In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

262 10 The Personal (Is Not?) the Political The Role of Religion in the Presidency of George W. Bush Joseph M. Knippenberg It is impossible to discuss the presidency of George W. Bush without taking into account the role that his religion plays in it. Pollsters have consistently found a “God gap” in the electorate, with frequent church-goers (who tend to be traditionalist) overwhelmingly approving of him and voting for him and those who rarely if ever darken the door of a sanctuary almost equally overwhelmingly opposed.1 There is a perception, in other words, that religious traditionalists have “one of their own” in the White House. Commentators—especially those critical of the president—see untoward religious influence in a wide range of policies, from efforts to limit government support of stem cell research and to involve faith-based organizations in the provision of social services to a “moralistic” and “universalistic ” approach to foreign policy that seems to focus a great deal of attention on lands traditionally associated with the Bible.2 Others accuse President An earlier version of this chapter appeared as “A President, Not a Preacher,” Claremont Review of Books (Fall 2004). 1. A characteristic study is John C. Green et al., “The American Religious Landscape and the 2004 Presidential Vote: Increased Polarization,” available at http://pewforum.org/publications/surveys /postelection.pdf. This study distinguishes between “traditionalist,” “centrist,” and “modernist ” adherents of major Christian faith traditions (evangelical and mainline Protestants, and Roman Catholics), finding that Bush did extremely well among traditionalists, reasonably well among centrists, and poorly among modernists, not to mention those who are secular. Some have argued that this gap is closing as the 2008 election nears. See, e.g., “Is the ‘God Gap’ Closing?” a transcript of a conversation with Amy Sullivan and E. J. Dionne Jr., available at http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=171. 2. Kevin Phillips’ American Theocracy (New York: Viking, 2006) is a case in point here. Other works that take a similar tack are Esther Kaplan, With God On Their Side (New York: New Press, The Personal (Is Not?) the Political 263 Bush of speaking in a sort of “code,” using religiously inflected words and phrases that are intelligible only to the evangelical elect.3 In this chapter I explore the personal and political dimensions of George W. Bush’s religiosity, showing both how he manages to distinguish the two and how his faith—so central to his character and self-understanding— cannot help but influence his political speeches and deeds. I do not mean hereby to argue that Bush is a “theocrat” who illegitimately imposes his religious views on an unwilling populace, but rather only that his presidency cannot be understood without taking into account the spiritual resources upon which he draws. I shall also argue that his understanding of religion in politics and the rhetoric he uses to express it are squarely within the tradition of American civil religion. I will proceed largely by examining what President Bush has to say about the policies he pursues and his reasons for pursuing them, defending this focus on speeches for three reasons. First, those who demand that political leaders and other advocates offer “public reasons” for the policies they favor—assuming thereby that anything explicitly or implicitly religious is “private” and hence inadmissible in public debate and discussion—must in the first instance fairly examine the reasons offered. If they are “rational” and hence in principle accessible to the unaided reason of any human being , then they have passed an important test. One can argue with them and find them wanting, but they are not inadmissible or impermissible on the argument—now revealed as faulty—that they are not “public.” As I shall demonstrate, President Bush’s “religious” statements pass this test. As I put it in another context, he understands himself to be “a president, not a preacher.”4 Whether this is an appropriate test is a question I do not need to answer for the purposes of this discussion.5 2004), and Michelle Goldberg, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism (New York: W. W. Norton, 2006). In The Theocons: Secular America under Siege (New York: Doubleday, 2006), Damon Linker makes a similar argument. For a comprehensive and critical review of this body of argumentation, see Ross Douthat, “Theocracy! Theocracy! Theocracy!” First Things 165 (August/ September 2006), 23–30. I have written about these matters in “Beltway Bigot,” American Enterprise 17 (July/August 2006): 7; “Kevin Phillips’s...

Share