ARTICLES
Q TALKS
DISCOVER Q
EVENTS
All Q Events
Q Nashville 2014
Q Session | Innovate
Q Cast
RESOURCES
Books
Studies
Bible
Church Leaders
Speaking
PARTICIPATE
Praxis Accelerator
Host Conversations
Church
Business
Education
Social Sector
Arts + Entertainment
Science + Tech
Government
Media
Cities
Gospel
Restorers
Tweet
Government
Interview with Bush Speechwriter Michael Gerson
Former aide speaks out on Tea Party, Bush legacy, and future of the religous right
by
Jonathan Merritt
Michael Gerson is something of a political anomaly. On the one hand, Gerson is a conservative Christian who served as George W. Bush’s chief speechwriter and senior aide from 2001 to 2006. On the other hand, he is now an
op-ed columnist
for the left-of-center
Washington Post
and has been critical of both the religious right and the Tea Party.
A reflective man who has made a living carefully weighing words, Gerson now seeks to dissect the religious political movement in America in hopes of paving a new way forward. His new book,
City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era
, has created a stir among both religious and secular leaders. So I decided to spend a moment with Gerson to collect his insights on the future of faith in the public square.
__________________________________________________
JM: You begin your book with a critique of the religious right pointing out that their “biggest problem” has “not been tonal or strategic but rather theological.” How specifically has poor theology harmed the religious right movement?
MG: The religious right had serious problems that undermined its effectiveness, even among some who share its values. It’s often negative, desperate, and apocalyptic. Theologically, the identification of America with the treatment and promises given to ancient Israel in the Bible has been a mistake. The notion of corporate blessing and punishment that was applied to the covenant community of Israel has been applied to America by people like Jerry Falwell. It’s a confusion of modern nation-states with Biblical Israel. That is not only off-putting to a lot of people, it is bad theology.
-----
JM: The next generation of Christians seems to be tired of the divisive partisanship and several markers indicate that though they remain engaged politically, they are abandoning the culture wars. Is this an accurate assessment?
MG: Yes. The whole language and approach of the culture wars has been largely discredited. Basically because it represents a brand of political engagement that is narrow and negative. When evangelicals reengaged in politics in the 1970s, it was largely a response to the perceived aggressions of modernity, whether it was prayer in public schools or Roe v. Wade. These aggressions were not imaginary; they were real trends. There are a number of people now—particularly young people—who want to step back and look for an approach that is not merely reactionary but is founded upon first principles.
-----
JM: A lot has been made in recent years about so-called “young evangelicals.” They are more politically diverse, they weren’t as supportive of Bush as their parents were, and many voted for Obama in 2008. How do you see this group shaping Christian engagement with politics in the future?
MG: I’ve spent some time on Christian and religious college campuses. I do see a significant discontent with the model of social engagement of the religious right. When you ask for their model of social engagement they often say “Bono” or “Rick Warren.” People are looking for a different model. But you have to qualify that in two ways. First, I don’t see a large shift on moral issues such as abortion. There seems to be stability on these key issues. Second, evangelicals remain the most loyal element of the Republican coalition. The model of the religious right is passing but it doesn’t seem to indicate a major ideological realignment among evangelicals.
-----
JM: In addition to this generational shift, the religious right seems to be in something of a political vacuum. Do you see the future of Christian political engagement in jeopardy?
MG: I see the future of Christian political engagement in transition. You definitely have a passing of an older generation of leaders with a broad discontent with that model. In the book, we call it “a plastic moment,” and it is critical. It’s critical because if you introduce errors in the beginning of this transition, it could be bad down the road.
-----
JM: Scholars like
James Davison Hunter
have argued that the way to really change the culture isn’t politics. It is to move upstream in culture and shape the way people think and see the world. What do you make of this argument?
MG: I don’t advocate for a purely political approach to changing culture, but I have at least three problems with the Hunter critique. The first is the nature of law. While it is true that culture is often upstream of politics, it is also true that politics is often upstream of culture. A good example of this is the civil rights movement. Politics in many situations shape social consciousness in that the law often creates expectations of acceptable behavior.
A second objection is that at any given time in history, there are great moral issues at stake that can’t be ignored just because people are tired. Right now, we have a million people dying each year because of malaria, a completely preventable disease. We have the ability to deal with it, and it is a political issue, and we should do something about it.
A third objection is that in a democracy, participation is a part of self-government and citizenship. We don’t undertake it because we have utopian visions of the future. We do it because it is a part of our faithful witness to culture. It’s not an option that depends on our mood.
-----
JM: You’ve been critical of the Tea Party. You’ve said they have a misguided theology. But many Christians support this movement. Why are you so skeptical?
MG: My view on the Tea Party is mixed. Much of Tea Party activism is a natural and justified reaction to the massive expansion of the government in recent years. As Christians, we share concerns on debt, deficits, and spending. My concern with the Tea Party comes in specific areas. There is a difference between skepticism of government and disdain for government. We can’t allow a justified skepticism for government to become a disdain for government, which is not a biblical approach. They also seem to assert an unfair, over-broad critique of Islam and misguided positions on immigration. We must confront the excesses of the Tea Party movement.
-----
JM: There is a big debate about the founding of our nation. Some evangelicals have said for some time that we were founded as a Christian nation while others say we’re a secular nation. Still others, like Q founder Gabe Lyons, have tried to forge a middle way saying our founders were influenced by their Christian ideals but made room for pluralism. Who is right?
MG: America is not a Christian nation. Precisely because it is founded on both Jewish and Christian ideas of human rights and dignity. It is precisely because of this anthropology that they didn’t want the state infringing on matters of conscience. They weren’t secularists or sectarians, but in between. So I guess I would identify most with the middle ground approach. This is our founder’s vision—principled pluralism.
-----
JM:
Newsweek
reported
this year that with the influx of Tea Party candidates to Washington and the release of
President Bush’s new autobiography
, Americans may get nostalgic for Bush. They may begin to rethink his legacy. What will be the legacy of the Bush Presidency, in your opinion?
MG: I know George Bush well, and I know him to be a man of principle who faced a very difficult time. Usually, history treats men of principle well. I’m pretty confident about that. Truman is a great example. He left office with a harsh public judgment particularly over the Korean War, but two things happened. First, Americans realized that he was a man of principle and they respect that. Second, he proved to be right on many things. I think the first is true of Bush and the second, I believe will also be true regarding the war on terror. People will realize that he took the most serious things most seriously.
-----
What is your take on Gerson's comments? In your opinion, what will the Bush legacy be?
-----
Editor’s Note: The picture above was taken outside the Oval Office on January 29, 2002 as President George W. Bush was preparing for his State of the Union Address. On the left sits Michael Gerson, Director of Presidential Speech Writing. Credited to LIFE / Getty Images.
Tweet
Comments
Derek Bell
Mr. Gerson seems spot on. Regarding Bush's legacy - I agree as well. I believe history will speak of him well. While he is obviously not perfect, he stands for something. I love that he gets emotional over the things that should make a man of character get emotional.
And, while not the best communicator, I believe he is smarter than many give him credit for.
Aaron Brown
This was a really neat interview. I am intrigued about Gerson's assertions that "young Evangelicals" are keeping their "moral" faith and simply looking for better models to live out their faith in conjunction with their political affiliation.
I find it intriguing that Evangelicals are departing from the "religious right" affiliation yet keeping their alignment with the Republican party. Why is this? is it due to the affluence of white Evangelicals who live more of the American dream and buy into such Western thought as "Manifest Destiny?" Any ideas? This may be why people buy into the Tea Party in that it shares the ideas of smaller government and less intervention in the daily lives of the everyday American while shying away from the messy theological issues the "religious right" have produced in the last thirty years.
Finally, I think that Bush will be remembered in a positive light. Usually it seems that it takes 30 years or so for the history books to actually be written. The most detrimental issue that Bush will have to deal with is the weapons of mass destruction debacle. Otherwise, if his other successes in office can outshine that glaring issue, he will be remembered positively.
Marc Andreas
An excellent dialogue on faith and politics. I agree with everything Gerson said except for Bush's legacy. His taking us into to extremely questionable wars that killed hundreds of thousands of people, manipulation of intelligence and not being honest with the American people, unprecedented debt and a large recession should permanently damage his presidency. However, many (including most evangelicals) will look the other way and see a principled man who was firm and resolute in his response to 9/11.
As for why young evangelicals keeping their alignment with the Republican party, I am one of them and believe it's similar to the Tea Partiers that only do so because the Democrats are even worse. Younger people appreciate a culture filled with many different ideas and would thrive in a multi-party system like most democracies in the world have so they could find a party or candidate that better suits their values.
Kay Pech
I am an Independent, through and through. I don't care what party, I vote for the principles the candidate upholds. I am embarrassed that we ever had George Bush as president. He laughed and joked about looking for WMD under his desk, out his window, etc. at a press party in Washington. He's not to be trusted and he's the worst president we ever had. I want smaller government and a decrease of our national debt, but could NEVER be a Tea Party supporter. I'm embarrassed to even say that Sarah Palin is a woman.... what a joke.
Erik Lokkesmoe
I remember meeting Michael Gerson for the first time the afternoon before his biggest speech (at the time), the 2000 National Convention speech in Philadelphia. it was reported he walked the streets in the rain during the speech, too nervous to watch it in the arena or even on television. He was gracious, patient, and thoughtful -- and that was reflected in his writing. Careful and precise, able to balance the tension of the moment with the sweep of history past and history to come. But most of all, as a former party loyalist turned independent, i like that Gerson is "more conservative than any conservative and more liberal than any liberal" -- impossible to pin him down as a party hack or ideologue. This interview reflects that. Great job.
Darren Maybee
I'm disgusted by these comments. How dare you call yourselves a Christian website and put down the late Jerry Falwell, moral majority, and even the Tea Party. You are all nothing but a undercover progressives preaching the social gospel. Gabe Lyons you should be ashamed of yourself for having this on your website.
-by Darren Maybee (who knew Gabe Lyons all throughout high school and college)
S. Forcey
Darren-
Don't worry, the original interview is not broadly denigrating the person and groups you mention. Rather Gerson is constructively trying to help improve their message by pointing out shortcomings--remember that the wounds of a friend are better than the kisses of an enemy, to roughly quote a Proverb. Also, if you look further you might have to agree that the gospel preached here (by the Q organization, not necessarily blog commenters) is very closely tied to the words of Jesus. And hey--I'll have to get your email to catch up and talk more! (sforcey@gmail.com)
Comments are now closed
ALSO BY JONATHAN MERRITT
Why the Christian Right Was Noticeably Absent in This Election
Government
Redefining Hate
Social Sector
In Praise of Dissent
Social Sector
ALSO IN GOVERNMENT
Putting a Face on The Bomb
by Tyler Wigg-Stevenson
Settling Jerusalem
by Daniel Seidemann
The Birth of Two Kingdoms: A Fourth of July Reflection
by Greg Boyd