[A-List] US imperialism: the religious ideological component

[Michael Keaney]

The evangelical roots of US unilateralism
By Duane Oldfield
Asia Times, March 26 2004

(Posted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus)

While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the
international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to
exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively ...

Today humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom's
triumph over all these foes. The United States welcomes our responsibility
to lead in this great mission.

But our responsibility to history is clear: to answer these attacks and rid
the world of evil.

- The National Security Strategy of the United States (2002), p 6, preface,
and p 5.

That the administration of US President George W Bush is pursuing a
unilateralist foreign policy on issues ranging from the Iraq war to global
warming to the International Criminal Court is obvious to observers at home
and abroad. Also clear is the fact that the Bush policy, at least in its
broad outlines, is very much in keeping with the preferences of the
Christian Right. As the second and third quotes above indicate, the
president, himself a born-again Christian, does not hesitate to use a
moralistic, implicitly religious language in defense of his policies.

What, exactly, is the relationship between the Christian Right and the
unilateralist foreign policy of the present US administration? For the past
quarter-century, the Christian Right has been a key player regarding
domestic social issues such as abortion, homosexual rights, and prayer in
schools. While journalists, politicians and academics continue to analyze
and debate the Christian Right's effectiveness in these areas, less
attention has been paid to the religious right's influence on US foreign
policy. However, that influence is becoming difficult to ignore and is in
need of further analysis. [1]

In the first two sections of this article, I examine the political and
religious roots of the Christian Right's unilateralism and the development
of the alliances that have allowed it to become a significant player in
contemporary US foreign policy. The final section looks at a second
question: How should progressives understand and respond to the Christian
Right's influence? I contend that focusing on the "extremism" of the
Christian Right is a misguided strategy and that we should instead see the
Christian Right as part of a dominant foreign-policy alliance. Resisting
that unilateralist alliance requires a focus on its inherent contradictions.

The roots of Christian Right unilateralism

Although the unilateral inclinations of the present US administration stand
in at least partial contrast to those of its predecessors, unilateralism is
nothing new for the Christian Right. Decades ago, movement precursors aimed
their fire at internationalists and the United Nations. The John Birch
Society launched its drive to "Get US out of the UN!" in 1959. In 1962,
Billy James Hargis, leader of the anti-communist organization Christian
Crusade, declared that "the primary threat to the United States is
internationalism" (Redekop 66). Several older Christian Right figures such
as Phyllis Schlafly and Tim LaHaye trace their political origins back to the
nationalist right of this era (see McGirr). Opposition to internationalist
institutions, which are seen as a threat to US sovereignty and the country's
role as a "redeemer nation", continues to this day in Christian Right
circles (see Lienesch, Chapter 5).

During the Cold War era, the primary foreign-policy concern of the Christian
Right and its precursors was the anti-communist struggle. Support for
unilateralism was part of a larger mission of throwing off internationalist
constraints and unleashing US power to conduct a more vigorous crusade
against "godless" communism. With the fall of the Soviet Union,
unilateralist anti-communism lost much of its relevance. [2] In the 1990s, a
new set of concerns about international institutions came to the fore and
led the Christian Right to increase its attention to global affairs. [3]
These concerns are rooted in a fear that the United Nations is being used to
advance a liberal social agenda. High-profile UN conferences on the rights
of women and population policy were among the developments that set off
alarm bells for Christian Right leaders. [4] Laurel MacLeod, former director
of legislation and public policy at Concerned Women for America, described
her group's deepening involvement with international issues by saying: "We
got involved, from my perspective, in international issues in late '94, when
we prepared for the fourth world conference on the status of women in
Beijing, and I like to say that with UN issues and international issues, it
was like we stuck our toe in a pond and fell in up to our neck and realized
that it was the Pacific Ocean." [5]

The Christian Right's activism on UN issues has lured it into tricky
territory. Led by the organizers of the World Congress of Families, elements
of the Christian Right have developed seemingly unlikely alliances, working
with social conservatives around the world - including the Vatican and some
Islamic groups - to defend the "natural family" in the international arena.
[6] Furthermore, as Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, and the Family
Research Council have obtained official non-governmental organization (NGO)
status and participated in UN forums, they have potentially helped
legitimize an institution many of their members see as profoundly
illegitimate. Yet even as the Christian Right grapples with the dilemmas of
working within the UN, it remains quite hostile to the institution in its
present form and opposes US cooperation with it. From the Christian Right
perspective, the UN is an institution dominated by radical feminists bent on
using international institutions to impose their agenda on both the United
States and a socially conservative Third World.

Another major foreign-policy concern for the Christian Right over the past
decade has been the issue of religious persecution, especially of Christians
in China, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. Christian Right activism played a
significant role in the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act
in 1998 (see Hertzke). The religious-persecution issue is not as closely
linked to unilateralism as the issues discussed above, but it is worth
noting that remedies pursued by the Christian Right - such as the
International Religious Freedom Act, sanctions against Sudan, and the denial
of US trade benefits to China - all involve unilateral US action against
violators of religious rights rather than reliance on international
organizations to define and defend those rights.

Finally, the Christian Right's unilateralist inclinations are rooted in its
reading of biblical prophecy. From the 1970s, when Hal Lindsey's The Late
Great Planet Earth was the decade's best-selling non-fiction book, to the
current success of Tim LaHaye's and Jerry Jenkins's Left Behind series,
works of biblical prophecy have enjoyed enormous popularity among the
Christian Right's supporters and beyond. [7] Details vary, but most accounts
feature the rapture of believers, a period of war and natural disaster
marked by the emergence of the antichrist, and finally the second coming of
the true Christ. Critically important for the purposes of this article is a
theme common to many such accounts, the creation of a one-world government,
a "New World Order" led by none other than the antichrist himself. The
antichrist's reign is said to feature attempts to impose a single world
currency and a single world religion. The UN does not fare well in these
accounts.

The role of the UN varies over the course of Hal Lindsey's many books on
biblical prophecy. In some of his accounts, the European Union is the
confederation headed by the antichrist (Buss and Herman 26). The UN,
however, is the more common villain in recent evangelical end-time writings.
In the Left Behind series, the antichrist, Nicolae Carpathia, is head of the
UN. In Pat Robertson's The End of the Age, antichrist Mark Beaulieu
supplants the UN with a new and even more powerful world body, the Union for
Peace. [8] In all these writings the basic message is clear: multilateral
governmental bodies will be the instruments used by the antichrist to attain
world domination. These end-time accounts fuel resistance to perceived
attempts to submit the United States to the authority of any regional or
international governing body.

The exact impact of end-time prophecies is difficult to measure. Not
surprisingly, Washington representatives of Christian Right organizations
are hesitant to acknowledge prophetic motivations behind their groups'
actions. However, given the popularity of end-time publications, including
those produced by major Christian Right figures such as Pat Robertson and
Tim LaHaye, it is hard to believe that they do not have a significant
impact. [9]

The inherited unilateralism of the anti-communist right, opposition to the
UN's perceived social agenda, and biblical prophecy combine to create a
movement resolutely opposed to multilateralism. The exact nature of that
opposition varies from group to group. Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum and
the Concerned Women for America are hostile to virtually any form of
multilateral authority, while the Family Research Council and the World
Congress of Families are somewhat more open to compromise. All of these
groups, however, endeavor to steer US foreign policy in a more unilateral
direction.

Building alliances: How the Christian Right came to be a player in foreign
affairs

Although the Christian Right's unilateralism is not new, its proximity to
power is. Three developments have helped make the Christian Right a
significant player in US foreign policy: the election of a president with
close ties to the movement, the growth of the Christian Right's grassroots
organizational strength, and the development of an alliance with
neo-conservatives, who have come to play a crucial role in the present
administration.

A sympathetic president
The Christian Right played a supporting role in the Ronald Reagan
administration's war on Central America, particularly in funneling aid to
the Nicaraguan contras (Diamond, 1989, chapters 5 and 6). However, its
activism in the 1980s was primarily on the domestic front. The
administrations of George H W Bush and Bill Clinton provided few
opportunities for Christian Right influence, at least at the presidential
level. A committed multilateralist, Bush Sr set off alarm bells in the
Christian Right with his talk of a "new world order". For many elements of
the Christian Right, that phrase tapped into a long history of right-wing
demonology, symbolizing a world government - perhaps satanically inspired -
threatening US sovereignty. [10] And antagonism toward Bill Clinton was even
stronger. Demonized by a Christian Right that vigorously fought to have him
impeached, Clinton had little incentive to grant its leaders access to
foreign-policy decision-making.

The disputed election of George W Bush provided the Christian Right with a
far more sympathetic president. Bush Jr's personal history helps cement his
ties to the movement. Although his father was clearly uncomfortable with the
movement's style of mixing religion and politics, the current president,
saved from the sin of alcoholism by his own born-again experience, has long
understood the nuances of the Christian Right's religious constituency and
speaks its language. Recognizing this back in 1988, Bush Sr gave his son the
task of reaching out to that constituency for him in his presidential
campaign. Campaign aide Doug Wead worked with George W Bush as part of an
effective effort to woo evangelical leaders. [11] George W Bush's White
House reflects its occupant's comfort with evangelicalism. The first words
heard by Bush speechwriter David Frum when he arrived at the White House
were "missed you at Bible study" (see Frum).

A grassroots network
The personal inclinations of the current president are reinforced by the
development of the Christian Right's grassroots electoral capabilities.
Prior to Pat Robertson's 1988 presidential campaign, the Christian Right had
very limited experience with precinct organizing. Robertson's nomination
campaign failed in its immediate objective, but it laid the groundwork for
the emergence of the Christian Coalition. That coalition's grassroots
network, in turn, played a significant role in the Republican congressional
victories of 1994. In the run-ups to the 1996 and 2000 campaigns, the
Christian Coalition's annual convention became a required stop for
Republican presidential aspirants. Early on, George W Bush hired former
Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed as a consultant for his nomination
campaign. After Bush lost the New Hampshire primary, strong support from the
Christian Right, especially in South Carolina, helped him beat back a
serious challenge from Senator John McCain.

With the Christian Right now a central part of the Republican electoral
coalition, presidents of that party must take the constituency's concerns
into account. And the change goes even deeper than that. When Christian
Right activists entered party politics during the Robertson campaign in the
late 1980s, the distinction between these activists and established
Republicans was clear. For many party regulars, the Robertson activists were
alien interlopers who had somehow descended on the party. In the words of
the president's brother Neil Bush, they were "cockroaches" issuing "from the
baseboards of the Bible Belt". [12] Though tension between the Christian
Right and other party factions continues, the Christian Right is now an
established component, and in some areas even a dominant feature, of the
party coalition. John Green provides an insightful analysis of the evolution
of the "collective identity" of the Christian Right: from sectarian
religious identities in the early 1980s to a pro-family identity that helped
unite Christian Right members across religious lines to the current era of
"evangelical Republicans", in which partisanship is central to movement
identity. Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition
and now chair of the Georgia Republican Party, exemplifies this trend. As
Christian Rightists become party activists, Christian Right organizations
may suffer, as the Christian Coalition has since Reed's departure, but their
influence within the party grows. In a Republican Party dominated by
conservative southerners such as George W Bush, Tom Delay and Dick Armey,
Christian Right activists are no longer interlopers; they are insiders.

Neo-conservative ties
Finally, the Christian Right's access to power has been greatly aided by the
ties it has developed with neo-conservatives influential within the present
administration. Neo-conservative intellectuals, many of them Jewish, may
seem unlikely allies for the Christian Right, but this partnership has
developed across several issue areas. The most important basis for this
partnership is a common support for Israel or, to put it more accurately,
for the Likud Party's vision of Israel's interests. The Christian Right's
support for Israel harks back to the movement's beginnings in the late
1970s, but it has risen to a higher level in the past few years. The 2002
annual convention of the Christian Coalition culminated in a rally for
Israel, and Ralph Reed and Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein recently founded a new
group, Stand for Israel. Meanwhile, throughout Christian Right media,
criticism of the Palestinians and support for hardline Israeli policies has
grown more intense.

The Christian Right's support for Israel is closely interrelated with
prophetic concerns discussed earlier in this article. In the words of
Christian Right author John Hagee: "Israel is the only nation created by a
sovereign act of God, and He has sworn by His holiness to defend Jerusalem,
His Holy City. If God created and defends Israel, those nations that fight
against it fight against God." [13] At a recent Christian Coalition
gathering, a speaker even suggested that the September 11 attacks were God's
punishment for America's insufficient support of Israel (Arab News, 2003).

Links with neo-conservatives have also been forged around the issue of
religious persecution. Michael Horowitz, a neo-conservative senior fellow at
the Hudson Institute, and Nina Shea of the Puebla Institute were
instrumental in mobilizing evangelicals around the issue of religious
persecution. [14] Elliott Abrams, then head of the Ethics and Public Policy
Center, wrote extensively supporting the cause and, along with Nina Shea,
was later appointed to the commission created by the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998, eventually serving as its chair. [15] Abrams has moved
on to human rights and Middle East policy positions at the National Security
Council.

In 1997, when the Project for the New American Century was born, it united
conservative leaders around a call for a much more aggressive US foreign
policy (including forceful action against Iraq's Saddam Hussein). The
group's Statement of Principles declared: "Such a Reaganite policy of
military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is
necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past
century and to ensure our security and greatness in the next." Among the 25
signatories were leading neo-conservatives and future players in the Bush
administration, including Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Frank Gaffney, Donald
Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Also on the list were Gary Bauer, longtime head
of the Family Research Council, and author William Bennett. [16]

A sympathetic president, grassroots electoral strength, and ties to
influential neo-conservatives have given the Christian Right influence in US
foreign policy, providing support for a militant unilateralism and
unwavering backing for Israel. The Christian Right has been rewarded with
appointments on delegations to UN conferences and supportive administration
action on its international social agenda (see Butler), and it has been
heartened by Bush's use of religious language to justify his policies. The
religious right does not dominate foreign-policy making in the current
administration; for example, it lacks key posts at the State and Defense
departments. However, the Christian Right has provided powerful grassroots
support for the unilateralist forces that currently dominate US foreign
policy.

A progressive response

How should progressives understand and respond to the Christian Right's
foreign-policy influence? One of the most common approaches adopted by
opponents of the Christian Right and its predecessors has invoked the
language of extremism.

Extremists, such as members of the radical right, are seen as distinct from
the reasonable world of normal or mainstream politics. They are viewed as
irrational, psychologically disturbed people who do not accept the rules of
the democratic game. This approach has a long intellectual history, from
Daniel Bell's, Seymour Martin Lipset's and Richard Hofstadter's analyses of
McCarthyism and the John Birch Society to later interpretations of the
Christian Right (see Bell 1955, 1963, Lipset and Raab, and Crawford).
Although this approach has been much criticized by academics, it is the
analysis that guides major lobbying groups that attempt to counter the
Christian Right. [17]

People for the American Way's very name implies a distinction between the
normal politics of the "American way" and the dangerous extremism of the
group's opponents, "the radical right". The Interfaith Alliance describes
itself as an "organization of people of faith and goodwill" engaged in the
process of "promoting mainstream values" and "shining the light on
extremism" (see Interfaith Alliance).

Painting oneself as mainstream and one's opponents as extreme and
un-American can be an effective political strategy. Elements of the
Christian Right's approach to foreign policy, equating the UN with the
antichrist for example, certainly are extreme and should be pointed out by
its opponents. Nonetheless, understanding and countering the Christian
Right's foreign-policy influence by using the language of extremism is a
mistaken approach, for several reasons.

The extremism approach has particular dangers for those critiquing the
Christian Right from the left. The analysis of extremism is inherently one
that upholds the "responsible" center against both extremes. Michael Rogin
provides a powerful account of the ways in which such an analysis was
inaccurately used not only to attack the radical right but also to link it
to - and thereby discredit - progressive movements involving populists and
the student activists of the 1960s. [18] An analysis that contrasts the
pragmatic and responsible leadership of, say, Colin Powell and George Bush
Sr with the extremism of Christian fundamentalists can also be used to
contrast such leadership with the extremism of anti-globalization
protesters.

Pitting a rational center against irrational extremists also blinds everyone
to the irrationality of the center and the rationality of the extremes. It
is a serious mistake to think that the extremes of the Christian Right are
the only places where dangerous nationalist myths take root. The ideology of
US unilateralism draws on a variety of sources from mainstream popular
culture and civil religion (see Jewett and Lawrence).

It is also a serious mistake to underplay the rationality of the Christian
Right. Dismissed again and again as an irrational, reactive movement lashing
out against the modern world, the Christian Right has continually confounded
its critics by behaving in an effective and politically astute manner,
building its institutions, forging alliances, and working pragmatically to
advance its agenda.

Finally, and most important, the Christian Right is no longer an extreme
separate from the foreign-policy mainstream. Seeing the Christian Right as
an extreme fringe element that has somehow wormed itself into the realm of
responsible mainstream foreign-policy making is simply mistaken. With its
grassroots strength, the Christian Right is a major component in the
electoral coalition of the country's dominant political party. It enjoys
close relations with the president and his neo-conservative advisers, and,
for the moment at least, the Christian Right is a significant element in a
unilateralist alliance that dominates US foreign policy. This stature must
be taken into account by those who would attempt to counter the influence of
the religious right.

If the Christian Right is part of a dominant foreign-policy alliance, how
should those who oppose it proceed? The most obvious and effective
countermeasure would be the electoral defeat of the party and administration
with which it is allied.

Over the past quarter-century, the Christian Right has become ever more
closely intertwined with the Republican Party. Its potential for influence
closely tracks that party's electoral fortunes. Of course, this solution
begs the question - how is this electoral defeat to be accomplished? I have
no magic bullet to offer, and the question is beyond the scope of this
article. However, I would suggest that those looking to organize against the
Christian Right, and the unilateralist alliance of which it is a part, begin
by examining the inherent tensions and contradictions within that alliance
and within the Christian Right itself, a few of which I will now enumerate.

Economic globalization
Thus far, our account of the Christian Right and institutions of
international governance has focused upon the United Nations, the primary
target of Christian Right unilateralism. However, elements of the Christian
right have also aimed their fire at institutions of international economic
governance, such as the World Trade Organization and the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Although the Bush administration is willing to cast off multilateral
constraints in some areas, neither the White House nor the business allies
so crucial to its success are interested in a unilateralist rejection of the
neo-liberal economic order. Christian Right resistance to neo-liberal
economic globalization could potentially pose a serious threat to the
current corporate-friendly foreign-policy coalition. That threat loomed
large in the 1990s, when Christian Right groups were found among the
opponents of NAFTA, the extension of fast-track trade authority, and the
granting of favored trade status to China. In these battles, Eagle Forum,
Concerned Women for America, and the Family Research Council found
themselves at odds with Republican leadership and their normal allies such
as the Heritage Foundation. Gary Bauer denounced "the giddy globalism of
corporate Republicans", and Christian Right activists found themselves in
uneasy alliances with labor unions, human-rights advocates, and
anti-globalization organizers.

The Bush administration's exploitation of September 11, 2001, the "war on
terrorism", and the war in Iraq have effectively displaced controversies
surrounding economic globalization. As E E Schattschneider, among others,
has pointed out, determining the issue is among the most potent of political
powers. The Bush administration, with its plans to tie in the 2004
Republican convention to the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks,
certainly has taken that lesson to heart. Progressives need to bring the
issues of economic globalization back to the fore, not only to highlight
their concerns, but also because a focus on this topic exposes serious
contradictions within their opponents' foreign-policy coalition.

Religious persecution
The subject of religious persecution poses potential problems for the
Republican-Christian Right coalition through the issue's link to the
conflict between Christian Right and business interests discussed above.
Christian Right opposition to favored trade status for China was closely
tied to that country's treatment of its Christian citizens. Both the
International Religious Freedom Act and appeals by Christians for sanctions
against Sudan have further raised the specter of a clash between trade
promotion and the right of religious expression.

Even more serious are the problems that the issue of religious persecution
poses for the Bush administration's conduct in its "war on terrorism". In
the wake of the September 11 attacks, the White House has shown little
inclination to raise human-rights matters involving regimes willing to
cooperate with its anti-terrorist campaigns. Yet many key US allies in the
"war on terror", such as Pakistan, are precisely the countries of most
concern to religious-persecution activists associated with the Christian
Right.

Although religious-persecution issues spell tensions for the dominant
foreign-policy coalition, progressives must be cautious in exploiting those
tensions. In the present climate, concern for the treatment of Christians in
Islamic nations can easily slide into promotion of a clash of civilizations
between the West and Islam. At a February 2003 "Symposium on Islam"
sponsored by the Christian Coalition, featured speakers declared that
Muslims "want to kill Christians by any means", and some compared Islam to
Nazism (see Arab News). Franklin Graham, in a highly publicized statement,
recently characterized Islam as an "evil" religion.

Though such statements certainly complicate the diplomacy of the Bush
administration, these are hardly the sort of complications that progressives
want to promote. However, there are more positive ways to leverage the
religious-persecution issue. Progressives need to bring human-rights
concerns back to the front burner in a way that explicitly addresses cases
of religious persecution and emphasizes multilateral norms and enforcement
mechanisms. Raising these human-rights concerns is the right thing to do,
and such a move holds the potential to create serious divisions between the
Christian Right and the Bush administration.

Global social conservatism and its inherent tensions
Serious tensions exist not only between the Christian Right and alliance
partners in the United States but also between the US-based Christian Right
and potential overseas allies. In recent years, elements of the Christian
Right have attempted to build an international social conservative alliance,
uniting evangelicals, the Vatican, and even some Islamic groups against
homosexual rights, population-control policies and, above all, feminism. The
most notable institutional embodiment of this alliance is the World Congress
of Families, uniting groups of various faiths in defense of the "natural
family". As this social conservative alliance has made its voice heard at UN
forums and resisted UN initiatives, it has often used a strangely
progressive language, defending Third World autonomy against the meddling of
First World feminists and the international institutions that they allegedly
control.

This international alliance has always been unstable. Much of the Christian
Right's base is hesitant to support cooperation with the Vatican, much less
with Islamic groups. [19] Although groups from a variety of nations
participate in the World Congress of Families, participation is heavily
skewed toward the US Christian Right. Given the militant nationalism of the
Christian Right and its belief in the unique US role as a "redeemer nation",
it is hardly surprising that such religious nationalists are ambivalent
about crafting a truly international coalition. The September 11 attack, the
"war on terrorism", and the war against Iraq have heightened this
nationalism and further complicated the Christian Right's efforts at
international coalition-building. In the current environment, cooperation
with Islamic groups is especially problematic.

These difficulties notwithstanding, we should not underestimate the
potential of a worldwide socially conservative alliance and its possible
effectiveness in resisting the efforts of international governing bodies to
defend women's rights or implement effective AIDS policies. Opposition to
feminism and homosexual rights is widespread around the world. Even if
evangelical-Islamic cooperation is unlikely in the present climate, US
religious conservatives can look to the explosive growth of conservative
Christianity around the globe in their search for potential allies (see
Jenkins). The current controversy over gay ordination in the Episcopalian
church is illustrative. US opponents of the church's recent decision to
ordain a gay minister have forged an alliance with conservative members of
the international Anglican community, particularly with members of its
massive and rapidly growing African branch.

Progressive internationalism, ie, utilizing international institutions to
promote equitable economic development rather than neo-liberalism, poses
serious problems for the Christian Right's attempts to construct a global
alliance of social conservatives and undercuts the unilateral US nationalism
of the Christian Right. Few of the Christian Right's potential allies in
other parts of the world are fervent US nationalists, and they are generally
more favorably inclined toward the UN (see Buss and Herman). Moreover, a
progressive international economic agenda highlights real contradictions
between the neo-liberalism of the current administration, with which the
Christian Right is allied, and the economic interests of prospective Third
World allies that the Christian Right is attempting to win over on social
issues.

Shifting the global social-conservatism debate to an agenda of progressive
internationalism, translating concerns over religious persecution into
commitment to a general defense of human rights, and countering economic
globalization are obviously not easy tasks. However, if done correctly,
pursuit of such goals can trigger a win/win scenario: it's the right thing
to do, and it could create serious problems for the Christian Right and the
unilateralist alliance now dominating US foreign policy.

Bibliography

Elliott Abrams, ed, The Influence of Faith: Religious Groups & US Foreign
Policy (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001).

Arab News, "Christian Coalition's Panelists Distort Islam" (2003) available
online at
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030224092753598.

Daniel Bell, ed, The New American Right (New York: Criterion Books, 1955).

Daniel Bell, ed, The Radical Right (Garden City, New Jersey: Anchor Books,
1963).

Chip Berlet and Matthew N Lyons, Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close
for Comfort (New York: Guilford Press, 2000).

Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 1992).

Paul Boyer, "When US Foreign Policy Meets Biblical Prophecy" (2003)
available online at http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15221.

Doris Buss and Didi Herman, Globalizing Family Values (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 2003).

Jennifer Butler, "New Sheriff in Town: The Christian Right Nears Major
Victory at the United Nations" (2003) available online at
http:www.publiceye.org/magazine/v16n2/PE_Butler2.htm.

Alan Crawford, Thunder on the Right (New York: Pantheon, 1980).

Sara Diamond, Roads to Dominion (New York: Guilford Press, 1995).

Sara Diamond, Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right
(Boston: South End Press, 1989).

David Frum, "The Real George Bush" (2003) at The Atlantic Online available
online at http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2003-02-12.htm.

John Green, "The Spirit Willing: Collective Identity and the Development of
the Christian Right" in Jo Freeman and Victoria Johnson, eds, Waves of
Protest (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999).

Joshua Green, "God's Foreign Policy", Washington Monthly, November 2001, pp
26-30.

Grace Halsell, Prophecy and Politics (New York: E J Hill & Co, 1989).

Allen Hertzke, "The Political Sociology of the Crusade Against Religious
Persecution" in Elliott Abrams, ed, The Influence of Faith: Religious Groups
& US Foreign Policy (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001).

Interfaith Alliance (2003) home webpage at
http://www.interfaithalliance.org/About/aboutList.cfm?c=4.

Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom (Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press, 2002).

Robert Jewett and John Shelton Lawrence, Captain America and the Crusade
Against Evil (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Co,
2003).

Michael Lienesch, Redeeming America: Piety and Politics in the New Christian
Right (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press,
1993).

Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab, The Politics of Unreason (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1978).

William Martin, "The Christian Right and American Foreign Policy", Foreign
Policy, Vol 114, Spring 1999, pp 66-79.

Lisa McGirr, Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right
(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2001).

Matthew Moen, The Christian Right and Congress (Tuscaloosa, Alabama:
University of Alabama Press, 1992).

Duane Oldfield, The Right and the Righteous (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman &
Littlefield, 1996).

Project for the New American Century, "Statement of Principles" (1997)
available online at
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm.

John Harold Redekop, The American Far Right: A Case Study of Billy James
Hargis and Christian Crusade (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans
Publishing Co, 1968).

Pat Robertson, The End of the Age (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995).

Pat Robertson, The New World Order (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1991).

Michael Paul Rogin, The Intellectuals and McCarthy (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1967).

United States Government, National Security Strategy of the United States
(2002) available online at
http://www.cdi.org/national-security-strategy/washington.cfm.

Clyde Wilcox, Onward Christian Soldiers (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press,
1996).

Endnotes

1. Many works on the Christian Right have given scant attention to
foreign-policy issues. For examples, see Moen (1992), Wilcox (1996),
Oldfield (1996) and Watson (1999). A major exception to this trend has been
the work of Sara Diamond (1989, 1995). In the past few years the
foreign-policy activism of the Christian Right has been the focus of more
scholarly attention. See Martin (1999), Abrams (2001), and, most notably,
Buss and Herman (2003).
2. Opposition to "Red" China, however, remains a significant item on the
Christian Right's foreign-policy agenda, particularly for the Family
Research Council.
3. The general trend toward greater involvement in international affairs
masks some differences among Christian Right groups. Phyllis Schlafly, head
of the Eagle Forum, has long been active in international issues. The
Christian Coalition has generally avoided international matters, except for
issues of religious persecution and support for Israel.
4. Christian Right groups also object to the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child, seeing it as a potential threat to the authority of parents.
Moving beyond a social-issues agenda, Christian Right groups have raised
objections to the US peacekeeping troops serving under UN command in Bosnia.
The UN's Biosphere reserve program, seen as a threat to US sovereignty over
its parklands, has also come under Christian Right fire.
5. Interview with author, July 30, 1998.
6. See Buss and Herman for a comprehensive account of the Christian right's
alliances and activism at the UN.
7. Several novels in the Left Behind series have reached No 1 on the New
York Times bestseller list, and overall sales for the series now top 50
million books. Lindsey's sales were less noticeable to those outside the
evangelical community, because until recently the Times did not poll
Christian bookstores in calculating its sales figures.
8. Beaulieu is eventually defeated through the leadership of a televangelist
who bears a remarkable similarity to Robertson himself and a US general who
craftily withholds a segment of the US military from the control of the new
world government.
9. Robertson's role as a televangelist, Christian Right presidential
candidate, and longtime president of the Christian Coalition is well known.
LaHaye has been somewhat less visible to outsiders, but he too has played an
important role in the movement as an author, co-founder of the Moral
Majority, and as the husband of Beverly LaHaye, founder and former president
of Concerned Women for America.
10. Robertson (1991) and personal interview with Leigh Ann Metzger, who
served as the elder Bush's outreach director for religious conservatives
(August 21, 1994).
11. Doug Wead, personal interview with author, May 1989.
12. Baltimore Sun, November 25, 1987, as quoted in Campaign Hotline-American
Political Network, Inc.
13. Quoted in Paul Boyer (2003). For more on prophecy and Christian Right
foreign policy, see Boyer (1992) and Halsell. Although end-time prophecies
lead to strong support for Israel, a closer examination reveals that Jews,
or at least those who do not convert to Christianity, do not fare well in
end-time scenarios.
14. Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at the National
Association of Evangelicals, personal interview with author, July 1998, and
Green (2001). Shea's Puebla Institute was best known for its criticism of
Nicaragua's Sandinista government and, allegedly, had ties to that
government's contra opponents. See
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/shea/shea.html.
15. See Hertzke.
16. Bauer and the Family Research Council have been closer to
neo-conservatives than other elements of the Christian Right. Bauer is more
supportive of free trade and an activist US foreign policy than leaders at
Concerned Women for America and, especially, Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly,
whose isolationist tendencies slot her closer to the paleoconservatives.
17. The Massachusetts-based Political Research Associates is a notable
exception.
18. See Oldfield as well as Berlet and Lyons for critiques of the extremism
approach to interpreting the Christian Right.
19. Darren Logan, Family Research Council, interview with author, July 1998.
See also Buss and Herman.

Duane Oldfield is an associate professor of political science at Knox
College and the author of The Right and the Righteous (Rowman & Littlefield,
1996). An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2003 annual
meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 28-31, 2003.