Bush Administration's Politicization of Christianity in Policy

Introduction: Religion, Politics, and the Bush Presidency

Church and state are, by constitutional law, intended to remain separate. And yet, where America's electoral patterns are concerned, it is quite clear that voters tend to respond in one way or another to the presence and invocation of religion, or to issues related to religious value systems. This dynamic was on full display in 2004, when President George W. Bush sought and gained reelection against challenger and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry by focusing primarily on the religious value system he claimed to share with many of his supporters.

The Bush Administration would, more than most presidents of the late twentieth century before him, place great and continuing emphasis on Christianity as a defining factor in his life, his work, and his political orientation. His presidency — truly defined by the quagmire he helped create in Iraq and, perhaps, by the economic crises that shadowed his final days in office — was nonetheless conducted under a shroud of Christian piety. This resulted in his vocal and controversial stands on such issues as gay marriage, stem cell research, and faith-based initiatives. These areas showed Bush dedicated to imposing his Christian values on Americans through his office, even at the cost of weathering harsh criticism from civil rights and constitutional advocacy groups.

Increasingly, political parties have demonstrated a clear relationship to religious proclivities. As the Campbell (2007) text denotes, "instead of religious denomination, the parties are divided by religious devotional style — that is, a way of being religious. People who are more devout — regardless of denomination — are more likely to favor the GOP" (Campbell, 1). This relationship between religious and political affiliation tends to allow those in the devout category to overlook such considerations as suitability to office and performance effectiveness in favor of shared religious value systems, and it would serve as the primary electoral consideration shaping Bush's policy priorities and courtship of his constituency.

Such was the circumstance that helped him win reelection in 2004 despite widespread discontent among many Americans over his record. In many ways, Bush was a very unpopular sitting president. Perceptions that his economic policies were tilted to benefit the wealthy, combined with views that he had mishandled both the decision to enter and the conduct of the war in Iraq, made him a seemingly vulnerable candidate. This vulnerability seemed even greater when he began pushing in early 2004 for a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. Bush's policy position on this subject came as no surprise to the American public, which had long known him as a social conservative and as someone who was, at least in his public statements, fully dedicated to the doctrines of Christianity.

Gay Marriage and the Constitutional Amendment Push

The emphasis Bush placed on family values appeared to resonate deeply with him personally. He "said he fears that states allowing gay marriage and 'activist judges' who are 'presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization' are threatening the sanctity of marriage. He claims that marriage between a man and woman promotes stability for the sake of children" (Albu, 1). Naturally, this perception arose not from empirical research but from a belief system constructed by modern Christianity and its close political allies. Chief among these allies, Republican power figures such as President Bush became crucial in advancing a Christian political and social agenda.

The implications for the political landscape were significant. The minority population affected by a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage was far outnumbered by Christian right-wing populations that voiced strong support for the ban. In evaluating the civil rights implications of the proposed amendment, it is important to note that the will of a selected and discriminated-against few would be determined by the imposition of a larger and more empowered political majority — a result directly antithetical to the Constitution's intention to protect equal rights in the eyes of the law.

The proposed ban also represented a clear and intentional political diversion by the Bush Administration, which seemed focused on bringing up a constitutional amendment with virtually no practical chance of congressional passage as a means of changing the subject of political conversation ahead of an election. The proposed ban did incite considerable opposition from Democratic lawmakers, who viewed it as an attack on both individual state rights and civil rights. Few in the political realm were fooled by the misdirection, even if it appeared to work on the broader public. For instance, "U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton . . . blasted a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, saying President Bush is pushing the initiative to 'change the subject' from the economy and the war in Iraq. Speaking in Minneapolis at the ninth annual Rainbow Families Conference, the nation's largest annual event for parents who are gay or lesbian, the Democratic senator said the controversial amendment essentially would legalize discrimination" (SPPP, 1). This view was shared by civil rights advocacy groups and many lawmakers, but it fell on deaf ears among Bush's Christian voting base. To that group, there was clear importance in sending a signal to Washington that the protection of gay rights would not be tolerated. To his discredit, Bush utilized that signal to his own political advantage while simultaneously stimulating the kind of prejudice and hatred implied by the elevation of the issue.