By David M. Kinchen
Huntington News Network Book Critic
Hinton, WV – In his eye-opening account of a pilgrim’s progress – or rather a lack of it – inside the Beltway, David Kuo’s “Tempting Faith” (Free Press, $25, 304 pages) confirms to me something that I believe is obvious: Politics and religion shouldn’t be mixed.
In fact, at the end of the book, evangelical Christian Kuo seems to come to that conclusion, suggesting a two-year “fast” from engaging in politics for his fellow believers, who should instead support charities that help the poor and the sick. Fasting, he points out, is an integral part of Christianity, it’s good for the soul and body and Jesus was a strong believer in fasting.
The book’s subtitle – “An Inside Story of Political Seduction” – tells a lot about Kuo’s experiences both before and after working for the George W. Bush administration. From 2001 to 2003, he was second in command – deputy director — at the President’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, working closely with the director of the organization, John DiIulio, and with Dilulio’s successor.
As a matter of fact, Dilulio, quoted in a Dec. 4, 2002 Esquire magazine story by Ron Suskind gave more than a hint that the Bush White House was using believing Christians as part of a Karl Rove-designed scheme to secure the voting base of that group. In the article, according to Kuo (Page 219) Dilulio “critiqued the Bush White House for its lack of a serious policy apparatus. Policy wasn’t made by philosophy, John said, but by politics. ‘There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus…’” Kuo said the article went on at “length detailing Karl Rove’s perceived power.”
The cat wasn’t totally out of the bag, but its whiskers were showing in the Suskind article on “Bush’s Brain,” Karl Rove. Dilulio, whom Kuo describes as being a dead-ringer for the Newman character on “Seinfeld,” resigned as director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiative in August 2001, after the six months he had promised to stay were up. He moved back to Philadelphia where he joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania. Kuo worked under Dilulio’s successor, Jim Towey, before leaving in 2003. Towey was Mother Teresa’s U.S. lawyer (I’m not making this up, it’s right there on Page 197!).
“Tempting Faith” is a memoir of the son of a refugee from Communist China, born in 1922, and a devout Christian woman from the Deep South who hated the oppression of minorities of her region. Kuo tells of his brush with death when he discovered he had a brain tumor at the age of 34 – he’s 38 now. It occurred while he and his second wife, Kim McGreery Kuo, were driving home from a party on Washington’s scenic Rock Creek Parkway. Kim managed to avoid traffic and bring their SUV which Kuo was driving to a crashing halt which didn’t harm her. David Kuo was diagnosed with a tumor and was told after surgery that it could reappear at any time.
Second wife for an evangelical Christian? Yes, Kuo says it happens to believing Christians, especially those in workaholic DC. He and his first wife Jerilyn drifted apart and amicably divorced in the late 1990s; but he’s close to the two daughters from the marriage. This is a tell-all book about the cynicism of the staffers in the Bush Administration toward believing Christians, but it’s also an engaging and readable look at Kuo’s life, with only a little about his dot-com interlude (he wrote a book a few years ago called “Dot.Bomb” and is currently the Washington, DC editor of the Beliefnet web site) and his love of fishing, especially professional bass fishing.
He says his father more or less went along with his United Methodist religion, but his Georgia-raised mom was the major influence in making him a devout evangelical. His mother studied nursing at Atlanta’s Emory University, where she grew to hate a profession that discriminated against blacks in the segregated South. She met Kuo’s dad in California while attending college.
About the seduction of Washington, Kuo says (Pages 250-251) that it’s “not just because of the perks, which are nice, but because of the raw power of the place hidden in a true desire to save the world. It is the ring of power from Tolkien’s ‘Lord of the Rings.’ The longer anyone holds the ring the more he loves it, the more he hates it, and the more desperate he is to hold onto it. It becomes the most precious thing in his life…The ring owns, it is not owned.”
That’s one of the most eloquent paragraphs I’ve ever encountered about the seduction of power and is a useful corollary to Lord Acton’s oft-quoted aphorism about the corruption of power (“All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”).
Before joining the White House, Kuo was shaped completely by a faith he rediscovered and completely accepted during his high school years. He tells of attending college and the the pregnancy of a college girlfriend that ended in abortion (didn’t I say this is a tell-all book??!!). His acceptance of Jesus as a personal savior led him to the nexus of religion and politics, working with William Bennett, John Ashcroft, Jack Kemp, Bob and Elizabeth Dole and Ralph Reed, among others, as a speech writer and policy wonk.
Kuo met George W. Bush while the future president was governor of Texas and was impressed with Bush’s acceptance – at the age of 40 when he was a down-and-out alcoholic — of Christ. I get the impression that Kuo believes that Bush is not acting in his Christianity, that it is the fault of White House staffers who thought “evangelical leaders were people to be tolerated, not people who were truly welcomed. No group was more eye-rolling about Christians than the political affairs shop. (Page 229). Kuo adds that “Political Affairs was hardly alone. There wasn’t a week that went by that I didn’t hear someone in middle – to senior-levels making some comment or another about how annoying the Christians were or how tiresome they were….”
Bush doesn’t completely get off the hook, to use a fishing image that Kuo might appreciate as he sits on his bass boat. He says (also Page 229) that “George W. Bush loves Jesus. He is a good man. But he is a politician; a very smart and shrewd politician….if the faith-based initiative was teaching me anything, it was the President’s capacity to care about perception more than reality. He wanted it to look good. He cared less about it being good.”
This combination of staffer cynicism and Bush’s wanting “it to look good” led to the activities of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives being blatantly used to elect Republicans in both the mid-term 2002 elections and the 2004 campaign, Kuo charges.
Reviewer disclosure: Like many, if not most journalists, I’m a thoroughgoing secularist, a person who believes religion and politics don’t mix. I approached “Tempting Faith” with an open mind, but the information Kuo supplies confirms my view: Religion and politics not only don’t mix, they shouldn’t.
“Tempting Faith” is an important book for religious true believers and secularists alike.
Publisher’s web site: http://www.simonsays.com (Free Press is a division of Simon & Schuster).
Kuo’s web site: http://www.beliefnet.com
GUEST COMMENTARY: Venezuela, the U.S.: Oddly Coupled
Posted by kinchendavid on October 29, 2006
By Sir Ronald Sanders
US President George W Bush and UN Secretary: The contest between Venezuela and the United States of America, as the champion of Guatemala, over a seat on the UN Security Council was much bluster. The oil relationship paints a different picture.
In a spectacle that lasted for days and several ballots in the UN General Assembly, Venezuela hotly fought Guatemala and the diplomatic network of the US for a non-permanent Security Council seat.
Usually, the regional countries –in this case Latin America and the Caribbean — would decide amongst themselves on a candidate and spare the General Assembly the unpleasant task of having to decide for them.
But, neither Guatemala nor Venezuela would withdraw in the Latin American and Caribbean Group (LACG). They continued this pattern in the General Assembly after successive votes failed to deliver the necessary two-thirds majority to either of them.
Guatemala should have withdrawn from the running when it did not secure the endorsement of the LACG.
The Central American country could not have wanted a clearer message from member countries of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) who are the majority in the LACG.
They said an emphatic no to Guatemala on two grounds: Guatemala had been vociferous at the World Trade Organisation in derailing the preferential access to the European Union market which Caribbean countries had enjoyed for their bananas; and Guatemala continues to prosecute a claim to all of the territory of Belize (a CARICOM member state) despite many international efforts to end it.
Had Guatemala withdrawn, the LACG would have chosen a country the majority could support — possible Chile or Uruguay — and the matter would have ended there. The selected country, endorsed by Latin American and Caribbean, would have taken the UN Security Council seat automatically. Then, Venezuela entered the arena.
Over the last few years, diplomatic relations between the governments of Venezuela and the US have deteriorated as Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez struck a leftist pose, openly fostered close personal relations with Cuba’s Fidel Castro, and promoted left wing political parties in a number of Latin American countries.
He has vehemently opposed the Free Trade Area of the Americas pushed by Washington and has attacked both the foreign policies of US President George W Bush, and Mr Bush personally.
During a UN General Assembly speech, Mr Chavez called Mr Bush the Devil. Thereafter, the UN Security Council seat became the cause of an unseemly diplomatic war between Venezuela and the US as the campaigner for Guatemala. The US set out to ensure that Venezuela would not win the seat. Chips were called in, and pressure applied. And, in every count, except one which tied, Guatemala beat Venezuela but could not attain the necessary two-thirds majority to take the seat.
President Chavez claimed his own defeat as a victory.
He is reported by the Associated Press as saying that Venezuela had achieved its objective by preventing Washington’s preferred candidate from winning the seat. He have taught the Empire a lesson, he said.
This is a sad statement, for it suggests that in offering Venezuela as the Latin American and Caribbean representative on the UN Security Council, President Chavez was less concerned about the interests of the group and more concerned with giving the US a black eye.
It has to be assumed that he regarded the Security Council seat as a forum from which to continue attacks on US foreign policy, particularly over Iran and North Korea.
And, if that was the objective, it would have changed little since, as a non-permanent member of the Security Council, Venezuela would have had no veto powers, and in any event, on matters which challenge international peace and security, members of the Council would have been intolerant of rhetoric and grandstanding. Venezuela, in such a role, would have found itself isolated.
So, then, why was the US so determined that Venezuela should not get the Security Council seat? It has to be assumed that the powers in Washington simply decided to deny Mr Chavez another stage on which to strut his anti-Bush stuff. For, Venezuela on the Security Council poses no threat to the US or to the world order.
It is clear that just as Mr Chavez was eager to give the US a black eye, Mr Bush’s foreign policy advisers were equally keen to bloody the Venezuelan President’s nose.
But, while in the first four months of 2006, Venezuela is reported to have sent 11.9 million barrels less of crude and petroleum products to the US than it did for the same period in 2005 when it shipped 190.1 million barrels, it still exports 68% of its oil production to the US whose refineries are geared to processing Venezuela’s heavy crude oil into usable form.
In this connection, not only does the Venezuelan economy need the US, but Mr Chavez himself needs the US market in order to pay for his domestic political programme and his regional and international efforts to secure influence through loans for oil.
Now, it is true that Mr Chavez has been busy opening markets in China and India for Venezuelan oil. Sales to china stood at 14,000 barrels a day in 2004; last year it rose to 80,000 barrels a day. But, the higher shipping costs to Asia are expensive and reduce the country’s income by $3 a barrel.
Not even the $10 billion that China announced it will pour into Venezuelan energy and infrastructure sectors to feed its own escalating demand for energy will break Venezuelan reliance in the medium term on the US market. The US also depends on Venezuela which is one of its top four suppliers of oil, some months surpassing Saudi Arabia.
So, all that happened at the UN – using the candidacy of Latin America and the Caribbean for a seat on the Security Council as a backdrop – is much bluster. The substance is in the oil relationship between the US and Venezuela and there they remain coupled, however oddly.
* * *
Sir Ronald Sanders is a business executive and former Caribbean Ambassador to the World Trade Organisation who publishes widely on Small States in the global community. Responses to: ronaldsanders29@hotmail.com
Posted in Guest Commentaries | Leave a Comment »