While the United
States will constantly strive to enlist the support of
the international community, we will not hesitate to act
alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of
self-defense by acting preemptively ...
Today
humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further
freedom's triumph over all these foes. The United States
welcomes our responsibility to lead in this great
mission.
But our responsibility to
history is clear: to answer these attacks and rid the
world of evil.
- The National Security Strategy
of the United States (2002), p 6, preface, and p 5.
That the administration of US President George W
Bush is pursuing a unilateralist foreign policy on
issues ranging from the Iraq war to global warming to
the International Criminal Court is obvious to observers
at home and abroad. Also clear is the fact that the Bush
policy, at least in its broad outlines, is very much in
keeping with the preferences of the Christian Right. As
the second and third quotes above indicate, the
president, himself a born-again Christian, does not
hesitate to use a moralistic, implicitly religious
language in defense of his policies.
What,
exactly, is the relationship between the Christian Right
and the unilateralist foreign policy of the present US
administration? For the past quarter-century, the
Christian Right has been a key player regarding domestic
social issues such as abortion, homosexual rights, and
prayer in schools. While journalists, politicians and
academics continue to analyze and debate the Christian
Right's effectiveness in these areas, less attention has
been paid to the religious right's influence on US
foreign policy. However, that influence is becoming
difficult to ignore and is in need of further analysis.
[1]
In the first two sections of this article, I
examine the political and religious roots of the
Christian Right's unilateralism and the development of
the alliances that have allowed it to become a
significant player in contemporary US foreign policy.
The final section looks at a second question: How should
progressives understand and respond to the Christian
Right's influence? I contend that focusing on the
"extremism" of the Christian Right is a misguided
strategy and that we should instead see the Christian
Right as part of a dominant foreign-policy alliance.
Resisting that unilateralist alliance requires a focus
on its inherent contradictions.
The roots of
Christian Right unilateralism
Although the
unilateral inclinations of the present US administration
stand in at least partial contrast to those of its
predecessors, unilateralism is nothing new for the
Christian Right. Decades ago, movement precursors aimed
their fire at internationalists and the United Nations.
The John Birch Society launched its drive to "Get US out
of the UN!" in 1959. In 1962, Billy James Hargis, leader
of the anti-communist organization Christian Crusade,
declared that "the primary threat to the United States
is internationalism" (Redekop 66). Several older
Christian Right figures such as Phyllis Schlafly and Tim
LaHaye trace their political origins back to the
nationalist right of this era (see McGirr). Opposition
to internationalist institutions, which are seen as a
threat to US sovereignty and the country's role as a
"redeemer nation", continues to this day in Christian
Right circles (see Lienesch, Chapter 5).
During
the Cold War era, the primary foreign-policy concern of
the Christian Right and its precursors was the
anti-communist struggle. Support for unilateralism was
part of a larger mission of throwing off
internationalist constraints and unleashing US power to
conduct a more vigorous crusade against "godless"
communism. With the fall of the Soviet Union,
unilateralist anti-communism lost much of its relevance.
[2] In the 1990s, a new set of concerns about
international institutions came to the fore and led the
Christian Right to increase its attention to global
affairs. [3] These concerns are rooted in a fear that
the United Nations is being used to advance a liberal
social agenda. High-profile UN conferences on the rights
of women and population policy were among the
developments that set off alarm bells for Christian
Right leaders. [4] Laurel MacLeod, former director of
legislation and public policy at Concerned Women for
America, described her group's deepening involvement
with international issues by saying: "We got involved,
from my perspective, in international issues in late
'94, when we prepared for the fourth world conference on
the status of women in Beijing, and I like to say that
with UN issues and international issues, it was like we
stuck our toe in a pond and fell in up to our neck and
realized that it was the Pacific Ocean." [5]
The
Christian Right's activism on UN issues has lured it
into tricky territory. Led by the organizers of the
World Congress of Families, elements of the Christian
Right have developed seemingly unlikely alliances,
working with social conservatives around the world -
including the Vatican and some Islamic groups - to
defend the "natural family" in the international arena.
[6] Furthermore, as Concerned Women for America, Eagle
Forum, and the Family Research Council have obtained
official non-governmental organization (NGO) status and
participated in UN forums, they have potentially helped
legitimize an institution many of their members see as
profoundly illegitimate. Yet even as the Christian Right
grapples with the dilemmas of working within the UN, it
remains quite hostile to the institution in its present
form and opposes US cooperation with it. From the
Christian Right perspective, the UN is an institution
dominated by radical feminists bent on using
international institutions to impose their agenda on
both the United States and a socially conservative Third
World.
Another major foreign-policy concern for
the Christian Right over the past decade has been the
issue of religious persecution, especially of Christians
in China, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. Christian Right
activism played a significant role in the passage of the
International Religious Freedom Act in 1998 (see
Hertzke). The religious-persecution issue is not as
closely linked to unilateralism as the issues discussed
above, but it is worth noting that remedies pursued by
the Christian Right - such as the International
Religious Freedom Act, sanctions against Sudan, and the
denial of US trade benefits to China - all involve
unilateral US action against violators of religious
rights rather than reliance on international
organizations to define and defend those rights.
Finally, the Christian Right's unilateralist
inclinations are rooted in its reading of biblical
prophecy. From the 1970s, when Hal Lindsey's The Late
Great Planet Earth was the decade's best-selling
non-fiction book, to the current success of Tim LaHaye's
and Jerry Jenkins's Left Behind series, works of
biblical prophecy have enjoyed enormous popularity among
the Christian Right's supporters and beyond. [7] Details
vary, but most accounts feature the rapture of
believers, a period of war and natural disaster marked
by the emergence of the antichrist, and finally the
second coming of the true Christ. Critically important
for the purposes of this article is a theme common to
many such accounts, the creation of a one-world
government, a "New World Order" led by none other than
the antichrist himself. The antichrist's reign is said
to feature attempts to impose a single world currency
and a single world religion. The UN does not fare well
in these accounts.
The role of the UN varies
over the course of Hal Lindsey's many books on biblical
prophecy. In some of his accounts, the European Union is
the confederation headed by the antichrist (Buss and
Herman 26). The UN, however, is the more common villain
in recent evangelical end-time writings. In the Left
Behind series, the antichrist, Nicolae Carpathia, is
head of the UN. In Pat Robertson's The End of the
Age, antichrist Mark Beaulieu supplants the UN with
a new and even more powerful world body, the Union for
Peace. [8] In all these writings the basic message is
clear: multilateral governmental bodies will be the
instruments used by the antichrist to attain world
domination. These end-time accounts fuel resistance to
perceived attempts to submit the United States to the
authority of any regional or international governing
body.
The exact impact of end-time prophecies is
difficult to measure. Not surprisingly, Washington
representatives of Christian Right organizations are
hesitant to acknowledge prophetic motivations behind
their groups' actions. However, given the popularity of
end-time publications, including those produced by major
Christian Right figures such as Pat Robertson and Tim
LaHaye, it is hard to believe that they do not have a
significant impact. [9]
The inherited
unilateralism of the anti-communist right, opposition to
the UN's perceived social agenda, and biblical prophecy
combine to create a movement resolutely opposed to
multilateralism. The exact nature of that opposition
varies from group to group. Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle
Forum and the Concerned Women for America are hostile to
virtually any form of multilateral authority, while the
Family Research Council and the World Congress of
Families are somewhat more open to compromise. All of
these groups, however, endeavor to steer US foreign
policy in a more unilateral direction.
Building alliances: How the Christian Right
came to be a player in foreign affairs
Although the Christian Right's unilateralism is
not new, its proximity to power is. Three developments
have helped make the Christian Right a significant
player in US foreign policy: the election of a president
with close ties to the movement, the growth of the
Christian Right's grassroots organizational strength,
and the development of an alliance with
neo-conservatives, who have come to play a crucial role
in the present administration.
A sympathetic
president The Christian Right played a supporting
role in the Ronald Reagan administration's war on
Central America, particularly in funneling aid to the
Nicaraguan contras (Diamond, 1989, chapters 5 and 6).
However, its activism in the 1980s was primarily on the
domestic front. The administrations of George H W Bush
and Bill Clinton provided few opportunities for
Christian Right influence, at least at the presidential
level. A committed multilateralist, Bush Sr set off
alarm bells in the Christian Right with his talk of a
"new world order". For many elements of the Christian
Right, that phrase tapped into a long history of
right-wing demonology, symbolizing a world government -
perhaps satanically inspired - threatening US
sovereignty. [10] And antagonism toward Bill Clinton was
even stronger. Demonized by a Christian Right that
vigorously fought to have him impeached, Clinton had
little incentive to grant its leaders access to
foreign-policy decision-making.
The disputed
election of George W Bush provided the Christian Right
with a far more sympathetic president. Bush Jr's
personal history helps cement his ties to the movement.
Although his father was clearly uncomfortable with the
movement's style of mixing religion and politics, the
current president, saved from the sin of alcoholism by
his own born-again experience, has long understood the
nuances of the Christian Right's religious constituency
and speaks its language. Recognizing this back in 1988,
Bush Sr gave his son the task of reaching out to that
constituency for him in his presidential campaign.
Campaign aide Doug Wead worked with George W Bush as
part of an effective effort to woo evangelical leaders.
[11] George W Bush's White House reflects its occupant's
comfort with evangelicalism. The first words heard by
Bush speechwriter David Frum when he arrived at the
White House were "missed you at Bible study" (see Frum).
A grassroots network The personal
inclinations of the current president are reinforced by
the development of the Christian Right's grassroots
electoral capabilities. Prior to Pat Robertson's 1988
presidential campaign, the Christian Right had very
limited experience with precinct organizing. Robertson's
nomination campaign failed in its immediate objective,
but it laid the groundwork for the emergence of the
Christian Coalition. That coalition's grassroots
network, in turn, played a significant role in the
Republican congressional victories of 1994. In the
run-ups to the 1996 and 2000 campaigns, the Christian
Coalition's annual convention became a required stop for
Republican presidential aspirants. Early on, George W
Bush hired former Christian Coalition director Ralph
Reed as a consultant for his nomination campaign. After
Bush lost the New Hampshire primary, strong support from
the Christian Right, especially in South Carolina,
helped him beat back a serious challenge from Senator
John McCain.
With the Christian Right now a
central part of the Republican electoral coalition,
presidents of that party must take the constituency's
concerns into account. And the change goes even deeper
than that. When Christian Right activists entered party
politics during the Robertson campaign in the late
1980s, the distinction between these activists and
established Republicans was clear. For many party
regulars, the Robertson activists were alien interlopers
who had somehow descended on the party. In the words of
the president's brother Neil Bush, they were
"cockroaches" issuing "from the baseboards of the Bible
Belt". [12] Though tension between the Christian Right
and other party factions continues, the Christian Right
is now an established component, and in some areas even
a dominant feature, of the party coalition. John Green
provides an insightful analysis of the evolution of the
"collective identity" of the Christian Right: from
sectarian religious identities in the early 1980s to a
pro-family identity that helped unite Christian Right
members across religious lines to the current era of
"evangelical Republicans", in which partisanship is
central to movement identity. Ralph Reed, former
executive director of the Christian Coalition and now
chair of the Georgia Republican Party, exemplifies this
trend. As Christian Rightists become party activists,
Christian Right organizations may suffer, as the
Christian Coalition has since Reed's departure, but
their influence within the party grows. In a Republican
Party dominated by conservative southerners such as
George W Bush, Tom Delay and Dick Armey, Christian Right
activists are no longer interlopers; they are insiders.
Neo-conservative ties Finally, the
Christian Right's access to power has been greatly aided
by the ties it has developed with neo-conservatives
influential within the present administration.
Neo-conservative intellectuals, many of them Jewish, may
seem unlikely allies for the Christian Right, but this
partnership has developed across several issue areas.
The most important basis for this partnership is a
common support for Israel or, to put it more accurately,
for the Likud Party's vision of Israel's interests. The
Christian Right's support for Israel harks back to the
movement's beginnings in the late 1970s, but it has
risen to a higher level in the past few years. The 2002
annual convention of the Christian Coalition culminated
in a rally for Israel, and Ralph Reed and Rabbi Yechiel
Eckstein recently founded a new group, Stand for Israel.
Meanwhile, throughout Christian Right media, criticism
of the Palestinians and support for hardline Israeli
policies has grown more intense.
The Christian
Right's support for Israel is closely interrelated with
prophetic concerns discussed earlier in this article. In
the words of Christian Right author John Hagee: "Israel
is the only nation created by a sovereign act of God,
and He has sworn by His holiness to defend Jerusalem,
His Holy City. If God created and defends Israel, those
nations that fight against it fight against God." [13]
At a recent Christian Coalition gathering, a speaker
even suggested that the September 11 attacks were God's
punishment for America's insufficient support of Israel
(Arab News, 2003).
Links with neo-conservatives
have also been forged around the issue of religious
persecution. Michael Horowitz, a neo-conservative senior
fellow at the Hudson Institute, and Nina Shea of the
Puebla Institute were instrumental in mobilizing
evangelicals around the issue of religious persecution.
[14] Elliott Abrams, then head of the Ethics and Public
Policy Center, wrote extensively supporting the cause
and, along with Nina Shea, was later appointed to the
commission created by the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998, eventually serving as its chair.
[15] Abrams has moved on to human rights and Middle East
policy positions at the National Security Council.
In 1997, when the Project for the New American
Century was born, it united conservative leaders around
a call for a much more aggressive US foreign policy
(including forceful action against Iraq's Saddam
Hussein). The group's Statement of Principles declared:
"Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral
clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is
necessary if the United States is to build on the
successes of this past century and to ensure our
security and greatness in the next." Among the 25
signatories were leading neo-conservatives and future
players in the Bush administration, including Elliott
Abrams, Dick Cheney, Frank Gaffney, Donald Rumsfeld and
Paul Wolfowitz. Also on the list were Gary Bauer,
longtime head of the Family Research Council, and author
William Bennett. [16]
A sympathetic president,
grassroots electoral strength, and ties to influential
neo-conservatives have given the Christian Right
influence in US foreign policy, providing support for a
militant unilateralism and unwavering backing for
Israel. The Christian Right has been rewarded with
appointments on delegations to UN conferences and
supportive administration action on its international
social agenda (see Butler), and it has been heartened by
Bush's use of religious language to justify his
policies. The religious right does not dominate
foreign-policy making in the current administration; for
example, it lacks key posts at the State and Defense
departments. However, the Christian Right has provided
powerful grassroots support for the unilateralist forces
that currently dominate US foreign policy.
A
progressive response
How should progressives
understand and respond to the Christian Right's
foreign-policy influence? One of the most common
approaches adopted by opponents of the Christian Right
and its predecessors has invoked the language of
extremism.
Extremists, such as members of the
radical right, are seen as distinct from the reasonable
world of normal or mainstream politics. They are viewed
as irrational, psychologically disturbed people who do
not accept the rules of the democratic game. This
approach has a long intellectual history, from Daniel
Bell's, Seymour Martin Lipset's and Richard Hofstadter's
analyses of McCarthyism and the John Birch Society to
later interpretations of the Christian Right (see Bell
1955, 1963, Lipset and Raab, and Crawford). Although
this approach has been much criticized by academics, it
is the analysis that guides major lobbying groups that
attempt to counter the Christian Right. [17]
People for the American Way's very name implies
a distinction between the normal politics of the
"American way" and the dangerous extremism of the
group's opponents, "the radical right". The Interfaith
Alliance describes itself as an "organization of people
of faith and goodwill" engaged in the process of
"promoting mainstream values" and "shining the light on
extremism" (see Interfaith Alliance).
Painting
oneself as mainstream and one's opponents as extreme and
un-American can be an effective political strategy.
Elements of the Christian Right's approach to foreign
policy, equating the UN with the antichrist for example,
certainly are extreme and should be pointed out by its
opponents. Nonetheless, understanding and countering the
Christian Right's foreign-policy influence by using the
language of extremism is a mistaken approach, for
several reasons.
The extremism approach has
particular dangers for those critiquing the Christian
Right from the left. The analysis of extremism is
inherently one that upholds the "responsible" center
against both extremes. Michael Rogin provides a powerful
account of the ways in which such an analysis was
inaccurately used not only to attack the radical right
but also to link it to - and thereby discredit -
progressive movements involving populists and the
student activists of the 1960s. [18] An analysis that
contrasts the pragmatic and responsible leadership of,
say, Colin Powell and George Bush Sr with the extremism
of Christian fundamentalists can also be used to
contrast such leadership with the extremism of
anti-globalization protesters.
Pitting a
rational center against irrational extremists also
blinds everyone to the irrationality of the center and
the rationality of the extremes. It is a serious mistake
to think that the extremes of the Christian Right are
the only places where dangerous nationalist myths take
root. The ideology of US unilateralism draws on a
variety of sources from mainstream popular culture and
civil religion (see Jewett and Lawrence).
It is
also a serious mistake to underplay the rationality of
the Christian Right. Dismissed again and again as an
irrational, reactive movement lashing out against the
modern world, the Christian Right has continually
confounded its critics by behaving in an effective and
politically astute manner, building its institutions,
forging alliances, and working pragmatically to advance
its agenda.
Finally, and most important, the
Christian Right is no longer an extreme separate from
the foreign-policy mainstream. Seeing the Christian
Right as an extreme fringe element that has somehow
wormed itself into the realm of responsible mainstream
foreign-policy making is simply mistaken. With its
grassroots strength, the Christian Right is a major
component in the electoral coalition of the country's
dominant political party. It enjoys close relations with
the president and his neo-conservative advisers, and,
for the moment at least, the Christian Right is a
significant element in a unilateralist alliance that
dominates US foreign policy. This stature must be taken
into account by those who would attempt to counter the
influence of the religious right.
If the
Christian Right is part of a dominant foreign-policy
alliance, how should those who oppose it proceed? The
most obvious and effective countermeasure would be the
electoral defeat of the party and administration with
which it is allied.
Over the past
quarter-century, the Christian Right has become ever
more closely intertwined with the Republican Party. Its
potential for influence closely tracks that party's
electoral fortunes. Of course, this solution begs the
question - how is this electoral defeat to be
accomplished? I have no magic bullet to offer, and the
question is beyond the scope of this article. However, I
would suggest that those looking to organize against the
Christian Right, and the unilateralist alliance of which
it is a part, begin by examining the inherent tensions
and contradictions within that alliance and within the
Christian Right itself, a few of which I will now
enumerate.
Economic globalization Thus
far, our account of the Christian Right and institutions
of international governance has focused upon the United
Nations, the primary target of Christian Right
unilateralism. However, elements of the Christian right
have also aimed their fire at institutions of
international economic governance, such as the World
Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA).
Although the Bush
administration is willing to cast off multilateral
constraints in some areas, neither the White House nor
the business allies so crucial to its success are
interested in a unilateralist rejection of the
neo-liberal economic order. Christian Right resistance
to neo-liberal economic globalization could potentially
pose a serious threat to the current corporate-friendly
foreign-policy coalition. That threat loomed large in
the 1990s, when Christian Right groups were found among
the opponents of NAFTA, the extension of fast-track
trade authority, and the granting of favored trade
status to China. In these battles, Eagle Forum,
Concerned Women for America, and the Family Research
Council found themselves at odds with Republican
leadership and their normal allies such as the Heritage
Foundation. Gary Bauer denounced "the giddy globalism of
corporate Republicans", and Christian Right activists
found themselves in uneasy alliances with labor unions,
human-rights advocates, and anti-globalization
organizers.
The Bush administration's
exploitation of September 11, 2001, the "war on
terrorism", and the war in Iraq have effectively
displaced controversies surrounding economic
globalization. As E E Schattschneider, among others, has
pointed out, determining the issue is among the most
potent of political powers. The Bush administration,
with its plans to tie in the 2004 Republican convention
to the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks,
certainly has taken that lesson to heart. Progressives
need to bring the issues of economic globalization back
to the fore, not only to highlight their concerns, but
also because a focus on this topic exposes serious
contradictions within their opponents' foreign-policy
coalition.
Religious persecution The
subject of religious persecution poses potential
problems for the Republican-Christian Right coalition
through the issue's link to the conflict between
Christian Right and business interests discussed above.
Christian Right opposition to favored trade status for
China was closely tied to that country's treatment of
its Christian citizens. Both the International Religious
Freedom Act and appeals by Christians for sanctions
against Sudan have further raised the specter of a clash
between trade promotion and the right of religious
expression.
Even more serious are the problems
that the issue of religious persecution poses for the
Bush administration's conduct in its "war on terrorism".
In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the White House
has shown little inclination to raise human-rights
matters involving regimes willing to cooperate with its
anti-terrorist campaigns. Yet many key US allies in the
"war on terror", such as Pakistan, are precisely the
countries of most concern to religious-persecution
activists associated with the Christian Right.
Although religious-persecution issues spell
tensions for the dominant foreign-policy coalition,
progressives must be cautious in exploiting those
tensions. In the present climate, concern for the
treatment of Christians in Islamic nations can easily
slide into promotion of a clash of civilizations between
the West and Islam. At a February 2003 "Symposium on
Islam" sponsored by the Christian Coalition, featured
speakers declared that Muslims "want to kill Christians
by any means", and some compared Islam to Nazism (see
Arab News). Franklin Graham, in a highly publicized
statement, recently characterized Islam as an "evil"
religion.
Though such statements certainly
complicate the diplomacy of the Bush administration,
these are hardly the sort of complications that
progressives want to promote. However, there are more
positive ways to leverage the religious-persecution
issue. Progressives need to bring human-rights concerns
back to the front burner in a way that explicitly
addresses cases of religious persecution and emphasizes
multilateral norms and enforcement mechanisms. Raising
these human-rights concerns is the right thing to do,
and such a move holds the potential to create serious
divisions between the Christian Right and the Bush
administration.
Global social conservatism
and its inherent tensions Serious tensions exist
not only between the Christian Right and alliance
partners in the United States but also between the
US-based Christian Right and potential overseas allies.
In recent years, elements of the Christian Right have
attempted to build an international social conservative
alliance, uniting evangelicals, the Vatican, and even
some Islamic groups against homosexual rights,
population-control policies and, above all, feminism.
The most notable institutional embodiment of this
alliance is the World Congress of Families, uniting
groups of various faiths in defense of the "natural
family". As this social conservative alliance has made
its voice heard at UN forums and resisted UN
initiatives, it has often used a strangely progressive
language, defending Third World autonomy against the
meddling of First World feminists and the international
institutions that they allegedly control.
This
international alliance has always been unstable. Much of
the Christian Right's base is hesitant to support
cooperation with the Vatican, much less with Islamic
groups. [19] Although groups from a variety of nations
participate in the World Congress of Families,
participation is heavily skewed toward the US Christian
Right. Given the militant nationalism of the Christian
Right and its belief in the unique US role as a
"redeemer nation", it is hardly surprising that such
religious nationalists are ambivalent about crafting a
truly international coalition. The September 11 attack,
the "war on terrorism", and the war against Iraq have
heightened this nationalism and further complicated the
Christian Right's efforts at international
coalition-building. In the current environment,
cooperation with Islamic groups is especially
problematic.
These difficulties notwithstanding,
we should not underestimate the potential of a worldwide
socially conservative alliance and its possible
effectiveness in resisting the efforts of international
governing bodies to defend women's rights or implement
effective AIDS policies. Opposition to feminism and
homosexual rights is widespread around the world. Even
if evangelical-Islamic cooperation is unlikely in the
present climate, US religious conservatives can look to
the explosive growth of conservative Christianity around
the globe in their search for potential allies (see
Jenkins). The current controversy over gay ordination in
the Episcopalian church is illustrative. US opponents of
the church's recent decision to ordain a gay minister
have forged an alliance with conservative members of the
international Anglican community, particularly with
members of its massive and rapidly growing African
branch.
Progressive internationalism, ie,
utilizing international institutions to promote
equitable economic development rather than
neo-liberalism, poses serious problems for the Christian
Right's attempts to construct a global alliance of
social conservatives and undercuts the unilateral US
nationalism of the Christian Right. Few of the Christian
Right's potential allies in other parts of the world are
fervent US nationalists, and they are generally more
favorably inclined toward the UN (see Buss and Herman).
Moreover, a progressive international economic agenda
highlights real contradictions between the
neo-liberalism of the current administration, with which
the Christian Right is allied, and the economic
interests of prospective Third World allies that the
Christian Right is attempting to win over on social
issues.
Shifting the global social-conservatism
debate to an agenda of progressive internationalism,
translating concerns over religious persecution into
commitment to a general defense of human rights, and
countering economic globalization are obviously not easy
tasks. However, if done correctly, pursuit of such goals
can trigger a win/win scenario: it's the right thing to
do, and it could create serious problems for the
Christian Right and the unilateralist alliance now
dominating US foreign policy.
Bibliography
Elliott Abrams, ed, The Influence of
Faith: Religious Groups & US Foreign Policy
(Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001).
John Green, "The Spirit Willing: Collective
Identity and the Development of the Christian Right" in
Jo Freeman and Victoria Johnson, eds, Waves of
Protest (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield,
1999).
Joshua Green, "God's Foreign Policy",
Washington Monthly, November 2001, pp 26-30.
Grace Halsell, Prophecy and Politics (New
York: E J Hill & Co, 1989).
Allen Hertzke,
"The Political Sociology of the Crusade Against
Religious Persecution" in Elliott Abrams, ed, The
Influence of Faith: Religious Groups & US Foreign
Policy (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield,
2001).
Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom
(Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2002).
Robert Jewett and John Shelton Lawrence,
Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing
Co, 2003).
Michael Lienesch, Redeeming
America: Piety and Politics in the New Christian
Right (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of
North Carolina Press, 1993).
Seymour Martin
Lipset and Earl Raab, The Politics of Unreason
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978).
William Martin, "The Christian Right and
American Foreign Policy", Foreign Policy, Vol 114,
Spring 1999, pp 66-79.
Lisa McGirr, Suburban
Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right
(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press,
2001).
Matthew Moen, The Christian Right and
Congress (Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama
Press, 1992).
Duane Oldfield, The Right and
the Righteous (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman &
Littlefield, 1996).
John Harold Redekop, The American Far Right:
A Case Study of Billy James Hargis and Christian
Crusade (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans
Publishing Co, 1968).
Pat Robertson, The End
of the Age (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995).
Pat Robertson, The New World Order
(Dallas: Word Publishing, 1991).
Michael Paul
Rogin, The Intellectuals and McCarthy (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1967).
Clyde Wilcox, Onward Christian Soldiers
(Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1996).
Endnotes
1. Many works on
the Christian Right have given scant attention to
foreign-policy issues. For examples, see Moen (1992),
Wilcox (1996), Oldfield (1996) and Watson (1999). A
major exception to this trend has been the work of Sara
Diamond (1989, 1995). In the past few years the
foreign-policy activism of the Christian Right has been
the focus of more scholarly attention. See Martin
(1999), Abrams (2001), and, most notably, Buss and
Herman (2003). 2. Opposition to "Red" China,
however, remains a significant item on the Christian
Right's foreign-policy agenda, particularly for the
Family Research Council. 3. The general trend toward
greater involvement in international affairs masks some
differences among Christian Right groups. Phyllis
Schlafly, head of the Eagle Forum, has long been active
in international issues. The Christian Coalition has
generally avoided international matters, except for
issues of religious persecution and support for
Israel. 4. Christian Right groups also object to the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, seeing it as a
potential threat to the authority of parents. Moving
beyond a social-issues agenda, Christian Right groups
have raised objections to the US peacekeeping troops
serving under UN command in Bosnia. The UN's Biosphere
reserve program, seen as a threat to US sovereignty over
its parklands, has also come under Christian Right
fire. 5. Interview with author, July 30, 1998. 6.
See Buss and Herman for a comprehensive account of the
Christian right's alliances and activism at the
UN. 7. Several novels in the Left Behind
series have reached No 1 on the New York Times
bestseller list, and overall sales for the series now
top 50 million books. Lindsey's sales were less
noticeable to those outside the evangelical community,
because until recently the Times did not poll Christian
bookstores in calculating its sales figures. 8.
Beaulieu is eventually defeated through the leadership
of a televangelist who bears a remarkable similarity to
Robertson himself and a US general who craftily
withholds a segment of the US military from the control
of the new world government. 9. Robertson's role as a
televangelist, Christian Right presidential candidate,
and longtime president of the Christian Coalition is
well known. LaHaye has been somewhat less visible to
outsiders, but he too has played an important role in
the movement as an author, co-founder of the Moral
Majority, and as the husband of Beverly LaHaye, founder
and former president of Concerned Women for
America. 10. Robertson (1991) and personal interview
with Leigh Ann Metzger, who served as the elder Bush's
outreach director for religious conservatives (August
21, 1994). 11. Doug Wead, personal interview with
author, May 1989. 12. Baltimore Sun, November 25,
1987, as quoted in Campaign Hotline-American Political
Network, Inc. 13. Quoted in Paul Boyer (2003). For
more on prophecy and Christian Right foreign policy, see
Boyer (1992) and Halsell. Although end-time prophecies
lead to strong support for Israel, a closer examination
reveals that Jews, or at least those who do not convert
to Christianity, do not fare well in end-time
scenarios. 14. Richard Cizik, vice president for
governmental affairs at the National Association of
Evangelicals, personal interview with author, July 1998,
and Green (2001). Shea's Puebla Institute was best known
for its criticism of Nicaragua's Sandinista government
and, allegedly, had ties to that government's contra
opponents. See
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/shea/shea.html. 15.
See Hertzke. 16. Bauer and the Family Research
Council have been closer to neo-conservatives than other
elements of the Christian Right. Bauer is more
supportive of free trade and an activist US foreign
policy than leaders at Concerned Women for America and,
especially, Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly, whose
isolationist tendencies slot her closer to the
paleoconservatives. 17. The Massachusetts-based
Political Research Associates is a notable exception.
18. See Oldfield as well as Berlet and Lyons for
critiques of the extremism approach to interpreting the
Christian Right. 19. Darren Logan, Family Research
Council, interview with author, July 1998. See also Buss
and Herman.
Duane Oldfield is an
associate professor of political science at Knox College
and the author of The Right and the Righteous
(Rowman & Littlefield, 1996). An earlier version of
this article was presented at the 2003 annual meeting of
the American Political Science Association, August
28-31, 2003.
