Posted on 11/11/2007 6:07:42 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
There is an old hymn written by Fanny Crosby, sung at generations of camp meetings, which exclaims: "Crown Him! Crown Him! Prophet, and Priest, and King!" Since the emergence of evangelicalism as a cultural force in the 1950s, three approaches to politics, represented by three personalities, have emerged. They are the prophet, the priest and the kingmaker.
The prophet has been psychologist James Dobson, who dispenses child-rearing advice on the radio from his Colorado ministry, Focus on the Family. On family issues, Dobson's counsel is moderate and broadly appealing. On politics, his tone sharpens. He rails against compromise on social-conservative issues and seems continually poised to storm out of the Republican Party in protest, threatening to carry his millions of listeners with him.
The priest has been Billy Graham, nonpartisan confessor to presidents from Harry Truman to George W. Bush and presider at public events from Inaugurals to services of national mourning. His commitment to preaching the simple, undiluted Gospel has been total, but his approach to politics has sometimes been naive; his uncritical ties to the powerful have occasionally left him subject to manipulation. The priest was burned by a misplaced trust in Richard Nixon.
The kingmaker has been Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network. Robertson has a history of odd and disturbing public statements on issues from the causes of hurricanes to the assassination of foreign leaders. But as the son of a senator, he has generally taken a pragmatic approach to politics, with the goal of being a player rather than a prophet. After his own bid for the White House, Robertson founded the Christian Coalition to give the religious-right grass-roots clout within the Republican Party.
Graham's priestly role in American politics is gradually passing. But both of the other evangelical tendencies have been recently on display. Already in the current political cycle, Dobson has declared he could never support Rudy Giuliani, John McCain or Fred Thompson because of their various personal and political shortcomings. And a few weeks ago he participated in a Council for National Policy meeting which threatened to bolt the GOP if Giuliani is its nominee.
The kingmaker has gone in the opposite direction. Robertson's public endorsement of Giuliani last week surprised many. It should not have. His predisposition has always been to influence Republican politics from the inside. He has doubtlessly received assurances from Giuliani on the appointment of conservative judges and is calculating he can maintain influence within a Giuliani administration. But Robertson's endorsement of a pro-choice candidate has exposed deep political fault lines within religious conservatism. Add to this Paul Weyrich's endorsement of Mitt Romney, and Sam Brownback's support for McCain, and religious conservatives are fragmented as never before.
One effect has been to deprive former Arkansas governor (and former pastor) Mike Huckabee of support. He is the natural candidate of religious conservatives—strongly pro-life, pro-family, but also with a populist economic message. Huckabee is a candidate with Bill Clinton-like political skills, and he has fared well in straw polls. But religious-right leaders have calculated that Huckabee is not electable. Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani particularly irked him. "Our Web site went nuts with people saying they will never give money to Robertson again," Huckabee told me. "There is a disconnect," he said, "between past generational leaders in Christian conservatism and their own followers."
The use of the word "past" is purposeful and accurate. Leaders such as Robertson mainly exercise broad influence in the imagination of liberals. Evangelicals, particularly younger evangelicals, are undergoing a shift in attitudes. Many have little interest in the self-destructive purity of the prophet or the raw pragmatism of the kingmaker. They remain culturally conservative, but uncomfortable with a harshly judgmental tone in their politics. They find the model of the religious right too narrow and are increasingly motivated by a broader range of social concerns, from disease in Africa, to the environment, to racial reconciliation. And they want to be a witness to these values instead of a tool in the power games of others.
A recent article in The New York Times Magazine termed this trend "the evangelical crackup." But perhaps it is just maturity and a renewed appreciation of the way social change has taken place in the past. "The Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next," argued C. S. Lewis. "The apostles themselves, who set on foot the conversion of the Roman Empire, the great men who built up the Middle Ages, the English evangelicals who abolished slave trade, all left their mark on earth, precisely because their minds were occupied with heaven. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world, that they have become so ineffective in this. Aim at heaven and you will get earth 'thrown in': aim at earth and you will get neither."
Evangelicals are not retreating from politics, but they are moving beyond the religious right. The form that engagement will take is still uncertain—but it is likely to see politics as a means to social justice, not an end in itself, and to agree with the final line of Fanny Crosby's hymn: "Power and glory unto the Lord belong."
Oh, how rich (in all manner of idiot hypocrisy). Imagine, an organ of the MSM calling a Christian media pioneer "Kingmaker."
The key is that he comes with “with a populist economic message.”
I.e., he’ll spend other people’s money the way we like.
Also, the media is pragmatic. If you want Rudy to win the nomination, you need to split the social conservative vote in as many ways as possible. If Rudy tops out around 30-35%, and McCain can draw on 10-15% as a war hero, then the remaining 50-60% of the vote needs a 3 way split - Mitt, Fred & the Huckster. If that 50-60% starts to solidify around one candidate, Rudy is toast.
It also is worth remembering the Media is predominately New York - and New Yorkers would probably be content as long as someone from New York won. You just can’t trust an outsider...
Even B. Graham toadied up to clinton. I lost all respect for the guy.
Michael Gerson served as President George W. Bush’s chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006, and as a senior policy advisor from 2000 through June 2006.
Many many people do not realize the role of Robertson’s Regent University in filling vacant lawyer slots in the GWB administration.
The “Civil Rights Commission” is choc a bloc with Regent Grads.
It is funny how the OSM is bending over backwards telling themselves that “Younger christians are not interested in the Religious Right issues” ie Abortion gay rights (to marry) etc.
Yet the offer no proof of there position, similarly, the Religious Right crack up remains to be seen de facto.
Are you implying that that makes him a conservative?
Just putting facts on the table.
The Reverend Graham (Sr.) even said that bclinton could be forgiven for his transgressions because he was such “a ladies’ man” and couldn’t help himself or some nonsense.
Yes, but Franklin and Ann, Billy’s children, are real conservatives. Billy was just a traditional Democrat who liked Nixon and the Bushes.
“Isn’t it funny how the media is almost universal in their admiration and praise of Mike Huckabee? Why is that, do you think? “
Because by hyping Mike Huckabee, it takes votes away from Thompson, who is one of Giuliani’s main rivals. If you notice, every time Huckabee goes up a point or two in the polls, Thompson’s numbers go down.
Huckabee is a vote splitter and is being pushed in the media because he is the most able to split votes form Thompson and Romney in order to protect Giuliani.
Robertson tossed in with Giuliani because he has that gold mine interest in libera. It is simply a matter of the gold rule, gold makes the rules and robertson needs to protect his gold.
The other candidates must not have the same commitment to Robertson’s gold mine interests.
Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy means that Pat Robertson is willing to sacrifice his principles for politics.
And/Or Pat Robertson is a closet Liberal. Then if that was the case, then Pat is hiding is true agenda, which is hypocritical and unchristian.
Although it’s from Newsweak, I’m afraid this article is basically correct. Many evangelicals are politically naive and trusting. They do not have the philosophical dread of government most conservatives do. All the Republican candidates are claiming to be pro-life now, except Rudy, and he claims he will appoint “strict constructionist” judges. Naive and unsophisticated people fall for that kind of sophistry. So the evangelical vote is indeed fragmented. In fact, so is the conservative vote. Just look at the people here on FR who tout Rudy, Romney, Huckabee, and other non-conservatives.
“One effect has been to deprive former Arkansas governor (and former pastor) Mike Huckabee of support. He is the natural candidate of religious conservatives—strongly pro-life, pro-family, but also with a populist economic message.”
Natural candidate? I think not.
I was a George HW Bush alternate delegate in 1988 in New Orleans from NY State. Robertson decided to endorse Bush at the Convention and the night that he spoke his people put a placard on the chair of every delegate. It read as follows:
ROBERTSON
(in HUGE letters)
for Bush
(in TINY letters)
Or maybe he's a closet queer like Ted Haggard. You have to assume from this endorsement that Robertson is pro-gay rights and at least neutral on abortion.
Huckabee is preachy and fits too closely the stereotype of the “Relgious Right”. He’s also rather liberal on most issues besides abortion. We can do better.
That's right. Who knows? They might be honest and where would that leave them? Without anyone THEY could trust to do their bidding. Imagine what a disaster that would be. /s
“Isn’t it funny how the media is almost universal in their admiration and praise of Mike Huckabee? “
Huckabee AND Rudy......two empty suits in search of a clue : )
“Huckabee is a vote splitter and is being pushed in the media because he is the most able to split votes form Thompson and Romney in order to protect Giuliani.”
BINGO!!
Echo...echo...echo....
Yes?
What nonsense you spout here. He’s not pro gay rights or pro abortion. He is pro keeping terrorists out of our country and he thinks Rudy’s the best man for the job. Period.
I think that Juliannie is the only Republican who does not have a chance to win against Hillerbeast. He has already proved that in his run for the NYSenate.
There is no better way to advance the gay rights or pro-abortion agendas than to endorse Rudy. No one could do that unless they felt some sympathy for those agendas.
Like I said, Robertson could be in the closet and that would explain everything. He's always seemed a bit light in the loafers to me.
Yeah, I know, "How could Pat Robertson be a closet homosexual?" I'm sure you've asked the same question about a lot of these closet queens lately.
He is pro keeping terrorists out of our country and he thinks Rudy’s the best man for the job. Period.
Well, THAT much we KNOW is bogus. Nobody in their right mind would believe that Rudy's "weak borders" strategy and draft dodging background qualifies him to even offer an opinion on national security.
Rudy is a cross-dressing poof!
Billy Graham is a minister first, he is primarily apolitical, esp after his cozying up to Nixon. To fail to provide pastoral counsel to Clinton, or any President, would be a betrayal of his duties. Regardless of what we may think of him, he is duty bound to believe that anyone coming to him does so in good faith (ie Clinton).
No it says what the article says, that Robertson is pragmatic.
Remember, our icon, the man that our devotion to is called by Bill Maher to be gay in nature (that line made me want to barf when I heard that), Ronald Reagan signed into law the most liberal abortion law in the nation as Governor of California...
That being said, Pat Robertson is cozying up to the wrong guy... The only thing Rudy has going for him is the number of electoral votes he can put into play that otherwise might be safe for the Democrats, which is enough to put him second on my list of preferable candidates. Fred Thompson can lock up the south, most of the west, put more midwestern states in our column than any other candidate, and maybe pick up some northeastern states—with his Hollywood connections, he may even pick up California.. The Democrats have NO strategy to win that doesn’t include winning California and at least three or four southern states (namely Florida, Georgia and Texas)..
His comments about Bill Clinton were beyond the pale and exhibited a Spirt that was not Christ-Like.
God does not wink at sin.
His Son died on a cross for sin.
Don’t try and dismiss what was an un-Christian act by Billy Graham.
His voting for Democrats with all the moral baggage (Abortion, Gay Agenda, etc) also should put a question mark in peoples’ minds about Billy Graham.
Luke 6:43-44
43: For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
44: For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
Giuliani is ABSOLUTLY pro-abortion.
Giuliani is ABSOLUTLY pro-gun control even going to the extreme suing gun makers.
Giuliani also supports civil unions which are marriage in all but the M word in accordance with the subterfuge pushed by family law divisions of the ABA at their legal conferences.
Giuliani IS Hillary in the GOP primary.
No Giuliani, NO PROBLEM.
No, you have to assume that with Robertson's 25+ years of support for Israel (on theological and moral grounds), he sees a dire and predominating threat from Islamists, and he presumably he believes Giuliani may be capable of stopping that menace.
I'm neutral on G., but he is the only candidate whom I've ever heard directly addressing "The Big Lie" that Arab Muslims love to spout about "Palestine", Israel, and Jews.
And I don't mean "only candidate this election", I mean "only candidate, ever".
I think he sees a "spiritual soulmate" in Rudy.
It leads this intelligent voter to the conclusion that Robertson is properly concerned that Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Bombay (Mumbai) might become craters by 2012 if we don't get a president who sees the obscene gravity of Arab Muslim (Wahabbi, al Qaeda, Taliban, Qutub) threat and is prepared to take serious preventative measures.
He's doing what 90 percent of Social Conservatives and Values Voters seem incapable or unwilling to do, which is to put things in proper perspective.
I guess he's figured that we don't presently have the luxury of voting for a Bishop.
The moment Pat endorsed Rudy, I figured he was a closet liberal.
Gee, that really clarifies your position.
“What nonsense you spout here. He’s (Rudy) not pro gay rights or pro abortion. He is pro keeping terrorists out of our country and he thinks Rudy’s the best man for the job. Period.”
That is a political position, not a religious one. A religious figure endorsing a political position means nothing. Thats like the NRA endorsing Tancredo because Tancredo is a Nativist. Or thats like Mothers Against Drunk Driving endorsing Hunter because Hunter is pro 2nd ammendment.
It does mean something to conservative christians, hunterite. I feel Pat was trying to vote for the one who would keep the terrorists away. Pat is certainly prolife and anti gay rights, but in some ways I do think he’s a moderate and not a conservative.
I didn’t mean to say he wasn’t. I think I made an error and it should have said PAT not RUDY. I know Rudy is, but my point was I feel that Pat was endorsing him because of his stand on terror. Pat is pro life and anti gay marriage, not Rudy. I just noticed that when I answered another freeper. Sorry for the confusion.
Be careful what you accuse God’s anointed one of, my friend. God is NOT happy when we talk that way about His kids. You have no idea whether Pat is one way or another, but what you say is just plain ugly. You shouldn’t accuse anyone of being gay if you don’t know for sure.
Which Republican candidates are running on a platform or record of letting terrorist IN the country?
Rudy’s not my number one choice and I don’t fully understand Pat’s endorsement reasons, but I do not believe Pat is pro gay rights or pro abortion. I do believe he’s more moderate than conservative though.
Robertson should pray to God for forgiveness for what he has done. By endorsing a draft-dodging, adulterous cross-dresser, he has spit in the face of God.
Well, there were lots of surprises in this piece for me, starting with the revelation that Gerson served as W’s speechwriter for a long long time....because this piece has Liberal spin written all over it, as far as I’m concerned. True, nobody, especially at this point, figures GW Bush for any kind of conservative, but the Liberal spin for me is this conceit that there are any real “Kingmakers” for Republican candidates and if there are, they are always going to be designated by the Liberal
MSM as being people like Robertson, Billy Graham, etc., in other words, these oddball, eccentric, “too-religious”, too “non-secular”, too out of the mainstream of “real” wised-up, hipper America. So this entire piece seems to be a pretty strenuous exercise is continuing to advance the notion that both the Evangelicals are not really Evangelicals and candidates like Giuliani are not really the moderate, socially “progressive” Republicans they pretend to be.
I know, I know, but Pat feels Rudy, because of his tenure as Mayor, etc., would be the better candidate. I’m not saying I agree with him but I feel that’s HIS thoughts on the matter. Personally, I vote for whomever I feel is the best candidate, not someone who Pat or any other group endorses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
