« Space for Sale: Russian Flights | Main | Truth to Power: Two Saints »
January 08, 2008
Faith & Politics: Rising Star
Jimmy Carter poses a question in his foreword to The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post-Religious Right America:
... down through generations of Americans and our political leaders, what has been the history of the effect of religious faith on the shaping of political decisions?
Carter continues: "To answer this question clearly and definitively would be possible for only a few people." OK, so who? Very next sentence: "I am grateful that Jim Wallis has decided to write this book." Jim Wallis?
It's a fine question, one that you'd think should be tackled by American historians who studied our history and the religious influences running through it--and the political decisions made, if I may simply repeat the terms of Carter's original question. Mark Noll comes to mind. I am sure there are others.
The surprise, however, is that, as far as I can tell, the book does not even answer this question.
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 01:31 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e54fd8a7a08834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Faith & Politics: Rising Star:
Comments
Given a Democratic definition of "Religious Right", a "Post-Religious-Right America" would quite simply be a "Post-America". Sort of like Jimmy Carter himself seems to be...whatever a Christian is, when he isn't one anymore.
Posted by: Joe Long | Jan 8, 2008 3:35:15 PM
>>>what has been the history of the effect of religious faith on the shaping of political decisions? <<<
Jimmy Carter should know. The question isn't meant this way, but Carter was elected because many people of religious faith made the political decision that someone who called himself a born-again Christian would automatically make a good president. Thus came into office the worst president of the twentieth century who harmed our country immeasurably and seems to be trying his best to continue on his path of destruction for the rest of his days.
Now we may find out what happens when people of religious faith do the same thing a second time.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Jan 8, 2008 8:49:19 PM
What more can one say that Mr. Kushiner has not said in his post? It would be a rather short history book indeed if it lived up to its subtitle.
I find it a bit disheartening that Mr. Wallace, who purports to reach out to the those on the Religious Right (or perhaps he used to, if we're now living in a "post-Religious Right America") would accept such a forward from Mr. Carter. It seems that every time I hear of a new move by Mr. Wallace, it diminishes what little credibility he once had in my eyes.
Posted by: Ethan C. | Jan 8, 2008 9:23:31 PM
"Now we may find out what happens when people of religious faith do the same thing a second time." - Judy Warner
I suppose you're referring to Huckabee, Judy, although your comment is general enough to apply to Romney as well. I voted for Ford over Carter, even though I found Carter's faith appealing. But for many people who may not have strong political views--on what should they base their presidential selection? Is it unwise to choose someone solely on the basis of values which you presume coincide with your own? I'm not a fan of Huckabee's populist opinions, but I have to say that if I weren't more politically savvy, I'd be very impressed with Huckabee the man, and I'd probably vote for him on that basis. (By the way, I think that's the case with Obama supporters as well.)
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 8, 2008 11:11:20 PM
Wallis is writing a book with that title? I hope he says more than merely "give to the poor" and "Jesus was neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but he really, really, REALLY wasn't a Republican."
Posted by: Unca Brownie | Jan 9, 2008 2:15:57 AM
>Now we may find out what happens when people of religious faith do the same thing a second time.
Haven't seen any evidence of that.
Posted by: David Gray | Jan 9, 2008 5:16:20 AM
Bill, yes, I do think it's unwise to vote just on the basis of presumably shared values. For one thing, we are voting for politicians and there are very few politicians whose sincerity I would completely trust. Then, we are not voting for a national pastor, as I have said about people's problem with Mitt Romney's Mormonism, but as a leader in the secular realm. And, as we saw with Carter, and as we see with Jim Wallis, sincere religious belief does not guarantee wise policies. The effect of having a politician declare his strong religious beliefs is to blind naive people to the important things they should be looking at. Further, just because a politicians doesn't declare that he is a strong believer doesn't mean that he isn't.
I don't think it's wrong to judge character in general. Character was part of the reason I voted against Bill Clinton. But nowadays "character" is taken to mean personality, and that's a very unfortunate thing to base a vote on. It's what some people vote on, though, and the fact that Huckabee is likable is probably at least as important as his strong, sincere Christian beliefs.
What should people without strong political views base their vote on? The candidate's record. That's why negative ads are so important. I've seen recently within the homeschooling community a reaction to the almost knee-jerk support of Huckabee. I've had emails detailing his actions against school choice and in favor of the NEA, and warning fellow home-schoolers not to be taken in. This kind of political activity is exactly the right kind.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Jan 9, 2008 5:19:30 AM
>I've had emails detailing his actions against school choice and in favor of the NEA
And I've seen others placing his actions in context which explains why a home schooler might favor him. I'd rather see Thompson do well but I'm not seeing much of that at present.
Posted by: David Gray | Jan 9, 2008 5:52:29 AM
Yes, David, that back-and-forth is what our political process should be. It's substantive, not on personality or professions of faith. I too would like to see Thompson do well.
And by the way, it is horrifying to see that some people changed their vote in New Hampshire because Hillary cried. How low have we gone?
Posted by: Judy Warner | Jan 9, 2008 7:05:08 AM
>And by the way, it is horrifying to see that some people changed their vote in New Hampshire because Hillary cried. How low have we gone?
I wonder how much that really occurred. I think a lot of independents who thought Obama had a cakewalk went over and voted for McCain. I think Michigan and South Carolina should be very interesting.
Posted by: David Gray | Jan 9, 2008 8:01:06 AM
"And by the way, it is horrifying to see that some people changed their vote in New Hampshire because Hillary cried. How low have we gone?"
I cried too. A lot of good it did me!
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 9, 2008 12:30:57 PM
Judy, I take your comments to heart and largely agree with them. But the simple fact in a democracy is that a large number of people will not judge candidates on the issues, but will judge them on more superficial characteristics. My question was, if this is just a fact of life, isn't it better to try to select the candidate whose religious worldview is closest to your own? Obviously some candidates will be insincere in what they profess, but that goes for candidates who assert policy positions as well.
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 9, 2008 12:42:19 PM
There is a large amount of Huckabee bashing that is just over the top. Andrew Stuttford's comments on NRO I think, in some small way, helped drive people towards him. Huckabee has fairly reasonable explanations for his behavior. He is also extremely charismatic in a way that I don't think Carter ever was (I will grant I was less than able to make judgments when Carter was an issue).
That being said...for the love of all things conservative go Fred! Please feel free to visit Mr. Thompson's site. People didn't think Huckabee could do anything to and Mr. Thompson actually has delegates. You get all the humph of Rudy in a fight, the federalism of Paul, and the social conservatism of Huckabee.
Posted by: Nick | Jan 9, 2008 2:52:39 PM
What I love is how NRO had all these folks who explained that social conservatives had to be prepared to vote for cross-dressing, gun-grabbing, pro-abortion Giuliani for the greater good but are now all whining that they wouldn't ever vote for Huckabee. How the mighty have fallen. NR used to be associated with Kendall, Burnham and Kirk. Now they have what?
Posted by: David Gray | Jan 9, 2008 3:07:31 PM
David,
I used to follow NRO pretty closely up until 3+ years ago (when MC replaced it in my heart :-) I kept up a fairly regular email conversation with some of the contributors. After the NH results, I dropped in for the first time in years. I became somewhat dismayed when I detected the same attitude you perceived. That said, my wife grabbed a copy of the print edition from the library a couple of weeks ago. A person was assigned to each candidate to write a favorable profile. I thought the piece by the Arkansas conservative was good and explained the issues that Huckabee dealt with in his 10 years as governor in what seemed to me a very fair way.
I think overt Christian religiosity in politicians gives some of the English conservatives hives (even ostensibly Chrisian ones like Derb) and puts off some of the Jewish authors like Jonah and S. Kurtz as well. I must have a higher tolearnce for it--as long as I deem it sincere :-)
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Jan 9, 2008 4:17:52 PM
Actually, it's not Huckabee's Elmer Gantry Evangelicalism that puts me off so much as his populism, his economic illiteracy, and his nonchalance in foreign policy.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 9, 2008 4:28:13 PM
What is NRO? Are you referring to National Review Online?
Posted by: john | Jan 9, 2008 4:28:40 PM
"(even ostensibly Chrisian ones like Derb)"
Then you missed Derb's column where he announced that he was no longer a Christian. Seriously!
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 9, 2008 4:30:56 PM
Derb describes himself as an "unwilling unbeliever."
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWE4NzhkMGMxYzU1Y2Q1NGMwMjliYWY4YjcyODRlMzA=
Posted by: Margaret Davis | Jan 9, 2008 4:32:37 PM
Somehow that doesn't surprise me. But I am a little sad.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Jan 9, 2008 4:47:18 PM
"Now they have what?"
The East Coast conservatives seem to be morphing into the party of Nelson Rockefeller. Is there life west of the Hudson River?
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 9, 2008 5:12:27 PM
A few years ago Derb was complaining about the Episcopal Church he attended, so I wrote to him to tell him about orthodox Anglicanism in the U.S. He wrote back but was quite uninterested, so I figured he was Christian by habit rather than conviction. The post Margaret Davis links to confirms that judgement, and I suppose he's broken the habit.
National Review has endorsed Romney, not Giuliani.
I agree with Stuart about Huckabee, and add nannyism to his list of faults.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Jan 9, 2008 6:59:48 PM
>National Review has endorsed Romney, not Giuliani.
True but they also spent time warning us to be ready to support Giuliani if required.
Posted by: David Gray | Jan 9, 2008 11:23:23 PM
>>>He wrote back but was quite uninterested, so I figured he was Christian by habit rather than conviction. <<<
Which is precisely what one would expect of a good Whig like Derb.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 10, 2008 6:10:09 AM
Jay Nordlinger at National Review Online has a couple of columns that state Huckabee's negatives very well, here and here. A sample:
But I had a memory yesterday — a memory of why I turned against the Democratic party, long ago. As regular readers know, I was born with a Democratic spoon in my mouth. But, when I grew up, I spat it out. And one of the things that revolted me was the Democrats’ constant, shallow class warfare. Its class-based demagoguery. Its anti-richie bulloney. It seemed to me that the very air of the Democratic party was grievance and envy. And I didn’t want that — didn’t like breathing it at all.And here it is in my own party, blown in by this charlatan from Arkansas. What a pity. What a crying shame.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Jan 10, 2008 8:55:11 AM
A genuine conservative is not an economic liberal and understands the need for the working class and the low end of the skill spectrum to be able to support a family with hard work. A genuine conservative understands that sometimes the Chamber of Commerce is not on his side. Russell Kirk understood this. Too many "conservatives" these days do not.
Posted by: David Gray | Jan 10, 2008 10:38:29 AM
A genuine conservative knows that increasing economic opportunity is the way to help the working class, not fomenting envy of the "rich." A genuine conservative has heard of unintended consequences and knows that most laws passed ostensibly to help the poor have had the opposite effect. Those people on the low end of the skill spectrum are having problems due to lots of things, but economic liberalism is not one of them.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Jan 10, 2008 11:53:21 AM
>>A genuine conservative is not an economic liberal and understands the need for the working class and the low end of the skill spectrum to be able to support a family with hard work. A genuine conservative understands that sometimes the Chamber of Commerce is not on his side. <<
Darn it, David, I could vote for you.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Jan 10, 2008 1:44:13 PM
>A genuine conservative knows that increasing economic opportunity is the way to help the working class, not fomenting envy of the "rich."
And a genuine conservative knows that the Chamber of Commerce/Wall Street is frequently hostile to genuine economic opportunity.
>A genuine conservative has heard of unintended consequences and knows that most laws passed ostensibly to help the poor have had the opposite effect.
Agreed.
>Those people on the low end of the skill spectrum are having problems due to lots of things, but economic liberalism is not one of them.
Wrong. That is why the Wall Street Journal is so in favour of swarms of illiterate Mexican peasants swarming the border. Reduces labour costs. Tempered/disciplined economic liberalism, governed by conservative understanding can help the poor. We seem to have moved beyond that all too often.
Posted by: David Gray | Jan 10, 2008 2:01:28 PM
>Darn it, David, I could vote for you.
That wouldn't make NRO very happy.
Posted by: David Gray | Jan 10, 2008 2:02:23 PM
"Darn it, David, I could vote for you."
I could vote for the both of you, but "Gray-Winters" sounds like, um, Kansas in January....
;-)
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 10, 2008 2:03:32 PM
And I should just add that while NR is only a pale shadow of its former self and NRO is too often dominated by a childish and insular conversation it isn't devoid of value. It needs reformation.
Posted by: David Gray | Jan 10, 2008 2:04:05 PM
>I could vote for the both of you, but "Gray-Winters" sounds like, um, Kansas in January....
If I were Romney I could change my last name to "Happy" so you could have "Happy-Winters."
Posted by: David Gray | Jan 10, 2008 2:05:24 PM
"...increasing economic activity is the way to help the working class..." That has certainly worked out well for those of the "working class" that have seen their jobs migrate to China and Malaysia, hasn't it? Channeling David Brooks, a conservatism that has nothing to say to those making under 50K a year is not a conservatism worth defending. I'm a registered Republican, and I'm at a loss to explain why any working class Joe making under 50K a year would think that the comfortable neocon manipulators of symbols at NRO have his interests in mind. They don't. Republicans have used social conservatives for electoral cannon fodder just as Democrats have used African Americans, and now that Reagan's coaltion is collapsing, the fault lines are revealed. Huckabee is an imperfect messenger, but he's the messenger that social conservatives have. Will he win? Nah. Will he put a scare into the comfortable and condescending at NRO, talk radio and the blogosphere? You betcha.
Posted by: Scott Walker | Jan 10, 2008 2:10:07 PM
>Huckabee is an imperfect messenger
Absolutely. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have something to say that the Republican Party needs to hear.
Posted by: David Gray | Jan 10, 2008 2:14:41 PM
I actually like Jonah Goldberg. He's the only writer their that I can stomach. I may disagree with him but he doesn't come off as repulsive as John Derbyshire and Andrew Stuttaford. I agree with David, Huckabee is an imperfect messenger but he's hardly the villain he's made out to be. He's obviously weak on foreign policy but frankly half of the job of president is having a dashing smile and being able to bluff foreign leaders. Huckabee has that in spades.
I've been saying this whole cycle that there are two protest candidates in the Republican race right now. Huckabee is there to represent the social conservative movement that is mad as hell for having (for many) moved away from the Democrats in order to support pro-life candidates only to be ignored. The other protest vote is from the extreme economic conservatives under Ron Paul (with a healthy dose of anti-war spoilers). Careful care should be taken of comparing the two voting blocks in size.
The NY-Right has told us to either swallow our pride and go Rudy or accept a weak pro-life candidate who is the Republican carbon copy of John Kerry in Romney. Then it has added insult to injury by claiming that we're bigots for not voting for a Mormon.
Have the best of both worlds vote Fred :)
Posted by: Nick | Jan 10, 2008 3:15:43 PM
>>>I agree with David, Huckabee is an imperfect messenger but he's hardly the villain he's made out to be. <<<
On the contrary--he's a populist and a demagogue, and whether right or left, both are abhorrent.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 10, 2008 3:23:56 PM
>On the contrary--he's a populist and a demagogue, and whether right or left, both are abhorrent.
Do you hold those things against President Bush?
Posted by: David Gray | Jan 10, 2008 3:43:15 PM
I'd love to see Thompson do well. We'll see...
Posted by: David Gray | Jan 10, 2008 3:44:22 PM
This is why Huckabee is doing so well he's quick on his feet. I just can't join in the hate on for Huckabee. Populist? Yep. Demagogue? That's a bit too far. He's genuine and I haven't heard any case where he has falsely led on the electorate. Its not like he is unknown for his economically liberal positions.
Posted by: Nick | Jan 10, 2008 3:52:17 PM
>>Republicans have used social conservatives for electoral cannon fodder just as Democrats have used African Americans, and now that Reagan's coaltion is collapsing, the fault lines are revealed. Huckabee is an imperfect messenger, but he's the messenger that social conservatives have. Will he win? Nah. Will he put a scare into the comfortable and condescending at NRO, talk radio and the blogosphere? You betcha.<<
The truth of your words is revealed in the following amusing extract from a recent NPR interview:
Jonah Goldberg: The benefit of Bush's compassionate conservatism [in 2000] was that it was majorly a marketing slogan...
Alex Chadwick: You mean you're worried Mike Huckabee might actually mean it?
Goldberg: Yes, that's what I'm terrified of.
Posted by: Francesca | Jan 10, 2008 3:54:18 PM
>>>And a genuine conservative knows that the Chamber of Commerce/Wall Street is frequently hostile to genuine economic opportunity.<<<
That's absolutely true, but the Chamber of Commerce is not economically liberal, they are more a special interest. And I don't consider the Wall Street Journal's open borders policy to be economically liberal either, though I guess they would say it is. Illegal immigration is one of the problems I was referring to for low-skill Americans -- it hits them directly. Now, what did Huckabee do about that problem? Oh yes, he pushed free tuition for the children of illegals, explaining it's the Christian thing to do. That'll sure stop them coming in, won't it? Now that he's running for president, he's changed his tune.
The kind of things I think of when I think of opportunity for low-skill people are job-creation measures like lowering the cost of investment ("tax cuts for the rich"), easing up red tape for businesses, changing the tax laws that drive corporations out of the U.S. What do you think of -- adding some new job training programs to the hundreds we already have? Passing tariffs on textiles?
Posted by: Judy Warner | Jan 10, 2008 4:32:33 PM
>Now that he's running for president, he's changed his tune.
And I don't see a serious candidate who isn't guilty in that regard. And Huckabee isn't the best gymnast of the bunch.
>The kind of things I think of when I think of opportunity for low-skill people are job-creation measures like lowering the cost of investment ("tax cuts for the rich"),
Good. And the Fair Tax does that.
>easing up red tape for businesses,
Better.
>changing the tax laws that drive corporations out of the U.S.
Good. And the Fair Tax does that.
>What do you think of -- adding some new job training programs to the hundreds we already have?
Bad idea.
>Passing tariffs on textiles?
Not a player under the Fair Tax.
Posted by: David Gray | Jan 10, 2008 4:44:00 PM
Judy,
That the best that can be dug up on Huckabee is that he offered scholarships is itself more than weak. I seem to remember a Mr. Bush doing a wee bit more than that as a governor. Never mind fighting the base as president. I find most of the strum und drang over Huckabee way over the top. He's a front runner and should be pressured but if forced to chose between Huckabee and everyone but Thompson or Hunter (alas we hardly knew ye) I'll chose Huckabee.
Of course I cut McCain way more slack than most conservatives too which probably makes me an agent of the anti-christ...or we can all get along with Thompson :)
Posted by: Nick | Jan 10, 2008 4:46:06 PM
I agree with my good friend Bill. An important point to consider is that if a candidate has the right moral character and fundamental principles, it will likely be easier to persuade him to changer him mind on a particular issues where he is wrong by getting him to rethink his stance in line with those principles. By contrast, a candidate who may hold the right stand on issue X at the present, but who has unsound principles, is far less likely to be sound or untrustworthy in the longer run.
Character is quite important, but it must be understood as moral character, not personal likeability; and does not simply negate agreement on fundamental issues. E.g., I previously expressed interest in and possible support for Huckabee on this site. While Huckabee appears to be both quite likeable and of good moral character (calling him a charlatan is completely out of line), the more I learned about his specific positions on various issues the less I found myself in agreement with him. By the time the Iowa vote came, I had decided that, if I had to vote for one of the major candidates (I simply have not been able to take Thompson’s candidacy seriously), it would be (with some reservations) for McCain. As best I can tell, there is little difference between them on issues I consider fundamental, but I am agree more with McCain on many secondary issues and think he shows better judgment.
And while I dislike and distrust populism, I also agree with David Gray and some other folks here that much of the Republican party is concerned more with making the world safe for wealthy and upper middle-class suburban professionals and multi-national conglomerates, rather than providing true economic opportunity for small businessmen and ordinary laborers, or the moral fibre of American society. That's not class warfare rhetoric, just a plain fact.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jan 10, 2008 8:43:41 PM
James, I don't disagree with that statement about the Republican Party. However, the maudlin speeches identifying ordinary people as losers and being resentful of the wealthy are no better. What happened to the Reaganesque vision of admiring people who work hard and seize opportunities and become successful? Of inspiring people to do their best and not dwell on setbacks as a cosmic injury? I've heard it from only one person in the last year, and it's not a candidate, it's Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Jan 10, 2008 9:51:11 PM
James and Judy both make worthwhile points. I too am taking a "second look" at John McCain (but I worry a bit about his temper). But as to Huckabee, I want to stress that he's no demagogue. Perhaps he needs time to mature on the national political scene. Yet after some 25 years as an evangelical, I think I can detect the “real thing,” and Huckabee is real. You may find out just how powerful the evangelical vote is when an honest-to-gosh, not-embarrassed-to-say-it evangelical is out there, soliciting mainstream votes—without being an obvious yokel.
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 10, 2008 11:47:44 PM
>>>But as to Huckabee, I want to stress that he's no demagogue.<<<
Have you read his speeches and his position papers?
>>> I think I can detect the “real thing,” and Huckabee is real. <<<
Sincerity is no substitute for competence. Besides, a close look at Huckabee's record as Arkansas governor reveals him to be as corrupt a huckster as Boy Clinton in his day. It is, after all, Little Rock, and you don't get anywhere in state politics without being as slippery as a greased pig.
>>>You may find out just how powerful the evangelical vote is when an honest-to-gosh, not-embarrassed-to-say-it evangelical is out there, soliciting mainstream votes—without being an obvious yokel.<<<
The two, however, seem to go hand-in-hand at the national level. Why is that?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 11, 2008 6:17:21 AM
I'm with Bill R. on both McCain and Huckabee. I think McCain is the best available choice right now. Huckabee is just what some posters here were wanting a few months ago: a Christian Democrat. He is "conservative" on social issues and recognizes that average working class families are struggling and have been for several years. His solutions, of course, are wrongheaded, but he at least recognizes that changes are needed. His tax proposal is, unfortunately, probably the worst of his bad package of "solutions." Yet he is reaching potential voters who Republicans need to win: pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-family working families who are struggling to get by. They naturally would support the GOP, but they need some help. My proposal then is a McCain/Huckabee ticket with a prayer that McCain stays healthy and able to perform his duties for his entire term of office.
Posted by: GL | Jan 11, 2008 7:18:12 AM
Governing as president is a lot different from governing as a governor. The situations that one encounters and the powers one has (as well as the ultimate objectives) are not congruent.
At least both govern as executives, though, as do mayors (and unlike senators).
I think James is right about character. Huckabee's accepting of expensive gifts from "friends" while governor worries me the most--but this apparently got a lot better in his second (full) term. I attribute his pardoning of certain criminals to be a reasonable move given what he understood of the strange nature of Arkansan justice in which juries (who have no perspective on sentencing since they aren't doing it day after day) were the ones that got to determine the punishment. Considering the national rate of recidivism, I'm surprised that a lot *more* of those that he pardoned didn't commit heinous crimes after being freed. That say's something (and something good) about the judgment he was using.
I can also easily see being *for* the amelioration of the condition of illegal aliens while a governor and yet also *for* strong enforcement of the borders while a president. But this goes back to my first comment.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Jan 11, 2008 7:39:37 AM
