Tony Perkins speaks at the Family Research Council's Values Voters Summit in September.

Face-to-Face With the Fundamentalist Base

Christian evangelicals fight culture war to save America.

BY Abby Scher

It’s been a bad season for the GOP. Even before the Mark Foley scandal broke, and former Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives David Kuo published his explosive book, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, there were signs that the relationship between Republicans and their evangelical Christian base was beginning to worsen.

In early September, a Pew poll showed that a growing number of evangelicals were becoming disaffected with the Republican Party. Seventy-eight percent of white evangelicals voted Republican in 2004, yet only 57 percent told Pew they were inclined toward that party now.

Then, an institute linked to People for the American Way released its own survey of values challenging “the rhetoric around values voters (as) just plain wrong,” according to its author, Dr. Robert Jones. “We found out…abortion and gay marriage ranked dead last and jobs and the economy, by far, ranked number one,” Jones said. “That holds true, again, across a number of religious traditions including evangelicals.”

Yet little of this doubt seemed evident at the Family Research Council’s FRC Action’s Values Voters Summit. Held in September at Washington’s beautiful old Omni Shoreham Hotel–where, as president, Harry Truman disappeared to play cards with his cronies–the summit was where Christian right groups joined to mobilize their supporters during election season.

As the Christian Coalition has waned in power, the FRC’s star has taken its place, arguably becoming the most important religious lobbying organization in the country. Founded by James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, the massive conservative evangelical organization, the FRC is led by a former Louisiana state legislator Tony Perkins. The conference’s sponsor, FRC Action, also led by Perkins, is FRC’s lobbying arm. With his clean-cut appearance, red tie and articulate defense of social conservatism, Perkins brings to mind Ralph Reed, leader of the Christian Coalition in its heyday.

Speakers offered the audience political thinking that could join with their Biblical certainty to strengthen their organizing against gay marriage and abortion access back home.

The first of a parade of 2008 Republican presidential hopefuls speaking from the podium was Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. A Mormon, this largely evangelical Protestant audience was not his natural base, and Romney is largely positioning himself as a moderate. Nevertheless, he sounded the charge against gay marriage, sharing with the audience his view that “every child has the right to have a mother and a father,” and that “marriage is primarily about the development of children.”

Yet Romney also issued them a quick, yet pointed, challenge: “Even those of us who don’t believe in God lead a purpose-driven life.” This was indeed a challenge, as brief as it was. Many of the 1,700 gathered fear that non-believers–and liberals–are unmoored from ethics because they are unmoored from Biblical certainties, and thus a threat to the United States.

“One of my favorite quotes by John Adams is ‘our Constitution was made only for a moral and a religious people, and is wholly inadequate to any other government,” said Wendy Watson, who was staffing the booth of Oregon’s Restore America in the exhibit hall. “Because we have this illusion, this deception of separation of church and state, and it shows that without morality, without religion, without Christ in our culture, the Constitution, it doesn’t do what it is set up to do.”

Linked to evangelicals’ conservative worldview is a deep worry about “the coarsening of American life.” The degradations of popular culture, the sexualization of the media, gay sex, and women turning to abortions rather than raising the child–all of this and more brought women like FRCAction Vice President Mackey into conservative activism. Conference speakers laid these trends at the door of feminism or liberalism–calling on social conservatives to turn to civic and government action to protect the family as they see it.

“As people move out of college … and find they are providing for children, that’s when organizations like this become significant to them,” explained Jennifer Giroux, a 44-year-old Ohio activist now working for Citizens for Community Values, a regional Christian organization. The impulse to protect children, their own or others, from a secular culture they see as valueless and opposed to God’s plan, is the big motivator. During a women’s panel, Giroux called gay parenting the worst form of child abuse.

The audience demonstrated their support for President George W. Bush’s use of torture with standing ovations when speakers like Bill Bennett or Sean Hannity brought it up from the podium. And they told their listeners that they must first defeat the liberals before they can defeat the threat from radical Muslims abroad. How support of “rough” interrogations intersects with the culture of life or the Kingdom of God which evangelicals aim to create was unclear. In one of the opening sessions, James Dobson himself explained in his folksy way that the “family”-based politics of the Christian Right must lead to defending Bush.

“With regard to the War on Terror. I really do see that as a family value, a family issue,” said Dobson. “Because if we don’t have security for ourselves, for our children, for future generations, there is no future for the family.”

Liberals are appeasers, he added. “Adolph Hitler in 1938-39, he was very clear about the assault they were going to make on Jews,” he said. “Now we’re being told by Muslim countries that they are going to destroy Israel, incinerate it, and take us down, and liberals say, ‘What do they mean?’”

“George W. Bush–he’s not a perfect man–none of us is perfect,” he said. “[but] when it comes to the War on Terror, he gets it.”

Other speakers repeatedly returned to another theme that the People for the American Way survey, released only the day before the conference, found was the most important value for American voters: a politician’s character. Even though FRC consistently supports some of the President’s most unpopular policies–like denying global warming and pursuing the “war on terror”–Tony Perkins opened the proceedings by symbolically distancing the group from the Republicans.

“A politician is someone who will run a poll to see which way the people are going,” he said. “What we need are not … more politicians. We need more statesman.” When the Foley sexual harassment scandal broke only a week after the conference, Perkins was all over the media sounding this theme on behalf of his base.

There was also dissent in the halls on other grounds. Two African Americans (of the few represented) supported the idea that the Bible clearly guides believers to oppose both abortion and gay rights, yet challenged the largely white FRC for neglecting questions of economic justice or hardship that lead some women to have abortions. Activists of the secular Right who were on the program or in the exhibit hall sometimes sidestepped “life” issues–and even feminism–entirely. And when Jennifer Giroux on stage gloried in being the mother of nine children, two audience members murmured to each other, “oh we’re supposed to be against birth control–but there is such a thing as self-restraint!”

Still, a relatively small number of “traditionalist” religious voters, such as those attending the conference, can still sway elections as they did two years ago in Ohio. While most Americans may vote different values than the traditionalists, they cannot challenge the Christian Right’s heartfelt perspective that their culture war is needed to save America.

Abby Scher is a sociologist and journalist who covers economic justice issues and the U.S. Right.

More information about Abby Scher

  • Reader Comments

    The bible clearly directs people to reject neither homosexuality or abortion. These two hot button issues were never an issue at all until the late 19th century. Homosexuality was largely ignored as a significant number of histories greatest luminaries were openly homosexual. Abortion was never an issue until the 1860s when the UK made it illegal. The US soon followed suit leaving it up to the states to pass their own laws. By WWI, abortion was illegal in all 50 states. Even the Vatican never took a position until 1869 when a papal decree made it a sin. Before this point abortion was widely practiced and openly accepted.

    It does seem that opposition to abortion and homosexuality is a feature of modernity like many other things which are mistakenly thought to have always existed. The reasons for this should tell us much about our current epoch of history.

    Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 25, 2006 at 8:20 PM

    Linked to evangelicals

    Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Oct 25, 2006 at 11:52 PM

    Did I forget to mention that Reagan was the first President to cut and run in the aftermath of a terror attack on US forces?
    And yet, as bad as he was, Nancy refused to let the Bush campaign use his image in their commercials. apparently, Nancy knew how truly evil Bush and his family were.

    Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Oct 25, 2006 at 11:57 PM

    The religious right is the most dangerous faction in America for so many reasons. They want to destroy the First Amendment as it has been understood for the entire history of our country. The amendment is a two-way street that the religious right is driving as a one-way avenue. They want to have religion in our government institutions, Christian only, but never think that if they do get their wish of the end of the First Amendment than the lane going in the opposite direction opens as well. That lane is the government’s involvement in religion.

    This is something that should be argued against them directly to them. Make them understand that the end of seperation of church and state can also mean that the state can interfere into the church. Let’s start with the end of tax-exempt status. 

    Don’t think for a minute that the religious right is “unhappy” with the Republican Party and won’t vote for them. There is a love/hate symbiotic relationship between the two. The Repugs can’t win elections in many places without courting the RR and the RR knows it, so they threaten the party that they will stay home on election day (they certainly aren’t going to vote Dem) unless their issues are front and center. So incrementally the Repugs are denting the seperation of church and state and as well taking shots at so-called moral issues such as abortion and gay rights. The Repugs want to retain power and the RR wants their issues moved on.

    Whether it is intelligent design, public school prayer, Ten Commandment installations into court houses, pushing their version of the Christian God is foremost in their agenda and have realized enough minor successes that they believe a wave of change breaking their way is immenent as they believe that Revelations prophecy is soon to come. Those of us not in tune with their thinking probably can’t fathom the confident faith they have that they will win someway somehow. They consider this a war in the name of God.  They understand that you can lose some battles, yet win the war.

    They will show up on election day and vote Republican and may indeed stop Dems from taking the House and Senate. They will do this because the Repugs threat of Nancy Pelosi and Democratic control will have resonance in those last few days of campaigning, the fear of the dark side vote.

    Posted by Jon B on Oct 26, 2006 at 6:29 AM

    One approach that may be useful in dealing with the absolutist arguments of the religious right might be ones grounded in existential or postmodernist thought. Postmodernists, following thinkers like Nietsche or Foulcault, don’t not believe in absolute truths because they hold that all knowledge is historically conditioned and interest bound. Further, all truth is mediated by power relations in a given society and the discourse that bounds the perameters of acceptable ideas. There are no essential meanings in the world that predispose outcomes and no absolutes that transcend history. Everything is kept in the bounds of historic epochs even everyday things such as sexuality, cultural identity, modes of social organization, and routine daily practices.

    Attitudes toward abortion and homosexuality have changed over time and have been seen differently and dealt with differently by people and the authority structures that make the rules governing these and other practices.  Both abortion and homosexuality were never persecuted until about 150 years ago when major changes in industrial societies began to take place. To find the answers to our current struggles with these issues we must look at these changes. One good place to start is to ask about the emergence of the nuclear family in modern society and why it suddenly became so important after many centuries of lying dormant!!

    Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 28, 2006 at 2:49 PM
  • Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account