September 23, 2004

ISN'T THIS SELF-EVIDENT?:

Bush's fundamentalism: the president as prophet (David Domke and Kevin Coe, 9/23/04, The Seattle Times)

Put simply, Bush's language suggests that he speaks not to God, but for God.

It is certainly the case that American political leaders long have emphasized religious symbols and language in their addresses. Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, however, the Bush administration has done something very different: It has converged a religious fundamentalist worldview with a political agenda — a distinctly partisan one, wrapped in the mantle of national interest but crafted by and for those who share its outlook. It is a modern form of political fundamentalism — that is, the adaptation of a self-proclaimed conservative Christian rectitude, via strategic communications designed for a mass-media culture, into political policy.

Bush's merger of politics and conservative faith culminates more than three decades of political engagement by U.S. religious conservatives. Ronald Reagan was the first president to be embraced by the religious right, but Bush's resonance with these voters is unprecedented. A June study by the Barna Group, a Christian polling organization, said 86 percent of self-described evangelicals plan to vote for Bush this November.

The key to Bush's support among religious conservatives is his facility in speaking their language, particularly regarding freedom and liberty. An omnipresent consideration for Christian conservatives is the "Great Commission" biblical mandate, in the Book of Matthew: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations."

The felt responsibility to live out this command, both locally and globally, has become intertwined in the eyes of the religious right with support for the principles of political freedom and liberty. In particular, the individualized religious liberty present in the United States (particularly available historically for European-American Protestants, of course) is something that religious conservatives long to extend to other cultures and nations.

One might expect, therefore, that Bush's political fundamentalism would be particularly apparent in his rhetoric about freedom and liberty. This is so. We analyzed presidential discourse about these values (often used interchangeably) in Inaugural and State of the Union addresses from Roosevelt in 1933 through Bush in 2004. For presidents other than Reagan or Bush, only four of 61 addresses (7 percent) contained claims linking the wishes of God with freedom or liberty. Such claims were present in five of 12 addresses (42 percent) by Reagan and Bush, including the latter's last two.


If you've got a dollar in your pocket you might take it out and look at the back--above the pyramid is the phrase "ANNUIT COPETIS," or "Providence has favored our undertakings." Below it is the phrase "NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM," or "A new order of the ages."

Likewise, you might note a prior assertion of conservative Christian rectitude: "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."

Or consider another president who was untroubled by any doubt about his capacity to speak for God, even to predict His future actions:

[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence.

Presidents Reagan and Bush then should be seen as retrograde figures, and quintessentially American, returning the nation to its first principles and the traditional understanding that: "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them."

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 23, 2004 11:43 PM
Comments

Sometime over the last couple of weeks, I read some leftist carping about the president. He was particularly appalled that the president seemed to believe that G-d had some special relationship with the United States. Here, thought I, is someone who knows nothing about the United States. And nothing about G-d.

Posted by: David Cohen at September 24, 2004 7:34 AM

But a lot about Europe.

Posted by: oj at September 24, 2004 8:39 AM

I'd say G-d is on the side of cruelty and against justice, based on what I read in the Bible

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 24, 2004 2:53 PM

Harry:

Exactly.

Posted by: oj at September 24, 2004 3:07 PM

What should worry non-Americans, Harry, is that if we are convinced that He's on our side, nothing is forbidden us.

Posted by: David Cohen at September 26, 2004 6:14 PM

What is forbidden America ?

There are things that we don't care to do, but can't do ?

In any case, God doesn't need to be on America's side; by non-religionists' own rules, the fact that America can do what she will means that anything she does must be OK.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 27, 2004 7:04 AM
« FILIBUSTER PROOF: | Main | HOWDY, PARTNER! »