Bush Cult

Just on a fit of pure facetiousness, I decided to take this list of "Is it a cult?" questions (found linked in a recent Plastic entry on recent setbacks to Scientology) and see if it applied to Bush-supporting Republicans. Not all Republicans; just the dittoheads and stereotypical Fox News crowd.
The group is focused on a leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.

Here we go:

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

I suppose so, but what political party isn't? No positive indicator.

The group is preoccupied with making money.

Absolutely. Well, if you count "each making for himself." Not classic cult behaviour, but I'm not feeling generous, so we'll count this one.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

"If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists." Check.

Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

Does repeating the same lies and exaggeration over and over again count? That sounds like a chant after a while.

The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth).

Ashcroft would like to, but to be fair, they're not doing this. Of course, why I'm worried about being fair when I'm comparing them to a cult is sure locking the door on an empty barn.

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).

This one's pretty close. Point for cult.

The group has a polarized us- versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.

Do I even need to comment here?

The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).

As seen (by me) on Goatdogblog, the memo justifing torture and asserting that the President, in his Commander-in-Chief duties, is not bound by law or the Constitution.

The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).

It's not clear. I suppose some lawyer in the DoJ may not have believed torture to be justified before being asked to contribute to the memory. This one scores as Not Enough Information.

The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.

Again, if you're not with them you're for the terrorists. This is getting disturbing.

Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group.

No. Ashcroft still gets to have his irrational superstitions about calico cats. (Anybody know if these are actually true and not trumped-up rumor?)

Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group.

Ehh...not more so than I would expect any staunch politcal supporters.

Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members

As long as they're members of the opposite sex, I guess...



In conclusion of this patently ridiculous exercise, we should watch Bush supporters closely. There's some borderline cultlike behavior here but not enough to sound the alarm just yet.