Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-5xszh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T18:31:24.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Christian Right: Engaged Citizens or Theocratic Crusaders?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2009

Nathaniel J. Klemp*
Affiliation:
Pepperdine University
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Nathaniel J. Klemp, Department of Political Science, Pepperdine University, 24255 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90263-4372. E-Mail: nathaniel.klemp@pepperdine.edu

Abstract

This article offers a normative evaluation of the Christian Right's impact on American democracy. It argues that our response to the question of whether this movement enhances or diminishes democracy turns on our understanding of the ideal of democracy. When viewed as a participatory ideal, the Christian Right's mobilizing practices enhance democracy. When viewed as a deliberative ideal, the Christian Right's practices diminish the deliberative virtues of toleration and free and open debate. These conflicting assessments point to an important democratic paradox. They show that the very same practices that inspire the participatory virtues of active political engagement also incite the deliberative vices of intolerance and polarization. To address this paradox, I argue that we ought to strive for a balance between pure participation and pure deliberation. The primary problem with Christian Right organizations like Focus on the Family, I will argue, is that they tend to disrupt this balance. They inspire active participation at the expense of deliberation.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Audi, Robert. 2001. Religious Commitment and Secular Reason. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blake, Mariah. 2005. “Stations of the Cross.Columbian Journalism Review 3:xxxxx.Google Scholar
Brown, Rupert. 2001. Group Processes. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Buss, Dale. 2002. “The Counter Counterculture.PRIMEDIA Company, January.Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 2002. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In Democracy, ed. Estlund, D.New York, NY: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Conger, Kimberly H., and McGraw, Brian T. 2008. “Religious Conservatives and the Requirements of Citizenship: Political Autonomy.Perspectives on Politics 6:253266.Google Scholar
de Tocqueville, Alexis. 2004. Democracy and America. trans. Goldhammer, A.New York, NY: The Library of America.Google Scholar
DefCon, . 2006. “Paid Advertisement.The New York Times, March 8, A5.Google Scholar
Diamond, Sara. 1998. Not by Politics Alone. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Dobson, James. 2003. “Marriage on the Ropes.Dr.Dobson's Newsletter.Google Scholar
Dobson, James. 2006. Focus on the Family Broadcast. Colorado Spring, CO: Focus on the Family.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John. 2002. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Family, Focus on the. 2005. “Defend Dr. Dobson's Stem Cell Comments.”http://www2.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfmGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1992. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” In Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Calhoun, C.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gilgoff, Dan. 2007. The Jesus Machine. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, Kent. 1995. Private Consciences and Public Reasons. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guttman, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Guttman, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. trans. McCarthy, T.Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2006. “Religion in the Public Sphere.European Journal of Philosophy 14:125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardisty, Jean. 1995. “Constructing Homophobia: Colorado's Right-Wing Attack on Homosexuals.” In Eyes Right! ed. Berlet, C.Boston, MA: South End Press.Google Scholar
Hardisty, Jean. 1999. Mobilizing Resentment. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Hedges, Chris. 2007. American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Herman, Didi. 1997. The Antigay Agenda: Orthodox Vision and the Christian Right. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hertzke, Allen D. 1988. Representing God in Washington. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Klemp, Nathaniel J. 2005. Interview with Glenn Stanton. July 19, 2005. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family Headquarters.Google Scholar
Larmore, Charles. 1987. Patterns of Moral Complexity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Clyde, and Wilcox, Carin. 2006. Onward Christian Soldiers? Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 2005. “Democratic Deliberation: Why We Should Promote Debate Rather than Discussion.” n.p.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1987. “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation.Political Theory 15:338368.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1986. Why We Lost the ERA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1996. “Using Power/Fighting Power: The Polity.” In Democracy and Difference, ed. Benhabib, S.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2005. “Cracking through Hegemonic Ideology: The Logic of Formal Justice.Social Justice Research 18:335347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moen, Michael. 1992. The Transformation of the Christian Right. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana. 2006. Hearing the Other Side. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Penning, James. 1994. “Pat Robertson and the GOP: 1988 and Beyond.Sociology of Religion 55:327344.Google Scholar
Piore, Adam. 2005. “A Higher Frequency.Mother Jones Magazine. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/12/higher-frequency.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 1993. In Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, eds. Leonardi, Robert, and Nanetti, Raffaella Y.. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited.” In The Law of Peoples with “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schulte, Dan, and Gilgoff, Bret. 2005. “The Dobson Way.US News and World Report. http://www.pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=4252.Google Scholar
Shields, Jon. 2009. The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shields, Jon A. 2007. “Between Passion and Deliberation: The Christian Right and Democratic Ideals.Political Science Quarterly 122:89113.Google Scholar
Stanton, Glenn. 2004. “Debate-Tested Sound Bites on Defending Marriage. Focus on Social Issues (May).Google Scholar
Stout, Jeffrey. 2004. Democracy and Tradition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 2000. “Deliberative Trouble? Why Groups go to Extremes.The Yale Law Journal 110:71119.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 2001. Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 2006. Infotopia. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 1997. Religion in the Public Square. New York, NY: Roman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1996. “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy.” In Democracy and Difference, ed. Benhabib, S.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar