Some questions for conservative Christians (and others)

The main question--and a bit of explanation

NOTE: I use the terms "conservative Christians," "religious conservatives," and "evangelicals." I do not mean to imply that these terms are completely interchangeable. However, from my experience, "evangelicals" tend to be "Conservative Christians." Some people might collectively refer to all of these groups as the "religious right," but I won't use that term here.

I began thinking about this post Monday morning after reading an article from that day's New York Times. And then I saw a report on MSNBC covering the same subject (scroll down to the report by Martin Savidge). Since then, I have seen other reports and articles that, while directly addressing other topics, are nonetheless related to the NYT article and MSNBC report. All of those reports and articles prompt me to ask one basic question of conservative Christians:

What is it going to take to for you to stop voting for Republicans?

Before proceeding, I need to explain my intentions. The NYT article and the October 9 MSNBC report discussed how some evangelicals are still going to absolutely vote Republican in light of the Foley Follies. My first reaction was to be stunned. However, I soon realized that I had also engaged in similar behavior. There has been discussion as recently as last Friday about evangelicals voting for Bush because they just could not bring themselves to vote for Kerry, and I have said several times that I never wanted to vote for Kerry, but there was no way whatsoever that I could vote for Bush. Thus, although the results were different, the sentiment and basis for our votes were the same. In other words, 1) I can on one level understand why evangelicals would continue to vote Republican, and 2) I cannot criticize them as much as I might want to because I have acted in a similar manner.

Because of that, my intention is get a thoughtful answer to my basic question.

Secondarily, I hope to get some idea of where all of us go from here. I have written semi-extensively about my displeasure with the Democratic party (go to the Cosmic Wheel Index, main heading of "Democratic Party" for a list of such posts), and I certainly feel that the party often does not represent me. I pretty much say so in the the description of this blog. What's more, my voting record and campaign efforts in Presidential elections reflect that. I described some of that history in a comment yesterday, but here's a recap and more info. 1980 was my first election, and I wanted to vote for George H.W. Bush, but he dropped out before the Texas primary, and I voted for Anderson. I voted for Mondale in 1984 because there was no way I was voting for Reagan and Fritz had experience and knowledge relevant to the job of President. In 1988 I didn't vote. George H.W. was nowhere close to the same guy I wanted to vote for in 1980, and Dukakis had none of the knowledge and experience that prompted me to vote for Mondale. In 1992, I was supporting Perot, and then it became apparent that his only reason for getting in the race was not to win, but to make sure Bush lost, and I voted for Clinton. I also voted for Clinton in 1996. Then came 2000. I again considered crossing party lines, this time to vote for McCain, but he dropped out before the Texas primary. There was no way I was going to vote for George W. because he simply did not have the experience, knowledge, or intelligence to be President (and I reiterate that I voted for him when he ran for reelection as Texas governor). However, Al Gore did not exactly excite me. Talk about running one of the dumbest campaigns in history--but that's another story. In 2004, I supported, campaigned for, and gave a lot of money to Wes Clark, and after what happened to him and how we ended up with Kerry and Edwards on the ticket, my previous annoyance with the party became rage and disgust. In 2004, I did not vote for Kerry. I voted against Bush.

There is a point to the rambling of the previous paragraph. While I do not share many of the beliefs and social and political positions of Republicans in general and religious conservatives in particular, I sense that I do share a sense of not being represented, and I sense that many other Americans feel the same way. So what do any of us do from here on? Stated differently, although my basic question is directed at conservative Christians, the "spirit" of the question can be directed at traditionally Democratic groups.

With all that in mind...

The NYT article and MSNBC report

The NYT article is entitled "Evangelicals Blame Foley, Not Republican Party." The reporter interviewed evangelicals in Virginia, and for purposes of this post, one sentence sums up the article: "Most of the evangelical Christians interviewed said that so far they saw Mr. Foley’s behavior as a matter of personal morality, not institutional dysfunction." I must note that the article contains quotes from evangelicals who are concerned about the scope of the Foley Follies and what they say about the GOP, but that admittedly is not the focus of this post. Anyway, the article does mention that some evangelicals do not see the Foley Follies as any reason to stop supporting the Republican party. Instead, they see Foley's transgressions as nothing more than transgressions limited only to Foley.

The MSNBC report showed similar views from conservative Christians in Tennessee. The reporter said "But here in Tennessee, at least, Christian conservatives blame former congressman Foley, not the party," and then showed one lady who said "I think (Foley's) actions are horrendous. And—but I don’t see its involvement in the political process. That was an individual, not the political party itself."

Here's what I don't understand. When there is extensive evidence that the leadership of the Republican party knew about Foley's activities, did not try to stop Foley, tried to cover up Foley's activities, and did so for the sake of worldly power (something which is discussed below), how can anyone say that all of this is only Foley's fault? How is it possible to keep from laying some blame on the party?

And then when the nature of Foley's transgressions are taken into account, how is it that some conservative Christians--who I think by and large consider homosexuality a sin--won't hold the Republican party accountable at all? That is why I asked my basic question. If a matter such as the Foley Follies is not going to produce a demand for institutional accountability, then what is it going to take?

And I will add that continually voting Republican is not going to magically produce accountability. As long as the same people get to keep their jobs, nothing is going to change.

Ah, but herein lies the dilemma. Does one vote for the opposition when one feels the opposition has different positions on fundamental matters? Does one just not vote and thus increase the chances of that opposition winning? This is not a simple matter. And yet I still wonder what it will take for evangelicals to stop blindly supporting Republicans.

A theological matter to consider

In addition to being foreshadowed above, this topic was actually raised by my "opposition" in another discussion we had recently--and which will likely become part of this discussion--in which he noted that his faith teaches "to be in the world, not of the world," and that is why conservative Christians generally did not get heavily involved in politics in the past.

In an October 9 online commentary for Newsweek, Jon Meachum wrote the following:

The secular can tend to caricature religious activists in politics as determined theocrats—and Lord knows some Christian leaders (Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson come to mind) say and do things that make the secular case almost too easy to advance. But there is another important milieu within the American religious community which holds that politics is intrinsically sinful—that, in theological terms, one must, as the Psalmist said, “put not thy trust in princes.” Cal Thomas and Chuck Colson—the former worked for Falwell; the latter for Nixon—are exemplars of this view, as is the distinguished historian of religion and evangelical Christian Mark A. Noll. (Noll wrote the seminal text on this subject, “The Search For Christian America,” with Nathan O. Hatch and George M. Marsden; I cannot recommend the book highly enough for anyone who wants to understand religion and politics in our nation and in our time.) Thomas’ book on this subject, written with Ed Dobson, is also essential: “Blinded By Might: Why the Religious Right Can’t Save America,” as is Colson’s “Kingdoms in Conflict.”

Broadly put, the theological case for the religious to steer clear of politics, or at least to avoid believing that the accumulation and exercise of earthly power should be one’s focus, lies in words Jesus spoke to Pilate. “My kingdom is not of this world …” he said to the proconsul, a point echoed by St. Paul, who said that, for Christians, “all are one” in Jesus, and that God favors no nation or class or race or sex. “We have no lasting city,” writes the author of Hebrews, “but seek the city which is to come.” Politicians can be false gods; for believers, the argument goes, there can be no other god before God.

By the way, this blog's conservative Christian participant has criticized Pat Robertson here.

Meachum also could have cited Jesus's admonition to"Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21).

In any event, Meachum does bring up a theological dilemma. However, this is like the dilemma I described in the previous section of this post. Still, it seems to me that the House Republican leaders--and, frankly, any other House Republicans who are defending Hastert--are pursuing ends that relate only to worldly power without regard to spiritual matters. If that is indeed the case, is that the tipping point for conservative Christians in terms of supporting the Republican party?

If not, then there is a more practical matter to consider...

What if you are used and treated disdainfully?

Yesterday Kevin Drum posted this excerpt from an exchange between Tucker Carlson and Chris Mattews:

CARLSON: It goes deeper than that though. The deep truth is that the elites in the Republican Party have pure contempt for the evangelicals who put their party in power.

MATTHEWS: So this gay marriage issue and other issues related to the gay lifestyle are simply tools to get elected?

CARLSON: That's exactly right. It's pandering to the base in the most cynical way, and the base is beginning to figure it out.

Drum also made note of a book by David Kuo called Tempting Faith, in which Kuo pretty much blasts the Bush administration. Kuo details how conservatives Christians have been used, abused, and dismissed by the Bush administration. Read Kevin's post for more info. You can also go to the Countdown website to see the video of the first part of a report on this subject. The first part aired last night, and the second part airs tonight.

Then again, you can read what I wrote on March 18, 2005 (scroll down to "The faith-based initiative" section for info about Kuo).

Conclusion

So, what is it going to take for conservative Christians to stop reflexively voting Republican? While I certainly think there exist ample reasons to stop, it is very easy for me to reach that conclusion. As I said, this presents a serious dilemma, and it is one that those of us who are not conservative Christians likely have faced, are facing, or will face in the future. So, what to do?

Well, my reaction in the past has been to vote for Anderson, not vote, and work like crazy for an outsider candidate in whom I truly believed (Clark) only to get completely crapped on by my own party. And look at all the good that has done me.

And in November, I will vote for Kinky Friedman for governor. At least I will be smiling instead of holding my nose when marking my ballot.