Britain and America

Peter Cuthbertson: What the religious right has got right

Peter Cuthbertson challenges the British media's notion that the Republican's Christian base is putting off voters.

In the New York Times, former Bush speechwriter David Frum last month played sock puppet in turn to economic conservatives, social conservatives and foreign policy conservatives, giving the perspective of each on the disappointments of the Bush Administration. Of course, the reality isn’t nearly as simple as dividing them into three discrete categories - most people on the right will sympathise with all three. But it is a piece worth reading particularly for the second perspective, an argument many British observers will never have heard.

British newspapers which aren't vehemently hostile to Republicans still tend to report on the party from one of the other two points of view. The Economist is perhaps the worst offender. Time and again it has mixed accurate accounts of how GOP support has fallen as events in Iraq turned sour with its own complaints about an overly influential religious right and about excessive government spending. Economist articles invariably conclude that when it comes to domestic policy, pork barrel spending and social conservatism are hurting the Republicans in the polls, and so they need to take a step back so that cuts in federal spending can be the priority. The casual reader, not noticing where the opinion poll data stops and the Economist's own axe-grinding begins, would come away believing this unargued position.

If Bush had in fact inflicted significant amounts of unpopular government spending on Americans, it would be a problem suspiciously easy for conservatives to solve - simply cut the spending, as they are wont to do anyway, and the electoral benefits will flow. But this is not the case. The Economist complains all the time about pork barrel spending (politicians earmarking spending for their own parts of the country) and Medicare Part D (free prescription drugs for the elderly) under President Bush. But informed fiscal conservatives should know that pork is a tiny proportion of overall spending. On the other hand, the prescription drugs plan was anything but cheap. But it was also massively popular, with opposition to it usually in the single figures. As Al Gore had similar proposals, it is difficult to see how Bush could possibly have won the 2000 election without the plan. In other words, the actual meat of the increased spending is often exactly what pulled Bush through - not what hurts the GOP in elections.

Thanksgiving in War Time

WASHINGTON, D.C.—When America publicly gives thanks to the Almighty, it opens a window into the soul. In times of war we glimpse the torments and the hopes of a nation struggling to realize, or salvage, its founding ideals.

Abraham Lincoln’s 1862 Thanksgiving Day proclamation saw a divine role in the forces for freedom and union during the Civil War. “It has pleased Almighty God,” he said, “to vouchsafe signal victories to the land and naval forces engaged in suppressing an internal rebellion.” Lincoln’s army would suffer signal defeats as well, viewed by Confederate leaders as proof that Almighty God was on their side. Nevertheless, as the conflict wore on, it became impossible to imagine that God was indifferent to the crisis over slavery or the struggle to resolve it. Two years later, with victory in sight, Lincoln would offer thanks for the “fortitude, courage, and resolution sufficient for the great trial of civil war into which we have been brought by our adherence as a nation to the cause of freedom and humanity.”

As Europe was convulsed by the carnage of the Great War, Woodrow Wilson saw not only “the tragedy of a world shaken by war and immeasurable disaster.” He managed to see blessings as well: the chance to join a global struggle against the forces of aggression and lawlessness. “We have been given the opportunity to serve mankind as we once served ourselves in the great day of our Declaration of Independence,” he said in his 1917 proclamation, “by taking up arms against a tyranny that threatened to master and debase men everywhere and joining with other free peoples in demanding for all the nations of the world what we then demanded and obtained for ourselves.” Cynics about American power remind us that America’s entry into the conflict did not “make the world safe for democracy.” They forget what in fact it did accomplish: the speedy conclusion of the war, the saving of thousands of lives, and the preservation of what was left of any democratic ideal in Europe.

More than rain in Georgia, a faith-friendly BBC would be a real miracle

Is praying for rain such a "dotty" thing to do?

Asking God for good weather has been a characteristic of mainstream Christian traditions.  It is the subject of some beautiful petitions in the Book of Common Prayer:

"¶ For Rain.

O GOD, heavenly Father, who by thy Son Jesus Christ hast promised to all those who seek thy kingdom, and the righteousness thereof, all things necessary to their bodily sustenance; Send us, we beseech thee, in this our necessity, such moderate rain and showers, that we may receive the fruits of the earth to our comfort, and to thy honour; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
 
¶ A General Collect for Fair Weather.

O ALMIGHTY Lord God, who for the sin of man didst once drown all the world, except eight persons, and afterward of thy great mercy didst promise never to destroy it so again; We humbly beseech thee, that although we for our iniquities have worthily deserved a plague of rain and waters, yet upon our true repentance thou wilt send us such weather, as that we may receive the fruits of the earth in due season; and learn both by thy punishment to amend our lives, and for thy clemency to give thee praise and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

But even if praying for rain appears odd to many people today, I have a more pertinent question: Should Justin Webb, the US Editor of the "impartial" BBC, be likening "praying for rain" to "a get-together of Stone Age men"?

Preachers and Presidential Politics

WASHINGTON, D.C-- The endorsement by televangelist Pat Robertson of Rudy Giuliani as the Republican presidential candidate is being frantically scrutinized for its deeper cultural significance. The new conventional wisdom, advanced by outlets such as The New York Times, sees a fractured and confused conservative Christian vote. They no longer share the same political beliefs and values, we’re told, and can’t be counted on to support Republican candidates, conservative or otherwise. It all signifies "the end times" for evangelicals in national politics.

This critique, though tempting, is historically flawed and politically naïve.

Let’s start with Pat Robertson. Anyone who thinks that Mr. Robertson is a weather vane for religious voters simply hasn’t been paying attention. The most influential voices in conservative Christianity have excoriated him for his chronic absurdities. Robertson’s backing of brutal African dictators such as Liberia’s Charles Taylor, his support for political assassination, his assertion that gays and feminists provoked the wrath of God and gave us the attacks of 9/11—these and other bizarre claims have made him a marginal figure among evangelicals. Faith-based voters might find good reasons to back Rudy Giuliani, but Pat Robertson’s endorsement will not be one of them.

Of course there are divergent political views among the tens of millions of voters who identify themselves as conservative Christian. There always have been: Just look at the religious debates over presidential hopefuls named Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Wilson, Carter and Reagan. The recent image of a monolithic evangelical juggernaut is the product of a feverish imagination, created in part by direct-mail fundraisers, ignorant media elites, and graduate students groping for a dissertation topic.

McCain wins the support of a better face of American evangelicalism

The biggest barrier to Giuliani's road to the Republican nomination is the distrust felt towards him by the social conservatives that form the GOP's bedrock army of volunteers.  New York's former Mayor came bottom of the vote at a recent conference of Christian conservatives.  Today's news that leading evangelical Pat Robertson has endorsed Giuliani is consequently something of a coup for the man currently frontrunning the Republican race:

Here's some reaction on the blogosphere: "The endorsement of perhaps the best-known living Christian conservative cannot hurt the socially liberal New Yorker's chances. Mr Robertson, it seems, endorsed Mr Giuliani because "To me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists." - The Economist's Democracy in America.

"Just talked to a top social conservative. He says, hinting that more prominent social cons will end up going with Rudy, "There's plenty more where this comes from." On the impact of the Robertson endorsement on the race: "What it does for Rudy is it says, 'It's OK to vote for Rudy.' I think there will be more of that, pre-nomination and post-nomination." On conservative evangelical voters and Giuliani: "If Rudy is the nominee, they're going to vote for him—period." - Rich Lowry, National Review.

But The Times' Gerry Baker remembers Pat Robertson's ugly first reaction to 9/11 and concludes: "I'd far rather have Sam Brownback's support."

Which is where BritainAndAmerica started the year.  Unfortunately for Giuliani, Brownback has endorsed McCain.  Bill Kristol writes:

"McCain got the better of this one. Brownback is a human-rights-supporting representative of much that is admirable about religious conservatism. Robertson is a currying-favor-with-dictators voice from the past. Does Rudy really want his support?"

Bill Kristol is right.  I'd rather have Brownback's Wilberforce Republicanism than Robertson's narrowness.

PS There's been quite a lot of discussion recently about the alleged decline of the religious right.  The debate was started by a major feature in the New York Times.  The video below from Gallup shows how trends in support for Bush from churchgoers are actually consistent with the rest of the population:

Jerry Falwell: A Mixed - But Democratic - Legacy

Joseph Loconte writes:

For over 25 years Jerry Falwell has helped to define the public face of Christian fundamentalism—both for Americans and Europeans—and his death yesterday has critics and admirers scrambling to explain his legacy. Lost amid the cacophony, though, is a larger sense of the significance of Christianity to America’s democratic government.

Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, admiringly described a man "awakened to a sense of political and social responsibility." Columnist Susan Jacoby, by contrast, saw nothing but "bigotry, xenophobia, anti-modernism, and utter stupidity." The headlines in The Guardian and The Independent noted Falwell’s infamous remarks blaming the 9/11 attacks on feminists and gays. Much of the reader response to his death is too offensive to reprint here.

To be sure, Falwell could be a man of seemingly glaring contradictions. During the struggle for civil rights in the 1960s, he sermonized against mixing religion and politics:

"Believing the Bible as I do, I would find it impossible to stop preaching the pure saving gospel of Jesus Christ and begin doing anything else - including the fighting of communism, or participating in the civil rights reform. Preachers are not called to be politicians, but to be soul winners."

America's changing religious right

Tim Montgomerie writes:

Two weeks ago, America's religious conservatives had some of the best news they'd heard in a long time.  The US Supreme Court upheld George W Bush's ban on the gruesome partial birth abortion procedure by five votes to four.  The President's appointment of John Roberts and then Samuel Alito had made a difference.  The successful nomination of John Roberts as Chief Justice will have the most lasting effect on the Court.  Roberts isn't just a conservative - he's a persuader.  Other judges - Scalia, Thomas and, perhaps, Alito, too - have the power to beat opponents in arguments but not always winsomely.  'Roberts is worth two judges,' one leading conservative commentator told BritainAndAmerica.

America's religious conservatives are not so happy at the Republican hopefuls for 2008, however.  Saturday's Wall Street Journal reviewed the main contenders:

"We have Rudy Giuliani, a twice divorced, pro-choice, supporter of civil unions; Mitt Romney, a Mormon who as recently as his 1994 Senate campaign against liberal icon Sen. Ted Kennedy was pro-choice and wishy-washy on gay marriage; John McCain, who voted against the gay marriage amendment and who crafted the campaign finance laws that have done much to damage the anti-abortion efforts of religious conservatives; or perhaps Fred Thompson, who supported McCain-Feingold and says that gay marriage is a state issue."

The WSJ quote comes from a profile-style interview with Richard Land of the influential Southern Baptist Convention.  Mr Land told Naomi Schaefer Riley that Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter were closer to his worldview but "the problem with those three guys is they don't give any indication they can win."

An unhappy religious right represents a real problem for the GOP.  It provides the footsoldiers of the Republican movement and the gay marriage ballot probably meant the difference between winning and losing Ohio (and hence the White House) in 2004.  But there are now four main challenges in keeping religious conservatives inside the GOP tent:

1. Dissatisfaction with the contenders for the GOP nomination.  All of the Republican hopefuls have weaknesses and promises of a socially conservative VP nominee or of Supreme Court appointees in the mould of Alito and Roberts may not be enough to energise a satisfactory number of religious conservatives.
2. Disappointment with George W Bush.  Although traditional evangelicals warm to President Bush's personal story and his judicial appointments (Land describes them as "24-carat"), many feel disappointed, unrealistically, at his failure to successfully progress the constitutional ban on gay marriage.  There are also mixed feelings about the President's Faith-Based Initiative.  Now in the very safe hands of Jay Hein the White House Office of Faith and Community-Based Initiatives has often worried evangelicals who have worried about the federal government co-opting religious ministries.
3. The changing nature of Christian America.  Evangelicals - particularly younger evangelicals - care about a broader and broader range of issues.  Most remain solidly pro-life but younger Christians are more tolerant of same-sex relationships.  Just as importantly they are closely engaged with international justice issues and the environment.  American Christians have powered the administration's efforts in Sudan, against malaria and world-beating legislation against human trafficking.  There are not many traditional leaders of the religious right who fully appreciate the scale of the changed worldview within their congregation.  One emerging thinker who does is former Bush speechwriter, Mike Gerson.  His forthcoming book on conservatism will set out new priorities on environmental stewardship (which many Christians cheesily call 'Creation care') and poverty-fighting.
4. The faith-friendly Democrats.  The Democrats are aware of their 'Christian problem' and their two leading contenders are much more 'faith-friendly' than either Al Gore or John Kerry.  Hillary Clinton has become known for regularly attending Senate prayer breakfasts and has talked about the need to reduce the number of abortions.  Barack Obama recently shared a platform with Rick Warren, author of the best-selling Purpose-Driven Life.  Christian hardliners won't be tempted by either candidate but the Democrats only need to convert a relatively small number to get on the winning side of the increasingly familar 50/50 elections.

The GOP's best hope of keeping religious conservatives on side may depend upon the war on terror.  Christian conservatives are most supportive of the President's hawkish approach and may be willing to forgive Giuliani and McCain more liberal positions on once trump issues if they are more reliable than Democrats in the war against Islamic fascism.  That is certainly the view of Jonah Goldberg, expressed on National Review Online:

"[The war on terror has] changed the attitudes of many Americans, particularly conservatives, about the central crisis facing the country. It's not that pro-lifers are less pro-life... It's that they really, really believe the war on terror is for real. At conservative conferences, on blogs, and on talk radio, pro-life issues have faded in their passion and intensity... Taken together, terrorism, Iraq, and Islam have become the No. 1 social issue."

The contours of Christian conservatism in the USA will be a regular topic for BritainAndAmerica.