E.J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post Columnist and Author
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
3:00 PM
Syndicated columnist for The Washington Post and author E.J. Dionne Jr. was online Tuesday, Jan. 22, at 3 p.m. ET to discuss his new book,
Dionne is a regular political analyst on National Public Radio, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor at Georgetown University. His books include the best-selling "Why Americans Hate Politics," which won the Los Angeles Times book prize and was nominated for the National Book Award.
Read this week's Book World roundup: Best Books for Young People
Join Book World Live each Tuesday at 3 p.m. ET for a discussion based on a story or review in each Sunday's Book World section.
A transcript follows.
____________________
St. Mary's City, Md.: I wish I could share your optimism about the era of the Religious Right being over. The movement appears to have grown in power during the Bush years, at one point controlling such institutions as the Air Force Academy and the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. Signs of its growing influence have become more numerous recently -- a Jewish member of Congress felt afraid to vote against HR 847, which was a symbolic endorsement of theocracy; Romney catered to Religious Right voters by bashing secularists as traitors; and Huckabee has openly called for a theocratic rewriting the Constitution. Huckabe's "God's standards" comment was made in the context of abortion and gay marriage. But it's very likely he [might] go further and enact the rest of the Religious Right's agenda, such as requiring schools to ban evolution and hold mandatory prayers, or even banning contraception.
E.J. Dionne Jr.: That is a very good question
_______________________
E.J. Dionne Jr.: As I said, that was a very good question. My argument is that while some of the older organizations of the religious right still exist, many evangelical Christians, including conservatives, are broadening the agenda of their movement beyond issues such as abortion and gay marriage. I write in the book about Rich Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals, who has been a leader in the movement to have us take global warming. Evangelican environmentalists talk about our obligation to "creation care." I also write about Rick Warren, the well-known preacher and author, is certainly a conservative, but he has said: "Jesus' agenda is far bigger than one or two issues. We have to care about poverty, we have to care about disease, we have to care about illiteracy, we have to care about corruption in government, sex trafficking. There are whole kinds of issues that are far more than just the few that evangelicals have been most known for. I care about those." Many evangelicals are insisting that there movement should not simply be part of one party's political machine. I argue there is a New Reformation going on among conservative Christians. As for Huckaback, I obviously have my political disagreements with him, but I do think it's significant that he talks quite a lot about poverty, education and health care. Theologically, he is very conservative. But many Establishment conservatives (such as Rush Lima) are strongly against him because they see him as a populist and a different kind of evangelical. These are the kinds of changes I write about. Thanks for your contribution.
_______________________
Harrisburg, Pa.: I know a voter who will not vote for Huckabee because her wife stated in an interview she hunts sleeping bears, and she feels that is not proper hunting. Now, before we laugh this off, I am reminded of how Theodore Roosevelt, a skilled hunter, refused to shoot a bear cub that was tied up because it did not fit his definition of sporting. To be bipartisan, neither Kerry nor Romney pulled off their public hunting performances very well. Hasn't there indeed been some redefinition of sporstpersonship in politics over the decades?
E.J. Dionne Jr.: Honestly, I don't know how to answer you, but I enjoyed the question and so could not resist sharing it with others. The short answer is that the rising power of the NRA seems to make every candidate want to pull out his or her rifle. In the old days, politicians who enjoyed hunting simply enjoyed hunting and it didn't seem to have much to do with politics. Thanks for writing.
_______________________
Fairfax, Va.: How can you say the Religious Right is disappearing when presidential candidates like Mike Huckabee are front-runners and analysts say that their main support is from the "moral majority"? But actually, I'm confused by the terminology. Can you define the various terms which are in this argument.
E.J. Dionne Jr.: I think my answer above clarifies some of what you ask about, but I agree with what I think is your underlying point: that this terminology can be confusing. When I talk about the religious right being finished, I am not talking about conservative Christianity or evangelicals generally. I am talking about a movement that began in the late 1970s, focused first around the late Jerry Falwell and Moral Majority, which was explicitly partisan and was designed to corral white evangelicals into the Republican Party. One of the early organizers of the religious right, Morton Blackwell, a Republican National Committee member from Virginia, called evangelicals "the greatest tract of virgin timber on the political landscape." I think that narrow approach to evangelicals is played out because so many evangelicals -- especially though not by any means exclusively younger evangelicals -- are tired of being used by politicians. Their concerns are broader than those encompassed by the GOP or even by conservatism as it is currently defined. This does not mean that there are not still a lot of evangelical conservatives voting in Republican primaries. Of course there are. But I don't think one will again see the same kind of overwhelming Republican advantage among evangelicals we saw in 2004. And many evangelicals will push both parties in the right direction on issues such as poverty, the environment and assistance to those suffering from AIDS in Africa and elsewhere. They are more Bono Christians than they are Moral Majority or Christian Coalition members.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: With Huckabee as the real, lone "conservative" candidate, would this voting bloc ever consider voting for a Democrat if Huckabee does not win the nomination?
E.J. Dionne Jr.: That is an interesting question. I am not certain that he is the "lone" conservative, though I suppose that is another of those definitional questions. My hunch is that most Huckabee supporters would back McCain if he won. But if the question is, "Would some Huckabee supporters defect to the Democrats?" I think the answer is yes. Many of his voters are concerned about economic injustice and I think both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have spoken about their own faith in ways that at least some of Huckabee's voters would find attractive. Elections are often settled at the margins, so the issue is usually whether a share of the other side defects, not whether there are wholesale defections. The Huckabee voters are a very interesting group. They do feel very strongly about what they see as the moral issues, such as abortion, but they have other concerns, too.
_______________________
Pittsburgh, Pa.: Do you find some of the pro-religion statements in the current presidential campaign to be verging on anti-Semitism? I do, yet it seems like no one is daring to speak out against such comments, perhaps for fear of alienating evangelicals. When do you think a candidate will finally be willing to stand up to the religious right, and (I hope) be successful at it?
E.J. Dionne Jr.: Thank you. I suppose the short answer is that I always worry about religious prejudice, particularly anti-Semitism. I'm always on the lookout for it, as you are. But I think that many politicians talk about their faith in ways that do not in any way imply hostility to another faith. Obama and Clinton have spoken of their Christianity in ways that I do not think carry any hint of prejudice against others. Indeed, both are firmly opposed to anti-Semitism. Anyone who reads my column knows I am a critic of President Bush, but I think he, too, is clearly and strongly opposed to anti-Semitism, even though he has spoken a lot about his Christian faith. What I do believe is that people who speak about their faith have an obligation to do so in a way that makes clear their opposition to religious prejudice. In "Souled Out," I cite the lovely idea of the Jesuit writer David Hollenbach. He urges us to live in "intellectual solidarity" which "entails engagement with the other . . . in the hope that understanding might replace incomprehension and that perhaps even agreement could result." Those who subscribe to various faiths and to none agree to put their own understanding of things at risk, "to listen as well as to speak, to learn from what they hear, and, if necessary, to change as a result of what they have learned." I think that is a lovely idea, and also a good discipline. Thanks for writing.
_______________________
Waynesboro, Pa.: Mr. Dionne:
I hasten to say I have not read your book but I have read your opinion articles in the past and I have seen you discuss on TV and heard you on radio.
What I believe is that Christians pay too munch attention to these conservative religious leaders whose views are very antithetical to that of Jesus Christ.
Indeed as true Christians believe that you cannot moralize the political leaders and the system without first changing their hearts for Jesus Christ. In the same vein, you cannot be so passionate about abortion and homosexuality without having {a} soft heart for the poor, for the oppressed, for the sick and all that are at a disadvantage in the society. This is what Jesus will do. The Republicans have only used Christianity to benefit their own agenda and win votes. Please share your thoughts. Thanks.
E.J. Dionne Jr.: First, thank you for that thoughtful post. Obviously, I agree with you that it's hard to see how one can claim to be a Christian if one does not, as you so nicely put it, "have a soft heart for the oppressed, for the sick and all who are at a disadvantage in the society." That is at the heart of the argument of my book. That is precisely why I argue that the recent past, in which Christianity is seen as inevitably allied with conservatism and Republicans, is not a guide to the future. The clear alliance with the Republicans is breaking up. I argue in the book that a faith used to "disguise or rationalize the already powerful" would be "incapable of challenging injustices and unconcerned about how God's children are treated by their governments, by their employers, by their societies....But that is not the faith of the scriptures. It is certainly not my faith." I once debated a Christian conservative leader and said that I would certainly defend his right to base his political views on his religious convictions, but I asked him to show me where Jesus called for a cut in the capital gains tax. I told him I just could not find that in the New Testament. Thanks for writing.
_______________________
Rochester, N.Y.: I'm not a fan of yours and I certainly won't read your book. But I would like to ask you a question: why don't you just admit that the use of politics in religion is a complete sham? What's frustrating for people like me is that ostensibly liberal columnists like you continue to play into the right's game, of obscuring reality with "faith," just as you obscure policy differences with "character." Why don't you tell it like it is? Is it because you'd be fired if you did?
E.J. Dionne Jr.: I guess I must say: Thanks for your candor! I'm not sure I fully get the question in this sense: I don't think I have obscured policy differences with "character." I think candidate's stands on policy questions can very much be about character. I think it matters a lot (at least to me) whether a candidate favors getting health care to everyone, supports measures to help the poor, supports a fairer and less regressive tax code and stands up for civil liberties. I am very much against obscuring reality with "faith," but I do take faith seriously and I take religious people seriously. I also take atheists seriously. (And, by the way, faith is a reality for a great many people). Religion, while guilty of many sins certainly, has also inspired countless acts of generosity and solidarity. I try to tell it like is is, even if you may have a somewhat different view of reality than I do. Good arguments are about clarifying why we disagree and whether each us has valid grounds for what we do believe. But we probably don't have time for a long argument here. I do appreciate your writing, and I am not worried about getting fired for what I write.
_______________________
Vero Beach, Fla.: Maybe a bit related, Yale University Press has published "The Great Awakening: The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America" by Thomas S. Kidd of Baylor University. Apparently those early evangelicals had radical notions of the spiritual equality of all people, which contributed greatly to shaping American democracy.
I wonder whether a book like this might be helpful to politically-minded Evangelicals who might be a bit tired of the recent conservative agenda.
E.J. Dionne Jr.: Many thanks. I have that book and it looks interesting, but have not read it. I do think one of Christianity's most radical propositions is the equality of all souls and thus the dignity of every human being. It is that idea that inspired Lincoln and Martin Luther King. It's an idea that undermines claims that Christianity is always and everywhere conservative or always inclined to support the status quo. I write a lot about this in the book. I have a section on The Rev. John Ryan, a Catholic priest whose 1906 book "A Living Wage" contained the seeds of a lot of New Deal ideas. Ryan's idea was that since "God created the earth for the sustenance of all His children ... all persons are equal in their inherent claims upon the bounty of nature." Thanks for writing.
_______________________
Pittsburgh, Pa.: If the Republicans nominate a presidential slate not heavily to Christian evangelicals' liking (chosen from among, say, McCain, Giuliani and Romney), do you think those voters will stay home in droves in November, or at least not get heavily involved in the Republican campaign?
E.J. Dionne Jr.: I think I answered that above. Thanks for your question. I think we are looking, for now at least, at a demobilization of many different kinds of Republicans. So far, Republican turnout in the primaries is much lower than Democratic turnout. This suggests that many different kinds of republicans may stay at home this year -- though it is still very early and a lot can happen between now and November.
_______________________
Philadelphia, Pa.: When a candidate states he believes in creationism, would it be proper in the debates for the November elections for the candidates to be asked if they believe the Earth is 6,000 years old? Who would/should a person appoint to be the White House Science Advisor? Is this a proper issue, in your opinion, and could it indeed impact a lot of voters?
E.J. Dionne Jr.: I think that if a candidate makes an assertion of that sort, it is absolutely fair to probe him or her on that view. (I assume here you are talking about Huckabee.) I see nothing wrong with asking candidates who have made faith a central part of their appeal to explain their views in detail. And if they make specific scientific claims (or claims that seem at odds with the scientific consensus, they should have to explain what they believe and why. Thanks for the question.
_______________________
Annapolis, Md.: What other candidates besides Huckabee embrace some of the New Reformation movement you say is going on?
E.J. Dionne Jr.: I see some of this in McCain. I think, on the other side, you have elements of it in all the democratic candidates. But what I am talking about is happening in the churches and at the grass roots. Cizik, Warren, The Rev. Joel Hunter and many other Christian leaders are part of it. Many in my own Catholic tradition have long insisted that a genuine religious concern entails a dedication to social justice, peacemaking and life. Many have linked opposition to abortion with opposition to the death penalty. Many who do not favor making abortion illegal have insisted that we can do much in noncoercive ways to reduce the number of abortions. And of course many Jewish groups devoted to social justice have spoken out for a broad understanding of our social obligations. There was a very interesting document issued by the group Third Way and signed by a broad array of religious leaders that can be seen as part of this New Reformation. Thanks for writing.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Do you think that the overwhelming Mormon support for Mitt Romney in the Nevada caucuses will have the unintended consequence of feeding right into anti-Mormon prejudice?
E.J. Dionne Jr.: I hope not. I have many political problems with Romney, but I think all of us -- especially liberals -- should oppose anti-Mormon prejudice. It's perfectly natural that members of a religious or minority group that has never held the presidency would unite behind one of their own when he or she was running for the office. John F. Kennedy won the Catholic vote by about 4-to-1 in 1960. I don't think that contributed to anti-Catholicism. There are many things to criticize Romney for. I don't think his religion should be one of them.
_______________________
Virginia: The comment from Rochester, N.Y., is absolutely on target -- obscuring politics with "faith." While people such as you like to claim that religious faith causes kindness and love to all living things, in the real world what it does -- demonstrated overwhelmingly -- is remove all rational thought to produce people who run on emotions that are deftly manipulated by those who know so well how to use religion to manipulate. To see the other's rights, to see the long-term rational decision -- these take more than cries about what the magical being tells you to do... and tells you to force upon your neighbor.
E.J. Dionne Jr.: I want to share your view with other readers. I think the evidence about religion is far more complicated than you allow. I try to make the contrary case in my book and specifically address some of the new atheist writers who can certainly be very interesting and lively. I disagree with their view that religions are built on irrationality and are always, as Chris Hitchens would have it, "poison everything." I think there is a mountain of evidence against that view. But it is certainly good that we have freedom of speech and conscience and can argue about this. Thanks for writing.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: In your column today you say that McCain may have to take on a split personality to appeal to conservatives and independents. Can you explain further please?
E.J. Dionne Jr.: What I said in the column is that McCain to stay strong needs to make one set of arguments aimed primarily at the conservative base of the Republican Party and another to appeal to independents. Some of what he says, of course, might appeal to both, but I think there is a challenge and risk to him as he tries to hold on to two very distinct constituencies.
I am told that it is time for me to end this discussion. I am sorry that I had to leave some questions unanswered, but I hope that perhaps there will be another chance for me to come online to answer more questions and have more discussions. I very much appreciate all who wrote in. I'll be discussing my book quite a bit around the country over the next month or so, and hope I get a chance to meet some of you. Thanks to you all.
_______________________
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.