Well, that clears that up a bit

It's a minor blip compared to Woodward's new book, but David Kuo's Tempting Faith has made a few waves for its insider's look into the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The interesting thing is that Kuo isn't writing from the perspective of a jaded defector but as an unreconstructed evangelical Christian. His problem is that the Bush Administration didn't help Christians enough. He says that White House officials smiled and welcomed Christian leaders but then called them "goofy," "ridiculous," and "out of control," and that Karl Rove referred to them as "the nuts."

Kuo's claims are, of course, in the process of being refuted by the White House, but if what he says is true, it confirms something I've thought for a long time about the administration. They are not, as some liberals would claim, motivated by some sort of crazy evangelical spirit. How many times have you heard it said that both Bush and bin Laden are "religious fanatics"? Or that the country's problems, domestic and international, have their bases in some sort of Christian revivalist upsurge? The first problem with this analysis is that it gives Bush far too much credit. It's easy to hoist signs like this and this, but do you really think that the man possesses any real power? That he does anything more than scratch his ass at meetings and attempt to parse the multi-syllable words? His stupidity and pettiness have been on even greater display than usual recently. (There's also the interesting "unacceptable" article in the Washington Post that's been making the blog rounds; I don't know if those are scripted instances or ex tempore, though.)

Second, and more importantly, all the evidence points to the conclusion that Rove and the other elite Republican political spinners simply use religious rhetoric as a way to attract voters. As Andrew Sullivan has pointed out--rightly, I think--many inside-the-Beltway GOP movers and shakers have gay friends and probably have learned to live quite comfortably with gay neighbors, associates, and relatives (let's not forget Mary Cheney). It wouldn't surprise me at all if they distrust or even loathe truly creepy religious freaks like Tony Perkins.

The bigger picture is that there is no tail that wags the dog in these scenarios. The religious right does not dictate to the White House. One can draw a similar conclusion from the US's relationship with Israel. It is often said, in both respectable and often downright nasty company, that Israel exerts too much power over the US or even "controls" it, whatever that means. In this and the religious right case, nothing could be further from the truth. The United States, and especially this particular Presidency, uses these entities as its apparatuses to the extent that it can, and no more. Sound overly bleak? Can anyone present a more likely explanation? This is how it seems to me.

Of course, then there's the question of whether the government is controlled by big business. But that's assuming that you're dealing with two separate entities to begin with...