption that the vast majority of those who claim to be FC/SL are not actually socially liberal, except on issues that either happen to suit them personally (e.g. legal weed) or don’t affect them at all (e.g. gay marriage). Instead, they are actually straight-up conservatives, with all of the reality-averse, empathy-deficient privilege denial and sense of entitlement this typically entails.
Which brings us back to Dave Silverman, and the clip from Full Frontal. He says (@6:19):
I like being the good guy. I like being a good guy. I like being the person who wears the white hat. I like leading the team that fights for nothing more than equality for everyone.
O rly?
Conservatives are opposed to equality in principle, except when an issue directly affects them. You cannot have a “free market” and equality. Indeed, capitalism is predicated on inequality, and cannot exist without it. Are the uber-wealthy building or cleaning their own palaces, growing and preparing their own foods, making their own fabric and clothing, or home schooling their own children? No, they are not. They are instead very busy buying politicians who ensure they pay “low taxes” and that the people who perform all of these jobs for them are paid as little as possible. EQUALITY, everyone.
I cannot believe this needs to be said, but one cannot reasonably expect people of color and women, for example, whose lives and most basic human rights are under constant, violent and escalating assault by conservatives, to occupy the same goddamn Big Tent with racists and Forced Birthers who just so happen to grok that there probably is no god. We should all come together in the cause of what? Atheism? To what end? “Equality for everyone”? Please.
Then Silverman says:
Religion deserves to die. And it should die. And if I’m the one that kills it? I’ll be a very happy guy.
I’d be happy to see religion die too, yet strangely, I don’t give a single fuck whether I am The One Who Kills It. (How ironic is it that the president of American Atheists has a fucking Messiah complex? Hahaha!) But is that really even the ultimate goal? Because if it is, conservative atheists run smack into two rather significant obstacles: the why and the how.
The why, to hear Silverman tell it, is that atheists “can’t and won’t support religiously motivated laws that make our government bigger and more personally invasive.” Presumably this means laws like mandating medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking legal reproductive health care because Jeezus or something, and to that extent I agree with him. But no one who is serious about this can possibly be under the impression that atheism is somehow crucial for eradicating violent misogyny: that is just demonstrably false.
The how is even more problematic for conservative atheists. As I noted in response to commenter oolon the other day, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that a robust welfare state (especially quality universal single-payer health care) decreases religiosity, while economic insecurity (with respect to wages, housing, food, etc.) increases it. See, e.g., Phil Zuckerman’s book “Society Without God.” Fiscal conservatism in the form of Dave Silverman’s “small government, low taxes, a free market” is entirely antithetical to taking the path most likely to get us to the very outcome he seeks: the death of religion.
I wrote in my introductory post here:
[T]he problem in the Middle East isn’t Islam—it’s conservative Islam. ISIS is not made up of liberal Muslims seeking to create a pluralistic society based on democracy, equality and tolerance. Likewise, the problem in the US isn’t Christianity—it’s conservative Christianity. The problem in Myanmar is conservative Buddhists, if you can believe it.
And the problem in the atheist movement is conservative atheists. Their rationale doesn’t even withstand the most cursory scrutiny, and their conservative ideology is precisely what will prevent them from ever reaching their stated goals. More importantly, if history is any guide, conservatives will happily throw allies right under the bus, if it means they get to keep their guns or their regressive tax deductions or whatever selfish and destructive bullshit they truly hold dear.
They will never be welcome in my tent.
Also: #deathtosquirrels
Just last year read a conservative columnist in one of our local papers pull the old “tax cuts RAISE revenues, it’s a FACT!” Because history is just something you can make up if it doesn’t fit your desire to not pay taxes. If tax cuts raised revenues, governments at the federal and provincial/state levels would be rolling in cash after decades of cutting taxes. Hell, the Shrub presidency even cut taxes when going to war, probably the first time that’s happened in recorded history (and of course Obama got all the blame for the deficit).
Hopefully when the squirrels finally take over their benevolent leadership will start to set things right.
I think I love you, Iris. And if you need to escape to a place with a liberal government, single-payer healthcare, and at least a half-assed welfare state, I have a spare room here in Canada. Death to squirrels!
I’m actually going to interview Silverman for my podcast tomorrow (it’ll be online next week, though), and I’ll ask him what I asked Justin.
Oddly ‘fiscal conservatives’ never seem to favor chopping the massive expenditures the country makes on WMD and ‘defense’. Because spending $1t on nukes when you’ve already got 12,000+ of them, makes so fucking much fiscal good sense.
Then why is he at CPAC? I’m just so confused. This is a hotbed of misogynists, homophobes, racists, and theocrats. As far as I can see, the only people who would be interested in AA at CPAC are the misogynists, homophobes, and racists (that happen to not be theocrats). Exactly what team is he plan on leading here?
The comparison to the Log Cabin Republicans becomes more and more salient the more you think about it. Is that what American Atheists is trying to become?
THIS. All of THIS.
Thank you.
I’m about to watch that episode of Full Frontal. The show is phenomenal and Samantha Bee is incredible. Between her, John Oliver, TWiB, and TBGWT, I’m very happy with where I get my social and political commentary.
As for conservative atheists… they need to go. This idea of courting conservatives at fucking CPAC of all places is disgusting.
I utterly despise the phrase ‘small government’. Even setting aside how hypocritical the people using it often are, the term itself is used with any of three different meanings, all without acknowledging any difference between them, solely so that the speaker can pretend to be arguing for the greater good:
1: Scale–the so-called “states’ rights” mantra is part of this; in left-leaning states, they often advocate home rule for municipalities.
2: Intrusiveness–the idea that government regulations themselves are inherently a necessary evil at best, and thus to be avoided.
3: Cost–the desire to slash taxes and spend less on social welfare.
As soon as you separate the three concepts, it becomes apparent that they have no intrinsic commonality. Local governments are often the most intrusive; federal projects are often more cost-effective than local ones, because of economies of scale and the use of a single set of administrators; and often, restrictions on property are meant to reduce the cost of providing the services even the glibertarians admit the government should give.
But the typical conservative will hop between all three ideas without ever drawing a distinction, in order to try to conceal their actual agenda of the moment. It’s a semantic shell-game, nothing more.
I started watching that segment on YouTube, but gave up almost immediately when I thought it might be heading towards more general “atheists think they’re being discriminated against? Ha!” concern trolling.
I’ll have to give it another shot; I probably should have expected better considering I’ve loved a lot of Samantha Bee’s other segments so far, but I just don’t know her as well as say, John Oliver. Yet, anyway.
I was a conservative fundamentalist, but never a fiscal conservative. I was a weirdo who wanted government spending and social programs, but also wanted to play Christian morality police for as long as democracy would let us. Hence voting for Bush and other assholes because they were more religious.
Even as a fundie sheltered 18 year old, who believed in Creationist bullshit and the Rapture, just knowing basic American history was enough to realize fiscal conservatism didn’t work, and regulation and social programs could be good. I knew Republicans were bad for the country, but just didn’t care enough, because yay Christian nihilism, the end times were coming.
Conservative atheists…jesus, what assholes. “Sure, I’ll help the country burn to the ground, and kick poor people in the teeth, and vote away women’s rights, but just don’t make me say “God bless America” while we do it!”
Atheism must be intersectional, or it’s selfish bullshit. And god, is there so much fucking bullshit atheism out there.
My thoughts are that ‘conservative atheists’ are people who will say ‘I want religion and the government off my back’ – people who, either believe in a sort of Just World Fallacy or who just view inequality, poverty and oppression as a necessary part of ‘freedom’ – both views typical of privileged people. For the first, you’re really looking at an article of faith. For the latter, it’s conveniently defining ‘freedom’ in a way which is convenient to the speaker.
‘fiscally conservative but socially liberal’ types strike me as people who want legal weed when they could have smoked it before with reduced chance of arrest, but who would be fine with ‘letting the market’ handle getting drinking water for poor people.
My first thought on seeing Silverman quotes yesterday was about how there’s different ways to be an asshole, and different people to be an asshole to.
I remember being one of those socially liberal yet fiscally conservative sorts two decades ago. But that died a long time ago. Apparently I was mostly just wanting efficient/non-wasteful spending, and the more I’ve learned about social programs, sociology, economics, etc the more important most all those services seem. I say most because I do think the military could stand some trimming.
Anyway, based on my experience I definitely agree conservative (including a fair few self-described liberals who sound just like conservatives) really are opposed to anything close to what I’d consider equality.
How many conservative things must one believe before being unwelcome in the Big Tent?
Is is enough to believe that free markets are a good way to structure the flow of goods and services, as opposed to a more centralized planned economy? Or must one also support specific conservative agenda items?
The only positives I see with this is that loosening religion’s hold on the republican party might weaken them and it might reduce the amount that politicians fall all over themselves to praise god all the time.
That said, people like Silverman are my ideological opponents in almost every way. When he speaks of equality, I’m pretty sure he just means that he doesn’t want to be discriminated against for being an atheist (a worthy goal but a very narrow definition of equality).
I like to attribute the current anti-government feeling to Cold War propaganda from the Russians. Back when I was a pup, Vietnam draft dodgers were slagged for not having respect for their government.
A large government could get us good roads, perfect medical care, excellent education, and a strong military, and construction projects of all kinds – provided it was properly managed by involved citizens. A desire for small government is an assumption that it would be poorly done, and that the complainant would have to stop being a raving beast.
Hello FtB people – I’m sorry I’ve been out of pocket with some family issues and travel for Zombie Jeezus Day, and except for approving new commenters, I haven’t had time to keep up with this thread. But now that I’m VERY BUSY holing up to avoid my mother as much as possible, I would enjoy nothing more than responding, all leisurely like, over the next few days. :D
Tabby Lavalamp 1: Yes! Tax cuts raise revenues, despite ALL OF HISTORY. Also, hard work makes you rich and successful, which is why Mexican day laborers are all living in spectacular mansions on Park Avenue. (I’ll benevolently interpret your quip about the squirrels’ benevolent leadership as sarcasm…for now…)
sandykat 2: Thanks for the love and the invite! While there is much to recommend Canada, I presently have my heart set on escaping to Costa Rica. Did you know that in the wake of the Iran-Contra crimes, the country permanently banned Oliver North and all those douches responsible for running drugs, cash and weapons in and out of Nicaragua from bases in Costa Rica? So far as I know, they can all still get into Canada…but at least I will never, ever run into those particular assholes in CR.
Trav Mamone 3: looking forward to hearing it…but those CPAC assholes are Silverman’s people, except for the gods crap. He doesn’t want “equality for everyone.” He wants to be accepted and welcome in their circus tent.
Marcus Ranum 4:
You mean “fiscal conservatives” are not actually fiscal conservatives?! GTFO!
Srsly, tho: the evidence is overwhelming that just like all of their other vaunted principles (free markets, religious freedom, traditional marriage, etc.) conservatives pay only lip service to fiscal conservatism when it temporarily suits them.
I’ll be back later…I hope…
Ooh! A reprieve!
doublereed 5: I think Occam’s Razor leads us to the explanation that Silverman wants to be accepted among his people in the CPAC clubhouse, without being discriminated against for his atheism. Because I am SURE no human being on earth has ever suffered as much from oppression, discrimination and injustice as he has. (/sarcasm)
Feminace 6: ♥︎ x o!
Nathan 7:
I know, right? CPAC! FFS. For those who aren’t familiar, CPAC draws, promotes and caters to a lot of the far right of the US conservative movement. And that is really saying something.
freemage 8: “Small government” is another vaunted conservative principle they trot out only when convenient. Not coincidentally, their rationales for why it’s such an important priority are all over the board. But it’s especially telling that the ones who shriek “because OMG tyranny!” the loudest are quite plainly the ones who are the most tyrannical and anti-democratic themselves—or clearly would be if they ever got anywhere near power.
(To be continued.)
kagekiri 9:
There sure is. But hopefully not very much of it at this blog. :D
smrnda 10: I think you’re onto something with conservatives viewing “inequality, poverty and oppression as a necessary part of ‘freedom’” – especially if by “freedom” we more or less mean unrestrained capitalism. And yeah, it’s a typical view of privileged people because they’re the ones who benefit disproportionately from the status quo… which feeds right into the Just World Fallacy. After all, if they are somehow doing better than most, they obviously deserve it due to their innate superiority. Or something.
John-Henry Beck 11: You sound like one of those aforementioned rare reasonable people who genuinely care about injustice and oppression, i.e., you are open to reconsidering your view in light of more knowledge. <3
Damion Reinhardt 12:
The Big Tent is Silverman’s thing, not mine. And if he’s recruiting at CPAC, apparently there is no limit. So knock yourself out.
Golgafrinchan Captain 13:
He doesn’t want to be discriminated against by right-wing conservatives for being an atheist. It doesn’t get much narrower than that.
Menyambal 14:
Ever notice that people with toxic control issues think everything they can’t completely control is poorly done? The idea of any kind of collaboration – including a functioning democracy wherein a responsive government provides for good roads, perfect medical care, excellent education, a strong military, construction projects etc. to benefit the public – is right out, then.
Or a controlling asshole. To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to.
original comment 15 was just deleted by me at the request of the commenter, who characterized it as “terrible,” wishes to recant it and apologized for leaving it. See? I can be Nice™.
“I operate under the assumption that the vast majority of those who claim to be FC/SL are not actually socially liberal, except on issues that either happen to suit them personally (e.g. legal weed) or don’t affect them at all (e.g. gay marriage). Instead, they are actually straight-up conservatives, with all of the reality-averse, empathy-deficient privilege denial and sense of entitlement this typically entails.”
This used to be me.
…I got better. :D
I will gladly take the assholishness of someone like PZ, which is by afar and away more often based on an angry RATIONAL reaction to things, rather than Silverman’s proven record of IRRATIONAL assholery any day.
PZ is an actual firebrand.
Silverman is just a placeholder.
or on things like Homeland Security.
I think maybe Bernie is the ONLY candidate for potus (including all the also rans that have already dropped) that talked about curtailing this department… which is the single largest government agency ever created in the history of humanity.
No kidding.