From “So Karl Rove is an ‘agnostic’” on This Modern World:
A few days ago I wondered whether Christopher Hitchens had accurately described Karl Rove as “not a believer.� The answer seems to be yes. Christopher Schipper sends along this transcript of Wayne Slater on Fresh Air last September, talking about The Architect, his book about Rove:
SLATER: You know, I remember seeing Ralph Reed in Texas when Rove tried to bring him on board back in about 1998…Ralph Reed is an Evangelical Christian who was successful in bringing Evangelical Christians around for political ends. Karl Rove is just the opposite. He is, in fact, an agnostic. He has told–he told a friend in high school that he grew up in a largely a-religious household. He told a friend at the University of Texas, where some years ago he was teaching, that he would like to be a believer but he’s an agnostic and he couldn’t be otherwise. So Rove’s approach has always been not that religion and the values of religion ought to have a place in our public policy, which is the message that he sent. Rove’s approach is that Christians are a marvelously effective voter delivery system that can be rallied, motivated, energized, and delivered for the political candidate of your choice.GROSS: Are you confident that Karl Rove would still consider himself an agnostic?
SLATER: I know that he felt that way two years ago. I don’t know of any reason to think that he has changed that view. He certainly hasn’t told me that he has. It’s certainly possible. I think the evidence and the history is that he remains something of an agnostic, though he sees the Christians, and not just Christians but also orthodox Jews, to some extent, as a valuable voter source. With Rove, it’s about winning. With Karl Rove, it’s how can you put together a team and a constituency or a cluster of constituencies that delivers you 50 percent plus one of the vote? And that’s what it’s all about.
34 Comments
explains much,
not a big revelation though
I think to some it might be. Specifically I’m thinking about people who voted for the current president because of their perception of what his faith is; it’s difficult to reconcile that with how much influence Rove has in how the president makes decisions.
I think the post is unfair in many ways but I will pick on two.
First, the claim that Rove’s agnosticism naturally makes him at odds or “opposite” of Christian conservatives is wrong. Many people who have a secular word view still find plenty in common ideology wise with conservative Christians. In fact, judging from the quotes I just read on This Modern World (I’m no Rove expert) Rove seems to find the conservative Christian world view compelling but ultimately has some unsurmountable objection that prevents him from honestly, in good faith embracing the Gospel. That is why he can say, “I’m not fortunate enough to be a person of faith.” This wouldn’t be surprising as many people find themselves intrigued by the Gospel but unable to commit to it including a commenter named Sulley on the linked post.
Second, the way the pos mischaracterizes the democratic process in order to slander conservative Christians is foolish. Jonathan Schwarz admits that he is drawn to the story because it validates his world view that conservative Christians are “easily-manipulated sheep,” but to come to that conclusion requires a few incorrect assumptions. Why wouldn’t a perspective representative reach out to those with a common ideology and make commitments to act accordingly? Isn’t that how representative democracy works? A more respectful and accurate way to characterize conservative Christians is to think of them as they, and all Americans, are: voters, constituents, and ultimately the most suitable policy makers. Schwarz’s view that Rove is a shameless hypocrite and conservative Christians are easily-manipulate sheep is wrong and reveals a strong bias that clouds his thinking. To the extent that the Bush administration has failed to deliver on promises is best assessed by those who share its ideology and believed the promises. Their conclusion will play out, as it already has, in future elections.
If we could move past thinking that anyone that believes and acts differently than ourselves is either morally bankrupt or stupid we would be a lot better off. Then we could civilly make a case for each other being just plain wrong.
I don’t think anyone is necessarily suggesting that his position puts him “at odds with” or opposite that of Christian conservatives, but (like I said in my comment) I think a lot of people are under the impression that the administration’s actions are guided by / rooted in faith, and this story would suggest that may not be the case.
As for the second point, I’d say that perception comes from the common perception that most people (at least “most” Christians) who voted Republican did so on the basis of two narrow issues (abortion and gay marriage), and their votes were, in a sense, “manipulated” by that platform / spin.
I’m not saying that I completely agree with that perception either. Obviously I know there are many Christian’s who didn’t vote for Bush and also many that voted for him based on more complex reasoning, but it doesn’t help that negative stereotype when some of the largest politically active “Christian” organizations (Dobson, etc.) did everything they could to hammer home those two issues as the only ones that really mattered.
This Modern World does generally come from a pretty one sided point of view, as do most sites that comment on political matters, on either side of the “aisle”. I agree with your ideal picture of how the political process should work, but unfortunately (at least in our country) it doesn’t work that way.
Regarding judging others as morally bankrupt or stupid because the disagree with us, of course I agree with you again on that point. The problem (at least in my experience) usually comes in when people interpret “making a case for each other being just plain wrong” as the former (essentially calling each other stupid) and get insulted, emotionally charged, and loose the ability to have a rational discussion about the subject.
As someone who’s been on both sides of that mistake (either getting too emotionally invested in a conversation and/or being accused of being insulting or condescending when it wasn’t intended), my current take is that it’s very difficult for most people to have those kinds of conversations, because in most cases one (or both) parties usually loose their composure.
I guess, in one sense, that’s probably why politics in America is closer to the mud-slinging chaos that we have today than to the ideal you described: for the most part, it’s just plain easier to predict and influence what people are going to do when you get them all riled up, as opposed to reasoning with them. Unfortunate, but true.
I don’t remember a whole lot about gay marriage in the last elections and I’m not sure what a president could do anyways on the issue. On the issue of abortion it’s hard to say Bush has failed to deliver on his promise of appointing strict constructionist judges. And even though the Supreme Court appointees Roberts and Alito didn’t make a judgment about Roe v. Wade during their confirmation they indicated they thought it had been decided wrongly. Honestly, I thought the faith based initiative or whatever it is called was what they were talking about as the manipulative part.
Anyway, as far as Rove advising Bush, I don’t think he has to be a Christian to be able to see smart, innovative ways to promote a conservative Christian agenda he fully embraces. It is possible. Not every non-believer sees faith as an enemy.
One last thing, I disagree with your pessimistic view of politics in the U.S. I think the average citizen is pretty rational and can process different policy ideas pretty well. It’s just the irrational people are more vocal since they’re on the fringe and they want to make it seem like more people agree with them.
I’m still not saying in any of my comments that Rove is anti-Christian, just that I do think he drives a lot of what the administration does (or at least how they do it), and this interview would seem to indicate that his motivations are not necessarily Christian. I’m not saying there’s something wrong with that, just that it’s my impression that a lot of people see “faith” as a motivating factor behind the actions of the administration, and that may not be the case in light of this. I could be totally wrong about all that, too - that was just my impression.
I guess we’ll have to “agree to disagree” about our faith in the political responsibility of the majority of the Americans. Most of them/us may or may not be rational, but unfortunately (at least I think so) most of them are lazy, which makes their rationality (or lack thereof) largely irrelevant, and makes them tend to vote according to their feelings on the issues that are talked about the most by either party.
This could all just be my sour grapes based on recent political events, from the last presidential election until now. I’ve completely lost my faith in both of the major parties, and I unfortunately also spread some of my disdain over to the general public who’ve confirmed by their voting that these are the kind of people we/they actually want as “leaders”.
I still don’t think it is a big revelation that
some key memember of bush or clinton or gore or other’s
team are agnostic or christian.
Rove is a key driver in the bush admin, I wish he was not.
I was not going to vote for gore or the other guy
who bush ran against the first term. I can’t remember
his name.
Voting has been a choice of the lesser of two evils
for me.
the christians were used…Again,
not new as I know that was how carter got elected and his christian views he claimed was one of the reasons I voted for him.
Yeah, I went the “lesser of two evils” route in the last presidential election too, but I’m not going to anymore. This will almost undoubtedly mean that I won’t be voting for either the Republican or the Democratic presidential candidate, and perhaps not voting for any candidate at all.
Our country seems to be inextricably locked into the two party model, and because of that some would consider a vote for anyone other than the two leading candidates a waste, but then that only perpetuates the problem of being stuck with those two as the only real choices.
I don’t know whether a few individuals (like myself) making choices to refuse to submit to that reality will actually make any difference in the foreseeable future - probably not. However, I can’t in good conscience continue to vote for people that I have significant problems with just because they’re better than the only other guy that’s realistically in the running.
Ross Perot as a 3rd party guy helped get Bill Clinton elected.
I don’t care and there is little I can do or say or anyone else can either to really make a big difference.
I have a problem voting for anyone who isn’t pro-life.
But I have voted for some as I have believed that my vote in
the direction of a pro-life stance is better than no vote.
Rove is a political operative/specialist. He is good at his job.
I don’t care for him as I think he is out of touch and has an agenda.
The christian community can be naive and has been used in the past. You know it will be tried again by the pubs.
Who or what party are you interested in?
Tancredo? ;-0
i remember how disappointed in my candidate i was when nader turned out to not be a goat slaying occultist.
Dave: So if Guliani is the Republican would you not vote at all?
JB: Simon and Garfunkel seemed to feel the way you do –
from the song ” mrs robinson ” 1967
” Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon.
Going to the candidate’s debate.
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you’ve got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose.”
Dan: Not sure yet, depends..is he proactive pro choice or just passive agressive pro choice which almost makes him pro life?
If he is the latter then he make a big deal of telling everyone he is pro choice but do the opposite or nothing. Doing nothing might be the best pro pro life stance that could come out of the next election.
I have voted and will vote so I dont have to re-sign up for voting. I voted for Mickey Mouse as a write-in a few times.
Who are you voting for?
NS: yea, damn.
Isn’t nader in jail with dr. kervorkian?
RE: The Giuliani Issue on Yahoo News today–
He is taking some hits from the Christian right.
”
Sun May 13, 4:53 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Republican presidential frontrunner Rudolph Giuliani Sunday appealed to the center-ground of US politics on the polarizing issue of abortion, and restated his opposition to an early pullout from
Iraq. “
Today, I read an article asking Obama ” where’s the beef?” in regards to his ideas.
Thompson and Giuliani for 08! or Giuliani and Tancredo.
Well, Dan — who are going to vote for? or what processes/mental reasons/filters are you using? I am interested.
This next election is going to be tough.
I bet he made it from unjustly enslaving the poor.
From Yahoo:WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate
John Edwards and his wife reported $29.5 million in assets.
He lost my vote.
Somehow I doubt he ever had your vote.
Do you happen to know the same statistic for the person you voted for in the last election?
I know Bush is rich, it is fun though to poke a little fun at the dems.
googled for asset worth of bush, gore, edwards, cheny and obama.
Don’t have time but found out - Cheney made $ 1.6 Million last year, Gore has options in Apple now worth over $ 2 million and an option or stock stake in Google which is undetermined
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293795,00.html
Yeah, seems like he didn’t get a fair shake by Moyers. Either that or this latest response is all part of those same manipulations.
Uhh, I’d say it was a bit worse than not getting a fair shake, and Bill Moyers is not alone.
I’m sure that probably everyone (including myself) who speculates on the spiritual beliefs of Rove (or anyone else) and how those beliefs may or may not influence their actions, or the actions of the administration in this case, are probably usually going to be wrong.
I am obviously as unqualified as anyone else to judge someone’s internal motivations, as well as how those motivations are inspired (or not) by their faith.
As I mentioned above in earlier comments, the primary reason I linked to the article in the first place was that I do believe that there is (or at least was at the time of the last election) a general perception among “Christians” (or the “religious right” - whatever term you want to use) that the Republican party was somehow more closely aligned with Christian values, and specifically that the president himself was a better choice because of some of the things he had said previously about how his faith influences his actions and policy.
Obviously, based on some of the actions they’ve taken during this term (since I can’t judge their hearts), it would seem to me that they’ve made many choices that I personally would consider out of line with a Christian-based approach. Obviously we may disagree on that specific point, but there’s no need to get into that again.
The bottom line is that I think you’d find it challenging to reconcile the expressed faith positions of most major politicians (Rove and all recent presidents in memory) with their actions, if you looked into it closely enough. That’s not to say that I’m doubting their “salvation” or anything, because that would obviously be out of line. We have to recognize on the one hand that no Christian is perfect and we all fail, and on the other hand that many people who profess affiliation with Christ or the church may not actually be “Christians” (Matt. 7:21-23).
I’m having several problems with your response. Are you acknowledging that you made a mistake and jumped to conclusions by highlighting this commentary? Do you still feel that this non-story somehow shows that the the majority of Christian are gullible tools? Are you saying that even though you can’t be positive you are almost certain that Rove is not a Christian even though he says he is? and that it matters? What do mean by looking closely enough?
I am acknowledging that it would certainly seem that the original story was incorrect, and (although I’m not exactly sure why it took this long to clear it up) hopefully no one maintains what is apparently an inaccurate opinion of Karl Rove’s faith.
As to whether I “made a mistake” in posting this in the first place, I don’t necessarily think so. Even though it sounds like the details about what Rove allegedly said may be wrong, I still believe most of what I said in the comment discussion above that was sparked by the article, so Rove’s personal position doesn’t really impact that too much, reading back over what I said personally.
The title of the post (the whole “tools” thing) was an obvious exaggeration intended to be humorous and a bit offensive (in a humorous way). I do believe there’s an element of truth behind it, in terms of the reasons that a lot of Christian people I’ve talked to give for supporting the Republican party, as I’ve already discussed above. I’m not looking to re-open that argument / discussion again, and I won’t do so here in these new comments.
As for the rest of the stuff in that comment, I’m not sure where you got those impressions of what you think I was trying to say. If my comments above indicated that I’m “almost certain that Rove is not a Christian” then I must not have written them clearly enough. I thought I was pretty careful to explicitly point out that I was making no such judgment. He may or may not be; I don’t know and it’s not for me to say.
On the last question (”closely enough”), I was just saying that if you take a look at every past president, or even just the ones in recent decades, and looked at one or more isolated events in their public lives, you could say that they have said and/or done things that are not consistent with a Christian lifestyle or beliefs, despite the fact that all of them (to my knowledge) professed to be “Christians”. You could say the same about any of us, really, and that’s part of the point I was making in that statement.
Hope that clears things up.
In an obvious exaggeration intended to be humorous and a bit offensive kind of way, clear as mud.
Sorry if it wasn’t clear; I thought I answered the questions you asked (in the order you asked them), but I could try to elaborate if it really didn’t make sense.
I just don’t get how you can stand by your early comments which include statements like this, “it’s difficult to reconcile that [Bush's faith] with how much influence [the supposedly agnostic] Rove has in how the president makes decisions,” or “people are under the impression that the administration’s actions are guided by / rooted in faith, and this story would suggest that may not be the case,” and “this interview would seem to indicate that his motivations are not necessarily Christian.”
In this context your premise that Christians were tricked into thinking that the “that the Republican party was somehow more closely aligned with Christian values,” no longer makes any sense, and I can’t see how your points in the last couple exchanges help support that idea in any way. Your logic just doesn’t make sense to me.
We all have a tendency to comb through stories to find ones that support our view of the world. Jonathan Schwarz admitted as much in the original commentary. I think this is what happened here but now that story has been discredited, I would expect at least a little modification of the view you expressed earlier. Even if you wanted to throw in some probably maybe and seems in there. It would have helped me believe you still have respect for reality with regards the Bush administration.
That’s why I said “most of the things I said above”. I said a whole lot of stuff that was not strictly dependent on Rove’s position.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he’s being honest now, then obviously the parts that were specific to Rove were invalid (as I already mentioned), but I still believe that there was a concerted effort as part of their campaign to position their candidate as the right choice for “Christians” (based on more than just this individual story), and it seemed to have been successful in achieving that goal, to a large degree.
And you still think that is a bad thing even though Rove and Bush actually share the same values and convictions as a majority of the Christians? I could see how it would be a bad thing if Rove was indeed a secular manipulator as Moyers said, but since he isn’t … I don’t get it.
I don’t think it would be a bad thing if it were as simple as that. My problem as far as that goes is that (in my opinion, of course) their actions do not reflect those values and convictions well, or at least that a lot of their policy doesn’t line up with them.
That’s just my opinion and I know you disagree with that part of it, and I’m not going to try and convince you otherwise. I just hope that we can respectfully disagree about things that we actually say or believe, rather than positions that we project onto each other (referencing this comment above).
That being said, I would certainly agree that this whole story is nowhere near as bad as it originally was presented to be. If Rove weren’t a Christian, then the manipulation would definitely be more despicable.
Here’s where we may disagree again, but I still have an issue with the manipulation even if he is a Christian, because I feel like that expression of faith (or its affiliation with their party) was exploited for political gain, without backing it up in their actual policy. If it were consistent with their actual actions and words, I probably wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Obviously, if you disagree (and I’m guessing you do) with my assessment of that consistency (or lack thereof) then integrating that into their campaign would not be as bad a thing as I am making it out to be.
Well, I guess I still disagree with your insistence in saying that the conservative Christians were manipulated. There are lots of possible reasons for the Bush administration not coming through on commitments. I’m not saying that any of them are good but many are more consistent with typical human flaws and the difficulties of governing, and they don’t insist on maligning a Christian brother or calling a large section of the population foolish.
Also, I wasn’t projecting any opinions on you. I was asking questions because I didn’t understand the relevance of the points. Peace.
The main thing I objected to in the referenced comment was the “even though you can’t be positive you are almost certain that Rove is not a Christian” line, since I couldn’t imagine how my comments could have been construed that way, but that may just as well have been a failing on my part in expressing what I was trying to say.
Hopefully what I’ve said above doesn’t constitute either “maligning a Christian brother or calling a large section of the population foolish”; if it is perceived that way, I apologize to all involved.
For clarification on the “maligning” point, all I can say is that I think there’s a difference between that and legitimate criticism, and that since our system of government depends on the expression of dissenting opinions when we feel our leadership is not leading us well, then it’s occasionally our obligation to participate in that kind of speech. Their faith affiliations shouldn’t give them a free pass on that. I do realize there is a line there, though, and I hope I haven’t crossed it.
On the “calling the population foolish” point, I didn’t intend to do that either. I believe it was you who added the adjective “gullible” to the phrase “tools”, not I; and I didn’t ever mean to imply that the people who were manipulated were in any way foolish. Politicians can be pretty good at convincing / manipulating people, and when they need extra help, they hire people specifically like Karl Rove - that’s what he does for a living. So I don’t fault anyone who was successfully swayed by their efforts. If anything, it’s a compliment to the administration in succeeding in that task.
So by manipulate do you mean effectively communicate values and vision in all sincerity?
Not exactly. It’s evident that I feel that they (or Rove in particular) did so in a not-completely-honest or ‘noble’ manner. It’s also evident that you do not feel that is the case. Not much else to say on that…