Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has borrowed a page from President George W. Bush’s playbook. She is running her presidential campaign on vague faith. The Senator has frequently decried the Democrats’ abandonment of the faith playing field to the Republicans. She does not want to make that mistake. Instead, she has decided to run on faith, just as Bush, a fellow Methodist, did. Despite her recent protestation that Methodists do not wear their faith on their sleeves, is wearing her faith everywhere. Her campaign statements bear many similarities to the tactics adopted by President Bush during his successful runs for office. For example:

She states emphatically and repeatedly that she is a person of faith whose faith is central to her life.

She lets voters know that she prays frequently, both on her own and in bipartisan prayer groups. She collects biblical verses and packs a Bible when she travels. She expresses gratitude for the prayer warriors who pray for her constantly, and she learned from theologian Henri Nouwen the “discipline of gratitude.” (267)

She hints that salvation is available to Christians only (a claim that got Bush into political trouble when he ran for governor of Texas).

She names an important pastor, the Reverend Don Jones, who has encouraged and sustained her faith. (For Bush it was Billy Graham.) According to biographer Carl Bernstein (34), Reverend Jones taught Hillary Rodham to “meld” her sense of politics to her sense of religion and therefore to pursue faith in action.  

She mentions prominent theologians who have influenced her religion—John Wesley, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Paul Tillich—without addressing their works in any detail in order to explain the nature of their impact on her beliefs.

She explains that Christian faith sustained her during her marital crises, just as renewed faith in Jesus led Bush to renounce alcohol in order to save his marriage.

She praises faith-based organizations.

She hires a political consultant to help her to identify and capture the religious vote.

Although many Democrats will be happy that their party is finally pursuing the Republicans’ strategy, thereby presumably increasing their chances of gaining the White House, voters should reject any politician who melds religion and politics into action. The faith of the Christian Left provides no better basis for politics than the faith of the Christian Right. It is still faith, and it is still Christian. Prudence, not faith, is the appropriate basis for presidential decisions. Executive policies should be based on constitutional, not Christian, principles, because the former are the only principles shared by all of the nation’s citizens.

The Senator’s numerous comments about faith seem to confirm Bernstein’s observation that “Hillary’s faith is the link. . . . It explains the missionary zeal with which she attacks her issues and goes after them. . . . And, it also explains the really extraordinary self-discipline and focus and ability to rely on her spirituality to get through all of this.” (36)  Voters cannot be sure if Bernstein is right or wrong, however, because in this presidential campaign there is a missing link, namely any adequate explanation from the Senator about how her religion will specifically affect her policies and decision-making. How will the choices of her presidency be influenced by John Wesley, Reinhold Niebuhr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Don Jones?

One good reason to oppose faith-based politics is precisely that it diverts attention away from politics to faith. This happens in several ways. The Senator’s public invocation of her personal faith opened the door to political debate about how authentic her spirituality really is. Some Republicans have spoken with derision about ’s faith, while others, like Senator Sam Brownback, a member of her Senate prayer group, have apologized for their behavior toward her. Such public discussion about politicians’ spirituality is useless; judgments about an individual’s religious convictions are better left to her or his church, synagogue or mosque, and, ultimately, of course, to God, instead of to the voters.

Compounding the problem, commentators who respect the private nature of faith do not dare to question it, and remain focused on ’s marital troubles or prayer groups instead of asking hard questions about the implications of her faith for policy, therefore leaving crucial political issues unaddressed.

If candidates insist on running on faith, voters should demand that their faith be clear and not vague. The Bush presidency suggests questions to which Senator Clinton has not yet provided answers. Will the second President Clinton favor faith-based organizations because they share her faith? Will her Christian principles influence her decisions to take the nation to war or to seek peace? Will Christian faith—or the appeal to Christian voters—take priority over women’s equality?

In her autobiography, the Senator wrote: “Faith is like stepping off a cliff and expecting one of two outcomes—you will either land on solid ground or you will be taught to fly.” (494) Voters should not step off a cliff with a candidate of vague faith.