Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Obama & Political Religion Cont'd   

A lot of folks are wondering whether I might be overreaching in my post about Obama.

First, I should say that I did note that there were provisional comments.

Anyway, one point several readers have made is that  Reagan and countless others have used religious rhetoric and, presumably, I don't think Reagan is a fascist. I think there are some fine debater's points to be scored against me here, but ultimately I remain unpersuaded. Reagan most certainly did talk in religious terms, City on a Hill, and all that. But I think inspection of his rhetoric will find that he used religion to champion individual liberty and limited government. He was not trying to create a religion of the state or  a politics of meaning. That was the opposite of what he wanted. Meanwhile, Obama's rhetoric fits much more in the social gospel tradition from Rausschenbusch to Hillary Clinton.  

More generally, I agree entirely that American politicians have always made  "God's on our side" arguments when it suited them. And perhaps that's all Obama is doing. But it sure doesn't sound that way to me. 

Where some readers make a better point is when they claim that President Bush's language marries religion and foreign policy. To the extent he talks about spreading democracy and freedom, I think he can be defended on the same grounds Reagan can be. But I agree that he sometimes seems to stumble into arguing that America has a messianic role in the world that crosses an unfortunate line. But given my objections to compassionate conservatism as a form of rightwing progressivism, I don't know that I need to carry too much water to defend Bush from such charges. And besides, indicting Bush — or even Reagan — doesn't dispute anything I wrote about Obama. 

02/12 05:02 PMShare