The Rise of Political Christianity

George W. Bush has orchestrated a revolution under the cover of elections.

By M. A. Muqtedar Khan

A Comprehensive Victory

President Bush's reelection and the gains made by the Republican Party in the two house of the Congress--they now control the Senate with 55 of the 100 seats [44 Democrats and 1 Independent], and the lower house with 231 seats out of 435 [200 Democrats and 1 Independent]--has made Washington DC a bastion of American conservatism. Adding insult to injury, the Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle was defeated signaling the absolute sway that the Republicans now hold on American government.

The victory was comprehensive. It leaves those who reflect upon the nature of America and its future with a very profound and serious question. Are these results indicative of a fundamental change in American political culture or is it merely the consequence of transitory factors such as the war on terror, a weak Democratic candidate and the manipulative skills of a Machiavellian genius, Karl Rove, the political strategist behind the Bush campaign?

If this was a fluke then the liberals and progressive elements in the country must prepare to launch a better campaign in 2008 with a powerful candidate. Time to search for a Clinton clone, politically capable of running from the center with confidence and culturally acceptable to the Deep South.

This is not a Fluke

There is no doubt that John Kerry in spite of his extraordinary performance in the debates and his remarkable recovery in the last weeks of the campaign was inherently weak on the electability scale. The fact that he was the most electable of all Democratic candidates does not bode well for the party. John Kerry is a liberal democrat from Massachusetts, the Mecca of American liberalism, a "believing" Catholic and a Senator. According to a Pew Survey, only 20% of the American population is liberal and 34% is conservative. According to The New Republic, 29% of the voting electorate in 2000 was conservative but in 2004, conservatives constituted 34% of the electorate. This demographic edge forces Democrats to run from a position much to their right, while the Republicans have to make fewer adjustments.

In the last seven elections, the Republicans have won five times and the Democrats only twice. In fact the Bush family has a better record at winning the White House than the entire Democratic Party in the last quarter century. Bill Clinton won the White House twice; in the opinion of some analysts such as Paul Begala of CNN's Crossfire, the Southern Democrat "was perhaps one of the finest Republican Presidents we ever had." Given this demographic and historical background, why then was a Bush victory not a foregone conclusion?

There were many reasons why those unhappy with Bush felt confident that he would be defeated. The biggest of all reasons was the mess and chaos that Iraq has become and the clear evidence now that the American invasion of Iraq was unjustified. Bush critics felt that the Iraq fiasco would underscore the reckless and misguided nature of the Bush foreign policy forcing even the staunchest of his admirers to rethink their vote. The second reason was the state of the economy. The huge deficit, job losses, declining wages, high unemployment would, many Democrats felt, generate discontent and hurt the incumbent. Big issues such as social security and health care remain insecure. The shallowness of the case for Iraq, the growing anti-Americanism abroad, and the failure to apprehend or neutralize Bin Laden would expose the ineffectiveness of the so called war on terror and therefore for a better security, better economy and a better future, Democrats thought that a majority of Americans would vote for change.

Increasingly analysts all over are converging on the singular role of evangelical Christian turnout at the poles to explain the election outcome. They argue that George W. Bush managed to preserve his formidable Christian coalition, even added to it, and thereby regained the White House on the strength of the "Christian Vote." It is ironic that while American Muslim "leaders" bragged about the power of the Muslim Vote block (between 1.2 to 1.8 million) as playing a potentially pivotal role in this elections, the player that ran away with the election is the Christian Vote block which can now be safely estimated at about 40 million (34% of the electorate).

In spite of losing the debates, scoring consistently around only 50% on job approval ratings for months, clearly appearing to have lost control on his most important project, Iraq, failing to bring Bin Laden to justice while presiding over a very troublesome economy, George W. Bush managed to carve out a major historic victory. It cannot be a fluke; there is more to this than meets the eye.

Many analysts argue that Karl Rove was able to mobilize and expand the Christian vote block by manipulating wedge issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Does this mean that the Christian voting block will vote for its candidate regardless of his or her effectiveness? Certainly not.

The Christian Block Vote

It is my contention that in the last three years, since the attacks of September 11th, deeply religious Americans have experienced an existential anxiety that is translating into a political backlash that is threatening American secularism, American democracy and America's traditional respect for international law and international public opinion.

Unlike Europe, American has always been a religious nation. Alexis Tocqueville in 1831 claimed that religion was the first political institution of American democracy. On November 2nd, we saw this first political institution unleash a backlash against the assault on Christianity from Muslims; therefore, the support for Bush's irrational and bloody foreign policy, and against the growing secularization of American society; therefore, the across the board support for ban on gay marriage. Oklahoma, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah and Oregon passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriages. A large number of voters, nearly 25%, said that the primary issue for them was "moral values." Moral values are being widely understood as the Christian conservative opposition to gay marriage and abortion rights. But I suspect there is more to it.

The rise of political Christianity, a coalition of white born again Christians, conservative Catholics, conservative African Americans and conservative Hispanics, is concerned with more than gay marriages and abortion rights. Political Christianity seeks to breach the wall of separation between the Church and State and wishes to make this country a Christian nation.

America has been experiencing nativist resurgence along with the rise of a form of Christianity, evangelical, that is both self-righteous and "untraditional." It is unwilling to compromise and is uncomfortable with enduring American traditions of religious tolerance, freedom of conscience, fundamental equality of all and appreciation for diversity. This nativism can be heard in the calls for restoring America's moral values and in the political works of scholars such as Sam Huntington who ask, "Who are we?" or in the fears of Pat Buchanan who declares "The Death of the West."

George W. Bush has returned to the White House on these nativist fears. He is probably convinced that God is firmly in his corner and his mission to "save America" is indeed divine. He is going to charge into battle against dragons overseas and wrestle monsters at home. By George!, America will be born again, pure and Christian.

On November 2nd political Christianity captured the White House, the Senate, the House in Congress and the Supreme Court. Bush is expected to appoint anywhere between 2-4 judges to the Supreme Court, which already enjoys a 5-4 conservative edge. With every branch of the government under control--effectively neutralizing the much-touted divisions of power in the American constitution--political Christianity has taken American democracy hostage.

It is time for American Muslims, American Jews, American Hindus and Buddhists, moderate American Christians, secular and liberal, to come together to form a moderate and pragmatic center, eschewing the aggressive anti-religiosity of the extreme left, respecting the religiosity of the right, to restore balance, and preserve American democracy and its traditionally balanced relationship with its first institution, religion.

The Impact of 11/2 on American Muslims

For American Muslims the comprehensive victory of political Christianity in the American elections holds many lessons, if only they are willing to learn.

For months our leaders and organizations have bragged as to how American Muslims were going to vote for Kerry in large numbers, refusing to acknowledge that there is a constituency for Bush in the Muslim community. By doing so, they alienated not only George Bush and his millions of supporters but also those Muslims who support Bush. I had consistently argued against any endorsement, but our wise leaders chose to issue a strangely worded "qualified" endorsement of John Kerry which was welcomed by neither camp and much pilloried by moderate Muslims.

American Muslims who have less than 2 million votes [six million Muslims are not all adults and citizens] seem to be under the illusion that they are the only people who have understood and discovered the power of block voting. The Christian block has sent them a message that they can ignore only at their peril.

The analysis of leading Muslim organizations was very weak, only party centered and focused only on issues that concern American Muslims or Muslims abroad. American Muslims cannot become effective players if they do not immerse themselves into the politics of this country and engage with it as an inside player and not as an outsider manipulating it for partisan gain.

American identity is gradually changing. What we saw on 11/2 was just the tip of the iceberg. American Muslims have to think hard about what position they wish to occupy in the New Republic and fight even harder to get it. American Muslims must respect the diversity within the community and use it as a strategic asset rather than trying to impose a false unity that will crack under pressure.

American Muslims will likely face a tough future. President Bush has clearly conveyed that he sees his electoral victory as an endorsement of his agenda. He will renew the Patriot Act and may even expand it. He will continue to seek regime change overseas with increased vigor. Some of our ancestral homelands may have to contend with this enhanced energy in the White House.

Recommendations for the American Muslim Community

We cannot fight this agenda on all its fronts. We must prioritize and throw all our energies behind the key issues. My recommendations to Muslims is to dump ideology, specially the Islamist ideology which is the mirror image of political Christianity, and adopt a pragmatic approach designed to protect the American Muslim community and work towards integrating it with the American mainstream. Forget foreign policy (unless you teach foreign policy for a living) and focus on local issues. Build local bridges, local relationships.

Most importantly, launch joint projects with local churches and synagogues, and I do not mean just "dialogues"--engage in civic and social projects. Nothing integrates more than doing things together, fighting battles together.

Teach our children to be proud Americans and proud of Islam; curb the anti-American discourse. Community leaders must learn to be able to distinguish between criticisms of government policies--this is healthy and necessary--and simple anti-Americanism--this is dangerous and will undermine the community.

We must learn about American history and the American present. It is important to know and understand what is happening in this country of ours. American Muslims have tried to create a sophisticated and a rich Islamic ghetto in America, engaging with America only on our terms; it is time to come out of this ghetto and meet America on its terms.

There is a battle raging for the soul of America, let's partake in it and leave our mark on what America becomes.

M. A. Muqtedar Khan is Chair of the Political Science Department at Adrian College and a Nonresident Fellow of the Brookings Institution. His website is www.ijtihad.org. This study was sponsored by the Institute of Social Policy and Understanding.