Does the faith of a major politician matter? Well, it seemed that George W. Bush’s faith played a significant part in winning over voters. John Kerry’s faith, on the other hand, seemed a hindrance since, as not a few Catholic bloggers incessantly decried, he didn’t seem all that genuine about it. In our current election season, not much has been made of John McCain’s faith since it is not altogether certain he has much religious conviction (though Oswald Sobrino will mount a trapeze to convince you otherwise). And despite his participation in the now infamous Trinity United Church, (idiotic) questions still loom over whether Barack Obama is a Muslim (since, as FOX News continually reminds us, the middle name “Hussein” carries a factor of fear). But what about major figures who work with our elected officials and who play an incalculable role in the structures of election and policy? Does his/her faith matter to us?
Without answering this question myself, I wish to revisit for a moment the well known rumor that Karl Rove is either an agnostic or an atheist. Parenthetically, I don’t believe there is much difference between the two as being agnostic is, without question, atheism in practice if not an explicitly identical affirmation (cf. CCC 2128). The rumor of Karl Rove’s lack of faith took off last year after an interview by Boris Kachka of New York magazine and the always relevant and vitriolic Christopher Hitchens. During the talk, Kachka asked Hitchens whether he knew of any atheists within President George W. Bush’s administration. Here’s what happened:
Do you think an avowed atheist would ever get elected in the U.S.?
Yes. I do not believe any of the statistical claims that are made about public opinion. I don’t see why anybody does.Has anyone in the Bush administration confided in you about being an atheist?
Well, I don’t talk that much to them—maybe people think I do. I know something which is known to few but is not a secret. Karl Rove is not a believer, and he doesn’t shout it from the rooftops, but when asked, he answers quite honestly. I think the way he puts it is, “I’m not fortunate enough to be a person of faith.”
Hitchen’s account of Rove’s atheism/agnosticism was not the first such claim made. Rather, Hitchens corroborated the same claim made by Wayne Slater, who wrote a biography on Rove entitled Bush’s Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential, during a 2004 Fresh Air interview with NPR’s Terry Gross:
SLATER: You know, I remember seeing Ralph Reed in Texas when Rove tried to bring him on board back in about 1998. Ralph Reed is an Evangelical Christian who was successful in bringing Evangelical Christians around for political ends. Karl Rove is just the opposite. He is, in fact, an agnostic. He has told a friend in high school that he grew up in a largely a-religious household. He told a friend at the University of Texas, where some years ago he was teaching, that he would like to be a believer but he’s an agnostic and he couldn’t be otherwise. So Rove’s approach has always been not that religion and the values of religion ought to have a place in our public policy, which is the message that he sent. Rove’s approach is that Christians are a marvelously effective voter delivery system that can be rallied, motivated, energized, and delivered for the political candidate of your choice.
GROSS: Are you confident that Karl Rove would still consider himself an agnostic?
SLATER: I know that he felt that way two years ago. I don’t know of any reason to think that he has changed that view. He certainly hasn’t told me that he has. It’s certainly possible. I think the evidence and the history is that he remains something of an agnostic, though he sees the Christians, and not just Christians but also orthodox Jews, to some extent, as a valuable voter source. With Rove, it’s about winning. With Karl Rove, it’s how can you put together a team and a constituency or a cluster of constituencies that delivers you 50 percent plus one of the vote? And that’s what it’s all about.
We have then two individuals who know Rove personally stating that he is, in fact, an agnostic at best. Deal Hudson, who once worked with Rove corralling Catholics to elect Bush before resigning due to a public scandal, refuses to believe it. Apparently, Rove’s faith (or lack thereof) really matters to him. Hudson gives two reasons for denying that Rove is agnostic:
1. After the Hitchen’s interview, Hudson claims he called Rove:
Rove sounded very annoyed and told me he was going to “call Hitchens” about it.
2. Someone (we don’t know who) pointed out to Hudson that Rove signed-off the Rush Limbaugh show with the words “God bless you.”
To the first point, assuming that Hudson really did call Rove, did he ask Rove if Hitchen’s claim was true? If so, why did Hudson neglect to tell us in his blog post? That certainly would have cleared things up for all of us, and we wouldn’t have to rely upon Hudson’s empty claim “Karl Rove is NOT an atheist.” Perhaps Hudson did ask Rove if the claim was true but received the answer he didn’t want to hear. In any case, Rove’s annoyance tells us nothing. Perhaps he was annoyed that Hitchens betrayed his trust. Perhaps he was annoyed because he didn’t want his agnosticism/atheism to be public knowledge. Perhaps he was annoyed because Hudson called him. Whatever may be the case, relaying that Rove “sounded very annoyed” does nothing to counter the claims of direct testimony from two independent sources who personally know Rove.
To the second point, saying “God bless you” is not a declaration of faith. It is a trite courtesy that has largely been sapped of its meaning by its endless repetition and its being that most knee-jerk rejoinder to someone sneezing. Furthermore, Rove is one smart guy. What better way to try to quell unwanted press attention and to assuage the concerns of his right-leaning base (e.g., Hudson) over his agnosticism than by slipping in a goodbye “God bless you” on conservative talk radio? No denial has ever come from Rove, and Hudson either doesn’t really know the truth or he is lying about the truth. Nevertheless, CNS trusts Hudson despite the relative dearth of evidence he offers, even writing a whole piece based on his testimony alone.
Funny thing about Hudson’s claim is that he doesn’t seem to believe it himself! After trying to convince us that Rove is not an agnostic/atheist, Hudson proceeds to conceive the possibility that Rove is an agnostic! Hudson then forms an argument as to why we shouldn’t worry if Rove is an agnostic, an argument that can be broken down as such:
P1: An agnostic is “not sure” or “does not know” that God exists.
P2: An agnostic can appreciate the goodness and values of theists.
C: Therefore, Rove cannot be accused of being cynical.
For a moment, let’s grant that P1 and P2 are true. Does the conclusion follow from these premises? Of course not. The argument assumes a number of other premises. A modified form of the argument with these assumptions would go as follows:
P1: An agnostic is “not sure” or “does not know” that God exist.
(P2′): Being “unsure” or “ignorant” that God exists entails the ability to appreciate the goodness and values of theists.
P2: An agnostic can appreciate the goodness in theists [from 1 and 2]
(P3): Karl Rove is an agnostic.
(P4): Karl Rove can appreciate the goodness in theists [from 3 and 4]
(P5): Being an atheist entails the inability to appreciate the goodness and values of theists.
(P6): An atheist who claims to appreciate the goodness and values of theists is cynical.
(P7): An agnostic who claims to appreciate the goodness and values of theists is not cynical.
(P8): Karl Rove is not cynical [from 3, 4, 7]
C: Therefore, Karl Rove cannot be accused of being cynical.
This is the same argument of Hudson but with the unstated premises that he invariably relies upon. You can see why he didn’t explicitly state a lot of these premises because they are either weak or untrue.
P1 is untrue. Agnosticism can also mean religious indifferentism and is, more often than not, merely practical atheism (cf. CCC 2128). This would suggest, granting the truth of P5 and P6, that Hudson’s entire argument collapses according to the veracity of P1.
We can grant the truth of P2′, because it is conceiveable that an agnostic would appreciate goodness and values. It follows that we can grant P2.
P3 seems to be true based on the testimony and evidence of Hitchens and Slater.
P4 can be granted as conceivable, but not as true. It remains a weak, unsubstantiated premise.
P5 is likely to be false. There does not seem to be anything inherent to atheism that demands that goodness and values in theism (e.g., individual rights, dignity of person, moral systems) cannot be appreciated.
P6 is false if P5 is false.
P7 is weak. What if there were agnostic who privately chides all religious values, yet publicly claims to value them? This certainly is an easy to conceive political tactic.
P8 is unsubtantiated on account of 7.
The conclusion, which relies upon the truth of 7 is weak. The entire argument itself is weak by logical standards. Hudson seems to really want Rove to be a theist, but if he is an agnostic, Hudson really wants him to be insusceptible to the charge of cynicism. But Hudson cannot make the claim that he does, for we do not know what type of agnostic Rove is, and we do not if Rove truly appreciates the goodness and values of theism beyond their uses for an election. In the end, Hudson fails to convince us that Rove is not an agnostic (the intent of the assertive title of the post) and then fails to convince us that Rove is not susceptible to the charge of cynicism.
I bring up Hudson specifically because he is an influential Catholic who seems to believe that Rove’s faith–whatever that means–really does matter. So let’s return to the original question of this post: Should Karl Rove’s faith matter? Correspondingly, should the faith of advisers close to McCain and Obama matter? Be cautious as you answer.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In