Exclusive: Book says Bush just using Christians
‘Tempting Faith’ author David Kuo worked for Bush from 2001 to 2003
More than five years after President Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the former second-in-command of that office is going public with an insider’s tell-all account that portrays an office used almost exclusively to win political points with both evangelical Christians and traditionally Democratic minorities.

The office’s primary mission, providing financial support to charities that serve the poor, never got the presidential support it needed to succeed, according to the book.

Entitled “Tempting Faith,” the book is not scheduled for release until Oct. 16, but MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” has obtained a copy.

“Tempting Faith’s” author is David Kuo, who served as special assistant to the president from 2001 to 2003. A self-described conservative Christian, Kuo’s previous experience includes work for prominent conservatives including former Education Secretary and federal drug czar Bill Bennett and former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Kuo, who has complained publicly in the past about the funding shortfalls, goes several steps further in his new book.

He says some of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders were known in the office of presidential political strategist Karl Rove as “the nuts.”

“National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,' ‘out of control,' and just plain ‘goofy,’” Kuo writes.

More seriously, Kuo alleges that then-White House political affairs director Ken Mehlman knowingly participated in a scheme to use the office, and taxpayer funds, to mount ostensibly “nonpartisan” events that were, in reality, designed with the intent of mobilizing religious voters in 20 targeted races.

According to Kuo, “Ken loved the idea and gave us our marching orders.”

Among those marching orders, Kuo says, was Mehlman’s mandate to conceal the true nature of the events.

Kuo quotes Mehlman as saying, “… (I)t can’t come from the campaigns. That would make it look too political. It needs to come from the congressional offices. We’ll take care of that by having our guys call the office [of faith-based initiatives] to request the visit.”

Nineteen out of the 20 targeted races were won by Republicans, Kuo reports. The outreach was so extensive and so powerful in motivating not just conservative evangelicals, but also traditionally Democratic minorities, that Kuo attributes Bush’s 2004 Ohio victory “at least partially … to the conferences we had launched two years before.”

With the exception of one reporter from the Washington Post, Kuo says the media were oblivious to the political nature and impact of his office’s events, in part because so much of the debate centered on issues of separation of church and state.

In fact, the Bush administration often promoted the faith-based agenda by claiming that existing government regulations were too restrictive on religious organizations seeking to serve the public.

Substantiating that claim proved difficult, Kuo says. “Finding these examples became a huge priority.… If President Bush was making the world a better place for faith-based groups, we had to show it was really a bad place to begin with. But, in fact, it wasn’t that bad at all.”

In fact, when Bush asks Kuo how much money was being spent on “compassion” social programs, Kuo claims he discovered “we were actually spending about $20 million a year less on them than before he had taken office.”

The money that was appropriated and disbursed, however, often served a political agenda, Kuo claims.

“Many of the grant-winning organizations that rose to the top of the process were politically friendly to the administration,” he says.

More pointedly, Kuo quotes an unnamed member of the review panel charged with rating grant applications.

“But,” she said with a giggle, ‘When I saw one of those non-Christian groups in the set I was reviewing, I just stopped looking at them and gave them a zero … a lot of us did.’”

“Tempting Faith” contains several other controversial claims about Kuo’s office, the Bush White House and even the 1994 Republican revolution in Congress.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15228489/


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if this is delighful, or really fucked up. Maybe a little of both?

Oh yeah, Keith Olbermann did some stuff for this on his shows, it's over at http://www.crooksandliars.com

Yep, my parents are a little disillusioned with Bush. They don't like his programs for the economy, his handling of the war, his tax cuts, or really anything else. But he is against gay marriage, and they can't abide the legislation of sin.

Yeah, that's why I have trouble believing the argument this book presents

Hmm? Why doesn't that jive with the book? My parents voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, even though they are economically left leaning (proponents of the Welfare state, regulations on business, etc). Heck, these are the people the Dems would court if they could just get the pro choice and glbt crowd to be a little quieter.

I'm saying that Bush HAS catered to the Evangelical crowd. He's a born-again Christian himself. Being against gay marriage and abortion and promoting Intelligent Design was enough for these people, and Bush did all of those things.

Ah, I see. I guess there is question about the sincerity of his efforts, but seing as how parties got what they desired, it doesn't seem like much to make a fuss about, eh?

Yeah who knows. The system is screwed up for everybody. The democrats and republicans have ass-fucked it all to hell.

Using people’s faith for callous partisan gain? Big fucking surprise.

There was a very interesting show on “Here & Now” on NPR today about two authors who had written a book about faith-based charities operating in the third world and how the people there basically have no respect for the separation of church and state that they are supposed to following (being that a great deal of the money they’re working with is from the federal gov’t). They view their mission as to spread Christianity, many have no education about the separations they are supposed to be following so they don’t follow them at all, and many are more than happy to let the uneducated people with whom they are working believe that the advances of modern medicine that are saving their lives and making their existence better are the work of God and/or Jesus.

There was a lot of talk about how Bush used rhetoric about faith-based charities being discriminated against in order to rile up Christian voters, but in fact they were not being discriminated against at all (unless being told that you can’t spread Christianity at a meal they are providing or a clinic they are running counts as discrimination). Many large national religious conferences have even been critical of the programs and the groups that are benefiting from them, and we’re talking about the Southern Baptist Convention here, not some pinko lefty homosexual churches.

This whole church-state mixing shit just makes me sick.

Are these charities based in the US or the third world countries?

I'm not so hot on Federal funding for these types of groups, but for better and worse these are some of the biggest and most effective charities in the third world. Damn them if you want for their priorities, but you just don't see this level of activity from non religious organizations.

US, as far as I could tell from the story. I don't think they could have received money under this program if they were not.

You would if they had the religious groups' funding. Mind you, a lot of the reason they have the funding they have is because of private donations from good-hearted people, but they are also taking large gov't grants as well, which SHOULD subject them to certain rules.

And the Bush changes have not made it any easier for Christian (I'd say "religious", but we all know what the truth of the matter is) charities to provide aid. They have merely made it easier for them to spread their religion while doing so.

Yep, totally with you there. There's no reason why they can't take government money and use it only for certain programs and work by set rules, and they use their own money for the religious side of things. Sure, they might find it restrictive, but there's absolutely no reason they should be seeing a dime of government money if they can't keep the Jesus out of basic services.

But if you don't let them talk about Jesus whenever and to whomever they wish, then you're restricting their First Amendment rights!!!

They can talk about Jesus whenever they damn well please - if it ain't on Uncle Sam's time. Why on earth can't they make this important distinction?

When Jesus is in your heart and wants to come out your mouth, you don't argue with him about whose time it is. All time is His.

Here's a great article by John Dean, Nixon's White House Counsel (no pinko leftist).

Please read this, I guarantee you will LOVE what it has to say (unless you're a follower).


http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dean/20061020.html

----
David Kuo's Book "Tempting Faith": The Author's Agenda, the Authoritarian Behavior He Reports, And the White House's Response
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Oct. 20, 2006

David Kuo, the former deputy-director of the Bush White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, recently published a book, Tempting Faith. The book's most controversial claim is that members of the Bush administration have been privately trashing some of the very Religious Right leaders who helped put them in power.

For example, Kuo told "60 Minutes" that he had heard people in the White House political affairs office, Karl Rove's operation, refer to Pat Robertson as "insane," call Jerry Falwell "ridiculous," and say that James Dobson "had to be controlled."


In this column, I'll consider claims that Kuo must have a hidden political agenda, analyze the implication of the badmouthing of the religious right by Rove's team, and consider the Administration's responses to Kuo.

What Is David Kuo's Hidden Political Agenda -- If He Has One?

First, let's consider the question of what Kuo's hidden agenda, if any, might be.

It's a question that's being asked by countless Republicans who want to know what prompted a former White House insider (in an administration that is highly intolerant of dissent, and adverse to giving outsiders an inside look) to write (and speak out) about the hypocrisy of Bush's political operatives -- especially just before the midterm election? In theory, Kuo, a committed Christian and a Republican, ought to seek to keep the Republicans in Congress, not to torpedo their chances come November.

When CBS News asked Kuo about his motives, he said he had been greatly disappointed with what he saw as the gap, recurring time and again, between what Bush promised his Evangelical Christian supporters and what he actually delivered. This disparity, Kuo said, had "been gnawing at both him and his wife since 2003, when [Kuo] learned he had a malignant brain tumor, and left politics for good."

When asked by "60 Minutes" about whether he anticipated his colleagues would attack him, Kuo responded, "Of course they will. I can hear the attacks, right? 'Oh, he's really a liberal.' or, 'Oh, maybe that brain tumor really messed up his head.' Or, you know, 'He's an idealist.'" Regardless, Kuo says, "I'm fine with it."

There's really no reason, then, to think Kuo has any hidden political agenda. He's admitted his disappointment in the Bush Administration. And he's sought out the best forum possible -- a book where he can set forth the details of how he believes Bush and his aides are politically manipulating Christians -- at the best time, to call attention to his inside knowledge to those who share his beliefs. His agenda seems to be the simple one he claims: To convey to his fellow Christians how much he feels the Bush White House has let them down.

Kuo notes that -- unlike the Bush White House, and the Republican National Committee -- he does not believe that Jesus should be reduced "to some precinct captain, to some get-out-the-vote guy." But that, however, Kuo says, is exactly the Republicans' belief: "This message that has been sent out to Christians for a long time now: that Jesus came primarily for a political agenda, and recently primarily a right-wing political agenda -- as if this culture war is a war for God. And it's not a war for God, it's a war for politics. And that's a huge difference," says Kuo.

As these revelations by David Kuo were surfacing, I was exchanging emails with Bob Altemeyer, a social scientist who brings four decades of research to bear on understanding the behavior both of the Bush White House, as well as with Evangelicals who are being manipulated by Bush and his aides. Altemeyer was too unique a source to not probe him about these activities.

The Behavior Kuo Has Reported In the White House Is Typical of Authoritarians

Altemeyer is a Yale-trained social psychologist who teaches and pursues his research at the University of Manitoba. Altemeyer has studied authoritarianism for the past 40 years, and is considered by his peers to be a leading authority on the subject, not to mention a cutting-edge researcher in the field.

Those who have read my latest book, Conservatives Without Conscience, will be familiar with his work, and the fact that I have been encouraging him to write about his research for the general reader. (I also discussed the theory of authoritarian leadership, in conjunction with the Bush Administration, in a prior column.) Happily, Altemeyer has recently completed a book-length work, The Authoritarians, which provides a non-technical account of his findings, suitable for the general reader.

Based on my exchanges with Altemeyer, I have assembled the following Q & A:

Q: The Bush White House gave religious leaders smiles and hugs up front, but then called them "nuts," "ridiculous," "goofy," "out of control," and so on behind their backs. Does this surprise you?

A: No, not at all. In fact, I wrote about just such behavior in my manuscript for The Authoritarians. So it must be true.

Q: You predicted this very thing would happen?

A: Well, no. But one can reasonably predict that Bush Administration officials will have a low opinion of the people they so successfully manipulated into supporting them. Adolf Hitler -- a worst-case but textbook example -- showed the disdain of all authoritarian leaders for their supporters when he said, "What good fortune for those in power that people do not think."

Q: You're not saying the Bush administration is full of Nazis, so I am not sure I get the point?

A: I'm saying, as you have discovered, that it has a lot of people with authoritarian personalities. Let me explain for your readers, or those who have not read your new book. There are two kinds of authoritarians, whom researchers can identify by their answers to certain personality tests. There are people who become leaders in authoritarian movements, and there are their followers. The leaders have stronger drives for personal power and they are also pretty amoral. Compared with most folks, they admit, when answering surveys anonymously, that manipulating others, exploiting the gullible, intimidating, cheating, and being a hypocrite are all justified if they get you what you want. They say one of the best skills a person can develop is the ability to look someone straight in the eye and lie convincingly. They say the world is full of suckers who deserve to be "taken" because they are so stupid. All in all it sounds like the game plan for how Bush won Ohio in the last election.

Q: Democrats, of course, do these things too. Republicans don't have a monopoly on lying, cheating, and playing people for suckers.

A: Good point. No, they certainly don't. These power-hungry dominators will join anything and say they believe in anything to get what they want. But studies find that conservative politicians are much more likely to have this kind of personality than liberals are. Why? Because they usually have conservative economic and political beliefs. But more importantly, they head for the right because that's where the great majority of
authoritarian followers are concentrated, looking for a leader.

Q: Why on the right?

A: The followers have a great desire to submit to established authority. They're also highly conventional, and they have a lot of aggression in them, which studies show comes primarily from being fearful. One of the classic reactions to fear is to fight, and the followers will attack when their authorities tell them to. They love to feel part of a "great movement" in solidarity with others on the move. They are very zealous. They usually are also highly religious, in a fundamentalist sense at least, and studies show they lead the league in self-righteousness. As we have discussed in the past, while there may be such people on the left, they are pretty rare compared with the number we find on the right.

Q: Why do these authoritarians follow amoral, hypocritical, deceitful liars?

A: Because of one of their great vulnerabilities, which the manipulative dominators exploit. Authoritarian followers have basically copied the ideas of the authorities in their lives. They haven't thought about things to any great degree and then decided what they believe in. To maintain their beliefs in a world of challenging discoveries and conflicting beliefs, they associate as much as possible with others who agree with them. They travel in small circles, getting booster shots of faith from one another. They rely upon social support, rather than evidence or logic, to keep on believing what in many cases they've simply memorized. But this makes them quite vulnerable to manipulators who tell them what they want to hear. Experiments show that they're so glad to find another person who will tell them that they are right, that they don't consider that the newcomer might have ulterior motives. All you have to do to get into their "in-group" is tell them they are right, even if you don't believe a word of it. Since the in-group is made up of followers clinging to each other and looking for a leader, it's pretty easy for an unscrupulous person to take over-- provided he can outmaneuver the other dominators trying the same thing.

Q: So the followers are "suckers" -- so to speak?

A: Well, faith-healers and various enterprising evangelists have been playing them for suckers for a long time. Lately political strategists have seen how rich the takings are, and jumped in. They mobilized the Religious Right, which has become the most potent force in American politics. Its rank and file is very organized, very energetic, very devoted, and earnestly does what it is told by its authoritarian leaders.

Q: You're saying then that, ironically, if the Religious Right has its way, the White House and Congress will be filled with amoral people.

A: Yes, I am, although of course there would be exceptions. And I'd say the proof is already right in front of us. When did we ever have a president who insisted on having the "right" to torture people, or a Congress that voted for it? How often have we had an administration deciding it could suspend habeas corpus and other constitutional guarantees, and Congress going along? And you can see this amorality on the individual level. Look at the members of the House of Representatives who have been convicted of crimes lately. Or look at the list of the 20 most corrupt members of the House compiled by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics. Every one of these lawmakers got high marks for his voting record from the James Dobson/Tony Perkins Family Research Council. That's not a coincidence. There's this remarkable, actually weird but understandable, connection between being corrupt and being elected by the Religious Right. The crooks head for the Religious Right. The gullible rank and file don't realize this. But they send far more than their fair share of bribe-taking, influence peddling, money laundering, lying scoundrels to executive mansions and legislatures election after election."

Q: Do you think that may change?

A: Maybe it will. Maybe books such as Mr. Kuo's will turn on the lights. But who comprises the bulk of that third of the American population who still think President Bush is doing a good job? We know from studies that authoritarian followers are incredibly dogmatic and quite capable of ignoring facts they don't like. So maybe someone can fool some of the people all of the time.

Reactions of the Authoritarians In the Bush White House To Kuo's Disclosures

Q: Based on our prior discussions, and your extensive research, I have a multi-part question: the Religious Right, and the various evangelical movements, are highly authoritarian. So (1) how are they likely to respond to being called nuts, insane, etc. by people in the White House they were working to help? And (2) what will they do to David Kuo -- thank him, or join the White House effort to discredit him?

A: Most authoritarian followers are not likely to find out that people in the White House talk about their religious leaders this way, unless the particular leaders make a big deal out of it. They're not likely to read Kuo's book, nor follow the news relating to his revelations. If they saw the segment on "60 Minutes," they might be troubled; but when followers get troubled, they don't typically investigate further, but instead look for reassurance from their authorities. It comes from being a follower.

The answer to the second question follows pretty directly. They're not going to thank David Kuo for his revelations, if they do hear about them. These are unpleasant revelations, and besides, Kuo has broken one of the basic norms of an authoritarian movement: group solidarity. As well, authoritarian followers are highly ethnocentric, and they would handle Kuo the same way they handled Tom DeLay, "Duke" Cunningham, Bob Ney, Thomas Foley, and so on. They will simply chip them off from their in-group: "They weren't really Us." If that seems impossible to you, remember that authoritarian followers are still likely to believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and helped organize the 9/11 attacks.

Q: Finally, explain why your answers are not your opinions, but rather conclusions you draw from empirical research?

A: It's probably more accurate to say my answers are based on scientific studies that dealt with these issues in general. But yes, I and others have conducted many, many surveys and run lots of experiments to see how authoritarian leaders and authoritarian followers think and act in various situations. There really is a lot of agreement in all these studies, and they lead to some scary insights. What is coming to light in books such as Mr. Kuo's, and Mr. Woodward's State of Denial, and especially in your book, Conservatives Without Conscience, is a documentation of how relevant and "on the mark" these studies are. If the Democrats take control of the House after November, we're probably going to have a lot more confirmations from the investigations that will be undertaken.


John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.

Interesting article, thanks for posting it. I recently saw and studied Triumph of the Will, the Nazi propaganda film from the 30's. Basically all these crazy supporters aligned themselves with Hitler and the Nazi party because they thought the leaders had a sense of divinity to rescue them. Most of these people were working-class farmers and laborers who became enthralled with the idea of leaders having supreme authority that they themselves could identify with. The leaders conjured up old German folklore to appeal to their emotions. We're not talking about an American master-race here, although I'm sure they are feeling sentimental for old Christian traditions to make them feel empowered in some fashion. I suppose I could go into more detail but I'm about to go out to dinner. It's not quite the same thing in this situation, but some frightening parallels exist. They're promoting such ideology for their own personal gain, whether they actually believe what they believe or not.