Part 2 of As the W Turns: the Bush Burns the Evangelical Base

Overview

A few days ago I was contemplating what the subject of my next post would be, and then I came across an article on the New York Times website that inspired me. In Part 1 of As the W Turns, I detailed how Republicans loved the AARP for helping get the Medicare prescription benefit passed but now hate the AARP because of its opposition to Bush's Social Security plans. And now there is another organization that has been a huge Bush supporter and favorite that could be facing the same kind of treatment.

The organization

The group in question is the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). According to a statement on the group's website by its president, Ted Haggard, the NAE has 52 denominations, and in an interview he said that the NAE has 30 million individual members and 45,000 churches.

In the next section, I will refer to a report on religion and the 2004 election by the Pew Research Center. That study categorizes various religious groups, and one such group is "Traditionalist Evengelicals," which is defined as having "highly orthodox beliefs and practices." Based on the NAE's Mission Statement and Statement of Faith, I believe that the NAE is a "Traditionalist Evangelical" group.

Up to now: We love the NAE.

Haggard is one of Bush's biblical buddies. Shortly after the election, an article by Max Blumenthal described a scene in the Oval Office after Bush signed the ban against late term abortions in November 2003:

Later that day, Bush celebrated privately with a virtual who's who of the religious right, including Falwell, radio host Janet Parshall, SBC leader Richard Land and National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) president Ted Haggard, who leads a 14,000 member church in Colorado Springs, Colo. Together, they joined hands and prayed.

(emphasis added). And it turns out that Haggard has regular contact with the White House. In its February 7, 2005, issue, Time listed Haggard as one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in the country and mentioned that "Every Monday he participates in the West Wing conference call with evangelical leaders."

Haggard stated in the interview referenced above that he even got to attend the President's Christmas party at the White House.

The NAE's relationship with Bush is evidenced further by the fact that Bush addressed, via satellite, the NAE's national convention on March 11, 2004. In that speech, Bush said the following:

I want to thank you for the invitation. It's such a pleasure to speak to all of you in Colorado Springs. The National Association of Evangelicals was founded 62 years ago with the highest of calling--to proclaim the Kingdom of God. Today, your organization includes 51 denominations representing some 30 million people. You're doing God's work with conviction and kindness, and, on behalf of our country, I thank you.

The evidence shows that the White House really liked the NAE before the election, and the numbers from the election show that Bush should really love the NAE. I mentioned a report from the Pew Research Center, and that report shows that Bush got huge support from "Traditionalist Evangelicals." Of the Traditionalist Evangelicals who voted, 88% of them voted for Bush. The study noted that "The single most important group for Bush was Traditionalist Evangelicals, who provided more than one-quarter of his total votes (27 percent)." (emphasis added). In such a close election, I'd say the Traditionalist Evangelicals just might be most responsible for Bush's reelection.

I think it is safe to say that the White House at the least really likes the NAE. But will that change?

Could the love turn to hate? Could the NAE be the next AARP?

The New York Times article is entitled "Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming." Look at that again...Evangelical Leaders. Oh, this could become very interesting indeed. Here are the opening paragraphs from the article:

A core group of influential evangelical leaders has put its considerable political power behind a cause that has barely registered on the evangelical agenda, fighting global warming.

These church leaders, scientists, writers and heads of international aid agencies argue that global warming is an urgent threat, a cause of poverty and a Christian issue because the Bible mandates stewardship of God's creation.

The Rev. Rich Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals and a significant voice in the debate, said, "I don't think God is going to ask us how he created the earth, but he will ask us what we did with what he created."

The association has scheduled two meetings on Capitol Hill and in the Washington suburbs on Thursday and Friday, where more than 100 leaders will discuss issuing a statement on global warming. The meetings are considered so pivotal that Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, and officials of the Bush administration, who are on opposite sides on how to address global warming, will speak.

So why is this significant? Back on October 7, 2004, the board of directors of the NAE voted unanimously to adopt a document entitled "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility." Part of that document addresses environmental issues, starting with an explanation why the environment is important:

As we embrace our responsibility to care for God’s earth, we reaffirm the important truth that we worship only the Creator and not the creation. God gave the care of his earth and its species to our first parents. That responsibility has passed into our hands. We affirm that God-given dominion is a sacred responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part. We are not the owners of creation, but its stewards, summoned by God to “watch over and care for it” (Gen. 2:15). This implies the principle of sustainability: our uses of the Earth must be designed to conserve and renew the Earth rather than to deplete or destroy it.

The Bible teaches us that God is not only redeeming his people, but is also restoring the whole creation (Rom. 8:18-23). Just as we show our love for the Savior by reaching out to the lost, we believe that we show our love for the Creator by caring for his creation.

(emphasis added). I happen to agree with these statements in general, and with the italicized portions in particular (I also apply the underlying principles stated therein in ways that the NAE might disapprove, but that is a discussion for another time). With these concepts as a base, the NAE document then sets out policy:

Because clean air, pure water, and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation. This involves both the urgent need to relieve human suffering caused by bad environmental practice. Because natural systems are extremely complex, human actions can have unexpected side effects. We must therefore approach our stewardship of creation with humility and caution.

Human beings have responsibility for creation in a variety of ways. We urge Christians to shape their personal lives in creation-friendly ways: practicing effective recycling, conserving resources, and experiencing the joy of contact with nature. We urge government to encourage fuel efficiency, reduce pollution, encourage sustainable use of natural resources, and provide for the proper care of wildlife and their natural habitats.

(emphasis added). In many ways, these declaration of policy is not much more than a general list of things the NAE will encourage people and government to do. However, lately the NAE has been taking action on some specific issues. And more significantly, the NAE could end up opposing the Bush administration on global warming. For starters, as stated in the New York Times article, the NAE is actually going to actually listen to what a Bush opponent on global warming has to say. Why, the nerve of these people! How dare they listen to anybody else! Moreover, as noted in this February 6, 2005, Washington Post article,

Signatories (of the NAE document mentioned above) included highly visible, opinion-swaying evangelical leaders such as Haggard, James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship Ministries. Some of the signatories are to meet in March in Washington to develop a position on global warming, which could place them at odds with the policies of the Bush administration, according to Richard Cizik, the association's vice president for governmental affairs.

(emphasis added). Wow--the NAE has gone on the record as saying it might oppose Bush on global warming. Should someone call the NAE and tell those folks what has happened to the AARP? Should someone warn them that the Bush administration has a tendency to viciously turn on anyone who is on their team one day and speaking out against them later?

I raise these questions for two reasons. First, I question the strength and sincerity of Bush's proclaimed religious faith--and that will be the subject of the next post. Secondly, I am not sure that Bush feels like he needs the NAE and other evangelicals now that he has been reelected. Bush is so clueless and arrogant--and is surrounded by supremely arrogant people like Karl Rove--that he might really think that the NAE cannot hurt him, can be placated by seeming to take up some of its causes, and/or that it will just go along with whatever he says. In other words, I think there is a statistically significant chance that the Bush administration will give the NAE the AARP treatment.

Then again...

...the NAE might just have the saavy and clout to get Bush to do what it wants on global warming. Remember how Haggard is part of a conference call with the White House every week? Well, there's more. From the Blumenthal article:

"We have direct access," Haggard told the Wall Street Journal. "I can call [White House public liaison Tim Goeglein], he'll take my concern to the president and get back to me within 24 hours."

This shows that the NAE's connections to Bush are direct and strong, and there are reasons to believe that such strength is also present in terms of influence. Time had this to say about Haggard:

At a meeting with President Bush in November 2003, after nearly an hour of jovial Oval Office chat, the Rev. Ted Haggard, 48, got serious. He argued against Bush-imposed steel tariffs on the grounds that free markets foster economic growth, which helps the poor. A month later, the White House dropped the tariffs. Haggard wasn't alone in faulting the policy, and he doesn't claim to be the impetus, but as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, he gets listened to.

(emphasis added). A September 5, 2004, article by Paul Asay of the Colorado Springs Gazette (Colorado Springs is the epicenter of the evangelical movement and home to Haggard and other prominent evangelicals) described in general terms the clout held by the NAE and other evangelical groups:

Evangelicals are powerful here.

During President Ronald Reagan's June 11 funeral, Haggard counted two other invited attendees from Colorado: Gov. Bill Owens and Don Hodel of the Colorado Springs-based Christian organization Focus on the Family.

Few conservative candidates for national office pass through town without consulting with Focus founder James Dobson or Haggard.

The two represent a large body of believers - and voters - who push politicians to address issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion.

Those issues represent a "kind of currency that the religious right understands they hold and they can play," said Greg Borom, executive director of the local religious watchdog group Citizens Project.

*******

About 30 million people belong to National Association of Evangelicals member churches.

That number dwarfs other politically active organizations such as the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters Union and the National Rifle Association. Those groups combined would need another 10 million members to equal association membership.

Tony Campolo, a liberal evangelical who recently published a book called "Speaking My Mind," said the evangelical voting bloc is twice as important as the labor vote. "There's no question in my mind. The ability of the labor movement to mobilize its people is nowhere near the evangelical community."

And that brings us back to the specific issue of global warming. Joe Lieberman told the New York Times that "Support from the evangelical and broader religious community can really move some people in Congress who feel some sense of moral responsibility but haven't quite settled on an exact policy response yet. This could be pivotal." (emphasis added). And Haggard showed no signs of backing down:

"The question is, Will evangelicals make a difference, and the answer is, The Senate thinks so," Mr. Haggard said. "We do represent 30 million people, and we can mobilize them if we have to."

What is George going to do?

Bush is in a difficult position. Going along with what appears to be the NAE's stance on global warming will mean giving up what has been his consistent position all along. That could damage his credibility, which in turn could affect his ability to influence Congress and politics in general. It could also upset his big-money industrial supporters. However, if he does not go along with the NAE, he risks exposing himself as someone who only talks about being an evangelical Christian--at least in the eyes of the NAE. From what I have read about the NAE, its members and leadership do not like talk with no action. Although I disagree with their views on many issues, I do respect their commitment to "talk the talk AND walk the walk." Furthermore, if the NAE in any way gets the "AARP treatment," Bush could very well make an enemy of the people who gave him a second term.

Like I said, this could become very interesting indeed.