Against the Consensus

Since the Reagan victory last November, the political Right has sought to consolidate its gains. Forces both inside and outside the government are moving to define a political consensus further to the right than ever before. Part of that strategy is the excluding, discrediting, and persecuting of those people and groups who fall outside the prescribed ideological boundaries.

Central to the political consensus the Right is seeking to forge is the idea that the greatest threat to peace today comes from the Soviet Union, and that most of the world's problems and conflicts are directly traceable to Moscow and its allies. Every development against U.S. interests is conveniently blamed on the Soviets. The U.S. government now can find Soviet involvement in almost any situation, the most recent example being charges of Russian meddling in El Salvador. Of course the Soviets do the same thing in reverse, blaming the United States for the resistance they're facing in Afghanistan.

Secretary of State Alexander Haig, Jr.'s comments on that charge are ironic. He attacked the Soviets for promoting the "bizarre theme" that the U.S. is "the source of the trouble" in Afghanistan and for refusing to negotiate a political settlement. "The Soviet Union must begin to understand that Afghan resistance and international pressure will be sustained," Haig declared. Substitute "United States" for "Soviet Union" and "El Salvador" for "Afghanistan," and the statement becomes a clear and accurate criticism of U.S. policy in Central America.

The two giants play the same game with the nuclear arms race. Both accuse the other of escalations, both continue to escalate, and both use the other's escalations as the justification for their own. It is a very old story--two superpowers out to shape the world in their own image, each accusing the other of doing what they themselves are doing. Neither cares much for freedom, for truth, or for peace. Each pursues its own self-interest through manipulation, violence, and power politics, then arrogantly proclaims its cause as righteous.

In the Soviet Union, those who dissent are silenced, and here, any who fundamentally disagree with U.S. policy are increasingly under attack. A thoroughgoing anti-communism is becoming the chief tenet of the new consensus, with the acceptance of the righteousness of the American role in the world as the starting point for all "responsible" opinion. We are beginning to see what could become a new McCarthy era complete with innuendo, fabrication, guilt by association, slander, character assassination, and outright lies.

One recent target of such attack has been Richard Barnet, our good friend and Sojourners contributing editor. Since Vietnam days, Barnet has written powerfully and lucidly against the irrationality and immorality of the nuclear arms race, the danger of U.S. intervention in the affairs of other countries, and the dominance of multinational corporations at home and abroad. In other words, Richard Barnet has been against things as they are in the United States and has been an advocate of basic change in U.S. policy. It is because Barnet's voice has been so clear, strong, and reasonable that he has come under attack from the Right. His opposition to the present American course has led to accusations of his being anti-American, pro-Soviet, and even a communist sympathizer. I have read the articles and reviews that try to paint Richard Barnet as an enemy of his country, and I am appalled by their complete lack of truth and integrity.

What Richard Barnet's opponents fail to understand or accept is the fact that he is not a communist but a Christian whose faith puts him at odds with the present state of American policy. The article in this issue of Sojourners by Barnet makes clear his Christian motivation and commitment. Barnet is simply part of a growing body of Christians in this country who refuse to accept the propaganda of either the Soviet Union or the United States, who see both superpowers as threats to peace, and who believe the greatest danger in the world today to be neither from communism nor capitalism but from the nuclear arsenals that both sides now possess. It is not any ideological loyalty that puts us at odds with the policies of both superpowers, but a faith rooted in the Bible which judges the present arms race as nothing but idolatry.

Last month, Bishop Leroy T. Matthiesen of Amarillo, Texas, encouraged Roman Catholics who work at the Pantex bomb factory to quit their jobs (see "For the Record," page 8). "It is amazing how people have begun to live with the unbelievable," said Matthiesen. Last February six Christians quietly climbed the fence at Pantex to pray for peace and were arrested (see June "For the Record"). Four served six months; two more are still serving out year sentences.

In June, Bishop Raymond G. Hunthausen of Seattle suggested that Christians refuse to pay their war taxes as a form of nonviolent resistance to "nuclear murder and suicide" (see August "For the Record"). For years nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience have been taking place in his diocese at the Trident submarine base at Bangor, Washington (see "Pilgrimage to Ground Zero," March, 1980). "I am told by some that unilateral disarmament in the face of atheistic communism is insane," said Hunthausen. "I find myself observing that nuclear armament by any is itself atheistic and anything but sane."

In July, the Plowshares Eight received heavy sentencing for their actions at the General Electric plant in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, where the Mark 12A missile is produced (see "For the Record," page 9). And as I write this, people from Washington, D.C., and surrounding areas, as well as friends from other parts of the country, are gathering for a week of vigiling, worship, and civil disobedience at the Sheraton Washington Hotel, the site of the Air Force Association's annual nuclear weapons display.

Across the ocean, the growing anti-nuclear movement in Europe has U.S. officials worried. That movement is neither pro-Soviet nor communist but is rooted in the conviction that the greatest danger we face is nuclear weapons themselves. There will be more on encouraging developments in Europe in future issues of Sojourners.

The U.S. government is facing increasing opposition from a growing number of Christians, churches, and church leaders over its nuclear policy. The government can make the mistake of writing off Christian conscience, persecuting the activists, or, worse yet, dismiss it all as communist. That response will do more to discredit the government than the Christians and will most likely increase our numbers.

Jim Wallis was the editor-in-chief of Sojourners when this article appeared.