Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Support PBS Shop PBS Search PBS
Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly -- An online companion to the weekly television news program
Keyword Search
Topic Index Stories by Week
Home
Current Stories

Perspectives
Profile
Web Exclusive
Survey

Headlines
Election Coverage
Special Issues
TV Schedule
Calendar
Newsletter
Subscribe or unsubscribe to the E-mail Newsletter, or edit your preferences.
The Series
About the Series
Funding
Biographies
Awards
Credits
For Teachers
Overview
Lesson Plan List
Tips
Teacher Resources
Resources
Viewer's Guides
Videotapes
Featured Sites
Feedback
Contact Us
Story Suggestions

INTERVIEW:
Tony Perkins
Ocotber 27, 2006    Episode no. 1009
Read This Week's November 7, 2008
Go
Read more of Kim Lawton's October 16, 2006 interview in Nashville, Tennessee with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council:

Q: What are you doing to mobilize voters this fall?

A: Well, we're trying to draw attention to the fact that we have an election coming up. There are some very important issues on the ballot. We're here in Tennessee where there's a marriage amendment -- one of eight states that will have amendments on the ballot. Sixteen states have passed them since Massachusetts imposed same-sex marriage, twenty total states; this would make twenty-eight. And we just want to make sure people know these are not going to pass themselves. I think people have become a little complacent because of what's happened. They've all passed. The court rulings, for the most part, have been in favor of marriage. We're just sending the message of we need to vote. It's on the ballot -- need to vote.

Q: You are particularly targeting people of faith in this effort?

Photo of Perkins A: Well, we are -- people that are concerned about the moral direction of our nation, concerned about the institute of marriage, concerned about the future of their children and grandchildren. And so we're letting them know that this is an opportunity for them and the responsibility of them to participate in our process.

Q: Tell me about the religious connection here. Why is this an issue that people of faith should care about?

A: Well, as Christians we're told by Jesus to be salt and be light, and that's not just within the walls of the church. That's in the culture as a whole. And when we look at the moral direction of the nation, we have a responsibility to make it a better community where people can prosper, where children are free to learn and are safe. And a lot of that depends on the moral setting and moral condition of our society, and so we have an obligation to be personally involved in people's lives, to help those that are poor, to be part of those ministries of the local church, whether it be homeless shelters, whether it be working with fatherless children. You know, those are all responsibilities, and we look at the policy arena. We look at the direction that policies are being made. Are they moving in the same direction, those policies? Are they encouraging strong families? Are they encouraging personal responsibility? And so the two have to come together. We've got the faith component working here and the policy component, and they need to be moving in the same direction. That's why we encourage people to be involved.

Q: Do you sense that some of these people aren't as energetic as they were a couple of years ago?

A: Oh, there's no question that people aren't as energetic and enthused as they were two years ago, and there's a couple of reasons for that. One, it's not a presidential election year, and so that historically midterm elections are not as a presidential election. So that's part of the factor, part of the equation. Clearly, some of the problems the Republican Party has had also played into it. You know, the Foley scandal has clearly dampened enthusiasm and has raised questions in many people's minds that have most of the time voted Republican, and this is a distinction that I think people are beginning to see among values voters -- that their allegiance is not to a party. Their allegiance [is] to those values. They're called values voters. They're not called Republican voters; they're values voters, and they will go with whomever supports their positions and their values, and I think the whole episode with Foley and the party has some sitting back saying, "You know, all this talk about big tent strategy -- this looks more like a three-ring circus. I'm just not sure this is a party I want to be a part of."

Q: Do you sense a growing dissatisfaction with the whole process? What are these people going to do on Election Day? Will they stay home, as some people suggest?

A: Don't mistake a discouragement toward the Republican Party as a backing away from the political process, because not only do you have congressional races on the ballot this fall, but you have state and local races on the ballot, and you have marriage amendments, you have other propositions, and so people are going to not be involved. Now you'll have folks on the margins that will fall off, marginal values voters, but the core will go out and vote. What they may do, though, is they may not vote for candidates who have not taken distinct positions on the issues. If it's unknown, if it's a choice between two unknowns, they may simply skip over that and vote for the ones they do know stand for and represent their values.

Q: What message do you have for officials in both parties about these voters who have been so influential in the past?

A: I would warn politicians -- those seeking the support of values voters, those that care about the moral direction of our country and are predisposed to follow and focus primarily on those issues -- that they have to be consistent. They've got to not only campaign on, but they've actually got to do policies surrounding, or create policies surrounding those issues. And if you take these folks for granted, you've made a big mistake. They're not wed to a party. They're wed to a core set of issues and values, and that's where they will go, and when a party or a political figure leaves those issues, those voters will leave that person or that party.

Q: We've heard Democrats recently talking about faith, framing issues on moral grounds, talking about values, talking about reducing the number of abortions. Will that have an impact among church people?

Continue to top of next colum
Tools:
E-Mail this article
Resources
A: Oh, I think it could. I think it's a positive development. I think the fact that we're talking about these things are positives. But we've got to act on them. Talk is cheap, as they say. It's walking it out and [practicing it] in public policy, and I think that's where many in the Democratic Party have the disconnect, is that they're learning to talk about them, but they have no record of acting upon them, and they don't know how to connect the two. I'm not saying the Republican Party has shown better tendencies lately, but it will be a challenge for Democratic candidates.

Q: What about the Iraq war? There's been a lot of grassroots concern about that. Is that something people are weighing against some other issues?

A: Actually, I think the administration does well with values voters when it comes to the Iraq war, but from a broader standpoint of the war on terror and to the point that those two are connected -- and I do believe there is a connection between the two -- I think the administration does well there because of the way they've framed it. It's a battle between good and evil, and the Bible-believing community, the evangelicals understand those terms. They understand good and evil, and that's something that's kind of lost sometimes in the culture in a broader context of right and wrong, good and evil. It's not as clear-cut. Within the Bible-believing community, they respond well to that.

Q: What will you be watching for in this midterm election? What will we see this November, and what will that tell us about 2008?

A: I don't know what we'll see this November. I'm interested to see what is going to be the outcome. I do think, in many ways, this will shape the beginnings of the 2008 presidential race. My thought is, as I've tracked different states, different races, that the candidates that take clear positions tend to do better, whether those be clear social issues or other issues. People are attracted to things that are definitive, and they're attracted to candidates and parties that are definitive, that stand for something. I actually think that you will see many of those issues emerge out of this election which will shape the debate of the 2008 presidential race.

Q: Some analysts say it will be a fight for the middle. Do you agree?

A: No, I don't agree with that. I mean, I spent eight years in public office. I was a candidate for the United States Senate. I've been involved in major campaigns before. Rarely do you see someone emerge out of the middle that is non-descript, that stands for, you know, almost anything or stands for almost nothing. I mean, there's no one really attracted to the mushy middle. People are attracted to something, whether it be to the right or the left. You know, if it's definitive, people can identify with it; they gravitate toward [it]. People are not naturally drawn to the middle, where it's like a lukewarm cup of coffee. How many people like a lukewarm cup of coffee? I mean, maybe there are a few people, but not many. Either people like it hot, or maybe they like iced coffee, but they don't like lukewarm coffee.

Q: What's your hope for the values voters as a community? Some experts say their influence was overstated in the last election. What's your take on it? What role do you want the community you're part of to play?

A: I find it amusing that people following the last election and since then have been saying this was a misinterpretation; values voters are really not that important. But now everybody's trying to, in many ways, suppress the value voter turnout. So, obviously they meant something. Now, I never claimed, and many have never claimed, that those 25-27 percent of the voters that were labeled values voters were all evangelical voters. We never said that. What we have said is that those folks represent an orientation toward the values evangelicals have been talking about. And I don't think they're going to go away. In fact, I think that number grows. Now, I don't think they're going to vote in the same percentage they did last time, but there's actually another -- I think that only represents about half of evangelicals that voted in that last election. So, there's many more out there. It's just a matter of them seeing that they can make a difference, being captivated by the issues and going to the polls and voting. I see over the next several years that number increasing, as we see more and more of the issues being thrust into the political realm, not at our choice but at those that are trying to remake society -- that they're going to engage and be involved.

Q: As more states put a constitutional amendment on their ballots, is marriage still as strong an issue that galvanizes voters?

A: As long as there is a threat to marriage and the risk to marriage continues to exist, then yes, it will continue to be an issue. I mean, it ebbs and flows with the threat. As the threat diminishes, you know, the enthusiasm around that issue diminishes. People that defend marriage generally are married, have families, have kids, have other things to deal with. They don't live for public policy debates. It's kind of like a reserve military. They come out when needed and when they're called upon, and so I think when the threat is there, they will be there to defend the institute of marriage.

Did you like this story? How can we improve our program or Web site?
Resources






TOP