This is an interesting conservative variation on a theme often voiced by liberal observers of evangelical politics.
The standard argument goes something like this: the culture war is either over or increasingly irrelevant to younger generations of evangelicals, who respond to a much broader array of appeals than to the old ‘hot button” issues. They care about social justice and about climate change, not just abortion and same-sex marriage.
David French doesn’t quite go down this path. Rather, he argues that once there’s broad agreement on a particular stance toward social issues (as there is among the GOP presidential aspirants), evangelicals ask a different array of questions.
If all the leading Republicans are pro-life, have pledged to protect religious liberty, and defend traditional marriage, then what is the distinct value of a culture warrior’s endorsement? Do these (largely unnamed) evangelical leaders have unique insights into dealing with persistent joblessness, the European debt crisis, the collapse of demand for housing, or the progress of counterinsurgency warfare in eastern Afghanistan?
. . . Maybe, just maybe, their rank-and-file supporters are less interested in arguing over who’s been pro-life the loudest and longest but instead on which pro-life candidate can also trim the debt, keep Iran in check, and begin to restore the economic portion of the American dream.
Evangelicals don’t have to play identity politics in the Republican Party. Instead, they can ask and attempt to answer the same questions as everyone else, using the same array of “tools” as everyone else. (I take it for granted that prayer and the reading of Scripture are not adequate, by themselves, to arrive at an understanding of the European debt crisis and of how to address it.)
I recognize that French has his own dog in the fight, but that doesn’t detract from his larger point. I also recognize that there’s still an argument about the future of the “evangelical vote.” In that respect, I remain unconvinced that folks on the Democratic side of the aisle are well-placed to enlarge their share of that vote.
But we can all agree that targeted appeals—from either the Left or the right—may be of limited utility in mobilizing that constituency.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…