Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that she does not intend to run for the Presidency in 2008. Rice was one of the possible front-runners for the GOP nomination in 2008, although her pro-abortion views might be a liability to her in the primary season.
Rice is articulate, brilliant, and is one of the few people who has the force of will and the skills to reform the bureaucratic messes in Foggy Bottom. She’s has every opportunity to be one of the most influential Secretaries of State since Henry Kissinger. If she chose to run, I’m not sure her views on abortion would necessarily disqualify her, although she’d have a tough time pulling in the evangelical vote without reassurances that she wouldn’t be biased against pro-life judges. Certainly there was already a great deal of enthusiasm among conservative circles for a Rice 2008 run.
Of course, 2008 is a long ways away, and there’s always room for Rice to change her mind…
She could be a very powerful candidate but her current role doesn’t offer her much opportunity to share her own political views. I’d be very interested in what she had to offer on various issues but until 2008 she’s basically Bush’s mouthpiece.
That’ll be an interesting primary for you guys, though. Will evangelicals even vote for a woman? They don’t allow women to lead their churches, I doubt they’d be comfortable with one leading the country.
I agree with Chet. It would be damned interesting.
Two comments:
Jay- is it fair to call Rice pro-abortion?
Chet- Your statement on evangelical is hollow and valueless. Which evangelicals are you talking about? There are plenty of non-denominational churches that allow in women as clergy. Some don’t, but it’s not a blanket issue like you make it. What about within denominations. My church (the Presbyterian Church USA) has an evangelical wing which includes many women ministers. The right wing Presbyterian Church of America (a smaller church) has no female clergy. Evangelicals are not a monolith, and while I understand your point, your particular statement is a hyper generalization.
I’d go even further to say that I feel the term evangelical has been hijacked by a group of white christians who want to go back to the good ole days of the 50’s (even those those weren’t such good ole days for other ethnic groups in our society). When I say I am evangelical I mean it in a strictly religious sense, but it doesn’t detract from my secular and libertarian outlook. But that would be another issue, and it would not be you whom I would pick a quarrel with on this topic.
Justin, didn’t the Southern Baptists vote in favor of a resolution declaring women subservient to the will of their husbands and inserting that into their religion’s platform about five years ago? With that in mind, Chet’s point is justified. If the woman’s role is indeed at home baking cookies, how on Earth can she be trusted to lead the free world?
Even if we set aside the evangelical factor, I see very little chance of a woman being elected President of the United States in my lifetime. If Hillary Clinton runs against a male candidate, she’ll lose. And if Condi Rice were to run against a male Democrat, she’d likely lose. Why? I know women well enough to recognize that for all their “girl power” talk, they will cross party lines to vote against one of their own in a contest for the highest leadership in the land. It’s been widely reported that women vote against women in disproportionate numbers even in state and local races. Even if the current trend of putting chest-pounding macho “bring it on” blowhards on a pedestal falls out of favor, I cannot envision a majority of women voting for another woman for President as long as there is a male candidate sharing the ballot with them. Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong in time, but I highly doubt 2008 will be that time.
Which evangelicals are you talking about?
Conservative Evangelical Christians, obviously. Who did you think Jay was talking about?
There are plenty of non-denominational churches that allow in women as clergy.
Granted, but none of them are evangelical churches. Women as clergy or as church leaders is not a conservative position, being as it is contradicted by the Bible. Certainly some Christian churches are more progressive; but it’s obvious those weren’t the churches Jay and I were referring to.
I’d go even further to say that I feel the term evangelical has been hijacked by a group of white christians who want to go back to the good ole days of the 50’s
And I would go so far as to state that since they developed the movement, it is you who is attempting to hijack the term. I don’t dispute that there are progressive elements within Christianity. But none of them fall under the heading “evangelical”, by definition.
Evangelicals are not fundamentalists. Evangelical Christians are perfectly fine with female pastors – and the evangelical movement includes mainline denominations including the Presbyterians, the United Methodist Church, the Church of Christ, etc.
I should also note that most African-American churches are considered part of the evangelical movement as well, such as the Black Methodist Church.
Chet- here is one example of progressive evangelicals right in the minnesota area.. http://www.cando.org — a mulitracial evangelical presbyterian church that makes social justice a key part of its outreach mission. But I guess if one has progressive tendancies, then they must forefit their right to be evangelical, huh?
What about the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (hard to dodge out of this one), which just like the United Methodists and Presbyterian Church USA is a largely centrist denomination, but still evangelical.
Evangelical does not mean charismatic, it does not mean pentecostal, and it does not mean right wing christian theocrat. Your original broad sweeping statement was out of touch with reality, and your followup statements even more so.
Mark- are southern baptists charachteristic of all evangelicals.. I think not. Yes there is an element which considers itself evangelical which does not want women in the clergy. I never denied that. However that is not the same thing as saying that all evangelicals are backwards with regards to stances on women.
We can probably agree that rather unsavoury elements in christianity hijacked the term, however there is no need to give them a monopoly on it by not recognizing the reality that one can be a evangelical and progressive.
Justin, even if the GOP has a slight advantage in national elections in the current political alignment, it’s presently no more than a 51-49 advantage. Obviously not all evangelicals believe that women are subservient beings the way that Southern Baptists do, but the question I’m asking is whether the Southern Baptists (and other evangelicals with gender biases) represent a large enough sector of the evangelicals to get a Democrat elected if the GOP is brave enough to run a woman. Republicans need the collective allegiance of uber-religious voters if they are to win (52% of Bush voters were evangelicals)….and as the GOP shifts ever harder to the right, their message will increasingly alienate non-evangelicals, making the dependency even stronger. Is it really worth the risk for the GOP to test the tolerance of their “values voters” by running not just a woman, but an African-American woman? And that’s not even discussing this particular African-American appalling incompetence as National Security Advisor.
Ultimately, this is not a relevant topic unless Rice changes her mind and decides to run. It appears Hillary will be the Donks’ anointed candidate, so it inevitably boils to down to which white male candidate the GOP nominates to defeat her in at least 40 states.
Evangelicals are not fundamentalists.
I’m sorry, but your usage is incorrect. The evangelical movement in the US is typefied by a number of characteristics (from Wikipedia):
1. An emphasis on the conversion experience. The conversion is also called being ‘saved’ or the “new birth” or being “born again” after John 3:3 (Evangelicals are sometimes referred to as “born-again Christians” because of this emphasis.)
2. The use of the Bible as the primary source of God’s revelation to man, and therefore the ultimate religious authority.
3. Encourage evangelism, that is the act of sharing one’s beliefs in the gospel with others in order to convince them to convert, either in organized missionary work or through personal evangelism.
4. A central focus on Christ’s redeeming work on the cross, especially as the means for salvation and the forgiveness of sins.
It’s that second one – they view the Bible as the ultimate and fundamental authority for their religious positions. Hence, they are fundamentalists.
The Bible says that a woman may not lead – may not have authority over a man. Biblical literalists, which typefy the evangelical movement in the US, would most likely not support a woman president for that reason.
Your original broad sweeping statement was out of touch with reality, and your followup statements even more so.
I attended an evangelical church for many years and I assure you my comments completely and accurately describe the attitudes and dogma of Christian religious conservatives, aka “evangelicals.” But, if you prefer, we can adopt some other term. I’m not interested in arguing about what words mean. Jay was obviously referring to Christian conservatives, and I was as well. Do you believe my comments don’t describe Christian conservatives?
Nope.
The vast majority of Christian conservatives and evangelicals would have a problem with Dr. Rice’s position on abortion, not the color of her skin or sex.
Nor is it true that evangelicals believe that women are subservient to men. Again, evangelicals are not fundamentalists. Fundamentalists believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Most evangelicals do not.
Fundamentalists are evangelicals, but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists. They’re two different categories, and the term “fundamentalist” when applied to American Christian sects has a very specific meaning that does not apply here.
not the color of her skin or sex.
Who on Earth brought race into this? The Bible doesn’t say anything about black people. Just that no woman should take authority over a man.
Fundamentalists believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Most evangelicals do not.
From what sources are you drawing these conclusions? You’re completly contradicting the usage of the term “evangelical” as I’ve seen it used in every other instance.
Nonetheless, we’re talking about Christian conservatives, who are, all of them, Biblical literalists of one stripe or another. That’s why they’re conservative. And I submit that, because they hold to a literal Bible, they would not support the presidential candidacy of a woman. If you disagree then I’m going to have to see more than just your empty assertions.
The Southern Baptists, the Presbyterian Church, the Church of God, etc, all allow female pastors. They are also evangelical churches. Evangelicals are not fundamentalists. Pentacostals are not fundamentalists. Some evangelicals believe in the inerrancy of scripture, many do not. If you can’t grasp that distinction, then you’re simply trying to paint all Evangelical Christians with a broad brush that doesn’t even remotely resemble the truth.
If you can’t grasp that distinction, then you’re simply trying to paint all Evangelical Christians with a broad brush that doesn’t even remotely resemble the truth.
If that’s the case, and the evangelical movement encompasses such a wide spectrum of political and social views, then why were you so sure that abortion would be an issue for all of them?
You’re the one that painted them with the broad brush. I was simply following in your lead. You were clearly talking about Christian conservatives, because abortion wouldn’t be an issue for Christian progressives. If you weren’t referring to progressive Christians when you said “evangelical”, then why did you assume I was, too?
Because opposition to abortion cuts across the spectrum of Christian thought.
Abortion should be an issue for all Christians. Last I checked the ELCA was hardly a bastion of fundamentalism, but they are officially against abortion except in the most extreme of circumstances. The Christian doctrine of the sanctity of life is diametrically opposed with the concept of abortion on demand.
Chet-
I will slightly backtrack to say that perhaps we are arguing two different issues. I don’t deny that the segment which both of us would describe as fundamentalist (quite far to the right religiously I mean) would have some qualms with a female president.
I would argue with using wikipedia as a source since anyone can submit an article for wikipedia. The tenant that stresses being born again is not a primary focus for all or even most evangelicals. That tenant often leads towards a bridegroom theology which many evangelical christians disagree with.
Also I still contend that your statement that nothing progressive can come from evangelical christianity is patently false. The minneapolis based church of all nations I linked above was merel y the first example that came to mind (since I’ve attended their once before) of a church that is progressive in social outreach mission. Many evangelical christians see their faith as emploring social justice in many spheres.
Most mainline denominations will (ELCA, Presbyterian Church USA, United Methodists) will indeed say they are evangelical and they are not schizophrenic when they make this statement. I understand the popular usage of evangelical has been warped by a segment which wishes to push christianity into a more isolated sphere. In the end, my argument on this issue is much more directed at them than with you (since we simply have a different meaning of the word evangelical, and no doubt that is shaped by our personal experiences) since it is their actions that have made evangelicalism a dirty word, which it certainly should not be.
fair enough?
Abortion should be an issue for all Christians.
Now who’s painting with a broad brush? Support for a woman’s right to choose also cuts across the spectrum of Christian thought.
The Christian doctrine of the sanctity of life is diametrically opposed with the concept of abortion on demand.
Actually the Bible allows abortion with the permission of the father.