Evangelicals Have a Long Way to Go (Hanna Rosin)

This weekend I went to the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit. This is meant to be a replacement for the annual Christian Coalition event, and all the candidates showed up. If our standard is MLK – ie "clarity of vision combined with understanding of endless complexity of morality" – as Jeff lays out, they fell far short.

The mood felt to me like the Politburo circa 1989 – slightly bloated and smug about their power, thoughtlessly going through the motions. There were all the usual suspects – James Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, Bob Knight on the Homosexual Agenda, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, the House Jew.

The candidate lines that got the most applause were the same ones you would have heard fifteen years ago, almost down to the wording – "appoint strict constructionist judges who won't legislate from the bench," ""pro-life my entire career." The only one who said them with any gusto or enthusiasm was Sam Brownback, and he was rumored to be dropping out that evening.

Talking to Gary Bauer outside was like talking to Karl Rove or Joe Trippi or any Washington power broker. A candidate didn't have to be pro-life their entire career, he said; they were allowed "one chance to change their minds." He had many Mormon friends, he assured the press. Huckabee was great but he only has "like 4 percent support in the polls." A third party was a "non-starter" – probably a wise political decision but still proof that the revolutionary instinct has gone cold.

He and the other evangelical leaders had formed a secret group, he said, to interview candidates, and in a few days they would release each other to begin endorsements. Likely, he said, they wouldn't agree on one candidate. One thing they could agree on was, of course, the She-Devil, or as Bauer, ever polite, put it, "our strong dislike of Hillary."

The only part that felt new to this decade was a debate between Richard Land (definitely a cosmo) and Jim Wallis. It's a big deal to even invite Jim Wallis to such an event; I realize that. And the debate started out with great promise: Land urged the crowd to "take off the boxing gloves." He outlined points of agreement and disagreement. He quoted JFK before mentioning Ronald Reagan. But he failed to tame the crowd. As soon as they sensed Wallis inching into liberal territory, they let him know. "Social responsibility." Light grumbling from the crowd. "Stewards of God's creation." Audible boo! Hiss!

Maybe this is like the Politburo and represents nothing but its dying self. "They say you can't really take the measure of a tree until it's down," Sam Brownback said about Bill Bright and Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy, and somehow that statement seemed particularly apt. If so, then maybe there is room for hope, as evangelicals retreat to parachurch groups and influence the culture in kinder, gentler ways. But somehow I see one of these two scenarios as more likely: Romney gets elected, in which case we have the same Bush-type dysfunction between the White House and evangelicals that Kuo outlined so nicely in his book. Hillary or Giuliani get elected, and we're back to culture wars, 1992.