Facts, Fundamentals, and Foreign Policy

Editor's note: in the rush of early semester activities, I failed to post in a timely manner this guest contribution from Jeffrey Scholes, who is finishing his PhD at Denver University. So, although a bit late for the news cycle, here is his take on Hillary Clinton and what constitutes a faith-based foreign policy.
___________________________________________

Facts, Fundamentals and Foreign Policy
by Jeffrey Scholes

Hillary Clinton’s confirmation hearing for Secretary of State was notable not because there was much doubt in the outcome but for what she said. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99290981&ft=1&f=1003

In it we find not so much a brazen, novel path to be forged by the new administration into foreign lands but more a statement of contrast to the approach of the Bush administration.

Here’s a quote from Clinton: “The president-elect and I believe that foreign policy must be based on a marriage of principles and pragmatism, not rigid ideology. On facts and evidence, not emotion or prejudice. Our security, our vitality, and our ability to lead in today's world oblige us to recognize the overwhelming fact of our interdependence.”

On the surface, heads nod unconsciously to this statement. Yet it is code for, “The Bush administration acted with emotion and prejudice fueled by a rigid ideology in a spirit of utter American independence.” She is largely echoing Obama, especially on the “facts and evidence” part that is based on the popular belief that the Bush administration deliberately glossed over facts and evidence (lack of WMD in Iraq) with the aid of a neo-con ideology that pushed the declaration of war.

Several thoughts: On one level, this point of contrast made by Clinton is overstated. Facts and evidence, of course, mattered to the Bush administration—it is nature of the interpretation that bothers the left. But no one is naïve enough to think that the Obama administration will only deal with raw, unmediated facts and evidence. It will interpret on an ideological grid too. In addition, the other theme of Clinton’s hearing is that there will be a restoration of American values regards foreign policy (diplomacy not commands, interrogation without torture, etc.)—a card from generally played off of the Republican deck.

Most interesting about the “just the facts, ma’am” rhetoric is that it plays on a hundred and fifty year historical divide between Evangelicals and liberal Christians/secular modernists. With evolution forcing each group into separate camps in the later 19th c., the “facts” of evolution were largely subordinated or dismissed altogether by Evangelicals and later fundamentalists in favor of acting on a clear moral conscience. The “world” came be identified with scientific facts and its burgeoning ideology when set of principles that can guide action was all that was necessary. Then, the external results, which translate quickly into facts, are far less important than the internal foundation off of which decisions were made. It is this “internal moral conscience vs. external facts” that constitutes the core of Clinton’s remarks and speaks to frustration of those on the left when Bush defends results by saying, “I merely acted on principle.”

Palin and Evangelical Politics

Welcome to our new contributor, Jeffrey Scholes. Jeff is finishing his PhD at Denver University, where he focuses on intersections of religion and American culture. He has written from the Journal of Religion and Popular Culture and other publications. Presently he also teaches in the Philosophy Department at my place, the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Welcome to Jeff!
____________________________________________________________

Venial vs. Mortal in Evangelical Politics

The Evangelical leadership overwhelming applauded John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate wholesale. Yet as revelations emerge from the biography of this newly minted public figure, the effort to maintain an unqualified enthusiasm for the initial endorsement may get tricky.
2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.evangelicals/index.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/dobson-on-brist.html

More interesting is what statements from prominent Evangelical leaders say about the complex relationship between the tenets of Evangelicalism and politics.

Specifically (for now!) the news that Palin’s 17 year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant, will deliver the baby, and will marry the father has presented leaders such as James Dobson with a more complex situation than Sarah’s decision to give birth to her developmentally challenged baby. The latter situation is a hanging curve ball for pro-lifers: the refusal to abort a fetus with Down Syndrome is an example par excellence within the pro-life community. However the approval of Bristol’s decision to take her pregnancy to term is more of a split-finger fastball.

Without missing a beat, Dobson cast the issue in terms of sin. “Being a Christian does not mean you're perfect. Nor does it mean your children are perfect. But it does mean there is forgiveness and restoration when we confess our imperfections to the Lord.” Bristol’s decision to have sex out of wedlock is the forgivable offense; a decision to abort the fetus is not. A hierarchy of sins is not a new way of casting judgments for Evangelicals or Christians in general. The tricky part, though, is balancing public statements that have political cache with the tenets of the Evangelical faith. Because abortion is and has been the most non-negotiable political (and perhaps moral) issue for most Evangelicals, being on the right side of it will always run cover for more negotiable factors that led to the situation. It is on this distinction that really separates the political sides on the issue of abortion.

More to the point, Dobson’s comments underscore the tendency for Evangelical leaders who are inclined to involve themselves politically to offer generalized statements about “the family,” while specifics that go on in all families are submerged. (See Dick Cheney’s awkward handling of his daughter lesbianism.)

I ask myself, “at what point would the Evangelical hammer come down?” Does Sarah Palin’s decision to give birth to Trig cover over a multitude of sins such as the alleged abuse of power she wielded in the firing of a government employee? Does it cover over the implication that she has a daughter who clearly went against the family’s morals and had unprotected sex out of wedlock as a minor? And finally, does the fact that Sarah Palin may become the second most powerful person in the country quickly force Dobson and Richard Land to erect a special filter for their judgments? Perhaps like sins, all people aren’t created equal as well.