-- GideonHart - 29 Mar 2008

• I just went through this as I wish someone would go through mine. Thanks for making me think. -- AdamCarlis 1 Apr 2008

The Republican Capture of the Evangelical Vote

-- By GideonHart - 28 Mar 2008

Moral Conservatism

Moral conservatism is largely about morality, ethics, and values. It is completely valid to have ones personal values shaped or prescribed by the Bible, the Koran, or something else. Christianity generally is, and probably should be, morally conservative. The moral positions of the Christian faith are set out in the Gospels, largely in the Sermons on the Mount and on the Plain; these sermons repeat the moral and ethical positions of the Old Testament, and reemphasize existing religious laws. Christians are unequivocally instructed to follow the instructions of Jesus, and many Christians' opposition to morally liberal practices that conflict with these rules is understandable. Without delving into a theological analysis (dozens of which can be easily found), it will be granted that it is not a stretch of Christian rules to oppose abortion, and possibly gay marriage, on biblical grounds.

• I am worried that you are making statements of fact "Christianity generally is, and probably should be, morally conservative" and "It is completely valid to have ones personal values shpaed or prescribed by the bible" that many people (including many Christians) would strongly disagree with. I think that you need to either change them from fact to opinion or back them up, otherwise you run the risk of losing your readers from paragraph one. -- AdamCarlis 01 Apr 2008

Political Conservatism

Political conservatism, although sharing the “conservative” label, is an entirely different creature. Although a generalization, political conservatism has been dedicated to maintaining the status quo and to preserving the wealth and power of the elite.

• Doesn't moral conservativism do this as well? Moral conservatives privilege heterosexuals, men, etc. at the expense of women and the homosexual community. -- AdamCarlis 1 Apr 2008

The world described in the Gospels is one in which there is a clear division between rich and poor, with Romans, priests, urban aristocrats, and landowners possessing most available wealth. The rural masses were left horribly destitute through a combination of Roman and religious taxes, and widespread land seizures. The terrible poverty of the many played a major part in the message of Jesus. Jesus was at his most scathing and critical when considering the disparity between the wealthy and the poor. Further, Jesus elevated the poor, oppressed, and suffering – he freely offered them salvation and was most concerned with their plight. Jesus squarely stood against the self-serving rhetoric of the wealthy elites and their manipulations of the poor. It follows that an individual today attempting to follow the teachings of Jesus would be very concerned with the fate of the poor and the growing inequality of wealth and power in America.

In modern America, the elites tend to be businessmen and leaders whose policies are centered on preserving the wealth and power of the few against the interests of the many. The power of this group has been a major stumbling block for the advancement of many ordinary Americans. In the 20th and 21st centuries political conservatives have opposed equal rights for minorities and women, affordable healthcare, expansion of welfare benefits, increases in the minimum wage, expansion of education and desegregation of schools, and tax cuts benefiting the poor. Recently, many of these conservative positions have been supported by the Republican Party.

Tension Between Christianity and Political Conservatism

In recent elections Evangelical Christians have voted in large numbers for candidates whose records are generally politically conservative. It is undoubted that Evangelical voters propelled Bush into office in 2000 and 2004. Bush, and many of his advisors, are among the most explicitly Christian politicians in American history. Bush has very closely aligned himself with the Christian right, and like many Republican politicians, is dependent on its support.

The lack of concern for the plight of the poor and the desire to solidify the hold of large companies and elites on America among political conservatives is hard to square with the statements of Jesus in the Gospels. The policies advocated by Bush and the Republican party have largely been politically conservative. Bush’s tax cut plan primarily benefits the wealthy (by 2010 fully 53% of the Bush tax cuts will have benefited only the top 1% of the population, while the lowest 20% will have only received 1.2% of the cuts). Further, under Bush’s guidance the number of Americans without health insurance has steadily climbed. Bush has also advocated the slashing of Medicare and educational programs aimed at disadvantaged students. Outwardly Christian, Bush’s presidency has been marked by a shocking and callous disregard for the needs of America’s disadvantaged.

This raises a question: how are politically conservative Republican politicians persuading Evangelicals that they consider the teachings of Jesus in their policy decisions, even though they often support positions that seem directly opposed to the teachings of Jesus?

Political Capture of the Evangelical Christian Vote

Republicans have succeeded in capturing the Evangelical vote by placing several morally conservative positions at the center of their platform. This strategy deflects attention away from their disregard for other, arguably more important, Christian positions. The Republican Party’s outspoken and vehement opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia have turned those issues into effective rallying points for the Evangelical vote. Although these positions may arguably be correct in terms of Christian theology, the Republican Party’s advocacy for them seems to be little more than Christian adornment in light of their other policies favoring war, torture, the death penalty, and abandonment of the poor. By fervently and very publicly supporting morally conservative positions, Republicans have succeeded in giving many Christians the impression that the Republican Party is a Christian party, and that a handful of highly publicized moral positions should trump all others at the polls. The support of the Christian Coalition and prominent ministers has lent this position even more credibility in the eyes of Evangelicals. The Evangelical support for these morally conservative positions has been so strong that they have been willing to ignore the un-Christian politically conservative policies advocated by many of the Republicans they vote into office.

• There is also the movement to justify neo-liberal economics as maximizing liberty and freedom which many preachers have lached onto as a type of justice. The result is, I think, very relavent to how the Republican party is able to manufacture support from social conservatives for their economic policies. -- AdamCarlis 1 Apr 2008

The Future of the Religious Right

If the Evangelical Christian community is to truly vote in-line with the teachings of Jesus they must abandon their support for politically conservative candidates. Evangelicals, justifiably, could continue to support morally conservative policies, and lend support to candidates advocating those positions. However, Evangelical voters must also stop supporting politically conservative policies that conflict with Jesus’ teaching. Recently some cracks have appeared, as some Evangelical ministers have spoken out against the Bush administration’s fiscal policies and positions on poverty. This movement may possibly be the beginning of the end for the religious right. These leaders are beginning to instruct Evangelical voters to support candidates that reflect the values of Jesus overall, rather than allow their voting to be swayed by a single issue.

• I wonder how Huckabee fits into this equation? -- AdamCarlis 01 Apr 2008

---

Note: The choice of this topic, and the essay itself, is not in any way an espousal of or an attack on Christianity, political or moral conservatism, political or moral liberalism, or a claim to factual accuracy of any information in the Bible. However, it is undoubted that the teachings ascribed to Jesus and the rest of the Bible have greatly impacted American politics. Individuals who are Christian profess belief in the words and actions of Jesus, regardless of their factual accuracy. This is especially true among Evangelical Christians who tend to interpret the Bible literally. Accordingly, a study of how an Evangelical Christians should vote must accept as true the teachings of Jesus because those voters regard the teachings to be true. This paper is an attempt to focus attention on the way that Christianity has been used recently to support political conservatism, even though many of the initiatives advanced by political conservatives seem to conflict with the most basic teachings of Jesus.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, GideonHart

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list

---

I am sorry this is still long, Gideon. I confess, I’m using your paper as a jumping-off point to [what I think is a useful gloss on] Eben’s grading style. Do edit/delete what you think is irrelevant, and I’ll move those portions to a new thread on "grading style".

Gideon,

I am interested to see how you’ll characterize a “Christian political party,” or religious “hypocrisy” or the “centrality” of views to the Christian faith. I've always been puzzled how Christianity can reconcile its strong moral teachings [good samaritan etc] while itself admitting that political aspirations MUST be "riddled with hypocrisy" [God:God::Caesar:Caesar]. Can we really distinguish Christianity's "intent" [e.g. original] from its uses [e.g. as a social signal: "I am your friend"]?

Jews, I know, make the same dichotomy comfortably because they imagine the social signal as passed down physically, i.e. corporeally, without the host’s choice -- at birth / by circumcision / by last name -- such that one can fail to DEMONSTRATE his Judaism / choose to be Jewish and still be a Jew on the "inside". Christianity, by contrast, can cease to exist in some geographic area (like a corporate brand or national constitution), even when all its (former) members are still alive. Its survival is not physical, but mental. It is utterly impervious to physical conditions.

But then, what data could you use to PROVE a distinction between, e.g., those ethical "tenets," "mentioned in the bible," vs. those that are actually "central to Christianity"? It's hard enough to justify distinguishing metaphysical statuses of things whose physical boundaries we've agreed upon (e.g. Veblen: the original vs. modern uses of wealth / messages about Stuff vs. messages about its Holder). How could you distinguish the metaphysical statuses of a thing in order to characterize its physical existence? -- why bother calling Christianity a "syndrome," if its only common symptom is that it's contagious? Any argument you make will be non-disprovable TWICE.

The typical response to that claim is that "my argument is disprovable; you'll see once I gather more evidence." But that's the same thing as saying, "My concepts are symmetric with my grader's concepts; you'll see once I clarify my concepts." The former language would require Eben, the grader, to choose whether to criticize either our brain’s search for evidence, or the actual lack of evidence; the latter language permits him to lay the blame on the brain’s static concepts, or on the education it received. He will choose the latter, because it empowers him to dismantle arguments on which WE are the experts.

-- AndrewGradman - 30 Mar 2008