Civil Religion and Pastoral Power in the George W. Bush Presidency
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Communication Theses Department of Communication 5-4-2007 Civil Religion and Pastoral Power in the George W. Bush Presidency Kristina E. Curry Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_theses Part of the Communication Commons Recommended Citation Curry, Kristina E., "Civil Religion and Pastoral Power in the George W. Bush Presidency." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2007. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_theses/23 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Communication at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CIVIL RELIGION AND PASTORAL POWER IN THE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENCY by KRISTINA E. CURRY Under the Direction of James F. Darsey ABSTRACT American presidents have maintained an equilibrium between the role of church and state in government affairs via the nation’s civil religion and a “rhetorical contract” between those secular and sacred interests. While other presidents have incorporated religion in their rhetorical execution of office, George W. Bush has done so in a manner different from his predecessors, emphasizing the role of faith in his administration’s beliefs, actions, and policies. Such rhetoric upsets the tenuous relationship between sectarian and secular affairs. Bush’s breach of the rhetorical contract can be explained by Foucault’s notion of pastoral power. Using practices once associated with the church, the savvy government leader may better control his public. I argue that President Bush has shifted the balance of power between organized religion and government, specifically by means of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, thereby corrupting traditional notions of civil religion in the process of implementing his unique form of new pastoral power. INDEX WORDS: George W. Bush, Civil religion, Pastoral power, American presidency, Roderick Hart, Michel Foucault, Robert Bellah CIVIL RELIGION AND PASTORAL POWER IN THE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENCY by KRISTINA E. CURRY A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University 2007 Copyright by Kristina E. Curry 2007 CIVIL RELIGION AND PASTORAL POWER IN THE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENCY by KRISTINA E. CURRY Major Professor: James F. Darsey Committee: Michael L. Bruner Mary E. Stuckey Electronic Version Approved: Office of Graduate Studies College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University May 2007 iv List of Tables . vi Chapter I: Pastor Bush and the Fracturing of America . 1 Civil Religion, the Rhetorical Contract, and the Promise of Balance . 4 George W. Bush Meets Michel Foucault . 17 Method . 29 Summary . 43 Chapter II: The Presidency, Civil Religion, and Pastoral Power . 46 Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) . 49 Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) . 59 John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) . 66 Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969) . 70 Richard M. Nixon (1969-1974) . 80 Gerald R. Ford (1974-1977) . 87 James E. Carter, Jr. (1977-1981) . 95 Ronald W. Reagan (1981-1989) . 102 George H. W. Bush (1989-1993) . 112 William J. Clinton (1993-2001) . 118 The Sum of the Predecessors . 127 Chapter III: President Bush, Civil Religion, and Pastoral Power . 130 Bush’s Breaches and the Rhetorical Contract . 133 President Bush’s Brand of New Pastoral Power . 163 v Pastoral Power and the National Divide . 181 Chapter IV: Conclusion . 184 The Predecessors’ Contractual Legacies . 184 George Bush’s Faith-Based Legacy . 186 Consequences of Bush’s Contractual Breach . 190 Works Cited . 194 Appendix A: Hart’s Rhetorical Contract . 214 Appendix B: Executive Order 13198 . 216 Appendix C: Executive Order 13199 . 221 Appendix D: Bush’s First Term Speeches Regarding the Faith-Based Initiative . 226 Appendix E: Organizations Mentioned in Sample . 230 vi List of Tables Table D.1: Bush’s First Term Speeches Regarding the Faith-Based Initiative . 226 Table E.1: Organizations Mentioned by Bush in this Sample . 230 Chapter I: Pastor Bush and the Fracturing of America During the presidential campaign of 2000, scholars and journalists alike commented on the concept of a divided America, largely along religious lines, which was becoming more pronounced as candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore campaigned across the country.1, 2 This apparent divide led Leroy Rouner to assert that “[t]he internal test for American civil religion today is whether it can survive without a common religion as its basis,” particularly given the growing ethnic and religious diversity of the American people (4).3 One of the functions of civil religion is to unify a diverse public. As president, George W. Bush might be expected to apply civil religion in an attempt to heal the divide, but Bush instead embraces evangelical Christianity to exacerbate the divisions in the American public and to elevate religious believers above a secular or fallen class. In a speech he gave to the Southern Baptist Convention in June of 2002. Bush remarked: 1 In his book God in the White House, Richard Hutcheson provides a brief yet comprehensive review of past presidents’ incorporation of religious dialog into their public address, paying particular attention to Washington, Jefferson, and Madison “because they established the pattern: separation of church and state but close interaction between religion and society. They also established the president’s role in such a society” (Hutcheson 55), and Lincoln who was “the ‘theologian’ of the civil religion” (Hutcheson 55). 2 Groups as diverse as Beliefnet, decidedly conservative and religious, and Guardian Unlimited, which is an organization based in the U.K., commented on the 2000 presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Gary Bauer, writing about the cultural divide, said: “The country perhaps more so than at any time in the past is divided into dramatically opposed camps” (“Message”). While Bauer was writing primarily about the abortion issue, he does address the values of the “traditional side” versus the values of those on “[t]he other side of the cultural divide” (Bauer, “Message”). Bauer views the outcome of the 2000 election, should it swing in favor of the “other,” Democratic side, as perilous for the well-being of the nation. Writing for the Manchester-based Guardian Unlimited, Martin Kettle writes that “the culture wars define the modern United States” and that the candidates Bush and Gore personify “two deeply different alliances of Americans” (Kettle, “Disunited States”). Like Bauer, Kettle also sees the 2000 election as the harbinger of more dissent between the two Americas. 3 See also Beasley, You 3-4; Stuckey, Defining 2. 2 You and I share common commitments. We believe in fostering a culture of life, and that marriage and family are sacred institutions that should be preserved and strengthened. (Applause.) We believe that a life is a creation, not a commodity, and that our children are gifts to be loved and protected, not products to be designed and manufactured by human cloning. (Applause.) We believe that protecting human dignity and promoting human rights should be at the center of America’s foreign policy. We believe that our government should view the good people who work in faith-based charities as partners, not rivals. We believe that the days of discriminating against religious institutions simply because they are religious must come to an end. (2002k) In this quotation, Bush addresses a sympathetic audience about the following charged and divisive issues: abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, human rights, and the role of religion in government. Bush’s statement about these issues points to key issues on the minds of the American public. The quotation is a forthright profession of faith, stressing the common bond between Bush and his immediate audience. Each “We believe” suggests a tension, an absent “they,” a division in the electorate, and Bush’s defiantly unambiguous positions separate the “you and I” from those who hold opposing views. His stance on each of these items, influenced in part by his own religious beliefs, may alienate those who do not share his views. The U.K.-based publication The Independent featured an editorial entitled “George W. Bush a divider after all.” The author suggests that: “The candidate who advertised himself as ‘a uniter, not a divider’ has failed to narrow any of his country’s glaring social and racial divisions” 3 (Independent, “George W. Bush a divider”).4 The president has since been questioned about his status as national divider. In a 2004 interview, Tim Russert asked Bush about that perception. Bush replied as follows: Gosh, I don’t know because I’m working hard to unite the country. As a matter of fact, it’s the hardest part of being the president. I was successful as the governor of Texas for bringing people together for the common good, and I must tell you it’s tough here in Washington, and frankly it’s the biggest disappointment that I’ve had so far of coming to Washington. (NBC’s Meet the Press, “Interview with President George W. Bush.”)5 President Bush, it appears, realizes that serving as a unifier of the people is an integral role for any American president. Simultaneously, he notes that, under his administration, such unification has not materialized. However sincere President Bush’s intent to bring his public together, the fact remains that the country is divided. That division is due, in part, to Bush’s embrace of pastoral power rather than civil religion, as evidenced by his rhetoric. 4 See also Horowitz, “‘I’m a uniter, not a divider’.” 5 During his tenure as governor of Texas, the literature suggests that Bush already had definite opinions about the limited utility of secular government programs in the lives of ordinary Americans.