Hillary Clinton originated the term "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" to explain the origins of the belief that her husband had had an affair with an intern. Of course a much simpler explanation eventually surfaced: her husband had had an affair with the intern. But this illustrates how deeply, in her mind, she is opposed to "the right." In terms of policy, she's also shown herself to the left of her husband -- who nobody called "right wing" either, to my knowledge.

But now, according to some, Hillary's on "the right". Why? Because she prays with people who aren't lefties, and because she supported (to her credit, IMO) legislation guaranteeing religious freedom. (I guess the "real" left must be definitionally opposed to religious freedom, then?)

Jeff Sharlet surfaces again, as well, weaving bible studies into nascent theocracies:

Clinton fell in with The Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the Senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's "most elite cell," the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, The Family's publicity-averse leader, that he is "a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

Furthermore, The Family takes credit for some of Clinton's rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing "religious freedom" in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.

What drew Clinton into the sinister heart of the international right? Maybe it was just a phase in her tormented search for identity, marked by ever-changing hairstyles and names: Hillary Rodham, Mrs. Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and now Hillary Clinton. She reached out to many potential spiritual mentors during her White House days, including New Age guru Marianne Williamson and the liberal rabbi Michael Lerner. But it was the Family association that stuck.

Sharlet generously attributes Clinton's involvement to the under-appreciated depth of her religiosity, but he himself struggles to define The Family's theological underpinnings. The Family avoids the word Christian but worships Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the "meek." They believe that, in mass societies, it's only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God's "dominion" on earth. Insofar as The Family has a consistent philosophy, it's all about power--cultivating it, building it and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or "cells." "We work with power where we can," Doug Coe has said, and "build new power where we can't."

I'll reserve specific judgment on "The Family" until more information surfaces -- they might be a bit flaky, they might be legit, who knows. But I'm cautious, as Sharlet seems to have a tendency to reflexively conflate religious activity by people in government with a nefarious plot.

In this case, he implies his life has been in serious danger based on the following:

But he wasn't completely out of danger either. When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners--alone.

(He was followed once -- outside! And they have called him and asked to meet since he started saying un-nice things about them? Oh my. Good thing he didn't publish any cartoons mocking them!)

My main point here is the problem that the left has, and will continue to have, with religion. Amy Sullivan was pushing Democrats to be more religion-friendly -- not just sound more religious, but to articulate a vision of where religion matters politically. Yet it seems that even something as mainstream as protecting the right to express one's beliefs in the workplace, or associating with the group who sponsors the "blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast", or praying with wives from across the aisle, suddenly qualifies one as a card-carrying denizen of "the sinister heart of the international right."

On the flip side, Barak's foray into liberation theology hasn't worked out very well either, has it? The catch-22 seems to be if it appears mainstream, it's "right wing", if it appears sufficiently freaky not to be, it'll also turn off the American public.

Hat tip to Jonah Goldberg, who notes that the author used the word "fascist", and points to the tendency where far-lefties use the term "right wing" to shame political bedfellows who haven't embraced enough of the far-left's agenda.

If you want to look into some really troubling examples of strange religious influence in the corridors of power, study Ariana Huffington's involvement in MSIA, or study Hillary's participation in seances. In both cases, powerful politicians believe they're getting in touch with supernatural entities, and allow them to influence or even dictate the minutiae of their personal lives and politics. That's far stranger than a prayer breakfast or bible study, yet seems to go utterly unnoticed.