![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
♠
Christopher Caldwell discusses why religious questions are appropriate to ask of candidates, even as they try to hide the issues as some kind of private matter. Caldwell observes that such question are all too relevant these days as the foundational questions pertaining to what kind of society America is going to be seems to be open anew, as we see more than just a little flirtation with theocratic governance.
___ ___ ___
Why we must have faith in America’s voters
By Christopher Caldwell
Published: December 21 2007 19:41 | Last updated: December 21 2007 19:41
A spectre is haunting America, the spectre of theocracy. Presidential candidates are either citing scripture or dropping broad hints that they will govern as “people of faith”. Barack Obama, the Democratic senator from Illinois, began his speech at a recent massive rally in South Carolina by saying: “Look at the day the Lord has made!” Ron Paul, the Texas Republican congressman, cited Augustine to buttress his opposition to the Iraq war. Mitt Romney, the Mormon who was Republican governor of Massachusetts, said in the most widely watched speech of his career: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the saviour of mankind.”
But it is the Republican Mike Huckabee, the television preacher and former Arkansas governor, who has caused the most alarm, for three reasons. First, Mr Huckabee has tried to sow doubts about Mr Romney, his main rival in the Iowa Republican caucuses, to be held in the first week of January. “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the Devil are brothers?” Mr Huckabee asked recently. Second, he rejects the theory of evolution with a glib obscurantism out of another century. It is one thing to question the sway of Darwinian morality, quite another to say in a debate: “If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I’ll accept that.” Third, Mr Huckabee’s shtick appears to be working. He is leading in Iowa.
Appearances deceive. At the national level Mr Huckabee does not have, if you will pardon the expression, a prayer. Religion is important in US politics, but it has not become more important. There are reportedly 28 states where evangelical Christians make up at least a quarter of the electorate. Republicans have held most of these Christians for decades by offering moral support on such issues as abortion. That Democrats woo Christians just as eagerly is less well appreciated because they do it in a more targeted way. Black churches are still the party’s most loyal institutional bulwark. According to the journalism professor, David Domke, Bill Clinton addressed church services 28 times during his presidency, more than all the other presidents since 1980 (including George W. Bush) combined.
The irruption of God into the presidential campaign need not mean the country is growing more conservative or doctrinaire. Mr Huckabee’s theology has a lot of brimstone about it, but his politics are in the tradition of the syrupy caritas that marked the presidency of Jimmy Carter. He faults the Bush administration for its “bunker mentality”. He urges a better welcome of illegal immigrants’ children. He worries about global warming and has called the supply-side Club for Growth the “Club for Greed”. Mr Huckabee impresses Christians but not the Christian right and has won few endorsements from its leaders.
What has changed is that candidates’ personal convictions have become an issue. Neither Ronald Reagan nor Mr Clinton felt he owed the public an apologia pro vita sua. Today’s candidates do. One questioner at an online debate in November held up a Bible and asked all the candidates: “Do you believe every word of this book?”
This is a step backwards for secularism, certainly. Is it a step backwards for democracy? A variety of observers – the Washington Post columnists Charles Krauthammer (on the right) and Richard Cohen (on the left), the New York Times editorial page and Mr Romney himself – are worried. Raising a candidate’s religious beliefs ought to be out of bounds, they say. It constitutes a “religious test” of the sort proscribed in Article VI of the constitution. But this is to apply in one realm (voters’ preoccupations) a principle designed for another (government appointments). It is like a teenager complaining that his free speech is being violated when his father tells him to “pipe down so I can watch Survivor”.
Many Americans are given to quoting John F. Kennedy’s view that a president’s religious views ought to be “his own private affair”. That was a workable ideal when American laws and institutions – from churches to unions – were stable enough that the private convictions of politicians could not affect them. But it is a different country now. Starting in the 1960s, bureaucracies and courts dismantled many long-standing civil institutions in the name of secularism and neutrality – integrating men’s clubs, legalising gay marriage, removing Christmas displays from public squares and so on.
That such changes were often mandated by courts changed voters in two ways. The first was ideological. If such principles as secularism or neutrality become a basis for condemning and banning cherished traditions without the say-so of the legislature, then some voters will view a candidate’s repudiation of those principles as evidence of democratic good faith.
The second shift was organisational. Thanks to constitutional limits on government’s right to meddle in religion, churches are the surest refuge from overweening government. Mr Smith’s church is safer from regulation than Mr Smith’s hardware store. Unsurprisingly, many new secular institutions are now organised religiously. “Church” is an inadequate description of some of the all-purpose alternative communities that have cropped up in the American Bible belt, with cinemas, libraries, gyms, coffee shops and so on. What we call “religion” in America can be as much a political secession as a spiritual revival.
It is always legitimate to want information about a candidate’s bedrock beliefs, whether they are religious or not. If Americans are pressing for such information more urgently in recent elections, the reason is not that they are turning into fanatics. It is that, when basic institutions and social rules are in flux, convictions about first principles matter more than they once appeared to.
-- Christopher Caldwell for The Financial Times
xXx
Christopher Caldwell discusses why religious questions are appropriate to ask of candidates, even as they try to hide the issues as some kind of private matter. Caldwell observes that such question are all too relevant these days as the foundational questions pertaining to what kind of society America is going to be seems to be open anew, as we see more than just a little flirtation with theocratic governance.
___ ___ ___
Why we must have faith in America’s voters
By Christopher Caldwell
Published: December 21 2007 19:41 | Last updated: December 21 2007 19:41
A spectre is haunting America, the spectre of theocracy. Presidential candidates are either citing scripture or dropping broad hints that they will govern as “people of faith”. Barack Obama, the Democratic senator from Illinois, began his speech at a recent massive rally in South Carolina by saying: “Look at the day the Lord has made!” Ron Paul, the Texas Republican congressman, cited Augustine to buttress his opposition to the Iraq war. Mitt Romney, the Mormon who was Republican governor of Massachusetts, said in the most widely watched speech of his career: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the saviour of mankind.”
But it is the Republican Mike Huckabee, the television preacher and former Arkansas governor, who has caused the most alarm, for three reasons. First, Mr Huckabee has tried to sow doubts about Mr Romney, his main rival in the Iowa Republican caucuses, to be held in the first week of January. “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the Devil are brothers?” Mr Huckabee asked recently. Second, he rejects the theory of evolution with a glib obscurantism out of another century. It is one thing to question the sway of Darwinian morality, quite another to say in a debate: “If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I’ll accept that.” Third, Mr Huckabee’s shtick appears to be working. He is leading in Iowa.
Appearances deceive. At the national level Mr Huckabee does not have, if you will pardon the expression, a prayer. Religion is important in US politics, but it has not become more important. There are reportedly 28 states where evangelical Christians make up at least a quarter of the electorate. Republicans have held most of these Christians for decades by offering moral support on such issues as abortion. That Democrats woo Christians just as eagerly is less well appreciated because they do it in a more targeted way. Black churches are still the party’s most loyal institutional bulwark. According to the journalism professor, David Domke, Bill Clinton addressed church services 28 times during his presidency, more than all the other presidents since 1980 (including George W. Bush) combined.
The irruption of God into the presidential campaign need not mean the country is growing more conservative or doctrinaire. Mr Huckabee’s theology has a lot of brimstone about it, but his politics are in the tradition of the syrupy caritas that marked the presidency of Jimmy Carter. He faults the Bush administration for its “bunker mentality”. He urges a better welcome of illegal immigrants’ children. He worries about global warming and has called the supply-side Club for Growth the “Club for Greed”. Mr Huckabee impresses Christians but not the Christian right and has won few endorsements from its leaders.
What has changed is that candidates’ personal convictions have become an issue. Neither Ronald Reagan nor Mr Clinton felt he owed the public an apologia pro vita sua. Today’s candidates do. One questioner at an online debate in November held up a Bible and asked all the candidates: “Do you believe every word of this book?”
This is a step backwards for secularism, certainly. Is it a step backwards for democracy? A variety of observers – the Washington Post columnists Charles Krauthammer (on the right) and Richard Cohen (on the left), the New York Times editorial page and Mr Romney himself – are worried. Raising a candidate’s religious beliefs ought to be out of bounds, they say. It constitutes a “religious test” of the sort proscribed in Article VI of the constitution. But this is to apply in one realm (voters’ preoccupations) a principle designed for another (government appointments). It is like a teenager complaining that his free speech is being violated when his father tells him to “pipe down so I can watch Survivor”.
Many Americans are given to quoting John F. Kennedy’s view that a president’s religious views ought to be “his own private affair”. That was a workable ideal when American laws and institutions – from churches to unions – were stable enough that the private convictions of politicians could not affect them. But it is a different country now. Starting in the 1960s, bureaucracies and courts dismantled many long-standing civil institutions in the name of secularism and neutrality – integrating men’s clubs, legalising gay marriage, removing Christmas displays from public squares and so on.
That such changes were often mandated by courts changed voters in two ways. The first was ideological. If such principles as secularism or neutrality become a basis for condemning and banning cherished traditions without the say-so of the legislature, then some voters will view a candidate’s repudiation of those principles as evidence of democratic good faith.
The second shift was organisational. Thanks to constitutional limits on government’s right to meddle in religion, churches are the surest refuge from overweening government. Mr Smith’s church is safer from regulation than Mr Smith’s hardware store. Unsurprisingly, many new secular institutions are now organised religiously. “Church” is an inadequate description of some of the all-purpose alternative communities that have cropped up in the American Bible belt, with cinemas, libraries, gyms, coffee shops and so on. What we call “religion” in America can be as much a political secession as a spiritual revival.
It is always legitimate to want information about a candidate’s bedrock beliefs, whether they are religious or not. If Americans are pressing for such information more urgently in recent elections, the reason is not that they are turning into fanatics. It is that, when basic institutions and social rules are in flux, convictions about first principles matter more than they once appeared to.
-- Christopher Caldwell for The Financial Times
