Is Our Vice President a Born Again Christian

And so, I had to share language, considering every subculture has its ain nomenclature, its own language, its own style. You can be out on the street and someone can only put one word in front of another word, and you instantly know where they're from. The same is true with the evangelical subculture.

It was important that the vice president be speaking direct to them, saying to them what he believes. I didn't desire to influence what he believed, but I wanted to make sure he was communicating. And then a lot of it was language and communication, and "What does this mean?" and "What practice you mean when yous're saying this?"

Are there any things that you can tell me that are specific? What are the types of things that you would have said to him?

I very big issue for Vice President Bush at the time was understanding the terminology of being "born again." I didn't know it, merely in the 1980 election, he had met with some evangelical leaders at the hotel in that location at O'Hare Drome. They'd ask him, "Are you a built-in-again Christian?" and he said, "No," that he wasn't.

So, [in] my memorandum I was maxim to him, "Look, Mr. Vice President, if yous're asked the question, "Are you a born-over again Christian?" yous tin can't say no. You can say anything else, simply you lot tin can't say no.

Even Walter Mondale did not say "No." His campaign in 1984 actually made the strategic decision of attacking fundamentalists and fundamentalist leaders as a part of their political strategy. Fifty-fifty with that, in the debate, he would not say no to the question, "Are you built-in once again?" He said, "Well, my father was a minister, and I have deep respect for people of faith," and he gave a dissimilar answer.

[I said to Vice President Bush], "You, too, must discover a different reply than 'No,' because nosotros're talking"-- it was then 36 percent of the American population [was born again], today, of course, information technology'southward 48 percent. Just at that time, [without] 36 percent of the American population, yous can't win the Republican nomination and say 'No' to this question. Say something else, and hither are some options."

Well, that raised the whole issue of, what is a built-in-again Christian? Equally an Episcopalian, actually, his own church building would teach that he becomes born again at baptism. Jesus said in the New Testament, "Unless you lot're born again, you won't enter the kingdom of heaven. Then will you enter the kingdom of heaven?" Of course, he would believe he would enter the kingdom of heaven. He'south a good Episcopalian. So when did he become born again? The indicate is, doctrinally, his ain church would teach he was born over again at baptism. Then you have to come up with unlike linguistic communication. ...

And so it was obvious to me that, on the i manus, this was a blind spot. This was an area that he did not understand, had not tapped, and he was in a position where it was too tardily to publicly admit it and say it. He had to become the data.

Secondly, I was very much aware that something was going on in his own listen and philosophy in life. This was beyond politics. When you run for president, the start question anyone volition enquire you is, "Why are you running for president?"...

I could sense in the notes coming back and forth with Bush senior that he was in the procedure of redefining who he was and what he felt. There was no other reason for this back and forth, so many pages.

Do you think it besides has to do with the fact that his son, only a few years before, had actually gone through a born-again feel himself, and had actually taken his organized religion much more than seriously with his talks with Baton Graham, and his conversion himself? Do you call back that was part of the equation?

I recollect role of the equation was what was going on in the life of his son, George W. I remember one meeting where we thoroughly prepped the vice president, and he had been in many sessions already. He was very good, but nosotros were with a group of evangelicals. They were actually tough. They started peeling the onion back so fast that I idea, "Uh-oh."

Finally, the vice president said, "Hey, fellas, you lot need to talk to my son. He's a real built-in-again Christian." So the vice president was admitting, acknowledging that "I'm trying to learn this stuff; my son's already in that location."

I didn't know at the time what was going on in the life of George W. Bush-league. Merely obviously, this was part of the equation. The vice president was receiving this memorandum from me that had data, and facts, and demographics, and percentages, and language. Then he was hearing verbally at the aforementioned time, from his son, "Mom, Dad, this is real America. This is out here. I've tasted it myself." That must accept brought it dwelling house in a much more smashing fashion.

When George W. Bush said that he was going to exist your boss, what was he like? How like shooting fish in a barrel was it for him to speak to the evangelical customs? ...

... Well, George W., the son, instantly understood. He but needed a short little verbal head start, and he's off and running, because he knew the civilisation. He knew the linguistic communication. I [would] always get feedback after his father met with ministers, [as] to, "How did he do? What did he say? What do you think?" Then they'd give me their viewpoint on who he was, and what he thought, what's actually going on, which was very interesting for me to hear.

But with the son, it was just instant. In 1998, 1999, 2000, within five minutes of any meetings with evangelicals, within minutes, they instantly knew he'due south a born-again Christian.

Was the aforementioned true in the late 1980s, with his dad? I mean, [George W.] met with the evangelical customs. He was the liaison, right?

Information technology was not truthful so as much as it was in the 2000 election. He was better. He was more constructive.

I've read a couple of things you said about the fact that George Due west. Bush ran for governor after he helped his dad. He used a lot of the techniques that he learned with y'all, or he knew intuitively -- we don't know which is which. ... He sort of took what he learned in Washington working on his dad'southward campaign and applied it to the Texas races. Can you talk virtually how that happened?

Sometimes, when we would prepare these memos for his father, we would prepare a memorandum on a region or a state. For example, one memo was like a 20-pager on the state of Texas. Who are the evangelical leaders in Texas, and why? Who to stay away from, who's radioactive. What [are] the various doctrines and denominations, what percentages, where, what major churches, and some suggestions, or technique, or strategy, or hints.

I retrieve him reviewing the memorandum on Texas, and he just lit up. He said, "Ah, y'all know, I could practice this in Texas. I could make this piece of work in Texas." In that location was no secret he was talking about running for governor. Only he'd see this, and said, "Whoa." To me, it was like the missing piece for him.

He had run for office in Texas, and his opponent had kind of played the evangelical civilisation carte against him by proverb, "Everybody at George's house is going to get out and take a beer," you know, before the election. "We're dissimilar, our people are different." And he got beat in the congressional election.

Now he had become an evangelical Christian himself. Then he's reading this strategy, and he's thinking, "Whoa, this could certainly work for me."

Talk about George W. Bush's faith, and whether you lot recollect it's truly 18-carat. I don't recollect a lot of people question it, how he could be genuinely born again, just then also, he'south a political leader, and then he'southward going to use it to his advantage.

There's no question that the president's religion is real, that information technology's authentic, that it'due south genuine, and there's no question that it's calculated. I know that sounds similar a contradiction. But that will always be the example for a public figure, regardless of their faith, whether they're Islamic, or Jewish, or Christian.

Constantine, which was the first great Christian public figure, was accused of beingness calculated. "How else," the Christians said, "would he go on open the temples to the Greek gods and to the Roman gods, and fund some of the temples to the Roman gods?" So they were outraged. The Christian community was outraged. All the same he was their hero. He was the kickoff Christian monarch, or sovereign, and he had had this born-again experience. He'd had this vision where Jesus came to him earlier he was right on the cusp of battle in Rome, his greatest victory, and [Jesus] said, "You lot volition win this victory for me," and he won the peachy victory. He was the world's greatest ruler, the outset Christian Roman emperor. So that's the beginning of politics.

Gandhi in one case said, "He who says that faith and politics don't mix understands neither i." I would say that I don't know when he's sincere and when he'south calculated, and a reporter for FRONTLINE doesn't know. George Bush doesn't know when he's operating out of a genuine sense of his own faith, or when it's calculated, and there must be gray areas in between. I recollect he operates instinctively.

For example, in the Iowa fence, when he said Jesus was his favorite philosopher, information technology's very questionable whether that helped him. It didn't help him, especially in Iowa, specially not by very much. ... It happened too tardily, and it was too shocking to accept a great touch on on the Iowa caucus. It may have a cumulative effect today. Information technology may be remembered by evangelicals along with other things, and may brand them more likely to embrace him in 200[4].

Do you lot call up, over the long run, did this actually farther him in terms of his electoral base, which is largely evangelical? I believe 40 percent of his base is evangelical.

In the Iowa caucuses, I talked to him just before that contend, and merely after the debate, and he made the argument Jesus was his favorite philosopher. I think that was instinctive, and genuine. Many in the media think it was calculated. I think it did him great impairment in the media. It fix off alarm bells ringing. [It] wouldn't take helped him in the general election.

Ironically, didn't help him in the Iowa caucuses, considering it was too shocking for the evangelicals to hear it. Y'all can't but get into a debate and say, "Well, I love the black people," and expect them to vote for you. You can't only say, "Jesus is my favorite philosopher," and expect evangelicals to autumn into line.

We won the [election] in 1988 with the largest percentage of evangelical support e'er in American history, more than Reagan got in 1984 when he had the landslide that carried every state in the nation only Minnesota -- by far more than George Westward. Bush had in 2000.

Yet, his male parent is not nigh considered the evangelical icon that Reagan is, or that George Westward. Bush-league is, because his father worked that constituency. You can't replace work. If you desire to win a vote, you have to come across with the leaders. You can't but come out and brand statements and look them to fall into line.

George W. Bush'south comment about Jesus existence his favorite philosopher did non win him an appreciable difference in the voting in the Iowa caucus. It sent the alarm bells ringing among the media aristocracy, and left him somewhat vulnerable -- and dangerous, confusing -- to people, and to editors especially at newspapers, who thought, "This public profession of faith is a contrast to the earthy frat boy guy my reporters are telling me almost, that they're riding on the airplane with."

It was a unsafe time for him. It may have helped him, considering of the fact that it was so manifestly uncalculated to evangelicals. I mean, the media elite and non-evangelicals see that argument, and they call up it'southward calculated. The evangelicals know it's not calculated. They know it didn't help him, So they tend to believe it's true. ...

And then now, many years later, afterward having fabricated that statement and having fabricated many more, and having stuck to his guns on many issues -- partial nativity ballgame being i of the about controversial -- evangelicals can look back to that rather shocking, awkward, out-of-place statement, and conclude it's true. You know, "He'southward one of us."…

I remember one phone call prior to a coming together with evangelical Christians, in which I warned him about the trick question. James Kennedy would often inquire candidates a trick question. He would say, "If you lot were to die and go to heaven and to appear earlier St. Peter, or Jesus or whoever, and they were to say, 'Why should I let you in,' what would you say?"

This question is [intended] to flush out someone who is pretending to be sympathetic to the evangelical motility and understand it and care about it, when, in fact, they're totally ignorant of information technology. It worked all throughout 1980. The only problem is, James Kennedy and these other ministers are non enlightened that politicians are not equally stupid as they look. The word spread, and they were set up for him in the following elections. ...

In 1998 or 1999 -- maybe it was even before than that, before his re-election as governor, but I call up it might've been 1997, earlier his re-election as governor -- George W. Bush was going to come across with some evangelical leaders. I chosen him to warn him of this surprise question that they occasionally popular. I repeated the question, which is, "If you were to dice and all of a sudden announced earlier the pearly gates, and Peter said, 'Why should I let you in?' what would your answer exist?"

He cutting me off. He interrupted me earlier I even finished the question, and said, "I know, I know, I know. Because of the claret of Jesus Christ and because of his death for my sins," which is the argument evangelicals make -- that no one can be skillful enough to become to heaven, that the decease of Christ is a sacrifice for our sins and you accept information technology in organized religion. That'southward the whole thought. So, no problem for him. I mean, he understood where evangelicals were coming from.

Only isn't it also very controversial for people who aren't evangelical to hear that kind answer? So how practice y'all talk to someone similar President Bush-league about talking to people who aren't evangelical? How do you answer that question? Because information technology comes up all the time.

There are many evangelical positions on that subject. There are some who have a verse -- and I can't think where information technology is, it's one of the Pauline books -- that says in essence, "God holds us answerable for what we know for when the information is come to us, that we have to make a determination on it and tell them we're forgiven." And then there are evangelicals who believe that.

There are evangelicals who think, no, this is the but way to eternal life and salvation, and it's easy to have. As cool equally that sounds, a loving God allows people to exist drowned. He allows them to be hitting by cars. So he will allow them to be damned for eternity if they don't take this. There are evangelicals that believe that. A politician who's an evangelical isn't going to talk on that subject, as George W. Bush learned very speedily in Texas when the subject was raised.

When he did talk about that outcome to Ken Herman, a local reporter in Houston, he said that the way into heaven is through your belief in Jesus ... accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. And he answered the question, I guess, honestly. And so talk to me near that, and what it meant for him politically.

...Well, that was very controversial and the political ramifications of that were huge. I mean, if I'm not a Christian, if I'yard Jewish or some other faith, I'yard damned? So he doesn't talk about that anymore.

When the subject was raised after, he referred to an encounter he had with Barbara Bush -- who's very popular, incidentally -- and chosen Billy Graham -- who's very pop, incidentally. Billy Graham said "Nobody only God can make that decision." That's get the standard answer now for that question.

So that's a manner to not offend people who aren't evangelical when you lot answer the question, correct? It's basically God's decision. It's non like he believes something else than what he may have said before. It'due south just a different way to talk to the public nigh it?

Yes, it is. But all of this discussion is presuming you know the roots of George Bush'southward faith and why he believes the style he believes, and why he believes so strongly. When 1 understands that, ane is pretty tolerant to his faith and sees that George W.'south faith is the good guy in his life. It's the restraining influence in his life. It's non something to be afraid of. George Westward. Bush-league is someone to be afraid of without his faith. His faith has brought more of a sensitivity, a feminine side, to his personality that was needed. ...

If you talk most the origins of his religion, what is that?

George W. Bush-league can be divers in two words -- Dad and daughters -- and in more recent years, Laura and Mom, considering she's been and so popular. His relationship with his father is not very public, because information technology does not serve his political interest to make that public. It does serve his political interest to brand his relationship with his mom public. And then his mom is what he talks most and carries around. But in fact, he loves his dad very much, talked to his dad all through the entrada. They're very close. ...

He loves his father and he loves his daughters. He was going to lose his daughters if he lost his marriage, and he was going to lose his matrimony if he didn't stop drinking. The matrimony was in trouble. The human relationship inside the marriage was in trouble. He's a handsome guy, and there were girls all over him during the entrada. He was faithful to Laura, only he'due south a handsome guy. That union was under stress, and he blamed himself. I know that he blamed himself.

He couldn't trust anybody. All through his life, his dad was a U.N. administrator or was head of the CIA or head of the Republican Party, before he was vice president for eight years. Then he couldn't go to a counselor. He couldn't talk to a friend about what's going on in his life. Simply he'south going every Sunday to this Methodist church with Laura for the kids' sake, for the girls' sake, no matter what he believes. He's at that place. He's hearing this stuff, and he knows he's got a drinking problem.

One summer, Billy Graham's invited up there. He's already had some literature that shows that people who are able to beat their drinking trouble often practice so by invoking a college power. So he asked Billy Graham some questions. I've talked to Billy Graham nigh it. He was non impressed with George being unusually inquisitive, only it was apparently a big bargain to George W., considering he told me about information technology back in 1987 and 1988. Information technology was important in his life.

Then he had that altogether party, and he woke up one forenoon in Colorado Springs and he said, "Eureka, that's it. I'll take God. I'll beat drinking. I continue Laura and the girls. [It's] that unproblematic. I will never have a drink once more the rest of my life. Done."

And so I'm not saying that today his faith is based on the fact that he wants to accept a normal relationship with Laura and keep his daughters. I'thou just saying that sure got his attention. That brought him into the procedure. "Yes, I'll take God if that'll help me beat drinking. If chirapsia drinking volition help me save my marriage and keep my daughters, done bargain. So where do you get to sign upwards? How do you believe? I'll believe."

That's the missing piece in many biographies and many stories of George Due west., because they try to reconcile how did this frat male child, smart-talking, clever, hip -- I'm telling you, reporters that come up down to Texas from Gentlemen'south Quarterly or from Esquire get out swearing that he was pro-abortion, pro-gay rights. They couldn't imagine anybody this clever and smart and hip could not agree with them on every issue that they agreed with him, because he'south likable. They liked him.

But that'south how. He wanted to save his matrimony, and in the procedure, he came to find that this was real. It's something that happened to him, that he'd had a spiritual feel. So he's i of the most unusual political figures, every bit far equally evangelicals are concerned, that they could ever imagine, because he actually respects them. No one respects evangelicals. Evangelicals are hated and despised.

Most of the journalists I meet conduct their ignorance of evangelicals as bragging rights. They're glad that they're stupid about evangelicals. Information technology makes them more sophisticated to non know anything near evangelicals. Evangelicals seem to detest themselves a little bit, like an abused child; volition blame themselves, and therefore be offended when a politician placates Jerry Falwell. Evangelicals themselves will sometimes be offended past that.

And then the lesser line is, hither is a figure who came to his experience in Christ through a totally different avenue than the church. Non church civilization, non church music, not church nomenclature, totally hip. He's like a young, new evangelical, even though he's an older human. He came to the same decision, notwithstanding. And so he actually looks at some of these evangelicals who feel crummy and excluded and out of place, and he respects them. That'due south magic for them. ...

In 1992, George senior lost the evangelical vote to President Clinton. What happened? How did you practise so dandy and then lose then miserably?

In 1988, George Bush-league Sr. did so well because he touched all the bases, and he did it with subtlety. I talked about evangelicals hating themselves like an abused child volition hate themselves, because they feel, "I must be bad if I'm disliked." Evangelicals have a sense of that. Then if a candidate patronizes the evangelicals, he'll lose some of the evangelical votes who themselves would be offended past that. Or if they run with some of the evangelical bigwigs, sometimes, that's offensive to evangelicals. They don't desire him to be convict of some evangelical TV celebrity.

In 1992, I was no longer there. President Bush Sr. did not have someone objectively advising him on what he should do and say, and how he should work with these evangelical leaders. He went directly to the evangelical leaders himself, and asked for communication. Of class, Jerry Falwell's advice was, "Come to Liberty University." So he flew into Liberty University the week before his election.

If I'd have been there, I'd have said, "Aye, let's go to Freedom University ii years before the election. Only after that, no." No. Certainly not the twelvemonth of the election, and certainly non the week before the election. Pat Robertson offered to speak at the national convention. Well, he wasn't even a candidate for president. Why should he be speaking? Why should the convention exist saddled with that luggage? At present, is that fair to Falwell or fair to Robertson? No. This isn't most off-white to them. This is about fair to the candidate, and getting him elected.

Sure, I'd accept Bush senior go ride horses with Pat Robertson on his private estates and say all kinds of things and kiss in secret, but not in public. He didn't have that kind of a calculated entrada, and the consequence was there was backlash.

That is the great danger for a pol with the evangelical constituency. As a Republican, you tin't win without them. Simply sometimes, you can lose with them, too, because of the backlash. They now represent almost 48 percentage of the American public in numbers. Then yous demand them. Only you lot have to be careful how and [in] what way yous appeal to them.

When George West. Bush ran in 2000, he got a pretty high percentage of evangelical votes. He did meliorate than Gore by a sliver. Talk to me about how he appealed to the evangelicals. I know y'all were advising him at the time, if just informally. You were talking to him through this. What sort of things were yous telling him to do?

The George W. Bush-league campaign of 2000 was wholly inadequate in terms of reaching out to evangelicals. There is no question that he knew evangelicals. He had two or iii meetings, 4, possibly, with evangelical leaders, and he wowed them. That'due south all, though. He didn't accept any more meetings. It'southward kind of like building the machinery, the tool-and-die machinery to manufacture ballpoint pens, and and so turning out 4 ballpoint pens. ...

There were a ton of evangelical votes that were left on the table in the year 2000. Certainly [it] would've impacted Florida. If you can imagine in Florida, the calendar week earlier the election, Billy Graham endorsed George West. Bush for president, yous can wonder what might've happened if that hadn't occurred. Graham has not endorsed anyone for president since his experience with Richard Nixon. ...

You've been said to say "Signal early on and indicate often." What do you mean when you say that, and how would you apply this to George W. Bush at present, when he talks to the evangelicals? What does it mean to signal to this customs, to your community?

Well, my advice to George Bush Sr. was, "Signal early, point frequently." My advice to George West. Bush would be, "Signal early on." The reason George Bush Sr. needed to signal ofttimes was because he was non known as someone who had sympathies towards evangelicals, or even understood them. Then he needed to drive that dwelling house. ...

The reason for any political figure to signal early to the evangelical movement is that the evangelical movement is feared and despised and resented by media elites. They don't similar them. You take a risk if y'all're seen with them, if in any fashion you lot're associated with them. So if you practice it early, when the media's not paying attention, then you don't risk the alienation and the anger of media elites who are offended by that relationship. You lot exercise it early, when they're non watching, when it's less of import. ...

[Evangelicals] accept to feel they have an investment. Here was the greatest divergence betwixt 1988 and 1992 and 1996 and 2000. In 1988, hundreds and hundreds of evangelical organizations spent millions of dollars promoting George Bush Sr. for president. We were tracking it. We were thankful to them. We appreciated it. In 1992, none of that happened. Neither did it happen in 1996 for Bob Dole, and neither did it happen in 2000 for George W. Bush.

Those are the unions of the Republican Party. They put out so much literature that we had big loose-foliage notebooks filled with the various types of literature. Some of them, equally many equally 20 million pieces [in] ane mailing, and that covered two or iii library shelves in my office. These were materials that we didn't pay for or authorize or know until they went out, that they had gone out, that were beingness produced for u.s.a. by evangelicals, rallying their own people.

That didn't happen [up until and then], and hasn't happened in whatsoever election since 1988. So the Republican Political party has been most operating without the unions. The Democrat Political party depends on the unions. Well, the and so-called religious right are the unions of the Republican Political party, and they've been dormant.

You've written about this, or at to the lowest degree y'all've been quoted about this, that when Bush-league senior won the presidency in 1988, W. turned to you and asked, "What'south going to happen to me?" You wrote a memorandum in response to that question.

Yes. It was subsequently the ballot, after his father had won in 1988. Nosotros were sitting in his function, and we were talking almost who on the staff is going to go to transition -- who's going to get to countdown, who'southward going to become to the White Business firm, the various committees.

He sighed in the middle of that and said, "What's going to happen to me?" Which was startling, for me, considering his whole accent was on his dad. All of us had to stay focused on his dad. He was very selfless. I mean, equally far as he knew, this was his shot, his only hazard. He'd been invited on the Today Show, all kinds of opportunities. He said no to all of them, without even hesitation. Like a gunslinger, hired gun. "I'g here, going to do my job and become back to Texas." And then when he said, "What'south going to happen to me?" I said, "Well," I hadn't thought about him. I said, "You lot want me to practice a memo on what happens to presidential kids?" He said, "Yeah."

... Then we went to work, and we did a memo on presidential children. Information technology was really shocking. It was college than average rates of divorce and alcoholism. Among other things, I noticed, psychologists say if you're born a kickoff-born, or if you're named afterwards your parent, a girl named after a mother, you tend to be a high achiever. They have studies that evidence [this].

But if you lot're a presidential son named after your father, it'southward almost like a expletive. I hateful, John Adams Jr. dies an alcoholic at 31, and William Henry Harrison at 35, and Andrew Johnson Jr. at 26. They dice from accidents. Andrew Jackson Jr. subsequently a hunting accident. Calvin Coolidge Jr. is simply 16 years old when he dies afterward an accident on the White House tennis courts.

So I'1000 giving this study to George Due west. Bush, who'southward named subsequently his dad. So it was kind of like, "See y'all. Hither it is. Good day." And so 10 years later, John F. Kennedy Jr. died in that plane crash. When he disappeared over the Atlantic, I was listening to this on the radio, I had chills go downwards my spine. I was thinking, "You know, this is not a coincidence of history." This has happened too often to young people named after their fathers.

There'south tremendous stress for them to accomplish. People come upwardly to them when they're piffling kids and say, "Well, when are you going to run for president?" because they accept the name. That stress is deadly, and I believe it was in the life of George W. Bush, too. He had a drinking trouble.

I must be one of the earliest people to have ever imagined him every bit president. Because when I did this memo, there are seven young sons of presidents who tried to exist president themselves. John Van Buren and Bob Taft, and of form, John Quincy Adams, and others. So I immediately started thinking.

I mean, he'due south the guy I see every day, and I'm working for. And so I immediately thought, "Whoa. What kind of president would he make? Oh, God, that would exist funny. He'southward then decisive. He'south so adamant, so dogmatic -- makes a conclusion, never looks back. Oh." I thought either he'd exist terrific, or he'd be terrible. But he'd sure make news. There'd be sparks, considering his personality today is the same as it was and then. People said after ix/xi, "Boy, he's inverse." No. He's just exactly the same. They just finding out who he is. He was always like that. ...

Something that was surprising to me, as a not-evangelical, was his State of the Union address, where he said "The wonder-working power of the American people." ... Tin you talk about how you can talk to the evangelical customs without alienating other potential voters, and how important that is?

When the president used the line "wonder-working ability" in his speech, information technology was a fault that it became known that this was a picayune nod to the evangelicals. That was a fault. Because presidents and presidential candidates nod all the time, and the Washington Post never notices, and nobody else ever notices. And they nod to many constituencies, not just the evangelicals.

Information technology's just important to the evangelicals, considering unlike the other constituencies, there'south backlash. If a presidential candidate nods to black supporters, if he's a Republican, it increases the respect among other Republicans. They don't want a bigot for a candidate. Sometimes a Democrat candidate volition want to show his independence from black voters -- which Clinton did at ane point, and Dean has got a trivial controversy playing at that at one indicate, with the Confederate flag thing.

They're appealing to the general electorate and saying, "Nobody's going to own me. I'thousand going to endeavour to be off-white to everybody, and not owned past any constituency." What I had advised very early on is to identify with evangelical sports stars and music stars, equally opposed to preachers. Because if you're seen with a sports star -- and there are many of them who are evangelical Christians -- the evangelicals instantly know. They know, "Well, he's the lawn tennis champion, and he'due south a built-in-again Christian," and you get all the advantages, and none of the disadvantages.

When he traveled with Roger Staubach -- who's a pretty loftier-profile evangelical --when he traveled with him in Iowa, that was a pretty strong signal. Only it's softer than going in there with a government minister in tow, which he would never do, and shouldn't practice, doesn't need to do. ... The organized church is really in disrepute right now, all over the world. In Western Europe, there'due south a collapse of confidence in the organized church building, and in the United States, too. So there'southward no demand to. If in that location's another manner of winning the vote, that'south the way to go. ...

So those are the means we look to signal respect to the evangelical customs, to say, "We don't exclude you. If I'm president, I will beloved and respect you as much equally whatsoever other American. I'k not going to judge, or deny you, just because of your religion." Evangelicals feel that.

See, the non-evangelical world doesn't intendance well-nigh the evangelical world. Simply when you pick up a paper, as an evangelical can practice, and there can be a headline that says, "IRS targets 14 evangelical ministries," it sends chills down your spine. What if you lot were Jewish, and y'all pick up the newspaper, and at that place's a little headline of an article, and it says, "IRS targets 14 Jewish organizations?" You'd be scared. You'd be thinking, "My God. That'south pretty bold." Evangelicals are scared when they meet that. ...

[Evangelicals] don't care about politics. They don't care nearly Republicans or Democrats. They desire to practice their faith and raise their families and be left alone. Simply they felt that regime was starting time to intrude on their manner of life, and so they were aroused to activity, if cipher else, to kind of stop the train.

Politicians tin can appeal to that. When they signal interest or business organisation of an evangelical, the evangelical is getting the message, "They're non going to exclude us." When a Democrat says, "We desire to exist inclusive," they don't mean evangelicals. They mean, "We want to be inclusive of every group of people in the United States, no matter what they are, except evangelicals."

So you'll have no outrage whatsoever from anyone if Bill Clinton has an assistants with no evangelical on his senior staff, and no evangelical judge nominated, or no evangelical appointed to a high agency. No one says a discussion, and no one cares. But evangelicals notice it, and it scares them.

After 9/xi, in item, people have voiced concern that George Bush feels similar he's doing God's volition. Tin y'all talk about that -- that he feels that God is almost on America'south side, that divisions between president and existence God's choice have been blurred?

Yes. I know that [in] France and Germany, and in New York, Washington, Boston, in the corridor, that at that place's concern that Bush'southward faith is playing an unhealthy role in his war on terrorism, somehow, makes him emboldened in attacking an Islamic state, maybe, for example. That's nonsense. George Bush'southward faith is the good affections of his personality. Without that faith, he is so hard, he is and so decisive, he is so quick, he is so roughshod, he is and so unapologetic, then cocky-righteous. "I'm right, this is the right way to go, we're going."

I call back the people could sense that in the war in Iraq. Part of the problem was they sensed he was going, even before there was bear witness, earlier the American people were fix. They could sense, no matter what he said, that before long after 9/11, this guy was going, and it made information technology somewhat doubtable. And so, the logic for the war, when it came forth a niggling bit later, it was somewhat suspect, because certainly exterior of this state, they could sense it that he'due south going. Merely a very decisive guy.

It's his faith that would make him end and say, "Wait, is this it right matter to exercise?" Information technology's not his faith that would say, "Get attack those people. Start a state of war. Do this." It's only the contrary. His religion has been a real tempering issue on who he is and his personality. "You may not know everything, bigshot. Slow downward. Listen to the other side." People ought to be thankful that he has a faith; [it'southward] not something to fright.

When he talks virtually evildoers, when he talks nearly evil -- I know part of the construct of being evangelical or being a bourgeois Christian is the belief in proficient and evil -- but people are concerned. Critics bring up this idea that somehow we're skilful and they're evil, and therefore, that gives us the right to go over and attack them. Tin you address this issue?

When George W. Bush uses the term "evil," it's not a religious thing, it's a Reagan matter. Information technology's "axis of evil," which was so controversial at the fourth dimension, and proved and then true. He'due south just plugging into something that works, that has appeal to conservatives, that has moral cement.

You'll find he'll constantly say "evildoers," well-nigh never says "evil people." He says "evildoers." The Holocaust, if it teaches anything, should teach that people tin be evil; that bureaucracies can grow too arrogant and too strong and too sure of themselves and tin can be evil; and leaders can be too remote to understand how their policies and their hatreds and biases bear upon the common person. And horrible things can occur. If they aren't evil, what are they?

He felt nine/xi was wrong, and was evil. I don't know that that'southward all bad. I don't come across that rooted in his organized religion especially. Maybe, merely I don't come across it as a conscious -- as a driving strength, at all.

I did take this word one time with him. When I was working for him and his dad in the 1988 wheel, the Council of Bishops -- the Cosmic bishops -- at the time were advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament, and they were using all kinds of moral appeals on this basis.

The president, George Bush Sr., wanted to know how an evangelical would reply this, more for understanding evangelicals than understanding the Cosmic bishops. What we came upward with was an illustration from the Bible, it'south called the story of the Good Samaritan. ...

This all came back in the year 2000 election, when Cokie Roberts on ABC, said, "Well, George W. Bush says his favorite philosopher's Jesus, but this is going to get him into problem. What is he going to practice if we're at war? Is he going to turn the other cheek if we're at war?"

So I chosen the governor up, and I referred to Cokie Roberts' question. We talked almost it, and reminded him of the discussion we'd had dorsum for his male parent well-nigh the Skillful Samaritan, and that a Christian, if he'southward acting on what Jesus taught, he turns his cheek if somebody insults him, or hurts him, or slaps him. But he has no right to turn your cheek if you lot're being hauled off to a concentration camp; his responsibility is like Bonhoeffer -- to risk his life to save you, not to turn his cheek.

So in this disharmonize with terrorism, I'thou sure his philosophy would be -- because I've talked nearly it with him -- would exist "Yes, I tin can turn my cheek. They phone call me stupid, fine. That's what they want to telephone call me, fine." He doesn't react to it. "Just, boy, they have out the World Merchandise Center and impale those people, they're going to have to answer to me. I'thou going to respond to that. Those are evildoers."

When y'all talk nigh this, you say that it has zip to do with his faith; but it feels very rooted in his religion. Is this Samaritan? Is that only a justification for going to war, for doing this? Is it really rooted in his faith, or is information technology a justification?

I think his instincts are to go after somebody who hurts his family unit. In this sense, he would run into America as his responsibility. He believes a lot in responsibility. He talks a lot about opportunity and responsibleness. …

What exercise you call back George W. Bush is doing now to entreatment to this [evangelical] base of operations?

I think that George W. Bush has fabricated a calculated conclusion to go over the heads of evangelical leaders and entreatment directly to the people. It may work big-time. Information technology has been a keen risk.

It may be that we're at a little flake of a turning point, where the media is becoming more sympathetic to evangelicals. That may be happening because of the war in Iraq, and considering of the president's increased support from Jewish Americans. It's non discussed at all -- hardly at all on Tv, but it's a major paradigm shift, in my opinion, a major dynamic. Because of that dynamic, I think the evangelicals are outset to get a little bit of a suspension that they've never had before. Because of that, the president may get abroad with appealing to evangelicals in a more public way, that previously might have backfired and hurt him.

The ideal way would be for him to subtly, under the radar screen, gear upwards the unions of the Republican Political party -- which are all of these organizations -- like was done in 1988, and meet with tons of these people in low-key events that are non-public.

Is he doing that?

Not very aggressively, and he may not have to, because you don't come across him with the major religious figures. Y'all see him with a religious figure that nobody in the media elite even knows happens to exist evangelical. And that's calculated; that'due south non an accident.

Like who?

At that place's just lots and lots of names. They're no-proper name figures. Information technology gets on the evangelical word of mouth, gets alee of wind, and information technology goes all over the state that that guy, John Doe, happens to be an evangelical pastor from Florida, or from Maryland, or wherever the president'southward tapping into.

He keeps information technology rotating. He keeps it changing, then that one effigy does not proceeds brownie, and the right to speak on his behalf, [or] therefore, miscommunicate messages, which has been the discipline of this president politically throughout his life. ...

[Evangelicals are] sort of a wily vote, aren't they? President Bush volition probably do quite well with them. Merely also he runs a gamble of not doing so groovy, especially on problems like the environment and unemployment and the economic system and all sorts of things that evangelicals really care about. What would you say nearly that?

I would say the chief issue for the evangelical is their survival. So surround is fashion downward the list. They're feel[ing] that their right to practice their organized religion is under assail past culture and authorities and club. Therefore, they would tend to go Republican, if they feel that mode, and many of them exercise experience that way. ...

There has to exist some sort of root where this is coming from. Why is it permissible that there is anti-evangelical thought that'due south promulgated especially in the press? Where does this paranoia from the secularist side come from?

It's lack of knowing. To know is to understand. It's the evangelicals' fault. It's our fault. Information technology doesn't make not-evangelicals correct. But it is our error. Nosotros have not been involved in public life, considering nosotros oasis't felt a need to or a desire to. So information technology's going to accept fourth dimension.

Catholics have been through this in this country. Jews have been through this in this state. Blacks have been. It sounds cool to recollect that evangelicals are the same. Just when I worked in the White Firm, I learned very rapidly blacks were mode ahead of usa. Nosotros were way back there. We were behind Hispanics in figuring out this. We are resented, considering our numbers are so huge. We're like a seven-foot-tall basketball role player who doesn't really know how to play, but scares the willies out of the other coaches. Considering if nosotros could always go our human action together, we could be formidable, because we're a lot of numbers.

And then office of the problem is the evangelical move is self-defeating, because it'due south a myth. It doesn't exist as a monolithic motility. We talked virtually this a lot in the campaign. An evangelical doesn't think of himself as an evangelical. He thinks of himself equally a Southern Baptist or a member of the McLean Bible Church or equally a Presbyterian or equally a Cosmic charismatic. ...

You talk about a marginalized group, a grouping that is discriminated confronting. Yet the president of the free world, George Due west. Bush, is an evangelical Christian. What does this mean to the evangelical community that ane of their own is in the White House?

Yes, I remember it's very meaning that George W. Bush is an evangelical Christian and is president. The type of evangelical Christian that he is, information technology'south very pregnant, because information technology's been a real enigma for my journalist friends. I have announcer friends and writers who are on the press plane who phone call me upwards and say, "I can't figure this guy out. He simply sat down side by side to me, and he said this, this, and this."

It's been an eye-opener for some. This is 48 percent of the American population. How it could be and so marginalized is just pretty amazing. The numbers overlap. You lot could take the numbers of people who believe in this or that or the other, and they overlap. Information technology means you go a lilliputian bit of almost everything as evangelicals.

People often say that this White House is the almost religious, actually, in recent history. The people who are around President Bush are very likeminded. You've got Mike Gerson. You have Condoleezza Rice. You take John Ashcroft. You've got these people effectually him. Nosotros don't know what Karl Rove's religion is, but he certainly has a relationship with a religious community. ... I'g not making a accuse that this is bad. ... If you actually first to read well-nigh this, it seems interesting. And then can you comment on the people within who are shut to Bush?

By the time in your career, your life, you end upwards on senior staff at the White Firm, you are not sectarian. You can't get at that place and be sectarian. You lot have a wider feel with the earth. So is there some significance to the fact that the president has a lot of people around him who are evangelical? Yes, he might be more comfortable with that. He might know how they think.

I heard him once in a conversation with me say he liked John Ashcroft, because he was an evangelical who was a governor. He said he liked that, considering as a governor, y'all have to compromise, or you can't get legislation through. The fact that he had served 8 years equally a governor of Missouri impressed him -- that here was a person who would have integrity and be conscientious about things, and however knew how to function in authorities.

I think information technology's natural for anyone who becomes president to be comfortable with people effectually them who share similar thoughts. Yous'd accept that if you were Kennedy, or you'd have that if yous were George W. Bush-league. ...

Nosotros met with Richard Cizik from the National Association of Evangelicals. He was saying that this was a moment in fourth dimension where the evangelical community tin actually get what they want in the White House. He didn't say it in a divisive mode. He said, "Only this is a moment in time that nosotros take to seize, considering one of our own is in that location. We tin become our agenda through the White House. We have a voice." Tin you lot talk most that?

The most of import thing that evangelicals need is a share of federal judges -- not for purposes of abortion, which is the big preoccupation of the media -- merely for purposes of freedom of religion and freedom of thought to function, and then they aren't harassed past activist judges. The best gamble for that is now.

But you have to empathise, nosotros may be talking-- out of 740, 750 federal judges, we may be talking about four or five evangelicals. If they get four or 5, they're extremely lucky, and it will make their life easier. There will be less lawsuits that they have to fight against for the right to practice their faith and believe what they want to believe or operate their not-profit corporations. ...

What critics of something like the religion-based initiatives would say is that they actually blur the lines in the sand. You take the church and you've got the state, and when you start to mix money and taking authorities coin for church activities, there's the fear of proselytizing and all those things. Can you lot respond to this concern?

The but faith-based initiative grants that take gone out have gone out to groups that don't proselytize at all. In that location'southward no single example. Yous can't find a single person in the U.s.a. who, through federal money, was converted to some evangelical religion.

They're extremely effective organizations. If the evangelicals withdrew their soup kitchens and their daycare centers and their hospitals and their drug rehabilitation efforts, our culture, American civilisation would collapse. That money, those billions of dollars, if that part had to be causeless by the federal authorities, it would be prohibitive. It could not be done.

So this is but saying when an evangelical group or any other group, a Catholic group or Jewish grouping, has hit on a special way that they can solve a problem in our society, and then we need to fund it, because it saves the states money.

The other answer to that is, I worked in the White House, and all the other religious groups have that money. It's flowing to them and has been flowing to them. They may exist Episcopalian. They may be Jewish. They may be LDS [Latter-day Saints]. They're customs centers, where the board members are all of the same religion.

Now, they're careful. They don't brand that a place where they promote their religion. It's a community center. People in the community can utilise it. Anybody can wander in at that place, if they desire. ...

Americans like their president to have a deep organized religion in religion. What people go concerned about is that non that he's religious, but that his religion would and then dictate his policies. Do believe that information technology'due south defendable that his religion actually doesn't dictate his policies? Or does it? Or is that expanse of gray -- which you lot talked about earlier -- which is you tin't really dissever them out completely?

I absolutely exercise not believe that his organized religion dictates his policies, admittedly. His faith in God is virtually if at that place is a God and at that place is eternity. Information technology relates to those issues. They're far more significant than the morality of whether you should take a license before you own a gun or whether big companies dump pollution in this lake or that lake. It transcends that. ...

So how does he handle something like the issue of legislating gay marriage?

I don't know how the president is going to handle information technology. I know that the fears of the Democrats, in some, that he will make this a divisive upshot that will help him win a landslide. I seriously doubt that. That's made from people who don't know him personally, because that's not his style.

It'due south his manner to win big. He'd like to win big. But he's not going to hurt people every bit an issue to helping win big. It's not him. He's not going to do it, in my opinion. ...

The other question I had was the partial nativity abortion [bill]. Was that really significant for the evangelical customs? How would you characterize it?

I think the signing of that partial birth abortion pecker volition be a big statement to evangelicals, considering they've never had anything on the correct-to-life abortion front ever, from Reagan or anybody. So in that sense, it'll be significant, even to evangelicals who are pro-option. I think at to the lowest degree they volition stop and think, "Y'all know, I'm pro-selection. But he had the guts to buck the whole media to sign that, and it'due south meant as a gesture towards me, fifty-fifty though I'g pro-option." Therefore information technology volition be meaningful to them. And most evangelicals are pro-life. ...

My concluding question actually is about President Carter. He's an evangelical Christian. He says he's born again. Even so there isn't that secular fear around Carter. I went dorsum and read the press effectually him. There wasn't the aforementioned paranoia around Carter that there is effectually Bush-league's religion, and I'k curious. Can yous tell me why?

Jimmy Carter was more acceptable to the media elites because of his politics. He was more left. But he did suffer also as an evangelical. I had an interesting chat with he and Rosalynn. It was about the re-election, and Rosalynn said, "You know, they've never accepted us in Washington. Jimmy had Katharine Graham in to dinner the beginning meal he had." He said, "We were never accepted." I said, "Why? Why non?" He said [it was] his faith.

Then that was the feeling of even the man who was president of the The states. And so possibly it's valid, perchance it isn't valid, but evangelicals sure feel that way. They sentry the same TV and read the same newspapers as everybody else, and they get that impression.

This was a Democrat, not a Republican. Jimmy Carter, of grade when he ran for president, only 28 or 29 percent of the American population claimed to be born once again, and that was enough to go far a huge issue. This was a classic ballot [in] 1976, because the Republicans and the Democrats basically made a bargain, unintentionally. The Republicans said, "OK, we'll give you some of these born-once again voters, and nosotros're going to take some of your Catholic voters."

It worked for the Democrats. Information technology was shocking, because the Democrats took Pennsylvania, they took Ohio, they took Missouri, they took Kentucky -- those key edge states. The only states that the Republicans got out of the bargain was Illinois.

In all of those states that I mentioned, the evangelical vote for Carter was college than the normal evangelical vote for a Democrat. The Cosmic vote for the Republican was higher than the normal Catholic vote for a Republican. ... The just state that the backlash worked for the Republicans was Illinois. This was a real shocker for political observers. It was the first time that evangelicals came into play.

And so in 1988, when we won with the Bush senior campaign and carried the highest total of evangelical votes e'er in American history, we lost as we always exercise -- the Republicans -- we lost the Jewish vote and the Hispanic vote and all those votes. We lost the Catholic vote. We were the offset modern presidency to win an ballot and it was a landslide and not win the Cosmic vote. It was barely, but we lost the Cosmic vote.

How did we exercise it? We carried 82 percent or 83 percent of the evangelical vote. I remember when it was all over-- this was ane of the reasons I got a job in the White House -- but I call up when it was all over, there was cracking shock from me and others saying, "Whoa, this is unhealthy." Nosotros immediately began going afterward the Cosmic vote.

While at the aforementioned time, we were frightened by the fact that we lost all these votes and still won the White House. The message did come home. My God, you can win the White House with nada merely evangelicals if you tin get enough of them, if yous get them all, and they're a huge number. ...

Why do you believe that Bush senior lost the evangelical vote in the second election after doing so well?

In 1992, several things were at play. One was the breaking of the pledge, "Read my lips. No new taxes." Recall, evangelicals are like everybody else. And then they're going to experience betrayed if other people feel betrayed. So that was a factor.

The other gene was the approach to evangelicals. It was very clumsy in 1992. In 1988, we met with a grand or more leaders, 1-on-1, or in small groups. That'south a lot of people. I mean, we had thick biographies on all the evangelical leaders, covered the bases. We knew how everybody was. We followed upward later they met with the vice president. They had to feel like he was their all-time friend all the way upwardly to the election -- which we did.

So in 1992, there was none of that, partly because the president physically -- he had gone through a physical crunch and he wasn't working as hard; partly because they got overconfident because of the state of war in Republic of iraq; and partly because of the, "Read my lips" and the sense of betrayal on the tax issue.

And then the icing on the cake was when they went to the evangelical leaders themselves and said, "Assist usa win the evangelical vote." You have to have someone objective there advising a president on who you should see, when and why. That convention was non in the all-time interests of the candidate to take Pat Robertson requite a speech, to visit Liberty University and Jerry Falwell the week before the election. It should have been a more sophisticated approach to winning that vote.

That'due south too transparent.

Yes, and it doesn't take into consideration the contempt that'due south at that place against evangelicals. You tin can't ignore it. ...

johnsonbetteramer.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/wead.html