Religion and the 1984 Election Campaign Author(S): Richard V

Religious Research Association, Inc.

Religion and the 1984 Election Campaign Author(s): Richard V. Pierard Reviewed work(s): Source: Review of Religious Research, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Dec., 1985), pp. 98-114 Published by: Religious Research Association, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3511665 . Accessed: 05/07/2012 11:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Religious Research Association, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review of Religious Research.

http://www.jstor.org 98

RELIGION AND THE 1984 ELECTION CAMPAIGN

RICHARDV. PIERARD Indiana State University, TerreHaute

Reviewof ReligiousResearch, Vol. 27, No. 2 (December1985).

The 1984 race for the White House saw a remarkable injection of religion into a national election campaign. This essay will examine the extent to which that occurred, look at the issues and motives involved, and show how it came close to being unparalleled in American history. The role of religion per se as a factor in American politics is not at issue here, because more or less it has always been present. Moreover, the constitutional guarantee to the free exer- cise of religion contained in the First Amendmentreinforces the claim of those citizens who bring religious concerns to bear upon public life that they have the right to do so. The questions under consideration, rather, are whether the religious backers of President Reagan in their enthusiasm exceeded the bounds of propriety and whether this effort was necessary to secure his reelection.

Historical Precedents of Religious Involvement

Religion has frequentlybeen an issue in presidentialcampaigns. Among the most noteworthy was the 1884 race between James G. Blaine (Republican) and GroverC. Cleveland(Democrat). A New YorkCity preacherhad said the Demo- crats were the party of "rum, Romanism, and rebellion," and this allegedly so angeredvoters in Irishand German Catholic neighborhoods that they flocked to the polls andmade the difference in Cleveland'snarrow margin of victory.More recent scholarship has shown, however, that the Republicans in their speeches and legisla- tive actionshad for over a decadebeen exploitinganti-Catholic feelings and thus the party'sstance was alreadywell-known to the electorate.One sermoncould not have changedthings (Lipset and Rabb 1970:75-76;Farrelly 1955). The 1928 campaignbetween Herbert Hoover and Alfred E. Smithagain saw the religious issue take on an unpleasant character. Many Protestants opposed Smith becausehe was a RomanCatholic, and the ChristianCentury (1928:1252) called him "the representativeof an alien culture, a medievalLatin mentality,of an undemocratichierarchy, and of a foreignpotentate." Smith declared forthrightly thathe believedin the absoluteseparation of churchand state, but to no avail.The "solidsouth" was split for the firsttime andHoover triumphed primarily because of religiousbigotry, although the currentprosperity, Smith's identificationwith New YorkCity (the symbolof urbancorruption and decadence to ruraland small- town America), and his oppositionto Prohibitionwere also factors (Lichtman 1979:231). In 1960 the problememerged for whatmany hoped would be the last time. The Protestantopposition to JohnF. Kennedywas sizable,and Richard Nixon had Billy Grahamand NormanVincent Peale on his side (Pierard1980:119-120; 1985 in press). Whena groupof conservativeclergy denouncedKennedy and accusedthe RomanCatholic Church of meddlingin politics, the candidatedecided to face the issue head on. Appearingbefore the GreaterHouston Ministerial Association on 99

September12, he declaredhis belief in "an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestantnor Jewish ..., where there is no Catholicvote, no anti- Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind," and affirmedhis supportfor the separationof churchand state (NYTSept. 12, 1960;Dulce andRichter 1962:ch. 9- 13). In spite of his victorythe involvementof Protestantclerics in politicscontinued andwith it the expressionof religiousbeliefs by publicfigures. A nascentChristian Rightlent its supportto the conservativeBarry Goldwater, while PresidentLyndon B. Johnsonutilized Billy Grahamas his personalspiritual counselor and occasion- ally as a spokespersonfor his policy. Nixon did likewise and at the same time sponsoredchurch services in the WhiteHouse (Pierard1980:122-125; Henderson 1972; Hibbs 1972). In 1976 JimmyCarter openly professed to be a "born-again" SouthernBaptist (Carter 1975), andGerald Ford's backers belatedly dusted off his religiousfaith as well. The latterwas introducedto a cheeringcrowd at a joint conventionof the NationalAssociation of Evangelicals(NAE) and NationalReli- gious Broadcasters(NRB) in Washington(Sojourers March1976:8-10), and the pastorof the largestBaptist church in America,W. A. Criswellof Dallas,endorsed him publicly.In 1980 all threepresidential hopefuls, Carter, Reagan, and John B. Andersonwere regarded as born-again,and in factCarter and Anderson possessed long and impressiverecords as churchmen(Pippert 1978; Anderson1975; Wead 1980). But by now an unforeseenelement had enteredinto the picture,a political "New Right"which took advantageof the shamblesof Watergateto infiltrateand positionitself to take controlof the Republicanparty.

The New Christian Right Emerges

A major achievementof the political wirepullersof the New Right was the enlistmentof fundamentalistministers and television evangelists in theircause. The preacherseagerly grabbedat the bait, as most of them were already deeply conservativein theirpolitical and social views andthis wouldgive thema chanceto exercisesome real clout for the first time. Throughthe effortsof Ed McAteer,a sales executivefor the Colgatesoap firm and SouthernBaptist lay preacherwho hadbeen involvedin the 1976Republican campaign and then became field director for the ConservativeCaucus, New RightistHoward Phillips (his boss) was placed in contact with Jerry Falwell, a Baptist television preacherfrom Lynchburg, Virginia.At a meetingin 1979Phillips persuaded Falwell to forma religio-political movementcalled the Moral Majority.Joining with him were such right-wing personalitiesas RobertBillings, Tim LaHaye,and Greg Dixon. In the same year RobertGrant, Richard Zone, andGary Jarmin brought into being Christian Voice, with backingfrom singerPat Boone, ChristianBroadcasting Network mogul Pat Robertson,and multi-millionaire author of doomsdaybooks on the SecondComing of Christ, Hal Lindsey.Then, encouragedby the top New RightistsRichard Vi- guerieand Paul Weyrich, McAteer organized the (Religious)Roundtable, a kindof "tradeassociation" for the New ChristianRight that would coordinate and stimu- late effortsby evangelicalsand fundamentalistswho were fightingfor "pro-God, pro-family,and pro-American causes" (Liebman and Wuthnow 1983; Bromley and Shupe 1984; Blumenthal1984). The ChristianRight groups and their sympathizers(but by no meansall funda- mentalists-the traditionalseparatists like Bob Jones, Jr. distancedthemselves 100 from Moral Majority style political activism) threw themselves body and soul into the campaign on behalf of Reagan, a man they believed was a godly, evangelical Christian who would bring America back to God. In fact, how a veteran movie actor who was an indifferent churchman at best was transformed into such a great man of faith that Pat Robertson could exclaim with delight, "he is probably the most evangelical president we have had since the Founding Fathers," is one of the remarkable image building stories of our time (WSJ Sept. 18, 1984:1; Pierard 1984:47-56). Many distributed tracts and books extolling his spiritual qualities, Christian Voice and Moral Majority used direct mailings, a media blitz, and voter registration drives to rally conservative believers behind the Reagan standard and minimize the Christianity of the more consistently devout but politically liberal Jimmy Carter. By now Falwell had edged into the circle of Reagan's advisers, apparently had some influence in the writing of the anti-abortion and ERA planks in the party platform, and warned against the selection of George Bush as his running mate. Bush did agree to support the platform and thereupon was portrayed as a good Christian. In his acceptance speech Reagan referred to "Divine Providence" making America a refuge for freedom and asked people to join with him in a moment of silent prayer as "we begin our crusade." McAteer with help from television evangelist James Robison put together a "National Affairs Briefing" in Dallas on August 22. At this loosely structured New Right festival Reagan delivered an address that pleased his audience of 10,000 and concluded with the dramatic phrase: "I know you can't endorse me, but I want you to know that I endorse you and what you are doing" (Pierard 1983b: 1184). Obviously the candidate welcomed the outpouring of support, and the Christian conservatives were led to believe he would implement their "social program" of banning abortions, permitting prayers in the public schools, and maintenance of traditional "family" values. However, after the election he did little about them, and his people adopted a strategy of "repressive tolerance." They feared that embracing these could destroy the new Republican coalition they were building. As Sidney Blumenthal described it, drawing upon information confided to him by a senior presidential advisor: The evangelicalNew Rightand its allies ralliedfollowers around constitutional amend- ments on school prayerand abortion.The White House staff, fearingRepublican fragmentationand the galvanizingof new opposition,offered insinceregestures of supportwhile desiring continual frustration. With tacit White House agreement, Senate MajorityLeader Howard Baker granted time for the varioussocial issues to be venti- lated. The bills lost and were sent back into limbo. Any White House aide who seriouslytried to keep the "socialissue" bills on the frontburner also was sent into limbo. For example,Faith Whittlesey, director of the Office of PublicLiaison, cam- paigned fanaticallyfor evangelicalNew Right goals-even haranguingbewildered corporateexecutives on tuitiontax credits-and quicklybecame a non-entity.In the meantime,a Presidentialassistant, Morton Blackwell, was assignedto look afterthe constituency,which was to be maintainedin a stateof perpetualmobilization. The flaw in the strategywas that the WhiteHouse served as an incubatorfor the movementit was trying to contain. Reagan, for his part, never wholeheartedlycooperated with the containmentstrategy; he insistedon encouragingthe movementevangelicals whenever he was given the chance (1984:1184). In short, Reagan's staff followed the dictum that groups which were largely concerned about symbolic matters like school prayer could be bought off by symbolic gestures. But the hitch was the president's own reservations about the policy of putting the 101 social issues on the backburner, and this uneasewas heightenedby the assassina- tion attempton March30, 1981. He believedhe hadbeen providentially saved from deathand said to TerenceCardinal Cooke a few dayslater: "Whatevertime He's left forme is His" (Slosser1984:82). Because his sympathieslay withthe evangelicals, he decidedto strengthenthose ties. The factof his decliningpopularity in the opinionpolls anddoubts as to whetherhe could increasehis congressionalbloc in the 1982 electionsalmost certainly must also have enteredinto his thinking. The Novembersetback made clear that his evangelicaladmirers were a valuable asset, and he began courtingthem actively.In the new year he deliveredrousing addressesto the NRB and NAE conventions(the latterwas the notorious"evil empire"speech), proclaimed1983 "The Yearof the Bible," bestowedthe Presi- dentialMedal of Freedomupon Billy Graham,and declared repeatedly that he was againstabortion and for school prayer.As expected, fundamentalistChristians ralliedto his side andsoon the mailboxesof evangelicalswere filled to overflowing with fund-raisingappeals from variousRightist organizations and big name per- sonalities.They used apocalyptic language about the nationalplunge into the abyss of liberalismand secular humanism in orderto motivatebelievers to redoubletheir effortson behalf of the president.

Hand-in-hand with the Evangelicals

In 1984 he pushedforward in the effort to rally religiousconservatives of all stripesto his cause. He proclaimedJanuary 22 as "NationalSanctity of Human Life Day,"and expressed the idealsof spiritualrevival, renewal, and "keeping faith with the mighty spirit of a free people under God" in his State of the Union Address.In speechafter speech he pressedfor tuitiontax credits, endorsed "volun- tary"school prayer,and reaffirmed support of efforts"to restorethe protectionof the law to unbornchildren." He appealeddirectly to evangelicalswith stirring oratoryat theirmajor conclaves-the NRB on January30, the NAE on March6, andJerry Falwell's Baptist Fundamentalism 1984 conventionon April 13. More- over, he spoke before some Catholicand Jewishgroups but not the meetingsof mainlinedenominations. In AprilReagan appointed an evangelical,Douglas Holladay, as a specialliaison personto workwith and communicate his religiousand political views to moderate evangelicalsand mainline churchmen. (Also appointedas religiousliaisons to their respectivecommunions were Jewish MarshallBerger, RomanCatholic Robert Reilly,and fundamentalist Protestant Carolyn Sundseth.) Not only did the clergyof the New ChristianRight have ready access to the WhiteHouse, but also a delega- tion of Catholicbishops met with the presidentin March to discuss common concernson abortionand aid to privateschools anddifferences over nuclear arms and CentralAmerica. Despite Holladay'sbridge building efforts, representatives of the majordenominations for the most partfelt ignored.However, he did make some headwayin Septemberwhen fifteen leaders of the National Council of Churcheswere invitedto the White House for a meetingwith top level officials (ChristianityToday May 18, 1984:80-81;RNS Sept. 21, 1984). The evangelicalconservatives responded to these initiativesand sprang into action. Threemajor religious publishing houses produced books on or by Reagan with the WhiteHouse's cooperationand blessing. Thomas Nelson inflateda slight essay publishedunder the president'sname in the spring1983 issue of the Human 102

Life Review into a mini-book entitled Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. Campaignworker David Shepherd prepared a compilationof thepresident's public statementson religious and moral issues for publicationby TyndaleHouse as Ronald Reagan: In God I Trust. Word Books released Reagan Inside Out, by Bob Slosser, a charismaticjournalist and associate of Pat Robertson. Slosser's (1984:14-15) work explainedaway the criticisms of the president'slackluster Christiandemeanor, portrayed him as a man of profoundfaith, and relatedan extraordinaryanecdote about how ChristianTV broadcasterGeorge Otis in Octo- ber 1970 personallyconveyed a wordof prophecyfrom God to Reaganwhile he was governorof Californiain whichhe was addressedas "My son" andtold: "If you walk uprightlybefore Me, you will reside at 1600 PennsylvaniaAvenue." Nothingof this sort was generatedby evangelicalpublishers for WalterMondale. Robertsoncreated an agency called the FreedomCouncil to monitoralleged infringementsof "religious freedom" and promotethe social programsof the ChristianRight and the election of conservativesto public office. The Moral Majorityactively registered voters and musteredsupport for the president.David W. Bolsinger(known for his effortsto find Noah'sArk) was employedby Christian Voice to produce the so-called Presidential Biblical Scoreboard. The country was blanketedby nearlya million copies of this forty page compilationof the candidates'records on fifteen "biblical-family-moralissues." Also includedwere vice- presidential,congressional, and gubernatorialcandidates. The "non-partisan, non-sectarian"magazine maintained that it would "aid and educate Christian voters"in choosingcandidates "who supportJudeo-Christian values" and enable themto do theirduty "in helpingto reclaimAmerica for God." It boastedthat if the 30 millionborn-again Christians who havenot been votingcould be gottento the polls: "Wecould elect a Presidentno matterhow objectionablehe was to the liberal,humanist media; we could insurethat the majorityof congressmentook a strongmoral stand; and we couldpass Godlylegislation." A bandof anti-abortion forcesand fundmentalists calling themselves the New ChristianConservatives took overthe Republicanparty organization in some partsof Minnesota,and a similar powergrab orchestratedby ChristianVoice occurredat the GOP Conventionin Texas(RNS May 2, 1984; CQWRSept. 22, 1984:2317, 2319; Bole 1985). The most importantaction was the creationof the American Coalition for TraditionalValues (ACTV, pronounced "active"), launched on June 11 at a meeting with PresidentReagan. It washeaded by the Rev.Tim LaHaye, a sturdyfixture in the ChristianRight leadershipcadre and the one whom the Reagan-Bush'84 committeehad assigned to keepthe evangelicalsin the chiefexecutive's corner. He was best knownduring the electionyear for an assertionthat if liberalsregained controlof the Senateand White House in 1984, "it will be all overfor freeelections by 1988." They would curtailthe electric church and restrictbulk mail, and therebywould "effectively cut us off fromthe mindsof the Americanpeople." If thathappens, "it will be all over for freedombefore 1988" (LaHaye1984:15). The field directorwas ChristianVoice's Gary Jarmin, and its thirty-threeexecu- tive boardmembers comprised a who's who of conservativeevangelical preachers, includingFalwell, black minister E. V. Hill, the currentSouthern Baptist Conven- tion president,Charles Stanley, and two previousones, AdrianRogers and James Draper.Among the TV evangelistswere JamesRobison, Jimmy Swaggart, Ken- neth Copeland,Rex Humbard,Jim Bakker,and Jack VanImpe. Othernotables includedCampus Crusade for Christ leader Bill Bright, NRB chief Ben Arm- 103 strong,NAE publicaffairs director Robert Dugan, and familyexpert James Dob- son. In some ways it seemed to have replacedthe now dormantRoundtable, and McAteerinterestingly was not on the board. On July9 ACTVbrought some 300 conservativeministers ("pastor-chairmen" who wouldhead up the workin theirrespective cities) to Washingtonfor a White House meeting.They heardan addressfrom Reaganand met with Vice President Bushand top presidentialaides Edwin Meese andWilliam P. Clark.Not presentat the gatheringwere Billy Graham,who stayedclear of the religiousRight during the campaign(but not of PresidentReagan), and Pat Robertsonwho had preferredto work on his own politically and did not formallyally himself with ACTV. Its platformof "traditionalvalues" included a HumanLife Amendmentto protectthe unborn, religious freedom, voluntaryschool prayer,rejection of "gay rights," eliminationof pornography,no EqualRights Amendment, parental responsibility (without governmentinterference) for raising children, public aid for private schools, governmentassistance for the "deservingpoor" so long as it encouraged self-reliance,and a strongnational defense as the wayto secureliberty at homeand peace andfreedom in the world.It claimedto represent4.5 millionChristians and announcedit wouldregister 2.5 millionvoters, raise 1.5 milliondollars, and mount a telephoneblitz on electionday to get out voterswho wouldchoose "pro-moral candidates" and "flood the bureaucracywith Christians" (NYT Sept. 10, 1984:138;GRR Sept. 1984:52;CQWR Sept. 22, 1984:2316,2318; NewsweekJuly 9, 1984:52; Christian Science Monitor Nov. 6, 1984:40). Accordingto a confidentialmemorandum (copy obtainedfrom People for the AmericanWay, Washington, DC) ACTV intendedto continueits work afterthe electionand take advantage of the "fourmore years of freedom"which God would give to turnAmerica back to its traditionalmoral values. At its boardmeeting on November15, 1984, plans were made to move the headquartersto Washington, bringmore key conservativeChristian figures into the leadership,recruit and train "qualifiedChristian leaders" to run for public office at all levels, and sponsora spiritual/politicalconference for federalemployees to "helporient them ideologi- cally to offset the influenceof the left they get throughgovernment" (Bole 1985). The Reaganorganization established the closest workingrelationship with the ChristianRight. Campaignchairman Senator Paul Laxalt on July9 sent a letterto 45,000 carefully selected ministersin sixteen states which addressedthem as "Dear ChristianLeader" and asked the recipientsto "play a significantrole in what may very well be the most pivotal election of this century."The chief executive"has madean unwaveringcommitment to the traditionalvalues which I knowyou share. ... As leadersunder God's authority,we cannotafford to resign ourselves to idle neutrality."It then urged them to organize voter registration drivesin theirchurches to "helpassure that those in yourministry will havea voice in the upcomingelections. .. a voice thatsurely will help assurethe re-electionof PresidentReagan and Vice PresidentBush." The letterwas mailedout underthe auspicesof the "ChristianVoter Program" divisionof the Reagan-Bush'84 campaigncommittee and tailoredfor each of the statesto whichit was sent. It listedthe numberof evangelicalChristians registered to vote in 1980 and targeteda specific numberas the goal for "Christianvoter registration"in the particularstate. When the letter got out, it was the bruntof presscriticism, including the normallyconservative William Safire who in his New YorkTimes column called it "surelyso unethicalas to be un-American"(CQWR 104

Sept. 22, 1984:2318; NYTAug. 27, 1984:A19; copies of the flyers for the various states in the library of Americans United, Silver Spring, MD).

The Republican Convention

The Republican National Convention in Dallas represented the zenith of Reagan religiosity. Kentucky Moral Majority leader, the Rev. LaVerne Butler, told his congregation that the 1984 Democratic and Republican conclaves were as different "as a sex orgy and a Sunday School picnic," and he let his parishioners decide which was which. Falwell boasted that the platform with its affirmation of volun- tary school prayer, silence about the Equal Rights Amendment and rejection of equal pay for women for jobs of comparable worth, call for a constitutional amendment banning abortion and the appointment of federal judges who oppose abortion, and omission of anything about homosexual rights "is just like I wanted it." Conservative ministers provided most of the invocations and benedictions, including Robison, Falwell (he labeled Reagan and Bush as "God's instruments in rebuilding America"), E. V. Hill (he called the G.O.P. the "Prayer Party"), and W. A. Criswell. In 1960 Criswell had written a pamphlet "Can a Man be a Loyal Roman Catholic and a Good President of the United States?" with the answer of course being an emphatic no. The Sunday before the convention he said from his First Baptist, Dallas pulpit that Reagan "is the best president we ever had" and asserted in a CBS Evening News interview that week: "I believe this notion of the separation of church and state was the figment of some infidel's imagination" (Buie 1984:6; Blumenthal 1984:18; NYT Sept. 8, 1984:A21; WP Aug. 24, 1984:A8; Reavis 1984:162-66). Falwell's prayer comment evoked considerable objections, and he hastily retreatedin an interview on ABC's This Weekwith David Brinkley by saying Romans 13 teaches that the powers that be are "God's instruments for the purpose of peace and building our society." Asked if this included the Democrats, he replied: "Of course. Absolutely" (WP Sept. 10, 1984, p. A6). In a religious sense the climax was not Reagan's acceptance speech but an address he gave before the approximately 15,000 people who attended an "Ecu- menical PrayerBreakfast" in the Reunion Arena on August 23. This was sponsored by the Dallas convention host committee and tickets to it had been distributed at local churches, synagogues, and work places. As a result of his remarks the long smoldering issue of religion and politics erupted into a firestorm of controversy. The president affirmed that faith and religion had always played a critical and positive role in the life of the nation, but things changed in the 1960s when steps were taken to secularize the nation and remove religion from its honored place. The Supreme Court decisions on prayer and Bible reading made religion vulnerable, but some now are fighting to return prayer to the classrooms. However: The frustratingthing is thatthose who are attackingreligion claim they are doingit in the namesof tolerance,freedom, and open-mindedness.Question: Isn't the real truth thatthey are intolerantof religion?They refuseto tolerateits importancein our lives.

In particular regard to school prayer, "those who claim to be fighting for tolerance on this issue may not be tolerant at all." The president went on to say: "Religion needs defenders against those who care only for the interests of the state," adding that "politics and morality are insepara- 105 ble-and as morality'sfoundation is religion, religionand politics are necessarily related." We "need religion as a guide" because we are imperfectand "our governmentneeds the church,because only thosehumble enough to admitthey're sinners can bring to democracythe toleranceit requiresin order to survive." Moreover:"A stateis nothingmore than a reflectionof its citizens;the more decent the citizens,the moredecent the state."We are not establishingany religion in this country,but "we poison our society when we removeits theologicalunderpin- nings."The "tolerantsociety" encourages all religionsand strengthens us. History teaches that all great civilizationswhich fell all had one thing in common. A "significantforerunner of their fall was their turningaway from their God or gods." Thus, without God, democracycannot long endure. He concludedby remarking:"If we ever forgetthat we're one nationunder God, then we will be a nationgone under"(Text from the Office of the White House Press Secretary). This disturbednot only Safirewho calledthe president"Reverend Reagan," but also Timemagazine essayist Charles Krauthammer who assertedhe had crossed "theline thatin a pluralistsociety divides civil discoursefrom demagoguery," the BaltimoreSun's Ray Jenkinswho called his words "ominous"and felt "a keen sense of wrong at being so casuallyaccused of intolerance,"and NCC general secretaryClaire Randall who contendedhis view "fallsfar shortof the standardof tolerancefor the beliefs of others which must undergirdreligious freedom in a diverse society." New Yorksenator Daniel PatrickMoynihan viewed the whole speech in more cynical terms in an NBC-TV interviewon September9. He quipped:"I absolutelybelieve President Reagan when he says he does not wantto establisha statereligion-that wouldrequire him to attendservices" (NYTAug. 27, 1984:A19;Krauthammer 1984:80; BaltimoreSun Sept. 11, 1984; WP Sept. 5, 1984:A4;Sept. 10, 1984:A6). The president'sreluctance to go to church services was well-known(unlike Carterwho eventaught Sunday School on occasion),and his excusewas thathe did not wantto inconveniencethe otherworshipers or put theirlives in danger.Wags pointedout that this did not seem to deterhim from going to be with groupsof businessmenor show businesscelebrities. Earlier in the year Billy Grahamhad defendedReagan by assertinghe hadtold him afterthe assassinationattempt that he couldnot see how the presidentcould any longer attend church services because of the requiredsecurity. The evangelistclaimed he was tryingto deflectsome of "the flak PresidentReagan is takingfor not going to church"(WP Apr. 16, 1984:A2). One plausibleinterpretation of Reagan'sactions at Dallasand earlier is thatthey weretactical. In effecthe utilizedthe religiousquestion as a meansof reachingout to fundamentalistswho tendedto be at relativelylow income levels and were traditionallyDemocratic voters. Since they wouldnot respondreadily to an eco- nomicappeal, he hopedthat stressing the themes of religionand nationalism would achievethe desiredresult. At this point, Democraticstandardbearer Walter Mondale decided that things hadgone too far.To be sure,his runningmate, Geraldine Ferraro, had taken a jab at Reaganin Julywhen she remarked:"The President walks around calling himself a good Christian,but I don't for one minutebelieve it because [his] policies are so terriblyunfair. They are discriminatoryand they hurta lot of people." Mondale haddiscreetly remained silent, but he angrilyexclaimed to his advisersafter seeing the news clips of the prayerbreakfast: "That's insulting.He's calling me un- Christian."His camp believeda backlashwas beginningto developbecause of 106

Reagan's and the New Christian Right's effort to portray the Democrats as anti- religious and their willingness to have government interfere in the personal lives of people. Mondale went on the attack in a radio speech on September 2 where he warned that mixing religion and politics, as the president was doing, would "cor- rupt our faith and divide our nation," and he followed this up with a forthright presentation of his religious views to B'nai B'rith on September 6. When reporters questioned Reagan the next day as to whom the "anti-religionists" trying to break down the wall of separation between church and state were, press spokesman Larry Speakes advised him: "Best don't answer that" (WP Sept. 3, 1984:A1; Sept. 8, 1984:A4).

Blacks and the Religious Issue

Three other developments on the religious front need to be tied into the story. First, Jesse Jackson had mobilized a great number of blacks in his unsuccessful presidential bid by using churches as an organizational base. Although nearly all white conservatives and some liberals criticized this as mixing politics and religion, Professor Gayraud Wilmore, himself a black, pointed out in Newsweek that their churches had always felt a responsibility to engage in political action to obtain a just society: Blackreligionists have been more willingto risk open confrontationwith [reactionary whitereligious power] than to cry foul whenthe PatRobertsons and Jerry Falwells have takenoff theirkid glovespolitically. Walter Mondale would do well notto argueagainst involvementin electoralpolitics from blackpulpits (Sept. 17, 1984:31). Jackson pledged to support the Democratic ticket in his speech at the San Francisco convention, and on August 28 he and several dozen black leaders met with Mondale and promised their backing. Their churches continued to register voters and worked to get them to the polls on November 6, while Dr. T. J. Jemison, president of the country's largest black denomination, the National Baptist Con- vention, told his constituents: "I don't believe the present administrationfeels the heartbeat, the desires, the concerns of black people" and would not lead blacks "into the mainstreamof American life." The president did not speak to the group's annual meeting in Washington, although he was invited, but Mondale came and delivered the same speech he had given to B'nai B'rith. Reagan's "damage con- trol" specialists quickly realized the faux pas and arranged for Jemison and six other black Baptists to meet privately with the president on September 10. This had the desired result, since Jemison told reporters after emerging from the Oval Office he thought "that perhaps his views on blacks have been distorted some" and that Reagan "does have sympathy for blacks" (WP Sept. 7, 1984:A4; NYT Sept. 11, 1984:A26).

The Jewish Involvement

The Jackson campaign put Mondale in a ticklish situation with a second religious grouping, American Jews. In trying to avoid antagonizing either faction, he walked a thin line. The anti-Semitic remarks of Jackson's friend, Black Muslim sect leader Louis Farrakhan,and his own remarks about "Hymies" and "Hymietown" deeply offended Jews. At the Democratic convention Mondale forces blocked a resolution condemning anti-Semitism in order to avoid the danger of a possible floor fight 107 withJackson forces. Also, Jewshad had a low estimateof the Carteradministration and only gave forty-fivepercent of their vote to him in 1980. PresidentReagan recognized that his supportbase here was substantial,and as mentionedearlier, he assignedthe politicallyconservative Orthodox Jew Marshall Bergerto serveas the WhiteHouse liaison to the Jewishcommunity. Reagan's call for tuitiontax creditsstruck a favorablechord among those Orthodox who operated their own privateschools. In a speech to the National Jewish Coalition Vice PresidentBush triedto defusethe religiousissue by attackingthe "obsceneanti- Semitismthat has . .. infectedUN debate"and saying the presidentis not afraidto "standup to bigots and haters"both in the internationalcommunity and at home (WPSept. 15, 1984:A7).Meanwhile, a consciouseffort was madeto "cleanup the act" of the MoralMajority by meansof a bookpublished in Februaryentitled Jerry Falwell and the Jews (JonathanDavid Publishers).Falwell gave very carefully craftedanswers to questionsput to him by the book's editor,Merrill Simon, in whichhe adroitlyexpressed his fundamentalisttheology in a non-offensiveway and came across as a friendof the Jewishpeople and an unabashedbacker of Israel. In the Julyissue of Commentaryneoconservative Irving Kristol took advantage of Jewishfears about Jackson's black nationalism and ties with ThirdWorld haters of Israel, the threatposed by affirmativeaction, the failureof GreatSociety welfare programs,and liberalinternationalism and its supportof the UN in orderto call intoquestion the long-standingJewish ties withthe Democraticparty and to suggest theymight be morecomfortable in the campof conservativepolitics. He also hailed the MoralMajority for being "unequivocallypro-Israel" and proposedits advo- cacy could be decisive to the existenceof the Jewish state. He downplayedthe significanceof its socio-religiousprogram, saying that it had not and would not meet with success, andurged a favorableattitude toward the groupso its concern for Israelwould not witheron the vine. Needlessto say,the articleevoked considerable controversyin Jewishcircles (Kristol1984:23-29; Commentary Oct. 1984:4- 17; Stern 1984:1, 8-12). In a more tentativemanner Holocaust scholar Lucy S. Dawidowiczalso questionedwhether Jewish voters should continue to give unqual- ified supportto the Democraticparty because of black anti-Semitismand liberal softness toward Israel (Commentary Feb. 1985:25-30). Still, Jews were extremely uncomfortableabout the church-stateaspects of Reagan'sprogram, and occurrenceslike the letter which was sent out by three Republicanpoliticians in Michigan (includingultra-conservative Congressman MarkD. Siljander)urging local pastorsto help oustliberal Democratic representa- tive HowardWolpe, a Jew,and thus "sendanother Christian to Congress"did not exactlyallay their fears. This reflectedjust how much of a problemReagan had with his own far-rightfollowers. James Robison was quotedas definingan anti- Semiteas "someonewho hatesJews more than he's supposed."Falwell and others continuallyreferred to the United States as a "Christiannation." New Right senatorsSteve Symms and Jesse Helms consistentlyvoted against bills the Jewish lobbyregarded as favorableto Israel. And, the Reaganites'apparent lack of con- cernabout social justice for all Americans,an itemtraditionally high on the Jewish political agenda, was almost as disturbingas the religious issue (WP Oct. 31, 1984:A6; Nov. 24, 1984:C10; NYT Oct. 8, 1984:A19; Oct. 20, 1984; Stern 1984:10-11). These facts explainas much as anythingwhy the effortsto entice Jewishvoters awayfrom their traditionalDemocratic allegiance failed and they went 70 percentfor Mondale. 108

At the September6 B'nai B'rith conventionin Washingtonboth candidates appeared.President Reagan backed away from his earliercomments somewhat by affirmingthe rebirthof faithin America,denouncing intolerance, bigotry, and anti- Semitism,praising pluralism, and asserting"the uniquething about America is a wall in our Constitutionseparating church and state" which "guaranteesthere will neverbe a statereligion" and "everyAmerican is freeto chooseand practice his or her religiousbeliefs or to choose no religionat all. This right shall not be questioned or violatedby the state." Most of the speech, however,was dedicatedto underscoringhow much the UnitedStates supported Israel and how this alliance wouldbe moresecure if he were re-elected(Text from Office of the WhiteHouse Press Secretary). Mondalelashed out at the "moralMcCarthyism" of thoseon the ReligiousRight who "are reachingfor governmentpower to impose their own beliefs on other people, and accusedthe Reaganadministration of having "openedtheir arms to them." Referringto the Laxaltletter he sarcasticallyremarked: "Most Americans wouldbe surprisedto learnGod is a Republican."He thenconfessed he was going to do somethingthat he thoughthe wouldnever have to, namely,"defend my faith in a politicalcampaign." With sharpwords Mondale condemned the idea of the stateenforcing the religiouslife of the people, Falwell'salleged boast that when Reaganis re-elected"we will get at least two more appointmentsto the Supreme Court,"the president'simplication that he wouldoccupy the role of defenderof religionagainst the state,the contentionthat those who opposethe PrayerAmend- mentare "intolerantof religion,"and the commentin a speechat Salt LakeCity, Utah,three days earlier that some [i.e. his Democraticopponents] would "wish the " concept of freedomof religion to mean 'freedomagainst religion.' Mondale criticizedReagan's own lack of moralleadership and denied forcefully that there was just one partythat believedin God, was for family and life, would morally strengthenAmerica, believed in America'sgreatness and was patriotic(Church and StateOct. 1984:12-15). The tone set by Reagan'sDallas prayerbreakfast speech and theirB'nai B'rith addresseswas continuedin the firstpresidential debate on October7. Most of the argumentsthat had been advancedabout each other'sreligious views werebrought up there, and this writer,who happenedto be in Europeat the time, noticedthat foreignobservers were baffledby the spectacleof the candidatesgiving a confes- sion of faithon nationaltelevision. The social issues of abortionand schoolprayer were once againaired and the usualpoints scored. On October26 Reaganmade a new pitch for Jewishsupport by claimingin a speechat a synagoguein Woodmere,Long Island, that the Democraticleadership had lackedthe "moralcourage" to condemnanti-Semitism at its nationalconven- tion. Mondalereplied that the platformfrom the outset shouldhave includeda strongstatement denouncing anti-Semitism, but party rules precluded the adoption of any resolutionthat had not alreadybeen approvedby a standingcommittee. In the confusionfollowing the conventionthe matterhad not been attendedto, but at his insistencethe executivecommittee of the DemocraticNational Committee on August9 did agreeto a statement.The resolutiondeclared that the party reaffirmed "its adherenceto pluralistprinciples" and repudiatedand completelydissociated itself "frompeople who promoteall formsof bigotry,racism, and anti-Semitism" (NYTOct. 30, 1984:A4). 109

The Roman Catholic Stance

Therewas also a RomanCatholic dimension to the religiousissue. The selection of GeraldineFerraro as Mondale'svice-presidential candidate, a New YorkCity congresswomanand a Catholic,brought the abortionissue to the fore. She declared she was personallyagainst abortion but stood behind a woman'sright to choosefor herselfon the subject,and she wouldnot forcethe church'sstand upon others. She was stronglysupported by GovernorMario Cuomo of New York and Senator EdwardKennedy, while SenatorPatrick Moynihan said he wouldnot wanta law banningabortion because the fiercelydivisive measure would not be obeyedby at leasthalf of the populace.However, her views weresharply criticized by New York archbishopJohn J. O'Connorand bishops Bernard F. Lawof Bostonand James C. Timlinof Scranton.Cardinal John Krol also had harshwords for candidateswho favoredabortion and from his Philadelphiapulpit urged Catholics to vote against them.Krol and O'Connor were widely regarded as pro-Reaganprelates (NYT Sept. 19, 1984:B9;Oct. 17, 1984:A24;Klein 1984). The issue came up in the vice-presidentialdebate as well. GeorgeBush tried to downplayhis 1980 stance(he then supportedfederal funding for abortionsin case of rape, incest, and dangerto the life of the motherand opposedan anti-abortion amendmentto the Constitution)by embracingthe Reaganposition wholeheartedly, while Ferraroaffirmed separation of churchand state, condemnedgovernment intrusionin people's privatelives, and insistedshe wouldresign if she could not practiceher religionand performher dutiesproperly. As she elaboratedlater on NBC's Meet the Press: "If my churchwas to say to me, 'Becauseyou are not supportingour position on, say abortion,we will removeyou, we will excommuni- cate you,' I'd quit my job" (WSJOct. 15, 1984:64). Duringthe campaignthe Reaganforces wooed Catholicvoters, who for some- timehad been drifting away from their traditional Democratic party home, by using the religio-socialissues and the establishmentof diplomaticrelations with the Vatican.White House Catholic liaison Robert Reilly carried a personalletter from the presidentto the National WandererForum (an archconservativeCatholic group)praising it for its supportof Judeo-Christianvalues, and the Reagan-Bush '84 Committeeplaced ads in Catholicnewspapers with a pictureof the president receivingPope JohnPaul II and affirminghis supportof "basic family values," tuitiontax credits,the "rightsof the unborn,"tough new anti-pornographylaws, and voluntaryprayer in publicschools. (Still, as manyas a dozen Catholicpapers had reservationsabout what they felt was exploitingthe pope in a politicaladver- tisementand thereby refused to run it.) Editorialsand articlesin paperslike CGA World, National Catholic Register, The Wanderer, and Our Sunday Visitor criticized Ferraro'sabortion views, while Catholicsfor a Moral America and the CatholicCenter for PrivateEnterprise, Strong Defense, and TraditionalValues adoptedpolitical stances analogous to ACTVand the MoralMajority (Press clip- pings, AmericansUnited, Silver Spring,MD).

Other Reactions

An interestingdifference between 1980 and 1984 was the scarcityof churchand denominationaldenunciations of the New ChristianRight, in contrastto the large numberthat had been releasedfour years earlier (Shriver 1981). Therewere some, 110 however.The AmericanJewish Committee drafted a statementon August 8 ex- pressingconcern about the erosionof church-stateseparation and the weakeningof pluralism. B'nai B'rith adopteda resolutionon September5 condemningideas expressedin the PrayerBreakfast speech and declaringthe FirstAmendment was "under attackby fundamentalistreligious groups." On the same day a joint statementwas issued in New Yorkby five prominentProtestant, Catholic, and Jewishspokespersons which called on the leadersof bothparties "to rejectcatego- ricallythe perniciousnotion that only one brandof politicsor religionmeets with God's approvaland thatothers are necessarilyevil" (WPSept. 5, 1984:A4;NYT Sept. 7, 1984:A14;Sept. 6, 1984:B13).Also, watchdoggroups whose primary focuswas church-staterelations (for example,Americans United for Separationof Churchand State, BaptistJoint Committee on PublicAffairs, and People for the AmericanWay) from theirperspective alerted the publicto the implicationsand dangersof the Reaganreligious thrust. An intriguingevent occurred on October23 when the ChristicInstitute, a think tank in Washington,released a declarationsigned by over 100 RomanCatholic, mainlineand evangelical Protestant, and Jewish leaders calling on bothpresidential candidatesto repudiatethe idea that a nuclearwar with the Soviet Union was foretoldin the Bible. The signatoriesfeared that the nuclear"Armageddon theory" wouldlead peopleto see armsreduction negotiations as pointlessbecause war was inevitable.In the secondpresidential debate on October21, Reaganbrushed aside the matterwhich alreadywas being noised abroad, concedingmerely that "a numberof theologians"had talked about the possibilityof Armageddonbut he did not thinka nuclearwar could be foughtand won. Whathe failedto mentionwas thatthese "theologians"were popular preachers who hadlittle training in theology as such, andthey were the very ones whomhe welcomedto the WhiteHouse and who were workingfor his re-election. New Right figures tried to disruptthe ChristicInstitute's press conference,and when Falwellflatly deniedhe had ever said a nuclearArmageddon was a probability,copies were distributedof an interview publishedin the Los AngelesTimes on March4, 1981, anda tractwritten in 1983 wherehe had unambiguouslyexpressed the idea (NYTOct. 21, 1984:A32; Oct. 24, 1984:A1, 25). Neitherthis northe revelationsby journalist Jim Castelli that the ACTVstalwart Jimmy Swaggartwho had made anti-Catholicstatements on his TV show was invited to a White House strategysession on the school prayeramendment on January18 and that ACTV's Tim LaHayeopenly labeled Catholicisma "false religion"made any differencewhatsoever. The same was true with the reception givenMondale by pupilsfrom the all-whiteLakeview Baptist School when he came to Tupelo,Mississippi, on September13. Thehecklers not only passedout pictures of dead fetusesbut also got into a shovingmatch with some Mondalesupporters. The press reportsmentioned "racial epithets"; those who witnessedthe incident on nationaltelevision heard the Christianschool pupils refer to the Mondale partisansas "nigger-lovers"(Our Sunday Visitor Oct. 14, 1984:7; WPSept. 14, 1984:A4). PresidentReagan or his campaignpeople neverpublicly condemned or repudi- ated these excesses on the part of his religiousbackers. To be sure, he did back awaysome fromthe fundamentalistsin the last daysof the campaignby downplay- ing his born-againstatus and dissociatinghimself from the views of individuals who attackedCatholicism as a "falsereligion." He declaredin an interviewwith a 111

Catholicpaper that "thereis no room in our party for religious intoleranceor bigotryof anykind, andI repudiateanyone claiming to be a supporterof minewho engagesin that,"but confessed he hadnot seen "suchdirect quotes" from individuals in his camp (Interview in Our Sunday Visitor, quoted in Church and State Dec. 1984:9). Eventhough this couldbe regardedas a veiledcriticism of the evangelicalRight, no one in the groupperceived it as such. Theywere now so committedto obtaining his re-electionthat they simply winked at excessesin theirown ranks,whether they be racial slurs, lies, and overt bigotry,condemning Democratic incumbents as "secularhumanists," registering new votersin churchvestibules and instructing them how to cast their ballots, prayerand fastingvigils on election eve, or just innocuousletters plugging a candidateas "a Christianman" who was "willingto take a stand for righteousness"(fund-raiser letter of July 24, 1984, for Pat Trueman,Republican congressional hopeful in Minnesotain the possessionof the BaptistJoint Committeeon Public Affairs, Washington,DC) and full-pageads placed by the ArthurS. DeMoss Foundation(an evangelical-orientedfund) in leading newspapers defending mixing religion with politics (NYT Nov. 4, 1984:A38, E9; WP Nov. 5, 1984:A24). With such tactics it is no surprisethat white evangelicalProtestant voters went 80 percentor more for Reagan,as the studyof electionstatistics made by AlbertMenendez of AmericansUnited clearly revealed (Christian College News Dec. 1984:1-2).

How Significant Was the Religious Issue?

It will requiresome time for scholarsto completetheir analysisof the election data and providea definitiveinterpretation of what transpiredon November6, 1984. However,two conclusionswere immediatelyapparent. First, althoughthe moraldimensions of publicpolicy had been made into a majorcampaign issue, poll resultsfrom the latterstages of the contestalready were showingthat religion was notas decisivean elementin the electorate'sdecision-making as manyhad thought. A New YorkTimes/CBS News poll of regularchurch-goers made between Septem- ber 12 and 16 foundthat four out of ten votersfelt the candidateshad improperly injected religion into the campaign, and three-quarterswished that the clergy wouldnot use religiousarguments to endorsecandidates. The majorityof respon- dents leaned towardMondale's views on religiousquestions but still they were supportingReagan because of the economyand suchpersonal traits as leadership, and they felt one could be patrioticwithout believing in God. A Gallup Poll revealedthat a majorityopposed both the directinvolvement of clergy and church organizationsin the politicalprocess and candidates bringing in theirown religious beliefs when discussingissues facingthe nation(NYT Sept. 19, 1984:A32;PRRC Emerging Trends Oct. 1984:1-2). A surveyof registeredvoters taken between September 30 and October4 found thatonly four percentof the samplewould change their vote just becausethey did not agreewith the person'sstance on abortion.Similar polls in 1978 and 1982 had shown seven percentwere willing to do so. As for a constitutionalamendment outlawingall abortions,64 percentopposed that. If it were qualifiedto allow one when the life of the motherwas at stake,49 percentremained in opposition(NYT Oct. 8, 1984:B4).Pollster Louis Harris reported that his Septemberfigures showed 69 to 27 percentagainst an abortionand 60 to 34 againsta prayeramendment (USA 112

TodayOct. 11, 1984:11A).Jerry Falwell's efforts to secureReagan's re-election receiveda negativereaction of 59 to 24 percentnationwide. It was still negative evenamong those who followedevangelical preachers. When Catholics were asked aboutthose bishopswho urgedthem to vote againstcandidates who were against banningabortions, the negativeresponse was 69 to 22 percent. A poll by the Republicanfirm V. LanceTarrance and Associates conducted in July 1983 ascer- tainedthat a majorityof evangelicalssupported the EqualRights Amendment and legalizedabortion in some instances,and many knew little about or thoughtlittle of groupslike the Moral Majorityor NCPAC,the NationalConservative Political Action Committee(CQWR, Sept. 22, 1984:2316). Thus, survey data demon- strateda considerable"softness" among the electorateon the issueswith which the ReligiousRight was so concerned. The secondobservation came from the electionreturns themselves. It wasa great personalvictory for PresidentReagan but not for the New ChristianRight or for thatmatter his ownparty. Although he wonwith 59 percentof the popularvote and the largestelectoral vote in history,the Republicanslost two seatsin the Senateand only pickedup fifteen in the House of Representatives,not enoughto give him a workingmajority there. Severalcandidates rode throughon the president'scoat- tails, mostnotably Jesse Helms. Reagan defeated Mondale by over500,000 votesin NorthCarolina (62 percent-38percent), while Helmswon over James B. Hunt,Jr. by a mere 82,000 votes, a ratio of 52 percentto 48 percent.A couple of other Senate coattail winners were RepublicanMitch McConnellin Kentucky,who ousted the Democraticincumbent Walter Huddleston by 4,000 votes out of 1.2 millioncast, whileReagan carried the state60 percentto 40 percent,and Gordon J. Humphreyin New Hampshire,who led his Republicanchallenger 59 percentto 41 percent, while Reagancarried the state 69 percentto 31 percent. Conservative senatorsWilliam Armstrong in Coloradoand Phil Grammin Texaswon by slightly lower marginsthan he did in their states. It does appear,however, that intense Moral Majority electioneering may have been decisive in a few House seats in North Carolina and Texas. On the other hand, the Right suffered noteworthy losses in the defeat of Sen. Roger Jepsen in Iowa and Rep. Dan Crane in Illinois and George Hansen in Idaho, even though Reagan took these states by comfortable margins. New Christian Right figure Ed McAteer made a quixotic bid for the Senate seat from Tennessee as an independent after the Republicans snubbed him and he only received 5 percent of the total vote. Sen. Howell T. Heflin (D-Alabama) easily turned back a challenge from a New Right figure, Albert Lee Smith, who had been a representativebut lost his seat in 1982. Smith was best known for sponsoring an omnibus collection of legislation on social issues like abortion and school prayer. Some liberal Demo- cratic congressmen whom conservatives vigorously tried but failed to unseat included George E. Brown, Jr. in California, James Jones in Oklahoma, and Timothy J. Penny in Minnesota (Election results published in the International Herald- TribuneNov. 8, 1984:4-6).

Conclusion

It is clear that althoughmoral concerns occupied a central position in the campaign,they were not crucialto the voters'decisions. Those evangelicalswho were predisposedtoward Reagan would probablyhave voted for him anyway 113 despite the informational efforts of the Christian Right. The intriguing question is how many of them would have stayed home on election day if their political preachers had not registered them to vote and urged them to go to the polls. Still, those who wanted to keep Ronald Reagan in office really did not have to resort to the tactics delineated in the essay. The election was essentially a referendumon his performance as president, not an affirmation of his social policy. A substantial majority of the electorate was satisfied with the economic recovery that had taken place and the image of leadership and optimism which he conveyed. Like in the 1980 election, the mobilization of the New Christian Right, especially to the extent that took place, was to many observers a disturbing but hardly the decisive element in the Reagan victory. Heating up the religious question only served to divert the attention of conservative Protestants and Catholics from the other issues of the campaign and thereby, in this author's opinion, demeaned the quality of both religious belief and political discourse. One may conclude from Reagan's performance in the first term that although he looks favorablyon the social issues and deep down inside he would like to see their "solutions" enacted into law, it is unlikely he will go all out for their implementa- tion. Thus, Douglas Holladay's comment to a WallStreet Journal reporter, "I don't think he's going to do anything different" in a second term, takes on real signifi- cance (Sept. 18, 1984:62). Interestingly, Paul Weyrich told a Conservative Political Action Conference in March: "As Conservatives we kid ourselves if we think the president's re-election in 1984 is going to deliver major gains to our movement." After the ballots were counted, NCPAC's Terry Dolan predicted that disaster lay ahead for the GOP because Reagan allegedly had moved towardthe center. Richard Viguerie declared that the campaign "will rank among the all-time greatest blunders in American politics" because it ignored lower-level candidates (CQWR Sept. 22, 1984:2315; GRR Nov. 1984:37). There are rumblings that Viguerie, Weyrich, and possibly some Moral Majority people may form a "populist" third party if the administra- tion fails to deliver the agenda of the New Religious Right, but this is surely an idle threat. They will have to settle for a second Reagan term of lack-luster performance on the religio-political questions. Their victory in 1984 was a hollow one. REFERENCES

Abbreviations:CQWR CongressionalQuarterly Weekly Report GRR GroupResearch Report NYT New YorkTimes RNS ReligiousNews Service WP WashingtonPost WSJ WallStreet Journal Anderson,John B. 1975 Vision and Betrayalin America.Waco: Word Books Blumenthal,Sidney 1984 "The RighteousEmpire." New Republic,46(0ctober 22):18-24. Bole, William 1985 "Is the G.O.P.Becoming God's OwnParty?" Church and State, 38(January): 12- 13. Bromley,David G. and Anson Shupe(eds.) 1984 New ChristianPolitics. Macon, GA: MercerUniversity Press. Buie, Jim 1984 "Praisethe Lordand Pass the Ammunition."Church and State, 37(October):6-8. 114

Carter,Jimmy 1975 Why Not the Best? Nashville:Broadman. Dulce, Bertonand EdwardJ. Richter 1962 Religionand the Presidency.New York:Macmillan. Farrelly,David G. 1955 "Rum, Romanism,and RebellionResurrected." Western Political Quarterly, 76:262-270. Henderson,Charles P. 1972 The Nixon Theology.New York:Harper and Row. Hibbs, Ben (ed.) 1972 WhiteHouse Sermons.New York:Harper and Row. Klein, Joe 1984 "Abortionand the Archbishop."New York, 17(0ctober 1):3643. Krauthammer,Charles 1984 "Rectifyingthe Border."Time, 124(September24):80. Kristol,Irving 1984 "The PoliticalDilemma of AmericanJews." Commentary,74(July):23-29. LaHaye,Tim 1984 "TheElection of OurLifetime," Religious Broadcasting, 16(July-August): 15-16. Lichtman,Allan J. 1979 Prejudiceand the Old Politics:The PresidentialElection of 1928. ChapelHill: Universityof NorthCarolina Press. Liebman,Robert C. and RobertWuthnow (eds.) 1983 The New ChristianRight: Mobilization and Legitimation.New York:Aldine. Lipset, SeymourMartin and Earl Rabb 1970 The Politicsof Unreason:Right-Wing Extremism in America 1790-1970.New York:Harper and Row. Miller,Arthur H. and MartinP. Wattenberg 1984 "Politicsfrom the Pulpit:Religiosity and the 1980 Elections." PublicOpinion Quarterly,48:301-17. Pierard,Richard V. 1980 "Billy Grahamand the U.S. Presidency."Journal of Churchand State,22:107- 27. 1983a "Religionand the New Rightin ContemporaryAmerican Politics." In JamesE. Wood,Jr. (ed.), Religionand Politics. Waco: Baylor University Press, pp. 59-81. 1983b "Reaganand Evangelicals:The Makingof a Love Affair." ChristianCentury, 100:1182-85. 1984 "Reaganand Evangelicals." In MarlaJ. Selvidge(ed.), FundamentalismToday: WhatMakes It So Attractive!Elgin, IL: BrethrenPress, pp. 47-61. 1985 "Cacophonyon CapitolHill: EvangelicalVoices in Politics." In StephenD. Johnsonand JosephB. Tamney(eds.), PoliticalRole of Religion in the U.S. Boulder,CO: WestviewPress. Pippert,Wesley (ed.) 1978 The SpiritualJourney of JimmyCarter. New York:Macmillan. Reavis, Dick J. 1984 "The Politicsof Armageddon."Texas Monthly, 12(October): 162-66, 235-46. Slosser,Bob 1984 ReaganInside Out. Waco:Word Books. Shriver,Peggy 1981 The Bible Vote. New York:Pilgrim Press. Stern, Sol 1984 "The Neo-Conningof the Jews." VillageVoice, 29(August28): 1, 8-12. Wead,Doug and Bill 1980 Reaganin Pursuitof the Presidency.Plainfield, NJ: HavenBooks.