What do you think?
Rate this book
Politically Incorrect: The Emerging Faith Factor in American Politics
Signed To David & Catherine by Author on the pre-title page A First edition, First printing. Book is in Near Fine condition. Boards are clean, not bumped. Interior is clean and legible. Not remaindered. Dust Jacket is in Near Fine condition. Not chipped or crinkled. Not price clipped. Dust Jacket is covered by Mylar Brodart. All-Ways well boxed, All-Ways fast service. Thanks.
312 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 1994
12 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 6, 2023
REED’S FIRST BOOK, OUTLINING HIS ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVES
Author Ralph Reed wrote in the first chapter of this 1994 book, “It is time to set the record straight. If religious conservatives took their proper proportionate place as leaders in the political and cultural life of the country, we would work to create the kind of society in which presumably all of us would like to live: safe neighborhoods, strong families, schools that work, a smaller government, lower taxes. Civil rights protection would be afforded to all Americans without regard to gender, race, religious belief, ethnicity, age, or physical handicap. Parents would send their children to the school of their choice… Government would be small because citizens and private institutions would involuntarily perform many of its functions. We would not need a large, bloated welfare state to take care of us, for we would take care of each other… Families would function again; marriages would work… People of faith would not be denied … an effective voice in the democratic process… people of faith have a right to be heard, and their religion should not disqualify them from serving in office or participating in the political part of their choice. They are not… asking people to subscribe to their theology; they are asking them to subscribe to their public policy views and to respect their right to participate without their religion being impugned.” (Pg. 10-11)
He recounts, “Most Christians experience a religious conversion and subsequently dive into politics because of their newfound faith. My testimony is quite different. By the time I became a committed Christian in September 1983, I had already worked on Capitol Hill and on numerous statewide and congressional campaigns. Though barely out of college, I was a seasoned political veteran… But my experience in Washington was disillusioning. The lofty ideals that I brought… were shaken by the reality of life in Congress, where votes were sold to the highest bidder… [I] witnessed the seamy underside of politics. I learned quickly that the pursuit of power is an empty and unsatisfying exercise without a moral compass to guide one’s journey.” (Pg. 25-26)
He outlines his vision: “In a world in which religious conservatives served, violent crime would decline and neighborhoods would return to safety… Civility would return to our public discourse as well as private affairs… Children would respect their parents, young people would hoor authority… Children would go to school without worrying about encountering other students who brandish guns or knives in the halls… the government would be forced to balance its checkbook in the same way that hard-working families do. Far less of the wages of hard-working mothers and fathers would be gobbled up by … confiscatory taxes…” (Pg. 28-34)
He observes, “Even those of us with deep faith must acknowledge that religion has been perverted by some who serve evil ends---as when the Ayatollah Khomeini sent little children to die on the battlefield… or when Christian slaveholders in the South invoked Scripture to justify their mistreatment of slaves… But blaming these apostles of hate on the institution of the church ignores all that is good in our various faith traditions. Michal Griffin killed not because of his religion, but in spite of it. And he acted contrary to its clear teachings. Yet a dark thread ran through the conventional explanation for Michael Griffin’s behavior: he was a devout Christian. His pathology was cast in largely religious terms. He was repeatedly identified in the media as a ‘fundamentalist Christian.’” (Pg. 60)
He notes, “Too often those of devout faith have spoken in the public square… using language that did not embrace all their listeners. One example was when a former president [Bailey Smith] of the Southern Baptist Convention stated in 1980 that ‘God does not hear the prayers of Jews.’ Another example came in 1992, when one group… distributed a pamphlet with the warning: ‘To vote for Bill Clinton is a sin against God.’ … In our zeal to motivate our supporters, we sometimes speak in a way that reflects poorly on our Christian faith.” (Pg. 67)
He asserts, “Washington has lost touch with the values of middle America. The career politicians who craft our laws and the bureaucrats who administer them are no longer responsible to the will of the people. The American public intuitively understands that government … threatens the prosperity of the economy, and that its policies result in the withering … of the family as the central institution of the social order.” (Pg. 103) Later, he adds, “This does not mean that only a president who agrees with every single element in the religious conservative agenda can reinstill public confidence in religion. Jimmy Carter, despite all his other shortcomings, did speak eloquently about his faith. Americans yearn for political leaders for whom faith is important in their daily lives.” (Pg. 136)
He points out, “The social ferment of the 1960s relied heavily on religious imagery and language. Jewish rabbis marched arm-in-arm with black Christian clergy… Opposition to the Vietnam War featured Roman Catholic priests from Father Daniel Berrigan to Theodore Hesburgh… When Robert F. Kennedy made his fateful decision to oppose Lyndon Johnson… in 1968, he did so after sharing Holy Communion with United Farmworkers leader Cesar Chavez at a special mass… Such faith-based activism… has suddenly become suspect, to be treated as potentially subversive… In fact, it is part of a cherished American tradition of religious dissent and church-based reform. Liberals have denounced those who entered politics to serve a religious end for violating the ‘separation of church and state.’ Such falsehoods… seek to redefine out national character … in a way that expresses… hostility towards religion as a legitimate source of political ideas.” (Pg. 153-154)
He states, “critics did not realize… that even as they danced on the grave of the Moral Majority, a new pro-family movement was rising… from its ashes. [Jerry] Falwell had accomplished his objective of reawakening the slumbering giant of the churchgoing vote. He had passed the torch to a new generation of leadership who… redirected the pro-family impulse in a more permanent, grassroots direction.” (Pg. 192)
He argues, “it is grossly unfair (and inaccurate) to suggest any historical continuity between the nativist and racist agenda of the Klan, or modern counterparts like David Duke, and the pro-family movement… there is much in the language of the Ku Klux Klan, Massive Resistance, and David Duke that is disturbing for religious conservatives. For the past complicity of the white church in the mistreatment of African-Americans and Jews is too large a blot on our history to deny. Tragically, white evangelicals… were among the most fiery champions of slavery and later segregation---all the while… quoting the Bible to justify their misdeeds. Why are white evangelicals accorded so little respect in the public square today? Certainly part of the answer lies in our past… White evangelicals … remained on the sidelines during the greatest struggle for social justice in this century. They did so by claiming that the gospel was not a political tract and that the mission of the church was to save souls… not to register people to vote.” (Pg. 235-237)
He advises, “We must frankly acknowledge the errors of the past… and forsake racism as both an ideology and a political style… We must build a genuinely inclusive movement that embraces the full racial diversity of America, and makes room for our black, brown, and yellow brothers and sisters in Christ. If we flow out of lily-white churches into lily-white political organizations and support only lily-white candidates for public office, we cannot expect the larger society to take us or our agenda seriously.” (Pg. 241)
He explains, “I am often asked by grassroots activists whether or not I support a third political party… There is no question that such a party embracing family values and smaller government would enjoy public support … However, such a party would not succeed as effectively as involvement in both of the existing parties. Historically, third party movement either flounder or succeed by failing: their agendas are absorbed by one of the other parties…causing them to wither away and die. For this reason, the best strategy for pro-family activists and their allies is to become involved as Republicans and Democrats.” (Pg. 254)
This book (and other books of Reed’s) will appeal to many conservative Christians.
Author Ralph Reed wrote in the first chapter of this 1994 book, “It is time to set the record straight. If religious conservatives took their proper proportionate place as leaders in the political and cultural life of the country, we would work to create the kind of society in which presumably all of us would like to live: safe neighborhoods, strong families, schools that work, a smaller government, lower taxes. Civil rights protection would be afforded to all Americans without regard to gender, race, religious belief, ethnicity, age, or physical handicap. Parents would send their children to the school of their choice… Government would be small because citizens and private institutions would involuntarily perform many of its functions. We would not need a large, bloated welfare state to take care of us, for we would take care of each other… Families would function again; marriages would work… People of faith would not be denied … an effective voice in the democratic process… people of faith have a right to be heard, and their religion should not disqualify them from serving in office or participating in the political part of their choice. They are not… asking people to subscribe to their theology; they are asking them to subscribe to their public policy views and to respect their right to participate without their religion being impugned.” (Pg. 10-11)
He recounts, “Most Christians experience a religious conversion and subsequently dive into politics because of their newfound faith. My testimony is quite different. By the time I became a committed Christian in September 1983, I had already worked on Capitol Hill and on numerous statewide and congressional campaigns. Though barely out of college, I was a seasoned political veteran… But my experience in Washington was disillusioning. The lofty ideals that I brought… were shaken by the reality of life in Congress, where votes were sold to the highest bidder… [I] witnessed the seamy underside of politics. I learned quickly that the pursuit of power is an empty and unsatisfying exercise without a moral compass to guide one’s journey.” (Pg. 25-26)
He outlines his vision: “In a world in which religious conservatives served, violent crime would decline and neighborhoods would return to safety… Civility would return to our public discourse as well as private affairs… Children would respect their parents, young people would hoor authority… Children would go to school without worrying about encountering other students who brandish guns or knives in the halls… the government would be forced to balance its checkbook in the same way that hard-working families do. Far less of the wages of hard-working mothers and fathers would be gobbled up by … confiscatory taxes…” (Pg. 28-34)
He observes, “Even those of us with deep faith must acknowledge that religion has been perverted by some who serve evil ends---as when the Ayatollah Khomeini sent little children to die on the battlefield… or when Christian slaveholders in the South invoked Scripture to justify their mistreatment of slaves… But blaming these apostles of hate on the institution of the church ignores all that is good in our various faith traditions. Michal Griffin killed not because of his religion, but in spite of it. And he acted contrary to its clear teachings. Yet a dark thread ran through the conventional explanation for Michael Griffin’s behavior: he was a devout Christian. His pathology was cast in largely religious terms. He was repeatedly identified in the media as a ‘fundamentalist Christian.’” (Pg. 60)
He notes, “Too often those of devout faith have spoken in the public square… using language that did not embrace all their listeners. One example was when a former president [Bailey Smith] of the Southern Baptist Convention stated in 1980 that ‘God does not hear the prayers of Jews.’ Another example came in 1992, when one group… distributed a pamphlet with the warning: ‘To vote for Bill Clinton is a sin against God.’ … In our zeal to motivate our supporters, we sometimes speak in a way that reflects poorly on our Christian faith.” (Pg. 67)
He asserts, “Washington has lost touch with the values of middle America. The career politicians who craft our laws and the bureaucrats who administer them are no longer responsible to the will of the people. The American public intuitively understands that government … threatens the prosperity of the economy, and that its policies result in the withering … of the family as the central institution of the social order.” (Pg. 103) Later, he adds, “This does not mean that only a president who agrees with every single element in the religious conservative agenda can reinstill public confidence in religion. Jimmy Carter, despite all his other shortcomings, did speak eloquently about his faith. Americans yearn for political leaders for whom faith is important in their daily lives.” (Pg. 136)
He points out, “The social ferment of the 1960s relied heavily on religious imagery and language. Jewish rabbis marched arm-in-arm with black Christian clergy… Opposition to the Vietnam War featured Roman Catholic priests from Father Daniel Berrigan to Theodore Hesburgh… When Robert F. Kennedy made his fateful decision to oppose Lyndon Johnson… in 1968, he did so after sharing Holy Communion with United Farmworkers leader Cesar Chavez at a special mass… Such faith-based activism… has suddenly become suspect, to be treated as potentially subversive… In fact, it is part of a cherished American tradition of religious dissent and church-based reform. Liberals have denounced those who entered politics to serve a religious end for violating the ‘separation of church and state.’ Such falsehoods… seek to redefine out national character … in a way that expresses… hostility towards religion as a legitimate source of political ideas.” (Pg. 153-154)
He states, “critics did not realize… that even as they danced on the grave of the Moral Majority, a new pro-family movement was rising… from its ashes. [Jerry] Falwell had accomplished his objective of reawakening the slumbering giant of the churchgoing vote. He had passed the torch to a new generation of leadership who… redirected the pro-family impulse in a more permanent, grassroots direction.” (Pg. 192)
He argues, “it is grossly unfair (and inaccurate) to suggest any historical continuity between the nativist and racist agenda of the Klan, or modern counterparts like David Duke, and the pro-family movement… there is much in the language of the Ku Klux Klan, Massive Resistance, and David Duke that is disturbing for religious conservatives. For the past complicity of the white church in the mistreatment of African-Americans and Jews is too large a blot on our history to deny. Tragically, white evangelicals… were among the most fiery champions of slavery and later segregation---all the while… quoting the Bible to justify their misdeeds. Why are white evangelicals accorded so little respect in the public square today? Certainly part of the answer lies in our past… White evangelicals … remained on the sidelines during the greatest struggle for social justice in this century. They did so by claiming that the gospel was not a political tract and that the mission of the church was to save souls… not to register people to vote.” (Pg. 235-237)
He advises, “We must frankly acknowledge the errors of the past… and forsake racism as both an ideology and a political style… We must build a genuinely inclusive movement that embraces the full racial diversity of America, and makes room for our black, brown, and yellow brothers and sisters in Christ. If we flow out of lily-white churches into lily-white political organizations and support only lily-white candidates for public office, we cannot expect the larger society to take us or our agenda seriously.” (Pg. 241)
He explains, “I am often asked by grassroots activists whether or not I support a third political party… There is no question that such a party embracing family values and smaller government would enjoy public support … However, such a party would not succeed as effectively as involvement in both of the existing parties. Historically, third party movement either flounder or succeed by failing: their agendas are absorbed by one of the other parties…causing them to wither away and die. For this reason, the best strategy for pro-family activists and their allies is to become involved as Republicans and Democrats.” (Pg. 254)
This book (and other books of Reed’s) will appeal to many conservative Christians.
March 6, 2017
This book is quite dated, being published in 1996, making it 21 years old. You would think it wouldn't be relevant to our politics today, but it surprisingly is. Many of the issues discussed in this book are still large concerns today, such as abortion, poverty and crime. Many of the current events discussed in the book as of the publishing are also interesting. They can be quite dated and irrelevant as they are important to know about. One example would be his proposed tax plans that were shot down. That is no longer relevant today, as we don't have to worry about any tax hikes from Clinton. However, learning that Bill Clinton would do just about anything to gain political power in his run for political offices was not only an insight into his character, but his wife as well, who did much of the same this last year during the 2016 election.
On a side note, it was really funny to read about some of the people who would one day run for president, being this year. I'm sure the author would have never expected some of the people he wrote about would run (Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, John Kasich). The funniest part is when he was talking about modern day (1996 "modern day") businessmen and pioneers and mentioned Donald Trump, who is now President of the United States!
Back to the main review, the author did a very good job a presenting the balance Christians should have in participating in politics today (1996) and going forward (from 1996). He also used historical examples to show how Christians have made an impact on America and how they should in the future. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the book was the foresight he had about American politics. He talked a lot of the movement of Ross Perot and how America was getting sick of the two main parties. He said that this sentiment in America would continue to form politics, and that's how we got Donald Trump.
In regard to the main issues discussed in the book, I only cared about a handful. I'm a one or two issue voter, worrying mainly about ending abortion and protecting Christians' civil liberties. The sections on taxes, health care, labor, etc. were not informative or interesting for me being that they don't really effect me or I don't know anything about them. The author did encourage me to get more involved not only in politics, but helping in the communities as the church more as well.
Overall, this is a very insightful look into American politics and Christians' involvement in the 1990's and prescription for Christians' involvement in the political process going forward.
On a side note, it was really funny to read about some of the people who would one day run for president, being this year. I'm sure the author would have never expected some of the people he wrote about would run (Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, John Kasich). The funniest part is when he was talking about modern day (1996 "modern day") businessmen and pioneers and mentioned Donald Trump, who is now President of the United States!
Back to the main review, the author did a very good job a presenting the balance Christians should have in participating in politics today (1996) and going forward (from 1996). He also used historical examples to show how Christians have made an impact on America and how they should in the future. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the book was the foresight he had about American politics. He talked a lot of the movement of Ross Perot and how America was getting sick of the two main parties. He said that this sentiment in America would continue to form politics, and that's how we got Donald Trump.
In regard to the main issues discussed in the book, I only cared about a handful. I'm a one or two issue voter, worrying mainly about ending abortion and protecting Christians' civil liberties. The sections on taxes, health care, labor, etc. were not informative or interesting for me being that they don't really effect me or I don't know anything about them. The author did encourage me to get more involved not only in politics, but helping in the communities as the church more as well.
Overall, this is a very insightful look into American politics and Christians' involvement in the 1990's and prescription for Christians' involvement in the political process going forward.
October 6, 2018
dated.
June 8, 2015
Ten years after the "emerging faith factor" of the subtitle, I finally picked Ralph Reed's Christian Coalition declaration off my shelf of "books I need to read." From this distance, the book takes on an interesting twist. The hothouse fervor of the battle between Christians and Clinton (to boil it down, perhaps unfairly or unwisely, to its essential elements) seems almost quaint now that we are nearly through the George W. Bush era, and the Clinton we speak of now is Hillary and her 2008 Presidential candidacy.
Reed does a good job listing the pain points of the pro-family Christian movement, and documenting what a conservative Christian government would look like. One flaw in his writing is that while he correctly acknowledges the cultural and spiritual roots of many of the problems (and solutions) Americans faced in 1994 and today, he then describes the amelioration of these problems based on the political policies of the Christian Coalition. Sorry, Ralph, you can't have it both ways--no political policies or programs, even wise and good ones like you propose, can address the spiritual problems you document. Reed quotes the well-known aphorism "All politics is local", but neglects the more important eternal truth that "all religion is individual"--only God can cure the spiritual sickness that starts in the heart of each individual and is multiplied out to the society where we individually live together. The cure is worked in the heart by God, not in the culture by man.
Writing before 1994, early in the Clinton presidency, Reed is too sanguine in his belief that Clinton's raunchy behavior and bad governance would either bring him down or lead to massive Christian political participation and change of the political landscape of both parties. As events proved, neither happened; Clinton stared down his self-imposed problems and served out both terms, escaping a bitter impeachment battle.
Looking forward (from 1994) Reed accurately predicts the changing media landscape (internet and mushrooming cable outlet options), but on the economic side he misses the still-to-come tech boom that was just taking off in 1994 before cycling back to bust after 2000.
What is interesting from 2007's perspective is also how he missed the real impact of this new media era on politics. He predicted new levels of participation in party politics based on new access to politicians and the political process. What appears to have happened, and Reed as well as most other prophets and observers of the last decade have missed, is the use of "social computing" or "Web 2.0" for the individualization of communication. The new communication channels, rather than making people more outspoken in group participation, have divided the group into many "me's"--everyone has a Face book wall, a blog, a web site.
This will in the long run, have greater political implications, but probably not the ones that Reed foresaw in 1994. But Reed did correctly predict that politics was entering a period of chaotic shifts based on the cultural divide and communication diversity he saw coming. In 2007, we are still following the runoff of that deluge of change to see where it will lead.
Reed does a good job listing the pain points of the pro-family Christian movement, and documenting what a conservative Christian government would look like. One flaw in his writing is that while he correctly acknowledges the cultural and spiritual roots of many of the problems (and solutions) Americans faced in 1994 and today, he then describes the amelioration of these problems based on the political policies of the Christian Coalition. Sorry, Ralph, you can't have it both ways--no political policies or programs, even wise and good ones like you propose, can address the spiritual problems you document. Reed quotes the well-known aphorism "All politics is local", but neglects the more important eternal truth that "all religion is individual"--only God can cure the spiritual sickness that starts in the heart of each individual and is multiplied out to the society where we individually live together. The cure is worked in the heart by God, not in the culture by man.
Writing before 1994, early in the Clinton presidency, Reed is too sanguine in his belief that Clinton's raunchy behavior and bad governance would either bring him down or lead to massive Christian political participation and change of the political landscape of both parties. As events proved, neither happened; Clinton stared down his self-imposed problems and served out both terms, escaping a bitter impeachment battle.
Looking forward (from 1994) Reed accurately predicts the changing media landscape (internet and mushrooming cable outlet options), but on the economic side he misses the still-to-come tech boom that was just taking off in 1994 before cycling back to bust after 2000.
What is interesting from 2007's perspective is also how he missed the real impact of this new media era on politics. He predicted new levels of participation in party politics based on new access to politicians and the political process. What appears to have happened, and Reed as well as most other prophets and observers of the last decade have missed, is the use of "social computing" or "Web 2.0" for the individualization of communication. The new communication channels, rather than making people more outspoken in group participation, have divided the group into many "me's"--everyone has a Face book wall, a blog, a web site.
This will in the long run, have greater political implications, but probably not the ones that Reed foresaw in 1994. But Reed did correctly predict that politics was entering a period of chaotic shifts based on the cultural divide and communication diversity he saw coming. In 2007, we are still following the runoff of that deluge of change to see where it will lead.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews