Fusing Church and State: The New Televangelist Model of Conservative Campaigning for Political Office
Sharron Angle admits that the reason for running for office and getting interviewed by the "fair and balanced" media is to raise money, not to discuss policy issues. It's the Prosperity Gospel at work and it has infested the Christianist Tea Party wing of the GOP. I don't know about any of you, but I find it rather repulsive.
Posts
7 comments:
I think you are seriously overreaching when you link Angle's policy of only going on networks that will allow her bleg for cash as proof of some weird Christian belief that God wants her to be rich. I'm not saying Angle doesn't buy into that stuff, but I see no reason to believe this is anything other than marketing and politics.
If I was a Tea Party candidate, I would behave in much the same way. They don't get much party access to the channels of corporate money that established GOP candidates enjoy, so lack of funds has been a serious issue for almost all of these candidates. They have to raise money somehow. As for only going on Fox or other friendly networks, I would find more fault in that if it were a Presidential candidate running for a national position, but at the state level you are only going to get a limited amount of national exposure and you want it to be good. Rand Paul is the only big league Tea Party candidate I have seen who ventured out into enemy territory, and Rachael Maddow quickly made him regret it. Sadly, none of our national news media outlets are very good places to have a good debate that can include nuanced and detailed positions. You have to dig around on the internet for that stuff.
But, Eric, isn't it relevant to know whether Sharron Angle buys into this stuff? She made those comments, of all places, in an interview on the Christian Broadcasting Network. I don't think it's a reach at all, especially when you put the whole interview in context. Check it out and let me know if you think its a stretch or an overexaggeration to suggest that the blending of her faith-based politics and her approach to fundraising is not consistent with the ideas of the Prosperity Gospel.
Here's the link to her interview on CBN:
http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2010/07/14/exclusive-sharron-angle-talks-to-the-brody-file.aspx
"But, Eric, isn't it relevant to know whether Sharron Angle buys into this stuff?"
Maybe it would be more relevant to me if I lived in Nevada, but even then, after reading the entire transcript you linked to, I don't see where you link her fundraising efforts with her spiritual beliefs. The only times she ever brought up her religious beliefs were when she was asked a biographical question or a question specifically about her religion (which are the kinds of questions you'd expect to be asked in a CBN interview). She gave religious answers to questions about her religious beliefs. In questions about policy or finance or specifics about her campaign, her ansswers were wholly secular. In fact, she talked about how at one point her campaign didn't have enough money to revamp her website, which leads back to what I said before about many of her media decisions being more about about money than anything else (she even seemed to allude that she might go on Meet The Press if they'd allow her to shill for campaign donations while she was on the air).
And even if she had said something to the effect of, "I pray for the money to win this campaign every day and night and I believe I will get that money if it is God's will.", that is not a statement that would tend to worry me, even though I don't personally believe God works that way. Likewise, I don't believe that looking in a mirror and repeating positive affirmations about yourself is likely to yield positive results, as is professed by branches of cognitive psychology, but plenty of public leaders employ this practice and believe it helps them, and knowing (or not knowing) about it doesn't effect my vote.
Eric - Angle believes her candidacy is a calling by God. She specifically said this in the interview. In other words, it is divinely-ordained, and thus will be provided for by God and rewarded by God. To me, this means that everything about her campaign is both divinely-ordained and blessed by God -- including how she fundraises for such campaigns. Essentially, if you are doing God's work, the prosperity will follow if you are bold enough to go after it. The fact that she doesn't mention God when she talks about her website doesn't mean that she doesn't believe that divine grace will provide what she needs to revamp her website as well as beat Reid. When she talks about needing 10 million people contributing $25 each to support her divinely-called campaign, that's very much in line with what prosperity gospel evangelists say to their flocks to help fund their divinely-ordained work.
I understand your position that even if Angle's faith-based politics undergirds her campaign-financing strategy, it wouldn't bother you and wouldn't affect your vote. I have no issues with that. I also understand that it likely doesn't bother a whole bunch of other people, too. Although it would and does bother me for what it means regarding the fusion of church and state, I wasn't really responding to that. Rather, I was responding to your suggestion in your first comment that my linking her campaign-financing strategy to the Prosperity Gospel was perhaps a serious overreach; but I don't think it is that much of an overreach when you look at the full picture. The links may not be so obviously direct, but it's not absurd when looking at the faith-based emphasis of Angle's campaign to believe that the links exist. In fact, if you ask me, it would be exceptional if they weren't.
Eric - I also want to say how much I really appreciate your comments. Not only are you a very formidable intellectual rival, you also are very helpful in calling me out and reining me in when I let my emotions get the better of me and I start to pop off. I know I can tick you off sometimes with my rants, and even offend you, and yet you still come back and engage me. I know I am a better thinker for it, and I also know that I make a more conscious effort to be more measured in what I write because I know you read the stuff I write and take it seriously. I don't always succeed, especially when the subject hits raw nerves (and the subject of Palin always does), but I know I'd make much more of a fool of myself if you weren't around to call me on it. So, thanks. And I really hope to meet you in person some day.
Thx, Huck, same goes to you. And I still think you are making a lot of unstated assumptions about what she believes. They could be true. They could not be true at all. They could be generally true but a lot more nuanced than the way you presented it. But at the end of the day you certainly seem to be ascribing ideas to this woman that she did not convey.
And for the record, I enjoy coming here because I have to do a lot more mental pushups arguing w/ you than I do with the rowdy crowd at RWN (many of whom I agree with). The level of discourse over there has really fallen off a cliff and it is a shame. There are still some good discussion that happen over there, but liberals are no longer allowed to be a part of them.
Post a Comment