Conservative leaders react
In the hours before and after the election results were in, WORLD writers around the country spoke with a variety of leading conservative political and religious minds, asking for reaction to Barack Obama’s victory but also seeking answers to this question: What should conservative Christians focus on politically over the next four years?
Here’s a sampling:
“No candidate is perfect and no candidate is all bad, in my opinion. To be more specific, I would say, for religious conservatives, John McCain is not our savior and Barack Obama is not the antichrist. … Evangelical Christians ought to be the thought leaders, not the flame-throwers. We ought to make compelling arguments and do it respectfully. We ought to be attractive to other people who look at us, and I don’t see enough of that.”
—Mark DeMoss, public relations executive
“Conservatives can often be ethereal and irrelevant. We must show how our biblical worldview is also a relevant worldview, and that it speaks to what people are dealing with here and now. That means making sure that we’re giving them answers for their particular situations, not solutions so broad that they are simply ‘making America a better place.’ Barack Obama made people on the lower levels feel like they mattered and that their pain was worth making a big deal about. Even if his [policy ideas] weren’t the best strategy, they appealed to people on a personal level.”
—Tony Evans, senior pastor, Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship, Dallas, Texas
“True Story: On my way in to after the election, I was cycling down Pennsylvania Avenue at dawn. Just as I passed the National Gallery of Art I heard a thud to my left. I looked over, and was astonished to see a big, strong red-tailed hawk, which had pounced on a rat in the bushes. Quite apart from the beauty and thrill of seeing a wild predator hunting right in the heart of Washington, I found it a very comforting symbol of how the natural order goes on—unruffled, adaptable, persistent, and permanent. Men come and go, but always there are longer-term forces that drive forward, that cannot be suppressed, that accomplish unexpected things with a motive force beyond human orchestration.”
—Karl Zinsmeister, White House domestic policy adviser
WORLD also spoke with Robert George, Princeton professor of jurisprudence, specialist on constitutional law and political philosophy; Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission; Larry Schweikart, professor of History, University of Dayton, Ohio; U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch; former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.; Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America; U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.; and Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top29 Comments to “Conservative leaders react”
Those of us who claim to follow the Bible are thus commanded from Scripture:
1 Timothy 2:1-3
First of all, then, I urge that (A)entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,
2(B)for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
3This is good and acceptable in the sight of (C)God our Savior,
1 Peter 2:16-17
16Act as (A)free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as (B)bondslaves of God.
17(C)Honor all people, (D)love the brotherhood, (E)fear God, (F)honor the king.
1 Peter 2: 13-14
13(E)Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,
14or to governors as sent by him (F)for the punishment of evildoers and the (G)praise of those who do right.
Report comment to moderator
In a lot of ways, it was a good thing Obama was elected. Hopefully, this will be just the thing to wake up the American people, to kick them out of their complacency. If you can learn about the future from history, then this administration might possibly be similar to the Carter administration.
If that is the case, then we might have the joy of seeing a Republican controlled congress in two years, and the next Ronald Reagan as president in four years. Of course, that’s largely wishful speculation, but I think the potential is definitely there.
Report comment to moderator
Or Nor Talon, Obama might just be the Democratic Reagan, someone who can articulate a liberal agenda as effectively as Reagan articulated a conservative one, entrenching liberalism for the next 20 + years, as effectively as Reagan did conservatism!
At least, that’s what many of us are hoping.
Report comment to moderator
Something I keep hearing from the optimistic conservatives is that Obama winning can be a good thing in that it will force Republicans to rally the troops and perhaps make a stronger comeback in two or four years.
How about trying to be optimistic that Obama could do some good things himself? I disagree with Obama on A LOT, and really wish he had lost on Tuesday, but that’s no reason to hope that his presidency is an utter failure to the benefit of Republicans. We should be hoping that he does our country some good while in office, even if it means he gets another 4 years.
Report comment to moderator
Graceland,
I don’t think it’s fair to equate wanting the Republicans to wake up with hoping Obama fails. The two aren’t one and the same.
Obama has been treated much better by conservatives so far, than Bush was treated by liberals.
From the day Bush won till now, many of the democratice leaders in congress and the media hated him and hoped for failure. There has been nothing but negative reporting by the media for the last 8 years on how he stole the election, how bad the economy is, and what a liar he is.
It’s the other side that needs the lecture on not being a sore loser.
Report comment to moderator
Seeing the post title, I wondered if this might also fit the content: Conservative Reactors Lead.
It seems not to.
Good.
Report comment to moderator
Citizen,
I don’t think it’s fair to equate wanting the Republicans to wake up with hoping Obama fails. The two aren’t one and the same.
They are not necessarily the same, but (1) I’d argue that many Republicans are indeed hoping he is a failure and (2) in order for the Republicans to retake power, it’s going to require some sort of failure on the part of Obama and the Dems.
Obama has been treated much better by conservatives so far, than Bush was treated by liberals.
So what? Why does our behavior have to be in light of the behavior of liberals? How about we be gracious and supportive regardless of how our opponents act?
It’s the other side that needs the lecture on not being a sore loser.
I’m not talking about sore losers. That’s a different argument. Sore losers just need to grow up and learn to cope. I’m talking about those who are already grown up and are trying to view things optimistically. Rather than focusing on how Republicans can get back in power (which according to the last 8 years doesn’t mean much), let’s try helping to make this Obama presidency a success.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I am sort of a Conservative leader. All my dogs are Libertarians, though. So I lead myself.
As a Conservative leader, I certainly don’t envy the transition that Obama faces; he has an uphill climb.
He is going to have to make a big professional jump in responsibility; from standing all day long in front of the liqour store handing out food stamps and coupons for free abortions at the local Planned Parenthood clinic in the 1252th district of Chicago two years ago, to President-Elect of the United States today.
Fortunately, however, during the campaign, the media really throughly vetted him and determined that he was really qualified and experienced for the job.
So we can all rest easy.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think Obama will do ALL bad things, but it’s hard to be optimistic on things we care about when we know FOCA is coming and he plans to shut down his critics by using the Fairness Doctrine. (Sen. Schumer didn’t even wait until Obama was elected to bring that one up!)
One of the reasons I am not as upset as I should be is because of the hawk. Life does go on. These things do go in cycles.
Report comment to moderator
Concerned Citizen #5
The Democrats and the media haven’t hated Bush completely.
They trusted him when he told us a pack of lies about Iraq.
Report comment to moderator
Nick,
Do you mean the same lies about WMD’s that the Clinton administration and other democrats were spouting too? Or the other nations who also believed Iraq had WMD’s?
Report comment to moderator
Those are some good words of wisdom in the original post.
For me, it’s a little weird. I am actually glad Obama won. I am hopeful that for the first time in 8 years the media will begin to say nice things about America again. No more vilification. No more sabotage of the presidency and positive news. No more discussing America with disgust. No more photo ops with our enemies. No more secretly undermining all things American for political advancement.
I am ready for a long rest. It will be entertaining to watch Obama learn and grow, like watching a kid learn how to ride a bike.
My greatest worry is not Obama, who is simplistic and naive. My greatest worry is his dangerous bedfellows. Obama has no discernment. To him, Marxists and terrorists are simply good people who need to be heard.
Wouldn’t it be nice if he picked sane advisers like Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice to watch his back? I fear he’ll pick the worst of the worst.
He already chose a political bomb thrower Rahm Emanuel. He’s the guy who was on the board of Freddie Mac who was cooking the books during the economic meltdown. He misreported billions in profits. Will Obama’s cabinet consist of white collar criminals and racists? We can only pray this won’t be the case.
Report comment to moderator
Charles Krauthammer, a discerning conservative critic, has claimed for months that Obama has both a first-class mind and temperament. He writes today that:
With him we get a president with the political intelligence of a Bill Clinton harnessed to the steely self-discipline of a Vladimir Putin. (I say this admiringly.) With these qualities, Obama will now bestride the political stage as largely as did Reagan.
The fact is that Obama, for better or worse, has become a formidable political leader. Whether he will use his power wisely remains to be seen. We conservatives need to take in this reality with a steely eye and see what happens. We need to be careful not to viciously denigrate Obama in the way Bush’s liberal and isolationist critics did. We need to accord him respect as president and voice our criticism of his positions reasonably without pettiness or rancor.
If we wish to return conservatives to power, we need to come up with some credible leaders and policies that deal with the nations real problems. In past years Eisenhower and Reagan were good Republican politicians, mainly due to their decency, optimism, and lack of rancor, while, also, coming up with appealing national policies. Notice, also, how gracious Pres. Bush has been toward the Obamas. In due course the people will realize that for all his faults Bush was a decent and at times a courageous president.
Report comment to moderator
We conservatives need to take in this reality with a steely eye and see what happens. We need to be careful not to viciously denigrate Obama in the way Bush’s liberal and isolationist critics did. We need to accord him respect as president and voice our criticism of his positions reasonably without pettiness or rancor.
Amen to that.
Report comment to moderator
Karl Zinsmeister is absolutely brilliant. Great quote, as usual.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt,
Barack Obama was the most inexperienced candidate in my lifetime. That’s an objective fact. We know very little of him. We do know that he’s great on a teleprompter and quite undisciplined on the cuff. We know that Obama limited the number of debates. We know the usual smear-machine media agressively protected Obama as a favorite son. They covered for him and tanked for him. He could never have won without that assistance.
But I agree with you that whether he will use his power wisely remains to be seen.
I agree with the need for a steely eye.
I agree that we must not “denigrate Obama in the way Bush’s liberal and isolationist critics did.”
I agree that “We need to accord him respect as president and voice our criticism of his positions reasonably without pettiness or rancor.”
Report comment to moderator
No mention of Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family invoking Godwin’s law within two days. Apparently the conservatives will face the same challenges from Obama administration than Britain faced from the Luftwaffe.
http://www.unbossed.net/index.php?itemid=2395
Report comment to moderator
#3 Thomas
the key term that needs to be used now is an Obama Republican (similar to a Reagan Democrat)
Report comment to moderator
I am still waiting for NBC to stop spewing “Hate Bush” 24×7. Maybe they don’t realize they won. Can someone please let them know? Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #12
My greatest worry is not Obama, who is simplistic and naive.
Well, he clearly won his party’s nomination and the Presidency by being “simplistic and naive”. So what does that make the Republicans? Idiots?
Report comment to moderator
What should conservative Christians focus on politically over the next four years?
Getting used to it. And forget about the next 4 years. Try the next forever. They can talk policies, platforms, message, organization, etc., until they’re blue in the face. None of that matters. What matters is demographics, and those are very, very bad news for conservative Christians. Did anyone see California’s results? McCain got like 1/3 of the vote. And among first time voters nationwide, it was about the same. California used to be rock solid GOP, voting for every GOP prez from 1950-1990. Now it’s gone forever. What changed? The people changed. Back then, CA was overwhelmingly white. Now it’s not. The gay marriage thing passed by 52-48, but 8 years ago it was 61-39. Four or eight more years and it would fail.
Conservative Christians are overwhelmingly white people, and every day this country has fewer white people, and more non-whites. And when blacks vote 9-1 for the Dems, and the Hispanics go 2-1 or higher for the Dems, add in Asians (65%), homosexuals (80%), Jews (80-85%), and white liberals, and the game is over before it begins.
It’s over, Christians. And that’s coming from someone who shares most of your social concerns. But my bigger concern is facing reality, and the reality is that the changing demographics doom any hopes of ever again seeing a conservative Christian political agenda enacted.
Report comment to moderator
“Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. … Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. …[I]t is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic Party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of [Barry] Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.”
–Ronald Reagan
Report comment to moderator
Outkast
That’s a good quote and in some ways reflects the challenges the GOP will face. There are alot of blue dog dems. Unlike Xion, I think the Emmanual choice was speaking more to Pelosi and Reid than others. Rahm Emmanuel’s main task, I think will be to keep the dems in the Senate and House in line and if I am right about that, he was an inspired choice for the job.
Report comment to moderator
Unfortunately I think you are right Night Train. We are watching the death of common sense.
And I also think CB is right. Rahm Emmanuel is the guy that mailed a dead fish to people he disagreed with. He repeatedly stabbed a steak knife into a table shouting the names of Democrats he was putting on a “dead” list. Will he put the fear of God into inept partisans like Pelosi and Reid? Fear maybe, but not of God. They will fear his insanity and rage. And I expect the dead fish to end up in Republican mailboxes from now on.
Report comment to moderator
Paul Ryan, the Republican Congressman from Wisconsin, makes an incisive point in his blog as follows:
As Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Orszag recently warned: “ We will ultimately wind up with a financial crisis that is substantially more severe than even what we are facing today if we don’t alter the path of federal spending.”
President-elect Obama has a unique opportunity to build a bipartisan solution to this grave problem. In his victory speech, he called for bipartisanship and highlighted Lincoln’s principles of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. During the campaign, however, I was deeply disappointed about his responses to this entitlement problem. In the second Presidential debate, when asked where entitlement reform fell among three national priorities, he did not list it. When directly asked whether addressing the entitlement crisis would be one of his priorities as President, he responded it was not on his agenda – at least not for the next two years.
Ryan is right that unless the unfunded liabilities of federal entitlement programs are addressed our country is headed for very serious trouble. If Obama addresses and resolves the entitlements issue, he will have done the nation a fabulous service. Pres. Bush made some attempts in this area but was quite unsuccessful. This in fact in the long run will be the blackest mark on his economic record, as it will also be for Obama should he fail.
Ryan is a rising star in the Republican party and well worth watching. The WSJ today called attention to his Wisconsin victory of 62%-37% in a district that voted in favor of Obama 53%-46%. Ryan is a young 38 and has been in Congress ten years. He has come up with a realistic vision called A Roadmap for America’s Future that is must reading for people concerned about the nations future.
Report comment to moderator
I think this is what you are saying Night Train:
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.” Sir Alexander Frasier Tytler, 1747 – 1843
I disagree about the dictatorship part, as Plato described in the Republic. I think we are headed for European style socialism and ultimately weakness and irrelevance. We will begin to see the same problems that England and France are experiencing now. The unwashed masses yearning to get free stuff will move in and become an increasing economic burden. Censorship of religious speech will continue to increase as will crime and Islamic extortion and terror.
It is the will of the people. And apparently it is the will of God. This all reminds me that America is not really my country. We are merely sojourners to our real country. The will of God is to minister to these people until we reach our final home.
Report comment to moderator
The one big difference between Reagan’s quote and now Outkast, is that all candidates in this election ran as liberals.
Report comment to moderator
NT #21: The gay marriage thing passed by 52-48, but 8 years ago it was 61-39. Four or eight more years and it would fail.
Did you see this in yesterday’s WV?
Proposition 8 [affirming marriage as a union between one man and one woman] would have failed in the Golden State if it were up to white voters, who opposed it by a 51-49 ratio. What carried it over the top was enormous support from black voters, with about 70 percent of them backing it. Hispanics also supported the ban by significant, though smaller, margins.
If the California minority population continues to increase as it has been, then shouldn’t we expect Californians as a whole to continue to support the traditional view of marriage?
Report comment to moderator
“Conservatives can often be ethereal and irrelevant. We must show how our biblical worldview is also a relevant worldview, and that it speaks to what people are dealing with here and now” -Tony Evans
I agree, but then again I don’t.
Evangelicals have much to say that is substantively relevant. Their problem lies with their delivery of the message. Most evangelical political discourse relies on a narrative that owes itself to some combination of revivalistic pietism and social populism. Many folks in major urban centers have no experience with these discursive narratives. Many evangelicals in major urban centers probably have encountered these narratives, but don’t use them in conducting their daily affairs.
Evangelicals (and social conservatives, in particular) have tied the substance of their arguments too closely with this populist/pietist narrative. They will not be taken seriously until they can repackage their ideas into a narrative framework that is intelligible to urban elites. Tim Keller has developed a fruitful ministry in New York because he presents the gospel in a narrative framework that is intelligible to Manhattanites. In other words, he’s held to the substance of evangelical faith, but has jettisoned the narrative forms which have typically been associated with evangelicalism in America.
I have little hope, though, that evangelicals will succeed in bridging this linguistic chasm. As Mike Horton documents in his recent book, much of evangelicalism has recently opted for form over substance. This “Christless Christianity” guts the substance of the gospel message, but holds onto populist/pietist narrative. In that sense, for many evangelicals, form has become their substance.
As globalization continues, those tied to this populist/pietist narrative will find themselves increasingly isolated from substantive discussions.
Conservatism grew under Reagan because substance trumped form. Conservatism has been recently swept from power because form was permitted to trump substance. I believe that evangelicals are principally to blame for this switch. Dick Armey made this point eloquently in his 2006 exchanges with Jim Dobson. Many evangelicals’ fawning adoration for Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin demonstrates that they prefer form over substance. Neither had much to offer in terms of substance. (Palin couldn’t even name the three signatories to NAFTA!) But neither had any difficulties attracting millions of evangelicals to their cause.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!