Christian author’s support for Hillary; and the one-drop rule of conservatism

(Further down in this entry, I discuss the fallacious thinking that leads some conservatives to be surprised that Anne Rice supports the Democratic party, and Vincent C. comments on Anne Rice’s Cafeteria Catholicism.)

Anne Rice, a writer and Christian, announces at her website that, as a Christian, she endorses Hillary Clinton for president. In the 1,300 word long statement, Rice, who is a Christian, does not supply a single coherent argument, though she does inform us in almost every sentence that she is a Christian. She says that she is pro-life, but that the opponents of abortion today are not acting in good faith because there is no way you can force people to have babies they don’t want to have. She says she has no solution to the abortion problem, but adds that, as a Christian, she is convinced that the Democratic party will lead the country to a solution to the abortion crisis.

I would say something about this article, but since Rice says nothing other than that as a Christian she supports Hillary, how can one reply other than by saying that she appears to be mindless?

A reader reminds me that Rice is an extremely successful author of vampire novels, having sold 100 million books. According to Wikipedia:

In 1998, after spending most of her adult life as a self-described atheist, Rice returned to her Roman Catholic faith, which she had not practiced since she was 18. In October 2005, as she reaffirmed her Catholic faith, Rice announced in a Newsweek article that she would “write only for the Lord.” She called Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt, her first novel in this genre, the beginning of a trilogy that will chronicle the life of Jesus.

In an interview with Christianity Today, headlined “Interview with a Penitent”, Rice declared that she will never again write another vampire novel, saying; “I would never go back, not even if they say, ‘You will be financially ruined; you’ve got to write another vampire book.’ I would say no. I have no choice. I would be a fool for all eternity to turn my back on God like that.” Some of her fans reacted with shock to the news of her religious and literary conversion, admonishing her in magazine articles, internet weblogs and reader reviews found on the web. Rice responded in a post on Amazon.com (see below) that stated: “And yes, the Chronicles are no more! Thank God!”

Whether Rice would continue to be a supporter of causes like gay rights (her son Christopher is openly gay) was much debated; she has said that Christianity’s stance on homosexuality was something she wrestled with as she considered converting. She remains a passionate supporter of the rights of homosexuals and their right to participate in religious worship. She was adamant about all her convictions. Her pattern of political contributions since 1998 suggests that she continues to identify with the Democratic Party [2]. For example she endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004 and she opposes the War in Iraq. On August 10, 2007, Ann Rice affirmed her support of the Democratic Party and declared her support for Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President [3].

So, Rice is a liberal Catholic. She supported Kerry for president, now she supports Hillary. What’s the news here? Why are people getting excited? I guess it’s because when a very popular writer about vampires became a Christian and said she would write only for Christ, conservative Christians thought she had switched sides and become one of them. Also, Rice makes a big deal about opposing abortion, which makes her sound conservative. But she also makes it clear that she doesn’t think that anything can be done about abortion for the foreseeable future, and that you can’t stop people from doing what they want. Also, she’s been a strong advocate of homosexual rights all along, including the acceptance of homosexuality by the Catholic Chruch. Which makes her sound like a typical left wing Christian. And left-wing Christians vote for Hillary Clinton.

Here’s the lesson: the fact that someone is not into vampires any more doesn’t necessarily make her a conservative. There a lot of liberals who are not into vampires.

But conservatives fail to grasp this, because they keep being fooled by the one-drop rule of conservatism. The one-drop rule of conservatism says that if a person is non-liberal on one or two issues, he’s a conservative. So the conservatives are shocked when the person turns out to be a liberal. In fact, the reality is just the opposite of the one-drop rule. Because liberalism is the default position of our time, the only way to determine that a person is truly a conservative is that he takes consistently non-liberal positions across the board—and, more importantly, not just on “issues,” but on first principles. If a person says, “I’m a Christian, I’m against abortion, I’m for lower taxes, I’m for national defense, but I believe America should be a level playing field for all beliefs,” then, notwithstanding his conservative position on certain issues, his subscribes to a fundamental liberal principle, a principle that will ultimately trump all his conservative positions on issues. And therefore he is a liberal.

Conservatism says that America has a concrete substance as a country and a culture. Liberalism says that America is a level playing field for all. Many conservatives will dispute my definition of liberalism. They think “level playing field for all” sounds conservative, because it implies basic fairness, equality under the rule of law and other basic American values. And this is correct. The trouble is that “level playing field for all” means much more than those things. It means that America can ultimately have no culture of its own, no moral or religious tradition of it own, no people of its own, because all cultures, all religions, all moralities, and all peoples have an equal right to come and compete here, which in the end will give them the power not just to change our culture, but to change the rules of the playing field as well.

I bring up the idea of “America as a level playing field for all,” because when I heard Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed speak this way about ten years ago, I realized that these supposed right-wing Christians didn’t believe in a Christian or a Christian-majority America, they believed in a liberal America, and I lost all interest in them. And now, proving my insight of ten years ago, Robertson has joined an organization called “Social Conservatives for Giuliani”!

- end of initial entry -

LA writes:

An odd thing about Anne Rice’s pro-Hillary announcement. While she repeatedly describes herself as a Christian, she does not once speak of herself as a Catholic. Moreover, no one reading this would think the author is a Catholic. It’s all about her own emotions as a Christian woman and about the Gospels. Catholics do not emphasize the Gospels first and foremost, they emphasize Church doctrine. So I assumed while reading it that she was an evangelical, and was surprised by the Wikipedia article saying she is Catholic. If anyone can enlighten me on this anomaly I would appreciate it.

Vincent Chiarello writes:

I don’t know Ann Rice personally, but during a trip to the “Garden District” of New Orleans several years ago, our tour guide singled out her house as a fine example of Southern style architecture. Further, unlike many others, I’ve never had the slightest inclination to read and/or buy any of her books. Exorcisms interest me; vampires do not. Finally, I hope I do not appear mean spirited when I say that Rice is free to call herself a Catholic, but she gets away with that claim only, as I have often repeated in these pages, because of the baleful effects of Vatican II. Before 1965, her self-description would have been laughed out of canonical court.

We are, in large part, free to believe what we want. We are “entitled” to our own opinion; we are not, however, entitled to our own facts. I am free to call myself an Abrams tank, but if I cannot prove it, then my assertion is meaningless. I can believe I am Catholic, but the Church, albeit with diminished vigor, calls for “good works” in addition to faith. Can one imagine Waugh, Chesterton et al. saying, “Well, yes, I’m a new Catholic, but sorry, I can’t accept the Magisterium’s teaching on abortion and/or homosexuality? Each time I hear comments similar to Rice’s, they set my teeth on edge.

A good friend once wrote to Newsweek’s political columnist, Howard Fineman, that the Catholic Church is like a club: you join it knowing the rules and living by them. No one coerces you to do so. Ann Rice, it seems, wants it both ways: call herself “a Christian”—in this case, Catholic—but decide what rules she will follow, and those she will not. With no offense—intended or otherwise—to my Protestant brethren, including LA, that is why I have for many years said that Vatican II “Protestantized” the Church, for it now allowed Catholics a range of options as to what they could believe, and how they could act.

The fact that Ann Rice’s son is an open homosexual is a very personal matter, but it does not, or should not, change the rules of the Church regarding his religious status. “Hate the sin, but love the sinner,” has been a long standing Catholic tradition. Homosexuality is still officially considered an objective disorder by the Church, whether Ann Rice likes it or not, but even the Church’s most traditional parishes would never deny restricting homosexual attendance at Mass, given their chastity and observance of the rules of the Church. To believe otherwise is, to be honest, absurd. Finally, how anyone could call himself “Catholic” and claim to be “pro-choice” is beyond my ken.

I mean no personal umbrage when I add the name of Ann Rice to those many “lapsed” Catholics who have “returned” to the Church under their own terms: select what you like, and discard the rest. By acting in that manner they have, essentially, removed the spiritual and Divine sense of what has been handed down for millennia in the teachings of the Church. By their actions, Rice and her compatriots have replaced the Church as Christ’s interlocutors. That is why liberals are so dangerous, not only to any traditional religious body, but, writ large, to the soul of a nation.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 18, 2007 04:38 PM | Send