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

63 chapter four Mainstream Jesus Economics Identifying religious neoliberalism in the words of Acton Institute ideologues or mainstream evangelicals may be an important step in understanding its ideational nuances, but it is hardly proof that anything wider has evolved to influence public policy or the ethos about welfare in general. For that, a consideration of secular and mainstream media is needed. The challenge with such a focus, of course, is that one is unlikely to find broad, programmatic texts outlining how a merger of religion and neoliberalism would look—even if that were something editors would approve. Religious neoliberalism, if it exists at all in the mainstream, appears in a fragmentary form, and these fragments are glued to other ideas, inclinations, and biases. In short, while it is challenging to find religious neoliberalism in the mainstream, it is important to do so if one seeks to suggest that its presence is more than a fantasy of self-professed religious neoliberals. In the attempt to illuminate religious neoliberalism’s mainstream currents, this chapter focuses on the presentation of Habitat for Humanity within a variety of mainstream newspapers. Though once an obscure organization, Habitat is now referred to constantly in the press—so much so that there has been a noticeable decrease in the number of contextualizing background statements on the organization (since the average reader is already familiar with it). As one article analyzed for this book notes succinctly in place of a background explanation : “You [already] know Habitat for Humanity” (Toronto Star 2004). But what exactly does the public know about Habitat for Humanity? Surely, most know it is a housing provider that relies on volunteer labor. Surely, most know that its building sites provide a popular photo-op for politicians. And most probably know that it is affiliated with religious groups. Some may even know that its founder once deemed its approach “Jesus economics”—a faith-based alternative to government-funded housing. Many might also be aware that it refuses to take government money (even though it has softened this stance in recent years). It is impossible to determine exactly what knowledge and preconceived notions influence individuals’ perceptions of each Habitat reference 64 • chapter four (or any reference for that matter), and that is certainly not the intent here. But much, I contend, can be learned from systematically studying the way religious nonprofits like Habitat for Humanity are discursively portrayed in the media. In particular it is clear that, whatever the specific intent of Habitat volunteers, donors, or recipients, the organization is increasingly framed, in an almost commonsensical way, as an alternative to government efforts in the housing sector. Sometimes this framing is direct and ideological, as in a number of Wall Street Journal editorials, but more often than not it is subtle and implied, as in the hundreds of instances of Habitat being positively, and perhaps innocently, juxtaposed against the efforts of government, or of government being cast as a nefarious obstacle to the venerated organization. The observation that Habitat is framed in such a way widens the narrative of this book from a story of think-tank ideologues and true believers to one in which the ideas of such figures intersect with similar ideas that may have a different source of inspiration. Put simply, the almost unchallenged veneration of Habitat for Humanity—an openly religious, albeit pluralist, housing nonprofit that refuses to take government money—as a universally respected alternative to government-led housing efforts provides at least a clue that although religious neoliberalism as a systematic ideological project may be marginal, some of the assumptions flowing from this worldview are very present in the U.S. mainstream political sphere. habitat for humanity Habitat for Humanity was created in Americus, Georgia, in 1976 by Millard Fuller, an evangelical corporate lawyer who had grown disaffected with his life (Fuller and Scott 1980). He established the organization as one that relied on volunteers to help build and finance houses for those in need. In order to qualify for a house, recipients had to contribute labor toward its construction (initially five hundred hours, now as low as three hundred in some locations) and adhere to various credit and criminal background checks. To Fuller, the organization is built first and foremost upon religious principles. As he notes in a 2006 discussion of the organization: “I placed a sign in a window in Americus, Georgia, proclaiming the opening of Habitat for Humanity. This is God’s work. Habitat for Humanity is a...

Share