Should Karl Rove’s faith matter?
Does the faith of a major politician matter? Well, it seemed that George W. Bush’s faith played a significant part in winning over voters. John Kerry’s faith, on the other hand, seemed a hindrance since, as not a few Catholic bloggers incessantly decried, he didn’t seem all that genuine about it. In our current election season, not much has been made of John McCain’s faith since it is not altogether certain he has much religious conviction (though Oswald Sobrino will mount a trapeze to convince you otherwise). And despite his participation in the now infamous Trinity United Church, (idiotic) questions still loom over whether Barack Obama is a Muslim (since, as FOX News continually reminds us, the middle name “Hussein” carries a factor of fear). But what about major figures who work with our elected officials and who play an incalculable role in the structures of election and policy? Does his/her faith matter to us?
Without answering this question myself, I wish to revisit for a moment the well known rumor that Karl Rove is either an agnostic or an atheist. Parenthetically, I don’t believe there is much difference between the two as being agnostic is, without question, atheism in practice if not an explicitly identical affirmation (cf. CCC 2128). The rumor of Karl Rove’s lack of faith took off last year after an interview by Boris Kachka of New York magazine and the always relevant and vitriolic Christopher Hitchens. During the talk, Kachka asked Hitchens whether he knew of any atheists within President George W. Bush’s administration. Here’s what happened:
Do you think an avowed atheist would ever get elected in the U.S.?
Yes. I do not believe any of the statistical claims that are made about public opinion. I don’t see why anybody does.Has anyone in the Bush administration confided in you about being an atheist?
Well, I don’t talk that much to them—maybe people think I do. I know something which is known to few but is not a secret. Karl Rove is not a believer, and he doesn’t shout it from the rooftops, but when asked, he answers quite honestly. I think the way he puts it is, “I’m not fortunate enough to be a person of faith.”
Hitchen’s account of Rove’s atheism/agnosticism was not the first such claim made. Rather, Hitchens corroborated the same claim made by Wayne Slater, who wrote a biography on Rove entitled Bush’s Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential, during a 2004 Fresh Air interview with NPR’s Terry Gross:
SLATER: You know, I remember seeing Ralph Reed in Texas when Rove tried to bring him on board back in about 1998. Ralph Reed is an Evangelical Christian who was successful in bringing Evangelical Christians around for political ends. Karl Rove is just the opposite. He is, in fact, an agnostic. He has told a friend in high school that he grew up in a largely a-religious household. He told a friend at the University of Texas, where some years ago he was teaching, that he would like to be a believer but he’s an agnostic and he couldn’t be otherwise. So Rove’s approach has always been not that religion and the values of religion ought to have a place in our public policy, which is the message that he sent. Rove’s approach is that Christians are a marvelously effective voter delivery system that can be rallied, motivated, energized, and delivered for the political candidate of your choice.
GROSS: Are you confident that Karl Rove would still consider himself an agnostic?
SLATER: I know that he felt that way two years ago. I don’t know of any reason to think that he has changed that view. He certainly hasn’t told me that he has. It’s certainly possible. I think the evidence and the history is that he remains something of an agnostic, though he sees the Christians, and not just Christians but also orthodox Jews, to some extent, as a valuable voter source. With Rove, it’s about winning. With Karl Rove, it’s how can you put together a team and a constituency or a cluster of constituencies that delivers you 50 percent plus one of the vote? And that’s what it’s all about.
We have then two individuals who know Rove personally stating that he is, in fact, an agnostic at best. Deal Hudson, who once worked with Rove corralling Catholics to elect Bush before resigning due to a public scandal, refuses to believe it. Apparently, Rove’s faith (or lack thereof) really matters to him. Hudson gives two reasons for denying that Rove is agnostic:
1. After the Hitchen’s interview, Hudson claims he called Rove:
Rove sounded very annoyed and told me he was going to “call Hitchens” about it.
2. Someone (we don’t know who) pointed out to Hudson that Rove signed-off the Rush Limbaugh show with the words “God bless you.”
To the first point, assuming that Hudson really did call Rove, did he ask Rove if Hitchen’s claim was true? If so, why did Hudson neglect to tell us in his blog post? That certainly would have cleared things up for all of us, and we wouldn’t have to rely upon Hudson’s empty claim “Karl Rove is NOT an atheist.” Perhaps Hudson did ask Rove if the claim was true but received the answer he didn’t want to hear. In any case, Rove’s annoyance tells us nothing. Perhaps he was annoyed that Hitchens betrayed his trust. Perhaps he was annoyed because he didn’t want his agnosticism/atheism to be public knowledge. Perhaps he was annoyed because Hudson called him. Whatever may be the case, relaying that Rove “sounded very annoyed” does nothing to counter the claims of direct testimony from two independent sources who personally know Rove.
To the second point, saying “God bless you” is not a declaration of faith. It is a trite courtesy that has largely been sapped of its meaning by its endless repetition and its being that most knee-jerk rejoinder to someone sneezing. Furthermore, Rove is one smart guy. What better way to try to quell unwanted press attention and to assuage the concerns of his right-leaning base (e.g., Hudson) over his agnosticism than by slipping in a goodbye “God bless you” on conservative talk radio? No denial has ever come from Rove, and Hudson either doesn’t really know the truth or he is lying about the truth. Nevertheless, CNS trusts Hudson despite the relative dearth of evidence he offers, even writing a whole piece based on his testimony alone.
Funny thing about Hudson’s claim is that he doesn’t seem to believe it himself! After trying to convince us that Rove is not an agnostic/atheist, Hudson proceeds to conceive the possibility that Rove is an agnostic! Hudson then forms an argument as to why we shouldn’t worry if Rove is an agnostic, an argument that can be broken down as such:
P1: An agnostic is “not sure” or “does not know” that God exists.
P2: An agnostic can appreciate the goodness and values of theists.
C: Therefore, Rove cannot be accused of being cynical.
For a moment, let’s grant that P1 and P2 are true. Does the conclusion follow from these premises? Of course not. The argument assumes a number of other premises. A modified form of the argument with these assumptions would go as follows:
P1: An agnostic is “not sure” or “does not know” that God exist.
(P2′): Being “unsure” or “ignorant” that God exists entails the ability to appreciate the goodness and values of theists.
P2: An agnostic can appreciate the goodness in theists [from 1 and 2]
(P3): Karl Rove is an agnostic.
(P4): Karl Rove can appreciate the goodness in theists [from 3 and 4]
(P5): Being an atheist entails the inability to appreciate the goodness and values of theists.
(P6): An atheist who claims to appreciate the goodness and values of theists is cynical.
(P7): An agnostic who claims to appreciate the goodness and values of theists is not cynical.
(P8): Karl Rove is not cynical [from 3, 4, 7]
C: Therefore, Karl Rove cannot be accused of being cynical.
This is the same argument of Hudson but with the unstated premises that he invariably relies upon. You can see why he didn’t explicitly state a lot of these premises because they are either weak or untrue.
P1 is untrue. Agnosticism can also mean religious indifferentism and is, more often than not, merely practical atheism (cf. CCC 2128). This would suggest, granting the truth of P5 and P6, that Hudson’s entire argument collapses according to the veracity of P1.
We can grant the truth of P2′, because it is conceiveable that an agnostic would appreciate goodness and values. It follows that we can grant P2.
P3 seems to be true based on the testimony and evidence of Hitchens and Slater.
P4 can be granted as conceivable, but not as true. It remains a weak, unsubstantiated premise.
P5 is likely to be false. There does not seem to be anything inherent to atheism that demands that goodness and values in theism (e.g., individual rights, dignity of person, moral systems) cannot be appreciated.
P6 is false if P5 is false.
P7 is weak. What if there were agnostic who privately chides all religious values, yet publicly claims to value them? This certainly is an easy to conceive political tactic.
P8 is unsubtantiated on account of 7.
The conclusion, which relies upon the truth of 7 is weak. The entire argument itself is weak by logical standards. Hudson seems to really want Rove to be a theist, but if he is an agnostic, Hudson really wants him to be insusceptible to the charge of cynicism. But Hudson cannot make the claim that he does, for we do not know what type of agnostic Rove is, and we do not if Rove truly appreciates the goodness and values of theism beyond their uses for an election. In the end, Hudson fails to convince us that Rove is not an agnostic (the intent of the assertive title of the post) and then fails to convince us that Rove is not susceptible to the charge of cynicism.
I bring up Hudson specifically because he is an influential Catholic who seems to believe that Rove’s faith–whatever that means–really does matter. So let’s return to the original question of this post: Should Karl Rove’s faith matter? Correspondingly, should the faith of advisers close to McCain and Obama matter? Be cautious as you answer.
Comments are closed.
Mr. Politicratus:
May I recur to your basic American decency, not to prejudice a comment of mine, and post my revisiting on how the LAW (and faith for this) matters, in the legislation of minimum wage, which Blackadder censored twice today, for “being utterly off topic”?
Faith is intertwined with the FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF GOD´S SOLIDARITY, above the academic musings on economic effectiveness.
My post was:
TO LAW OR NOT TO LAW
Let me suggest this approach for the NEED of Law: yesterday I posted in the InsideCatholic post blog of Margaret Cabaniss, this about the people barren by Canon Law 915 from receiving the Most Sacred Eucharist:
“Other (view) ESPECIALLY INTERESTING (LIKE FOR AN ENTHOMOLOGIST STUDYING INSECTS INTO SELFDESTRUCTING APOSTASY), “look at the uproar caused when a pro-abortion politician is refused Communion would seem to bear this theory out”.
I recommend you to visit a most juicy bite:
Go to Vox-Nova blog, click in Categories, click in Humor, and click in 29 April 2008 post against Mr. Hudson exposing them –red-handed praising the horrendous desecration-, with 117 comments (mostly insulting Hudson), for exposing their world MONUMENTAL (record) “Catholic” hypocrisy (cause they cover themselves with massive “erudition” on the Encyclicals).
MY POINT: THERE ARE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS, that can’t be changed by Vox-Nova, a group of bishops, or any interpretation of “reality”.
“Those who object to some bishops’ obedience to Canon 915 (a group which includes the majority of American bishops, including, most vociferously, Archbishop Donald Wuerl), are driven by logic into the arms of Pelosi/Kerry/Kennedy/Hannity, and must agree with them: The individual American citizen, the individual American politician, has the authority to dictate to the Catholic Church what is sinful, and who has the right to receive Communion. American public opinion is a source of authority that trumps Canon 915 ( Written by Fr. Joseph).”
That JUICY BITE should be the object of a network, to send copies into every parish in USA, demanding from the bishops a MEA CULPA for their behaviour in the Papal Mass in DC, to the scandalized global-tv-audience.
Cordially
Moderation INDEED, precisely in the analysis of Mr. Hudson!!!
I don’t particularly care; I vote for politicians on the basis of whether they will do what I want them to do. Better a wise muslim (even the secret kind ;-) than a foolish Christian.
I think it quite likely that Obama is more of an agnostic than a Christian; there is certainly a fair amount of credible reporting that he joined Trinity as a means of advancing his career, but I would love to vote for him if he wasn’t staunchly pro-choice. Similarly, I think McCain is more of an agnostic than anything else, and that is near the bottom of the list of problems I have with him. Still less do I care if the people around them are religious, except insofar as it increases or decreases the likelihood that they will enact good policies.
I view it as inappropriate to speculate about the faith of anyone else, unless that person wishes to claim some knowledge about religious matters and seeks influence over matters of religious faith. We should focus, instead, on building ourselves and our families and our community through the Eucharist.
Just as with relationships, where outsiders have no idea what is truly going on, no one can speculate well about about another’s faith, so why bother? Where is the good that may come of it? This is too conducive to sentimentalist triumphant-ism.
Rove: “I’m a Christian. I go to church. I’m an Episcopalian. I think he may have taken a comment that I made where I was talking about how — I have had colleagues at the White House — Mike Gerson, Pete Wayner (ph), Leslie Drune (ph), Josh Bolten and others — who I’m really impressed about how their faith has informed their lives and made them really better people.And it took a comment where I acknowledged my shortcomings in living up to the beliefs of my faith and contrasted it with how these extraordinary people have made their faith a part of their fiber.And somehow or another he goes from taking it from me being an Episcopalian wishing I was a better Christian to somehow making me into a agnostic.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293795,00.html
RR,
Thank you for the link. Best to hear straight from the person. I wonder what Hitchens and Slater had to say about this since they both claim to have heard the very opposite from Rove. Nevertheless, I think we should take Rove at his word.
I suppose we could take the snide approach and say that:
As cleanliness:: godliness so Episcopalian::agnostic
But that would not be nice…
I suppose we could take the snide approach and say that:
As cleanliness:: godliness so Episcopalian::agnostic
But that would not be nice…
Nor would it be true. I’ve learned one thing over the years that admits of few exceptions: those who speak as you speak aren’t good people.
Say what you will. but piskies are on the average a lot nicer than trads. Religion without fear and loathing isn’t quite as successful though :P Who doesn’t love a nice pogrom once in a while.
In general, I’d prefer an atheist president to one whose god tells him to start unnecessary wars. It’s interesting that so many of the Founders were anti-denominational, their statements re: churches would make them unelectable today. A lot has changed since then. Ah, if only the maxim of the Red Hot Chili Peppers were followed – hicks don’t mix with politics.
“Say what you will, but piskies are on the average alot nicer than trads. Religion without fear and loathing….”
There is a parallel process in spiritual growth and psychological growth/self insight. For example, we may find that we are attracted to more structured forms of worship because of an inner need for same. It is likewise possible to reject structure as expressed in the Faith because of internal issues…the classic example could be someone who is stuck at an adolescent developmental stage where in order to discover who they are, they reject all rules etc. As an aside, there was an interesting interview on EWTN yesterday…Fr. Pavone interviewed a psychiatrist who has researched women who abort their babies…
Another issue that dovetails here, is the abililty to examine oneself with respect to sin. Although one may understand the Ten Commandments intellectually for example, it is another thing altogether to be able to apply them to one’s life. It appears as it the Saints were those ,who over time, were ‘mature’ enough in both processes (spiritual and psychological) and thus were able to progress spiritually and leave a legacy for us to learn from…
Because of these relationships, spiritual direction is very important….I think it is very possible that Rove-whose “work” I do not admire- may be working on his own spiritual issues unbeknownst to us…and that is how it should be.
How silly…
Comment edited by a blog administrator.
O.K. Let me reword it this way…
Psychologizing is too easy. I could just as well say that “the inner need for the same” characterizes the anal retentive personality, associated with quite early, unresolved conflicts in psychological development.
But Mark, the ‘anal retentive personality’ is the cornerstone of every organized religion. Who do you think came up with detailed rules for every possible situation in life ? It wasn’t people out having fun, that’s for sure. Catholicism made me feel like I needed a lawyer. The truth shall make you free….to follow 1,000,000,000 rules. Hitch was right when he spoke of a ‘celestial North Korea.’
To a personality as you describe it, it’s comforting to check the brain at the door – they’ll never have to torment themselves again. To me, More than 2 is a group, with 3 there’s 1 too many.
“Catholicism made me feel like a lawyer.”
Since a religion is a system of beliefs and practices, why would one “join” and then reject what the Truths that one was taught and freely accepted? Can someone say that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is kept under lock and key and one only has access to it after one has been through RCIA?
As cleanliness:: godliness so Episcopalian::agnostic
Darwin, you really shouldn’t say incredibly stupid things like this.
Michael, I’ve added another German song translation – this one updated on account of the impending start of the Iraq War, back in 2003.
http://www.geraldnaus.com/?p=10672
Michael,
I do it as an exercise in humility: You’ve got to have someone to look down on.
Having grown up in an almost entirely Episcopalian set (though a certain portion of them have since become Orthodox or Catholic) I can assure you that such humor is actually rather routine among many Episcopalians. One of my favorites was always, “The great advantage of being Episcopalian rather than agnostic is that we have fewer doctrinal requirements and the liturgy is better.”
What makes it rude of me to trot such humor out here is that I am not Episcopalian — nor is the forum.
That said, if you want to talk about stupid things, we might ask ourselves about the wisdom of writing a very long post on a topic which is readily disproved in five minutes via google or even wikipedia. On the other hand — if one goes to such elaborate lengths to question the intentions and honesty of someone one doesn’t like, and then finds oneself very simply refuted, perhaps the situation is its own reward.
If only everyone could be Episcopalian. Peace on earth, at last. And zen gardens. I gotta drop by Grace Cathedral one of these days.
Maybe the better issue, given that the topic of gay adoption comes up every now and then, would be Karl Rove and his father.
“So, let’s return to the original question of this post: Should Karl Rove’s faith matter? Should the faith of the advisor’s close to McCain & Obama matter?”
For myself ,the key question is the faith ‘disposition’ of the candidates themselves. They will establish the core of their administration (policy, implentation,communications, ethics). Whom he chooses” serves at the pleasure of the President,” and it’s true.
When I consider George Bush, someone whom I did not vote for -(I preferred John McCain even then, when he was more of a maverick and GOP/DEM hybrid), he hired a cadre of men and one woman (Condoleezza Rice, Richard Armitage, Robert Blackwill, Stephen Hadley, Richard Perle, Dov S. Zakheim, Robert Zoellick and Paul Wolfowitz) who had hammered out a policy emphasizing American influence/domination to remake & democratize the Middle East at the Project for the New American Century. Note: they were aided and abetted by Rumsfeld,Schulz and Cheney in their efforts. IMO, this is the true story of the invasion of Iraq, not WMD. What does this say about Bush…whom did he choose as his closest advisors? This idea -which was hatched in a conservative think tank -is responsible for the deaths of thousands and it has destabilized the Middle East. The implementation of this IMO immoral plan to remake a part of the world in our (U.S.) mold says much about the depth of Bush’s fundamentalist, alcohol recovery based faith. Bush’s lack of critical thinking skills and delegation style of leadership also played into this. As well as an abundance of pride. If he is thinking of converting, someone better tell him that pride don’t play too well this side of the spiritual Mason Dixon line.