In Defense of the Religious Right: Why Conservative Christians Are the Lifeblood of the Republican Party and Why That Terrifies the Democrats [Hardcover]

Patrick Hynes (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: July 4, 2006

Political consultant and commentator Patrick Hynes dispels common stereotypes and misapprehensions about the most powerful political constituency in the country while undertaking the most exhaustive effort yet to define what the Religious Right is, what its members believe, and why they are right.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

A detailed look at the place of the religious right in American politics, Hynes' book examines his subject across a wide range of issues. Hynes does a good job demonstrating the demographic diversity of this voting bloc as well as the diversity of their beliefs-showing how they cannot all be lumped under the banner of a single high-profile leader, such as Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. In this, Hynes provides a much-needed corrective to the stereotype of the religious voter developed in the reactionary left's collective conscious: poor, dumb, white Southerners. The book is less effective considering issues such as the church-state debate in Revolutionary America or constitutional theory, where the level of discourse approaches low-brow telejournalism, picking apart sound-bites from left-wing politicos and pundits rather than taking on reasoned arguments. Given that Hynes is both a respected political consultant and a blogger (AnkleBitingPundits.com), this dichotomy makes a bit more sense. Unfortunately, the lion's share of the book is more like a snarky blog than a serious consideration of the religious right. Despite its title, Hynes' work is not a defense in the standard sense; Hynes is more interested in strengthening group identity among one of America's largest voting blocs than convincing opponents of that bloc to reconsider their position.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

CHAPTER 6
THIRTY MILLION JESUS FREAKS CAN'T BE WRONG

The best way to think about the postelection analysis from 2004 is of two armies. One army advances on a piece of terrain and swiftly takes it. The second army girds its forces, complete with superior firepower and overwhelming troop strength. This second army not only retakes the lost ground, but then proceeds to decimate opposition forces, hopeful none will live to retell the tale of their inspiring, if short-lived, victory.

This first army represents the immediate conventional wisdom after a 2004 exit poll showed that 22 percent of all voters were motivated to vote by "moral values" issues, as opposed to 20 percent who said the "economy and jobs" motivated them, 19 percent who said"terrorism," and 15 percent who said Iraq.

"What does Bush owe the Religious Right?" asked Karen Tumulty and Matthew Cooper in Time magazine. "They helped reelect the President, and Christian conservatives want payback."

"I think the rise of what was called moral values in the polls on this election defined a group of people whose families face, who want to live, and do live in what we would call an old-fashioned life . . . more 'Father Knows Best' and less 'The Times They Are A Changin',' " historian and writer Richard Reeves, who studies politics and presidents, told CBS News. "And 'Father Knows Best' held on."

"Voters focused on four issues: moral values, the economy, terrorism and the war in Iraq. The issue most voters thought was most important was moral values," observed Dan Rather. "For those voters, the choice was lopsided: 79 percent went for Mr. Bush, and only 18 percent for Kerry."

Some of the duller lights of this analysis emanated, of course, from liberal pundits. These folks accepted the idea that moral values won the election for Bush. Yet they resented the fact because they themselves very publicly reject America's moral values. "Can a people that believe more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?" cried Garry Wills. The ironically-named novelist Jane Smiley used the I-word to explain what happened:"The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry." Columnist Michael Kinsley said Christian voters were more "arrogant" than people on his side of the aisle who are "crippled by reason and open-mindedness."

Finally reaching the acceptance stage of grief, Katha Pollitt wrote in Slate, "If a voter wants Christian Jihad, he may not be willing to desert the cause for health insurance--especially with Republicans telling him 50 times a day that the plan is really a socialist plot to raise his taxes and poison him with Canadian drugs."

"Let's be clear: Bush ran on a moral agenda--God, guns, gays, and true grit in fighting the evils of Saddam Hussein and terrorism," echoed Robert Reich.

THE "MYTH" MYTH

So that was it, eh? Case closed? Evangelical Christians turned out in record numbers, motivated by "moral values" and an inordinate fear of progress to reelect Pres. George W. Bush?

Not quite. The counter-analysis came swift and hard. It came from the Left and the Right and the Center. Whatever the 2004 election was about, these election spinners demanded, it was not about "moral values."

"The morality gap didn't decide the election," declared Professor Paul Freedman of the University of Virginia. "Voters who cited moral issues as most important did give their votes overwhelmingly to Bush (80 percent to 18 percent), and states where voters saw moral issues as important were more likely to be red ones. But these differences were no greater in 2004 than in 2000. If you're trying to explain why the president's vote share in 2004 is bigger than his vote share in 2000, values don't help."

Alan Abramowitz of Emory University concluded, "It may take years to determine whether the 2004 election signaled the beginning of a new era of Republican domination of American politics or was simply a normal election in an era of intense competition for the support of a closely divided electorate. However, data already available suggest that Republican claims that 2004 was a landmark election are overstated and raise doubts about the notion that Republicans won the election on the strength of a massive turnout of social conservatives."

New York Times op-edster David Brooks declared the "moral values" story line "certainly wrong." He explained, "Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying 'moral values.' But that phrase can mean anything--or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result."

Jim Wallis also objected to the wording of the exit poll, writing in his book God's Politics, "The single moral values question was a whole different kind of choice that the rest of the 'issues,' ignoring the moral values inherent in those other concerns. Putting an ambiguous moral values choice in a list of specific issues skewed the results."

The issue was put to bed in the minds of most pundits. The"moral values" army of analysts were wiped out completely when Charles Krauthammer declared it a "myth." Krauthammer was a hard-charging Bush enthusiast during the 2004 election. He is also recognized as one of the few genuine intellectuals within the American political commentariate. And so people paid attention to what he had to say:

Whence comes this fable? With Pres. Bush increasing his share of the vote among Hispanics, Jews, women (especially married women), Catholics, seniors and even African-Americans, on what does this victory-of-the-homophobic-evangelical voter rest?

Its origins lie in a single question in the Election Day exit poll. The urban myth grew around the fact that "moral values" ranked highest in the answer to Question J: "Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?"

It is a thin reed upon which to base a General Theory of the '04 Election. In fact, it is no reed at all. The way the question was set up, moral values were sure to be ranked disproportionately high. Why? Because it was a multiple-choice question, and moral values cover a group of issues, while all the other choices were individual issues. Chop up the alternatives finely enough, and moral values are sure to get a bare plurality over the others.

It must be noted that many pundits had an ulterior motive in downplaying the role of moral values in 2004. Most liberal commentators fluffed off the impact the Massachusetts's Supreme Court's gay marriage dictate would have on the election. Allowing posterity to come to believe that 2004 was the year of the moral values counterrevolution would forever blemish their reputation as pundits.

Worse still, it would create a sense of finality on the issue of gay marriage, a very real sense that Americans don't want it, now and forever. And that wouldn't do because liberalism is all about breaking down social norms until the irregular becomes normalized.

David Brooks, whose conservative credentials are otherwise challenged only for his employment at the New York Times, supported legalized gay marriage. Even Krauthammer wrote a column in which he expressed opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment in Congress.

But let us assume that these pundits were sincere and were not simply trying to protect their income-earning potential as political prognosticators. Which analysis is correct?

Well, for reasons not really expressed by anyone in the public, the first army, the one decimated by the likes of David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer, were right, but not for the reasons they think. I alone have lived to tell the story.

Let us start by examining that "flawed" exit poll question. Was it, as Krauthammer explains, flawed because "moral values" covers a"group of issues"? Possibly. But isn't "Education"--one of the other options--a "group of issues"? And what about "the Economy"? Certainly Krauthammer wouldn't argue that the economy is a singular issue, right? And "Terrorism." Is that a single issue? Or a family of issues?

Krauthammer's analysis falls far short of debunking the "moral values myth."

What of Wallis's argument that the "moral values" option on the exit poll question was "ambiguous"? Perhaps it was . . . to Jim Wallis. But he is virtually alone in his confusion. Overwhelmingly, voters who cited "moral values" as their motivator voted for George W. Bush--80 percent to 18 percent. In other words, voters were very unambiguous as to the meaning of the question, at least as it related to their vote.

The fact that "moral values" registered on the exit polls and that those voters were so solidly behind one candidate over another tells us that there is something far more significant going on here than Krauthammer's "myth" and Wallis's "ambiguity."

The fact is George W. Bush won reelection because the Religious Right turned out in numbers previously unimaginable. Whereas 1994 was the Religious Right's first successful endeavor into national (as opposed to regional) election activity, 2004 was the year they took over American elections altogether. Two thousand four was the year in which the Religious Right established itself as the most consequential voting bloc in the nation, the GOP's indispensable voting blo...

Product Details

• Hardcover: 288 pages
• Publisher: Thomas Nelson (July 4, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1595550518
• ISBN-13: 978-1595550514
• Product Dimensions: 8.4 x 5.5 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 13.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (16 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,438,936 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Book for Everyone: Liberals, Conservatives, Believers, Non-believers, June 24, 2006

By 

Paul Young - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: In Defense of the Religious Right: Why Conservative Christians Are the Lifeblood of the Republican Party and Why That Terrifies the Democrats (Hardcover)

As a Catholic, I was hesitant to pick up Patrick Hynes book because, frankly, I have not always felt comfortable with the religious right. While generally a conservative voter, I did not see myself philosophically in line with the Robertsons and Falwells of the religious right. After reading Mr. Hynes book, I know realize I had fallen pray to many of the stereotypes and misconceptions about the religious right. In reality, the religious right shares a lot more in common with me, and the majority of Americans than I was willing to give them credit for. Hynes does an excellent job demonstrating this point and backing it up with substantive facts. He makes a compelling argument that the commonalities between the religious right and the rest of America is THE reason why Republicans have been successful in elections for the past 25 years.

This is a book for everyone who wants to understand the political dynamics of America since the Reagan era. Believers, non-believers, liberals, conservatives, republicans and democrats can all learn from this book. In fact, if Howard Dean wants to lead his party to victory in 2006, he better read this book! Likewise, Republican leaders would do well to refresh their memories, or in some cases learn of the importance of the religious right in winning elections for the GOP. Hynes has written a blueprint for victory for either party who is willing to embrace the religious right without alienating the majority of Americans because he makes the point (with facts to back it up) that these two groups are more similar than divergent.

Hynes brings the reader through a historical analysis of the political issues and dynamics that have led the religious right to the republican party and the republican party to victory over the past few decades. And, he does so in an engaging way. Frankly, I did not expect this book to be as an enjoyable read as I found it. While this is Hynes' first book, I hope it won't be his last because his writing style and thorough use of facts without boring the reader is a rare skill.

My only criticism is that the book seems to skim over the years when the democratic party could call itself the party of religion that began with the catering to immigrants in the 1930s and ended with the death of JFK in the 1960s. I do not think it is a coincidence that this is the period of greatest success for the democratic party, when they did recognize and embrace religion. Perhaps because Hynes focuses on the past 25 years in his book, he seems to miss this point that I find backs his claim that the democrats have failed because they have run from religion. Otherwise, Hynes hits just about every other issue that have created the current political landscape in America.

If you want to gain greater insight into American politics, pick up a copy of Hynes' book, you might find yourself upset, surprised, or questioning, but you won't be disappointed. As an avid reader of political books, this is perhaps one of the best I have read because it is both informative and entertaining.

6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Molding Christian Hegemony Into Republican Policy, February 24, 2007

By 

A. Nardi (Grand Haven, MI United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: In Defense of the Religious Right: Why Conservative Christians Are the Lifeblood of the Republican Party and Why That Terrifies the Democrats (Hardcover)

This is not a scholarly take on the ascendancy of the Conservative Christian movement in American politics. It is, as you could divine from the title, a book targeted to that segment of the Conservative Christian community who would agree that America would be a better place, if only...

Hynes' book is slanted significantly towards that audience. If you're a church-going Christian AND have voted Republican, you'll find a great deal that appeals to you. Everyone else? Well, Hynes uses some fairly strong language ("faker," "fraud," "Liberal Theocrat") to construct archetypes of non-Conservative Christian Republicans in order to dismiss their political goals and ideals as anything from disingenuous to downright dangerous.

Through the use of polling data and post-election demographic breakdowns, Hynes makes the case that the Christian hegemony represents the mainstream opinion on nearly all important social issues, and since (he states) the Conservative Christian voting bloc is the "biggest" voting bloc in our country, it is up to Conservative Christians to work through the Republican Party to defeat the non-mainstream, "marginal," or "fringe" policies being advocated by those who don't.

Since this is not a serious, scholarly dissection of the Conservative Christian movement, it goes to follow that a self-professed "liberal" reading this book would find some of Hynes' tactics - such as constructing straw men and engaging in the demogoguery of Hollywood and Bill Clinton - to be the sort of easy and cheap arguments more at home in a right-wing blog than in a Poli Sci textbook. If, however, you find yourself of the opinion that the political policies of the "Democrat Party" (sic) are a danger to the moral fiber of American life, you might find a great deal in this book with which you agree.

3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Must Read For Political Junkies Both Right And Left Wing, July 3, 2006

By 

Politico - See all my reviews

This review is from: In Defense of the Religious Right: Why Conservative Christians Are the Lifeblood of the Republican Party and Why That Terrifies the Democrats (Hardcover)

Hynes has written a powerful defense of Christian conservatives who, he convincingly argues, have a much larger role in our nation's public affairs than is usually suspected. He further argues that this role is positive and uplifting for the country.

I was especially impressed with his thorough analysis of the 2004 campaign. While most pundits have argued that the role of so-called "moral values" voters was overstated, Hynes argues that the role of "moral values" voters on that elections cannot be overstated.

Don't let the titled fool you. This is not a theological book. It's a political one about what is the most influential voting bloc in the country, and is an absolute must read if you want to understand the dynamics of campaigns and politics.

Even if you don't agree with the "Religious Right" on the issues, you should read the book because it explains how they can influence elections and how they think. Plus, Howard Dean and the Democrats are trying to make inroads with religious voters, and anyone seeking to do so should read the book, even if their only purpose is to "talk the talk" and not "walk the walk".

In sum, Hynes believes the Religious Right is the GOP's "indispensable voting bloc" and is "the largest voting bloc in the country." (The GOP might want to remember that) After completing In Defense of the Religious Right, you will agree.