Monica Goodling and The Rise of the Neo-Evangelicals

Hanna Rosin: A new evangelical establishment

Schools like Monica Goodling's turn out scrubbed young ideologues who are ready to serve their nation.

Hanna Rosin

Published: May 30, 2007

It is interesting how this article seems to want to mainstream what we may need to coin as “neo-evangelical.” The only standard against which this generation of “well-scrubbed, Harvard-like Christians” is measured is the derisive characterizations by Bill Maher…How relevant that is may be up for grabs…

My suspicion is that the media is just waking up…The fact is that “well-scrubbed, Harvard-like Christians” have always been in administrative positions in government, albeit somewhat in the closet…

Having said that, however, there are several reactions that are in order…First, to run through the gauntlet of indoctrination prevalent in Christian education indicates an incredible facility for bureaucratic survival and, conversely, an incredible ability to shut down, or at least compartmentalize critical thinking…

“Good soldiers” might be an appropriate term…Good soldiers rarely make good generals…

Secondly, while these “well-scrubbed, Harvard-like Christians” may toe the party line (primarily Republican), there is a Machiavellian streak in all of them that pays extreme homage to the will of authority, even to the extent of sacrificing one’s own principles, if those have not already been sacrificed running the gauntlet of Christian indoctrination…

This Machiavellian streak derives from an overwhelming need to preserve the "soul" of an institution, as though any institution has a redeemable soul...Terms such as "Christian nation," "Christian company" and "Christian marriage" are frequently employed...

At the end of the day, Goodling is the product of a system that honors no departure from the party line, so to speak…While Robertson may have been put on the shelf by neo-evangelicals, his personality and agenda was very much alive in the education of Monica Goodling…To bow to his authority for even a month requires a strong propensity toward group-thiink…

As for Harvard, inertia is a wonderful thing, but it is not certain that Harvard has not, along with Pat Robertson, passed its zenith…If the best one can offer in this uncertain and dangerous world in which we live is either a Harvard degree or a Regent University degree, we may be in deep trouble…

Leadership in the arts, business, medicine, politics and religion emerges, not from training at Harvard or Messiah College, but from a keen sense of timing and mission…

It would be well not to forget that Bill Gates jettisoned college after one semester in order to respond to both timing and mission…

Stan Moody is the author of "Crisis in Evangelical Scholarship" and "McChurched: 300 Million Served and Still Hungry

WASHINGTON - To the Bush haters of America, the young Monica Goodling is a footnote of this wretched era, one of the many Washington types that they'll be happy to get rid of come January 2009: Venal Vice President, Ex-Lobbyists Turned Regulators and, in Goodling's case, Young Evangelicals in High Places.

Until she appeared before the House Judiciary Committee last week to testify about her role in the Justice Department firing scandal, Goodling had been mocked on the Internet and on late-night TV as a certain type: one of a "bunch of hayseeds" staffing the administration, as HBO comedian Bill Maher called her.

Goodling graduated from Messiah College ("home of the Fighting Christies") and the law school at Regent University, founded by Pat Robertson ("a televangelist's diploma mill") -- both Maher's terms.

But the joke is on Maher: The age of the televangelist is as dead as Jerry Falwell, and the Regent website treats Robertson like a fondly remembered patriarch from a bygone era, when it was suitable to call yourself a "fundamentalist" and scream on TV.

Goodling is part of a new generation of evangelicals ushered in by Falwell, who insisted that Christians get involved in politics. They are graduates of the exploding number of evangelical colleges, which no longer aim to create a parallel subculture but instead to train "Christian leaders to change the world," as the Regent mission statement reads.

It used to be that being 33 and in charge of 93 U.S. attorneys would mean you'd been top of your class at Harvard or Yale or clerked at the Supreme Court. Now, Christian schools are joining that mix. Regent has had 150 of its graduates working in the White House; the school estimates that one-sixth of its alumni are in government work. Call them the Goodlings: scrubbed young ideologues, ready to serve their nation, the right's version of the Peace Corps generation.

The image of Goodling that emerged in the hearing did not match the "hayseed" of Maher's imagination. A colleague said that it was not unusual to find Goodling BlackBerrying at 2 a.m. or preparing briefs late into the night. Goodling described one bit of office politics as a clash between two "Type A" women in which she played the Eve Harrington character in "All About Eve" and won. "Televangelist" did not seem to be on her list of career goals.

Falwell and Robertson were outsiders and always behaved like it. Goodling's Christian contemporaries grew up with Bush as their president, speaking their language. Even after this administration is gone, they can work for one of the more than 150 members of Congress who call themselves evangelical or dozens of conservative think tanks and activist groups. Or they can run for office: Robert McDonnell, Virginia's attorney general, is a Regent alum. They are part of the Washington establishment now and, much to Bill Maher's chagrin, they will be around long after Bush is gone.

Recently, I spent a lot of time among the students at Patrick Henry College, a seven-year-old school founded in much the same spirit as Regent. The students there easily matched Goodling's description of herself as "anal-retentive." They input their daily schedules into Palm Pilots in 15-minute increments -- read Bible, do crunches, take shower, study for Latin quiz. They intern at the White House. The atmosphere is much more Harvard than Bob Jones.

A 1996 study found that evangelical college students were remarkably unified in their political identification: More than two-thirds called themselves Republicans, and only 9 percent said they were Democrats. At Patrick Henry, I heard a rumor that someone had voted for John Kerry. I chased down many leads. All dead ends. If it was true, no one would publicly admit it.

While testifying last week, Goodling admitted that she had asked inappropriately partisan questions of applicants for civil service jobs. But she never asked about religion, she said. Unlike their elders, the new generation of evangelicals does not turn the cubicle into a pulpit. If they are intent on implementing God's will, they do it with professional discretion.

It took the conservative political movement 30 years to become a fixture in American politics, and it's taken evangelicals about the same. Like conservatives, evangelicals may remain chronically ambivalent, afflicted with a persecution complex despite their obvious successes. But they are embedded firmly enough into Washington to provide jobs for smart young Christians for generations to come.

Hanna Rosin is the author of "God's Harvard: A Christian College on a Mission to Save America," due out in September. She wrote this article for the Washington Post.

© 2007 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

Traditional Values Replaces Orthodox Beliefs

The Washington Times

www.washingtontimes.com

---

Traditional values and voters (cont'd)

Published May 27, 2007

“Values Voters” suggests that either side has any values but majority rule…This is not about values…If the Christian Right were concerned with values, they would have cleaned up their own act decades ago…Instead, they enjoy a slightly higher rate of divorce than do the general population; TV addiction is the same for Christians and non-believers…Go right down the list…This is about winning control…

Is abortion “dear to them?” Why, then, do they oppose regulations against chemical dumping that cause unwelcome abortions? Is the institution of marriage “dear to them?” Why, then, do they not condemn divorce within the church? Is religious freedom “dear to them?” Why, then, do they advocate for theocratic rule? Is education “dear to them?” Why, then, do they turn their kids over to the public schools?

Now, they are going to go after the Hispanic vote because “family values” are strong among Hispanics…

Too bad family values are not strong among Evangelicals… “Focus on Jesus,” and they just might become strong…”Focus on the Family,” and it will let you down nearly every time…

Stan Moody is the author of "Crisis in Evangelical Scholarship" and "McChurched: 300 Million Served and Still Hungry

Voters who emphasize traditional values achieved resounding victories in the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections. Their candidate, George W. Bush, captured the White House in 2000 and retained it four years later. Meanwhile, Republican congressional candidates, who have routinely received a disproportionately large share of support from traditional-values voters, achieved majority control in both chambers of Congress after all three elections. Values voters, however, suffered a serious setback in 2006, as their preferred political party lost control of both the Senate and the House.

These developments proffer serious questions: What does the future hold for traditional-values voters, their leadership and the issues dear to them, including abortion, the institution of marriage, bioethics, religious freedom, judicial activism, the education of their children and continuously evolving social and cultural mores? How will the political arena in 2008 and beyond be shaped as values voters revise their strategies and regroup? In a fascinating three-part series, "The Way Back for Values Voters" (May 14-16), Cheryl Wetzstein, who has been reporting on family and social values for The Washington Times since 1994, explored these questions in depth. Her series can be read at www.washingtontimes.com/national.

Before the 2006 setbacks, the political power exercised by values voters was impressive to behold. When President Bush won re-election in 2004 with a victory margin of less than 2.5 percent, he did so by increasing his 2000 popular-vote total by an astounding 11.6 million (23 percent) votes. In 2004 John Kerry received 8 million (16 percent) more votes than Al Gore captured in 2000, and Mr. Kerry still lost to Mr. Bush by more than three million votes. When the dust settled, the consensus view was that Mr. Bush rode to re-election victory by dramatically increasing his base of voters who focused on traditional values.

While the exit polls phrase their questions differently from one election to the next, the 2004 surge in traditional-values voters can be easily detected. In 2000, "white religious right" voters comprised 14 percent of the electorate and gave 80 percent of their vote to Mr. Bush. In 2004, "white evangelical/born-again" voters made up 23 percent of the electorate, and President Bush won 78 percent of their votes. That made the difference. Indeed, among the 77 percent of voters who did not identify themselves as "white evangelical/born-again," Mr. Kerry won a resounding 56-43 majority -- and lost the election. Moreover, fully 22 percent of 2004 voters identified "moral values" as the most important issue, while 20 percent selected "economy/jobs." Mr. Kerry won the "economy/jobs" cohort by an 80-18 margin. Mr. Bush achieved an identical majority (80-18) among the 10-percent-larger "moral values" cohort -- and won the election.

To regain the political momentum after the 2006 electoral debacle, some longtime values leaders have suggested what would amount to a paradigmatic revolution in coalition assemblage. Paul Weyrich, a conservative-movement leader who founded the Free Congress Foundation and co-founded the Heritage Foundation, has suggested that values voters become much more politically independent. He cites the 1960s-era civil rights coalition, which was effective within both political parties. Not well known is the fact that significantly higher proportions of Republican representatives (80 percent) and senators (82 percent) voted for the landmark 1964 civil rights bill than Democratic representatives (61 percent) and senators (69 percent). Stating that black males represent "the single-most pro-life subset in American politics," Mr. Weyrich also notes that Hispanics are "very strong on family issues" and Asians are "very, very pro-family."

Worrisome for Republicans, Democrats have been making inroads with the GOP's religious base. For a decade Republicans enjoyed a 20-point advantage among voters who attend religious services weekly. That advantage declined to 12 points in 2006 (55-43). Among the 36 percent of the electorate who believed "values issues" were "extremely important," Republican House candidates received 58 percent of the vote last year, much smaller than the 76-percent share they received in 2004 from voters who said "moral values" represented the most important issue . Worse, among the 21 percent who considered "values issues" to be "very important" in 2006, Democrats actually won a majority, 51-48. Democrats also won a bare majority (50-49) of white Catholics (20 percent of the electorate).

University of Maryland political science professor Thomas Schaller has characterized today's 110th Congress as "the most pro-choice Congress in the history of the republic." For values voters, it could get worse. If Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected president in 2008, Mr. Schaller informs us that the nation will have "the most pro-choice government in American history."




Copyright © 2007 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

---

McChurch - Food Fight from Focus

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

Pro-life groups slam Dobson on partial-birth stand Published May 24, 2007

Cracks in the armor, or armor in the cracks? For the past three decades, grandfatherly James Dobson has undermined and controlled every facet of the Christian book publishing industry and has been the key gatekeeper to evangelical ministry…For his efforts, he has amassed a huge fortune and built a huge empire for Jesus, so to speak, as though Jesus would care…He also has acquired a near-fatal heart attack in the process…

There are, however, national authors (“those little ones” for whom Jesus does care) who were driven into the ground because their personal lives did not measure up to the Dobson standards…They were blackballed from the industry…

I would not dare comment on either end of this argument between leadership of the American Christian Sanhedrin…I would, however, suggest that there is not enough time left in Dobson’s life for adequate repentance because he could not possibly know what he has done…

Only in Colorado Springs are folks oblivious to the admonition of Jesus that only he who would hate his family is worthy of the Kingdom of God…”Focus on Me,” He was quick to say…
Family values are a diversion from the mission of the Church and an anomaly unique to American suburbia…Focus on Jesus, and you will have no problem doing the right thing for your family…

Stan Moody is the author of "Crisis in Evangelical Scholarship" and "McChurched: 300 Million Served and Still Hungry

DENVER (AP) - Pro-life leaders are accusing one of their own, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, of misrepresenting a Supreme Court decision that upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion.

In a full-page ad in yesterday's editions of the Gazette newspaper in Colorado Springs, the heads of four pro-life groups and a leading Denver minister said Mr. Dobson wrongly characterized the court's April ruling as a victory for abortion foes. The ad said the ruling will encourage medical professionals to find "less shocking" methods to perform late-term abortions.

"Dr. Dobson, you mislead Christians claiming this ruling will 'protect children.' The court granted no authority to save the life of even a single child," the ad said, concluding by asking Mr. Dobson to "please repent."

Carrie Gordon Earll, a spokeswoman for Mr. Dobson's Colorado Springs-based ministry, said the group has no plans to change its position on the Supreme Court ruling.
"It is a step in the right direction on several levels," she told the Associated Press.
She was not disappointed by the criticism.

"From time to time, people disagree, and most certainly criticism is part of being in leadership," she said. "We make the best decisions we can and move on."

The letter was signed by Brian Rohrbough, president of Colorado Right to Life; the Rev. Tom Euteneuer, president of Human Life International; Flip Benham, director of Operation Rescue/Operation Save America; Judie Brown, president of American Life League; and Bob Enyart, pastor of Denver Bible Church.

Mr. Rohrbough said he and other signers contacted Focus on the Family before the ad ran in hopes that the organization would change its position, but it did not.

After that, "we felt obligated to make [the letter] public," he said.

Mrs. Gordon Earll said Focus on the Family had received a copy of the letter in advance but she was not aware of any phone calls or other conversations.

Such a public dispute among pro-life groups is uncommon, said Corwin Smidt, a political scientist at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich., and director of the Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics.

"It could be you could still get a great deal of cohesion with the right in 2008. But right now, we're witnessing more ferment, more uncertainty, among evangelicals and the Christian right," he said.

Mr. Dobson founded Focus on the Family in Arcadia, Calif., in 1977. It has grown to a 1,300-employee operation based in Colorado Springs, and says its radio shows and publications reach more than 200 million people worldwide.


Copyright © 2007 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.