Berkley Center

As I prepared for Tuesday’s Republican debate I set out my Faith and Values Pundit’s Kit which consists of a Bible and a bowl of pretzels. While the snacks were groped repeatedly, the Bible remained unmolested. For this GOP event--unlike few others that I can recall--was virtually bereft of any scriptural citations, religious references, or God Talk. A milestone in Party history? A sign of coming change? Maybe. Maybe not. The explicit purpose of the debate, after all, was to discuss economic issues. Much to their credit the candidates stuck to the script (also to be lauded were co-moderators Chris Matthews, Maria Bartiromo, Jerry Seiband and John Harwood) who asked intelligent, thoughtful, and occasionally quirky questions all the while making sure that the proceedings chugged along briskly). Save Sam Brownback’s reference to the importance of nominating a pro-life candidate for president, none of the candidates seemed particularly interested in trotting out their religiously tinged applause–getters. Rudy Giuliani did not remind us about the influence that the Catholic Church has had on his life. Instead, he spent a good part of the evening attacking Hillary Clinton (a strategy which indicates that he has graciously accepted his party’s nomination).

Mitt Romney--who caught on to this ploy half way through the debate and started himself attacking the senator from New York--never once cited scripture. He did not need to. As a highly successful CEO he knows a thing or two about economic issues and he seemed quite comfortable discussing them.

No references to a “Christian nation” were heard from John McCain. The senator from Arizona has signaled often to Evangelicals in the past few weeks that he wants their support. But not in this debate. And Fred Thompson, looking pensive and calm, did not seize the opportunity to point out that our rights come from God.

On the basis of the rhetoric heard at the debate one would have thought that this was the old Republican Party, the party of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller III in the pre-Moral Majority era.

Which begs the question, why? One explanation has to do with the content of the debate. The economic issues facing the American people do not lend themselves easily to chapter-and-verse citations. After all, it is hard to find biblical proof texts pertaining to ethanol subsidies. Then again, the scriptures do have a few things to say about taxes and none of those associations were drawn.

Maybe this demonstrates that during the Fourth Great Awakening religious conservatives devoted far more attention to social and cultural issues than economic ones. As Democrats are quick to point out, religious Republicans never did forcefully address the scriptures’ messages on poverty, preferring instead to concentrate on homosexuality and abortion.

Whatever the case may be, Tuesday’s debate permitted voters to ponder what the Republican Party might look and sound like if Conservative Christians make good on their threat to take their business elsewhere.