This column and others like it make the mistake of ignoring history. If Obama is elected, it wouldn't be the first time a liberal was elected as president with many Christians supporting him (see Carter, Clinton). Both sides are getting elected all the time in every country for many different reasons. The pendulum swings back and forth. As much as it would please you to think that evangelicals are rejecting Bush's tax cuts and environmental policies (and anything else you could tag onto him), the truth is people are more frustrated with the war, his style of governance, and issues that are beyond his and the govt's control (e.g., housing slump, gas prices). Most conservatives will also say that Bush has not been a very conservative president--see No Child Left Behind, Medicare prescription drug coverage, campaign finance. Many would also say that his foreign policy is not conservative.

If Obama is elected, and things don't improve, will the subsequent election of a conservative prove that liberalism has been wholly refuted? Was Reagan's election after Carter a wholesale refutation of liberalism? You could play this game all day (see France, the UK). The reality is more complicated.

Posted by: jesse | June 24, 2008 11:28 AM

"the propagandized denial of climate change"

At least we're using the correct terms nowadays. Propaganda is right, and it's unfortunate to see it on this site. I don't understand why there are such vigorous proponents of global "warming" when the data collected in 2007 from 4 different climate centers showed a decrease in global average temperatures. This decrease was enough to erase DECADES of rising temperatures.

But, now we're all back to being PC, and we can use "climate change" to describe every planetary fluctuation so as to blame it on the human race. I'm not exactly sure how our pollution can cause global temperatures to decrease, but hey, we're all about propaganda, right?

Do I agree that President Bush's presidency is questionable? Absolutely. Am I tired of the global warming angle that seems to make its way into many blogs on this site? Likewise, yes, since it conflicts with empirical evidence.

Propaganda is right.

Posted by: Matt Hartzell | June 24, 2008 11:47 AM

George Bush lost me (not that he ever had me) when he named Jesus Christ (supposedly his Lord and Savior, since he claims to be "Born Again) as the most influential "philosopher" in his life. God's Truth and Wisdom is not some nebulous "philosophy". I still have trouble believing that so many Evangelicals let this pass on the theory that he would lead us to a more "perfect Union".

Now, here is something for y'all to chew on until November. How can we be sure that we will even have an election? Everything is in place to declare Martial Law. George Bush has proven in the past that he will do whatever he pleases (since he seems to believe that he has a direct pipeline to the Mind and Will of God), notwithstanding the will of the people he was elected to represent. Dick Cheney will again say in his patently smug way, "So?" We have draft-dodgers sending our best and brightest to die in a sectarian meat grinder—Texas oilmen setting a secret energy "policy" that threatens to bankrupt the nation.

Posted by: Hermes | June 24, 2008 11:51 AM

[Climate change] conflicts with empirical evidence. Propaganda is right.

Matt, why don't you take a look at some empirical evidence? Here's a good place to start:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Sarcastically thanking God for someone you hate strikes me as ungodly.

Ryan, please show me specifically where in this essay that Chuck says he "hates" Bush personally, or even implies it. He never says anything about Bush the person, but he severely criticizes Bush's policies and actions as President. That's something he has a right to do as a citizen--and an obligation, IMO--correct? What is ungodly about that?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | June 24, 2008 12:27 PM

If Obama is elected, and things don't improve, will the subsequent election of a conservative prove that liberalism has been wholly refuted? Was Reagan's election after Carter a wholesale refutation of liberalism?

Apples and oranges. Modern conservatism -- the kind given voice by Buckley, first making a splash with Goldwater and popularized by Reagan but exposed as fraudulent by Bill Clinton and eventually destroyed by Bush -- always was mean-spirited and tightly-scripted, any deviation being considered "liberalism." Conservatism is being hammered today because, as its goal was to build an aristocracy, it couldn't adjust to changing political reality and thus can no longer call the shots.

Posted by: Rick | June 24, 2008 12:41 PM

Chucks logic is as old as politics itself. Let's 'give them' what they want to say 'find out' that is not what they needed. Politicos have been saying the samething about BHO since he started running for office. (whatever) I survived Carter - we can survive Obama. (Just wondering if Obama can survive Congressman Ellis?)

It is interesting - if a liberal says it - it is lauded on this site and has to be true. If a conservative says it - it is wrong and they have to be stupid. Rev Wright asked God to 'D**n America' in essence call down God wrath on the 'USofKKKA'. I commented that I believe God should cause the fall of the US because of several things. Several on this site commented that I had to stupid, crazy and what kind of a Christian am I.

I rest my case.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | June 24, 2008 12:46 PM

Does this mean GP is officially abandoning its pretense of non-partisanship?

I dislike GWB for a lot of reasons. But if we're truly attempting to transcend labels of left and right, can't we find ways to affirm that the president has done more for Africa and HIV than his demomcratic predecessor ever even dreamed of? Can't we affirm that Bush put together a fair and compassionate attempt at immigration reform? I don't excuse the war crimes or the failed economic policy, but I expect better from GP/Sojo than a Left-wing version of the "Moral Majority".

Posted by: Matt K | June 24, 2008 1:08 PM

"Sarcastically thanking God for someone you hate strikes me as ungodly."

You are right, in the tradition of "Turn the other cheek". However, I like to think that Chuck really meant he thanks God for GWB in the same way that many of us thank God for something that happened to us that we thought was horrible at the time, but brought us to a better, deeper understanding of our life. Like when a cancer patient tells you that even though they are angry as hell about their disease, they realize it was the best thing that ever happened to them spiritually.

Posted by: Ella in NM | June 24, 2008 1:15 PM

"Apples and oranges. Modern conservatism -- the kind given voice by Buckley, first making a splash with Goldwater and popularized by Reagan but exposed as fraudulent by Bill Clinton and eventually destroyed by Bush -- always was mean-spirited and tightly-scripted, any deviation being considered "liberalism." "
--Rick, you like to make this claim but have little to back it up. Reagan cut taxes, curbed regulations, railed against corrupt, harmful welfare policies and sought to reduce the size of govt. Clinton raised marginal tax rates but nowhere near the levels pre-Reagan. He also cut capital gains taxes and reformed welfare. Clinton did not refute Reaganism; he accepted its gains, went even further on some issues (with welfare reform), and consolidated it.

But I know we have different definitions of conservatism and Reaganism that lead us to very different interpretations of events.

Posted by: jesse | June 24, 2008 1:51 PM

Matt, if you cannot recognize the serious difference between an information source operated by and contributed to by climate scientists who are themselves working in the field gathering evidence and analyzing it on the one hand with a source that simply spits out secondhand information complete with their own politically motivated spin on the other, then nothing I or anyone else might say will persuade you that the real propagandists are not the climate scientists.

can't we find ways to affirm that the president has done more for Africa and HIV than his demomcratic predecessor ever even dreamed of? Can't we affirm that Bush put together a fair and compassionate attempt at immigration reform?

Matt, how long have you been visiting this site? God's Politics have always given the president marks for his efforts when they felt they could, including on both the issues you cite here. Take a look:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/02/well-done-president-bush-by-br.html

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/06/adam-taylor-the-eleventh-hour.html

Peace,

Posted by: Don | June 24, 2008 1:58 PM

Matt,

Please look up the difference between the term "climate" and the term "weather". One cooler-than-average year does not equal a change in climate. 20 cooler-than-average years, however, does. As does 20 warmer-than-average years.

And that one year has not negated the effects of the previous years of warming--There is no data that sea ice is on the increase in the Arctic and Antarctic, or that the glaciers are advancing worldwide rather than retreating. One year isn't going to do the trick. That said, I wish you were right that it would.

Posted by: squeaky | June 24, 2008 2:15 PM

Rick,
Your response is unrelated to the main point of my post, which is that Clinton actually accepted Reagan's gains and went further in reforming welfare. Clinton did not refute or expose anything as fraudulent. I would also like to see your data on how the payroll tax rate "sextupled" during his tenure. I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: jesse | June 24, 2008 2:35 PM

I get a kick out of how Sojourners likes to call themselves non-partisan, and how they like to rail on neo-conservatives co-opting Christianity for their own purposes, then post ridiculous articles like this one pining for a Democratic Advent as if the liberals represent Biblical values with so much integrity. How about it, Jim, can you give simplistic nonsense a rest and discuss national and world events thoughtfully and without an agenda?

Posted by: Tom | June 24, 2008 2:46 PM

Posted by: Tom | June 24, 2008 2:46 PM

Well said

This is why in the past I have stated that Wallis is the Robertson of the Dem Party. Sorta the 'do as I say - not as I do' person. If you are going to support Wallis you have to demean and denagrate Dobson, Kennedy and Fawell. (personally from the way Wallis writes - Graham is in the somewhere too) But - I find it extreamly interesting that he has said little to nothing about Paul and Jan Krouch - you figure.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | June 24, 2008 2:55 PM

Chuck,
Thanks for the article on Bush. Your comments were right on. It was almost as entertaining to view the sour-grapes responses. These people live among us. Some are members of our churches. None have a clue to what you are getting at. The Pastor at my church preached on Satan on this last Sunday. He expressed the view that Satan was an aid to God. In effect showing us what we don't want in our lives (He expressed it much better0. So be it with George W.

Posted by: Jack Walker | June 24, 2008 3:16 PM

Thanks Don--
'Tis summer, when I travel a lot. I've been peeking in, but not participating much. Good to know you are still here to continue providing the global climate change info!

Might I also add a welcome back to Moderatelad (that rhymes!). I hope you had a good sabbatical from the site.

Cheers and blessings,

Lea

Posted by: squeaky | June 24, 2008 3:38 PM

When G.W Bush was first elected, the nation was fairly excited about his demeanor and his "compassionate conservatism." But things got tough; we had several thousand men and women, professional soldiers, get wounded and killed in a war which the majority of the nation wanted just as badly as their new president. Things got tough. We were attacked, and several thousand people, both Americans and foreign nationals, lost their lives in New York City.
And the American people do not handle it well when "things get tough." We used to, but now our span of national attention when the going gets tough, is about a year and a half; that is, if things don't go exactly as we think they ought, in about 18 months, we are ready to change horses. Whatever went wrong, it is enough for us to say, "It's his fault."

So. . . Bush became our national scapegoat. That is OK, I guess, that is part of what presidents do, these days, after all. There is a 'honeymoon' period, and then there is about 2/3 of a term of increasing dissatisfaction and finally, open hostility towards our leaders.

The same thing will happen to the new President of 2009, no matter who he is. He will set out to "make all things new," and he will fail, because no man, or combination of men can do it - and we will be with him "all the way" - for about 18 months. And then we will begin, as a nation, to carp and whine and whimper. We will begin to find promises that were not kept. We will grow increasingly impatient. And by the time we are ready to look for another president, this one (the one elected in 2009) will have become exactly what we have made Mr. Bush out to be, in our minds. He will have become a failure, a liar, a deceiver.

And we will always get just exactly the worldly government we deserve. May God have mercy on us.

Posted by: joekc | June 24, 2008 3:44 PM

Good to know you are still here to continue providing the global climate change info!

I try, but it's frustrating sometimes. I'm sure this frustration shows in some of my responses. But the level of misinformation and outright untruth surrounding the topic is so outrageously high that, well, you're well aware ... And I'm no scientist to be able to answer most of the misinformation intelligently. I do my best.

Enjoy your holiday time! I probably won't be getting any this year.

Posted by: Don | June 24, 2008 3:53 PM

Would you all please stop abusing the noble name 'Conservative'?

The following sentence contains an oxymoron;

'One could easily bewail the manifold profligacy of the last incarnation of conservative rule'

These guys are not conservative; Conservatives are not profligate. These guys are radical reactionary right-wing whackos.

Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | June 24, 2008 4:14 PM

I'm just curious how you figured out that they are all conservatives and that none of them are liberals. Can you refer me to any studies that were done on those who "give to get" and what their political affiliation is? Thanks!

That's the wrong question; the real issue is where the money goes and, thus, whom that "giving" benefits. It's been a truism that conservatives give more to charity; however, arts groups, hospitals, universities and conservative think tanks fit into that category but (on balance) don't help the poor all that much. As for churches, with few exceptions well over 90 percent of giving supports the operating or capital budget of the church itself and much of the rest (if the church is evangelical) goes for foreign missions.

And let's not forget about what they get for their "generosity" -- tax deductions and their names on such things as hospital wings and basketball arenas.

FWIW, my own evangelical church has many, many ministries that directly help the poor; however, they're very well-funded. And we also believe in social activism as well; my conservative, Republican pastor has told me that he has great respect and appreciation for Jim Wallis.

Posted by: Rick | June 24, 2008 4:42 PM

"Now, here is something for y'all to chew on until November. How can we be sure that we will even have an election? "

Want to place a wager? I'll give you 20 to 1 odds that we have an election in November. You bet $20, I bet $400.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 24, 2008 12:14 PM

Kevin:

I might be tempted to take that bet, if I could spare the $20. However, I am currently driving taxi for a living, and I only average $5-6/hr. gross after I pay for my gas at the end of a long night getting drunks safely home when some of them can't stand on their own two feet and don't remember where they live. I may not make enough to pay income taxes, but I must pay double social security since I am an "independent businessman" who is bound to get rich someday.

Why don't you just wait and see what happens. If I am wrong, I will gladly give that $20 to our local homeless shelter. Which Conservative "cause" will get your $400?

Posted by: Hermes | June 24, 2008 5:22 PM

Wish I could be optimistic. One of the most troubling changes has been the "disappearance" of our poor.Throughout our history, when the pendulum swung too far in favor of the rich, it was America's progressives, usually allied with the faith community, that took the lead in educating the general public about, and advocating for, "the least of these". Over time, this provided a measure of social stability. The "failed" welfare system alone saved many, many lives, and enabled millions to work their way up into/close to the middle class.
But this time around, for the first time in the long history of America's progressive movement, we drew the line at "working poor", relegating those who can't work (due to health or circumstances) to non-person status. Once people fall (or are pushed) out of the job market, they no longer exist.
What is really disturbing is that we Americans have embraced a social philosophy regarding the poor that is identical to that of early Nazi Germany. No reason is acceptable for not being employed. In recent years, we've even begun imprisoning people for being homeless, instead of providing normal humanitarian aid. We've utterly dehumanized our poor. We don't connect the dots to understand the impact that our welfare "reform" actually has on all of the working class, much less on those outside of the job market. We ignore the fact that our social policies are in direct violation of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Where's the outrage over the rapidly declining life expectancy of our poor (now lower than that of some Third World nations)? Where is the outrage over the infant mortality rate among our poor, which now rivals Third World nations? There is no outrage precisely because America's poor have been dehumanized over the past quarter-century, and this fact is a very disturbing indication of what we have become.

Posted by: | June 24, 2008 6:54 PM

I would just like to address the idea that conservatives are more generous than liberals. It is true that there are many generous conservatives that are really trying to follow what they think is right. I have been helped by these types of people personally as I have a wife who is in the final stages of M.S. One could say that conservatives give more money to charity and that may be true. At some point though one needs to look at the big picture and honestly look at what voting Republican has brought us. ...You shall know them by their fruits...hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the top 1% and millions more Americans living in poverty. A government that lies about its' reasons for going to war and exploits fear while defining liberals as morally defective. I don't want to insult anyone, but to still support Bush people have to be pretty misinformed, stubborn in their pride and unwilling to face reality.

Posted by: Mark | June 24, 2008 10:34 PM

Hi Chuck,

It's good to here from you. I miss Imitatio Christi.

Posted by: Bruce | June 25, 2008 12:29 AM

I hope we can recover from this and redefine our faith, with compassion and real solutions to grave situations. I do not support McCain or Obama. I know we all need a better politics in America!

Posted by: | June 25, 2008 1:19 AM

Chuck,

If compassion is measured by spending on government programs ya'll should love Bush? What gives? In many ways Bush represents the religious left, save the War on Terror. I mean just read the Gerson guy, who wrote speeches for Bush.

This is just partisan squawking wrapped up in religious speak. I admire your commitment to Christ, but things will probably be even worse under a socialist like Obama. Shame on you if you think because one is socialist, he or she makes a better Christian.

But what I am really confused about is your position that if one defends America from terrorism he is not a Christian, or is somehow less Christian? That is bizarre. Ok, so blame Bush for problems with war, terrorism, and the likes, but there is so much fault to go around. In fact, Bush is the only president who acted much at all on this matter. Sure, there are mistakes, but a lot of mistakes were made in the Cold War as well.

I don't see the Democratic Congress doing any better than the Republicans. In fact, in many ways there are fiscal irresponsibility is even worse. Ya'll at Sojourners just try to blur the distinction between the Democrats and their secular socialist utopian agenda. Fine, but be honest about it. You are replacing the very agenda groups you so arrogantly denounce.

Posted by: George Lenny | June 25, 2008 12:51 PM

I'd like to respond to George Lenny's post. You call Obama a socialist and also say that liberals equate government spending with compassion. George, government spending is a fine thing when it goes toward things that serve the common good. The way money is spent can determine if we have housing, education, healthcare and food or if we rack up trillions in debt and devalue our currency fighting a war under the false rationale of fighting terrorism, but that mostly helps the wealthy. Bush has raised military spending of course but he has cut discretionary spending on things that serve the common good. Meanwhile corporate profits have nearly tripled. To call government spending socialism is not correct. Socialism is when the government owns the businesses. Businesses paying their share of the services from which they benefit is not socialism. What we have moved closer to under Bush could correctly be defined as fascism which is the merger of state and corporations. Corporations are taking over much of our military, prisons, social services, healthcare, transportation, elections, education and more. Republicans tried to turn our retirement poverty insurance program (Social Security) over to Wall Street. Our economy is on the brink of disaster thanks to the right wing con that government (WE THE PEOPLE) are a bad thing. The right has taalked people into voting against their own interests by using the threats of socialism and terrorism. Bush has not prevented any serious terrorist attacks and has created new generation of terrorism. Al Queada accounts for less than 2% of the attacks in Iraq yet McCain has tried to portray Iraq as a battle against Al Queada. You ask others to be honest, but George, you do not know the truth. This government puts profits ahead of human life. That is the painful but honest reality.

Posted by: Mark | June 25, 2008 11:23 PM

It's sad to see GP/JW/SJ et al. professing allegiance to no party. Yet they are entirely in bed with BHO, Democrats, and extreme liberalism. What seals it for me is buying into global warming. Once you jumped that bandwagon, you proved you're purely a political organization attempting to mesh Christ with modern liberalism. It is not possible. BHO is your personal friend. Your agenda is clear. Don't hide it under Christ. The Bride has many things to work on, admittedly. But this will always be equivalent of the ACLU and MoveOn.

Posted by: Jon | June 26, 2008 1:14 PM

So let's examine this for a moment. 8 years of Clinton vs. 8 years of Bush.

CLINTON: sexual immoraltiy scandals nearly the entire 8 years; inherited a GNP that was booming from Reaganomics; was attacked at least twice by Al Queda with no response; allowed complete abortion on demand with government funding; pardoned one criminal (see Marc Rich) after another along with taking thousands of dollars of material from the White House in his final days in office in 2001; lied under oath. Supported removing Hussein and believed Iraq had WMD's.

BUSH: tax cuts that led to economic boom; rolled back government funding of abortion on demand; 9/11 attacks followed by successful fighting against terrorist in Iraq and Afganistan and all over the world with our allies; largest GNP in the history of the world; has not lied under oath, cheated on his wife, and has not been impeached.

Guess who this liberal blog supports?

Posted by: Roy | June 27, 2008 12:26 PM

With all due respect, it seems that the article seems to recycle the same old class warfare with phrases like "tax cuts for the rich" and the like.

Again, with all due respect, I'm not really sure where in the Bible that Jesus suggests that Christians are supposed to be generous with money that belongs to others. Coercion or the threat of violence in order to be "generous" is not generosity at all but rather fulfills what Jesus warned about in Matthew 6:2. Yes, Jesus does tell us to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but I'm not really sure that is what he had in mind.

In Matthew 6, God says that He will provide us with our needs (note that this is needs and not "preferences" or wants). In 1 Corinthians 12, Christ explains that we are his body and that each of us fulfill different roles. Does this not tell us something about God's design for who He desires to take on the role of taking care of the "orphans and widows"?

In all of this, I feel as if God is warning me from claiming to speak for Him. In all we, as Christians, do, we must be on guard against dissension for the sake of dissension and insisting that our way is God's way. Avoid vox populi, vox dei.

Sadly, Christ has become politicized. First and foremost, we are Christians. Not conservatives nor liberals nor libertarians, etc. While Christ embodies many of the traits shown in both Republicans and Democrats, this is hardly an endorsement from on high. There is something to be said for simply letting bygones be bygones and simply fulfilling Christ's mission to spread the Gospel to all corners of the world.

Posted by: Andrew | October 22, 2008 4:54 PM