*The Widening Gaps in the Evangelical-Republican Coalition*
November 30, 2006 21 42 GMT
*By Bart Mongoven*
The Christian Coalition of America announced Nov. 28 that it has asked
its president-elect, Joel Hunter, to resign. The news came a week after
Hunter told the coalition's board that he wanted the organization to
take on a new set of issues, particularly poverty, AIDS and the
environment. The board reportedly said it did not think the group's
grassroots membership was ready for such a shift, and that Hunter would
not be given an opportunity to follow through on these plans.
The story behind Hunter's forced resignation reveals far more than a
difference of opinion over the organization's future direction.
Membership in the Christian Coalition has plunged from the millions to
the thousands, four state chapters have bolted and its budget is a
fraction of what it used to be. However, while the group no longer
stands as the political vanguard of the conservative Christian movement,
its internal disagreements do represent in a nutshell a major problem
faced by the religious right and, by extension, by the Republican Party
in the coming two years. At the center of the conflict is the
recognition that the religious views of evangelical Christians and the
politics of the American right are diverging after two decades of
confluence.
In essence, the overlap between the libertarian Republican point of view
and that of religious conservatives has dissolved during the past decade
of Republican control of government. Historically, the religious
conservatives and secular libertarians justified their advocacy of a
small federal government for very different reasons. For secular
libertarians, a small government was the central objective; for the
religious conservatives, small government was an element of a strategy
to reduce the power -- or at least slow the growth -- of institutions
purveying secular values. The growth of government over the past 10
years has suggested to evangelicals that the strategy does not work. The
Faith-Based Initiative, for instance, is seen as a small move in a
positive direction, but one that also has done nothing to displace
secular federal government activity.
What comes next will be guided by three variables: First, whether
Christian leaders together find a new path forward that balances
politics and faith; second, whether the GOP changes its policies and
approaches to accommodate the evangelicals' new direction; and third,
whether the Democrats find a way to accommodate at least some of the
evangelicals' wishes.
*Libertarianism: A Goal or a Tool*
The alliance between the Republican Party and evangelical Christians
developed over two decades -- and the Christian Coalition was the most
important player in creating this alliance. The Christian Coalition
championed the argument that secular forces were degrading the moral
underpinning of the United States and that the federal government --
through, for example, large and expensive welfare programs -- was the
largest single instigator of the growth of these secular forces.
The Christian Coalition -- and the evangelical right in general --
argued that in addition to strengthening powerful secular organizations,
federal government institutions are inherently hostile to religion.
Particularly in the earlier years of the coalition, the evangelical
opposition to the federal judiciary was as focused on countering a
liberal reading of the Establishment Clause as it was on Roe v. Wade.
Throughout the Reagan presidency, evangelicals battled judicial
prohibitions against any government endorsement of religion -- whether
federal, state or local -- which had come to mean any expression of
religion in a government context (school Christmas plays, creches at
city halls, religious groups meeting in schools, etc.). Evangelicals
became driven by the idea that the federal government was not merely
secular, but after the Warren Court, it was aggressively secular or even
anti-religious.
In addition, most conservative evangelicals also held that the
traditional family should be the center of an individual's life, and saw
a large active federal government as replacing traditional family roles
in many ways. Evangelicals spoke out against welfare programs -- such as
the WIC program that in early inceptions penalized unwed mothers for
marrying -- as threatening to the traditional family structure.
In this context, an alliance with the libertarian wing of the Republican
Party made perfect sense. Libertarian Republicans come in two major
factions: ideological libertarians who are simply against large, active
government, regulation and high taxes; and federalists who oppose a
large federal government and see the most effective government as one
that is closest to the people. Most members of the Christian Coalition
fell into the latter group. They were not opposed to government helping
people per se, but they wanted it to reflect local values, which in most
of the South and Midwest were often quite different from the coasts.
Further, the federalism approach to governance fit perfectly into the
state-by-state approach to abortion that the Christian Coalition began
to advance in the 1980s.
Libertarian Republicans were always uneasy with this alliance. Many
libertarians see abortion, for instance, as part of that vast realm
where government has no right to intrude. Others were opposed to
abortion or ambivalent, but were upset by the evangelical drive against
the Warren Court's position on the Establishment Clause. Finally, many
libertarians saw Christian conservatives as desiring to inject religion
into government wherever possible.
These are the hazards when one group's ideological ideal is another
group's strategy.
The leaders of the two sides of this coalition, Newt Gingrich
representing the libertarians and Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition,
maintained the careful balance between the libertarian and evangelical
approaches long enough to take power in 1995. With power came a sense of
optimism on both the libertarian and the evangelical sides that the
large, secular government would be reined in. In 2000, that sense was
heightened when the last impediment -- a Democratic president -- was
dislodged in favor of a pro-business, pro-federalism evangelical.
*Problems with Power*
The past six years have not offered as many bright spots as either side
expected. Mostly, this is due to natural disappointment that more
idealistic activists feel once in power (it is far more difficult to
achieve ideals than it appears from outside of power). One example is a
severe disenchantment with the Bush administration's ability to rein in
government. From the libertarian perspective, the deficit is back,
government is bigger and the programs that Republicans promised to
abolish 10 years ago are still in place. Gingrich came to power talking
about dismantling Cabinet departments; instead, Republicans have added
one. Furthermore, libertarians increasingly argue that the Republican
Party has been taken over by evangelicals, and they fret that the party
no longer has a place for them.
For the evangelicals, the strategy has _not worked_
<http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=263870> as
well as they had hoped either. Roe v. Wade still stands, the
Establishment Clause is still read mostly as it was 20 years ago and
secular federal government programs are growing. The victories that the
evangelical right can account for have not satisfied the grassroots. In
fact, three-quarters through George W. Bush's eight-year presidency, the
only solid evangelical victories have been two Supreme Court
appointments (one only modestly acceptable) and Bush's consistent
opposition to federal funding of stem cell research. Not only do
evangelicals have little to cheer for, but both victories relied on the
president's support -- they have won nothing from Congress.
The sense among the evangelical grassroots is that the Republican Party
has used them, but only paid lip service to their goals, aspirations and
values. The scandal surrounding Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., hit at the same
time as the release of a book by former White House aide David Kuo, who
alleged that the nonreligious White House staff scoffed at the
evangelicals, referring to them as "crazies" and treating them like a
captive political group; on this last point akin to how Democrats treat
African-American voters.
As the dispute at the leadership of the Christian Coalition shows,
however, evangelicals are far less captive than many thought. A solid
coalition within the evangelical movement appears to be moving toward a
new political approach that adds poverty, environment and health care to
the familiar Christian conservative issues of abortion, gay marriage and
public decency.
The leadership of the evangelical movement is beginning to split on
these issues. In addition to Hunter, influential evangelicals such as
conservative Wheaton College President Duane Litfin and the more liberal
Jim Wallis are increasingly pressing for a new issue set. At the core of
this new political outlook is a growing sense that the libertarian
battle is lost, but the Christian mission of helping the poor remains.
Evangelicals argue that by shunning aggressively secular government
involvement in issues relating to poverty and other things, libertarian
approaches were preferable, but they now add that failing in the
libertarian mission is not an excuse to stop helping the poor or working
toward other Christian missions such as environmental stewardship.
*The Republican Perspective*
As evangelical support for the libertarian approach erodes, the ball is
in the Republicans' court to determine whether to try to keep the
evangelicals in the fold, or to hope the party can win enough religious
conservatives by sticking with its current ideological approach that
champions traditional values without changing course on issues such as
environment or poverty policy.
The evangelicals' emerging interest in government poverty programs, for
instance, represents an acceptance of what they see as the new reality.
Evangelicals no longer view American culture as responsive to
propositional truths and preaching. Instead, they see a culture that
responds to attractive lifestyles and communities. As a result,
successful evangelical churches are de-emphasizing sin and issues of
personal responsibility, and emphasizing compassion, open-mindedness and
values that open Christians to progressive ideals and solutions.
The Christian Coalition's decision to move away from these issues is
indicative of the Republican Party's instinctive response to stay with
the current approach. The Christian Coalition is a shadow of its former
self for a reason, however. In addition to no longer seeing the
libertarian approach as the best strategic path, evangelicals are
starting to change their minds about some policy issues. Climate change
has emerged as the clearest symbol of this changing position.
Evangelical leaders, including Pat Robertson, have publicly said they
were wrong on the issue of climate change and that they now believe
human activity is changing the climate.
If Republicans want to hold the evangelical block, they will have to
adjust to these shifting positions. The question is whether the
evangelical leaders and the Republican Party leadership find themselves
on the same page, or whether the relationship between the evangelicals
and the political system continues to evolve outside the bounds of one
political party. If the evangelicals take the initiative and begin to
follow voices like Hunter's, the GOP will be hard-pressed not to follow.
The party faces two conflicting problems: Many moderates and
libertarians are moving away from the party due to the perception that
the religious right has too much power, and at the same time the
evangelicals have found that the party has little to offer them.
Before evangelicals give up on the Republican Party, they would have to
conclude that the GOP has not delivered on abortion (which will remain a
key issue no matter what) -- and that it will not deliver. Democrats are
not as unsympathetic on the issue as they once were. For example, in the
last congressional elections, Democrats offered anti-abortion candidates
such as Bob Casey -- whose father was denied a chance to speak at the
Democratic Convention because of his anti-abortion stance 14 years ago.
Previously, some in the religious right might have shunned such
candidates just because a vote for Democratic candidates meant
contributing to the creation of a Democratic Congress and dealing a blow
to the federal anti-abortion campaign. However, if evangelicals no
longer believe the Republicans are truly committed to evangelical goals,
such larger national strategies will no longer influence local voting.
With these cross-currents in place, the Republicans will follow the
evangelicals because the party has started down a path that is difficult
to leave. Other than in the new "solid South," support for Republicans
is eroding nationwide. The mountain states are increasingly being
settled by wealthy retirees from the coasts, who bring with them more
liberal, less-individualist political views. In shunning almost all
pro-choice candidates, such as Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., and then Sen.
Lincoln Chaffee, R-R.I., the Republican Party has lost most of the
Northeast and the West Coast. Without the evangelicals, the Republicans
have no geographic base of support and a hold on few major ideological
constituencies besides the pro-business libertarians. The evangelicals,
therefore, hold the power to steer the party, and it appears that,
despite the Christian Coalition's position, the evangelical community is
headed toward the middle -- and on some particular issues, toward what
used to be considered the left.