Posted on 11/11/2007 6:07:42 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
There is an old hymn written by Fanny Crosby, sung at generations of camp meetings, which exclaims: "Crown Him! Crown Him! Prophet, and Priest, and King!" Since the emergence of evangelicalism as a cultural force in the 1950s, three approaches to politics, represented by three personalities, have emerged. They are the prophet, the priest and the kingmaker.
The prophet has been psychologist James Dobson, who dispenses child-rearing advice on the radio from his Colorado ministry, Focus on the Family. On family issues, Dobson's counsel is moderate and broadly appealing. On politics, his tone sharpens. He rails against compromise on social-conservative issues and seems continually poised to storm out of the Republican Party in protest, threatening to carry his millions of listeners with him.
The priest has been Billy Graham, nonpartisan confessor to presidents from Harry Truman to George W. Bush and presider at public events from Inaugurals to services of national mourning. His commitment to preaching the simple, undiluted Gospel has been total, but his approach to politics has sometimes been naive; his uncritical ties to the powerful have occasionally left him subject to manipulation. The priest was burned by a misplaced trust in Richard Nixon.
The kingmaker has been Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network. Robertson has a history of odd and disturbing public statements on issues from the causes of hurricanes to the assassination of foreign leaders. But as the son of a senator, he has generally taken a pragmatic approach to politics, with the goal of being a player rather than a prophet. After his own bid for the White House, Robertson founded the Christian Coalition to give the religious-right grass-roots clout within the Republican Party.
Graham's priestly role in American politics is gradually passing. But both of the other evangelical tendencies have been recently on display. Already in the current political cycle, Dobson has declared he could never support Rudy Giuliani, John McCain or Fred Thompson because of their various personal and political shortcomings. And a few weeks ago he participated in a Council for National Policy meeting which threatened to bolt the GOP if Giuliani is its nominee.
The kingmaker has gone in the opposite direction. Robertson's public endorsement of Giuliani last week surprised many. It should not have. His predisposition has always been to influence Republican politics from the inside. He has doubtlessly received assurances from Giuliani on the appointment of conservative judges and is calculating he can maintain influence within a Giuliani administration. But Robertson's endorsement of a pro-choice candidate has exposed deep political fault lines within religious conservatism. Add to this Paul Weyrich's endorsement of Mitt Romney, and Sam Brownback's support for McCain, and religious conservatives are fragmented as never before.
One effect has been to deprive former Arkansas governor (and former pastor) Mike Huckabee of support. He is the natural candidate of religious conservatives—strongly pro-life, pro-family, but also with a populist economic message. Huckabee is a candidate with Bill Clinton-like political skills, and he has fared well in straw polls. But religious-right leaders have calculated that Huckabee is not electable. Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani particularly irked him. "Our Web site went nuts with people saying they will never give money to Robertson again," Huckabee told me. "There is a disconnect," he said, "between past generational leaders in Christian conservatism and their own followers."
The use of the word "past" is purposeful and accurate. Leaders such as Robertson mainly exercise broad influence in the imagination of liberals. Evangelicals, particularly younger evangelicals, are undergoing a shift in attitudes. Many have little interest in the self-destructive purity of the prophet or the raw pragmatism of the kingmaker. They remain culturally conservative, but uncomfortable with a harshly judgmental tone in their politics. They find the model of the religious right too narrow and are increasingly motivated by a broader range of social concerns, from disease in Africa, to the environment, to racial reconciliation. And they want to be a witness to these values instead of a tool in the power games of others.
A recent article in The New York Times Magazine termed this trend "the evangelical crackup." But perhaps it is just maturity and a renewed appreciation of the way social change has taken place in the past. "The Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next," argued C. S. Lewis. "The apostles themselves, who set on foot the conversion of the Roman Empire, the great men who built up the Middle Ages, the English evangelicals who abolished slave trade, all left their mark on earth, precisely because their minds were occupied with heaven. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world, that they have become so ineffective in this. Aim at heaven and you will get earth 'thrown in': aim at earth and you will get neither."
Evangelicals are not retreating from politics, but they are moving beyond the religious right. The form that engagement will take is still uncertain—but it is likely to see politics as a means to social justice, not an end in itself, and to agree with the final line of Fanny Crosby's hymn: "Power and glory unto the Lord belong."
Oh, how rich (in all manner of idiot hypocrisy). Imagine, an organ of the MSM calling a Christian media pioneer "Kingmaker."
The key is that he comes with “with a populist economic message.”
I.e., he’ll spend other people’s money the way we like.
Also, the media is pragmatic. If you want Rudy to win the nomination, you need to split the social conservative vote in as many ways as possible. If Rudy tops out around 30-35%, and McCain can draw on 10-15% as a war hero, then the remaining 50-60% of the vote needs a 3 way split - Mitt, Fred & the Huckster. If that 50-60% starts to solidify around one candidate, Rudy is toast.
It also is worth remembering the Media is predominately New York - and New Yorkers would probably be content as long as someone from New York won. You just can’t trust an outsider...
Even B. Graham toadied up to clinton. I lost all respect for the guy.
Michael Gerson served as President George W. Bush’s chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006, and as a senior policy advisor from 2000 through June 2006.
Many many people do not realize the role of Robertson’s Regent University in filling vacant lawyer slots in the GWB administration.
The “Civil Rights Commission” is choc a bloc with Regent Grads.
It is funny how the OSM is bending over backwards telling themselves that “Younger christians are not interested in the Religious Right issues” ie Abortion gay rights (to marry) etc.
Yet the offer no proof of there position, similarly, the Religious Right crack up remains to be seen de facto.
Are you implying that that makes him a conservative?
Just putting facts on the table.
The Reverend Graham (Sr.) even said that bclinton could be forgiven for his transgressions because he was such “a ladies’ man” and couldn’t help himself or some nonsense.
Yes, but Franklin and Ann, Billy’s children, are real conservatives. Billy was just a traditional Democrat who liked Nixon and the Bushes.
“Isn’t it funny how the media is almost universal in their admiration and praise of Mike Huckabee? Why is that, do you think? “
Because by hyping Mike Huckabee, it takes votes away from Thompson, who is one of Giuliani’s main rivals. If you notice, every time Huckabee goes up a point or two in the polls, Thompson’s numbers go down.
Huckabee is a vote splitter and is being pushed in the media because he is the most able to split votes form Thompson and Romney in order to protect Giuliani.
Robertson tossed in with Giuliani because he has that gold mine interest in libera. It is simply a matter of the gold rule, gold makes the rules and robertson needs to protect his gold.
The other candidates must not have the same commitment to Robertson’s gold mine interests.
Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy means that Pat Robertson is willing to sacrifice his principles for politics.
And/Or Pat Robertson is a closet Liberal. Then if that was the case, then Pat is hiding is true agenda, which is hypocritical and unchristian.
Although it’s from Newsweak, I’m afraid this article is basically correct. Many evangelicals are politically naive and trusting. They do not have the philosophical dread of government most conservatives do. All the Republican candidates are claiming to be pro-life now, except Rudy, and he claims he will appoint “strict constructionist” judges. Naive and unsophisticated people fall for that kind of sophistry. So the evangelical vote is indeed fragmented. In fact, so is the conservative vote. Just look at the people here on FR who tout Rudy, Romney, Huckabee, and other non-conservatives.
“One effect has been to deprive former Arkansas governor (and former pastor) Mike Huckabee of support. He is the natural candidate of religious conservatives—strongly pro-life, pro-family, but also with a populist economic message.”
Natural candidate? I think not.
I was a George HW Bush alternate delegate in 1988 in New Orleans from NY State. Robertson decided to endorse Bush at the Convention and the night that he spoke his people put a placard on the chair of every delegate. It read as follows:
ROBERTSON
(in HUGE letters)
for Bush
(in TINY letters)
Or maybe he's a closet queer like Ted Haggard. You have to assume from this endorsement that Robertson is pro-gay rights and at least neutral on abortion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.