Rethinking Religion in Presidential Rhetoric
By Spencer Meredith on 24 February 2006
In the “War on Terror,” President George W. Bush seeks to bring to justice those who violate what he believes are universal truths handed down by Almighty God. And he isn’t afraid to tell you so. Indeed, throughout the course of his presidency his rhetoric has often been cast in religious and moralistic terms. To critics, particularly those of a secularist bent, this way of speaking and framing issues has been a constant source of concern. In the ease with which Bush blends religion and politics, some have gone as far as to suggest that, ironically, this “Christian fundamentalist” president has more in common with the Islamist fundamentalists he is fighting than it may initially appear.
But Bush is by no means an historical aberration in terms of his faith or the use of religious discourse in American politics. Religion, specifically Christianity, has been prominent in presidential rhetoric since the founding of the Republic. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Teddy Roosevelt publicly stated their belief in Christian virtue as an essential criterion for the survival of American democracy. Woodrow Wilson believed the United States was compelled to intervene in the First World War in support of the virtues of liberty, justice, and lasting peace, all virtues espoused by Christianity. George W. Bush’s Christian beliefs led him to the same decision: war to defend the weak is a sacrificial privilege for those whom God has richly blessed. Past perversions of Christian stewardship of political power did not negate Wilson’s belief in Providence, nor have they dimmed Bush’s hope for a brighter future led by the United States.
Bush follows the example of Abraham Lincoln, whose careful appropriation of the language of divine sanction also grew out of deep Christian convictions. Lincoln cautioned against presuming too much favor from God for military victories. When he heard someone comment after the battle at Gettysburg that “the Lord was on the Union’s side,” Lincoln responded, “I am not at all concerned about that, for I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord’s side.” Bush echoed the same sentiment during the early stages of the Iraq war and after the debacle at Abu Ghraib: “Americans do not presume to equate God's purposes with any purpose of our own.... [Prayer] teaches us to trust, to accept that God’s plan unfolds in his time, not our own.”
Such a providentialist belief is not necessarily harmful to the successful prosecution of the War on Terror. Indeed, it circumscribes it in a way al-Qaeda’s flawed interpretation of Islam does not. It is also incorrect to assume, with Jackson Lears, that “like the strategists’ faith in smart bombs, faith in Providence frees one from having to consider the role of chance in armed conflict, the least predictable of human affairs.” Religion frames President Bush’s decision making processes; it does not serve as the blueprint for day-to-day prosecution of the War on Terror.
A distinction needs to be made between the fact of presidential faith and its direct application as the sole basis for policy. The history of abuses of sacred teachings to suit personal greed is long and sordid, and corruption of the faith is an all too common occurrence in the human condition. Yet to throw out the good that religion brings to politics—compassion, mercy, self-sacrifice—simply because humanity has been incapable of attaining the heights of moral perfection seems just as foolish. To find a way out of the all-or-nothing conundrum proposed by secularist rejections of a role for religion in politics, Bush has followed an approach based in reason and faith; faith in a plan for this life based in the goodness of Providence, and the reasonable application of wisdom to discern and apply that plan. America’s Founding Fathers held such beliefs, and Bush stands in good company when he follows their lead.
Yet Bush’s religious convictions remain provocative. They inspire as much fear as admiration, especially in the context of an ongoing military conflict. Critics like Andrew Austin have charged that “the President of the United States is stating publicly that God, who is behind all of history, is not neutral in human affairs, that God takes sides, and that in fact, God has taken our side, and furthermore, the President is carrying out God’s will.” The first half of that statement evidences an accurate reading of Bush’s statements and personal faith, but the second half—“God has taken our side”—is too simplistic. President Bush echoes Lincoln’s cautionary prayer to be on God’s side rather than assume the incontrovertible rightness of his cause. What’s more, Bush has frequently employed language from the venerable Just War tradition of moral reflection on government war making, coercion, and justice. This tradition is nothing if not fully aware of the moral complexity and the necessity of making painful decisions with less-than-perfect information.
In the final analysis, America’s contemporary challenge is not just to ensure that “moderate”’ Islam prevails over radical Islam, or that it preserves its superpower status despite the attacks of a few regional miscreants disaffected by decades of subjugation and humiliation by the Western world. America’s challenge is also to achieve moral consistency in the pursuit of military victory against terrorists. And it is here that Bush’s way of appealing to religiously-grounded morality is actually a distinct advantage.
The President’s enemies forsake the venerable teachings of Islam and violate its basic traditions. Bush makes a clearer attempt to uphold the long-standing Christian teachings of prudence and stewardship, the precedents of the Founding Fathers, and the core principles of decency and mercy found within all the world’s great religions. He may share a vaguely similar “moralistic” language with Islamic fundamentalists, but the cautious providential rhetoric Bush exhibits in ascribing divine sanction to his cause places him solidly within the best traditions of Christianity and indeed all the Abrahamic faiths — a place al-Qaeda will never reach.
Last updated 12 January 2009