We have now entered the post-Religious Right era. Though religion has had a negative image in the last few decades, the years ahead may be shaped by a dynamic and more progressive faith that will make needed social change more possible.

As usual, Wallis speaks movingly of his desire for a "revival," to address the social concerns that most progressives would share. But he presents no evidence that the religious right is in any way out of the picture. Really. Absolutely none.

I have written before, that as much as I admire Wallis' good works over many years, his analysis of the role of religion in American politics is screwy, at best. Now, I feel I have been far too generous. He has a pattern of making big, unsupported assertions, as if his saying them somehow makes them true. This kind of thinking is not progressive, but deeply reactionary; discouraging people from actively thinking about the religious right and what to do about it, and thereby hampering our ability to understand, describe and consider some formidable adversaries. It does the cause of progressivism, and that of the Democratic Party (in which Wallis is increasingly influential) a disservice to overlook his astoundingly uninformed and misguided thinking.

Here then is a review of the major distortions of the political scene that I have encountered in Wallis' work. (I do not claim to be an expert on Wallis, so there may be much more that I have not seen.)

In October 2000, just prior to the election, Wallis, writing at Beliefnet, declared in an article headlined "The Rise and Fall of the Religious Right" that "the influence of the religious right is in steady decline." His evidence? That George W. Bush had declined to appear at the Coalition's annual conference, and that the Coalition had other organizational difficulties. A short time later, the world got to see how radically wrong Wallis was. His error was a mix of wishful thinking, and conflating the fortunes of one, albeit important, organization with the vitality and power of the religious right as a whole.  (Unsurprisingly, I had a different take on the prospects of the religious right at the time. I think the history of the past 7 years has borne me out.)

Most of Wallis' Time essay is about how he sees stirrings of religious revival and that these may lead to movements of social reform. Few would disagree that there are interesting stirrings among more moderate evangelicals among others, but this is not the same thing as saying that the era of the religious right is over -- only that some other people who are not the religious right are doing and saying some interesting things.

But this is not the only prominent error that marks his analysis of American politics. Last year, I wrote that Wallis blamed unnamed secularists for all manner of terrible things in his book God's Politics. His evidence that this mysterious group was up to no good? Well, none.

I wrote at the time:

To listen to or read Jim Wallis, you would think that legions of the Secular Left are rampaging across the land; that the secularity police are billy-clubbing every expression of religion in public life -- especially if it happens to be Christian; and ruthlessly blocking "people of faith" from participation in constitutional democracy and requiring politicians to hide their religiosity.

To offer but one example, (among many) early in God's Politics, Wallis writes,

"We contend today with both religious and secular fundamentalists, neither of whom must have their way. One group would impose the doctrines of a political theocracy on their fellow citizens, while the other would deprive the public square of needed moral and spiritual values often shaped by faith."

OK, so who are these "secular fundamentalists" whose "way" is equivalent to the theocratic religious right and must be thwarted? You gotta think that there must be some pretty important people and powerful organizations involved. Right? Think again.

As far as I can tell, from a sampling of his many interviews, and his book, he has never named a single "secular fundamentalist," and has never identified or defined what he calls the "secular left" or specified its impact on religious life and political expression. Never, that is, except on page 69 of God's Politics, where he claims that there are many secular fundamentalists who

"attack all political figures who dare to speak from their religious convictions. From the Anti-Defamation League, to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, to the ACLU and some of the political Left's most religion fearing publications, a cry of alarm has gone up in response to anyone who has the audacity to be religious in public. These secular skeptics often display amazing lapse of historical memory when they suggest that religious language in politics is contrary to the "American Ideal."

Look it up and see for yourself. Wallis does not offer any of evidence in support of his attack on these civil liberties organizations -- all of whom are at the forefront of the protection of religious freedom in America. Indeed, the ADL represents the civil liberties interests of Jews, and the leaders of Americans United have always been predominantly religious. The current executive director, Barry Lynn is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ. The ACLU is a network of attorneys of mixed political and religious orientation -- but are fierce defenders of the First Amendment. Are there many people who are non-religious who also populate the Left and these organizations? Well sure. But the same is true for the Right and for that matter, Libertarians. People who advocate for secularity in public life are not usually opponents of religious expression, rather they are proponents of religious freedom and separation of church and state who seek to defend democratic pluralism against the advances of religious supremacism in all of its forms. But Wallis' characterization of these organizations is indistinguishable from the leaders of the religious right.

It should not go unremarked in this context, that Wallis in 1996, signed onto a draconian antiabortion manifesto. Moiv, writing at Talk to Action,revealed:  

But before his elevation as an "evangelical progressive" celebrity, together with a Who's Who of the Religious Right that he now says "gets it wrong".... Jim Wallis signed a lengthy document that said plenty about abortion, culminating in a call for a constitutional amendment to criminalize abortion entirely. And to this day, adept as he is at dodging questions about his true position, Wallis has yet to repudiate a word of it.... A partial list of signatories includes such luminaries of the Religious Right as Gary Bauer Family Research Council; Charles W. Colson Prison Fellowship; Guy M. Condon of Care Net; James C. Dobson , Focus on the Family; Clarke D. Forsythe, Americans United for Life; Wanda Franz, National Right to Life Committee; Robert P. George; William Kristol, Project for the Republican Future; Beverly LaHaye, Concerned Women for America; Richard Land, Southern Baptist Convention; Bernard N. Nathanson, MD, Richard John Neuhaus, Institute on Religion and Public Life; Frank A. Pavone , Priests for Life; Ralph Reed, Christian Coalition . . . and Jim Wallis, Sojourners

In any case, I thought we had heard the last of Wallis' dubious political analysis. But in a post '06 election article on BeliefNet; Wallis claimed:

In this election, both the Religious Right and the secular Left were defeated, and the voice of the moral center was heard.

While I would agree that the 2006, election was a set-back for the religious right, it was far from the thorough "defeat" Wallis implies. But meanwhile, what was his evidence that the election was a defeat for the secular Left? (whatever that is.) Well, none.

It is difficult to discern what in the world he is thinking when he makes these preposterous pronouncements. But it does seem to be reasonably clear that Wallis is busy positioning himself and his designees as the "voice of the moral center." And to do this, he sets up the religious right and the ever-mysterious, unnamed "secular Left" as strawmen for him to position himself between.

Just before the '06 elections, Chip Berlet, also writing at Talk to Action observed  that premature predictions of the demise of the religious right, a biannual event in American politics, were already creeping into the media:

I don't know how the Republicans will do in the upcoming elections, but I do know that the Christian Right as a social movement will survive, and remain a powerful factor in the social, cultural, and political life of the United States. Every few years--following an electoral defeat of Republicans, the collapse of a Christian Right organization, or a televangelist getting caught with his pants down (literally)--the death of the Christian Right is announced in the media...corporate or alternative.

I wish I had a dime....

Christian Right groups come and go, the Christian Right as a social movement remains strong. For example, the Christian Coalition replaced the Moral Majority. The Christian Coalition collapsed several years ago as a national network. Now it is being replaced by the FRC Action coalition, which will do highly targeted voter mobilization among conservative Christian evangelicals using sophisticated techniques that will go under the radar unless you are enmeshed in the conservative Christian evangelical subculture....

Win or lose, skilled Christian Right activists will emerge with stronger grassroots organizations and longer lists of names of potential recruits.

Wallis concludes his Time essay, having presented not a word of evidence that the religious right has been dispatched, declaring:

The era of the Religious Right is now past, and it's up to all of us to create a new day.

This is the kind of wishful thinking that has too often guided progressives and Democrats. But the religious right remains one of the most powerful political forces in the United States. And its leaders and leading organizations are being being actively courted by most, if not all of the Republican candidates for president. (It should go without saying that this would not be the case if the religious right were unimportant.)  The religious right continues to play a major role in the politics of the national Republican Party, and dominates many state parties.

I do not know why Wallis makes wildly unsupported and demonstrably false declarations with such apparent frequency.  But I am quite certain that smart, well-informed political strategies are more likely to be effective than those guided by ignorance and unfounded assertions.    

Update [2007-2-20 21:45:5 by Frederick Clarkson]: Wallis has managed to ignite further debate by behaving in his customary high-handed fashion. He he calls out Markos of the Daily Kos; and in making a seemingly constructive call for an alliance between "secular" and religious progressives, he manages to insult and annoy people: Kos responds as do bloggers Atrios at Eschaton and Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left. Pastordan at Street Prophets writes:

So Mr. Wallis, let's make our own deal. How about if you realize that there are other people in the religious grassroots working carefully and productively to make common cause with secular progressives - they've been doing it long before you came on the scene, and they'll be doing long after we're both gone - and how about if you save your patronizing lectures. In return, we won't call you a horse's ass. How about it?