Kathleen Parker, November 17, 2004 TownHall.com
Following days of spin and commentary, we can confidently declare a new urban legend: George W. Bush was elected by right-wing, science-hating, vengeful Christian zealots – “revved up by rectitude,” as one pundit put it – and America is embarked on a hatchet-wielding jihad against heathens, pagans and infidels.
Colorful. But then so is pollution in certain lights. It’s also wrong and awfully ignorant coming from the side of the political spectrum that considers itself the more intelligent segment of the American population. Not only did the right wing not elect Bush – only slightly more evangelical Christians (5 percent) voted for Bush this time around than in 2000 – but Bush himself is far to the left of the so-called “moral right.”
As former secretary of education William J. Bennett pointed out Monday in a speech at the Heritage Foundation, Bush’s election was a slightly-right-of-center mandate, rather than a far-right one. Of nearly 60 million votes for Bush, some 20 million came from evangelical Christians. The other 40 million votes came from others, including increased numbers of Jews, Catholics, blacks and Latinos.
Yet all the chatter in recent days is about those weird Christians and their bizarre “agenda.” Always preaching about duty to family, making a fuss about pornography and promiscuity, carrying on about homosexual marriage. What’s wrong with those people, anyway?
The media seem suddenly, if belatedly, obsessed, approaching the evangelical Christian voting block as anthropologist Margaret Mead did the Samoans. Chris Matthews suggested on “Hardball” that reporters should be sent out to cover the red states as one might a foreign country. You can imagine the scramble. Among least coveted assignments, embedding with Real Americans would be second only to spending August in Crawford, Texas.
Because I live in South Carolina, I’ve gotten a few calls myself from television and radio producers seeking insight. I feel like Jane Goodall being summoned from the hinterlands to report on the behavioral habits of the indigenous wildlife.
“Fascinating,” I picture them saying as they stroke their chins. “They even go to church on Wednesdays, too? Whatever for?!”
Why, for the beheadings, of course. OK, I’m kidding. It’s the snakes.
Just as Samoan women are alleged to have lied to Mead about their freewheeling, premarital sex romps, red staters may be sorely tempted to offer exaggerated tales to curious intellectuals. They’re so cute when they’re perplexed. Alas, their own interpretations are sufficiently exaggerated without my help, as this typical reader e-mail suggests:
We will just have to adjust to a new world that was created in six days, where women were created from a man’s rib and where global warming does not exist according to science advisor Rush Limbaugh. Scientists like myself will just have to be wary of stakes with brush piled underneath, and suppress any sign of intellect while mumbling something about being saved and born again.
The urban myth has taken hold even among scientific minds, it seems. Yet objectively, the myth is holier than Peter’s net. Bush, though he identifies himself as an evangelical Christian, isn’t nearly as conservative as those on the far right might wish him to be, nor are Christian evangelicals all knuckle-dragging throwbacks. Last time I checked, not a single one had ordered the murder of an infidel. But you knew that.
Despite our near-pathological need to label and categorize, the United States isn’t really a far-left and a far-right country, bright red and bright blue. While such demographic labels are convenient for political debate – and indispensable to column writing – the fact is that most Americans dwell in that vast lavender (purple?) area in between.
In that middle, people are complex and hold a variety of views, some liberal, some conservative, depending on the issue. Most don’t cleave to an either-or position on even the hot-button issues. Many Americans still support a woman’s right to abortion, for instance, but think reasonable limits can be set without condemning women to life terms in the kitchen.
The debate, meanwhile, about whether “moral values” was the compelling force behind Bush’s victory seems slightly off point. Exit polls showing “moral values” as the most important issue for voters (22 percent cited it) were refuted subsequently by other polls, leading some to insist that the election wasn’t about values after all.
What they mean, probably correctly, is that the election wasn’t only about far-right concerns such as same-sex marriage, abortion and stem cell research. But of course it was about moral values – what’s right and what’s wrong, from war to national character – and the vote took us right of center.
As for Bush’s alleged “jihad,” only true jihadists have reason to protest. As Christopher Hitchens wrote, Bush fights religious fanaticism while the left apologizes for it. Amen to that.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20041117.shtml
I wonder to what extent the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination shapes and influences conservative Protestant theology and what role it plays in the polarization of American society today. The Calvinists believed that the overwhelming majority of human beings were damned by God and that only a small number of the “elect”, or true believers, would be spared by God. The Calvinists saw riches and wealth as a sign of divine favor and good works as useless since God has already determined who is saved and who is damned.
The popularity of the Tim LeHaye “Left Behind” series and other End-Of-Time and Second-Coming theories suggests that there are millions of conservative Protestants who view themselves as members of the chosen or “elect” people, whom God will transport to Heaven at the end of time, and that they view the great majority of their fellow Americans as wicked, damned and hated by God. With conservative Protestant churches taking such an overtly pro-Republican position in the recent election, its not difficult to determine whom they think are the damned and hated by God – Democrats.
If you have already decided that your fellow Americans who are Democrats are damned and hated by God there is a very little reason to listen to their arguments or take their point of view seriously. Once you have defined a group as evil its easy enough to pile one negative sterotype after another upon them. Of course John Kerry is a traitor (never mind he that he was wounded defending his country in battle) and of course he wants to ban the Bible (according to GOP pamphlets distributed in West Virginia and Ohio) and kill babies.
I once traveled to a meeting at a Church in a far outlying suburb of Chicago and when I told one of my hosts I cam from the city he said “Welcome to God’s country”. It was an innocent enough remark but it revealed a sub-conscious assumption that God doesn’t live in the city with the liberals and the minorities. he only lives out in the suburbs with the people who live in subdivisions and drive minivans.
Dean,
I have been following the different issues on this blog for several months now and I can say that I don’t think we agree on very much. However, you ask a good question–one that I often ask as well regarding the influence of North America’s overwhelmingly Protestant past on our current attitudes, values, etc. I am a convert to Orthodoxy from a politically conservative evangelical theological tradition. My generally conservative political views have not changed much (though some views have been modified), but my theological understanding has shifted drastically from the tradition of my upbringing. I am also a graduate student studying the history of Colonial North America. My MA thesis (in progress) deals with the Puritans and has required me to grasp their theology, which was Calvinist. I am certainly no expert, but I find this topic fascinating, so I could not resist putting my two-cents in, for what its worth.
I don’t think the doctrine of Predestination has much play in modern North America. In fact, as far as I know, most conservative evangelical churches do not adhere to predestination. The Presbyterians, and the Congregationalist churches do to some extent, but they certainly cannot be considered politically conservative. I think the movements that often emerged in response to the exclusive, and emotionally stressful doctrine of predestination has more influence in our contemporary culture that does Calvinism. Both the New England Puritans, and the Dutch Calvinists in New York, experienced similar rejections of their traditional theology beginning in the late 1630s. The splits were made essentially irreconcilable a century later during the Great Awakening of the 1740s. Most of the new sects rejected the doctrines of Predestination on one hand, and sacramental theology on the other, in favor of a more personal, experiential, and (don’t misconstrue this statement) egalitarian religious experience. The different sects essentially were based on ‘grace alone’ as determined by their new ‘correct’ interpretation of scripture.
I do think that the doctrine of total depravity is very strong in Evangelical circles. It is a doctrine adhered to by most of the Protestant world, so it cannot really be tied to Calvinism. However, total depravity was stressed extensively by the revivalists to exhort their congregants to be ‘born again’, and I think it has developed a very deep (though not always acknowledged) root in contemporary evangelical American society.
I think that your second paragraph is an incorrect characterization of how conservative Protestants view their place in the ‘end times.’ But I will grant you that it can be argued that the strong millennial view among Evangelicals can be tied back to the Puritans. However, I think that the Puritans’ millennial theology stemmed from a unique combination of general protestant thought, along with an emerging English nationalism that saw England, and later New England, as the last bastion of pure Christianity in the face of the Antichrist’s (a.k.a. the Pope) advances in Europe, and not so much from Calvinism.
Anyway, this is my take on it. Of course, I run the risk of generalizing a very complex topic, so if someone knows better, please correct me.
Thanks! I’m not a Protestant so most of my information about these issues is admitedly second-hand and I am merely speculating.
There is nothing about John Kerry or his positions that I can see that is in any way dramatically or overtly offensive to Christian values, so I am still searching for reasons why so may Christian churches, especially conservative Protestants, exhorted their members so strongly to vote against him.
Predestination really started with Augustine, although he softened his views in later life. It was rationalized (systematized) through Calvin who developed the doctrine as double predestinaton (if God chooses who He will save, then He must also choose those that are damned). Total depravity, the doctrine underlying double predestination, says that the fall of man was so great that man was incapable of even a though of God apart from the Holy Spirit, ie: the election of God.
I agree with Michael Rucks that predestination is largely a dead letter in American Protestantism, but its cultural effects (special election) are still felt in two places (broadly speaking): the fundamentalist Protestants of the Tim LaHaye stripe (I agree with Dean here), and the secular utopians (progressives, radical feminists, etc.).
Note 3: Not only conservative Protestants, but Catholics and Jews switched over as well.
Note 3
Dean,
Kerry has a nearly 100% pro-abortion voting record overf 20 years in the senate. Kerry was the leader of a party that fully embraced NOW and NARAL. Although he made some terrifically nuanced comments about gay marriage, his party firmly supports and advocates a vision of homosexual “rights” which are inconsistent with traditional marriage. People simply didn’t believe his attempt to equivocate on this issue. The public fully understands where the Democrats stand on the issue of gay rights. They fully understood that the gay rights agenda would be fully supported by the Democrats should they have one the White House.
Kerry embraced Hollywood affirmatively by endorsing the humor of Whoopie Goldberg. Goldberg used grossly obscene language and is understood by most to represent a licentious, amoral, hedonistic Hollywood crowd. Kerry used the F word in Rolling Stone to endear himself to the stoner crowd. This was the lowest form of pandering I have encountered in a long time. I am willing to bet that Kerry does not use the F work much in private. He used that swear word to paint himself as “hip.” Lastly, Kerry has a long documented history of acts of disrespect to America, the uncontested fact that he threw away his medals and the publication of a book, The New Soldier, which mocked the flag raising at Iwo Jima. He met with an enemy of the United States while still a member of the United States Armed Forces. There exists considerable evidence to suggest that his initial discharge from the Navy was less than honorable. His party gave Michael Moore a seat on the dias of the Democratic National Convention with Carter. Moore is known for his contempt and disrespect of the United States. Carter may be the only anti-American President in the history of our country. Carter is nearly universally loathed as a dangerous fool, Clinton couldn’t stand the man’s preposterous moral vanity and his troublesome intermeddling in American foreign policy.
Where have you been the last 6 months?
Just to clarify one of my points. I agree that the sense of election among the “Left Behind” types is very real. I just think other influences feed that worldview than Calvinism. I think it has roots in English/American Puritanism (which was Calvinist) but their millennial theology was uniquely “Puritan” not Calvinist (how’s that for nuance).
I think those on the Left, including some in the Republican Party, have underestimated the deep divide caused by the legalization of abortion. The topic has been secondary to other issues in recent years, but abortion is anathema to a large percentage of the Evangelical population–not to mention many Roman Catholics.
It is inconceivable to many on my side of the political spectrum that anyone professing to be a Christian can associate themselves with a political party that is so unabashedly pro-abortion. Primarily nation security issues drove the resluts of this last election, but the fact that non-economic social issues played such a significant role should not be surprising. The pressure has been building for years. The legalization of abortion was, I believe, the starting point, and the pressure has been building for years. Given the efforts to legalize homosexual marriage, remove even peripheral references to Christianity in the public sphere, as well as the condescension many on the left express toward Christians, it should come as no surprise that many Christians have had enough;left-leaning Republicans should take note.
I agree that there is an attitude in some areas of the Evangelical Protestantism that a Christian cannot be a Democrat. In fact, I once attended a church where it was assumed that any “true Bible believer” voted Republican and the pastor made it a point to take a shot at Catholicism (read “sacramental theology”) at just about every service. I disagree with them on this point, but if you consider that everything that they are opposed to is associated with the Democratic Party, it is not a big leap.
I’m hopeful that with the ascension of Mormon Harry Reid, who opposes abortion, to the position of Democratic Senate Majority leader, and with the lessons of the 2004 election still fresh in their minds, the Democratic party will modify its position on the abortion issue. The test will be the first Supreme Court nominations, and we will see whether Democrats make support of Roe v. Wade a litmus test, and by doing so hang the “kick me” sign on their backs again.
While I think all Christians should recognize a moral duty to reduce the number of abortions in theis country, they can, without violating the teachings of their faith, disagree about the best method for reaching this objective. Some people think that the most effective method for reducing the number of abortions is to take steps to lower the number of unwanted pregnancies, as opposed to outlawing the procedure and creating a huge underground abortion industry that harms women. The Government programs that help support families, children and adoption that are championed by Democrats can also work to persuade more women to decide against abortion.
If Democrats offer proposals for strong specific measures aimed at lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies as an alternative to outlawing abortion I think all Christians should view this is a step in the right direction, and respond in a respectful and positive manner.
Note 8
Abortion is very serious in its own right, but, it has far reaching moral implications. If convenience is allowed to prevail over the sanctity of the life of a pre-born person, then, the sanctity of life of all persons is jeopardized.
I think that Dean is eliding, sliding away from identifying what he really means, when he uses that oily phrase “reducing the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.” If we are reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies through abstinence education then sign me up, if not, I would like to know the proposed method in advance.
The disabled and the elderly are very inconvenient to have around. Relatives of the elderly can be freed of the trouble of looking after a terminally ill relative and the heirs can claim their inheritance immediately if death can be hastened along. Additionally, an early death avoids the depletion of the estate caused by protracted medical care. There are powerful forces of greed and selfishneess available to take up the cry of “death with dignity.” Those forces are heartened every time a pre-born person is killed by abortion.
The social stigma of unwed motherhood has almost completely disappeared from society. When the women’s movement first started agitating for abortion on demand the risk that women would do something dangerous and drastic such as back-alley abortions and suicide, was much more real. Today, it just doesn’t make sense. There is no stigma attached to single motherhood. It is against the law to fire a woman because she becomes pregnant. Any adoption agency has lengthy lists of couples who stand ready to assist the pregnant mother through pregnancy by paying for housing, medical care and delivery. Stories about back-alley abortions are attempts to overwhelm reason with emotion, not sound bases for policy making.
Note 9. Here’s another troublesome phrase from Dean: “The Government programs that help support families, children and adoption that are championed by Democrats can also work to persuade more women to decide against abortion.”
Democrats have consistently stood in the way of adoption reform, largely because the feminist lobby feared an emphasis on adoption would chip away their pro-abort postion. The Democratic leadership has adopted the radical feminist position towards the unborn for the last twenty years, and resistance to the reform of our antiquated adoption laws is part of it.
It remains to be seen whether they really have learned anything from this last election. I hope they have, but I don’t see how the party can effect substantive internal change without a change in leadership.
Missourian: “Relatives of the elderly can be freed of the trouble of looking after a terminally ill relative and the heirs can claim their inheritance immediately if death can be hastened along. Additionally, an early death avoids the depletion of the estate caused by protracted medical care. There are powerful forces of greed and selfishneess available to take up the cry of ‘death with dignity.'”
As a resident of the one state in the country where physician-assisted suicide is allowed I can assure you that there is no such move afoot here. And note that with or without PAS death can be hastened. The issue is whether you have a defined, public process.
Here in Oregon we have such a process and it is monitored by the State Health Division. In Missouri there is no such process, so what happens is that terminally ill patients get prescriptions of “sleeping pills,” or stock up on pain killers and then commit suicide themselves, and possibly without even any consultation with their physicians. Eliminate the words “physician assisted” from the phrase, and you end up with “suicide.” The assumption here is that it’s somehow better for grandpa to hang himself in the garage or blow his head off with a shotgun than to have the possibility of obtaining a lethal prescription after extended consultation with a physician.
Note 9. I agree, and I’m afraid that appointing an apparently anti-abortion Senate leader will not matter much. It will require a substantial shift in the philosophy of the Democratic party that is beholden to the feminists and others who define themselves by the abortion issue. I pray that it happens, but since it would require the party to push aside a core constituancy I am not hopeful. I don’t think Hillary Clinton or Nanci Pelosi will change their tunes.
Note 7. It’s more than a nuance, given that Calvin’s “millenialism” was of a different stripe than the fundamentalist variant. Fundamentalism still carries that other-worldly element — a literalistic reading of apocalyptic literature for example, thus the “rapture.” Calvin was more of a “kingdom of this world” thinker — Geneva, etc. Calvin’s ideas, while not the source of secular millenialism (Marx etc.) certainly tilled the soil where those ideas could appropriate the moral vocabulary of Christianity to acheive a secular kingdom of this world. Leftist Christians ally with these movements with almost no discomfort whatsoever. (I mention this in the section “Onward ‘Christian’ Marxists” in my article Mainline Protestants Fail in Defense of Human Rights.)
Note 12. I see your point regarding Calvin and the Christian Left. However, the secular left, it seems to me, derive their “election” from their own sense of intellectual superiority, much more along the lines of Neitzche. I see many parallels with the Puritan ideas that they were a “New Jerusalem” awaiting the millennium with the Fundamentalist interpretation of Revelation. I may be way off on this, but I was trying to explain to Dean that I don’t see a direct connection between Calvin and the Fundamentalists who are waiting for the rapture.
No. 14: The bureaucrats and technocrats of the European Union working to create perfectly neutral societies free of any religious influence probably best fit your description of the “secular elect”. The journalist T.R. Reid just released an extremely interesting book on contemporary Europe, which he talked about on NPR. In one of his remarks, Reid said Tony Blair would be laughed at in the UK if he said “God Bless Britain”, the way our President says “God Bless America”.
Europe does have some things to be proud of, like universal health care, but their empty churches on Sunday morning and phobia against all things religious are not among them.
Note 15: Yes, as well as those among the American intelligencia who hold contempt for religion, especially Christianity, because, as they see it, it is adhered to by the ignorant and intellectually stunted.
note 11
You refer to affirmative acts of suicide undertaken by a conscious elderly person. I consider these cases to be troubling but they are not the point. Remember that in Britain, right now, parents of a disabled child have had to sue to prevent removal of life support from the child by its physicians. The physicians (wish I could add emphasis here) took the iniative to withhold treatment and the parents had to resort to the Courts. As far as I know the parents lost the Court fight, medical help was withheld and the child was left to die.
Families will have an incentive to reach the conclusion that Grandpa’s “quality of life” is too low to sustain him any further. All that is needed is the withdrawal of needed medication. Think of an Alheimzer’s patient with serious heart or kidney problems. Just withhold the medication that ensures the functioning of the heart or kidney. Bye bye Granpa. Freedom from the care of an elderly person and early receipt of the inheritance are two strong reasons that will motivate family memebers.