After eight years of railing against President Bush as a big-government religionist who destroyed classical conservatism, political pundit Andrew Sullivan has found the cure for what ails him: Barack Obama, big-government religionist.
Obama has moved far more to the position of the Christianists than the Christianists have moved to his. And that gives Obama a great opportunity electorally. I say this with reluctance. Obama’s comfort with religious politics, and his connection of the Gospels with the redistributionist state, are far closer to the Bush-Gerson position than my more secular preference. But this is very clever politics and Dobson has taken the bait.
This is one of the more fascinating aspects of this race: Obama is a more appealing candidate to moderate Christianists than McCain is. And if Obama can break through the propaganda and reach the under-40s among evangelicals, we’re talking about a landslide.
Andrew and I have both spent the last few years calling for an end to the unholy mix of Caesar’s kingdom with God’s. Apparently, that’s only something Andrew feels strongly about when said mix doesn’t positively impact his candidate. Still, Andrew and most other pundits are missing the obvious. Of course there were politically casual religious voters who voted for Bush in 2000 and in 2004 because he was the “religious guy” in the race. But for every such voter, there was likely a politically casual secular voter who didn’t vote for Bush because his religiosity freaked them out. For every Bush voter that selects Obama simply because he’s the most overtly religious candidate on the ballot this year, there will be a Kerry voter who pulls the lever for McCain because his religious views are the most muffled. For every religious liberal, there’s a secular conservative.
If I were advising McCain, I’d recommend that he use Obama’s pandering to the religious as yet another opportunity to draw parallels between Obama ’08 and Bush ’00. Like Bush, Obama clearly believes that it is his duty as a Christian to run a Gospel-based government, centered around the Golden Rule, whatever the cost. Is this the sort of person that Americans want in charge of the federal budget? Or entitlement reform? Or immigration policy? Do you really trust Barack “Ned Flanders” Obama to make the calls that are in America’s interest when faced with military actions that may lead to civilian casualties, but that are essential to victory in the war against Islamism? Do we really want another president whose sole political philosophy is that government should “do good?”
June 29th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Do any people refer to themselves as religionists or is it a name-calling thing?
“For every religious liberal, there’s a secular conservative.”
No there isn’t. Polling suggests there are 2 times as many religious liberals as non-religious conservatives.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Do we really want another president whose sole political philosophy is that government should “do good?”
Megyn Kelly discussed with Giuliani this precise concern regarding Obama’s judicial philosophy last month.
(Click here to watch)
June 29th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Christianists?!
June 29th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Well, I used the phrase “big-government religionist” in the post to describe how Andrew Sullivan describes Bush but not Obama, and thus to point out his hypocrisy. But I have noted that the religious folks around here don’t like the term, and thus I’ll try to use something like, well, “religious folks” from now on.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Beth – to DaveG and his associates, anyone who dares mention God in public is a theocrat frothing at the mouth to drag them to the waters of baptism and force them to partake of the Eucharist. Why do they think this? Because they have zero understanding of religion or religious people, and faced with that utter lack of insight they have to assume the worst motives in order to protect themselves from salvation.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
#3 and 5: You’ll note that “Christianist” is Sullivan’s term, not mine, as it appears in the blockquote.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I apologize. I withdraw my comment insofar as it applies to you. I still apply it to Sullivan… and certain others on this board….
June 30th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Sullivan is an active Catholic… one must read his blog to understand what Sullivan means when he says ‘Christianist’. He doesn’t employ it as a slur towards all people of faith… he uses it to describe what he seems as a minority element within American Christianity that aims to conflate government and theology. See Gov. Sanford’s recent activities regarding displays of religious symbols. He’s describing people who desire no distinction between Christian teachings and the operation of the US government. I, on the whole, agree with him – and I’m an ardent churchgoer. I don’t like candidates making religious appeals to me. I think it’s cynical, demeaning to the faith, and not relevant. I’m not voting on someone’s faith, I’m voting on their policies and competence. If a candidate is pro-life, I don’t care WHY or what led them to that stance… it’s the position that matters. PnGrata, you’re attempting to portray all people who oppose the integration of faith and government as atheistic or non-religious, which is far from being the case. I really don’t want the US government mucking up my religion. When Obama talks about creating a “kingdom here on earth,” that’s one of the scariest things I could hear coming out of a politician’s mouth. Not to mention cheap and self-serving. But that’s Obama.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:16 am
I’ve been saying it for months… this is one huge reason that Obama has a 96% chance of winning in November according to 270towin.com’s simulation results. Or a 66/30 chance according to Intrade.
Sit back and watch what happens when the 3-legged stool is busted.