Friday Photo

Here is a photo I took recently of the flowering cherry blossoms behind the unemployment line statue that is part of the FDR memorial.

Down Ticket

While most of the political world remains focused on the presidential campaign, important lower-level elections have also been held in recent weeks. In several states, high-powered primaries have pitted sitting representatives against each other since redistricting in various states merged districts. Perhaps most notably, Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich, an ultra-liberal who twice ran for president, was defeated in Ohio earlier this month by fellow Democratic Representative Marcy Kaptur (who will face Republican nominee Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher in November). Another key election occurred a week later in Alabama. Roy Moore, former Chief Justice of the Alabama State Supreme Court, won the Republican primary as he seeks to win back his old job as the head of the state's highest court. I have documented problems with Moore's actions and rhetoric in my first book (For God's Sake, Shut Up!) and several blog posts (see here, here, here, here, and here). I also dealt with Moore in an academic study in the K.B. Journal and a column in the Birmingham News. Moore, who was kicked off the court in 2003 for violating the order of a federal court, was badly defeated in Republican gubernatorial primaries in 2006 and 2010. Yet, Republicans in the state now want to put him back on the bench in the same job where he was removed for not following the law. Moore's recent rhetoric, which is clearly drawing on confessional politics, seems to suggest he has not changed much since his last tenure on the bench. Moore is one of the best examples of why state supreme court justices should not be chosen by partisan elections (but instead appointed as they are in some states). Hopefully the voters of Alabama will carefully consider the merits of the candidates this fall instead of simply voting for Moore due to his party affiliation. If they do, they will not return a still unrepentant Moore to the state's highest court.

Moore's strength likely came from support of conservative evangelicals--who also lifted former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum to victory in the Yellowhammer State presidential primary that same day. Other polling results about Alabama evangelicals should raise concerns about the current political attitudes of evangelicals. As I noted in a previous post, a poll by Public Policy Polling found that a large number of Alabama Republicans thought Obama was a Muslim and only a few thought he was a Christian--and evangelicals were even more likely to say "Muslim" and less likely to say "Christian." Other results from the poll paint an image of conservative evangelicals as adopting harsher positions than conservative non-evangelicals. While non-evangelicals only supported Alabama's controversial immigration law by a 53-34 percent margin, evangelicals offered support for it by a whopping 72-17 percent margin. The law is currently being challenged by some religious leaders. Another poll question asked Republicans about their opinion of radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who at the time was embroiled in a controversy over his highly slanderous and uncivil remarks about a female Georgetown law student. While more non-evangelicals held a unfavorable opinion of Limbaugh (47%) than held a favorable one (41%), more evangelicals held a favorable opinion of him (58%) than held an unfavorable one (27%). These three results--opinions on Obama's faith, the immigration law, and Limbaugh--are a disturbing pattern. Somehow evangelicals are adopting harsher and less civil positions than their non-evangelical counterparts. The consequences of confessional politics clearly are not pretty.

Friday Photo

This week the cherry blossoms in Washington, D.C. reached their peak bloom (at a remarkably early date) so I went into D.C. to see them. This is the 100th anniversary of the D.C. cherry blossoms. Here is a photo I took of the blossoms and the Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial. It is a great memorial, but is particularly stunning with the blossoms as they surround it.

Trouble in the Land of Lincoln

Earlier this week, I noted the poll results in Alabama and Mississippi that demonstrated the depth of confessional politics in those two states (see post here). In both states, large numbers of Republicans said they believed President Barack Obama was a Muslim while only a few correctly noted he was a Christian. The results helped explain why former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, whose religion is also viewed suspiciously by many evangelicals, came in third place in both states behind evangelical stars Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. Romney again demonstrated his strength in the primary campaign with an easy win Tuesday in Illinois. Although he won most demographics, he still lost among evangelicals, those who believe the religious beliefs of the candidates matter, and those who attend religious services more than once a week. Those groups of voters, however, were not enough to lift Santorum in the Midwestern blue state. Yet, even in Illinois the problem of confessional politics can be seen. A poll by Public Policy Polling found that among Illinois Republicans, only 24 percent thought Obama is a Christian while 39 percent said he is a Muslim (and 37 percent said they were not sure). Again, evangelicals were more likely to call Obama "Muslim" and less likely to call him "Christian." Although the results are not nearly as dramatic as what was found in Alabama and Mississippi, they are perhaps more surprising since the state is well outside of the "Bible belt." The suspicions about Obama's faith--and the related concerns about Romney's religion--are among the most problematic consequences of confessional politics. The pride of Illinois--Abraham Lincoln (the photo is one I took of a statute of him in the National Cathedral)--would surely be troubled by such religiously-motivated attacks on opponents (as his second inaugural speech would suggest).

Double Trouble

Last week's Republican presidential primaries in Alabama and Mississippi demonstrated the continuing impact of confessional politics. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney found himself in third place in both Southern states--behind former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Despite being the overwhelming frontrunner, Romney is still struggling to seal the deal with key Republican segments. His loses in Alabama and Mississippi--along with earlier loses in South Carolina, Tennessee, and Oklahoma--are the most dramatic signs that Romney is still struggling to convince conservative evangelicals that it is okay to vote for a Mormon. As has occurred in other states (see post here), Romney did much better with non-evangelicals than with evangelicals. In Alabama, Romney performed eleven percentage points better with non-evangelicals than evangelicals, while Santorum did ten points better with evangelicals than non-evangelicals and Gingrich did seven points better with evangelicals than non-evangelicals. Similarly, in Mississippi, Romney performed six points better with non-evangelicals, while Santorum did twelve points better with evangelicals and Gingrich did three points better with evangelicals. Even though Romney won among non-evangelicals in both states, he had little chance of winning overall since evangelicals made up 80 percent of the vote in Alabama and 83 percent of the vote in Mississippi. With these demographics, Romney should not have raised expectations in the two states. After first downplaying the states as being like an "away game," Romney then predicted he would win at least one of the states.

Romney's campaign should have seen the improbability of winning in Alabama or Mississippi and not wasted so much time and money in the states. A poll by Public Policy Polling just before the primary asked Republicans in the two states what they thought President Barack Obama's religion was. The shocking results should have persuaded the Romney campaign they had no hope in the two states. In Alabama, only 14 percent said they thought Obama was a Christian, while a whopping 45 percent said Muslim (and 41 percent said they were not sure). In Mississippi, the results were even worse: only 12 percent said Christian and 52 percent said Muslim (while 36 percent said they were not sure). In both states, evangelicals were even less likely to say "Christian" and even more likely to say "Muslim." The doubting of Obama's faith and the claim that he is a Muslim (and therefore should not be president) is one of the worst current symptoms of confessional politics. Even more than Mormons, Muslims are disenfranchised by confessional politics. The PPP results should trouble not only the Obama and Romney campaigns, but also all who are concerned about religion and politics in the U.S.

Friday Photo

Here is an inappropriate Easter candy option I saw at the grocery store--chocolate crosses. I do not think that is what Jesus meant when he said to daily carry your cross. Apparently the message of the season here is: Jesus died a horrific death but at least that means we get cheap chocolate. Lord have mercy!

Ethics Daily on Wilbur Award

Ethics Daily ran a nice article today about my book on confessional politics winning the Wilbur Award for best nonfiction book from the Religion Communicators Council (see post here to learn about the award and other winners). The article includes a few comments from me about the award. It also notes that the award presentation next month happens to come at about the same time as the release of the paperback edition of the book, which includes a new afterword about the 2012 campaign.

Good Words on Words

The Washington Post today had a couple of great columns about the importance and power of rhetoric. Both do a good job of countering poor political claims and will hopefully help people think more about the importance of language. Michael Gerson, a former George W. Bush speechwriter, penned a piece criticizing Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum for attacking President Barack Obama's use of teleprompters. Here are a few highlights:

On this issue, Santorum cannot be accused of hypocrisy. His Super Tuesday victory speech, delivered in Steubenville, Ohio, did not make use of a teleprompter - or any other form of rhetorical discipline. It was a 20-minute ramble of lame jokes, patriotic platitudes and half-developed campaign themes. ... He vaguely honored Ronald Reagan for saying inspiring words, without bothering to contribute any of his own. ... The craft of rhetoric involves the humility of repeated revision. ... But a prospective president should care about rhetoric for deeper reasons: Because language and leadership are inseparable. Because history is not shaped or moved by mediocre words.

Santorum is not alone among Republicans attacking Obama for using a teleprompter, so hopefully Gerson will be able to talk some sense into his fellow Republicans (some of whom ironically even attack Obama for using a teleprompter while themselves using a teleprompter!). The art of speechwriting should be respected because words can powerfully change the world.

The other good column on rhetoric today was by David Lane, who took politicians and activists to task for overusing the "war" metaphor. Here are a couple of highlights:

There are, of course, plenty of real wars raging around the world; in some of them, Americans are dying. But the folks back home, busy with their election-year quarrels, have little interest in discussing such matters. No, what the metaphor-mongers are referring to is political disagreement among citizens of the same democracy. And the last time I checked, most of those disagreements were being expressed through peaceful means - and neither side in any of these debates had a monopoly on the truth. ... For both parties, the goal is to encourage Americans to think of one another as enemies and, eventually, to hate and fear one another. ... When you think of someone as an enemy, it's harder to contemplate trusting, respecting or cooperating with him or her. Indeed, those behaviors start to look like treason, instead of what they really are: the minimum requirements of democratic life.

Amen! He is right that our use of the "war" metaphor is hurting our civic dialogue. I made similar arguments about the danger of inappropriate, violent metaphors in my book For God's Sake, Shut Up! Together these two columns remind us of the importance and power of words. We should respect language and those who work to carefully craft it and we must be careful with the rhetorical choices we make.

Ethics Daily Skype Interview

Ethics Daily posted a Skype video interview with me about the role religion is playing the Republican presidential campaign. I spoke with Cliff Vaughn, managing editor and media producer for Ethics Daily, about confessional politics and religious trends in last week's votes on Super Tuesday. You can watch the interview below. With Alabama and Mississippi voting tomorrow--along with Hawaii--we can expect to see more focus on religion in the campaign. Due to the impact of confessional politics, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's Mormon faith is expected to hurt him--especially with evangelicals--in tomorrow's Southern contests. Not surprisingly, the Republican presidential hopefuls increased their religious appeals as they sought votes on Super Tuesday--and are continuing such efforts as they look for political redemption tomorrow. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, who has been bringing together former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's 2008 coalition of white evangelicals and blue-collar workers--even went on stage during the worship service of a Baptist megachurch in Tennessee the Sunday before Super Tuesday as he looked for political salvation. Santorum easily won Tennessee two days later thanks to the overwhelming support of the huge evangelical turnout. Santorum also made sectarian arguments as he claimed that the concept of equality comes only "from the Judeo-Christian ethic" and not from other religions or cultures. Meanwhile, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich sought out voters by increasing his anti-Islam rhetoric. Gingrich also campaigned at churches in Georgia. Along with Mormonism, Islam is a common target of confessional politics). Clearly, Vaughn and I only scratched the surface of this topic, but I hope you find the interview interesting and informative.

Brian Kaylor: Skype Interivew from EthicsDaily on Vimeo.

Friday Photo

Here is a photo I took of our dog recently making a sharp turn as he chased down a frisbee.

Wilbur Award

The Religion Communicators Council announced the list of Wilbur Award winners they will honor at their annual awards banquet in April. My book, Presidential Campaign Rhetoric in an Age of Confessional Politics, will receive the Wilbur Award for best nonfiction book. Winners in other categories this year include: 60 Minutes, CBS News Sunday Morning, Entertainment Weekly, Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, and The Help. Last year's nonfiction book winner was the impressive book American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us by Robert Putnam of Harvard and David Campbell of Notre Dame. My book previously won the Bruce E. Gronbeck Political Communication Research Award from the Carl Couch Center for Social & Internet Research (see post here).

Baptists, White House Officials Discuss Policy Issues

Ethics Daily ran my latest article today, which is entitled "Baptists, White House Officials Discuss Policy Issues." It covers a meeting yesterday when a delegation of Baptist pastors and denominational leaders visited the White House (the photo is one I took in August while on the White House lawn). Hopefully the dialogue sparked consideration of moral public policies. The event was similar to a briefing I attended at the White House last August (see post here).

Returning to Vomit

There have been several noteworthy responses to Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum's vomitous attacks on John F. Kennedy's famous speech on religion and politics (see post here about Santorum's attacks). Santorum's main opponent for conservative evangelical votes, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, took a different approach and praised Kennedy's speech. Perhaps being a historian helped Gingrich actually understand and appreciate Kennedy's speech. Gingrich called it a "remarkable speech" and rightly explained that Kennedy was declaring "that his first duty as president would be to do the job of president, and I think that's correct." Gingrich's response is surprising since he often joins Santorum in utilizing confessional politics, which is the polar opposite perspective on religion and politics. Kennedy's niece, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, penned a column defending Kennedy's speech on religion and politics. Townsend, former lieutenant governor of Maryland, argued:

Either Santorum doesn’t know his American history or he is purposefully rewriting it. ... Can he be so ignorant of what Kennedy actually said and what the pope has actually preached? Or is he using his faith for political purposes? ... Santorum is encouraging division and intolerance.

Townsend correctly notes Santorum's erroneous history and politics. Similarly, USA Today took Santorum to task in an editorial:

His misinterpretation, so transparently flawed, is troubling in at least a couple of ways. First, it is the latest example of hyperbole and exaggeration to foster division and resentment in American politics. ... Far from banishing religion from the public square, government leaders at all levels have shown a willingness to publicly embrace religion in recent years, a good bit more so than in Kennedy's time.

Noting problems with the implications of Santorum's philosophy, C. Welton Gaddy, a Baptist minister and president of the Interfaith Alliance, argued:

Surely, Mr. Santorum's jarring attack on President Kennedy's support for religious freedom should be a wake-up call for all of us who care about freedom, politics, government, and religion. At stake in his words is a danger to the American way of life that has allowed religion to thrive in this nation without becoming entangled with and divided by the government.

Many other good critiques of Santorum's inaccurate and unhealthy perspective have been published in recent days.

Although Santorum continues to defend his perspective on religion and politics, he has expressed regret for saying Kennedy's speech made him want to "vomit." Santorum said that he wished he could take "that particular line back." Although the line was definitely over the top, his perspective is still quite problematic even without it. I have studied and written about Kennedy's speech in several pieces, including my book on confessional politics, an academic study in the journal Communication Studies, and a column in the Houston Chronicle. Hopefully Santorum will think before vomiting out additional inaccurate attacks on Kennedy's speech. And hopefully his remarks will inspire more people to actually read and seriously consider what Kennedy actually said.

Romney's Struggles with White Evangelicals

Even as former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney leads the Republican presidential race and is regaining momentum with wins in multiple states this week, his campaign should remain concerned about his continuing struggles to win over white evangelical voters. If Romney won the support of this key Republican voting bloc as well as he does other primary voters, this race would already be over. Even if he does clinch the nomination, he will need to convince white evangelical voters to turn out in November if he is going to have a prayer of winning the White House. Although Romney overwhelmingly won non-evangelical voters in each of the seven states that had entrance or exit polls (six states did not have polls), he lost among white evangelicals in five of those states. Even in Romney’s victories, his support among evangelicals lagged behind that he received among voters in general. Here is a comparison of his support with white evangelicals (first percentage) and with other voters (last percentage):

Iowa (2nd): 14% (3rd, Santorum won with 33%); 38% (won)
New Hampshire (won): 31% (won); 40% (won)
South Carolina (2nd): 21% (2nd, Gingrich won with 45%); 38% (won)
Florida (won): 36% (2nd, Gingrich won with 38%); 54% (won)
Nevada (won): 40% (won); 56% (won)
Michigan (won): 35% (2nd, Santorum won with 51%); 45% (won)
Arizona (won): 36% (2nd, Santorum won with 37%); 54% (won)

The gap between his support among white evangelicals and other voters was 24 points in Iowa, 9 in New Hampshire, 17 in South Carolina, 18 in Florida, 16 in Nevada, 10 in Michigan, and 18 in Arizona. That is a fairly consistent and large deficit with a key Republican voting bloc that cost him Iowa and South Carolina--and probably cost him victories in other states where data is not available. It seems evident that in our age of confessional politics, Romney's Mormon faith continues to create problems for him in the ballot box.

If Romney captures the nomination, he will need the solid support of evangelicals if he hopes to become the first Mormon president. Without overwhelming support from evangelicals in November, Romney will not be able to overcome the votes President Barack Obama will likely receive from other groups of voters. In the 2008 presidential election, Obama easily beat McCain among voters who were of a religion other than Christianity or claimed no religion--with McCain receiving only one-quarter of the vote with those groups that collectively were 20 percent of the vote. Obama also beat McCain among Catholics in general, although he fell slightly behind McCain among white Catholics and Protestants in general. The only religious demographic in which Obama fell below one-third of the vote was white evangelicals. Among the 26 percent of voters who were white evangelicals, McCain beat Obama by a 74-to-24 percent margin. Yet, even that was not enough to overcome McCain's deficits in other voting blocs. If Romney hopes to win in November, he will not only need to improve on McCain's showing among Catholics and those of other faiths, but he will also need to maintain McCain's level of support among white evangelicals. Even if white evangelicals do not turn to vote for Obama, Romney could face insurmountable odds if they stay home and do not vote. Karl Rove, a top adviser to George W. Bush, often claimed prior to the 2004 presidential campaign that the only reason the 2000 election was close was because millions of white evangelical voters did not show up to vote. Rove led Bush to increase his outreach to this key Republican voting bloc, and was rewarded with 78 percent of that population's vote in 2004. The skepticism of evangelicals is not only making it more difficult for Romney to end the primary race, but could also prevent him from defeating Obama. Thus, even as he celebrates recent wins, his campaign should be concerned about how to convince evangelicals that they can vote for a Mormon. Otherwise, he will be watching from afar as Obama once again places his hand on a Bible and takes the presidential oath of office.

Friday Photo

Here is a photo I took recently of our dog trying to catch a frisbee in the air.

No Apology?

Over the past week, Republican presidential candidates have been attacking President Barack Obama for apologizing to Afghan leaders after copies of the Quran were burned by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Obama rightfully apologized after it was discovered that copies of the Muslim holy book were improperly disposed of on a military base. The news of the burnings sparked anti-American violence, which Obama hoped to quell with his apology. Yet, most of the Republican presidential hopefuls decided to try and make the apology a political issue. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich jumped on the issue first, claiming Obama "surrendered" by apologizing (equating apologizing with surrendering might explain part of Gingrich's marital woes!). Gingrich also claimed the incident was not a big deal so Obama should not have apologized (doubt he would say the same if Bibles had been burned). Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum followed Gingrich by arguing the incident was not a big deal since it was "a mistake" and not done "deliberately" (apparently you only have to apology when you intentionally do something wrong!). Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who likes to frequently and inaccurately accuse Obama of always apologizing to the world, claimed the apology by Obama was "very difficult for the American people to countenance" and it "sticks in their throat." Only U.S. Representative Ron Paul refused to attack Obama for the apology. Good to see one presidential hopeful was not willing to try and manufacture a fake controversy in a desperate attempt to score cheap political points. The act of burning copies of the Quran was wrong and apologizing was the correct move--such as when then-President George W. Bush apologized after a U.S. soldier used a Quran as a shooting target. In reality, apologizing is pretty minor when compared to the seriousness of the incident for Muslims. And it is hard to imagine that any of the current Republican presidential candidates would actually have refused to apologize if they were currently president. The problem is not Obama's apology but the insincere attacks on Obama, which seem to play on the confessional politics whisper campaign that Obama is a secret Muslims who therefore gives preferential treatment to Muslims. This is dangerous territory to tread on, and hopefully the Republican presidential hopefuls will stop it. Perhaps they should even apologize for their attacks on this issue, but do not expect any apologies.