SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, And The Christian Right

JONATHAN CHAIT JULY 5, 2011

Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, And The Christian Right

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Amy Sullivan has some good reporting on the evangelical infatuation with Rick Perry, who's the top choice of the Christian Right leadership. One interesting question she veers into is why they haven't flocked to Michelle Bachmann:

[W]hile Bachmann has been on a hot streak since the first candidate’s debate, Christian Right leaders continue to be far less willing to embrace her (or Sarah Palin, for that matter) than the rank-and-file or more secular politicos. Is that sexism at work? Possibly. Maybe even probably. But geography is an important factor as well. Many Christian Right leaders think the GOP primary schedule favors a Southern candidate.

Hmm. So the putative rationale is that Bachmann isn't Southern, and Sullivan suspects the real reason is sexism. Could be a mix of both. It could also reflect the quiet sense among Republican insiders that Bachmann is crazy.

Meanwhile, Sullivan also details Perry's Christian right credentials, which are theocratically impressive:

Sarah Posner of Religious Dispatches recently outlined Perry’s social conservative bona fides and they’re impressive:

  • Signed a gay marriage ban into law at a Christian school in Fort Worth with evangelical heavyweights Tony Perkins (Family Research Council), Rod Parsley (Ohio mega-church pastor), and Don Wildmon (American Family Association) in attendance
  • The Sunday before his 2006 re-election, Perry attended Cornerstone Church and sat by the side of controversial pastor John Hagee (in 2008, John McCain had to reject Hagee’s endorsement after critics pointed out the pastor’s many extreme statements, including calling the Catholic Church “the whore of Babylon”)
  • Supported and was a primary beneficiary of the Texas Restoration Project, an effort to increase the electoral involvement of conservative pastors

All of this, however, pales beside Perry’s current project–a Christian all-day prayer event called “The Response” on August 6 in Houston. The governor is sponsoring the event along with the American Family Association, which is footing the estimated $1.5 million tab for the gathering. The Response is intended for Christians only, although one spokesman said that if people of other faiths attend, he hopes they will see the light and “seek out the living Christ” for their lives.

I suspect a Perry candidacy would put an end to the "will Jews abandon Obama" question.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 13 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

13 comments

Why do journalists flatter Perry, Hagee, and the others by referring to them as the "Christian" right. As a Christian, I am offended. The Response is a perfect example of the fallacy. Jesus admonished his followers to pray quietly and alone, not to make a spectacle of themselves in a public place. These highly advertised public "prayer" events are nothing but fundraisers for the charlatans journalists continue to identify as Christians. Why not call them the "charlatan right", it's more accurate and doesn't offend Christians.

- rayward

July 5, 2011 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ray - couldn't agree with you more, and ditto for me. Well spoken.

- Tristan

July 5, 2011 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" The governor is sponsoring the event"??? Didn't he read in the first ammendment to the Constitution "make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? What is a state leader doing sponsoring a purely religious, purely Christian event? Surely this is a conflict of interest, if not malfeasance using state resources (namely, his office as Governor) for religious purposes? And yes, I would have found it surprising if a group of Fundamentalist Christians would have preferred supporting a woman for leadership, ahead of a man. As First Timothy says in the Bible: "I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man".

- AllanL5

July 5, 2011 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As I'm sure Mrs Bachmann and Mr Perry would recommend, Mr Chait should read his bible a bit more. Or spend some more time in Evangelical churches. A not particularly narrow interpretation of it clearly indicates that women are not meant to lead men. To borrow a phrase, theology has consequences. If it continuously preaches that men are designed (by God) to lead, and women are designed (by God) to help, and that a woman's highest calling in to be a mother (in a way that a man's as a father is not) , and that women should not be in authority positions, then this exact situation is something we should expect to observe. If there is some discomfort in crediting this to sexism, there's an even simpler experiment - how many female leaders are there in the evangelical movement, or even leading mega churches. None? There are plenty of women doing tremendous working *within* the Evangelical communities. However (from a cursory search) even participants in online Evangelical discussions on the topic are hard pressed to name any women at the top level, whether she be outright leading or proselytizing on the national stage. Plenty of men, no women.

- Nari224

July 5, 2011 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well said Ray. Thank you! As for the Tejas guv, well, we all know very well that the US Constitution only has 2 amendments, #2 and #10. The rest, in particular #1, are pure fluff and to be ignored.

- tmmats

July 5, 2011 at 1:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Meanwhile the Mitt Romney express keeps barrelling on to the nomination.

- MikeB.

July 5, 2011 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not well said. There is a Christian right and y'all might as well get used to it. I don't like this phenomenon either, but semantic quibbling doesn't make it go away. There are tendentious Christians on the left, and I have no hesitation in calling them the Christian left. So, you pc people, are you offended by calling Islamic radicals "Islamists?", given that huge numbers of Muslims don't buy into their Weltanschauung? Such semantic nonsense is a colossal waste of time.

- liberalref

July 5, 2011 at 2:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

> The rest, in particular #1, are pure fluff and to be ignored. No, no, not fluff at all. In particular, #1 means the guvmint can't stop a company from bribing..., er, "donating to" a politician. Also, it says the guvmint can't tax churches, nor interfere with their right to endorse candidates from the pulpit, nor establish any religion other than Christianity.

- krlong014

July 5, 2011 at 3:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lib, thank you for pointing out the elephant in this living room.

- wkwami

July 5, 2011 at 3:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" There are tendentious Christians on the left, and I have no hesitation in calling them the Christian left." First, the problem with the Christian right isn't there tendentious-ness. Second, do you have any examples of christianist leftists currently threating to remake the American constitution and government using their religion's bible, or are you just pulling shit out of your bum?

- GSpinks

July 5, 2011 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

*their, not there

- GSpinks

July 5, 2011 at 5:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seems like a couple of problems in the original post. The notion that Republican "insiders" consider Bachmann crazy would hold no water with the people involved in this whole business, so I don't see it as a factor. (Unless, of course, it's a delayed reaction to how crazy Sarah Palin turned out to be ... fool me once and all that.) Secondly, there are a few female "leaders" along the evangelical trail--not at all common, and usually as part of a husband-and-wife team, but enough so that the idea of a female candidate wouldn't be totally out of the question--not likely, but not impossible. Perry may well be preferred, but the regional bias would most assuredly be part of the reason, along with the years of exactly this kind of gesture he has been making to the religious right (and no, they are not Christian in any sense of resembling Christ, no matter how many liberal reformers might want to declare it so--read a dadgum Bible if you're having trouble figuring it out). It would be well for TNR to send somebody to cover this whole "The Response" event, though I wonder if there's anyone on the staff who wouldn't stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. Partly to see exactly what kind of foolishness Perry pulls off, partly to see what other politicians try to glom onto it (I believe Sam Brownback is participating, no doubt working to buff up his reputation for future endeavors while ruining Kansas in the meantime), and partly just to see exactly how much turnout there is for this transparently political "religious" event.

- cspencef

July 5, 2011 at 6:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Jesus admonished his followers to pray quietly and alone, not to make a spectacle of themselves in a public place. These highly advertised public "prayer" events are nothing but fundraisers for the charlatans journalists continue to identify as Christians." I'm not so sure... "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." - Mark 16:15-16 (King James Version) Fact of the matter is, some Christians do consider such public prayer events as doing God's work, and they seem to have a solid reason to do so (per Jesus' instructions). So why pretend otherwise?

- wkwami

July 5, 2011 at 11:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close