Little Red Blog

In the twisted history of Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and his commentary in the LATimes this morning, The White House Wasn't Always God's House, the founders of this nation did not use the moral arguments of their religions in their leading or founding this nation, and no President before President Bush brought God into the White House. After reading Schlesinger’s take on history we would be led to believe that President Bush is the first man of faith to attribute his moral guidance to his faith and then to govern according to the moral compass within him. In his own words:

"George W. Bush's presidency is the first faith-based administration in U.S. history.

The founding fathers did not mention God in the Constitution, and the faithful often regarded our early presidents as insufficiently pious.

George Washington was a nominal Anglican who rarely stayed for Communion. John Adams was a Unitarian, which Trinitarians abhorred as heresy. Thomas Jefferson, denounced as an atheist, was actually a deist who detested organized religion and who produced an expurgated version of the New Testament with the miracles eliminated. Jefferson and James Madison, a nominal Episcopalian, were the architects of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. James Monroe was another Virginia Episcopalian. John Quincy Adams was another Massachusetts Unitarian. Andrew Jackson, pressed by clergy members to proclaim a national day of fasting to seek God's help in combating a cholera epidemic, replied that he could not do as they wished "without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion now enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the general government."

In the 19th century, all presidents routinely invoked God and solicited his blessing. But religion did not have a major presence in their lives. Abraham Lincoln was the great exception. Nor did our early presidents use religion as an agency for mobilizing voters. "I would rather be defeated," said James A. Garfield, "than make capital out of my religion."

This is a surprisingly shallow argument. It seems that his position is that men of character and faith, who govern based on their understanding of the issues and the role of governance are somehow doing so with an absence of their faith. Garfield’s comment in particular shows not the absence of his faith in his governance, but his unwillingness to campaign and capitalize on his religion, knowing full well that his respect for the country and for the founding principles behind it supported both his faith and his ability to govern not in the name of his faith but with moral guidance from it.

Schlesinger continues:

"Nor was there any great popular demand that politicians be men of faith. In 1876, James G. Blaine, an aspirant for the Republican presidential nomination, selected Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, a famed orator but a notorious scoffer at religion, to deliver the nominating speech: The pious knew and feared Ingersoll as "The Great Agnostic"; a 21st century equivalent of Ingersoll would have been booed off the platform at the Republican convention of 2004.”

Again here he misrepresents both the historical data and the current situation. Ingersoll was respected as an man of convictions, without the aid of a particular faith behind them, and the modern Republican Party would with open arms accept a morally courageous voice of government restraint promoting life and liberty for all Americans.

"There were presidents of ardent faith in the 20th century. Woodrow Wilson had no doubt that the Almighty designated the United States — and himself — for the redemption and salvation of humankind. Jimmy Carter, like Bush, was "born again." Ronald Reagan, though not a regular churchgoer, had a rapt evangelical following. But neither Wilson nor Carter nor Reagan applied religious tests to secular issues, nor did they exploit their religion for their political benefit. These are the standards that Bush has systematically violated.”

And there is the kicker. Schlesinger believes that Bush is applying religious tests to secular issues and using his faith for political benefit. History shows a different picture, as Carter and Reagan afterwards would not have won without the religious voters in the south. Both men applied the moral foundations of their faith in building their character and that character, just as it does with President Bush, provided the framework, along with their understanding of personal liberty, the role of governance and the economics of taxation, to their governance. The difference is that in this age of instant media, the President’s use of prayer and faith is broadcast and shared while the culture of the nation is subjected to greater humanist pressures from the left against both moral standards and religion in general.

"The southernization of the Republican Party and the rise of evangelicals as a political force have restructured U.S. politics. When I was a young fellow, fundamentalists were a disdained minority, raw material that H.L. Mencken and Sinclair Lewis ("Elmer Gantry") used to make jokes about the Bible Belt.

But in recent years, the religious right has made alliances with right-wing Catholics over abortion and right-wing Jews over the Holy Land. Such alliances have given the evangelicals a measure of political respectability.

Statistics on religion are notoriously unreliable, but it may be, as the Pew Center for the People & the Press asserts, that evangelicals now outnumber mainline Protestants. The religious right constitutes Bush's political base, and the result is the first faith-based presidency in U.S. history.”

I have not ever been so positively inclined to be associated with the religious right as I am by reading Schlesinger’s words. If it is the evangelical who aligns himself with the Catholic in defense of life, or the Jew in defense of the State of Israel, then count me among them. Schlesinger continues:

"Bush's first executive order was to establish the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. In fiscal 2003, as our president told a White House conference, the federal government gave more than $1 billion to faith-based organizations. And Bush is unique among presidents in his extensive application of religious tests to secular issues.

The opposition to stem cell research that so disturbs Nancy Reagan is typical. Stem cell research promises to expedite cures for Alzheimer's, diabetes, AIDS, Parkinson's and other diseases. But evangelicals are against it, and so is Bush.”

As a historian, I would have expected some mention of the facts here, the President’s opposition is to federally funded stem cell research beyond existing lines of stem cells. Like many of us, his views on private stem cell research are unknown. Instead of noting this, Schlesinger drops the names of icons of the right who out of personal tragedy have moved to a different position. This is shameful.

"Equally alarming is the use of churches for political purposes. A Bush campaign document, according to the New York Times, lays out "a brisk schedule for legions of Christian supporters to help enlist 'conservative churches' and their members, including sending church directories to the campaign."

There is no doubt about the authenticity of Bush's conversion. He would not be president today unless the born-again experience had charged his life with new meaning, purpose and discipline. Redemption through commitment to Jesus is what made him a man and a leader.

But, as author Bob Woodward said in "Bush at War": "The president was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God's master plan." There is a messianic certitude about our president's pronouncements.

A fanatic, as Finley Peter Dunne's fictitious Mr. Dooley said, does what he thinks the Lord would do if he only knew the facts in the case. The most dangerous people in the world today are those who persuade themselves that they are executing the will of the Almighty.”

While on a shameful rant why not include the pandering of the President’s opposition as he uses faith to justify his social agenda while claiming it cannot guide him on the great moral questions of our day. Instead, Schlesinger offers what he sees as negative statements of the President’s view and mission. It is most likely that Schlesinger is aiming at Jewish and secular voters who might find offense in the “messianic” certitude of the President. It is not unflattering to the President, only to the author.

"Lincoln summed it all up in his second inaugural address. Both warring halves of the nation, he said, had read the same Bible and prayed to the same God. Each invoked God's aid against the other.

As Lincoln said, " … let us judge not, that we be not judged…. The Almighty has his own purposes."

Indeed Lincoln understood something that the opposition to the President today does not. The Almighty will judge us all, and Lincoln in defense of the principles of our founding and to preserve the greater union stood before men of similar faith and fought not in the defense of the divine but in defense of his nation. Can we say the same of those who are opposing President Bush while he defends our nation?