February 20, 2004

Are Evangelicals Frustrated By Bush?


The Washington Times has a new article claming that evangelicals don't think President Bush is doing enough to support our causes. This comes as quite a surprise to me since I’ve already documented some of the things Bush has done for conservative Christians. Not only has he been a strong supporter of our agenda, but he's had great success fighting the war on terror (I don’t know about you but I haven’t noticed any terrorist attacks lately.)

After reading the article, though, I realized it really isn't about evangelicals at all. Here are a few points worth noting:

The “Religious Right” and “evangelicals” are not synonymous -- The Times quoted the following activists: Sandy Rios (Concerned Women for America), Robert H. Knight (Culture and Family Institute (an affiliate of CWA)), Gary Bauer (American Values), Tony Perkins (Family Research Council), and Don Wildmon (American Family Association). These folks may be great Christians who are doing wonderful work but they are not “evangelical leaders” anymore than Jesse Jackson is a “leader of the black community.”

Follow the Money -- If your organization is dedicated to fighting the "culture wars" then you have to ensure that the troops are stirred up or the money will soon stop flowing. Notice the line about, “Top religious rights activists have been burning up the telephone lines, sharing what one privately called their "apoplexy" over Mr. Bush's failure to act decisively on the issue…” I won’t call this a shakedown of the faithful but they’re not trying to scare the flock for nothing.

Most evangelicals realize how much Bush has pushed our agenda -- Anyone who doubts this is the case simply needs to look at the campaign promises that Bush was able to fulfill (and which were held up because of Congress):

ABORTION
PROMISE: Prohibit federal funds for international family-planning groups that provide abortion-related services. (YES. By a directive issued Jan. 22, 2001.)
PROMISE: Sign legislation banning a late-term procedure opponents call "partial-birth" abortion. (YES. Nov. 5, 2003.)

CHARITY
PROMISE: Establish an Office of Faith-Based Organizations in the White House to make it easier for such organizations to participate in government programs. (YES. By executive order in 2001.)
PROMISE: Limit the civil liability of businesses that donate equipment, facilities, vehicles or aircraft to charitable organizations to protect them from lawsuits if the donated items turn out to be defective. (NO. Stalled in Congress.)

CHILDREN
PROMISE: Provide states with an additional $1 billion over five years to help prevent cases of child abuse or neglect. (NO. Congress cut Bush's request in half.)
PROMISE: Require states to conduct criminal background checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents. (YES. Signed June 25, 2003.)
PROMISE: Provide $300 million over five years for college or vocational-education vouchers of as much as $5,000 for youths who reach college age in foster care. (NO. Congress cut Bush's funding requests.)
PROMISE: Set a goal to return children in foster care to their stable biological family or, with a judge's ruling, to adoption. (NO.)
PROMISE: Help states establish paternity registries. (NO. Still working on legislation.)
PROMISE: Provide $200 million in competitive grants over five years for grants to promote responsible fatherhood. (NO. Stalled in Congress.)
Congress
PROMISE: Adopt two-year budgets. (NO. Blocked in Congress.)
PROMISE: Require a Joint Budget Resolution to promote early agreement on an overall framework, which the president must sign. (NO. Stalled in Congress.)
PROMISE: Enact legislation to prevent government shutdowns if funding is not enacted by the beginning of the fiscal year. (NO.)
PROMISE: Support a bipartisan Commission to Eliminate Pork-Barrel Spending. (NO.)
PROMISE: Seek legislation to amend the Constitution to give the president line-item veto authority. (YES, although Bush has not made it a top priority and Congress has not acted.)
PROMISE: Ask Congress to act on presidential nominees within 60 days of submission of their names. (YES. Bush has repeatedly prodded Congress to act.)

CRIME
PROMISE: Increase prosecutions under federal gun laws. (YES.)
PROMISE: Increase funding for state gun-law enforcement. (YES. New $50 billion program signed into law in 2001.)
PROMISE: Impose a lifetime ban on gun possession for juvenile weapons offenders. (NO.)
PROMISE: Establish Project Sentry, a federal-state program to prosecute juvenile weapons violations. (YES.)
PROMISE: Practice zero tolerance for terrorism. (YES. Launched war on terrorism.)

POVERTY
PROMISE: Establish Individual Development Accounts for low-income Americans. Give banks tax credits for matching up to $300 in deposits by low-income customers. (NO.)
PROMISE: Establish the American Dream Down Payment Fund to give low-income families as much as $1,500 in matching funds toward down payments for homes. (YES. Signed Dec. 16, 2003.)

TEEN PREGNANCY
PROMISE: Provide at least $135 million for abstinence education, equal to the amount for teen contraceptive programs. (NO. Funding reduced by Congress.)
PROMISE: Direct the General Accounting Office to study the effectiveness of pregnancy-prevention programs. (YES. But the study was conducted by Health and Human Services, not GAO.)

Are some evangelicals frustrated by Bush? No doubt. There is never shortage of Americans who are quick to blame the incumbent President for everything from our the country's moral failings to their personal economic hardships. The Presidency, though, is just one part of the equation and Bush only one man. He can do a lot but he can't do everything. George Bush isn't perfect, but he's the best choice we have.

The real question, though, is what are we doing? Unless we are praying for our leaders and doing our part to change the moral tone of our country then we have no reason to criticize someone who is doing what they can.

(Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt)

Update: Nathan from Southern Appeal has an interesting take on the story: "I view the report as something of "reverse psychology," an attempt to try and energize the social conservative base to get active for the campaign. In fact, it's almost as if the Bush/Cheney campaign team had a part in the story getting printed today."


comments
Rick writes:

1

Its hard for me to believe this is a problem. Every evangelical I know, will vote and not stay home, period. And they won't be voting for Kerry, though some could get themselves talked into support a right wing third party. I think most evangelicals have become pragmatic enough to understand that especially for conservative issues, one must tread lightly to prevent a counter-productive backlash.

We are making progress, we just have to be patient.

posted on 02.20.2004 11:49 AM
Bithead writes:

2

Two things should perhaps be noted.

1: Rattling a sabre makes noise. Drawing it makes far less noise. I suggest this is a normal reaction to trying to draw Bush farther tot he right... and I suppose I'm not overly uncormfortable with that process. If they were really about moving Bush out, they could do so without making all the noise.

2: Secondly, let's make note of the glee in the leftist dominated press in reporting this seeming disastisfaction with the President. Now what would they ahve to gain by spreading such a story, do you suppose?

posted on 02.20.2004 12:30 PM
Steve writes:

3

A lot of us Evangelicals really like the Constitution, which the Bush administration has violated repeatedly.

Not nearly as badly as a Democrat administration would, of course.

But still.

posted on 02.20.2004 1:41 PM
Scott writes:

4

I think I have more issues with President Bush around fiscal conservative issues (i.e., government spending) than around social conservative issues. The idea that evangelicals will stay home in November is ludicrous. Funny, this in the same week that Franklin Graham (an actual leader in the Evangelical church) essentially exhorted the audience at the NRB convention in Charlotte, NC, to get the vote out for Bush.

posted on 02.20.2004 4:27 PM
Duane writes:

5

Steve, surely you are kidding about the Constitution? Or are you Doug Bandow or Ron Bailey in disguise pushing the idea that big L libertarians can realize their dream of an isolationist America where we charge tolls to walk on the sidewalk?

The reality is that Bush is about as good as it gets for an Evangelical, and if anyone really believes that pork-barrel spending will ever moderate under any president until term limits eventuate, you are beautiful dreamers.

posted on 02.20.2004 5:45 PM
Oengus Moonbones writes:

6

To put it succinctly, Bush is not a conservative.

And I'm going to flat out predict that Bush will lose the election in November, not that I am any big fan of the demoncrats.

posted on 02.20.2004 10:47 PM
Steve writes:

7

No, I actually do like the Philadelphia Constitution of 1787. I like the Declaration of Independence even more, as well as its main source document, _Lex, Rex_.

posted on 02.20.2004 11:50 PM
tz writes:

8

Somehow I don't understand how 2 year budgeting is an "evangelical" or even "christian" issue.

Many of those things are very expensive. Enslaving our children and grandchildren to debt slavery or a total economic collapse is an "evangelical" position? I thought the Black Horseman was coming for those "Left Behind".

While we're budgeting, what about a balance sheet - more money so the Department of Education can indoctrinate children in secular humanism, and the National Endowment for the Arts can produce pornography. Net-Net, we're losing.

A bunch of gun-control federalizing is there, something else I don't understand. Wait until someone defends himself with a gun and runs afoul of these laws. Terrorism? Strip-searching grandmothers at airports is an evangelical position?

Some trivial things on the margin - that got through congress and aren't in abeyance by a court, yes. The rest (apparently you had to dig very hard to find anything remotely connected to a conservative agenda) is going toward an all-powerful but amoral federal government.

May as well close your church and burn your bible - it has no useful solutions. The only entity that can do things like promote responsible fatherhood is the Federal Government, at least when it has enough money. All hail the Feds. Praise the Government, saviors of us all and solver of every problem.

If this is Christianity, then I am firmly in the camp of the Heretics.

posted on 02.22.2004 9:53 PM