Related articles and links |  1 of 4

"Religion and Politics in America: Faith, Culture, and Strategic Choices," by Robert Booth Fowler and Allen D. Hertzke (Westview Press, 287 pp.; $55, hardcover; $18.95, paper).

"On the Eve of the Millennium: The Future of Democracy Through an Age of Unreason," by Conor Cruise O'Brien (Free Press, 167 pp.; $12, paper).

"Political Religion: A Liberal Answers the Question, 'Should Politics and Religion Mix?' " by Charles R. Stith (Abingdon, 160 pp.; $14.95, paper).

"Saints as Citizens: A Guide to Public Responsibilities for Christians," by Timothy R. Sherratt and Ronald P. Mahurin (Baker/ Center for Public Justice, 123 pp.; $7.99, paper).

"Building a Community of Citizens: Civil Society in the Twenty-first Century," ed. by Don E. Eberly (University Press of America/Commonwealth Foundation, 376 pp.; $75, hardcover; $29.50, paper).

When even the textbooks refer to the Christian Right's style of politics as "angry," it is clear that the movement has an image problem. That revealing word choice, which occurs twice in Robert Booth Fowler and Allen D. Hertzke's impressive survey text, "Religion and Politics in America," speaks volumes about the popular perception of Christian Right politics as sub-Christian in spirit. It also reminds us that, while performing commendably on specific issues and in practical politics, the Christian Right is not positioned to address the problems of increasing polarization and civic disintegration in modern America.

Fowler and Hertzke's solid text can be used as a measuring stick to examine how religion and politics get along in contemporary America. It has a few disappointing omissions: its content is almost strictly limited to national rather than state or local politics, and it concentrates solely on how religion affects politics, never (except for one brief reference to James Davison Hunter's theory on the coming liberalization of evangelicalism) on how political involvement affects religious practice. But, on the whole, this book is a reliable benchmark of where the action is--and where it isn't. Thus it is striking that Fowler and Hertzke need 40 pages to describe religious politics and the courts, while they have nothing to say about the role of religious believers as reconcilers in the political realm.

Some of the discussions in the book suggest the reasons why believers spend so much time in court and so little time in peacemaking. Fowler and Hertzke stress that many of the key religion-and-politics battles are not resolved in Congress or in state legislatures, but argued forcibly before the judicial branch. The authors' superb summary of church-and-state cases in the Supreme Court over the last 60 years lays bare the Court's judicial hairsplitting and strained logic, which inevitably leads to further legal and political haggling. Furthermore, they note that, despite the strength of the Christian Right and the continuing statistical preeminence of Christianity, the defining characteristic of American culture today is a "moral pluralism" in which no single religious group can exert dominant power.

The impact even of strongly committed Christians in politics is muted by the diversity of their views, with figures like Sen. Mark Hatfield, Rep. Tony Hall (both politically moderate evangelicals), and African-American congressman and clergyman Floyd Flake counterbalancing more conservative impulses.

Fowler and Hertzke keep the book consistently balanced and dispassionate (which is why the aforementioned references to fundamentalist "anger" stick out so sharply) and leave the moralizing to others. Yet their survey of the landscape induces a sense of pessimism. Amidst the current polarization of American public discourse, the most important political battle facing us today may not be between Left and Right, but over whether we will be able to maintain the terms of engagement without which we can no longer have a productive debate at all. Christians should be ideally suited to serve not just as combatants in the culture wars but as bridgebuilders; yet Fowler and Hertzke find no one positioned to play this role. Thus arises the unspoken yet pervasive pessimism, not just about the prospects for effective religious-based politics but also about the possibility of getting activists with such a wide range of views--most of them claiming to be acting as Christians--to talk with each other, let alone work together.

next page... |  1 of 4

share this page

April 29 1996, Vol. 40, No. 5