Chris Hedges is an odd figure. I notice he's caught the attention of Mollie over at Get Religion blog -- and, as I noted previously even Eugene Volokh remarked on his call for legal supression of Christians.

Undoubtedly, he thinks he's acting out of "tolerance."

What I find both most disturbing, and yet also in another way, utterly unsurprising, is that such a character was a New York Times bureau chief, an NPR reporter, and a "Senior Fellow" at The Nation Institute -- a set of titles which implies he's had a strong ability to shape the news absorbed by millions of Americans.

Today, I stumbled across another piece by Hedges.

Hedges gets so many things almost right. But it seems his analysis repeatly indicts himself, and his fellow travellers -- far more than his opponents.

For example, I agree with Hedges that utopianism is tremendously dangerous:

Those in despair are the most easily manipulated by demagogues, who promise a fantastic utopia, whether it is a worker's paradise, fraternite-egalite-liberte, or the second coming of Jesus Christ.

But utopianism isn't defined as belief in better world which awaits in the afterlife, or an event we can't control (such as Jesus's return some day). It was, and is, the belief that by our own efforts, we will bring about a perfect paradise or "The Kingdom of God" here and now, or very, very soon -- by centralizing political power and implementing a radical program of social change.

Yet the only concrete example Hedges gives of this supposedly-looming threat is a woman whom he apparently believes is representative of those who wish to limit or stop abortions. It's true that limiting abortion involves the power of law, but if limiting abortion is tantamount to fascism, then this country spent its first 196 years as a fascist nation!

Meanwhile, Hedges is apparently unable to see the massive centralization of power required by political programs he favors in the article, such as would be required to stop "obscene corporate profits", forcibly redistribute wealth from those deemed too rich to those on the bottom, and environmental regimes which would require worldwide coordination and control.

Does he not understand the political implications of measures like these? Or how such ideas were used in the past to bring tyranny? Or are they not troublesome to him because, he believes, they will be run by enlightened souls like himself who are unafflicted by religion?

Christians, as he depicts them, are also motivated by rage and a desire for revenge:

Without alternatives for their social despair, they flock to demagogues promising revenge and a mythical utopia.... The rage many expressed to me towards those who challenge this belief system... was a rage born of fear, the fear of being plunged back into a reality-based world where these magical props would no longer exist...

A desire for revenge? What revenge? The woman he profiled was crying because she was forgiven, not because she desired "revenge" for problems in her life. I've attended churches my whole life, and never heard a sermon promising or promoting "revenge": instead we're told to forgive our enemies. Is he utterly unaware of this?

But I do see a lot of rage in the comments I receive from who have apparently absorbed quite a bit of what Hedges has on offer.

And if despair is a precursor to facism, Hedges is again surely looking the wrong way: study after study shows religiously-affiliated people have far lower rates of depression, suicide, drug use, alcoholism and promiscuity -- all markers for despair.* It is, in fact, the the religiously- unaffiliated, like Hedges himself, who tend toward despair.

Given his own chain of reasoning, what would that imply?

(* Hedges insists his opponents are afraid of a "reality-based world", yet it would seem his own arguments are significantly reality-challenged. It is not hard to discover which segments of society are most prone to despair. Yet it would seem Hedges has premised an entire book on that thesis, apparently without once looking to see whether the scientific literature refutes it, or worse, turns it against him.)

Hedges worries about "millions of angry, disenfranchised Americans longing for revenge and yearning for a mythical utopia, Americans who embraced a theology of despair because we offered them nothing else."

I do too: but I see Hedges as fitting that mould. In the article, he numbers himself among the world-saviors ("we who still believe [the world] is worth saving"), and implies we must "offer" Christians something else than their religious beliefs. I've heard that word -- "offer" -- before, friend. I believe it was Don Corlione...

In Hedges case, the "offer" apparently consists of tight government integration/regulation of private business, strict control over international trade, and regulation of speech he opposes -- all these must be enacted to prevent fascism.

But isn't facism exactly the union of those very features?

(And if we currently "offer nothing", doesn't that indicate it is actually Hedges who believes a non-socialist America has nothing to offer?)

I agree with Hedges: democracy has its enemies. But why is it so hard for him to see that the enemies of democracy aren't those who -- he fanatisizes -- might someday seize control -- but rather those like himself who are saying this very moment we are in a crisis, and need to curtail civil rights to solve it?