Anti-religionists are prone to regurgitating the meme “Religion is the opiate of the masses”, falsely attributed to Karl Marx, at least with respect to his actual meaning. Looking at the English translation of the actual passage from Marx’s Contribution to Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, one can see that his opinion of religion is nowhere near as negative as those who improperly quote him.

Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality.

For quite awhile now, I have had this abstract sense of a connection between militant atheism and white supremacy, especially given that the public vanguard of the former is populated entirely by white people – like Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. Certainly there are atheists of color, but they do not seem to often go on record as being so anti-religious. I am inclined to think that for atheists of color, their opposition to religion is more philosophical than political, in contrast to the Islamophobia sweeping through Europe and popular amongst white Americans.

But still, what is the connection between anti-religionism and white supremacy? I think Marx involuntarily offers us one possible explanation (emphasis added):

The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

White supremacy is all about power and privilege, for white people, at the expense of, to the detriment of, and built upon the oppression of people of color.  In spite of the legitimate quandary of why black people in particular would embrace the religion of their oppressors, the religion used at different times to justify their oppression, the fact is that Christianity can and has for many provided a sort of opiate effect to counter the experiences of racism, discrimination, marginalization, and enslavement.  Those who suffer most in this world are more inclined to turn their gazes towards the next in search of repose.

Those who have not experienced oppression do not have as much of a need for an opiate. So it only makes sense that more white people, as the benefactors of white supremacy, would be more inclined towards atheism than people of color, and specifically towards anti-religionism. Furthermore, when we consider that anti-religionism is often just a generic facade for Islamophobia, as it is in much of the Western world, and take note of the fact that people of color comprise the great majority of Muslims, the connection becomes even more clear.

Marx regards religion as “a protest against real suffering”.  At the same time, any honest examination of terrorism, which is often falsely attributed to religion rather than the political undercurrent which actually inspires it, has to consider the fact that terrorism is most often reactive, not proactive, meaning that it is a response to something else. In the case of terrorism coming out of the Middle East, it is not an extension of Islam, but rather a response to American Imperialism, rendered through the deaths of countless innocents.  In Chechnya it is a response to Russian imperialism, in the Philippines and Indonesia a response to ethnic discrimination and political marginalization.

And what is “protest”, if not a response to injustice? If you think the connection between protest and terrorism is a dubious one, then simply take a moment to consider the response to both by those in power – power the misuse of which is at the very heart of the response. Both are answered in almost all cases with violence, ironically under the pretext of “defense” or “neutralization”, as if the balance of power were ever skewed against those who possess it.

It is no coincidence that Representative Peter King (R-NY) has suddenly decided to include black prisoners in his witch hunt against Muslims.  Black prisoners are a representative cross-section of the oppressed in the United States, and if religion – in this case Islam – becomes for them a means of protest, then again it presents a challenge to the establishment, that is, white supremacy.

The same was true during the Civil Rights Era, with the liberation theology of Dr. Martin Luther King – which it is important to note was also anti-Imperial – and the revolutionary views of Malcolm X which found their inspiration in the Nation of Islam and were refined through Sunni Islam.  King and X were not killed for their religious beliefs, but for the political threat they presented to both American Imperialism, and the white supremacy from which it extends.

Black Muslims today as a group are more likely to possess counter-establishment views than other African-Americans, who as a voting bloc reliably support the Democratic Party. The Democrats, of course, are comfortable within the status quo (i.e. white supremacy), so as long as black people support them, they are not a threat.  This in turn enables the discussion to be turned towards religion rather than race, which some people would have you believe is a non-issue as of the very instant of Barack Obama’s election.

So is anti-religion really even about religion when we look at who invokes it and why it is invoked – most often for political reasons?  Is it strictly a coincidence that religious protest is launched mostly by people of color in opposition to ostensibly white power structures, and in turn it is mostly white atheists who take the vitriolic anti-religion tack? Or that white people of other faiths adopt Islamophobia at a time of heightened immigration of people of color – many of whom happen to be Muslim – into their countries, which poses a threat to their majority and therefore a threat to their supremacy?

The answer should be an obvious and resounding “no”.

On April 12th, 1964, Malcolm X made a speech before a large gathering on the merits of black nationalism. Below is a one-minute snippet from that speech, discussing the logic of African-Americans supporting the Democratic Party in such huge numbers.

Transcript:

In Washington, D.C., in the House of Representatives, there are 257 who are Democrats. Only 177 are Republican. In the Senate there are 67 Democrats; only 33 are Republicans. The party that you backed controls two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and still they can’t keep their promise to you.

‘Cause you’re a chump.

Anytime you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government and that party can’t keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you’re dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that party, you’re not only a chump, but you’re a traitor to your race.

—Malcolm X

Now, allow me to paraphrase Malcolm, to reflect the current state of affairs:

Right now (since January 2009), in the House, there are 256 who are Democrats.  Only 179 are Republican.  In the Senate there are 59 Democrats; only 41 are Republicans.  The party that you backed controls two-thirds of the House of Representatives and nearly 60% of the Senate, and put a black man in the White House, and still they didn’t keep their promise to you.

‘Cause you’re a chump.

Anytime you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government and that party can’t keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you’re dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that party…

Well…I’ll let you come to your own conclusions.

But as you think about it, also consider this: Between 1964 and 2010, how much “Change” has there really been?

(Note: This is in no way meant as an endorsement for the Republican Party. Malcolm was no more forgiving of them. And certainly I’m not. The difference is that Republicans do not even pretend to represent African-Americans, and since at least the advent of the “Southern Strategy” – redoubled through the Tea Party – they have become openly hostile towards African-American interests.)

I agree with Gladwell, based on my own personal experience with “activism”, or at least political dissent online. There are countless Facebook groups, blogs, and tweeters that I have followed who are in line with my personal politics, and yet none of them encourage me to really DO anything. At best I’ll sign a petition or write a Congressman.

Those passive forms of activism allow me to feel like I’m doing ~something~ without really committing, and not just because I’m lazy or disinterested, but because no physical initiatives ever seem to emerge from these groups. This is especially true of the Left – and by that I mean the real Left, not self-proclaimed “liberals”, who, incidentally, seem far more active.

It’s pretty clear that without any sort of formal leadership or organizational structure, that there will never be any sort of revolution, because that which keeps the status quo in place is a highly organized and well-oiled machine decades in the making.  A rowdy band of misfits, as well-intentioned or self-righteous and indignant as they can be from the comfort of their living rooms or offices, really aren’t doing much of anything to change anything.

Mind you, I count myself amongst those who are doing nothing, and I wish that wasn’t the case.

This is not to say that there are not people who are truly active, but that they go largely unnoticed by the general public, seen as a nuisance, or perhaps as asking for too much.  People said the same thing about the Civil Rights Movement, too.  And in the generations since, we’ve been increasingly conditioned to accept the status quo.

There has been a sense of powerlessness, mitigated to some extent by surges of political activity every two years, and even that is largely ineffective due to the tyranny of the two-party system.  Social media, though, is the new placebo, satisfying the desire to do at least something about all the things we know to be wrong in the world, without committing bodily or any real expectations of making a difference.

When Obama first came onto the scene, he seemed to advocate for all sorts of leftist policies, or at least was very good at pretending to advocate for them.  In truth, if we look back, he was always a centrist, and expertly danced around making any serious commitments to moving left.  He was always, since he first appeared on the scene, a product of the “Chicago Machine”, which is all about gaining or maintaining power vis-a-vis the status quo.

Now, 2 years later, the pendulum shifts the other way, with the Republicans gaining hugely in the House and significantly in the Senate.  The reason many Democratic activists and party leaders cite for this shift is not their failure, oh no, but a growing apathy amongst their constituency.

As if the two things are unrelated.

Barack Obama, much to the criticism of the left, ceded too much to Republicans and the right, who sought to shoot him down regardless of any concessions he made.  Because it was never and probably has never been about compromise, but about control.  Even if Obama forwarded a completely right-wing agenda (and one could argue he has with regards to foreign policy), the Republicans would stand against him, simply because he is not a member of their party.  They will never concede that any of the changes they want could be brought about by a Democrat.  No, they need to be the ones to control and be rewarded for any changes that occur.

So the question that so many people asked of the Democrats was: “If they’re going to shoot you down, anyway, why not just push the agenda that your constituency wants?”  After all, the Democrats had virtually unchallengeable power and did not much need the Republicans for anything.  Yet in spite of every concession made – and perhaps they weren’t concessions, but the Democrats showing their true colors – the right would paint them as “socialists”, paint this picture of “government as enemy”, which is ironic given that it was part of the government itself making the claims.

In truth, Barack Obama is no closer to being a socialist than John McCain would have been.  He is, on nearly every point, the enemy of socialism.  But American exceptionalism being what it is – by this I mean their exceptional gullibility and capacity for boundless ignorance – the people on the right ate it up.  The people on the left just sighed, because for all their enthusiasm in 2008, nothing much had “changed”.

In 2008, the Democrats had the advantage of being the minority party, of being the party standing in clear opposition to George W. Bush, who by this time had become near unanimously condemned by the American public and the international community.  They had the ability to say they would “change” what was currently happening.

Now in 2010, after 2 years of the Democrats holding all the cards and doing not much of anything to deliver on those promises of change, the advantage shifted to the Republicans as the party not in power, to be able to say that things would change simply by virtue of a shift in power.  What people fail to understand, it seems, is that a change in party does not necessarily mean a change in policy.

George W. Bush was much more of a radical than Barack Obama.  He brought about a ton of changes, more with respect to Clinton than Obama has with regards to him.  But it had nothing to do with disillusionment with Clinton.  It had to do with fear, starting with 9/11 and proceeding from there.  People will make all sorts of irrational decisions when they’re afraid.  So, barring catastrophe, it has never been the case that a change in party represents a change in politics as usual in Washington.

It could be argued that the 8 years of Bush was enough of a catastrophe to warrant another serious change, and indeed it was that sense which enabled Obama to gather so much momentum.  What he has done with that momentum, however, is to attempt to re-establish the Clintonian government, which was anything but radical.

It has been a running trend that the party of the President suffers serious losses in the following midterm elections.  Why?  Because every 2 years, at least, but more likely every day, people pine for “change”, in one thing or another.  And when, following pendulum shift and pendulum shift – Republicans ceding power to Democrats and Democrats ceding power back to Republicans – no such change occurs, it leads to a surge in enthusiasm from the President’s political opponents, and a surge in apathy from the party’s constituency.

Had Barack Obama actually been a socialist President, he would’ve brought about changes that this country has never seen, and the same sort of opposition would’ve gathered.  However, in how such changes increased job growth, mitigated the increase in poverty, stood up for the everyman, provided everyone with comprehensive healthcare not for profit but because it is a necessity, forwarded a real civil rights agenda, and improved our image around the world, perhaps the opposition would’ve come only from the contrarians and the irrational fringe, rather than average disaffected citizens who in large numbers just wanted to see something different.

It’s ironic, really, that people cry for change, yet they are so afraid of the kind of change that is actually needed.  Socialism, because they don’t understand it, because it is so different from what they know (and they know so very little) and because it still – somehow – is tied to anachronistic Cold War fears, became their Red Herring.  But had the Democrats actually advanced an agenda that even hinged on socialism, and people saw the kinds of positive changes that it could bring about, they might change their tune.

But the Democrats, whose agenda has never changed, and is virtually the same as that of the Republicans (i.e. to stay in office), dared not push that far left, because rocking the boat too much apparently leads to major losses.  It’s a strange conclusion to come to, though, given that all historical evidence points to the contrary, that the pendulum shift is the status quo, that each party will rise and fall with unflinching regularity.  All evidence was that the Democrats would lose big regardless of what they did or didn’t do.

One would think that the only way to change this dynamic, to halt the pendulum shift, would be to swing the damn thing so far left that the pendulum would snap off altogether – sending the country in an entirely new direction.  Of course I couldn’t say with any certainty whether or not it would go flying towards rejuvenation or disaster, but a look around the world at other countries that have successfully instituted leftist policies, and at those that have failed miserably by instituting far right policies would suggest a positive outcome.

I realize that this is a very simplistic analysis, and that surely Democrats, well-trained in public policy, law, and everything else it takes to hold their positions, know all of this.  If so, then one can only come to the conclusion that the pendulum shift, despite all their campaigning and rhetoric, is within acceptable parameters, and that they are content to let things play out as they will until it shifts back the other way.

Change, though?  Of the sort required to keep their constituency enthusiastic?  That would be too risky, might cost them too much, might eventually lead to some President instituting radical changes that throw the country into a downward spiral, make us hated around the world, trample all over civil liberties while providing for the triumph of big business.

Oh, wait.

So better to ride out this down tick in public opinion and wait for the inevitable backswing, right?  Sure, so long as they have no intention of changing anything.

I must also point out, if it is not abundantly clear to anyone reading this, or who has ever read anything I’ve written, that no part of my decision is about apathy. Quite the contrary, in fact.  And so, if apathy is anyone’s reason for not voting, I would encourage them either to vote, or to truly understand the many legitimate reasons not to do so.

In random order:

1. I don’t support any of the candidates running in my state – that is to say, I oppose all of them
2. I question the wisdom of voting for the lesser of two evils
3. The outcome of the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court case ensured that the next election would be more about money than the last, and indeed, 2010 is breaking all sorts of spending records
4. Republicans, or at least the social conservatives amongst them, openly act against my interests and everything I stand for.
5. Democrats pretend to act for my interests and in favor of the things I stand for, or otherwise remain completely quiet on those issues, and only to shift their position or compromise once in office.
6. In some perverse way I want to sabotage Democrats – who by default are the ones I’d be voting for as the only viable candidates who are even remotely amenable to my interests – just to show people on the left how utterly ineffectual they are and make a case for putting our energy behind actual leftist candidates
7. Along the same lines, I want to see people get what they ask for, and laugh when it blows up in their faces.
8. I refuse to reward any who continue to place the interests of corporations above those of the people – and that would be both Democrats (see ridiculous Healthcare bill, silence on marijuana legalization) and Republicans (see: deregulation, tax breaks, mass privatization).
9. Because I follow the money and don’t like where it leads.
10. Real changes – for the better or for the worst – seem to only ever occur during or in the aftermath of a catastrophe (See: Roosevelt after the Great Depression or George W. Bush after 9/11/2001
11. Because compromises just aren’t enough for me anymore, which in effect aren’t small victories, but a maintenance of the status quo.
12. Neither party dares to challenge the moral hypocrisy of the Israeli government
13. Not much will change regardless of which of the two parties controls Congress; if a Democratic president and a filibuster-proof majority didn’t change anything, then neither will a Republican majority, which is not at all likely to happen, anyway.
14. My “right to vote”, as determined by my status as a citizen, is undermined by corporate personhood.
15. Not one candidate has the balls to address the issues with any real critical depth, that is, beyond the talking points
16. I am exasperated by the cheeky self-satisfied and utterly disingenuous self-righteousness of liberals (here I mean voters, not candidates)
17. I am exasperated by the raging self-sabotaging ignorance of conservatives (again, I mean voters)
18. Voting continues to be an excuse for people to believe they’ve “done their part” to affect change, even after it’s been shown that nothing has actually changed
19. Not one candidate speaks out against American Imperialism
20. Many of these points presume that my one vote actually makes a difference.  Statistically, it doesn’t.