NEWSWEEK: How are you dealing with the firestorm your book has sparked?
David Kuo:When this thing [excerpts from an early copy] started appearing on Keith Olbermann [on MSNBC], my jaw was just wide open. Every part of my 6 foot 5 inch body was on the floor. I’ve written a very profoundly personal, political and spiritual memoir here. This was a very, very hard book to write. It required an enormous amount of very painful soul-searching and I don’t think it has been well captured by Mr. Olbermann and all the subsequent media.
What hasn’t been captured well?
It’s not a scathing critique by a disgruntled former federal employee. I have no anger towards my former colleagues or towards anyone else. Part of what made this so difficult to write is the amount of respect I have for my former colleagues. I like and respect them.
It was also a real challenge to try and tell the entire story, my own intimate story about what happens when you struggle with God and politics—and politics wins. I think one of the things that drove me was feeling the urgent need to tell people, particularly Christians, I suppose, that politicians look at any constituency with very cold eyes. They form constituencies to form a governing coalition. That isn’t a bad thing; that’s just what they do. And I think Christians have come to this notion that this White House is somehow their fellow parishioners with them, and that is simply not the case. I am shocked, frankly, by the White House response that it [the faith-based agenda] hasn’t been political. That is the other side of absurd, and fundamentally misleading.
White House officials say they are flummoxed by your book and don’t understand your motives for writing it. Why did you write it?
Part of the problem is that everybody is reacting to five or six quotes out of a 100,000-word book, and reacting to it being put out three weeks before an election. The timing of this book, and when it came out, was certainly not my choice. Why now is something to ask my publisher.
But why did you write the book?
I wanted to write it because I felt like there’s a seduction that goes on of Christians in politics. It’s hardly new, but it’s right now extremely troubling. Frankly, the other reason is that in my experience at the White House, the single greatest progress we ever made on the compassion front was after John DiIulio did a controversial Esquire article. After that occurred—and I go into this in great detail in the book—the White House paid more attention to the compassion agenda in the 48 or 72 hours after that than they ever paid in the 2-and-a-half years that followed. I’m an optimist and a big believer in the president’s agenda, especially on poverty.
There’s a very personal reason as well. I have three very young daughters and none of us know how long we’re going to live. I am acutely aware of that given my health status.
You had a brain tumor while at the White House, right?
Yes. And there’s still a bit of a tumor in my head, which is sub-optimal. I wanted my daughters to have a record of what I thought of very important things in my life. God and politics are two of them.
When it comes to the disparaging comments made by White House officials about Christian leaders, you didn’t name names. Why not?
I didn’t want this to be personal. There was a lot that I could have said and thought about saying. But I didn’t want this to become some personal battle because the point of this was in the context of having Christians understand that this is a political White House, interested in political things.
Christian leaders close to the White House say they don’t mind the politics as long as they can get things done.
But do the tens of thousands of Moms and Dads who firmly believe they are giving their money because they are concerned about their spiritual causes—do they understand this stuff?
At what point do you become so captive to one particular political party that you lose your influence and your power? One of the things I talk about in the book is we had these regional conferences and one of them was held two weeks before the general election in Miami. And the White House can somehow say that isn’t political?
These conferences are powerful because these African-American churches say no-one from the White House has ever come to them before. The Democrats took advantage of the African-American churches and they lost their power to influence the party. Do evangelicals really want to go down that route?
You also talk about funding going to political cronies rather than religious groups that were effective. Can you explain what happened?
To the degree it occurred it was almost by default. The idea that the White House was controlling it isn’t correct. It’s more disturbing because it reveals the degree to which grant writers and grant reviewers—and the other political appointees—so understood the political nature of the initiative that it went to them by default.
Are Christian leaders being naïve in their dealings with the White House or do they understand the nature of the exchange?
It’s a little bit of both. In some ways White House power is like [J.R.R.] Tolkien’s ring of power. When you put it on, it feels good and it’s dazzling. But after a while it begins to consume you in ways you don’t realize. That’s the nature of White House power. I have no doubt that Christian political leaders have gotten involved for all the right reasons. I just think over time it becomes harder and harder to stand up against that ring of power and the White House, to say no and walk away.
The Christian political leaders have been seduced. If you look at their comments that they know what they’re doing, I’m not quite sure how to read that—is it wonderful or a little troubling? That’s one of the reasons I call for this fast from politics.
I’m not saying that Christians shouldn’t vote, which is going around on Christian talk radio. But for a period—I personally think it should take two years from after this election to the presidential election—evangelical Christians should take a fast from giving their money to political causes and from giving much of their time as well. Take that money that is currently fueling all those wonderful hate-filled ads, the hundreds of millions being spent, and spend that money on the poor and inner-city kids. Instead of spending time lobbying, spend your time with your neighbor, saying love your neighbor as yourself.
Were you naïve or seduced by political power?
I believe in the power of ideals. But I also worked for the CIA. To accuse me of starry-eyed idealism is convenient but not accurate. I know what it’s like to face down life-threatening disease and that robs you pretty quickly of naivety. But I hope, and I believe, and I am an optimist.
The White House says your resignation letter was positive. They can’t understand why you’re so critical now.
If you read the letter, it’s noticeable for what I say. I said I was proud of everything the office has done. There’s nowhere in the book where I say the office is the problem. We were the little engine that could. But we had to fight so hard against the White House.
You don’t question the president’s faith. So why do you think he didn’t deliver on his faith-based agenda? Was he being cynical or didn’t he know what was going on?
I’ve struggled with this for a long time. George W. Bush is a really good, caring person—a caring, compassionate man. He’s unbelievably empathetic for the people around him who are hurting. But President Bush is the head of the GOP. He’s leader of the government. He’s either the perpetrator or the victim of the modern presidency. He’s a politician and politicians make strategic decisions. In that context, our work wasn’t a political priority.
That suggests it wasn’t his personal priority either.
I think at the end of the day, the personal part is that he wanted salvation for people. The personal man wanted salvation for others and the political man didn’t make it a priority.
Maybe he has a split personality.
Maybe all politicians do.
Seduction of Christians
Reply With Quote
Re: Seduction of Christians
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Bookmarks