A WIDER BUSH PLAN FOR RELIGIOUS “COMMUNITARIANISM”
Secularism, Individualism Are The Targets In A New Culture War
by Conrad F. Goeriger
August 1, 2020
White House documents reveal that President Bush, whose faith-based
policy initiative faces tough opposition in the U.S. Senate, plans to
unleash an even broader “values initiative” next month.
According to US News, the Washington Post and other sources, the
campaign involves what writer Mike Allen described as “more emphasis
on the presidential role of moral leader with a series of executive
actions and legislative proposals designed to foster community spirit
and family values...” A strategy plan for the new initiatives says
that Bush should build upon his support base with religious groups,
and stress issues that “unite Americans by focusing on children,
quality of life and universally appreciated values.”
The News describe the “values campaign” as “a new phase of Bush’s
presidency -- an attempt to steer public debate toward gauzy notions
of cultural conservatism and personal responsibility, just as the
president is losing control of his agenda on Capitol Hill as the
public increasingly questions his policies.”
The program will be packaged as “Communities of Character,” and touch
on such diverse issues as teen pregnancy, adoption, drugs, gang
prevention, prison ministries and the role of religious and other
groups in fostering so-called “civil society.” It is designed, in
part, to cast the president as “a different kind of Republican” who
can reach to interest groups which traditionally have been part of
the Democratic party.
* The effort is the brainchild of Bush adviser Karl Rove, and is being
run out of the semi-secret White House Office of Strategic
Initiatives. A memo from the office warns that “This project should
not be seen as religious based,” although churches play a pivotal role
in much of it. In addition, “The project, which has been under
development for months, is being planned using techniques that might
launch a soft drink or laundry soap,” notes Allen. “‘Avoid a
traditional media roll-out of the program,’ a memoradum recommends.
‘Use creative media tactics to create buzz.’”
* Another document tied to “Communities of Character” suggests,
“Compared to 30 years ago, Americans are more worried about moral
values, the breakdown of the family and decline in civic life... The
public wants government and individual elected officials to play a
more active leadership role in dealing with declining values...”
* The initiative is meant to not only keep Bush’s core constituency of
religious-right and social conservatives who support him, but find
ways of courting other groups as well concerned about the “character
component” of issues and perceived moral decline. The federal
government, orchestrated by the White House, would thus become not
only more of a “bully pulpit” but a cheerleader for promoting
“values.” Already, notes the Post, the administration has “consulted”
the media elite -- a traditional bogeyman for social conservatives and
now many liberals -- including giants like AOL Time Warner, Viacom
(CBS, Paramount, Blockbuster) and even MTV. There is no word on how
far the companies will go in endorsing “Communities of Character.”
The White House also hopes to enlist big time athletes, professional
sports groups like the NFL and the NBA, and even the National
Collegiate Athletic Association.
* Bush’s faith-based initiative -- a campaign which thus far has
floundered on Capitol Hill and attracted a barrage of criticism --
remains a core component in the new “character crusade.” There will
be a larger cultural message, though, one which emphasizes
“responsibility” for corporation, families and state-local
governments. Mr. Bush told reporters recently, “The faith-based
initiative is kind of a legislative component of a larger cultural
message, based upon responsibility and family and communities of
conscience.”
“Communitarianism” -- Masking A Dangerous,
Authoritarian Theo-Political Agenda?
“Communities of Character” reflects the growing popularity in
government and religious circles for a philosophy broadly labeled
“communitarianism.” It incorporates features which can appeal to both
liberals and conservatives, a reason why such figures as former Reagan
administration culture guru William Bennett and Democratic Sen.
Joseph Lieberman find common cause over issues like the status of
religion in American life, violence and sex in media, and the need to
involve churches, corporations and government in the fight to address
social problems.
“This is the ultimate Third Way,” said Don Eberly, a deputy director
for the new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives. “The debate in this town in the last eight years was how
to forge a compromise on the role of the state and market. This is a
new way to rethink social policy, a major reigniting of interest in
the social sector.” Religion is the keystone for many communitarians,
who blame an alleged erosion of moral standards on pervasive
secularism and unfettered individualism. Noted US News writer Kenneth
Walsh: “Bush, a born-again Christian, is said by friends to believe,
despite mixed evidence, that America is ‘on the cusp of a religious
revival.’” An unidentified Bush adviser quoted the president: “He
knows that people tend to become more faith-driven as they get older.”
As a movement, communitarianism has up until now been confined mostly
to academic think tanks, foundations, and scholarly journals. Many
communitarians, especially the circle of policy gurus now ensconced in
the White House, take their cue from former Vice President Dan Quayle,
who in the 1990s became a lightning rod in the discussion over
politics and values. Quayle, for instance, tackled the issue of
single-motherhood, criticizing the popular television program “Murphy
Brown” and its character, a unmarried mom played by Candice Bergen.
During the Reagan era, there were also forces percolating that would
later play a role in emergent communitarianism. First Lady Nancy
Reagan was put in charge of a federal program to establish “chastity
centers” across the country and lecture teens on the evils of
pre-marital sex. The program became an easy target for critics, and
even some conservatives lambasted the idea as a mischievous form of
“Big Brotherism.” Reagan’s own emphasis on religious faith also
played a pivotal role in the endgame days of the cold war. The
collapse of the Soviet Union brought a call for the revitalization of
“civic” institutions -- businesses, churches, trade and professional
groups -- in that country and the remnant of the Eastern bloc nations.
Another factor was the Catholic Church, which had worked closely with
the U.S. Government in supporting the Solidarity trade union in
Poland.
With the “fall of the wall,” the Vatican in particular found a new
nemesis -- a multi-polar world characterized by globalization, the
internet, international trade, and the erosion of traditional
institutions. Pope Paul warned fellow Poles that while the ouster of
the communist regime was a positive development, secularism and
consumerism threatened tradition values and provided people with “too
much freedom.” Catholic Bishops soon took up the banner of a new
culture war. Called to Rome, the princes of the church heard warnings
from their own ranks, men like Bishop Donald W. Wuerl of Pittsburgh
who cautioned: “Heavy emphasis on the individual and his or her rights
has greatly eroded the concept of the common good and its ability to
call people to something beyond themselves.”
Even more extreme religionists agreed. Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a
fixture on the American religious right scene, increasingly denounced
what he said was the licentiousness of American women, and the pursuit
of material gratification. He described American women as
“prostitutes,” and increasingly portrayed the country as “hell on
earth” and “fallen ... heading for destruction.” A new Moon ally,
Louis Farrakhan of the National Islam agreed, and became increasingly
involved with the Korean cultist.
Modernity, consumerism, and “unfettered individualism” soon emerged as
the new targets of sundry religious groups and political leaders.
The Mantra Of “Civil Society”
A potpourri of social issues and gripes has coalesced as urgent
matters to the ranks of communitarians. Under the same mantle are
advocates of “civil society,” many of whom have been instrumental in
helping to craft the Bush faith-based initiative.
* Marvin Olasky, a key policy adviser to Bush, is considered the guru
of the faith-based initiative. In college at Yale he flirted with
anti-war activism, and even joined the Communist Party. His search
for a “true faith” continued while in graduate school as he began a
philosophical transmutation to the religious right. By 1976, and
following a spiritual epiphany, Olasky enrolled in a
fundamentalist congregation and started devouring texts which included Puritan
sermons replete with millenarian and punitive overtones.
Twenty years later, Olasky was a public policy advisor to then-Texas
Gov. George Bush. It was Olasky who helped to shape many of Bush’s
ideas about the need “privatize welfare” and to involve religious
groups in the operation of social programs. A number of
administrative reforms were pushed through, and faith-based outreaches
like Teen Challenge, a Christian drug and alcohol rehab program, not
only receive state aid but were allowed to operate outside the
controls of government oversight agencies. Today, Olasky’s ideas are
resonating at the federal, state and local levels.
* A strange intersection of liberal and conservative ideology has
emerged through the “civil society” movements with groups such as
Empower America, founded by William Bennett and Joseph Lieberman. The
organization has been prominent for its criticisms of “vulgarity,”
violence and sex in mass media -- everything from movies and
television to video games and lyrics. This front in the culture war
unites both ends of the political spectrum, with organizations like
Morality in Media (headed by Brent Bozell) and the old Parents Music
Resource Center, founded by Tipper Gore.
* “Communitarians” and “civil society” enthusiasts also look to policy
thinkers like Amitai Etzioni, now a professor at George Washington
University. Etzioni was also a former sernior advisor to the White
House (1979-1980) and founder of the International Society for the
Advancement of Socio-Economics. He directs the Center for Policy
Research at Columbia, a post he has held since 1968.
The author of 19 books including “The Limits of Privacy,” Etzioni is
the foremost critic of postmodernist and libertarian individualism.
Like fellow communitarians, he advances the thesis that the major woe
facing particularly western culture is a surfeit of personal freedom
with a lack of concomitant responsibility. For Etzioni, it is the
family, the “community” and other values-giving institutions -- not
the individual -- which are the building blocks of society.
Describing Etzioni’s work, “The Limits of Privacy,” Salon Magazine
writer Mike Goodwin referred to the communitarian guru. “Whenever
some would-be social reformer tells me that individual rights need to
be balanced against the common good, I get nervous. And when someone
argues that civil libertarians and privacy advocates have, in their
concern for privacy, constituted an active social harm, I get
positively jittery...”
Etzioni joins other policy crafters in proposing, for instance, that
government take a more active role in policing the cultural landscape
of America, and do more to “balance” personal liberties and
individualism with what he terms the public welfare. It sounds good
on paper, especially when you consider the extreme cases (such as
on-line sexual predators) communitarians often cite. From there, the
“civil society” agenda suddenly mushrooms, though, into an Orwellian
super-state, with clergy, politicians and morality monitors stalking
the internet, censoring rock concerts, and using the power of the FCC
and other government institutions to “rein-in” a free-wheeling
expression. Led by Sen. Lieberman, for instance, Democrats and
Republicans ganged up on the Hollywood entertainment industry for a
round of Capitol Hill hearings on violence and salacious program
content in the wake of the November, 2000 election. More of the same
can be expected if the current Bush “Communities of Character”
courtship to AOL-Time Warner and other electronic media giants fails
to elicit the sort of compliance the White House is looking for.
* Another communitarian luminary is Kirbyjohn Caldwell, pastor in the
Houston, Texas Windsor Park United Methodist Church, who introduced
George W. Bush at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia
in August 5, 2020 and just five months later gave the invocation at
the Bush inaugural. Caldwell is an icon in the stern religious
communitarian wing, and is a frequent guest (he often gives the
invocation) at meetings of pro-voucher groups like the Texas Public
Policy Foundation. A constant theme in Caldwell’s sermons is the “sin
of materialism.” Bush’s Washington address was described by Richard
Land of the Southern Baptist Convention as “the most religious
inaugural speech in living memory... I believe it is a fearless
signal to the media, who pretend that we are a secular nation. We are
not. We are one of the most religious nations on earth...”
(Associated Press)
* Other names populate the public policy universe which now pervades
the White House, and is unpinning both the faith-based initiative and
the new “Communities of Character” initiative. Along with Etzioni,
Caldwell and Olasky one can include Tony Evans (Promise Keepers); Rev.
Eugene Rivers (Boston); Stephen Goldsmith, former Mayor of
Indianapolis and a major “faith-based partnership” booster who now
heads the federal AmeriCorps program; Don Sider, Evangelicals for
Social Action; and certainly Karl Rove, White House Chief who served
as political tutor for Bush and guided his campaign through the rough
waters of the Southern primaries and the GOP nomination and over the
top in November. Rove, like Olasky was a political tutor for Bush,
and in the summer of 1998 even called upon writers like David Horowitz
and Myron Magnet to make the trek to Austin, Texas to lecture the
governor in the roots of social decay. Like Olasky, Horowitz is a
former 60’s radical-turned-social/religious conservative who has found
redemption in denouncing the old/new left, and dubbing his former
cohorts as the “destructive generation.”
One can also find other names such as John DiIulio, the former
University of Pennsylvania social theorist who wrongly predicted the
coming of a generation of crack-baby “super-predators” ready to run
amok in the streets of a defenseless America. (That argument seems to
have morphed into apocalyptic screeds warning of rising violence in
the mass release of prison inmates incarcerated during the 1970’s and
80’s “wars” on violent crime.) Add to the list Christopher De Muth,
Diane Ravitch, Paul Wolfowitz, and a gaggle of other public policy
groupies from Heritage Foundation and even Pat Robertson’s Regent
University.
Communitarians find their “gospel” in many writings, including Robert
D. Putnam’s book “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community.” Putnam is comfortable in the more liberal wing of the
“civil society” movement, with his thesis of the erosion of
neighborhood and community face-to-face organizations. He used
bowling clubs as an example. The New York Times described him as “a
big, red-faced enthusiastic man with the Amish whiskers and explosive
gestures of a 19-th century fundamentalist preacher -- useful
characteristics for the ‘hell will get us if we don’t mend our way’
thesis...”
“His message ... is that club memberships, the church committees, the
political participation; all the involvements, even the street
protests, that make a democracy work -- has declined over the last 30
years.” Putnam and other communitarians employ language terms like
“social capital” and “responsibilities.” Unlike many in Bush’s
support base, Putnam is heavily “establishment.” He is Stansfield
Professor for International Peace at the John F. Kennedy School of
Government, former Dean, and even sits on the Advisory Council of
Environmental Development at the World Bank. Religious-right
communitarians may find it disturbing that Putnam also is a member of
the Council of Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, two
groups which often are the subjects of conspiracy musings.
Interviewed by the Post in connection with the Bush “Communities of
Character” campaign, Putnam gushed: “We need to connect with one
another. We’ve got to move a little more in the direction of
community in the balance between community and the individual...”
Putnam also said that at the center of the communitarian ethos “is a
notion that years of celebrating individual freedom have weakened the
bonds of community and that the rights of the individual must be
balanced against the interest of society as a whole.” Critics ask:
Who determines the nature of this balance? Who determines the
nebulous ‘interest of society as a whole,’ especially in matters so
closely linked to individual behavior?
The Communitarian-Faith Based Agenda -- Issues
With a narrative laced heavily with references to “community,” “civil
society” and “values,” critics detect the faint whiff of other
authoritarian movements. Some even find lingering similarities to the
Nazi mantra of “Gemeninschaft,” “Community!” Indeed, it was suggested
by Fascist theorists that the good citizens of Germany should
voluntarily relinquish personal liberties in favor of “Gemeinschaft,”
creating a value-oriented culture. Communitarians are neither Nazis
nor fascists, but there are times when their defenses of “the common
good” are chillingly totalitarian. Etzioni, for instance, gushed
about the potential of Bio-metrics, saying “In very short order your
face and hand will become your 100% reliable, unforgivable ID card.
Anonymity will vanish, but so will most fugitives from the law,
illegal immigrants, welfare cheats, and many others who rely on false
IDs.” This may scare some liberals, privacy advocates and even Bob
Barr; but Etzioni is also at odds with traditional conservatives.
“There is little sense in gun registration,” he proposes. “What we
need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament of
the kind that exists in practically all democracies.” Even Bush and
Moses may not agree with this “communitarian” goal.
Communitarians,“civil society” advocates and the Bush White House,
though, do agree on a considerable number of issues, some of which
have already prompted legislative initiatives. More can be expected:
* PUBLIC FUNDING OF FAITH-BASED PROGRAMS. The whole “Communities of
Character” project is designed to jump-start the faith-based
initiative which, while winning approval two weeks ago in the House of
Representatives, faces a rough future in the Senate. Sen. Joseph
Lieberman is already talking compromise with Mr. Bush, though, and a
communitarian-style faith-based could be the result -- a hybrid
between J.C. Watts’ (R-Oklahoma) “Community Solutions Act” and a
Lieberman proposal that would permit religious groups to accept public
money, while still requiring them to observe local and state civil
rights ordinances. Likely on board will be the nation’s black
churches which are enthusiastically backing the Bush initiative in
increasing numbers. White Protestant evangelicals, fearful of what
they perceive to be “government regulation,” could balk and be a
problem.
Faith-based funding is already a “done deal,” though in some areas
where communitarians like Stephen Goldsmith, and possible New Jersey
Gov. Bret Schundler have encouraged state-church “partnerships.”
* SURVEILLANCE, CONTROLS ON THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY. The social
and religious conservatives who backed George W. Bush fret about the
traditional themes of salacious and violent content in movies,
television programs and internet web sites. Pat Robertson’s American
Center for Law and Justices hosts workshops for state and local
District Attorneys and law enforcement personnel, encouraging them on
how to “crack down” on “pornography.” In a recent “700 Club” program,
Robertson again excoriated the judicial system for interpreting the
First Amendment as a legal shield for morally-suspect images.
This agenda, though, has increasingly percolated through liberal
ranks, again thanks to the “civil society” movement which finds itself
distanced from what Joseph Lieberman describes as “our traditional
friends in Hollywood.” The crusade against rap and “gangsta’” lyrics
in the 1990s found a strange bedfellow alliance of traditional
conservatives and “New Democrat” liberals. William Bennett joined
with Joe Lieberman and former National Black Women’s Political Caucus
head C. Delores Tucker in excoriating the burgeoning hip-hop
industry. This angst has now spread to other areas of popular
culture, even the internet which is portrayed as a dark and dangerous
cyber universe placing youngsters “at risk.”
Expect communitarians and “civil society” enthusiasts to find common
cause in a White House crusade to pass some kind of Communications
Decency Act, crack down on offensive internet web sites, and push
stronger content ratings on the entertainment industry. Even more
extreme is a “Communities of Character” program which will encourage
papers, television networks and other information sources to “increase
reporting of good news.” How far would the “encouragement” go?
Critics point to a recent scandal involving efforts by U.S.
government drug war officials to pressure producers to imbed anti-drug
themes in plot lines.
* THE MARRIAGE MOVEMENT is another component in the “Communities of
Character” effort to reverse what both communitarians and religious
conservatives see as the erosion of traditional family values.
Liberals who once scorned Dan Quayle for his strident denunciation of
Murphy Brown and single motherhood now echo the mantra that
“fatherhood matters.” Bush signaled his commitment to this not only
by supporting efforts to abolish the so-called “marriage tax,” but also
moving
Don Eberly -- the founder of the National Fatherhood Initiative --
into the deputy director slot at the White House faith-based office.
Emphasis on tradition marriage -- between one man and one woman,
preferably with the blessing of both church and state -- could divide
communitarians over the issue of gay rights and even single moms,
though. Homosexuals in the military, same-sex marriage and the
adoption of children by gay or lesbian couples is a potential flash
point.
* “PUBLIC SERVICE.” One “Communities of Character” document referred
to ideological policy that resembled “Clinton without Clinton.” Bush
hopes to continue speaking from a “bully pulpit,” but one with ties to
the public treasury and the enforcement mechanisms of the state. As
the nation’s moral authority, Bush is likely to also renew the
emphasis on “public service,” young people taking time to “serve”
communities doing everything from picking up litter to working in
poor, inner-city neighborhoods. Whether this will prove to be a
solution to traditional government welfare approaches remains to be
seen.
* WIDER ROLES, PROTECTION FOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS. Communitarians,
“civil society” interest groups and the Bush administration continue
to press for special legal shields involving religious organizations.
This includes last year’s passage of the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Person’s Act of 2000, which effectively immunized
houses of worship from many environmental, zoning and land use
restrictions. A more expansive version of this legislation has
percolated through a number of state legislatures in the form of
“Religious Liberty Amendments,” which require governments to use
higher and more difficult legal standards when dealing with
faith-based groups. A recent New York Times story noted that local
communities are ceding more legal authority to churches in disputes
involving everything from construction of new facilities to expansion
of parking lots.
* CHASTITY, ABSTINENCE-ONLY SEX EDUCATION. Already, the Bush
administration has tried to undermine foreign assistance programs
which emphasized population restraint and birth control. Look for the
administration to use government money, and enlist the participation
of private and faith groups in a campaign aimed mostly at young people
preaching the virtues and necessity of remaining “pure” and chaste
until marriage. Groups like “True Love Waits,” which encourages teens
to avoid sexual encounters and experimentation, could even qualify for
grants and funding.
What’s left Of The Wall...
This communitarian vision blurs the traditional distinction between
political conservatism and liberalism, yet can appeal to both. It has
“something for everyone.” Conservatives can support Bush and his
communitarian agenda since it expands the role of religious and
community groups, and addresses their fears regarding more nebulous
issues like moral decline, violent crime, “vulgarity,” and a
“breakdown” in the social fabric. Liberals , especially “New
Democrats” like Joe Lieberman, see the political side of
communitarianism as a way to “take back God” for their party -- one
goal in the year 2000 election which saw both Mr. Lieberman and Vice
President Al Gore try to match their Republican rivals on issues
relating to public faith and morality. Ultimately, all of this is
going to require a radical reinterpretation of state-church separation
and civil liberties. Already, the distinction between the campaign
trail and the tent-revival circuit has dimmed, and in Washington, the
prospect looms of a liberal-Democratic “sell out” over the faith-based
initiative. The question for many lawmakers is no longer the
principle, but the mechanics of using the power of government to fund
religion-based programs.
Not all communitarians agree on the details and mechanics of their
philosophy, and critics say that communitarians are united only by
their shared belief that modern culture, particularly American
society, is awash in “too much freedom” and secularism. Amitai
Etzioni sees George W. Bush as leading a new crusade to address these
evils, though, and praises Bush’s inaugural address as “a
communitarian text.” That, the federal faith-based initiative, and
now the “Community of Character” crusade may also turn out to be a
regrettable assault not only on individual rights, but what remains of
a much-battered wall of separation between church and state.
For further information:
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/faithlob.htm
(Articles, background on the federal faith-based initiative)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/church14.htm
("Churches seek special legal protection from suits,"10/31/99)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/church15.htm
("Public funding of religion under guise of ‘fatherhood,’" 11/3/99)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/church19.htm
(House committee boosts role for religious groups in public literacy
programs," 2/21/00)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/church22.htm
("Drug czar schmoozes with Dobson, praises religious ministries in fight
against addiction,"
5/14/00)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/church23.htm
("White House, GOP congress join to promote faith-based ‘Community Renewal’
legislation,"
6/10/00)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/church26.htm
("More media stories raise questions about faith-based partnerships,"
10/24/01)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/church29.htm
("Record prison releases, re-entry programs could fuel calls for
religion-based rehab -- at public expense," 1/9/01)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/bishop2.htm
("Fearing freedom -- Pope, bishops, Rev. Moon blast America, Secularism,
‘Individualism,’"
11/30/97)
Copyright
© 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by American Atheists.