On Strange Bedfellows and Their Limitations in the Sack

It’s beyond trite to say that there is a divide between the secular left and the religious right in this country. Hackneyed societal observation, surely unworthy of this august corner of cyberspace. Perhaps you could find something about it in the New York Times. What’s worse, it’s not even accurate.

It is becoming better understood that these supposedly polar opposite constituencies have partnered with significant success over the past decade to achieve mutually desired results, particularly in the international sphere. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom came into being in 1998 because of this seemingly strange alliance between evangelicals and human rights advocates. The International Trafficking of Women and Children Victim Protection Act of 2000 came into being because of cooperation between the Grillmaster’s old boss, Sen. Paul Wellstone and Christian Coalition favorite son, Sen. Sam Brownback, who on paper would seem to give Felix and Oscar a run for their money as ultimate Odd Couple. As the crisis in southern Sudan deepened at the turn of the millennium, involvement from evangelical leaders and secular human rights advocates played a crucial role in brokering a peace deal that has endured reasonably well in that part of the country.

Why bring this up? Well, it’s interesting in its own right, but additionally it may have an interesting domestic analogue in the not-so-distant future. While it is impossible to imagine the secular left and religious right partnering on abortion or gay marriage, one issue may soon provide some common ground domestically: the death penalty.

The left has long resisted the death penalty. While many mainstream politicians lack the courage to oppose it publicly, particularly in the wake of the beating Candidate Dukakis took on the issue in 1988, the activist base against the death penalty has been decidedly lefty (although not at all secular) in its groundings. As Pope John Paul II became clearer in his statements opposing the death penalty in the context of a modern, Western nation-state, Catholic activists in particular found strength and moral power in his words.

In contrast, the Christian Right has generally been the bulwark of death penalty support. Evangelicals have generally either mustered Old Testament arguments in favor of the death penalty, or New Testament arguments drawn from Paul that one should defer to the laws of the state. Conservative Catholics have been more divided, and tended in practical terms to focus their efforts on culture of life efforts that inspired more clear unity, namely around abortion and end of life issues.

It is this conservative Catholic voice that has been changing tone recently. First Things, the undeniably smart journal of conservative Christianity, put an anti-death penalty argument by editor Jodi Bottum as its lead article in August/September. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops launched a campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty in the last year. And just yesterday, at their 2005 Annual Meeting, the bishops approved the most clear-cut statement yet opposing the death penalty in all cases in this country, and calling openly on American Catholics to work to end this barbaric practice. It is titled A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death, and well worth reading. Groups like William Donohue’s ultra-conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights have yet to respond, but I’d expect them to in the coming days.

So a few questions emerge. First, can growing conservative Catholic discomfort with the death penalty pressure conservative evangelicals to rethink their defense of it? It was the evangelical movement that was particularly mobilized in each of the three instances of international cooperation I detailed at the start. Second, will conservative Catholics like Donohue actually put their weight into this push, or will they pay it lip service while focusing almost all their energy on that unholy trinity of abortion, gay marriage, and assisted suicide? And third, if the conservative base actually becomes mobilized around the issue, will conservatives and liberals be able to cooperate as they have on international issues?

Unfortunately, I think it unlikely that conservative evangelical leaders will be engaged by this project, no matter how hard Catholics may push. Why this pessimism? One word: Darfur. While evangelical leaders showed admirable engagement when brokering agreement around the conflict in Southern Sudan, they have done disappointingly little as the crisis has moved into the Western, and less Christian, part of the country. In my opinion this indicates that these evangelical leaders, like most political actors, are willing to cooperate when interests align directly, but are uninterested in having those interests challenged or altered by outside forces. For the sake of that always sought after culture of life, I hope I’m wrong.