Much attention lately has been focused on tension in the Republican Party surrounding the evangelical movement. While white evangelical voters were a fundamental part of Bush’s base in 2004, his lack of success (to put it mildly) has threatened to crack the seemingly strong connection between evangelical conservatives and the rest of the Republican Party. A recent article in the New York Times chronicles the fundamental issues of the religious right. Although Bush followed the conservative line on Terri Schiavo, stem cell research, and conservative justices, his lack of success in overturning Roe v. Wade (and in changing political culture in general), combined with the Iraq war, have caused many die-hard supporters to question their allegiance.
Bush ultimately did not deliver what he promised to the religious right, and many voters feel disenchanted. One “prominent Christian pastor” quoted in the New York Times article states, “In the evangelical church in general there is kind of a push back against the Republican Party and a feeling of being used by the Republican political machine,” noting “when you mix politics and religion, you get politics.” This sense of disenchantment was nowhere to be found in 2000 or 2004, when Bush and Rove went out of their way to woo influential conservative leaders. Many compare Bush to Jimmy Carter, the Southern Baptist who disappointed his conservative counterparts by distancing himself from “the” evangelical agenda. The New York Times article also cites religious discomfort with Republican ties to big business and scandal, especially as of late.
This political tension is both reflected in and exacerbated by theological currents in conservative Christianity. One of the most interesting trends in the evangelical movement, which the article refers to, is the split between older and younger evangelicals. Influential Christian denominations, particularly the Southern Baptist Convention, are now swinging back to moderate after the conservative dominance of the 1980s-90s. Last June, when the conservative establishment lost the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention, the moderate winner declared “I believe in the word of God, I am just not mad about it.” Traditionally, religious voters have been split between proponents of the “personal” gospel who are predominantly conservative white evangelicals concerned with “moral” issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and supporters of the “social” gospel, the traditionally more liberal voters, who focused on issues of social justice, such as poverty.
Now, however, many prominent churches are widening their focus to include social, rather than just “moral,” issues that are increasingly complex - and not monopolized by the Republican Party. Many are also removing politics from the pulpit; this is reflected in the ousting of several outspokenly political (overwhelmingly conservative) pastors in the Bible Belt. Many churchgoers, it seems, are tired of the marriage between religion and politics. A crucial consequence of this is that now, evangelical voters cannot be assumed to be Republican voters. Many younger evangelicals, embracing a divide between religion and politics and concerned with social justice, label themselves Independents rather than Republicans.
One interesting result of this trend is that evangelical conservatives (and the rest of the Republican Party) have failed to flock to their most likely candidate, Mike Huckabee. While he possesses arguably the most impressive conservative resume of all of the candidates and should be overwhelmingly popular with evangelicals, he is struggling to raise money and support for his campaign. He has said, “They finally have the soldier they have been waiting for, and they shouldn’t send me out into the battlefield without supplies.” Huckabee claims that many evangelical Republicans have lost their principles in politics; he says, “I think they are going to have a hard time going out into the pews and saying tax policy is what Jesus is about, that he said, ‘Come unto me all you who are overtaxed and I will give you rest.’” Instead, according to polls, Rudy Giuliani has become the most popular candidate for the religious right. This seems odd when one considers that Giuliani is neither particularly conservative nor particularly Christian, in political record or personal life. At the meeting of evangelical conservatives called the Values Voter Summit in Washington in October, the candidates finished in the following order: Romney, 27.6 percent; Huckabee, 27.1 percent; Ron Paul, 15 percent; Fred Thompson, 9.8 percent; Giuliani, less than 2% percent , and McCain last. Despite this, the most popular candidate for evangelicals in polls is, for some reason, Giuliani. Evangelical voters seem to have ignored their candidate - but why? The most likely explanation is a shocking failure in the leadership of the religious right.
The selection process of the Republican nominee has revealed significant fissures in the leadership of the religious right. This summer, Sam Brownback, the evangelical front-runner suffering from a lack of funds and support, withdrew from the race and threw his support behind John McCain. In September, Dr. James Dobson, a prominent evangelical leader, threatened to support a third-party candidate if Giuliani was named the Republican nominee. In response, Paul Weyrich, a founder of the Moral Majority, criticized Dobson and others supporting the split, arguing that splitting their support was unwise. Weyrich joined Bob Jones and others in backing Mitt Romney, who has campaigned intensely and carefully for evangelical support. Recently, however, Pat Robertson, who calls himself the “leader of the evangelicals,” surprised everyone when he decided to back Giuliani. This is ironic, as Robertson once sued Giuliani over same-sex marriage laws in New York. Justifying his choice, Robertson argued that Giuliani would defend America from “the blood lust of Islamic terrorists.” This stunned even McCain, who declared himself speechless upon hearing the news.
Such a split in the leadership of the movement displays both a betrayal of principles and a lack of control in the political sphere. Why, of all people, does Robertson support Giuliani? A recent CBS poll of conservative Iowa voters found that Romney and Huckabee were the most popular and consistent with their values, with Giuliani seen as the most electable. Because of his strong stance on national security and the patriotism invoked by his involvement with 9/11, Giuliani is seen in some circles as the most electable Republican candidate. Thus, it seems that Robertson would rather compromise his principles to be on the winning side - essentially leaving his “team” in the process - than face the fact that the religious right is no longer entirely relevant in politics. If he had the influence the evangelical movement possessed in 2004, there would be no need for him to select the “easy” candidate; he should have been able to garner support for Brownback or Huckabee. Despite the fact that Huckabee is doing surprisingly well in Iowa and possesses all of the right credentials, including his past as a Southern Baptist minister, Robertson (and others) fear that Huckabee will never win the nomination, much less the White House. Thus Robertson threatens to fracture an already splintering movement by betraying its principles.
To me, this leads to several conclusions. First, evangelical leaders such as Robertson are failing to represent and lead their coalition; they neither represent the changing face of the movement nor remain consistent with their own principles. If Robertson & Co. truly cared more about their principles than winning the election, they would have supported Brownback and Huckabee - certainly not Giuliani. Their inconsistency is both insulting and increasingly irrelevant, as it is clear that their grasp on American politics is fading.
This recent change in the American evangelical movement, however, I find encouraging. As a Baptist, I have been frustrated with the inability of other Christians to recognize issues other than same-sex marriage and abortion. People should not blindly follow anyone - even their pastor - who tells them how to think and vote. The evangelical movement has been fixated on these two issues and has failed to recognize that there are other important issues in society. The questionable outcomes in Iraq (and, for that matter, No Child Left Behind) have been part of a painful wakeup call that blindly following someone else’s agenda is often dangerous and expensive. Christian voters should take this opportunity to examine the issues - all of them - and choose a candidate who fits them best, not their party platform. In conclusion, I hope that the decline of Robertson’s hegemony over Christian thinking will lead to more thoughtful, enlightened, and educated Christian voters who have the ability and the inclination to make their own choices about their elected representatives.
Comments