When Christian abolitionists created the Liberty Party in 1840
with hopes of enacting their agenda into law, it could fairly be
said that the party was a political arm of liberal Christians.
But to suggest, as former Republican senator John Danforth did
in a much-discussed New York Times essay last week, that
today’s “Republicans have transformed our party into the political
arm of conservative Christians,” is to confuse the relationships
within the GOP. Republican leaders are wooing conservative
Christians, not being controlled by them.
The argument that the Republican Party is no longer a secular
organization where conservative Christians find acceptance, but
rather an entity wholly owned and operated by the Christian right
is commonly made by the political left. What made it newsworthy
this time was that its source was a former Republican senator and
U.N. ambassador who also is an ordained Episcopal priest. Yet
Danforth’s standing as a highly accomplished Republican politician
and minister does not make the argument any more accurate.
“The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a
constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem
cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in
petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo
hooked up to a feeding tube,” Danforth wrote.
“The problem is not with people or churches that are politically
active,” he wrote. “It is with a party that has gone so far in
adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political
extension of a religious movement.”
Well, if three legislative initiatives are all it takes to prove
that a political party has been taken over by a sect, then clearly
the Democratic Party is wholly controlled by the radical
environmentalists. Or maybe it’s the radical feminists. Or the
lawyers. Or the unions. Pick one, and your argument would be just
as persuasive as Danforth’s, whose assertions just don’t hold up to
close scrutiny.
Yes, President Bush has urged passage of a constitutional
amendment banning same-sex marriage. But Vice President Dick Cheney
opposes an amendment, and the idea has gone nowhere in Congress
because of opposition from Republican leaders.
On stem cells, Bush did not support banning embryonic stem cell
research, nor do most Republicans. He issued an executive order
allowing the use federal funding for research on embryonic stem
cells — but restricting that funding to lines already in
existence. It was a compromise designed to please both sides. That
is hardly an example of a religious edict being imposed by the
chief mullah.
Congress did pass legislation ordering a federal court review of
Terri Schiavo’s case. But it did not order her to be kept alive,
nor did it send in the troops to rescue her. And the same week the
Schiavo review bill passed, House Republicans moved to expand
federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Danforth forgets that Senate Republicans elevated the pro-choice
Sen. Arlen Specter to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, through which all judicial nominations must pass, that
last year’s Republican National Convention exhibited a who’s who of
pro-choice GOP politicians, and that aside from former Attorney
General John Ashcroft, President Bush’s cabinet members can hardly
be described as evangelical Christian activists.
Neither are Republicans at the state level uniformly pushing a
conservative Christian agenda. Constitutional amendments banning
same-sex marriage have passed in many states — approved by the
people, not just GOP politicians. But in Iowa, Senate Republicans
last year killed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex
marriage and appear likely to do so again this year. In New
Hampshire, Republicans last week killed a bill that would make it a
crime to injure a fetus during the commission of a crime. In
California, pro-choice Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
backed last year’s bill to dedicate state funds to embryonic
stem-cell research.
Danforth’s other evidence that the GOP is now wholly controlled
by conservative Christians was that Republicans have put aside
their traditional fiscal conservatism in favor of a radical
religious agenda. To the extent that there is any such thing as a
tradition of fiscal conservatism in the GOP, it does not revolve
around reducing spending or the federal deficit. It is almost
wholly housed in the anti-tax movement, which has been wildly
successful since 2001. President Bush pushed tax cuts long before
he pushed an amendment banning same-sex marriage. And Republicans
have delivered, passing significant tax reduction and planning to
pass more.
Moreover, the secular GOP agenda for President Bush’s second
term — including Social Security reform, tort reform, changing
immigration law, and promoting democracy abroad — has not taken a
back seat to a religious agenda.
In the states, the big topics are mostly Medicaid reform and
taxes, not stem cells or same-sex marriage.
Danforth’s case is so erroneous because he made the mistake of
basing a sweeping assertion on a few high-profile instances. A
closer look at the GOP will show that he missed the herd for all
the loud elephants running ahead of it.
