This article is almost three years old, but it's still extremely valid.
********************
How the Brain Helps Partisans Admit No Gray

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 31, 2006; Page A02

President Bush came to Washington promising to be a uniter, but public opinion polls show that apart from a burst of camaraderie after Sept. 11, 2001, America is more bitterly divided and partisan than ever.

We'll leave the pundits to pontificate on the politics, and instead explore a more interesting phenomenon: People who see the world in black and white rarely seem to take in information that could undermine their positions.

Psychological experiments in recent years have shown that people are not evenhanded when they process information, even though they believe they are. (When people are asked whether they are biased, they say no. But when asked whether they think other people are biased, they say yes.) Partisans who watch presidential debates invariably think their guy won. When talking heads provide opinions after the debate, partisans regularly feel the people with whom they agree are making careful, reasoned arguments, whereas the people they disagree with sound like they have cloth for brains.

Unvaryingly, partisans also believe that partisans on the other side are far more ideologically extreme than they actually are, said Stanford University psychologist Mark Lepper, who has studied how people watch presidential debates.

Although it is satisfying to think that your side is right and the other side consists of morons, the systematic errors that can be documented in partisan perception suggest something deeper than deliberate tunnel vision. (Last Monday, this space was devoted to the curious phenomenon of the "hostile media effect," in which pro-Israeli and pro-Arab partisans shown the same TV clips both came to the conclusion that the news accounts were heavily biased in favor of the other side.) What explains these distortions in perception?

In an experiment that pols may want to note closely, researchers recently plopped 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats into scanners that measure changes in brain-blood oxygenation. Such changes are thought to be linked to increases or decreases in particular areas of brain activity.

Each of the partisans was repeatedly shown images of President Bush and 2004 Democratic challenger John F. Kerry.

When Republicans saw Kerry (or Democrats saw Bush) there was increased activation in brain areas called the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is near the temple, and the anterior cingulate cortex, which is in the middle of the head. Both these regions are involved in regulating emotions. (If you are eating an ice cream cone on a hot day and your ice cream falls on the sidewalk and you get upset, these areas of your brain remind you that it is only an ice cream, that not eating the ice cream can help keep those pounds off, and similar rationalizations.) More straightforwardly, Republicans and Democrats also showed activation in two other brain areas involved in negative emotion, the insula and the temporal pole. It makes perfect sense, of course, why partisans would feel negatively about the candidate they dislike, but what explains the activation of the cognitive regulatory system?

Turns out, rather than turning down their negative feelings as they might do with the fallen ice cream, partisans turn up their negative emotional response when they see a photo of the opposing candidate, said Jonas Kaplan, a psychologist at the University of California at Los Angeles.

In other words, without knowing it themselves, the partisans were jealously guarding against anything that might lower their antagonism. Turning up negative feelings, of course, is a good way to make sure your antagonism stays strong and healthy.

"My feeling is, in the political process, people come to decisions early on and then spend the rest of the time making themselves feel good about their decision," Kaplan said.

Although it seems paradoxical that people would want to make themselves feel poorly, Kaplan said partisans have a strong interest in feeling poorly about the candidate they are not going to vote for as that cements their belief that they are doing the right thing.

"Democrats looking at Bush may have some positive feelings about the fact he is their leader, so the process of convincing yourself this is someone you don't like when you intend not to vote for him makes sense," he said.

The result reflects a larger phenomenon in which people routinely discount information that threatens their preexisting beliefs, said Emory University psychologist Drew Westen, who has conducted brain-scan experiments that show partisans swiftly spot hypocrisy and inconsistencies -- but only in the opposing candidate.

When presented with evidence showing the flaws of their candidate, the same brain regions that Kaplan studied lighted up -- only this time partisans were unconsciously turning down feelings of aversion and unpleasantness.

"The brain was trying to find a solution that would get rid of the distress and absolve the candidate of doing something slimy," Westen said. "They would twirl the emotional kaleidoscope until it gave them a picture that was comfortable."

Palm Sunday and Politics

When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, "If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes." Luke 19:41–42 (NASV)

As Jesus entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday to shouts of, "Hosanna" and cloaks and palm branches thrown on the road before him, it seems it must have been a joyful experience. But instead of taking joy in the cheers of the people, Jesus wept over the city.

I’m no Biblical scholar or Jewish historian, but what little I’ve studied of the Bible and the history of the time suggests that the kind of savior the people expected was not the kind Jesus came to be.  And for their misplaced hopes, he felt pain.

When Jesus came into the city that day the people gathered to see him and many began to think he may be the Messiah that had been promised the Jews for hundreds of years. They were under the control of the Roman Empire and its various local puppet governments. Understandably, when the Jews learned the promises of a savior and King in the line of their great king David, they expected a Messiah who would free them from Roman rule.

When Jesus entered the city they waved Palm Branches and shouted, "Hosanna." History suggests these were significant, even dangerous political gestures. Hosanna was a Hebrew word that meant, "Save, now!" and had a very physical connotation. It was not at that time a cry of spiritual or abstract salvation, but a very real shout for physical salvation, which had specific meaning to a people under Roman rule. The Palm branch was a nationalistic symbol for the Jews, a symbol that had appeared on the last coins made when Israel was free. That is perhaps why the Pharisees told Jesus to "rebuke" his disciples – because to openly praise one they thought came to defy their rulers was politically dangerous.

As the crowd of people saw Jesus entering the city, they saw a political savior; one who might at last rise up and free them from the Romans, and they cheered His arrival. But He wept. He wept because they did not know, "The things which make for peace." He had not come to free them from physical bondage.

Jesus did not intend to be a political figure. He seemed to largely ignore the Romans, and even saved His criticisms and rebukes not for the political leaders, but for the leaders of His own people; their spiritual leaders. When He taught righteousness it was never backed by force. When He told the rich man to give all he had to the poor the man walked away; Jesus did not force him to obey, but instead let him go. He refused to use earthly law to punish a prostitute by stoning; instead he told her, "Go and sin no more," and left her free to decide. He did not come to spread his Kingdom with the tools of earthly kingdoms – force and coercion. He did not come to offer political freedom. He came to offer freedom from something much deeper.

To conflate the work of Christ with the work of worldly politics is to miss the meaning of His life, death, and resurrection. To claim that a Christian must vote for a specific policy or politician, that Christians must use government to enforce our morals – to prohibit bad behavior or to force good behavior – is to reduce the work of Christ to the work of a politician. He is not too weak or insignificant for political battles; political battles are too weak and insignificant for Him. The kind of freedom and righteousness He offers is far too great, too personal, to be advanced by physical force (which all politics boils down to); politics is beneath the spiritual life, not above it.

There is a place for politics. Physical freedom is a worthy goal. Defending oneself from violence and oppression is not immoral. Involvement in the political process to these ends is not wrong. But as a Christian, to use government as more than a defense for physical freedom, to enforce the morality you believe in through law backed up by the agents of the state is to contradict Christ Himself.

It is that desire to look to Christ as a way to accomplish our political goals that made Him weep as He entered Jerusalem. They looked for peace through a political savior; He knew the peace He brought was much deeper and could be had regardless of the physical conditions around them. Politics is force. Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem that day had been prophesied by Zechariah, who described Him as, "Gentle."

Let us emulate Him when we enter the realm of politics. Let us never forget that the freedom He brings transcends this world, and His peace cannot be attained or spread by force.

A version of this article originally appeared as a blog entry at theprometheusinstitute.org.

March 5, 2009

Isaac M. Morehouse [send him mail] is the director of campus leadership for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. He lives in Vicksburg, Michigan, and blogs at www.mighigansfe.org and www.theprometheusinstitute.org.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." ~ St. John Chrysostom

"My kingdom is not of this world." ~ Y'shua

How can someone who holds the Bible to be true and sacred be an anarchist? What about the respect for authority and the emphasis on obedience throughout the scriptures, (both the Tanakh, the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as the B'rit Hadashah, the Greek or “Christian” scriptures)? Doesn't G-d ordain our government leaders? Didn't G-d directly select the first two kings of Israel, Saul and David? Doesn't the sinfulness of man require a government to restrain our evil? And, for followers of Y'shua (Jesus), what about the words of Paul commanding obedience to secular rulers?

By clarifying what precisely we mean (and don't mean!) by anarchy as a political system and what the Scriptures teach I hope to answer these objections and explain how I both hold the Bible to be the revealed Word of G-d and also desire society without the State.

Though the teachings of the Bible can be followed and applied under any system of government, the Scriptures do give us some fairly strong clues of what forms of government are ideal. First and foremost, there is the Torah. The Torah, which is the first five books of the Tanakh, includes lengthy passages describing a system of law for the newly freed nation of Israel. This "Mosaic Law" is directly dictated by G-d to Moses and it is the clear testimony of Scripture that this Law is good and trustworthy.

Besides passages having to do with the sacramental life of the new nation, the civil law portion is very compatible with libertarian notions of law. The civil law consists primarily of prohibitions like: "You are not to murder. You are not to adulter. You are not to steal. You are not to testify against your fellow as a false witness." (Exodus 20:13)

Most of these prohibitions and their prescribed punishments deal with violations of person and property, just as libertarians emphasize the law should. Also, there is no notion of prison in this Law, the system of justice is largely based on making restitution to those who were harmed.

But most telling is what the Mosaic Law leaves out. There is no establishment of what we would now call an executive or a legislative body. There is no establishment of taxes (the religious rules require a tithe to support the priests but there is no punishment specified for failing to tithe). Civil order is kept by adherence to this legal code, private justice in the case of infractions of the code and private courts in the case of disagreements. In modern political terminology, this political system is called "anarchy." Anarchy literally means "without rulers." Modern libertarian anarchists (i.e. anarcho-capitalists), envision a system very much like this Mosaic system with no tax-funded political authority but with a system of private justice for mediating disputes and assigning restitution.

But it gets even more clear! Eventually, after a period under this Mosaic "anarchy," the Israelites ask the prophet Samuel for a king. Given our contemporary faith in the State, you would think that G-d, through his prophet, would praise the Israelites for realizing they needed a ruler, a strong leader to unite them and provide them direction.

Reading what G-d actually says through Samuel is a sobering reminder of how deeply heretical our modern faith in the State is:

And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."

Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plough his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." (I Samuel 8:7-18)

Here, the Bible makes it absolutely clear that the change from the Mosaic anarchy to what by today's standards would be a "limited government" will have terrible consequences and shows a tremendous lack of faith in G-d. This passage makes clear that the people of Israel committed a grievous sin when they rejected G-d's anarchy for a State.

The continuing record of Israel under kings shows that Samuel's warning was all too accurate, if anything understated. Most of the kings are terrible for the people of Israel, getting them into wars, leading them into sin and stealing whatever catches their eye, (even the best king, King David, steals a man's wife and then kills the man).

With all this in mind, let's address the questions we began with: "How can someone who holds the Bible to be true and sacred be an anarchist?" Given the Torah, the Prophets and the records of Israel's kings, I think we should rather ask: 'How can someone who holds the Bible to be true and sacred NOT be an anarchist?"

"What about the respect for authority and the emphasis on obedience throughout the scriptures?" The emphasis on obedience in the scriptures is, first and foremost, an emphasis on obedience to G-d. When G-d is your king, as Samuel implies, you should desire no other. Nevertheless, even when the government is not ideal, the scriptures charge G-d's people to be respectful of established authorities. It is faith in G-d that will bring us liberty, not constant rebellions.

"Doesn't G-d ordain our government leaders? Didn't G-d directly select the first two kings of Israel, Saul and David?" After warning the people of Israel, to no avail, that they should not reject His rule for that of a human ruler, G-d selects that ruler through His prophet. The Bible often records how G-d meets people where they are. If we do not have enough faith to live with G-d as our only king, then He will try to work with us through the system we choose. Suffice it to say that when G-d ordains rulers, that does not constitute a ringing endorsement of the State as the best system of government.

"Doesn't the sinfulness of man require a government to restrain our evil?" The sinfulness of man means that putting the awesome power of the State into the hands of sinful men is asking for trouble ("Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely"). G-d made it clear how the sinfulness of men should be constrained in society: the Law. Libertarian anarchists agree.

"For followers of Y'shua (Jesus), what about the words of Paul commanding obedience to secular rulers?" The passage is from Romans: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which G-d has established. The authorities that exist have been established by G-d... if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is G-d's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13:1,4)

In this brief article, I cannot fully address the teaching of Paul and the rest of the Greek scriptures on authority and the calling of followers of Y'shua. A few thoughts, though, to suggest how this instruction is in harmony with the anarchistic Torah. Paul was not spreading a gospel of political revolution. The message of Y'shua is spiritual. The follower of Y'shua believes that healing in our broken relationship with G-d is the foundation for healing in the other areas of our lives, like our system of government.

The method of the Christian is persuasion and good conduct, not violence. In an interesting parallel, Paul instructs Christian slaves to obey their masters and even returns a converted slave to his Christian master (Philemon). But note carefully what he says: "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you – although if you can gain your freedom, do so." (I Corinthians 7:20-21)

Is this instruction incompatible with the abolition of slavery? Surely not. Likewise, Paul's instruction to individual believers to submit to existing authorities does not preclude a people's return to G-d being our only king under a just Law.

One final objection. Isn't anarchy a utopian political system? In the literal sense of utopia, "no place,"anarchy is not utopian. The Tanakh records just such a society. Anarchist researchers have found other historical examples. Several hundred years ago, the notion that the slave trade could be ended and then chattel slavery itself abolished certainly seemed utopian. But British evangelical Christians began to make the moral case against it and within a century or two slavery was abolished throughout the wider European world.

Do we have less faith than those British evangelicals? Is the State, which has slaughtered over 100 million civilians in the 20th century alone, a lesser evil than chattel slavery? Shall we wait until a couple hundred million more are slaughtered before humbling ourselves before G-d and asking Him to be our only king once again?

With faith in G-d and a Biblically based submission to His good and eternal Law, let us work towards a time when the State will be seen for the unnecessary evil it is and the cry will go up in the land a second time: Abolition! Abolition! Abolition!

June 7, 2001

Stephen W. Carson works as a software engineer, studies political economy at the graduate level at Washington University, and works with inner city children in St. Louis through a ministry of his church, which also has a special mission to the Jewish people.

Everyone, please wish Lindsey (aka shush now) a happy birthday today!

This is a fascinating article by Stephen Carlson. While I don't agree with everything here, it's far too interesting to keep to myself. It's quite a long article, so I'm breaking it into a few parts. If you're impatient, you can read the whole article at http://www.lewrockwell.com/carson/carson17.html.
****************************************************
Christians in Politics: The Return of the 'Religious Right'

by Stephen W. Carson
October 30, 2003

VIII. Christians in Politics: A critique

I'm going to argue that the compromises and the disillusionment that Dobson and Thomas describe are not due to a lack of sincerity, good intentions and hard work on the part of the Religious Right. I believe that evangelicals, in general, were naïve about the nature of politics. I would argue that if they had truly understood what the government, the church and the modern nation-state are, and what they are not, they would have gone about things entirely differently from the beginning. I would further argue that having clarity on these matters suggests that it is nearly impossible for politics to accomplish not only what the evangelicals hoped to accomplish through it but what many other interest groups hope to accomplish.

A. The nature of government

George Washington described the nature of government in this way: "Government is not reason and it is not eloquence. It is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

The scriptures say this "...rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer"

So the nature of government is that it has the sword, that it uses force. This force is supposed to be used by the government to punish wrongdoers. To put it in one word, the institution of government is about justice. Martin Luther called this the "left hand kingdom" of God's two realms established in the world after the Fall.

Ed Dobson puts it this way: "We should not expect the government to promote the gospel or prayer or religion. This is not its role. We should not expect the government to promote compassion for the poor. That is not its role."

Why does Dobson restrict the government in this way? Doesn't he want the gospel promoted? Doesn't he want compassion for the poor? He certainly does, but an institution that is marked by force is not suitable for these tasks.

B. The nature of the church

The nature of the church, on the other hand, is to dispense mercy and bring the good news of God's mercy. Luther called this ministry of mercy "the right hand kingdom."

Cal Thomas puts it this way: "What was the first witness of the church shortly after the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus? Did anyone say, 'Let's get an army together and charge Rome so we can overthrow Caesar for what he allowed to happen'?

"No, the first witness was that they loved each other and pooled their possessions (Acts 4:32). It was love, not criticism or condemnation, that persuaded others to learn more about Jesus and to ultimately follow him."

Though we can argue about the Inquisition or the Crusades, the primary day to day activities of Christian churches for the last two thousand years has been to persuade people of the truth of the gospel, to train new Christians and to do acts of charity.

To make the distinction abundantly clear: The church is not, unlike government, about using force to dispense justice. The seed of the church is the blood of the martyrs, not of the pagans.

C. The nature of the modern nation-state

I would like to make a further distinction. The U.S. federal government is not just a plain vanilla government that dispenses justice, end of story. It is a modern nation-state. It still qualifies as a government but with some major caveats.

Contemporary political science has slowly been finding its way to an old libertarian insight: The autonomy of the state. You can see this, for example, in the book Bringing the State Back In by Theda Skocpol and others. The state is not just a neutral instrument, now being used by this interest group, now by that of another. The state has its own interests... Primarily to grow and eliminate any competition to its authority, like local or regional governments or even the authority of churches and families.

Now when I discussed the nature of government I didn't mention anything about it growing and seeking to eliminate competing authorities. That is because the modern nation-state is a particular kind of government, it is Monopoly Government. A monopoly government doesn't just say "We offer protection and justice services." It gives us an offer we can't refuse: "We offer protection and justice services, which you have to pay for whether you want to or not or even whether we are doing a reasonable job at these services or not. In fact you have to pay us even if we clearly are just creating chaos and killing innocent people."

We economists know something about monopolies. Monopolies always give decreasing service at an increasing cost.

The seduction of the modern nation-state is this: The growth of the state, the privileged position it has through its monopoly and the hordes of intellectuals who spend their time singing the praises of the state result in a temptation to consider the state capable of doing more than it can do. Thus, we get crazy utopian schemes to eliminate poverty and uncertainty in life by giving the state power over the economy. Or we get crazy utopian schemes to bring peace all over the earth by giving a single state power over the whole globe.

D. The dangers of becoming a political interest group.

How does this relate to evangelicals in politics? The state has an amazing ability to co-opt "protest" and "reform" movements.

The game goes like this: Left wingers come to the state concerned about poverty. The state declares a "War on Poverty." Poverty doesn't end up being abolished, or even particularly reduced, but whole new bureaucracies are spawned, taxes are raised, liberty is diminished and the central state grows.

Or right wingers come to the state concerned about drugs or rampant immorality. The state declares a war on drugs and on immorality. Drugs and immorality abound, but taxes are raised, liberty is diminished and the central state grows. Heads the state wins, tails we lose.

Ed Dobson writes: "...when the church engages in the political system, using the weapons of that system, then it becomes another lobbying group and ceases to be the church."

Thomas & Dobson write: "The church... becomes an appendage of the state rather than its moral conscience. It is transformed from a force not of this world into one that deserves to be treated as just one more competitor for earthly power."

Cal Thomas further reflects: "We failed not because we were wrong about our critique of culture, or because we lacked conviction, or because there were not enough of us, or because too many were lethargic or uncommitted. We failed because we were unable to redirect a nation from the top down. Real change must come from the bottom up or, better yet, from the inside out."

And Thomas adds this, directly pulling in a libertarian insight: "Author Charles Murray had some insightful thoughts on the idea that politicians and the political system can transform human beings from the top down. In a column for the Wall Street Journal, Murray wrote, 'The Democrats of 1964 and the activist Republicans of 1998 – shall we call them modern Republicans? – share the fatal conceit [Hayek!] that lawmakers can engineer the incentives governing human behavior.'"

Ed Dobson sums up the crucial difference between the church and government in this way: "The authority of the church is the power to change people and culture. By contrast, the authority of the government is the authority to punish wrongdoing and restrain evil. But the government has no power to change the hearts of evildoers; it can only incarcerate or execute them."

So, are there alternatives to addressing the social issues that concern evangelicals?

Of course! Christians can do what Christians have done for the last two thousand years.

In the case of abortion for example, I believe adoptions, moral persuasion, Pregnancy Resource Centers and free ultrasounds have done more than all the work to get pro-life politicians and judges into office. To this, I think we should add efforts to convict the hearts of men to act honorably towards women and take responsibility instead of using women and then eliminating the consequences. I got this idea from the 19th century feminists, by the way, who were strongly pro-life.

For another example, in the area of our government schools, I think parents who are displeased with the state of these schools should take their kids out of them and help others to do the same. There are numerous alternatives: Home schooling, private schools, the Catholic and Lutheran parochial systems. As someone who worked with inner city children for many years, I can tell you that the poorest among us are getting the worst part of this deal. I think Ladue High School, where I attended, had severe problems, but the inner city schools are on a whole other level of dysfunction and danger.

In conclusion, I hope to persuade Christians, and others for that matter, to not waste their time on politics. It seems to me clearly to have been a counter-productive activity with tremendous dangers for those who try to bend coercive powers to the ends of the Prince of Peace. There are so many other ways to engage our culture that desperately need dedicated believers. Some decent Christian filmmakers would do more good than a whole Senate full of Christians.

Stephen W. Carson is a working software engineer and a graduate student in the Department of Political Economy at Washington University in St. Louis. This was delivered on September 12, 2003 at the Friday Night at the Institute lecture series sponsored by the Francis Schaeffer Institute.

This is a fascinating article by Stephen Carlson. While I don't agree with everything here, it's far too interesting to keep to myself. It's quite a long article, so I'm breaking it into a few parts. If you're impatient, you can read the whole article at http://www.lewrockwell.com/carson/carson17.html.
****************************************************
Christians in Politics: The Return of the 'Religious Right'

by Stephen W. Carson
October 30, 2003

VII. 25 years later

It's about 25 years since the Moral Majority was founded in 1979. We can now assess how successful Evangelicals have been in accomplishing their goals through the political process.

After the Reagan landslide of 1980, excitement at the Moral Majority was high. Ed Dobson writes of what they were thinking, "We had made our mark. We influenced an entire election. Our agenda would never again be ignored. We were about to turn around the whole moral and cultural decline of our country. Our man was in the White House. The Senate was under our control. The media wanted our opinion on every issue."

"... The Reagan-Bush landslide in 1980 was the greatest moment of opportunity for conservative Christians in this century. We had been disgraced in 1925 at the Scopes trial. But now we were vindicated. We had helped elect our man to the White House, and he openly praised the efforts of Falwell and the Moral Majority. The Republican landslide brought in new senators, and for the first time in twenty-six years the Republicans had a Senate majority. Along with the Moral Majority, groups like the Christian Voice, the Religious Roundtable, the National Christian Action Coalition, and several pro-life organizations published target lists and moral report cards. The new right was successful in defeating senators George McGovern of South Dakota, Frank Church of Idaho, John Culver of Iowa, Birch Bayh of Indiana, and Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin. Of the targeted senators, only Alan Cranston of California survived.

"Between the presidential campaigns of 1980 and 1984, the Religious Right continued to lobby Congress and register new voters. According to various reports, by 1981 new right groups had enlisted 70,000 clergy and had registered four to five million new voters. The Reagan presidency took a conservative posture toward issues such as abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment, homosexuality, and school prayer. The Religious Right lined up behind the Republican platform. Jerry Falwell and other religious leaders visited the White House on a regular basis. President Reagan became the hero of the conservative Christians in America."

Cal Thomas continues the story with how pragmatic compromises began to creep in for the Religious Right: "The subordination of conviction to the pragmatic was also evident in politics – which is one of the great dangers of too close an association by the church in affairs of state. Politics is all about compromise. The church is supposed to be about unchanging standards...

"The temptations occurred early for [the] Moral Majority. Not only were we forced to say nothing about Ronald Reagan's selection of the previously pro-choice George Bush as his running mate, but only one month into the Reagan presidency, we were faced with the ultimate litmus test. Associate Justice Potter Stewart announced his intention to retire from the Supreme Court. Conservative groups had long believed that the Court had acted as an unelected legislature. We thought that Reagan's presidency offered a possible once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reshape the Court in a conservative, or 'strict constructionist,' image.

"Reagan nominated a relatively unknown Arizona Appeals Court judge and former state senator, Sandra Day O'Connor, to replace Stewart.

"...because of Judge O'Connor's questionable record on abortion, many conservative groups immediately opposed her. They felt the conservative movement had not come this far only to be compromised at the moment of victory.

"In an interview with Gerald and Deborah Strober for their book, Reagan: The Man and His Presidency, Jerry Falwell revealed how politicians – even Ronald Reagan, who supposedly was above compromise – can use the prospect of future access to cause one to compromise a principle.

Said Falwell, "I was at Myrtle Beach (South Carolina). The president called me and said, 'Jerry, I am going to put forth a lady on the (Supreme) Court. You don't know anything about her. Nobody does, but I want you to trust my judgement on this one.'

"I said, 'I'll do that.' The next day he announced the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor. About two weeks later he called me again and said, 'Jerry, I've had a chance to talk to her, and my people have, and I can tell you that her views will not disappoint you, and I hope you can help me bring the troops in.' So I began calling conservatives, asking them to back off."

[back to Cal Thomas' comments] "But Justice O'Connor has been the swing vote that, in virtually every case, has beaten back any and all challenges to the 'right' of a woman to abort her child at any stage of pregnancy.'"

Due to the compromises and the feeling of being betrayed by politicians, Ed Dobson and Cal Thomas began to question the movement of Christians as a group into politics.

Ed Dobson describes one of the false myths that the Christian Right keeps buying into: [Myth 10] "Politicians are genuinely concerned about our issues...

"Dr. Dobson contended that the Republican party had abandoned its previous pro-life and pro-family stance, that the people advocating these positions had been rebuked and betrayed by the Republican establishment, and that if the party didn't respond, then maybe it is time to make a change. I agree with all these ideas. Moreover, the speech led to a series of talks with Republican leaders and assurances to Dr. Dobson that things would change. And at this point I have deep concerns for Dr. Dobson. When the Moral Majority was at the height of its popularity, its leaders likewise met with the politicians and received their own assurances. But these assurances were never realized – and I predict that neither will those that were given to Dr. Dobson. Why not? Because politicians are politicians. Some genuinely care out about our issues because they share our values. Most do not. They are more concerned about the next election and about keeping power; they are inclined to use anyone, including sincere people of faith, to ensure that they maintain power."

Cal Thomas: "The American Enterprise Institute and Roper Center examined opinion polls on abortion for the last twenty-five years. In January 1998 they concluded that despite the rhetoric and campaigns by both sides, attitudes about abortion remain pretty much unchanged.

"In perhaps the biggest and costliest battle waged by conservative Christians, twenty years of fighting has won nothing. And our record is no better with other moral and social issues."

Ed Dobson: "Did the Moral Majority really make a difference? During the height of the Moral Majority, we were taking in millions of dollars a year. We published a magazine, organized state chapters, lobbied Congress, aired a radio program, and more. Did it work? Is the moral condition of America better because of our efforts? Even a casual observation of the current moral climate suggests that despite all the time, money, and energy – despite the political power – we failed. Things have not gotten better, they have gotten worse."

Stephen W. Carson is a working software engineer and a graduate student in the Department of Political Economy at Washington University in St. Louis. This was delivered on September 12, 2003 at the Friday Night at the Institute lecture series sponsored by the Francis Schaeffer Institute.

This is a fascinating article by Stephen Carlson. While I don't agree with everything here, it's far too interesting to keep to myself. It's quite a long article, so I'm breaking it into a few parts. If you're impatient, you can read the whole article at http://www.lewrockwell.com/carson/carson17.html.
****************************************************
Christians in Politics: The Return of the 'Religious Right'

by Stephen W. Carson
October 30, 2003

V. 1976 – The Year of the Evangelical

Fast forward to the 1970s, though during the intervening years evangelicals were quietly building the institutions that I listed earlier. 1976 was proclaimed by Newsweek to be "The Year of the Evangelical."

I think it is interesting to note that initially evangelicals were not necessarily committed to the Republican party. Cal Thomas remembers: "I had voted for Carter in 1976, believing him to be a serious churchman, a moral man, and a breath of fresh air following the disastrous Watergate years of the Nixon administration. When Carter had said, 'I'll never lie to you,' some mocked, but I had believed him."

Francis Schaeffer was decisive around this time in bringing evangelicals into the pro-life movement. In particular through his book, coauthored with C. Everett Koop, "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?" and an accompanying film and lecture tour.

A friend tells me of something Schaeffer said, by the way, about Christians and political alliances: "At a lecture he [Francis Schaeffer] gave at Covenant College in the fall of 1969 (that I attended as a junior in high school), he told the audience that Christians in the area of politics should be 'co-belligerent, but not allies.' In other words, while there were some issues with which we could be in agreement or disagreement, Christianity was NOT to be tied to a political party or parties."

VI. 1979–1989: The Moral Majority

When the Moral Majority was founded in 1979 they also intended to stay focused on issues of concern to Christians and not become too closely allied to particular political parties or candidates.

Here is the original platform of the Moral Majority:

   1. We believe in the separation of church and state.
   2. We are pro-life.
   3. We are pro-traditional family.
   4. We oppose the illegal drug traffic in America.
   5. We oppose pornography.
   6. We support the state of Israel and Jewish people everywhere.
   7. We believe that a strong national defense is the best deterrent to war.
   8. We support equal rights for women.
   9. We believe the Equal Rights Amendment is the wrong vehicle to obtain equal rights for women. We feel that the ambiguous and simplistic language of the amendment could lead to court interpretations that might put women in combat.

For fear of being misunderstood, we also articulated what we were not.

   1. We are not a political party.
   2. We do not endorse political candidates.
   3. We are not attempting to elect "born again" candidates.
   4. Moral Majority, Inc., is not a religious organization attempting to control the government.
   5. We are not a censorship organization.
   6. Moral Majority, Inc., is not an organization committed to depriving homosexuals of their civil rights as Americans.
   7. We do not believe that individuals or organizations that disagree with Moral Majority, Inc., belong to an immoral minority.

Stephen W. Carson is a working software engineer and a graduate student in the Department of Political Economy at Washington University in St. Louis. This was delivered on September 12, 2003 at the Friday Night at the Institute lecture series sponsored by the Francis Schaeffer Institute.