(Author’s note: I wrote this paper as part of an Interest Group Politics seminar at the University of Oregon in the fall of 1980, taught by Harmon Ziegler. At the time, I was your typical undergraduate activist—I had just turned 23 years old and had jumped around between several majors and two schools. I had attended Northwest Christian College for two years before transferring to the University of Oregon, and seen the beginnings of evangelical political organization. Had taken coursework at NCC in cultural anthropology, including one term of a specific missionary anthropology course which sought to implement anthropological and sociological analysis in evangelization.
At the time, Eugene was also fresh off of defeating an anti-gay initiative. I knew people involved in that campaign. I also knew people involved in the anti-nuclear and alternative energy movements. My ex-boyfriend had been defeated in a run for Eugene City Council where his past political history had been a major issue. There are still things that I don’t dare write about that campaign.
I was also the president of the Lane County Young Democrats, a Lane County Democratic Central Committeeperson, and an Oregon State Central Committeeperson. I spent the next five months working at the Oregon State Legislature as an intern for State Representative Wally Priestly, a Democrat who was also an open Socialist.
Keep this background in mind when you read this paper. I present it to you as written in that era, with minor formatting changes to reflect the difference between typewriter and computer. That includes a change to APA-style citation instead of footnoting in the original.)
#
FISHPAC AND THE NEW CHRISTIAN RIGHT
“Nobody’s ever accused the National Council of Churches of mixing religion and politics. But when ol’ Jerry gets into it, that’s violating separation of church and state. The problem isn’t violating anything. The problem is that we don’t agree with those buzzards—and that we outnumber them.”
Jerry Falwell, quoted in Newsweek, September 15, 1980
Christianity has had an interesting and volatile affair with politics during the nearly two thousand years of its existence. Originally viewed as threatening by the religious and secular leaders of first century AD Judea, Christianity progressed from a hopeful message for the downtrodden to the tool of powerful emperors. It later became a powerful secular entity in itself through the Catholic Church and was used by both Protestant and Catholic rules as a justification for disposing of problematic persons.
This affair between Christian beliefs and politics has continued to the present day. It has reared its head in many ways, in many times, in forms both liberal and conservative. Its latest manifestation appeared in the electoral campaign of 1980, when the so-called “New Christian Right” made a significant, apparently powerful appearance, influencing not only a presidential election but many other races as well.
This paper is an examination of certain areas of this “New Christian Right.” It is not an exhaustive examination—to do so would require more time and space. Rather, this paper will examine some of the origins and beliefs common to this movement, and will close with an examination of one Christian political action committee.
#
“Separation of church and state simply means that there will not be an established religion, or that religion will not control the government. The Constitution never meant to say the separation of God from government. If it did mean to say that, why do we have the Ten Commandments above the Supreme Court? Why do we have “In God We Trust” on all our coins?”
Mike Gass, Moral Majority organizer, quoted in the Willamette Valley Observer, November 27, 1980
This emergence of the New Christian Right is not so new a phenomenon. The interface between fundamentalist-evangelical religion and right-wing politics has been observed frequently in the past. Richard Hofstadter commented that “not only is the entire right-wing movement infused at the mass level with the fundamentalist style of mind, but the place in its ranks of fundamentalist preachers, ex-preachers, and sons of preachers is so prominent as to underline the mutual congeniality of thought” (Hofstadter, 1967). Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab comment on the role of moralism in right-wing extremism, pointing out that a deficiency of moral character is viewed as the source of social evil in this group. They also add that “Most of the material, however, is not religious in style or content; for the most part Christianity is used as the reference by which to identify the body of good intentions and good character in the world.” (Lipset and Raab, 1970). This use of Christianity also ties in with the use of certain types of Christian thought: for example, the use of an apocalyptic interpretation of history. By using this viewpoint—a moralistic, apocalyptic approach to belief, this movement can use the Bible to maintain its particular cultural bias without dealing with the Biblical demands for social justice and concern. One frequently hears these people discussing morality—in connection with sexuality, pietistic behavior, and patriotism—without any consideration of the great Biblical themes of justice and mercy which wind their way throughout the Old and New Testaments. This emphasis not only lifts morality out of context, but it also distorts the actual Biblical message.
1980 is not the first time these people have appeared in the political process. These groups were involved with the Ku Klux Klan, with the Coughlin movement during the Depression, with McCarthyism, and, most recently, with Barry Goldwater’s campaign for President. The support for Goldwater was nearly religious in intensity, with people such as Phyllis Schlafly proclaiming that “By mid-1963, impartial observers could see that the Republican Party had one obvious, winning candidate. He combined the integrity with Robert A. Taft with the glamour of Dwight Eisenhower. He had proved his ability to win against heavy odds. He was truly a national candidate with a demonstrated following in all the 50 states. For the first time, Republicans had a candidate with genuine appeal to the youth of America.” (Schlafly, 1964). Clif White, organizer for the Draft Goldwater movement, remarked on the number of “little people” who gave up various things during the campaign to further Goldwater’s candidacy. The kind of dedication shown by these people, the dedication which will bring them out to work for the candidate, is close to the emotional dedication shown by participants in many fundamentalist churches.
This current rise of evangelical-fundamentalist thought in politics can be directly attributed to several factors. First of these is the so-called “evangelical awakening of the 1970s.” Early in the ‘70s, church growth studies showed that liberal congregations were on the decline while conservative congregations were growing. This growth has been attributed to many factors by church growth experts. In any case, the tangible results have been that there is a large, dedicated, fundamentalist Christian contingent developing which is growing.
The second cause of this group’s involvement in politics has been their disappointment with Jimmy Carter. In their opinion, Carter, the born-again candidate in 1976, did not hold true to what they believe. One leader of this movement comments that “It was a tremendous letdown, if not a betrayal, to have Carter stumping for the ERA, for not stopping federally paid abortions, for advocating homosexual rights.” (Mayer & others, September 1980).
Still another case has been attributed to the IRS’s 1978 attempt to take away the tax-exempt status of private schools. For many evangelicals this movement was the last straw, threatening the private Christian schools which are springing up nationwide.
The major groups involved in this Christian Right have been identified by Robert Zwier and Richard Smith as the Christian Voice, Moral Majority, Christian Voter’s Victory Fund, Religious Roundtable, and the National Christian Action Coalition (Zwier and Smith, 1980). They pinpoint their basic beliefs as consisting of the following prepositions: a.) Sin and its symptoms are dangerously real and will cause America’s collapse; b.) the world is divided into two camps, communism, which is totally evil, and the US and its allies, which are good; and c.) Christians have a God-given responsibility to be politically active (Zwier and Smith, 1980).
These prepositions all feed back into the apocalyptic world view. This world view is characterized by a belief in an impending judgement and a dualistic perception of the world. Everything is all good or all evil. If you are not with God, you are with Satan. The pattern of belief is emotional, with admonitions to wavering believers to “just trust in Christ.” The result is a situation where one can find a fourteen-year-old saying “I don’t think it right for women to wear pants…The Bible says that women should be, you know, feminine.” (Fairlie, August 1980)—an emotional attempt to maintain the status quo. Again, this lifts the actual Biblical message out of contest by taking a few verses literally, completely out of context.
Nationwide, these groups claim a potential voting block of 30-65 million voters (Mayer & others, September 1980). Mike Gass of Moral Majority in Oregon claims that 53.7 million Americans have had a personal experience with Jesus Christ, and 90% of all Americans believe that the Ten Commandments are viable, which, in his opinion, gives the Moral Majority a majority (Clark, November 1980). The focus of the campaign of these groups this fall was on the 25 million or so of the fundamentalist conservatives they have identified as non-voting (Mayer & others, September 1980). Of these and others, they claim to have registered over 2-4 million to vote (Mayer & others, September 1980).
Of course, there is a problem with claiming these kind of figures. Despite whatever Jerry Falwell and others may claim, it is not likely that these people have voted in a consistent block. Many of these people may have voted for Ronald Reagan and other conservative candidates. Many others may not have voted, and still others may have been pulled by other affiliations, such as traditional Democratic registration, or ties with other special interest groups. The case may very well be, too, that these groups will fade away in a few years. Only time can show what will become of these groups.
#
“Political activity will not result in the ultimate salvation of men or nations. However, for testimony’s sake, we do need to serve the whole of society by helping to find positive answers to the problems of today. If we, as Christians, don’t bring the counsel of God’s word to bear in government decision-making, who will??”
From a FishPac informational flyer, 1980
Lane County’s own Christian political action committee was founded during the summer of 1979. According to John Hubbird, Executive Director for FishPac, 10-15 people began to discuss the possibility of forming a Christian-oriented political action committee (Note: further sources are from an interview with John Hubbird or the FishPac informational leaflet). These people felt that a Christian perspective was needed to deal with the problems of today. The committee was filed with the state September 30, 1979. Among the people filed as members of the board of directors was Mike O’Brien, who was instrumental in the Hussite takeover of the Lane County Republican Central Committee in 1978.
The goals of FishPac are, first of all, to be an influence for character and integrity in government. This is done by working through candidates for positive Biblical solutions to today’s problems. FishPac intends to act as a pressure/special interest group, creating a situation where the endorsement and support of FishPac will become valuable to candidates. They also intend to become a stimulus for responsible action by giving persons things to consider about the various candidates.
At this time FishPac has an active membership of 100 people. These members represent a wide political spectrum with a common base of Christian faith, according to Hubbird. He also claims that the group only has a consensus in the areas of gay rights and abortion, with sentiment running 60-65% against the ERA. Hubbird pictures the active membership as being more of the scholarly type of evangelical. The philosophy of these people is represented more by theologians such as Francis Schaeffer (an evangelical theologian/missionary who views his mission that of ministering to the intellectual community) rather than the popular Pentecostal writer Hal Lindsay (who writes a modern version of the old hellfire and damnation rap).
FishPac is funded through contributions. Formal membership consists of contributing $50 or $100 to the organization. Hubbird (optimistically) projects a 1000 person membership by the end of this year, with a 5000 person membership by 1982. He also hopes to educate the Christian community about the value and use of political tax credits.
Funds and activist members are channeled into the following priorities. One priority is candidate assistance—including training candidates and campaign workers, candidate and volunteer recruitment, and campaign expenses for endorsed candidates (not clarified as to degree). The other priority is administration—including communication to supporters, candidate research, field staff operations, and promotion. At this time the administrative end—especially the communication to supporters—has been the major activity. According to the Secretary of State’s office, FishPac did not make any contributions to candidates. Their Contributions and Expenditures report show that their money went solely into administration.
The endorsement process used by FishPac is based on questionnaires and interviews with candidates. These are done by what FishPac calls its Research Committee. This information is then passed on to study groups, who study the issues and candidates and make recommendations to the Endorsement Committee. This committee considers the findings of the other two groups, and votes on whether to make an endorsement, state a preference, or make no recommendation at all.
FishPac bases its endorsement on three criteria: experience for the position, position on issues of concern to the Christian community, and the philosophy or world-view of the candidate. The issues FishPac identified as important were: the Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, State/Federally financed abortion on demand, additional civil rights for homosexuals, tuition tax credits for parents with children in private schools, “voucher system” of educational funding, scientific creationism being taught in public schools, capital punishment, and voluntary prayer in public schools—all issues which are also concerns of national Christian political groups.
How effective is FishPac? In the general election, three out of six of the candidates they endorsed (including a double endorsement) won. However, one of these three races was in Springfield and the other two were in rural districts (Districts 43 and 44). Of these two races, one race had a double endorsement of the two strong candidates in the race, so that, either way, a FishPac candidate would win. In District 43, the endorsed candidate was a strong incumbent with a large campaign chest. Looking at these endorsements, I would say that it would take a while for FishPac to become a strong force in even local politics, depending, of course, on the political climate in the future. However, they will remain a force to be considered in certain areas, in certain races. While they are not allowed to lobby, it will be very interesting to see how they present themselves in Salem—even if they only send someone to monitor what goes on. FishPac may outlive the Moral Majority, but, like the forces which spawned this newest Christian Right movement, it will remain as a force to be considered. With FishPac, as with the Moral Majority and other groups, only time will show what will happen.
#
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
Clark, Doug. “The Observer Interview—Mike Gass: Christening the New Right,” Willamette Valley Observer, November 27, 1980.
Fairlie, Henry. “Born-Again Bland,” The New Republic, August 2 and 9, 1980.
Hofstadter, Richard. The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays. New York: Vintage Books, 1967.
Lipset, Seymour Martin and Raab, Earl. The Politics of Unreason: Right-Wing Extremism in America, 1790-1970. New York: Harper and Row, 1970
Mayer, Allen, and others. “A Tide of Born-Again Politics,” Newsweek, September 15, 1980.
Schlafly, Phyllis. A Choice not an Echo. Alton, IL: Pere Marquette Press, 1964.
Zwier, Robert, and Smith, Richard. “Christian Politics and the New Right,” The Christian Century, October 8, 1980.
Secondary Sources:
Hoge, Dean R. and Roozan, David A, ed. Understanding Church Growth and Decline: 1950-1978. New York: Pilgrim Press, 1979.
Kelley, Dean M. Why Conservative Churches Are Growing: A Study in the Sociology of Religion. New York: Harper and Row, 1972.
Lictman, Allan J. “The New Prohibitionism,” The Christian Century, October 29, 1980
White, F. Clifton with Gill, William J. Suite 3505: The Story of the Draft Goldwater Movement. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington Press, 1967.
Other Sources:
Interview with John Hubbird, Executive Director, FishPac
Informational Leaflet, FishPac
Phone discussion with Secretary of State’s office, Salem
#
(Afterword: Obviously I missed some obvious elements such as racism even though it is obliquely referred to with the priority given to school vouchers and private schools. The usage of “those people” makes me cringe but it is reflective of the era and my age. I wish I’d kept those notes from the Hubbird interview since I didn’t have access to a small recorder at that time. And I was overly optimistic about the endurance of the organizing which was happening.
I was not so optimistic by the 1990s. Nonetheless, this serves as a small snapshot of the early organization of the Religious Right. Understand that this was a paper written by a college student—senior level, but still undergraduate.
FYI: the reference to the “Hussite takeover” in the Lane County Republican Party refers to Walter Huss, who started an evangelical takeover of the Oregon Republicans.)