Presidential hypocrisy: How Bush lied to evangelicals to get their votes
David Kuo, a former member of Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, appeared on 60 Minutes yesterday. In the interview with Lesley Stahl, Kuo said that White House staffers called evangelicals “nuts” and “goofy,” that “important Christian leader[s]” were “mocked by serious people in serious places,” that people in the White House called Pat Robertson “insane” and Jerry Falwell “ridiculous,” and that it was determined that James Dobson “had to be controlled”.
All this on top of Kuo’s completely credible assertion that President Bush was never serious about implementing his so-called “compassionate” agenda, that it was all political, that many up top bought into the politics: “This message that has been sent out to Christians for a long time now: that Jesus came primarily for a political agenda, and recently primarily a right-wing political agenda — as if this culture war is a war for God. And it’s not a war for God, it’s a war for politics. And that’s a huge difference.”
The White House is fighting back — in predictable fashion. It calls his new book, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, “ridiculous”. The ad hominem attacks have begun. That’s how Bush’s White House works. If you can’t win on the substance — and they can’t — go personal. Swiftboat them. Destroy them. Kuo is just the latest dissenter, the latest insider source, the latest target.
The hypocrisy is evident. Bush used (and clearly still uses) the religious right for political gain. He often says what it wants to hear, and he may somewhere in his heart be there himself, but his real goal has long been to benefit his corner of the oligarchy as much as possible — through tax cuts for the wealthy, industrial and environmental deregulation, the partial privatization of social security, pharma-friendly health care, and the like. His neoconservatism in foreign policy is new, post-9/11. And his so-called “compassionate conservatism” has been about turning out the vote, that is, about getting himself elected.
And yet, though I find the hypocrisy distasteful, I cannot criticize Bush for not doing enough for evangelicals. Kuo is a critic on the right, after all. For him, Bush just wasn’t politically evangelical enough. For me, a social liberal who opposes evangelism in the White House, just as I tend to oppose religion in politics generally, Bush’s White House was right not to push any sort of “compassionate” agenda. Note the distinction, though: It was right not to push the agenda, but it was not right to go about it the way it did. For this, I hope evangelicals see Bush for what he is and stay away from the polls in November. All Bush ever wanted was their votes, after all, votes that would buy access but no power.
Indeed, I am tempted for the first time in a long time to say something positive about Bush’s White House. In my view, it speaks well of it, to review, that White House staffers called evangelicals “nuts” and “goofy,” that “important Christian leader[s]” were “mocked by serious people in serious places,” that people in the White House called Pat Robertson “insane” and Jerry Falwell “ridiculous,” and that it was determined that James Dobson “had to be controlled”.
There has been so much nonsense from this White House, if I may be so euphemistic, but these ad hominem attacks, ones that Kuo himself has no doubt already been on the receiving end of, suggest that in some hypocritical and dysfunctional way there was some sense there on this matter at least.
(h/t: Crooks and Liars, which has the video.)
Share This
“White House called Pat Robertson “insane” and Jerry Falwell “ridiculous,” and that it was determined that James Dobson “had to be controlled”.”
Wow, this is the first think this WH has said that I agree with.
Ok I suck, where’s Snarky when we need him?
Please tell me that as long as we are talking about Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson the title “important Christian leaders” is meant to be ironic.
I’m not saying that these people aren’t influential, but I here the phrase “important Christian leaders” and think MLK, not Jerry Falwell.
The WH has to go after Kuo. You know the old saying: the chuch hates the hereitic more than it hates the sinner. After all, sinners can be saved. But heretics are insiders who tell the secrets.
I’m here for ya!
Thanks to the deity and U-tube, I saw that clip. What struck me was the sincerty of the young man. While I shuddered in horrer as he laid open the raw wound of cynism that I hade long speculated about, but never really wanted to believe, I gleaned his motivation.
Bush made political hay saying this faith based deal was going to benifit poor-people. Dude sees the BS for what it really is, and is exposing it for what it is, no punches pulled.
If your a fundie, and you were having your doubts, I wonder what this would do for you? It’s gotta be causing rifts.
I like his fast idea!
Dude sees the BS for what it really is, and is exposing it for what it is, no punches pulled.
Which is why you don’t really want to cross a true believer.
Watch/Read Transcript of David Kuo on 60 Minutes
I agree, he is obviously very devout and idealistic. The only thing I was confused about was Kuo’s implicit endorsement of Falwell and Dobson as Christian leaders — they aren’t interested in any thing he was talking about. For all of Robertson’s faults and crazy statements, at least he has the moral fortitude to set aside differences with people and actually work on helping the poor. I remember being shocked he appeared in the “One” commercial about helping to end global poverty where it was all Hollywood types and then him.
Better watch it, Snarky. YouTube is not Utube. Utube’s had server problems because of that little mix up on the part of many thousands of people.
What do you make of his walk through the displays with all the religious literature and his complaint that so little of it addressed the needs of the poor. that was brutally honest. Lots of churches are guilty of giving the poor the short shift. Mine included. Getting money up for that kind of work typically isn’t popular even within the church because of the type of people it attracts.
This administration stands for true Christian values. That’s why they tried to get a greater Israel despite all the anti semites in Israel who thik the recent invasion was a mess. Holly needs to get on these people! Jewish anti senites are the worse kind and that’s why so many Republicans don’t want to associate with Jew because so many are anti semite. We just can’t put up wit this prejudice.
God chose the president to save us, to sday otherwise is to support Saddam, Satan and Osama.
dittohead=SalM??
Rudi – I would think Joe could verify via IP. But hell, he could have changed ISP’s.
In one of his books, Jim Wallis, a “liberal” evangelical, talks about his initial enthusiasm for Bush’s Office of Faith-Based Initiative, but expressed disappointment on the follow-through. So, he’s saying something similar to David Kuo, and if I recall, Wallis was making these observations a few years ago. I think Wallis hoped OFB would benefit diverse religious groups and charities that have become overburdened in attempting to serve the poor as government safety net programs have been cut back.
GOP to the average values voter:
“Hey baby, you know I’ll respect you in the morning…”
Bellisaurius…. LOL!!! That was good!
Plus any number of other methods to mask real IP address.
Topic at hand
I’m a bit lost as to why this is newsworthy. Is this the first time a politician made campaign promises they know the couldn’t/wouldn’t keep? or made a group feel like their best interests would be a priority?
interested,
I think you’re absolutely correct in that politicians use blocs of voters all the time and often fail to deliver what the voters think they were promised (I thought it was amusing the other day when someone commented that they knew that the Democrats would be beholden to the moderate voters after the upcoming election).
I think the case of the GOP and RR voters seems a bit more hypocritical because of the nature of the RR being value oriented. And, the potential falling out is newsworthy to those who are left of center on values issues because they hope that it will be a permanent separation with the values issues being marginalized.