Jesus Factor, Religion, Bush, and their rise and fall in his campaign

Jesus Factor was truly informative on portraying both an absolutely cunning and brilliant political strategy as well as the soon to follow issue of the separation of church and state in a neutral manner. To me, it made me question just where secular values end, and total religious devotion begins. I feel that the different aspects of President Bush’s political career should be observed under different lenses. One cannot judge the rule of a reasonably homogenous state, a brutal modern campaign against opponents from all parties, a year of peacetime rule, and also seven years of war with various powers across the globe in the largest commitment of manpower since Vietnam, all from the same perspective.
I feel that each of the said aspects should be examined on a case-by-case basis. With his religion itself, I personally find no problem and even perhaps admirable. He shed a life of alcoholism in order to make a name for himself as well as rebuild his family, so while he may not be the material rags to riches story, he is definitely, in my opinion, the undertaker of a psychological one. When he was running for governor in Texas under a religious banner, I do not begrudge him. It was a brilliant political move, and by no means “dirty.” Though some may consider it cynical, I do not share that view because this religion actually personally aided him, and even then, if it is hypothetically cynical, at least it’s a long shot from the attacks that are common in many other elections. He may have partaken in some attacks of course, that is the nature of politics, but no where did that election descend to the level of mudslinging that becomes more and more common.
Once he did assume power, I was personally taken aback by his declaration of Jesus day, and although I think it was very iffy with regards to the First Amendment (although not unarguably so), it was by no means damaging or malicious to Texas. In fact as far as I’m concerned the influence was very positive. Setting aside 1 day a year to encourage people to give is by no means a bad thing. Add that to the fact that the day simply celebrates values preached by a very brilliant teacher not unlike Martin Luther King Jr., rather than try segregate or differentiate between Christians and non-Christians in a tangible way makes me feel that Jesus Day is very benign. Finally, due to Texas’s nature as an overwhelmingly pious and religious state, the Day had almost no people to be offended by it, even if it were offensive to begin with.
In addition, his faith based welfare system’s was another federal program. The arguments against it are the same as that of Jesus Day – both vague and intangible for all practical aspects. On the other hand, it tremendously boosted private charities of all faiths doing a tremendous amount to save others as he had been saved from alcoholism. Finally, despite the portrayal of him representing almost exclusively Evangelicals, the fact remains that he operated Texas well in all respects. He attempted to harness wind energy, lowered taxes, and in the end, he was an extremely popular governor. He won reelection by a crushing landslide. All though it is an analogy I personally hate to draw, I could almost see the parallel between him and Sarah Palin.
Then as he began his race against firstly, other Republicans, and then after that, Democrats, proving his political genius again and again. Once again I accept his actions here as valid and very much genius in the field of politics. By appealing to your voters views, religious or not, you are by no means violating any amendment, and for any politician to talk completely straight to those he hopes to sway is more than just folly, it is suicide. However, contradictory as it may sound, Bush has been able to talk, in a cunning fashion, directly to all his voter bases. With answers such as “Jesus,” yet mottos such as “Compassionate Conservative,” he was able to appeal to everyone from Reagan Democrats, to Rockefeller Republicans, to the religious right.
It is in my opinion that his true mistake took place when he first entered his seat of presidency though. It is one thing to take risky and controversial steps when you have the backing of almost everyone in your state, it is entirely different to do so in a nation as heterogeneous as ours – it will both divide the nation as well as cripple it on issues that matter far less in the grand scheme. He has also spoken boldly and aggressively declaring many of his enemies evil (which I agree with on the whole without taking religious connotations into account), in the same manner as Ronald Reagan but not with the same sort of support. It is one thing to declare a nation an “evil empire” when almost everyone in America agreed with you, it is entirely different to declare nations an axis of evil when they pose no threat to you and you have even supplied them. His religious overtones may have appealed to the Christian American voters, but I am of the opinion that he should have left it at that. Once he took his religious values into a world where Christianity was the minority and, indeed, losing its dominance among the New England and San Francisco elite in America, he made two grave mistakes – bring his religion into international politics, and doing something so radical without complete domestic support. It is one thing to represent simultaneously both his voters and the residents of his state as he did in Texas, it is entirely different when you are only elected by single digits but still must represent everyone, and in that, he failed, especially with regards to religion.
In the end I think one must examine the context before judging whether religion is playing a proper role in Bush’s political life. When representing a homogeneous community, it matters little and does pretty much no harm. When applied to the campaigning trail, it is even more legitimate because the first amendment specifically refers to laws the government makes and a candidate for any position is not exactly making laws yet. Furthermore I think it is a necessity in the political battlefield because every side needs all the votes it can get. However, when the population represented is not uniform, or when the people on the receiving end of have radically different or even fanatical and violent views, it has no place for it can cause true damage there. Religion is indeed a vital tool in politics, but it would take someone of Bush’s piety with Reagan’s cunning to truly use it to its full potential.