My Story of Persusion, Ralph Reed and a Most Favored China

Information can be power, and the use and practice of persuasion at a public relations agency includes many layers of decisions and choices unseen and usually unappreciated by those outside of the industry.

This is certainly true when the agency is involved primarily in the Christian community, and is seeking to make decisions that are in concert with Christian ethics.

I say all this because my name was in the newspaper Sunday. A long investigative story on the front page of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, includes references to my role in using the skills and persuasion of the agency I was with at the time—The DeMoss Group—to help gain Christian and conservative support of Most Favored Nation status for China in 1998.

It’s a long story, and I think an interesting story, about Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, former chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, and now a political consultant and candidate for Lt. Governor of Georgia. The AJC is writing a lot about Reed these days; this article is about his stealthy ways and use of connections in the Christian community.

In 1998, Reed was our client for a campaign, in which I pulled together a group of missionary organizations who were working in China and would also agree with a statement that it was better for mission work in China if it was open to world trade instead of closed and isolated.

I named this group the Alliance of Christian Ministries in China, and used the group’s identity for some hard-ball publicity, advertising, and lobbying.

I don’t have time to tell you the whole story now, but the AJC article looks at a lot of the details. And it reports on the full-page ad that Reed ran with the ACMC name without telling us—arousing the ire of the Dalai Lama and effectively ending our professional relationship.

It was a long time ago. It’s now hard to imagine China as an isolated giant. And there are still layers of decisions about the use of persuasion and stealthy—some would say deceptive—means to accomplish a laudable mission.


--James Jewell

Evangelicalism Broadens Its View and Its Impact

There’s a marvelous article by John Cochran this week in Congressional Quarterly (CQ Weekly; subscription needed) that captures the maturing and broadening of the evangelical public agenda. It is a refreshing consideration of the issues of evangelicals concern, in addition to pro-life and pro-family (anti-homosexual rights) matters.

The article takes a closer look at the emerging evangelical environmentalists, who are making a significant contribution in this area, but one that is different than the agenda of the secular crowd that has dominated this issue.

At a time when the evangelicals’ bargain with fiscal and movement conservatives in the Republican Party has been shaken by opposition to the Miers nomination, they are increasing their interest and activities in issues such as creation care, global poverty, and international human and religious rights, while maintaining their orthodoxy of faith and pro-business spontaneity.

CQ asks if the covenant will crack:

“The bargain that brought evangelical activists into the Republican Party was this: They would support the low-tax, small-government agenda of fiscal conservatives, who had long been the bedrock of the GOP, and fiscal conservatives would support evangelicals on the cultural and social issues that matter most to them. There’s lots of interplay between the two camps, but at its most basic, what they had in common was that the Democratic Party was not addressing their agendas, says University of Texas at Austin political historian Lewis L. Gould, author of “Grand Old Party: A History of Republicans.” That arrangement made the GOP the majority party. But nothing is forever in politics.

And that’s the big reason why the gradual shift in the debate under way among evangelicals is potentially significant, even disconcerting for politicians: Evangelicals are thinking beyond their traditional set of issues, and it’s not clear where it will lead them.”

But unless the national Democrats shift dramatically away from the left margins on a number of issues, it’s not likely a significant number of evangelicals will switch party support. It is more likely that the alliance that has produced majorities will lose its potency and the Republican Party will lose its edge.

The criticism by some conservatives of evangelical support of Miers as one-issue, soft heartedness is doing nothing to prevent this break. And the move by the evangelical middle to embrace the issues in this article may further cook the goose that laid the golden egg.

--Jim Jewell

The Split of the Evangelicals and the Conservative Elite Over Miers

The reinforced cord of ideological conservatives and Catholic and evangelical Christians that helped elect George W. Bush is fraying over the Harriet Miers nomination, to the delight of Democrats.

Although there are many people with feet in both camps, the shots taken at Harriet Miers by the conservative elite rejects any loyalty to their coalition partners, the evangelicals, and shows the natural strains that have been hidden by political common cause.

At its root, visceral opposition by the ideologues of the right isn’t about Miers’ credentials or paper trail, as they would have you believe. It is about the prescription drug bill, irresponsible post-Katrina spending, and others actions that have shown that George Bush is a big government Republican who shows no signs of backing up language that paints him as a fiscal conservative.

The conservatives have been getting madder about that as Bush strays from good fiscal principles, as the war on terror grinds on, and as their support for the President seems less necessary.

They wanted President Bush to nominate a true blue, in-your-face, conservative with a track record that would drive Ted Kennedy crazy; they wanted Bush to prove to the Democrats that they are not in charge.

Instead they got a longtime friend of Bush, a President who they believe has strayed too far off the conservative ranch to be trusted anymore. And they got someone very much like Bush—someone who became a follower of Jesus Christ in midlife.

The President’s plan to nominate someone he knows to be a social conservative, but who won’t have to defend past judicial decisions, was a sound plan. But he didn’t count on the conservative elite calling in its debts and kicking a President who they have come to dislike.

We can’t fall for the nonsense that the nominee should have been the best legal mind in the country, or the very best qualified jurist. In a perfect world, that’s how Supreme Court justices would be chosen. But we’re talking about politics. We’re talking about Washington, D.C.

The Democrats are loving it. The right is taking shots at their favorite target. What an unexpected pleasure.

The evangelicals, on the other hand, have one of their own as a nominee. We don’t know how she is going to come down on eminent domain or the commerce clause. But we have a better sense than anyone that’s come along in a long time that she is going to have a genuine, faith-based interest in protecting life--from conception to natural death. Miers’ Christian faith also will guide her protection of religious freedoms.

The elite has abandoned the evangelicals, whom they consider to be their weak-minded cousins. After all, Bush is one of those evangelical types, and he’s left the fiscally responsible farm. What good are they?

It’s time for the evangelical community to rally support for Harriet Miers. James Dobson was the first to endorse her nomination, but he’s not alone.

Charles Colson issued this statement on Monday:

“I enthusiastically support the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a surprising, but inspiring choice. She is a woman of great integrity, remarkable accomplishment, with a fine legal mind. Ms. Miers will be a great addition to the Roberts court.”

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, who argues regularly before the high court and has a pro-life protest case at the high court this term, went even further in his support: .

“Once again, President Bush showed exceptional judgment in naming Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O’Connor. At a time when the high court is facing some of the most critical issues of the day, including a number of cases dealing directly with abortion and life issues, the person who replaces Justice O’Connor is critical.

“Harriet Miers is an excellent choice with an extraordinary record of service in the legal community and is certain to approach her work on the high court with a firm commitment to follow the Constitution and the rule of law. I have been privileged to work with her in her capacity as White House counsel. She is bright, thoughtful, and a consummate professional and I enthusiastically endorse her nomination.”

Don’t miss the subtlety in Bush’s nomination of Miers. She has plenty of experience and know-how. But he knows her heart, as well. This nomination was for the pro-life evangelicals. He can’t say that, or they’d both be crucified on Capitol Hill. Bush choose a closet pro-lifer. The conservative elite hates it, and the left is going to hate her, the more they dig into her Christian conversion and quiet pro-life activities.

It’s time for the evangelicals to throw their weight behind Miers, or go back to their happy churches and shut up about having a social agenda.

--James Jewell

Standing by Miers and her Evangelical Conscience

I am unabashedly enthusiastic that Harriet Miers has come to faith in Jesus Christ in midlife, and that her evangelical belief will be part of what she brings to her role as a Supreme Court justice, if confirmed. But I do not want to be misunderstood as a Pollyanna Christian who celebrates faith but ignores ability and ideology.

I don’t use the Christian Yellow Pages and, like Martin Luther, I’d rather be ruled by a “competent Turk” than an incompetent Christian. And after working for nearly 30 years in the very bowels of the evangelical community, I know that a person’s Christian faith does not assure competence. Trust me, I know that well.

Anymore than a person’s conservative orthodoxy assures sound moral character.

Those who worship at the feet of William Buckley and see conservatism as life’s guiding light, and particularly those who are more comfortable inside the beltway that inside a church, have decried Miers’ selection and dismissed personal relationships—that the President has with the nominee, and that the nominee has with Jesus Christ—as inferior to a judicial record or a paper trail.

I do not think the evidence of Miers’ evangelical belief is enough to provide comfort to those who want to be assured that she will not slide to liberalism as part of the court. But when I add that to my belief that the President understands the stakes, and he has known Miers as a close colleague for more than 10 years, I am far more comfortable than I am with others who were less known by the Presidents who appointed them (they say President Bush 41 couldn’t pick David Souter out of a lineup).

There’s more certainty on some key issues—such as life issues--with Miers than with Roberts, or many others who could have been chosen. How many Republican evangelicals that you have known for 10 years are pro-abortion?

Trusting the President on Miers, the Evangelical

The nomination of Harriet Miers has created an amusing bipartisan pout in Washington. She has no record that pegs her judicial philosophy, and nothing has surfaced that assures either conservatives or liberals.

That’s disturbing to "David Frum at NRO, who expresses a common sentiment among conservatives in the last 24 hours.

“But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or--and more importantly--that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. . . .I am not saying that Harriet Miers is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely.”

What disturbs Frum and other conservative leaders is that they are being asked to trust the President.

History prevents any bold predictions about what men and women will become when they put on the august robes of the nation’s highest court. Unfortunately, it may be impossible to think of an instance when a justice has drifted to the right.

But I’m choosing to trust President Bush on this, for three reasons:

First, because I believe he understands the importance of righting the Court; and second, because he knows nominee Miers very well. This is not a new face to Bush, vetted by the staff and subjected to a getting-to-know-you session in the Oval Office. Miers has been Bush’s personal attorney, and she’s been a close associate for more than a decade.

Finally, and most intriguing, there are reports that Miers is an evangelical.

J. Grant Swank, Jr writes at the "ArriveNet blog:

"Harriet Miers is said to be a conscientious church-going single. She’s also a workaholic. She’s a determined career woman. She’s trusted by US President George W. Bush. And now she’s been nominated for the highest court in the land. But what is particularly significant is the give-away secret. She’s an "evangelical."

"Focus on the Family CitizenLink includes this:

Former Texas Supreme Court Justice Raul Gonzalez has known the nominee for more than two decades.

"Harriet is an outstanding individual," he told CitzenLink. "She is a born-again Christian and goes to an evangelical church in Dallas. She is a very, very compassionate and able person."

And this in the NY Times:

One thing Ms. Miers shares with her boss is a deep faith. She was introduced to Valley View Christian Church in Dallas by Justice Hecht, of the Texas Supreme Court. He was an elder at the church and often plays the organ during Sunday services.

"Harriet has placed her faith in Jesus," said the Rev. Ron Key, who was the longtime pastor there until recently. "She may have been religious before, but it's become more of a priority, more of a focus of her life. She has become a strong example of what happens in a person's life when they come to the faith."

I’ve heard this from several sources during the last day, but it isn’t something that the White House or Miers will talk up during the confirmation process. It would reassure Christian conservatives, but disturb the secularists who dominate the Democratic Party.

For these reasons, I’m willing to trust Bush on this one.

--James Jewell

One Year on the Rooftop

October 1 marked the one-year anniversary of The Rooftop Blog, our initial foray into the blogging world. We began the blog as an extension of our public relations business, Rooftop MediaWorks, with the intent to build a readership that would be interested in our clients and our services. Measurement is difficult, but it is not likely that the blog has contributed greatly to those goals.

We established the following mission statement for The Rooftop Blog:

“Exploring the news and interplay of the Four Estates--family, church, government, and the media--and the moral imagination of a culture informed by the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

We’ve been able to devote much of the space to materials within these parameters, although at times we’ve written purely on the passion of the day, and in times of political drama, on the politics of the moment.

I enjoy any opportunity to write, and would welcome more time to devote to the blog. As our public relations business has picked up, I have had to chisel the amount of time I spend on the blog. When I began supplementing the PR business by teaching three college courses this semester, my blogging time has decreased more.

But we press ahead and we’ll have times of good productivity and weeks of scarcity.
Like many blogs, we began in the heat of the last presidential election, and some of our best work and numbers came during that season. But there has been much to write since that time, and “interplay of the Four Estates” has been rough and rabid. There is less time than material.

We appreciate those of you who check in regularly. We will continue to write as often as possiible, at least four times a week, we hope.

During our first year, we’ve had 12,334 visitors—a little over 1,000 a month. There are hundreds of blogs that get that many visitors in a day. But then again there are thousands of blogs that don’t, so we appreciate the attention.

In February, I joined four others to begin a group blog, Stones Cry Out. I cross-post the majority of my posts, but because Stones Cry Out has good contributions from (now eight) others, I would think many who enjoy what I write read it at SCO—-so they can read the work of the other contributors, as well. So I have probably drawn traffic from Rooftop, while gaining readership for my own writing. That seems fine for the moment, although I would love to have hundreds of readers at Rooftop, as well. I haven’t found the formula that can create that level of readership.

At least not one that will allow me to keep my day job.

Thanks for one year.

--James Jewell