Abstract
Contemporary debates over religious political discourse focus on the role that religion ought to play in the democratic forum. By emphasizing the normative dimensions of religious politics, however, these discussions overlook the structural conditions that shape the political actions of religious groups. To explore this more empirical side of religious discourse, this essay examines the political practices of James Dobson's Focus on the Family, a group that has steadily become the predominant voice in the conservative Christian movement. This case study shows that public discourse theorists underestimate the deep structural pressures that democratic institutions place upon the practices of religious groups. In particular, they overlook the two-fold effect of democracy: while the democratic process moderates Focus on the Family's use of religion in public debates, it also radicalizes their internal practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For Rawls's early articulation of public reason, see, John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 217. For an excellent overview of public reason that spans both the early and later Rawls, see Charles Larmore, “Public Reason,” in The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, ed. Samuel Freeman (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 368–93.
These categories certainly oversimplify the debate somewhat, but they are useful for illustrating the intellectual landscape of the debate.
John Rawls, Political Liberalism, 226.
Macedo makes this claim in the context of his illuminating discussion of the transformative effects of liberal institutions; see Stephen Macedo, “Transformative Constitutionalism and the Case of Religion: Defending the Moderate Hegemony of Liberalism,” in Constitutional Politics: Essays on Constitution Making, Maintenance, and Change, ed. Sortirios A. Barber and Robert P. George (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), 182.
Nicholas Wolterstorff, Religion in the Public Square (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1997), 78.
Jeffrey Stout, Democracy and Tradition(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), 112. Rogers Smith offers a similar argument against “public reason” that stresses the ideal of engaging seriously with the most deeply held political convictions of religious citizens; see Rogers Smith, Stories of Peoplehood (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 179–86.
For Montesquieu's discussion of the “spirit” needed to sustain republican, monarchical, and despotic institutions, see Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989). For Tocqueville's emphasis on the “social state” of democracy, which transcends formal institutional structures and permeates the norms and mores of the culture, see Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (New York: The Library of America, 2004).
Rogers M. Smith explains this approach, which recognizes the mutually constitutive relationship between individuals and institutions, in the context of the judicial politics literature. However, his methodological insight strikes me as having a much broader application. See Rogers M. Smith, “Political Jurisprudence, The ‘New Institutionalism,’ and the Future of Public Law,” APSR 82 (March 1988): 89–108.
For an excellent discussion of the rise of the Christian right and an in-depth analysis of their tactics and strategy, see Jean Hardisty, Mobilizing Resentment: Conservative Resurgence from the John Birch Society to the Promise Keepers (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1999). Other important studies of the Christian right and Focus on the Family include Didi Herman, The Antigay Agenda: Orthodox Vision and the Christian Right (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997); and Doris Buss and Didi Herman, Globalizing Family Values: The Christian Right in International Politics (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003).
“2003 Annual Report,” Focus on the Family (2003), 5.
Evelyn Nieves, “Values Groups Gear Up for Battle Over Gay Marriage,” The Washington Post (August 17, 2003).
These quotes were taken from my tour of Focus on the Family headquarters, June 24, 2004.
Gil Alexander-Moegerle, James Dobson's War on America (New York: Prometheus Books, 1997), 15.
Apostolidis' in-depth analysis of Dobson's broadcasts reveals that the Christian right's power is, at least in part, due to their effective use of such distinctive cultural narratives. See Paul Apostolidis, Stations of the Cross (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000), 16.
These quotes were taken from my interview with Glenn Stanton at Focus on the Family headquarters, June 24, 2004. I should also explain the methodology used in gathering interviews and quotes for the article. My empirical case is based upon recorded interviews with senior leaders at both Focus on the Family and the Institute for Religion and Democracy conducted from June 2004 to June 2005. I have also based my findings on a wide array of magazine articles, public policy publications, and strategic talking-points memos.
In addition to being one of the most highly contested issues in contemporary American politics, same-sex marriage is also what Rawls calls a debate over constitutional essentials. For at the core of the debate is the question of whether Americans should invoke the Article V process to safeguard marriage between a man and woman.
Nieves, “Values Groups Gear Up for Battle Over Gay Marriage.”
“Interview with James Dobson,” CNN Larry King Live, September 5, 2003.
Glenn T. Stanton, “Debate-Tested Sound Bites on Defending Marriage,” Focus on Social Issues (May 14, 2004). Stanton's book also details Focus's arguments against same-sex marriage; see Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Postmodern Society(New York: Navpress Publishing Group, 1997).
Stanton, “Debate-Tested Sound Bites on Defending Marriage.”
Rawls, Political Liberalism, 226.
Stanton, “Debate-Tested Sound Bites on Defending Marriage.”
For an excellent account of Dobson's attempts to recapture the public square using “countermemory,” see Ann Burlein, Lift High the Cross (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002), 148.
Stanton, “Debate-Tested Sound Bites on Defending Marriage.”
Interview with Glenn Stanton, June 24, 2004.
These quotes are taken from a telephone interview with Alan Wisdom, June 28, 2005.
Rawls, Political Liberalism, 226.
I am thankful to Stephen Macedo on this insight concerning the moderating effects of democratic institutions; see James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 122.
Madison, The Federalist Papers, 124.
Madison, The Federalist Papers, 127.
Interview with Alan Wisdom, June 28, 2005.
To be sure, democracy may not be the only factor behind this turn toward more moderate public arguments. They may also be motivated by a desire to attract more citizens to their spiritual message or an aspiration to improve the general public's perception of evangelical Christians. Nevertheless, their desire to achieve democratic victories clearly sits very near to the core of their aspirations. As their relentless campaigns against same-sex marriage and abortion illustrate, groups like Focus on the Family are driven by a deep desire to succeed in the democratic forum and codify the politics of the family into law.
“Focus on the Family: Our Faith, Values, Mission and Guiding Principles,” Focus on the Family (2002).
“Focus on the Family: Our Faith, Values, Mission and Guiding Principles,” Focus on the Family (2002).
A great example of this can be found in their magazine “Plugged-In,” which reviews mainstream movies, TV shows, and music.
“About CBN,” CBN.com, 〈http://www.cbn.com/about/〉.
For their reflections on the problems of enclave formation, see, Stout, Democracy and Tradition, and Cass Sunstein, Republic.com (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001).
Sunstein, Republic.com, 65.
Robert Putnam's Making Democracy Workfurther refines this distinction between various types of cultural groups. On the one side, he tells us that there are “cross-cutting groups,” which have a diversity of ambitions and membership and tend to moderate the attitudes of their members. These groups engage in “bridging” activities with other groups, for they encourage an attitude of openness to diverse members and ideas. More insular conservative Christian groups like Focus, on the other hand, engage in a very different form of association, in what Putnam calls “bonding.” Rather than connecting with the outside world, these groups are more “inward looking and tend to reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groups.” Instead of promoting solidarity, they cultivate “in-group loyalty” and “out-group antagonism.” See Robert D. Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), 86–98; and Putnam, Bowling Alone, The Collapse and Revival of American Community(New York: Simon and Shuster, 2000), 22–23.
Tour of headquarters of Focus on the Family, June 24, 2004.
Interview with Greg Borum at the headquarters of the Citizen's Project, June 24, 2004.
Hardisty, Mobilizing Resentment, 114–15.
Hardisty, Mobilizing Resentment, 110. The strategic embrace of liberalized political discourse is a relatively recent phenomenon. As Hardisty observes: “Since the mid-1980s, when the heavy-handed style of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority became less popular, the Christian Right has cast its campaigns in terms not so obviously linked to the Bible” (114–15). See also Burlein, Lift High the Cross.
Goldberg-Hiller makes a similar claim that the Christian right has reappropriated and redescribed the liberal categories of civil rights in the debate over same-sex marriage. He argues that they have shifted same-sex arguments for civil rights to appear as arguments for “special rights” without stepping outside the bounds of liberalism. Given their ambitions to supplant individual rights with Christian ideals, their attempts to foster conditions of intolerance and outrage, and their clandestine methods of persuasion, however, my claim is that groups like Focus are far from fully embracing the ideas of liberalism. In my view, these tactics take on a distinctively illiberal character. See, Jonathan Goldberg-Hiller, The Limits to Union (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2002).
Burlein, Lift High the Cross, 148.
Rawls, “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited,” in Rawls, The Law of Peoples with “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited” (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 37.
Rawls, “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited,” 140–41.
Rawls, “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited,” 141.
This liberal critique of the ambitions of the Christian right is embodied both by activist groups like The American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way as well as a number of scholarly accounts. See, for instance, Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, The Godless Constitution (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996). I am indebted to Apostolidis on this point; see Apostolidis, Stations of the Cross, 235n32.
This attack on individual rights is also not merely institutional. As Apostolidis explains, “the discouragement of … individuality is one of the most disturbing elements in Focus' narratives.” Apostolidis, Stations of the Cross, 217.
“Focus on the Family: Our Faith, Values, Mission and Guiding Principles,” Focus on the Family, (2002).
Rawls, “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited,” 145.
Stout, Democracy and Tradition, 296–97.
56 Stout, Democracy and Tradition, 113.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
I am thankful to Robert Wuthnow and the Center for the Study of Religion for funding the research for this article. For their comments, criticism, and advice, I am also grateful to Stephen Macedo, the three anonymous reviewers of Polity, and Kaley Warner Klemp.
“Falwell Apologizes to Gays, Feminists, Lesbians”, CNN, (September 14, 2001), 〈http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/〉.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Klemp, N. Beyond God-Talk: Understanding the Christian Right From the Ground Up. Polity 39, 522–544 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300062
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300062