Over the past few days, Keith Olbermann has been highlighting the revelations (video here and here) in David Kuo’s new book about the cynical exploitation of the religious right:
In the book, Kuo, who quit the White House in 2003, accuses Karl Rove’s political staff of cynically hijacking the faith-based initiatives idea for electoral gain. It assails Bush for failing to live up to his promises of boosting the role of religious organizations in delivering social services.
White House strategists “knew ‘the nuts’ were politically invaluable, but that was the extent of their usefulness,” Kuo writes, according to the cable channel MSNBC, which obtained an advance copy.
“Sadly, the political affairs folks complained most often and most loudly about how boorish many politically involved Christians were…. National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous’ and ‘out of control.’ ”
It is unclear whether Kuo identifies any specific official as having used the dismissive language.
The book says that before the 2002 elections, then-White House political director Ken Mehlman issued “marching orders” to use the faith-based initiative in 20 House and Senate races, according to MSNBC. To avoid appearing overtly political, Mehlman said his staff would arrange for congressional offices to request visits from the faith-based program officials.
Throughout the 2002 and 2004 campaigns, faith-based officials would meet with lawmakers in some places in an effort to generate publicity for them, while also hosting conferences in battleground states attracting hundreds of pastors and community activists eager to learn how to apply for federal grants.
The response in the blogosphere and in political circles has been almost nonexistent, and I attribute this to one simple fact- Kuo’s assertions are so obviously true that they can not be denied. No cheap character assassination campaigns have been launched because they will fail miserably- Kuo has the goods on this White House and the so-called religious leaders, and they don’t have the balls to attack him. To do so would be even more disastrous than to sit by and do nothing (and, as commenters point out, not attacking Kuo and hoping this issue just goes away may be the smart tactical manuever). Sure, there have been tepid refutations from the White House, but compare the reactions to this book as opposed to the reactions to Paul O’Neil’s ‘defection.’
In a compelling post yesterday, Digby brings up a few relevant points:
Rove and these other strategists knew the religious right were “new voters” which is the political promised land. Everybody dreams of dragging some of the unaffiliated, apathetic uninvolved into the political arena. Getting an entire block of voters who will vote according to what they are told by an authoritarian organization is a miracle. Hallalujah.
With the business marketing savvy of the big money boys of the GOP they were quite successful in the last decade or so at convincing the media and many of the public that the Republican party actually is more moral and more sincerely religious than the Democrats. However, the events of the last year have begun to unravel that carefully constructed image.
***This sounds as though the GOP thinks that conservative Christian leaders are dupes, but I doubt that is literally true. I think they understand each other quite well and have plenty of respect for their different roles in the power structure. It’s obvious to me that both the Republicans and the leaders of the Religious Right are contemptuous of rank and file conservative Christians, not each other.
***The glue that holds it together is the business of evangelism. Those followers who give their money to these churches and organizations that sell Republicanism as a religious brand might as well spend their money at WalMart. They’re buying the same thing. It’s tribal identity but it isn’t religious and it isn’t moral.
It’s time everybody recognized that so we can deal with it honestly. These so-called religious leaders (and it’s not just the national leadership, it’s the whole hierarchy) are not dupes. Sure Rove and the rest call them nuts. But the leadership and the party know they are essentail to each others’ continued status, even if they spar over who’s their daddy. The truth is that they are all elites who have the same goals — power.
Andrew
Well, this may be an unpopular view, but…
Evangelicals really are stupid ignoramuses (ignorami?). If you honestly believe that dinosaur bones were put here by god 6000 years ago to test our faith, the you are simply stupid. It is not worth “debating” anything with such people, because evidence, science, reason, and understanding have no place in their minds.
I’m with Dawkins on this one. The sooner we marginalize these people, the better off the other 90% of America will be. Ironically, I think that the evangelicals will be better off too, though perhaps more whiny.
Pb
My take is that the Republicans are exploiting and piggy-backing off of an existing demographic of confirmed suckers. These are the people who learned nothing from Jim Bakker:
Yes, *that* Jerry Falwell. So really, I’m not shocked that one bunch of self-righteous far-right authoritarian crooked con-men are in league with another bunch of self-righteous far-right authoritarian con-men. Really, I think Phil Collins said it best, in the Genesis song Jesus He Knows Me…
Mr Furious
It must be incredibly painful and unnatural for the Rove Clan, but to restrain from attacking this guy is the smartest way for them to handle this. It will more or less go away if they ignore it.
The Dobsons, etc aren’t going to mention it to their flocks, so if it fades from the limited media attention quickly enough, it will never get the traction it deserves, and those dupe voters will never be the wiser.
ThymeZone
Amen.
I mean, “ditto.”
Punchy
This then jives with the myriad rumors I’ve heard (some discussed on this blog) about how tolerant Rove is towards gays (vis-a-vis his (step?)father coming out), how tolerant Bush is towards gays, along with others (Rumsfeld, via Steve Clemons a few months back). It was always very difficult to believe this, seeing as how they were so rabidly anti-gay with so many policies.
Alas, it comes to light that the rumors were true, and much of this hatred manufactured for power. In this light, I’m actually MORE disgusted with Rove and Company. To sell out a whole social group of Americans for pure power alone–to betray one’s true feelings just to crush the spirits of a subset of people you actually do care about….how more PHONY can one be?
How do they sleep at night reconcilling this?
docg
One sure sign of a weak position is the need to hear the position touted as the correct one repeatedly from all who will say it. Evangelicals share testimonies of “the truth” over and over, while conservatives read and listen to the same right wing messages ad nauseum. Is there really a need for thousands of little Rushes all over the radio, blogosphere, and other media outlets, all saying the same thing repeatedly? Other than position affirmation? Liberals tend to make their own conclusions w/o needing the constant reassurance of others (why Air America was a dumb idea in the first place).
The greatest and most difficult con job is on oneself. When you will accept any scrap of affirmation that your beliefs are correct, and make massive sacrifices of time, money and self-respect just to get those scraps, its time for a close examination of what you are doing and why. If you don’t have faith in your faith, but rely on constant external reinforcement of your faith to maintain it, it is highly probable that your involvement is with a cult, not a church or a political party.
But I could be wrong.
Steve
Well, yeah, but I had the good fortune to be born smart and inquisitive, or raised that way at least. It’s not so much to my credit.
It’s hard to find the time to ridicule people for believing dumb things, when the people who knowingly exploit those people for political gain are a million times worse. Frankly, I don’t care how stupid someone is, or what they choose to believe, as long as they leave me alone.
Before you look down upon others, just remember that none of you would be above average if it wasn’t for all the below-average people.
Kimmitt
That is one thing which I had noticed before now — fundies do seem to be endlessly gullible. They just don’t check to see if you’re doing what you say you’re doing. As long as you sell the lie, you’re done. I hadn’t made the obvious connection, though; any philosophy which is based on a rejection of modernity, due to the difficulty of keeping up with a strange and frightening world, will of course be attractive mainly to the intellectually incapable.
canuckistani
“RAmen” is also acceptable.
SeesThroughIt
Well, message discipline and repetition have been tremendously important in the Republican rise to power. Yes, they’re both very stupid, corrosive to honesty, and indicative of known weaknesses and flaws, but they also do fill a need within the mechanisms of obtaining power.
Pb
Heh. Rush and O’Reilly are great examples of this too, they’re totally hypocritical and corrupt, just more televangelists, really, except that the GOP is their religion.
Andrew
Hey, me neither. The problem is the fundies are definately not leaving me alone. They’re making it harder to get grants to do real science, but hey, you’re in the money if you write about how totally awesome abstinence is for keeping the devil at bay.
Pooh
It’s true, but some of our “dumb things” are pretty harmless (baseball, Jimmy Page is god, Oprah is the devil), others, not so much
sglover
This is really rather old news, or it should be, except that, as usual, the national media decided to go into its deep coma act. Back when the Abramoff scandal was the issue of the day, some of his work correspondance was available on the web (maybe it still is; I don’t know). I remember reading at least one set of exchanges in which Abramoff and/or his correspondent (I’m working from memory here, sorry) refer to fundamentalists in really scathing and dismissive terms, as dupes and morons. I think “apes” or “monkeys” might have been among the words used.
But you don’t even need that kind of documentary evidence. I live in the DC area, and ever since the Gingrich “revolution” it’s been impossible to overlook a certain type of Republican. It’s a type that’s prominent and common as dirt: The loudmouth who bases his entire political persona on bashing DC, praises the simple virtues of the folks back home — and does everything in his power to stay in the Beltway and as far away from the saps and yokels as he can. If he can’t bamboozle the yahoos into voting him in forever, he’ll take a think tank or lobbying job to stay the hell away from the simple, homespun life.
Granted, Dems pull the same kind of hypocritical bullshit. But they haven’t based an entire political movement on hatred of “gummint” as an end in itself.
Perry Como
O’Reilly is an independent.
S.W. Anderson
Some folks need and want clear, simple direction from a relatvely stern, disciplinary master. They have trouble coping with uncertainty and shades of gray, and don’t want to be confronted with either.
These people want a formula for life and living that says, “Do this, this and this, and you will be healthy, wealthy and wise all your days; and when you die, you’ll go to heaven.”
People of this mindset are made to order for radical-right-wing pols with more than a passing resemblance to fascists. Pols who tell the fundamentalists, “Do this, this and this, and oh yes, be sure to provide us some financial support, and you’ll be striking a blow against loose-living, free-thinking, degenerate liberals who don’t know how to behave and believe the way you do, and don’t fear your god.”
Exploitation is always kind of ugly, no matter who the exploiters are and no matter who’s being exploited.
Great post, John. This is an issue that should be out front and on top the rest of the year. That’s not just because it will help Democrats dislodge the neocon scourge from the halls of power, but because it’s right, decent, and long overdue.
S.W. Anderson
An additional thought, while I’m at it, because it fits perfectly here.
A year or two ago, someone (I forget who, exactly) made the point that when the neofascists get around to deciding freedom of religion is cramping their style and will have to go, look for those nasty old liberals to be among the first to fight back.
Mike S
I’m not going to comment like the above comments dissing people’s beliefs because I think they totally miss John’s point. I have no problem with people who believe in God or that the Bible is fact. The people with strong faith that I know have benefitted greatly from their beliefs. The fact that I tend to not believe anything they do doesn’t matter.
This is what I want to comment on:
What the Dobsons, Falwells, Reeds and the rest have done is so far from the real teachings of Christ that a believer should think it comes from the other side. They have done their best to create hate, to divide the country and to line their own pockets. They are drunk with power.
Those of you who broad brush Religion with the leaders who have perverted it should take a good look at Billy Grahm. He was a man who taught inclusion, compassion and charity. He learned from his earlier mistakes and realized that Religion doesn’t fall into the perview of one party or the other.
Saddly his son has taken the other tac. He is more conserned with power and greed.
r€nato
Jerry Falwell called Bakker a liar, an embezzler, a sexual deviant, and “the greatest scab and cancer on the face of Christianity in 2,000 years of church history.”
OK I know Falwell was simply engaging in grandiose demagoguery and piling on for his own benefit…
…but sheesh, Bakker wasn’t even a rank amateur compared to some of the Renaissance popes.
Bombadil
Ahem. Clapton is God, not Jimmy Page.
ThymeZone
Hard to figger these things. My little brother grew up in an even more liberal version of the household I grew up in, which was pretty liberal, and is extremely smart (he’s my half brother, okay?) and educated (St. Johns) and inquisitive. And he turned out to be a frigging fundie.
You just can’t calculate these things. People are the weirdest things on earth. I love my brother, but I can’t talk to him any more.
Proud Liberal
John Cole is just a “bush hater”
sglover
It’s hard to find the time to ridicule people for believing dumb things, when the people who knowingly exploit those people for political gain are a million times worse. Frankly, I don’t care how stupid someone is, or what they choose to believe, as long as they leave me alone.
I have to wince when I see liberals bashing fundamentalists. Don’t get me wrong: I’m a throughly secular, agnostic- shading-toward-atheist democratic socialist myself, and I think that guys like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are, in the deepest sense, twisted, empty — depraved. But I think there a couple of extremely important things that progressives have to keep in mind:
1) Historically, many of the proudest achievements of progressive political agitation got their start among devoted churchgoers. Think abolitionism, the civil rights movement, the urban welfare/social justice movements of 100 years ago.
2) At their best, churches of all denominations can provide a community of mutual helpfulness and caring that few other human institutions can match. This is something that not even the most sincere protest rally or nonprofit group or political party is able to do. (Lest any right-wingers feel smug, this kind of communitarian feeling is something that most would-be libertarian ubermenschen sneer at, when they even bother to acknowledge it all).
Many or most of the attendees of fundamentalist churches are at or near the bottom of the social pyramid — they’re working in poorly-paid jobs that might disappear tomorrow, and they’re disdained by the kind of people who read political blogs (or even use the internet at all), or who go on to the state capital or even Washington. It is not stupid or irrational for these people to follow the concensus that exists in what might be the only institution that’s doing them any tangible good.
It’s really up to progressives to win these folks over, rather than sneering at them for refusing to do what’s “obviously” in their best interest. I’ll freely admit, though, that this is a lot easier said than done. It might help if the Dems weren’t as eager to fellate corporate interests as Republicans, for a start…..
Proud Liberal
Religion is the root of all evil.
Tsulagi
J.C….Damn, I hate to ditto, but well said. Or Amen, your choice.
For all of those reasons you mentioned and more you didn’t take space for, the retarded brownshirts in the short pants are making me do something that really pisses me off. Vote a straight party ticket regardless of the candidate’s qualifications.
Some people I work with and friends who still somewhat try (getting way fewer) to defend this administration hit me on this. I tell them if I know for a fact the water coming out of the tap is poison, damn straight I’m going to drink anything else in the house.
MAJeff
Sorry, but no. As long as progressives maintain that women should have the ability to control their own bodies and determine whether, when and with whom to have children, we will not win these folks over. As long as progressives believe that gay folks are actually humans and citizens who should be treated equally by the state, we won’t win these folks over. As long as progressives push for actual science being taught in science classes, and the retention of a secular state, we won’t win these folks over. Sorry, but most of these folks ain’t reachable.
Proud Liberal
sglover I totally disagree. The Democrats are never goign to win over those that think all Jews will burn in hell for all eternity, that God created the universe 4,000 years ago, that a woman’s right to choose is the same as murder, and that we are all heading to the rapture. Sorry, don’t want them, don’t need them. Dems should not bend their principles to try and attract EVERYONE. And yes, liberalism and Democratic party have a rich tradition of working with churches and should continue to do so – as long as they stay true to their principles. But Fundamentalism is a whole other animal and I want no part of trying to win them over.
Proud Liberal
LEADERSHIP….. Leadership is what is needed in the Democratic party. Say what you belive, popular or not, say it strongly, repeatedly and with conviction and you know what? people start coming over to your side of the argument. Now, more than ever this country craves leadership and moral values. REAL moral values. Like, good government? Honesty? Transparency? Hiring the best people for the job? Sacrifice? The country is going to be ready after they get rid of the stench that is the modern day Republican party/
ThymeZone
I agree with this position.
Fundamentalism is basically evil, no matter how you slice it. It’s the root of terrorism, in most cases, too. There is no future in sucking up to fundamentalism.
Both US political parties would do the country well to tell their extreme wings to take a hike. But I doubt that either will do so.
S.W. Anderson
sglover makes some good points, but then says this about fundamentalists:
“It is not stupid or irrational for these people to follow the concensus that exists in what might be the only institution that’s doing them any tangible good.”
Please see the basic mindset explanation in my comment above.
You can say it’s not stupid or irrational, but it’s becoming increasingly hard to argue that these folks aren’t setting themselves up and selling themselves out to exploiters of both the religious and political kind.
S.W. Anderson
ProudLiberal, I like the way James Carville put it, in a book title, “We’re right, they’re wrong and here’s why!“
Torabora
You enabled it with all your votes. Live with it.
Pb
Yeah, he’s right there in the center, between Zell Miller and Michelle Malkin. Fair and balanced, baby, no spin!
Proud Liberal
exactly S.W. Anderson, I get literally sick to my stomach whenever I see a Dem on the defensive for a position that I support. Like being against FUCKING TOTURE. They are afraid of being against torture? The GOP has so emasculated them that they think that is a losing position. Its only a losing position because all of them talk like its a losing position. Have some spine. Have some anger. Pound the podium and say that in the America you love we are above torturing our enemies no matter how brutal they are to us. LEADERSHIP. Give people out there a strong argument and they will support you, or at the very least, like the fact that you have passionate beliefs.
Its something the Republicans understand the the Dems don’t. Clinton once said its better to be Strong and wrong than to be weak and right. People want to follow strength. Most people disagreed with Bush’s positions on things but he was “resolute” unflinching. People like that. Kerry, he couldn’t even get passionate for his own honor when he was lied about. Most said if he is unwilling to fight for himself why should I believe he will fight for me.
Sorry to go on and on but I feel very strongly about this.
jg
Its asshat power hungry madmen who control the religion over there too.
Pooh
Infidel
Perry Como
Mike S Says:
You aren’t listening to Supply Side Jesus. Heathen.
Pb Says:
Zell was a Democrat, Malkin is a Republican, so O’Reilly would be the center (independent). Thanks for proving my point, moonbat.
Pb
I’m sure millions of Fox News fans would buy this reasoning, too… We Report, You Decide!
ThymeZone
Is Darrell on top of the this Kolbe thing? So to speak?
As we know, it is not safe to let your kids go camping with Republicans. I assume that Darrell will be issuing a statement.
HyperIon
i hope you get to avoid the deathbed line: “if you don’t accept jesus, i’ll never get to see you in heaven”.
two of my “godly” relatives have pulled that one on me.
willy
O’Reilly is an independent.
he is?
you sure fooled me.
Ted
Bill O’Reilly won’t be found criticizing the rethuglicans on any substantive issues until the day they come to take his loofah away.
Gary Farber
Excellent post, John.
Utterly trivial correction: “Queue Dick Armey”
I believe you want “cue,” unless you’re putting him on line.
Pb
He might technically be registered as one now; he thought he was at one point, but he was wrong. But in any case, he is in fact anything but independent–who signs his checks?
John Cole
Gary- Thanks, fixed. I am getting worse and worse about mistakes like that.
JWeidner
I call ad hominy! Just because he’s paid by a right-wing media baron doesn’t make his opinion any less truthy.
ThymeZone
That’s corny.
ThymeZone
That’s corny.
craigie
The smart Dem move here would be to attack Kuo for something – anything – just to get this onto the front page. Maybe he wears silly ties. Or maybe they could complain that he waited so long to state the obvious.
garryowen
Oh, he’s an independent right-wing extremist, as opposed to a republican right wing extremist. That lack of party affiliation makes all the difference.
Jess
It’s important not to lump all the Evangelists and fundamentalists together. I have an adjunct position at an Evangelical college at the moment; I was rather surprised that I didn’t burst into flames the moment I set foot on campus, but I’ve come to have a lot of respect for this particular version of the breed, even thought I heartily disagree with many of their positions. These particular Evangelists are quite dedicated to walking the walk that Christ recommended, and they are outspoken about their concern for the poor, and their rejection of state-sanctioned torture and social injustice. They’re also open-minded, fair, and demand the highest levels of critical thinking. In their mind, faith is meaningless unless it is examined. In short, I’m impressed with them, despite my anti-religious attitude. I hope these true Christians are able to redefine Christianity in the public mind, just as I hope John Cole and his fellow travelers are able to reclaim conservatism.
Very nice post, John–you sound more like Digby and Olbermann every day (and I mean that in a good way!).
Jess
“Evangelists” should read “Evangelicals”–I need to get some sleep!
lard lad
I’d like reinforce the point that many, perhaps even most Christians don’t deserve to be tarred with the fundamentalist brush. I’m no longer religious myself, but I know many Christians who are good, thoughtful people who believe in the virtues of tolerance and minding their own business… but it’s the Falwells, Robertsons and Dobsons of the world who get all the attention, like the hyperactive kid screaming and throwing building blocks in a room full of relatively well-behaved children.
The sad irony about fundamentalist Christianity is that it exists on a spiritual plane far, far removed from the teachings of Christ himself, at least as they are portrayed in the New Testament.
The biblical Jesus taught forgiveness, understanding and pacifism. He warned of the evils of wealth, and emphasized over and over again the importance of lending aid to the humblest among us. He refused to shun or excoriate sinners; indeed, they shared his table. Christ’s scorn was reserved for the holier-than-thou hypocrites, the ostentatious public worshippers, the religious profiteers. It is revealing that the one time Christ is seen to show real anger in the entire New Testament is when he drives the moneylenders from the temple, saying:
“It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
Whenever I think of the aforementioned hypocrites, profiteers and thieves reviled by Jesus, the faces of Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the rest of the big-name fundamentalist pricks heave into view. If Christ ever does come back to earth, I like to think of him putting his pacifism aside just long enough to kick every one of them in the nuts. Might make me a Christian again…
Pb
lard lad,
It’s worth mentioning that most major Christian faiths opposed the war in Iraq on moral grounds, because it wouldn’t be a ‘just war’. The Southern Baptist Convention didn’t, but pretty much all the other ones did. Now I thought it was pretty clear here that we *are* specifically talking about the crazy irrational right-wing evangelical Christian fundamentalists out there, as opposed to all Christians everywhere, but just in case it wasn’t, I know that’s what I was talking about, so… FYI, people.
Then again, if you’re one of those crazy, irrational people, disclaimers probably don’t matter, because you can just see the word ‘Christian’ being used, take it out of context, and then take offense, irrationality is cool like that.
ThymeZone
Do they think that the earth is 6000 years old?
Chuck Butcher
I don’t describe myself as a Christian but I do know quite a bit about it. It seems silly to confuse religious beliefs with intelligence, religion or faith is a deliberate decision to suspend rational thinking in favor of a spiritual emotion. The danger comes when faith starts being advertised as a “science,” or is used as a political wedge. By themselves Christian fundamentalists range from harmlessly amusing to socially useful, it is when the political types lead them into the arena of law or science that they become dangerous or divisive. Really, the fault does not lie in their religion but with the people who would use them for the very things their religion prohibits them – greed, lust for power, hate.
It would also pay to remember that the more people attempt to marginalize or denigrate these folks the stronger their reaction will be. For a large percentage of these people their religion is just about all they’ve got and kicking that around is about as smart as going after gun-owners as mouth breathing pyschos in wait.
Beej
S.W. Anderson has it right upthread. There are many people, some of them highly intelligent, by the way, who are simply afraid of a world that seems to make no sense and is so full of things outside their experience and understanding that the lure of absolute answers to all their questions is irresistible. Hence their attraction to fundamentalism. And no, you are not going to convince them they’re wrong. To be wrong, for these people, is to be left with only their own reason as a means for making sense of the world. This terrifies them.
Please note that the above applies ONLY to fundamentalists. Most Christian denominations (including but not limited to the Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, most Lutheran churches, etc.)encourage their followers to understand God through the power of their own reasoning minds. Indeed, this was the crux of the message by Pope Benedict which aroused so much ire in the Muslim world. It would seem that fundamentalists of all stripes find that concept frightening!
Jess
For the most part, no. I was warned that I might get a few students who think this way in my class (which covers prehistoric and ancient art history), and the person I’m filling in for left me detailed instructions on where to direct them for a better understanding of the issues. They handle the question pretty gracefully there actually–they ask the students to consider what the question means for their faith, how it might change their relationship with god if they did not take the Bible literally. As I said, they’re very into critical thinking and the kids are as open-minded as any college students I’ve taught. They certainly seem to take their education more seriously.