The anti-theocracy, pro-separation candidate is Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) who not only staked-out this ground in a campaign swing last week but he did so in the unlikely company of David Barton -- the notorioius Christian nationalist propagandist and Texas Republican party official, who was named by Time magazine in 2005 as one of the 25 most influential evangelicals. Suffice to say, that there is undoubtedly much more here than meets the eye. But here is my first stab at getting my mind around this remarkable development.

Barton has been written about a great deal here at Talk to Action, by Chris Rodda, and many of the rest of us, due mostly to his infuential Christian nationalist historical revisionism.  Less well known, Barton has been touring the country for years on behalf of the Republican National Committee and various Republican candidates.

That Barton is so unquietly backing Brownback, and the way he is doing it, is worth noting.  The pair stumped the early caucus state of Iowa together last week, opening an Iowa campain office and appearing in at least West Des Moines, Davenport, Souix City, Council Bluffs, Ames and Cedar Rapids, according to local news reports. That Barton would campaign with Brownback is no surprise. The relationship goes back years. Last Fall, Brownback appeared on Barton's radio show stating:

Dave Barton is one of my big heroes. When I first got into the United States Senate, I was watching some of his videos and it made me mad that we walk over so much of the beautiful heritage that makes our history come to life and he's done a great job of that, so I'm honored to be on with ... one of my heroes, Dave Barton.

The Iowa events were supposed to be closed to the media -- but reporters managed to get in in some places anyway, including the event in West Des Moines:

While Brownback thinks faith belongs in government, he said he does not want the church to control the government, or vice versa.

"I'm opposed to a theocracy. I think it would be bad for religion. I also think it would be bad for government," he said.

And in Souix City, Brownback said:

"I believe in a robust public square for the celebration of faith. This has been a big, tough issue for us as a nation. I believe in the separation of church and state, but not the removal of faith from the public square. That faith is the central part of the background of the United States."

All that may sound pretty unthreatening, except that he hardly misses a beat in also saying that Barton's support,  

"I think is a signal to a number of people that this is somebody that understands the Constitution and also understands the role of faith in the United States ... and doesn't try to run it out of the public square,"

What is remarkable here is that Brownback claims to be not only running against theocracy (but in such as way as to throw the milquetoast media off the scent) -- and while affirming a distinctly theocratic politics. Brownback also goes so far as to endorse separation of church and state, although he seems to be seeking to defuse the term and its meaning as a political liability rather than presenting himself as an advocate for any of the traditional understandings of the term and its meaning in American history and constitutional law. What is particularly remarkable is that he is doing this while on tour with David Barton -- who has made his career distorting the origins, history and meaning of the term to advance the cause of Christian nationalism. Among his signature claims is that separation of church and state is not found in the constitution, and that the phrase wall of separation between church and state, as its appears in Thomas Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, was intended as a "one-directional wall" intended to keep government out of religion.  What could Barton and Brownback be up to?

What I think all this may signal, is an end-run around Democrats who, under the tutelage of political consultants Mara Vanderslice and Eric Sapp are not supposed to talk about separation of church and state in public because, according to Vanderslice, the phrase is not found in the constitution and it raises "red flags... with people of faith."

However, Brownback has no problem using the phrase in stump speeches before... people of faith.  

Readers may recall that Vanderslice very pubicly stated her views on the phrase separation of church and state in an interview with The New York Times.  Now we have Brownback, no doubt with the advice and cooperation of Barton and his friends in the theocratic movement, busy adopting the phrase, while Democratic candidates are being coached not to talk about it.

Earlier this year, I wrote an article for The Public Eye magazine outlining the stakes in the Christian nationalist vision and politics, and pointed among other things, to the politics of David Barton, his role in national Republican politics, and the need to specifically counter his twisted notions of American history generally, and claims about separation of church and state in particular. I quoted one famous debunking of Barton at some length in that article, so I won't take up the space to do that here. But on the wider point, I wrote:

We need a widely agreed upon narrative of how religious pluralism and respect for the right to religious difference emerged in American history. Instead, political consultants demand that mainstream politicians speak of their "faith journey," or excoriate "religious political extremists," or denounce unnamed "secularists" who are said to be driving mainstream and progressive "people of faith" from public life. Such soundbite-ism seems to be the only narrative framework from which most of our national leaders operate, even as they make the customary paeans to religious liberty and the genius of the Founding Fathers, and other such disengaged platitudes.

Christian revisionist-influenced political breezes are even blowing in the Democratic Party. Prominent campaign consultants are advising their clients not to use the phrase separation of church and state because it raises "red flags with people of faith" and because the phrase does not appear in the Constitution. This is an excellent example of how successful Christian revisionists have been in their efforts to delegitimize the term as part of their efforts to shape and control public discourse in their direction. This is also symptomatic of the way that our political leaders are so far away from being able to articulate a compelling narrative of the story of religious liberty in America, that some are conceding the ground and listening to campaign consultants who say that it is better to say nothing.

Brownback may indeed be our most overtly theocratic candidate this time, as evidenced by his supporters from the theocratic movement and the many features of of his record and personal vision. He has already earned the support of, among others, Pat Robertson, up-and-coming theocratic leader, Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, and Norma McCorvey, (the Roe in Roe vs. Wade, who has since become a Christian anti-abortion militant.)   Jeff Sharlet's profile of Brownback in the January 2006 issue of Rolling Stone, makes the case most comprehensively in explaining the depth and breadth of Brownback's theocratic committments.

But the packaging, of the theocratic candidate will be far different than one might have imagined, as his public opposition to theocracy and embracing of separation of church and state, or at least the phrase seems to indicate.  Sharlet wrote:

Brownback believes America is entering a period of religious revival on the scale of the Great Awakening that preceded the nation's creation, an epidemic of mass conversions, signs and wonders, book burnings. But this time, he says, the upheaval will give way to a "cultural springtime," a theocratic order that is pleasant and balmy. It's a vision shared by the mega-churches that sprawl across the surburban landscape, the 24-7 spiritual-entertainment complexes where millions of Americans embrace a feel-good fundamentalism.....

As he gathers the forces of the Christian right around him, however, Brownback has broken with the movement's tradition of fire and brimstone. His fundamentalism is almost tender. He's no less intolerant than the angry pulpit-pounders, but he never sounds like a hater. His style is both gentler and colder, a mixture of Mr. Rogers and monkish detachment.

How viable a candidate he turns out to be, is anyone's guess, of course. From the distance of January 2006, Sharlet looked at it this way:

Brownback is unlikely to receive the Republican presidential nomination -- but as the candidate of the Christian right, he may well be in a position to determine who does, and what they include in their platform. "What Sam could do very effectively," says the Rev. Rob Schenck, an evangelical activist, is hold the nomination hostage until the Christian right "exacts the last pledge out of the more popular candidate."

But Barton plays the theocratic bad cop to Brownback's kinder and gentler theocratic rap, warming-up the crowd with more traditional red-meat right-wing politics. The Souix City Journal reported  

"That's a conservative guy, he's not a recent convert, like some of the guys," Barton said.

Further, he said, "you can also tell a guy by his enemies," and cited a 19 percent rating from the American Civil Liberties Union and an "F" grade from the National Education Association, which drew applause from the crowd.

"Socialists just don't care for Sam much," said Barton,

There is a lot to chew over here. But I think that the main take away lesson is that Brownback, with the help of Barton, is busy innoculating himself against one of the most serious charges Democrats can level against him, that his politics are theocratic and that he opposes separation of church and state, as shown by his considerable public record. Instead, he is running against theocracy, embracing separation like he owns the term.