Salt and Light

Editor's Note: Perhaps no pro-family Christian activist has done more to take their religious beliefs into the public square in recent years than Gary Bauer. After serving for eight years in the Reagan administration, he then took the Family Research Council to national prominence. He resigned as president of the FRC to run for president, participating in a half-dozen national debates and generally elevating discussion of issues related to abortion and other important issues. Bauer was recently in North Carolina to speak at the annual fundraising banquet for Charlotte's Room At The Inn, a Catholic-sponsored home for unwed mothers. Charlotte World publisher Warren Smith spoke with Bauer at Charlotte's convention center just moments before he addressed the group of 1000 gathered for the event.

Warren Smith: A lot of ink has been spilled about what has changed in the country since September 11. I have been wondering whether some of the positive changes will be permanent. My fear is that the negative changes – restrictions on liberty -- might be permanent and some of the positive changes – such as a heightened awareness of the blessings we enjoy – might be temporary. What are your thoughts?

Gary Bauer: The jury is out on whether or not the changes are permanent or not, but one of the most obvious things is that up until September 10 we were talking about cutting the defense budget. Even the Bush administration put a proposal on the table to legalize eight-million illegal immigrants in the country. There were a lot of things going on with both parties that I think reflected a certain softness in thinking about the world and the challenges we face. Now, I think those kinds of ideas are on the back burner for a long time and are not going to be brought up for a very long time.

In the last ten to twelve years we have horrible cut backs on defense and intelligence gathering. We have allowed the borders of the United States to be treated as if they didn't exist. Those things seem to be changing.

The tougher question is whether we are in the midst of a spiritual renewal because of September 11. I hope we are, because that will make a lot more difference in the future of the country than even some of the other important things I mentioned. There are some signs we are in some sort of a renewal. I have a friend who says that even in secular, liberal New York, if you walk around at night, you are almost never out of earshot from someone singing “God Bless America,” which is a pretty amazing thing for New York City. A lot of kids are praying in schools, whether the ACLU likes it or not. There seems to be more of a willingness to publicly express religious faith. We'll see if it continues. I hope it will.

 WS: But you don't sound convinced that we are in the middle of a spiritual renewal.

GB: Well, it's hard to know. The last 30 years of America has been period of cultural decline and there is still is an amazing hostility in some quarters to religion. In fact, American seem to have taken the lesson of Sept 11 that radical Muslims sight their faith that this is proof that faith should never be a motivator in public life which I think is bizarre lessons to get out of all this. I do think the jury is out. I am optimistic that the country is turning back to God, but we will have to wait and see.

WS: On the morning of Sept 11 you were in your car. Did you literally see the plane go into the Pentagon?

GB: Yeah. I was heading into Washington to take part in a press conference on the issue of Sudan, where there is a radical Muslim government, and I was sitting in a traffic jam just outside the Pentagon. The traffic jam hadn't gone 100 yards in 20 minutes when I got the first call about a plane crashing into the World Trade Center, which at the time people thought was an accident. Then -- not that long after, which made it clear it wasn't an accident -- another plane hit, and it was at that moment when I realized I was sitting at the closest point on the road that you could get to the Pentagon. I was less than 100 yards away at that particular exit and many of us in the traffic jam had our windows down. We were comparing notes -- what radio stations we were listening to -- when all of a sudden we heard a roar of a jet engine. I looked out of my front window and I saw movement over to the side. I turned and looked and the plane came from behind us and banked to the right and went into the Pentagon. That blast literally moved our cars, so it was a fairly dramatic moment.

I knew what had happened in New York and I had just seen what happened to the Pentagon. On the radio they were reporting there was flames and fire near the White House. There were a lot of false reports on DC radio stations that morning, so it was clear -- in a dramatic way -- that this was the most significant day that I had ever experienced.

WS: I am not a conspiracy theorist, but that Sudan press conference you were on your way to was going to be a very significant moment in drawing attention to what people call a holocaust or genocide that has taken place by Muslims against Christians in Sudan. Did it ever cross your mind that the timing of the attacks could have been linked to this press conference?

GB: I didn't think about the linkage, but I did think it was ironic that we were going to Capital Hill to try to pressure the Bush administration to impose some really tough economic sanctions on Sudan. It was going to be a big press conference. Probably 50 groups involved, so it is too bad that it didn't happen, but I don't think that press conference was directly related to those events that day.

WS: One of the interesting undercurrents of politics in the days since the attacks has been all the talk of bipartisanship and cooperation. Yet if you drill down below the surface you see that the left has used this time as an opportunity to go undercover and push through some controversial bills -- believing that people would be afraid to oppose them. And you yourself have not been afraid to criticize the administration, particularly Colin Powell. Is all this talk of bipartisanship and cooperation consistent with what you see going on in Washington.

GB: Well, you have raised two things there. First of all, on the domestic front you are absolutely right. Many conservatives in congress have concluded that we had better stay away from the controversial issues like the sanctity of life or opposing the gay rights agenda because those are distractions right now.

Unfortunately, the Ted Kennedy's of the world and the Barney Frank's of the world and the Hilary Clinton's of the world haven't decided to do the same and they have been pushing legislation to extend benefits to same-sex couples and a number of other things.

The elected officials who identify with our cause need to wake up to the fact that there is still a cultural war going on even though we are also involved in an international war against terrorism.

On the Colin Powell issue, almost every time in our history when we are at war, there has been splits within the governing administration. There is a split in the Bush administration, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld tend to be in the branch of the administration to be tough and firm and want to fight this war, and not the way we fought Vietnam, with one hand tied behind our back. Powell, unfortunately, is in reality in much more of a peacenik. When I was in the Reagan administration, Colin Powell fought adamantly to get out of Ronald Reagan's famous Berlin speech the most important line, which was: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Powell said it would insult the Russians and Gorbachev. After a weeklong battle the President finally just told him it's a closed issue. Reagan said, “That is why I am giving this speech, to say that line.” Colin Powell was the one that talked them into not finishing the Gulf War and taking Sadam Hussein out of power. Now we are bedeviled by the fact that Hussein is still there and I think now Powell is now more interested in building this coalition with some countries. That makes no sense in my view than he is in prosecuting the war to a successful conclusion so I have been a critic of him.

WS: What do you think his motivation is for that?

GB: Gosh, I find it harder to get inside someone's heart or head. He's no doubt a decent man, but I just think he is wrong on these sorts of issues. He is also now the head of the State Department, where there is great sensitivity always about the concerns of other nations are but often but not as much interest about the interest of the USA. So in some wayd I think his bureaucracy is sort of his directing what he does on these issues.

WS: While we are on the subject of global affairs, I can't resist asking a couple of questions. Today the issue is not so urgent, but a couple of years ago, when the US was debating most favored nation status for China, you were perhaps the most outspoken opponent. MFN was ultimately approved, and we haven't heard much about it recently. But I can't help but observing that during that time you were almost a lone voice. I say “almost” because our senator, Jesse Helms, agreed with you on that position, and today we face the prospect of losing Helms in the Senate. So my question is this: with Powell at State, and Jesse Helms leaving the Senate, are we facing a major shift in foreign policy, especially as it relates to China.

GB: You know, you paint a pretty bleak picture. I think we do have a major problem with our China policy and once you give them most favored nation status it becomes very difficult to take it away. It is clear they are using the money from the trade to build up their military, which means down the road another American president is going to find himself/herself in a difficult situation.

Now, it won't surprise you that in the case of Senator Helms I think the man is one of a kind. He has fought the good fight year in and year out. He is ridiculed by the eastern media. They can't understand his popularity. He will be sorely missed in DC because he is the kind of man, unlike a lot of politicians, who when things really get tough, doesn't run to the tall grass. He runs to the front line and that is the kind of political figure you want to represent you.

My good friend Elizabeth Dole is a wonderful lady, but she won't be surprised to hear me say she has a long way to go before she can fill those shoes. I don't Mr. Bowles to be in a senate seat, but I hope the voters of North Carolina hold Mrs. Dole's feet to the fire on issues like China and the sanctity of life, and force her to answer those questions directly.

WS: You ran against her. Will she sit still for questions?

GB: Very difficult to get her to. She should have lasted in the Republican presidential race longer than me. I mean, Dole is a household name and her husband's run for president. I was in the race quite a bit longer than her because she couldn't get traction because she wouldn't answer questions and it was a great disappointment to people. I don't think you can run to be a US senator and avoid answering questions.

WS: Speaking of the presidential race, do you have any regrets? Are you glad you ran?

GB: I am glad I ran. I mean obviously this was a life changing event. I was very comfortable at the Family Research Council. I could have put in another 10 or 15 years and have a good retirement. I risked a lot doing this. On the other hand, I was at 5 or 6 national debates. I was able to press the leading candidates on issues that really matter including the sanctity of life. I got known by a lot of people that previously didn't know about my work and, interestingly, today when I travel I am stopped by Christians who thank me for running, and that is very heartening for me. I am stopped by people who will say you know what Mr. Bauer, I am not a Christian, conservative, or a Republican, but I have to tell you, you really made me think about some issues that I had not thought about before in this presidential debate. So if we had that affect and maybe kept Bush on the right path on a couple of issues, I feel like it was worth it, even though my family went through a lot. It's a nasty business. There were a couple of mornings when I would have preferred to pull the cover over my head than get up and face the day.

WS: I think it was Adlai Stevenson who said “any man who would do the things necessary to become president is unfit to serve” or something like that. Was that your experience? I mean, obviously you had a lot of things that were working against you, but let's assume that many of those things weren't working against you, and you were in at the end. There would be enormous pressure to say and do things or to not say and not do things to take you over the top because most of the presidential races have been fairly close.

GB: You know, there would have been but Reagan is my model. I worked for him for eight years. He tried three times for the presidency. In fact two of the times he tried he failed so badly no one remembers. But eventually he won two terms. I don't see any reason to run to try to make a difference if all you are going to do when you get the nomination is be milk toast.

WS: Does that mean you are going to run again?

GB: Oh please. I am going to stay in politics and government and we will see what happens down the road. The other day on Fox News I announced a new project called the Citizens Committee To Win The War. Remarkably, within 10 hours we got over 2,000 phone calls. That will take up a lot of my energy and time in the years ahead.

WS: One more question about the presidential race, and that relates to the way you got out of the race, by throwing your support to John McCain.

GB: I surprised people and probably disappointed people.

WS: I think you did disappoint a lot of conservative Christians and I guess my question is what was your thinking there? Do you regret that decision? Not only because of where McCain stands on the issue, but because if you had supported Bush you could be sitting on the cabinet today?

GB: First, even the competitors of the race that did come out strongly for Bush are not in his cabinet. That is an interesting observation, really, on the president. The Bush family has not tolerated competition very well over the years. I did expect to see Steve Forbes and Alan Keys and people like Elizabeth Dole in the Bush cabinet, and none of them are because at one point they were rivals.

Secondly, I welcome the opportunity to explain why I made that endorsement of John McCain. When I dropped out of the race, it was a toss up. I don't believe either of them are as conservative as I am and I don't think any are as pro-life as I am. I met with them privately and I asked for one thing in exchange for my endorsement, and that was a private commitment that if they were elected president and there was a Supreme Court vacancy, that their judicial nominee would be committed to overturning Roe vs. Wade and ending abortion. Gov. Bush would not then make that commitment to me. Sen. McCain did and in the presence of several witnesses, including a couple members of Christian members of congress. Now he could have been misleading me. He could have reneged on it after he won, but I felt even though I knew I would take a lot of heat, that it was worth taking a chance, particularly since some pro life and pro family leaders had endorsed Bush.

Also, if McCain had become president, we would have been shut out, so I felt it was worth getting a foot in the door, particularly in view of that commitment. I have been disappointed with McCain on a number of things he has done since the election is over. I think he has made a couple mistakes on a couple of issues, but knowing what I knew then and given that I got that commitment from him, I would have done the same thing.

WS: You are here tonight to speak to some committed pro-life people here in North Carolina. We had another pro-life fundraiser recently in Winston-Salem at which Shaun Hannity was the speaker. He stood in front of 1200 pro-life people and said we are focusing too much on Roe vs. Wade. He said that if we had nine pro-life supreme justices today, it would still take ten years to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He said don't give up on Roe, but that this is a battle for the hearts of the American people. He said the reality is Americans are not pro-life to any sort of depth. Many Americans in fact support the current policies on abortion.

GB: Shaun is a good guy, but you should tell that pro-life group to invite me next year because that is a pretty depressing message. I disagree with him. I think the American people are certainly more pro life than the law is. The law represents a radical view of abortion on demand during all nine months of the pregnancy. You can't find more than 10-15% of the American public who thinks that ought to be law of the land. I think hearts and minds have moved a great deal I also disagree with him about Roe vs. Wade. Two good Supreme Court appointees by Bush and this could happen in the next two years.

WS: But then you have to wait for the right case and then it has to work its way through. I think that was more his point than it can take a while.

GB: You know, there are always these cases bubbling up and if you got a couple good appointments it would not be hard for the court to encourage those cases to come to it.

WS: Speaking of judicial appointments, apparently Patrick Leahy and the Judiciary Committee has has blocked more of President Bush appointments in the first year of his presidency than any other Judiciary Committee in history. What does that say about the process?

GB: It says a couple of things. It says that liberal Democrats play hard ball and I don't know how long it is going to take for my party to discover that we can't play by gentlemen's rules when they are going to play by back alley rules. We confirmed Bill Clinton's judicial nominees left and right and many of them should have not been put on the court. The best thing to do at this point is for the president to publicly complain about this point consistently. Do it every week, because most Americans don't know his judicial appointments are being held up. The second thing to do on Supreme Court nominees is line them up. Find 5, 6, 7, 8, people -- all of them we're willing seat on the court, and be prepared to lose a couple of them. I think if you nominate a solid conservative, pro-life jurist and the senate votes him down and you send up another and the senate votes him down and then a third – at some point the senate will blink before the president has to blink. If they are voting people down on the basis of ideology I think the public will react to that. There will be a backlash a lot faster than there would be a backlash against the president as long as he is sending up qualified people that don't have any ethical tax problems or so forth in their background.

WS: Obviously we have this war we are in right now, but what is next for the culture war? What should Christians be most concerned about of the issues that are coming over the horizon.

GB: Certainly restoring protection to unborn children has got to be a major focus. Another issue is resisting the demands of the gay rights movement. You know there is a horrendous effort under to redefine marriage so that men can marry men and women can marry women. It is just incredible to me that we are having a debate about this. I don't think the American people would ever vote for it. But judges can force it on us. We have to do everything we can to resist this.