"Used"

Michael P. links here to Martin Marty's column about David Kuo's new book, "Tempting Faith."  I know David, and have no doubt -- having heard him on the radio today -- that he sincerely intended his book to be a very personal meditation on the importance of remembering that the name of the game is the Lord, and not a political majority.  I share his disappointment that the more interesting and promising aspects of the "faith based initiative" / "compassionate conservative" program (e.g., meaningful school choice) never materialized.  (Of course, that agenda was blocked, in important ways, by the President's political opponents in Congress.)  Certainly, it is not his fault that his book was released right before an election in which evangelical Christian turnout is important to the Republicans.  (Who is being "used"?)  A few quick thoughts:

Professor Marty writes "David Kuo is as well positioned as anyone to give behind-the-scenes views of how the 'elites' in the administration in Washington regard their most faithful and core supporters."  Maybe.  Other pretty "well positioned" folks -- Michael Gerson and Jim Towey, for example -- disagree quite forcefully with David's thesis.

As Professor Marty notes, the commentators on and promoters on the book have seized on David's claim that (unnamed) officials referred to some Christian leaders as "goofy" and "nuts."  It is, I suppose, not relevant that many of those (e.g., Keith Olbermann) who are currently touting Kuo's book *also* think that evangelical leaders are "goofy" "nuts."  The point is -- who are we kidding? -- some of them are.  I certainly hope that, when White House officials learned that some prominent, self-styled Christian leaders blamed Katrina on sexual decadence in New Orleans, or 9/11 on abortion, they called those Christians "nuts."

Finally, the claim that evangelical Christians have been "used" ignores the fact -- and, it is a fact -- that the current Administration has been receptive to evangelicals' concerns -- consider, for example, the efforts of the Department of Justice to defend equal-access and equal-expression rights for religious believers in public forums, or the Administration's support for vouchers in DC, or the partial-birth abortion ban.

My point is not to question Kuo's sincerity or his motives.  (I am happy to question the motives of "60 Minutes" or of the book-promotion campaign.)  Clearly, evangelical Christians (like some constituencies in the Democrats' base) are regarded by some GOP operatives as useful, but (at best) quirkly.  Nor is it to disagree with him that following Christ is something Christians should care more about than winning elections.  But, his "used" argument, in my view, is not particularly powerful.  And, I suspect that most evangelical Christians will react skeptically to a media-blitzed suggestion, three weeks before an election, that they "fast" from politics.

UPDATE:  Here is E.J. Dionne, in the Post, commenting on the Kuo book.  He says, among other things, "I hope Kuo's book promotes serious discussions in religious study groups around the country about whether the evangelicals' alliance with political conservatism has actually made the world, well, more Godly from their own point of view."  Fair enough.  I cannot help thinking, though, that a book which urged the millions of devoutly religious, church-going African-Americans to "fast" from politics, given that many prominent Democratic leaders value their votes but regard their religious values and commitments with disdain, would enjoy significantly less promotional energy in the press.