HRC's religion
Submitted by Joseph Knippenberg on July 7, 2007 - 10:03am.
This NYT article offers an extended account of Hillary Rodham Clinton's Methodist faith, which seems to focus on forgiveness and social action. The one Bible verse mentioned (the reference to James, "faith without works is dead") was a staple of the 2004 Kerry campaign. And the talk about forgiveness seems to come at the expense of talk of sinfulness and human limitations.
In other words, HRC is very much the candidate of a religious Left inclined mostly to challenge us to be more "generous" in our social policy. No surprises here.
Technorati Tags: Bookmark/Search this post with:
Role of religion or her religion?
I guess I'm confused. There seems to be a shoulder shrugging in this post. Are you bothered that Hillary wants a role for religion in social policy? If so, are you on record against the religious right's push for a larger role in social policy?
If not are you simply bothered by the existence of a religious left and that they might want their views reflected by their government?
Neither
I've been a student of religion in politics for some twenty years. I have no problem in general with the influence of religion in politics, nor with the religious Left, which is simply coercive in a different way than the religious Right (one it shouldn't surprise you to learn I find a little less congenial, though I won't claim to be a big fan of any of the most prominent figures on the so-called religious Right).
If I had to choose among Democrats who are serious about their religion, I'd choose Obama over HRC in a heartbeat, since he's a bit more interesting and thoughtful. He's gotten somewhat less so as he's tried to appeal more to the Democratic base.
So it is simply politics then...
So your dislike of HRC and her faith is simply that you don't like her and/or her policies, then?
That's fine, but let's be clear on it rather than poo-poo the idea that her religious ideas might also motivate her. The attack if insincerity is a serious one in the world of politics and I just wanted to be clear on what you object to.
Politics
I never attacked her sincerity. I'm willing to believe that she's perfectly sincere.
I have more than a few quibbles with her "political theology," so to speak, and wish that she would spend more time thinking and talking about human finitude and sinfulness. But my disagreement with her "political theology" is basically a disagreement with the Christian (and, in the American context, religious) Left.
Good question
Good question, Expat. I've been sitting here trying to figure out why I tend to be much more suspicious of the sincerity of politicians affiliating themselves with the religious left than those tilting toward the religious right. Of course, I myself tend to the right, which means not only that I tend to like those candidates more, but also that their take on what Scripture sugegsts about public policy tends to make more sense to me. But I think there's more to it.
As a general rule, the politicians that ally themselves with the religious right seem to me to be fundamentally religious people whose religion informs and guides (for better or worse) their politics. Even if you don't much like Santorum, DeLay, or Huckabee, wouldn't you agree that's a fair description? Politicians that ally themselves with the religious left, on the other hand, seem to me to be fundamentally political people whose politics informs and guides (for better or worse) their religion. When HRC, Kerry, or Gore invoke religion, it just feels insincere to me.
I realize I'm not building an airtight objective case here, but this is my developing take on my own subjective impressions. Anyone else have thoughts?
I agree with that assessment
There is a small but vocal religious left, but in general the religion of the mainstream left seems to be deeply informed by the WASP principle of keeping it under the hat. (and it's also partly informed by the principle of Public Reason that we had a wonderful discussion of earlier - whether or not it's a compelling or internally consistent position, it's certainly operative in lefty politics) That's anathema to the religious right, who, in my experience, are more into evangelizing and fulfilling the Great Commission.
And, as much as my ideology (both political and religious) doesn't want me to this, I'll agree that, intuitive, the right seems more authentically religious.
I guess cuz one trusts the folks they know
Michael,
I appreciate you engaging on this because I find it so interesting that folks who are more than willing to allow politicians they agree with on social/fiscal policy wear their religion on their sleeve, but if politicians of the other stripe proclaim their beliefs, then only those folks are insincere.
I started my blog back in 2004 because I felt that President Bush was the most insincere Christian politician ever.
How could it be that Rick "small government" Santorum is sincere about how his faith affects his social policy, but Hillary Clinton can't be sincere when she is convinced that Jesus says that caring for the poor is a corporate responsibility?
I just don't understand...
I think that everyone's politics affects their views about the politicians and faith.
Another split
Another interesting aspect of the question, I think, is the evangelical/mainline split. I think that often those two factions distrust each other every bit as much as political liberals and conservatives, but will admit that distrust less, even to themselves. Which is probably why Curt (and I) find Carter more believable as someone whose faith truly guides his policies.
Some evangelicals see mainline churches as nearly completely devoid of real commitment to faith. I don't. I think there are a lot of really devoted Christians in mainline churches. But I do think mainline churches have a far greater percentage of what we used to call "Sunday-go-to-meetin" Christians, as well as sometimes a lack of theological vigor. And I think evangelical churches tend to struggle with different, but just as serious problems, like judgmentalism, exclusion, lack of care for the poor, etc. And doesn't that start to sound like the critiques the political left and right have for each other when it comes to religion?
Ironically enough, the two successful Democratic presidential candidates of the last forty years were both identified with evangelical, not mainline backgrounds. But only one of the five Republicans has been an evangelical (and, as you point out, many even doubt that).
To me, one of the interesting things about the recent rise in activity by the religious left is that for the first time it is starting to include a large proportion of evangelicals. Although I disagree with many of the public policies they espouse, I am hopeful that it will lead to some increased understanding between the two sides. It's harder to stereotype a movement when your friend across the pew is part of it.
For the record, if anyone cares, I am a huge, huge "hawk" as far as the church's responsibility towards the poor (and how poorly she is fulfilling it), but a "dove" when it comes to increased government spending in that area.
That was a great analysis
Your observation of the distrust between mainlines and evangelicals is absolutely spot-on, and your point about the religious affiliation of (R)s and (D)s was very interesting.
Re: the evangelical left: it certainly is small but booming. (see, eg: the emergent church movement)
Also, though, I find it a wonderful development that righty evangelicals are getting more aware of the world outside America. They're really grappling with the ramifications and effects of dire poverty. They don't by the institutional approach, and so I differ with them on that, but it's great that there's a growing consensus on the obligations of the richer countries to aid the poorer.
The left buy the gvt solutions, the right buys the private solutions (charity, etal), but that's a minor detail in a larger convergence, IMHO. It's really an interesting time for the evangelical movement.
To me the issue is less
To me the issue is less about sincerity, it's more one of priorities.
For example, Hillary does not seem to be motivated primarily by her faith, but by her political philosophy. True, her political philosophy is informed by her faith, but I've never gotten the impression that her faith was the prime mover in her life. Part of the reason for this is that she has almost never talked about her faith in public and it is only since she started running for president that her faith has become known. I realize this is perhaps the result of an unfair prejudice on my part against people who are uncomfortable talking about their faith, but there it is. In my mind, if something is important to you, you talk about it, especially if you are a politician.
I think those on the left are, generally speaking, less comfortable with their faith. I think some of this has to do with the culture of the left, which for a long time has criticized religion in general and conservative Christianity in particular. When your "base" is in some cases virulently anti-religious, it's difficult to own up to your own religious beliefs. Those on the right have the opposite problem: it's sometimes hard for those on the right to own up to agnostic beliefs because the "base" is so religious.
There are of course, politicians on the left who are more comfortable with their religion. Obama and Carter come to mind. They are clearly comfortable with their faith and as a result, sometimes they seem more "sincere", than those politicians who seem to have arrived late to the game. Even if I disagree with Obama and Carter, their faith seems very genuine.
Mainline faith
Folks in the mainline are generally disinclined to witness. Obama, who attends a United Church of Christ (that is, mainline) church, is an exception, perhaps explained by his adult conversion and the more evangelical nature of black churches, even those affiliated with mainline denominations.
GWB is another exception: his religious background is a mainline mishmosh (he's been a member of Methodist, Episcopal, and Presbyterian churches, and professes to be unable to explain the differences--not as unusual as it sounds). But his "rebirth" comes out of the small-group movement, which is more confessional and demonstrative.
HRC, GWB, and OMG
There is a least some cause for suspicion when we hear a faith-based rationale from the Left. Whether it was fair or not, the Left was associated with rejecting any religious motive or basis for political decision-making. Then the press started giving time to the religious vote during the Bush election. Democratic strategists starting talking about how to capture this voting block. George Lakoff made a name for himself teaching the Left how to frame their rhetoric. His Moral Politics has an entire chapter, "Two Models of Christianity", detailing how religion can be framed according to ideology.
The problem is that ideology and theology are functionally similar but inherently antithetical. This my issue with HRC, GWB, and [name any politician here]. Make my day and name an exception, but as far as I'm concerned the whole lot of them are ideological statists, whether they want to coerce our charity toward the poor or save the world with democracy. In either case, they see the State as a messiah, which is contrary to authentic Christianity.
Agreed--Except for Last Sentence
Nobody sees the state as messiah and reasonable dialogue can't be advanced in the face of that sort of conversation-stopping rhetoric.
What I think you are really saying here, and I tend to agree with you, is that it is hard to hold to authentic principles--be they Christian, Muslim, Socialist, Feminist, or what-have-you--whilst moving up the political ladder, what with all the compromises involved in sequestering donations and securing votes. And by including both HRC and GWB in your discussion, you are wisely pointing to the fact that neither party holds a monopoly on this dilemma, just as neither party holds the deed on faith.
In other words, there is cause for suspicion whenever we hear faith-based rationale from any politician, of any party. And Lakoff is, of course, not alone amongst political strategists in suggesting that manipulating faith can secure votes. As he points out, he learned it from the right. We in the religious left are to blame for allowing ourselves to be manipulated this way, just like our right wing sisters and brothers before us.
Dustin Kidd
Left, Right, and Wrong
I don't mean to stop conversation with my rhetoric—it can't be regarded as partisan, can it?—but I do mean to call certain ideological pretensions messianic. Christ called upon the Church to care for the poor; He did not call for Christians to vote for laws to coerce others to care for the poor. Christ called upon the Church to disciple the nations; He did not call upon Christians to establish a particular form of government by force. This is not conversation-stopping rhetoric. It may be presenting the matter in an unaccustomed light, but it is perfectly legitimate to do so. If politicians are going to call upon Christ to back up their agenda, let's see them do so without replacing Him with a secular State.
Drop the Messiah Metaphors
Believing that social policy can make a difference by improving the lives of the poor (and middle class) is far from confusing the state with a messiah. If it's a question of what the left actually believes, then I am telling you the left does not believe that the state is a messiah (though I'm sure there's an individual exception or two out there).
Let me follow that up by saying that I have similarly accused libertarians and other strict-free-market capitalists of beliving the market can act as a Messiah (including you and Will). I was wrong to do so because it really is so much needless rhetoric and somewhere along the way either you or Will corrected me and said that this economic viewpoint does not view the market as a messiah. I'll take you at your word if you take me at mine. Once you declare that the left believes the state is messiah, then you've effectively decided that I'm not capable of reasoned approaches to policy formation and that, my friend, is a conversation stopper. Let's drop the messiah metaphors.
Dustin Kidd
More than a Metaphor
No offense and granting respect where respect is due, the interpretation of certain ideological pretensions as "messianic" is not mere rhetoric. The sources escape me at the moment, but I believe the term "political messianism" has currency outside of partisan disputes and rhetorical grandstanding.
I am using the term more narrowly to refer to ideologies that take a function that is proper to the Christian Church and give it to the State. This usage is legitimate so long as one has the freedom to think within a Christian worldview. The Church is referred to as the "Body of Christ". This is metaphorical, but is more than mere metaphor. There is a real identity between the Church and Christ Himself. Thus, those functions (e.g., mercy ministry and spreading the message of God's Kingdom), which are proper to the Church, are part of the messianic work of Christ Himself. When the State takes them over, it is acting as a messiah.
Furthermore, a messiah is a savior. The Jews, including the apostles themselves, were expecting a political messiah in Jesus Christ, someone who would liberate them from Roman tyranny. Part of the reason He was sentenced to death is that He didn't liberate the Jews by force, all the while claiming to be the Messiah. Two millennia later, we still have Christians who want to make a political savior out of Christianity.
To the extent that I have Libertarian or free market leanings, it is motivated by trying to avoid political messianism. That is, I don't see the market as messiah, but neither do I see the State as messiah. I don't have faith in the free market and don't have faith in the State. For every market failure there is an equal and opposite government failure. I'm not a Utopian. Some things will not be set right in our lifetime and trying to fix things by force more often than not only makes them worse. I believe it is the Church that has been given the responsibility to alleviate poverty and suffering, but as Christ said, "The poor you will always have with you."
We obviously have disagreements on these points, but my use of "messiah" is not mere rhetoric. I hope you can at least see the logic of my usage. I don't think you're incapable of reasoned approaches to policy formation, but do you think that your reasoning is beyond criticism? I'm assuming—just because I think you're reasonable—that you will entertain a conversation outside of your usual paradigm for thinking about these matters.
I am glad to keep the
I am glad to keep the conversation open, but it's hard for me to feel respected in that conversation if you've decided on my behalf that my political views amount to political messianism. You're making an assertion about my beliefs over and above what I am earnestly and honestly telling you about them.
But your response was illuminating for me because it clarified where you are coming from. Although I am a Christian, and my faith informs the views that I express at this website, I don't share any of your views about particular functions that are proper only to the church. Christianity calls us to help the poor, but that doesn't mean that function is proper to the church. Or, more to the point, I don't believe it means that even as I respect the fact that you do.
Dustin Kidd
The Right Can Be Suspicious Too
In the spirit of political ecumenicism, I should balance what I said earlier about being suspicious of the Left's use of religion. Given the Straussian influence on neoconservatism, I would say Strauss' view of the Noble Lie should give us pause before we take any and all conservative religious warrants for policy.
You don't have to be a Straussian
To take seriously the "political utility" of religion.
And, in my humble (but reasonably well-informed judgment) the Straussian influence on neo-conservatives (most of whom are frankly and openly secular) is overstated, while the religious folks in the conservative coalition are sincere.
Utility in Context
The difference between a Straussian and a paleo- or theo-conservative is, as I'm sure you would agree, that the latter see the utility inextricably connected to the verity of religion, whereas Strauss and some(?) Straussians see only utility.
I defer to you on the relative influence of Strauss on contemporary neoconservatism. I had a bad experience once with a member of a Straussian Truth Squad and the last book I read on the subject was Anne Norton's Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire.
Anne Norton's book
Is perfectly awful. My review can be found on the Ashbrook site under my name. Cliff Orwin also reviewed for the CLAREMONT REVIEW OF BOOKS.
Link to Knippenberg review of Norton
Thanks, Joseph. That's an excellent review. Here's the link if anyone else is interested in reading it.
And here's the link to Orwin's review as well.
Tin-can messiah
I think you give politicians too much credit in saying any of them see the state as messiah. This would imply that they are motivated by ideology. Politicans are motivated by getting the most votes and both sides exploit the American love affair with loud, in-your face, shallow phariseeism to get elected (the dems have only recently woken up to this, knowing their hippy base is getting old and less ideological). People vote with their pocket books, not because they want to square their political views with their faith. School prayer, gay marriage, etc. are issues you can support and still afford your house, two cars, and a boat. It is easier to come up with a comfortable political ideology and make your beliefs square with it. The state is not the messiah, but if it has a responsibility in protecting us from moral decline (which on some level it does), then it has to have some role in aiding the poor, which costs money and is therefore less exciting to middle-class America.
There is regrettably too
There is regrettably too much truth in what you say, but I also think it is too easy to become cynical. I don't pretend to know where to draw the line, but I think we are better served by putting our respective opponents in the best possible light and criticizing that. While money and power will always be strong incentives for most of us, they don't exhaust the motives for everyone; including the people with whom we strongly disagree. It is a mistake to reduce social analysis to economics. Ideology and religion affect what and how we value things and therefore are a determinant of economic behavior itself.
We don't learn much about policy formation from the argument
Either side of the debate can claim this is just what they are doing, whether it is increasing police patrols in poor neighborhoods and eliminating destructive welfare policies or building affordable housing and providing food stamps. The question is, in which way is the State best suited for serving the poor in the interest of preventing moral decline? I intend to argue later that coercive charity—the only charity the State as State can offer—is an inherent contradiction that leads to all kinds of ill-effects due to inescapable market forces and the adaptability of human nature.
coercive government
At it's core, all government action is to an extent coercive. Why should we single out "coercive charity" as being wrong? Of course, much wisdom is needed in how it is used, but I think it is myopic to single out government charity as being bad when some much of what government does is coercive. As long as the almighty market is not making sure that everyone has food, shelter, and medical care, might it be the government's job to step in. Or is it in the best interest of the market to have all of these underachievers running around?
Charity Cannot Be Coerced
If the War on Poverty is an index, we should be highly suspicious of "coercive charity". It is in no one's best interest to have "all these underachievers running around", but my point is that coercive charity can do very little about it. In fact, despite dumping more and more money into the Great Society, poverty increased and the quality of education decreased. I plan to argue that part of the reason for this is that the "charity" was coercive and, thus, not charity at all.
btw, I appreciate your acknowledgment that all government action is coercive. That is still a contestable point on this blog, but I happen to agree with you.
The Aporia of Hospitality
Dustin,
I have had a few private conversations with Will on the aim of this blog, and while I know he discourages "meta" talk, I would suggest we be more careful about whether or not we "feel respected" by what others say about our views here. I could just as easily turn around and say I don't feel respected by your rather hasty assessment that my analysis is "conversation-stopping", or for that matter, "disrespectful of others". That makes it seem like my views should not even be allowed in a reasonable conversation. How am I supposed to feel about that?
In any case, I don't care how I feel about that and while I do perhaps care a little bit more about how you feel, overall I'd rather stick to the point and avoid appeals to emotion.
Regarding the proper functions of various institutions, we have wandered a bit off topic, but I think it's a good one to pursue and if I have time—or, if you would like to start another post on this particular topic—I would like to pick it up later.
Nice Word Choice
I confess, I had to look it up. But it's a great word that does capture the ideological distance between us.
Aporially yours,
Dustin Kidd
Post new comment