 |
Read more of Kim Lawton's interview with Allen Hertzke, director of religious studies and professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma:
Q: How important are the 2006 midterm elections in setting the stage for 2008?
A: These elections are going to be pivotal, because in my 20 years of following the religious scene, I have never seen religion as politicized as it has been this year in the congressional and gubernatorial races. What we're going to see, I think, is it set the stage for a highly politicized religious environment in 2008.
Q: In what way? How is religion being politicized, and how might it be used in 2008?
A: The Democrats and progressive forces have joined the conservative evangelical community and conservative Catholics in expressly using religious language in their appeals, speaking to religious values, campaigning in churches, and this is across the board. I see everyone jumping on board. You've got Buddhists running for Congress, you have Muslim groups that are endorsing candidates, you have conservative Catholics and liberal Catholics both expressing their views on what their religious values should translate into, into campaigning and voting, and, of course, you have a continually aroused evangelical community that is not going away. Literally across the theological spectrum, across the political spectrum, you have people using religious appeals in a way I've never seen. You might say that candidates are using a stained-glass strategy across the board.
Q: You've never seen this before?
A: Well, it's not new for candidates to campaign in churches. You see it in the black community; you've seen it for years. It's true in the white evangelical community. For the first time, I think we are seeing numerous Democratic candidates speaking to their religious values and articulating how those values relate to their political stances, and it's interesting, because there is a kind of coordinated effort among the Democrats. You hear talk about the common good, which actually springs out of Catholic social teaching, and so you're hearing Democrats actually speak to how their religious values promote the common good and how that springs from their understanding of the New Testament or Hebrew scriptures, and so you're seeing them join conservative evangelicals who have been using this language for decades now.
Q: How much pressure does this put on Republicans who felt they had this whole religion territory all to themselves?
A: There's no question it is putting pressure on the Republicans, but also putting pressure on the Republicans is just the current environment. The war in Iraq has soured, there have been scandals, and so the ranking of the Republican Party among evangelicals has gone down. Historically, evangelicals have seen the Republican Party as friendly toward religion. That's down significantly. So even though there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans in how people view the parties, with the Republicans generally see as more friendly, nonetheless the Republican Party is seen as a lot less friendly than it has just four years ago, and that I think is going to have a big impact in how this election turns out.
Q: Some people speculate that the Republicans were counting on the fact that they had this very strong conservative base pretty well in hand, so that then freed them up to campaign a little more to the middle or to play down religious outreach, assuming it would just be there. Have you seen this? Is it a good strategy?
A: I don't see any evidence that they've downplayed religion. At least here in Oklahoma, we're seeing candidates not only speak about their faith in some vague terms, but in overt terms about their Christian faith, about faith, family, and freedom. Those are slogans you hear a lot among candidates here, and I'm sure elsewhere. I think the reason that they can't assume the base is that, in fact, the prospects are not as strong as they were two years ago. Two years ago, 68 percent of all evangelicals said they were going to vote for Republicans for the Congress. Now it's down to 57 percent, and so if they only get 55 to 60 percent of evangelicals voting for them, that's actually a loss compared to what they did two years ago. So they can't ignore the base, and in some ways they are put in a box because the Democrats are trying to seize the middle ground, religiously speaking.
Q: What about the Catholic community?
A: The Catholic community is absolutely essential. They are the quintessential swing voters in American politics today. If you follow the Catholic vote closely, you'll see it tracks almost directly to the actual vote outcomes in congressional and presidential elections, and here's what's worrisome for Republicans. In 2004, the majority of Catholics voted for Republican congressional candidates. This year, by a margin of ten points or so, Catholics are saying they are going to vote for Democrats for Congress, and if they do, then Democrats will take control of the House and possibly the Senate.
Q: George W. Bush got the majority of Catholic votes in 2004, running against a Catholic candidate, but that constituency isn't a lock for the Republicans. Is the next president going to have to win the Catholic vote to win the presidency?
A: I think that is not overstated. I think the next president has to win the vote to win the presidency, and the candidate who wins the Catholic vote is likely to be the one who will win the presidency. It is that important, and that's why I think you are hearing candidates on the Democratic side talking about the common good, which is strong language that comes out of Catholic social teaching. And even though most Catholics don't read those papal encyclicals, the phrase "common good" has a resonance in the Catholic community, I think, that is pretty strong and which doesn't turn off non-Catholics.
Q: What about some of the other religious minorities -- Jewish groups, Muslims and others? Are they going to feel excluded or made a little uncomfortable by some of this language?
A: I think that is a genuine concern and a genuine danger, that in a place like Oklahoma that is strong Baptist, evangelical country it's safe for candidates to speak overtly about their Christian faith, and it can send a message that others are not included. Now that will vary from place and to place, and I think in some places certainly the appeals to faith are going to be more generic, less overtly Christian. Certainly, though, there are certain places where Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and others will actually be mobilizing their communities in this election, and so in some ways they're all jumping on board. Certainly the Muslim groups are going to be mobilizing. They're endorsing candidates. There's a Muslim candidate in Minnesota running for Congress who will probably win. So we're going to see religion all over the place, I think, in this election.
Q: Let's talk about the fact that the presidency is going to be an open seat. There's no incumbent running. How open will the race be, and how important will religion be?
A: Well, it's going to be a wide open presidential race. I don't think there are candidates in either party that have a lock on a nomination. Too much remains to happen. A lot can happen in two years. But it's going to be a wide open race, and I think religion will play a very important role. In the Republican Party you have candidate Rudolph Giuliani who is popular among Republicans but nonetheless is pro-choice on abortion and would not be acceptable to the evangelical population, so that could become an issue. You have Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts, who is Mormon. Now that could be an issue among conservative evangelicals. If you go into any evangelical bookstore today, you'll still find books on the Mormon "cult." So even though Mitt Romney is conservative and traditional on moral values, I have a feeling that that could be an issue. On the Democratic side I think you're going to see a real ground swell for someone like Barack Obama, who can speak about his faith in a clear, overt way, in a way that's compelling, in a way that doesn't seem false, and so I have a feeling that Democrats are going to be looking at candidates who have that crossover appeal, who are able to speak a religious language that's resonant but is not phony and that has the promise at least of serving to gain votes from normally, traditionally conservative Christians.
Q: How much are the Democrats going to be looking at the failed candidacy of John Kerry, and what lessons should they be learning?
A: Oh, boy. I think they've already learned some lessons from the failed candidacy of John Kerry. In fact, John Kerry himself has learned lessons. He's given a prominent speech in which he highlighted his own faith and how it related to his political stances, a speech that was much more detailed than anything he gave in the election in 2004. So I think that the Democrats -- and this is true for not only candidates, but consultants and think tanks. There's a whole apparatus now developing around the Democratic Party that is attempting to frame issues in a way that has religious resonance. And so I think the Democrats in fact have learned a lesson that you can't ignore religion, and you can't cede that territory to the Republicans.
Q: Are we going to see religion everywhere, in presidential debates and campaign speeches? Are we going to get sick to death of religion over the next two years?
A: Well, that's a very good question, whether we'll get sick to death. I think the danger will be a sense of phoniness. I think what the candidates have to be careful of is overdoing it, and I think that might conceivably happen in 2008. But I do think that we're going to see candidates talking about their faith. They're going to be talking about how their faith relates to their political positions. So the Democrats will be talking about the common good and how the New Testament or the Sermon on the Mount relates to provision for the poor and for the working class. Republicans will be speaking about pro-family policies and how they relate to their faith. And so I do think we're going to see a lot of it. I think it's going to be a factor in presidential debates. But I do think the danger is overdoing it.
Q: What about if someone might want to run for the presidency and he or she really doesn't have any faith at all?
A: I think that in contrast to Europe, where you can be a devout atheist or agnostic and run for election, you can't do that in America, and so what we have is a situation in which even if you in fact are an agnostic or even an atheist, you have to go to church in order to run for president. I think that's absolutely the case. It's part of our civic culture. And one of the reasons for it is that the president serves, for good or ill, as the national pastor.
 |
|
|
|
When there are crises, people expect the president to speak in a kind of civil, religious vein, to offer comfort to victims of a disaster, to offer fortitude to the nation. And presidents are expected to end their speeches with "God bless America." It's a part of our civil religion. And so the president as the head of state -- he's not just the prime minister, he's the head of state -- is expected to symbolize our civil religion. I think people would not be comfortable with someone who is a devout atheist or agnostic.
Q: Has the civil religion language or the way that works out changed in America in recent years?
A: Yes, it's become more overt and explicit. I think what you saw -- you can go all the way back to George Washington, and you'll see references to divine providence, and in some ways that language is more generic in general. We've gotten to the point now, I think, where language is much more explicit if not Christian, closely tied to scripture and a more active faith than a kind of vague, general language of providence and so forth. Even compared to the 1950s, I think we have more overt, religious language. Certainly with George W. Bush and his inaugural address, you saw more explicit references to religion than you saw with Eisenhower, a fellow Republican.
Q: How unique was George W. Bush's relationship with evangelicals, and how challenging will that be for another candidate to replicate?
A: Well, that's a great question because George W. Bush, in fact, came out of the evangelical community himself. He had a well-known conversion experience, where he gave up drink, gave up alcohol, gave up his wild living, as he said, and he can speak the language of redemption and renewal in a personal way that is unique. His father was very uncomfortable speaking about faith, whereas George W. Bush is comfortable speaking about his faith, does so frequently, and he has a special connection to the evangelical community. To this day, the community that has the highest support for George W. Bush is the evangelical community, so even though it's not as strong as it was, because the war has soured things a bit and other issues have come to the fore, nonetheless there is a deep bond between George W. Bush and the evangelical community that transcends political stances and circumstances. I don't think anyone can quite match George W. Bush in terms of a connection to the evangelical community. Certainly no one in the Republican ranks right now, I think, has that same connection. They all will campaign; they all will meet with people like James Dobson and Charles Colson and Franklin Graham and leaders like this. And they'll meet with them, and they'll campaign, and they'll go to the religious broadcasters, but I don't think anyone that I see on the horizon right now has the same personal connection to the evangelical community.
Q: You mentioned Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. What will Romney's big challenge be with this huge voting bloc of religious conservatives?
A: I think Mitt Romney's challenge is the following -- that for many evangelicals, Mormons are not true Christians, and not only that, they really are viewed as people belonging to a cult. That's very strong language, and it's negative and pejorative language, but that's how many evangelicals view Mormons. You will see in evangelical bookstores books about the Mormon cult and about the dangerousness of it and so forth. So Mitt Romney has to somehow convince evangelical voters that he's safe for them and that his religion in some ways won't influence his attitude toward the Christian community in the United States. I think that's the challenge for Mitt Romney. And the other challenge is, I think, going to be to explain his theology, because he's been able as a governor to not really address his specific beliefs as a Mormon. But I think in the high-powered glare of a presidential campaign, Mitt Romney is going to be asked more questions about what he believes, and when he describes his beliefs, if he describes them in detail, they will sound strange to at least some Christians, and not just evangelicals. That's Mitt Romney's challenge.
Q: And Rudy Giuliani?
A: Giuliani's big challenge is that on certain issues -- gay rights and abortion -- he takes stands that are absolutely antithetical at least to the values or to the beliefs or to the convictions of the evangelical community. Now some evangelicals will be able to ignore that, I think, because they have so much faith in Giuliani as a leader, confidence in him; they have admiration for his leadership after [and] during the 9/11 disaster. So Giuliani has, I think, a very positive image in the evangelical community. But evangelical leaders will speak out against his candidacy on the basis of his stand on abortion, because Giuliani will appoint the next Supreme Court justices, and that's where the battle is going to be fought. Whether it's James Dobson or whether it's Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Franklin Graham, or Chuck Colson, the evangelical leaders that are out there today that have a strong following are not going to endorse Giuliani and will speak out, I think, actively against him because of his stand on abortion. I think it's that important.
Q: What about the gay marriage issue? How much traction is that going to have? A lot of people are saying the Republicans in particular have already played that card twice now, and most of the states that are going to get amendments already have them, so it may not be that big of a factor in the next couple of years. What do you think?
A: Well, just when you think the gay marriage issue is going away, another court decrees that in effect some version of gay marriage is mandated by a state constitution. And of course just recently the New Jersey Supreme Court decreed that [gay couples were entitled to the full benefits of marriage.] And so that means that the issue is going to be back. It's going to be a presidential campaign issue. There's going to continue to be an effort by evangelicals to back a constitutional amendment declaring marriage solely between a man and a woman, and so it's not going away. Just when we thought it might have spent itself, it's not.
Q: Is it just one or two social or moral issues for the religious conservatives still, or is that broadening out at all? Is it an advantage when it comes to the election to have a relatively narrow agenda?
A: Certain issues are always going to be important. Certain concerns about abortion, about marriage, about education, about the secularization or perceived secularization of schools [are] important, concern about the shape of the culture, the coarsening of the culture in the national media. So all of these issues will continue to be important, but evangelicals have broadened their stances, and they are expressing concern about the environment, they are expressing concern about poverty, about international development, about AIDS. And so a candidate who can speak to those issues but also speak to the moral conservative issues might do very well. Someone like Senator Sam Brownback, who both has been a leader in international human rights and AIDS work but is also conservative on abortion and marriage might have a lot of appeal. On the Democratic side I think you're going to see much more talk about how concern for the working class and the poor is rooted in biblical principles. You're going to hear about how care for creation is rooted in the gospel, in both the Hebrew scriptures and in Christian scriptures. I think you're going to see both parties framing their issues in terms of biblical principles.
Q: How big an issue is the Supreme Court and "activist judges"?
A: The Supreme Court is a big issue, and it is a crucial issue in the presidential campaign, and it will remain so. The Court is going to be even fairly closely divided and so whoever gets to appoint the next justices is going to have a huge impact on the whole sweep of constitutional law for the next generation, and in some ways, with the exception perhaps of foreign policy, the president's greatest legacy is on the Supreme Court, and so the Court will be crucial. In the conservative Christian community, both among conservative Catholics and conservative evangelicals, the issue of "activist judges" remains a crucial issue because it symbolizes justices who overturned the will of the majority when it comes to marriage, when it comes to abortion, when it comes to pornography. So there's a sense that unelected judges are setting public policy that ought to be the purview of average people. That is a huge issue for the conservative Christian community, and it's a huge issue for religious progressives as well.
Q: What kind of religious and political national life do you see ahead?
A: I'm not sure it's really healthy, the era we're in, in which religion is so politicized and some might argue so exploited for political ends. I think there's a cautionary note that we can offer because, as we've seen, there have been recent revelations about the faith-based initiative and how it was viewed in the White House less as a policy matter and more as a matter of symbolism and a way to exploit religion for political gain. I think we're going to see a more politicized religious environment, and I think it's here to stay for awhile. But I'm not sure it's a healthy development, and I think at some point, some leaders may actually be able to say to people, "Look, I have my faith, but I'm not going to wear it on my sleeve, and I think you can respect that." In some ways it might be interesting to see if candidates can step back a little bit from this politicized religious environment that we clearly find ourselves in today.
Q: Anything else?
A: There is one thing. I think that one thing to watch -- and I'm not sure we'll have good data on this -- but the Muslim vote could be pivotal in some very close races in key congressional districts. Muslims in the year 2000 actually endorsed George W. Bush and actually probably made the difference in Florida, given that close vote. Muslims were and are upset with the public policies of the Bush administration on the Patriot Act, on profiling, on the war in Iraq, and so Muslims have become strong Democrat voters and are mobilizing, are doing voter education, voter mobilization, voter registration drives and so forth. Something to watch, if we can tap it, is what happens in those districts where there is a substantial Muslim population and where candidates benefit from that Muslim vote. This may be the first year we actually see a real, tangible outcome at the congressional level.
|
|
