University of Virginia Library

Ch 14: A Strategy for Victory

Here's what . . . [the people] . . . want in a president. They want somebody, first of all, that is honest and will tell it to them like it is....what people want first is integrity. And the second thing they want is leadership. They want somebody who will be able to be a leader and get things done. The third thing they want is a communicator. They know instinctively that they need a leader who can enunciate noble goals for this country and then mobilize public opinion behind them. That, I think, is more important, in their view, than political experience, which they put down relatively low because there is no experience for that job.... So you have to look at all the other candidates out there and decide which one. fill these roles.

--Pat Robertson,
Before The Economic Club of Detroit

If Pat Robertson is to mount a successful campaign for the presidency, he has to overcome more barriers than perhaps anyone who has ever made a run for the office. More than the technical aspects of campaign strategy, Robertson's greatest challenge is image management. There are six objectives he absolutely must achieve to perfection:

1. Pat Robertson's highest priority must be to shed the label of televangelist. This was evident even before the 1987 scandals, but became even more imperative.

2. To be a successful candidate, Pat Robertson must overcome his image as a religious fanatic.

---

266

3. He needs to build a strong coalition of the highly diverse evangelical and fundamentalist groups in America. A corollary task is to hold the most extreme elements in check so that they don't destroy his efforts to portray himself as a religious and political moderate.

4. A viable candidacy requires that Americans come to identify Pat Robertson as Ronald Reagan's logical and natural successor. That doesn't mean just claiming the label of "natural successor," but demonstrating, in the course of the campaign, that he has the qualities and communication skills to carry on where Reagan left off.

5. Robertson must persuade a majority of Americans that he offers not extremist ideology, but reasonable solutions to problems. Failing here, he may merely trade the label of religious fanatic for that of political extremist. The more it appears that his campaign may be successful, the nastier will be the claims of the political left. To the extent that Robertson succeeds in presenting himself as a moderate conservative, there should be a backlash against the accusations.

6. Robertson needs to transform sympathy for him because he is being treated unfairly by his adversaries and the press into a massive turnout for him at the polls.

These are more or less progressive steps. Robertson's absolute first priority has to be overcoming the image of himself as a "religious wacko. "If he loses this one, his candidacy isn't going anywhere. And, at the other end of the list, the transformation of backlash sympathy into votes has to be timed perfectly. Let's examine each of the objectives in turn.

Shedding the Label of Televangelist. The PTL scandal involving Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker had a certain quality of comic relief. The lurid revelations of their misdeeds meant an orgy for the secular press, who paused only briefly to turn their venomous pens on a hapless Gary Hart.

Robertson knew before he embarked on his presidential quest that he would need to shed the televangelist stereotype. But he couldn't have begun to imagine how absolutely vital that task would become.

After Robertson authorized an exploratory committee, he often quipped that he was confident he knew God's will, but that just in case he had misunderstood, he was praying that God would send him an unambiguous message. Between Oral Roberts's plea for donations

---

267

lest God call him home and the Bakkers' debacle, Robertson must have agonized over the prospect that God was trying to get his attention.

He had gotten a big break when Roberts endorsed his candidacy in September 1986. Roberts had never previously supported a candidate for political office. Now it seemed worthless, perhaps even damaging. But as disgraceful as Roberts's pleas for money may have been, there was still a little room to maneuver and save face. Roberts, after all, was saddled with huge debts and a shrinking audience of aging followers. He may just have run out of time and ideas.

But the PTL scandal was something altogether different, a watershed in the history of religious broadcasting. The colossal sums of money involved, the decadence of the Bakkers' lifestyle, the carnality and unrepentant hypocrisy of the principal actors- all were unparalleled.

If he were free to do so, Pat Robertson should run, not walk, away from any identification with televangelism. Unfortunately, it is not that easy to do. To free up his time, as well as to avoid "equal time" demands from other prospective candidates, Robertson stepped down as host of "The 700 Club" in September 1986. The dilemma is that his absence produced a slump in audience and revenues. At some point along the campaign trail, he may face a choice between jumping back in to protect the viability of a corporation it has taken him a lifetime to build and pursuing the presidential nomination.

Pat Robertson has long said that he doesn't like to be called a televangelist, recognizing that the word conjures up negative images. If he could have his way, he would prefer to be seen as a successful businessman whose business is broadcasting, with the content of that broadcasting just happening to be religion.

This is unquestionably sound image-making strategy. In the meantime, the consequences of being typed as a televangelist are obvious. In a poll of the southern region conducted by the Atlanta Journal and the Atlanta Constitution in the spring of 1987, before the Bakker scandal had broken, 69 percent of the respondents said they would not even consider voting for Robertson. This negative rating exceeded that of all other prospective candidates. Jesse Jackson came closest, with 45 percent.

The 69 percent negative rating is ludicrous, for Robertson's rec-

---

268

ognition at the time was barely that high. But the poll reflects the depth of distrust of televangelists-even before the scandals.

But there was a positive side to that seemingly devastating poll. Perhaps most telling, 49 percent said they would be inclined to choose a candidate who was "born again" over one who was not. Only 13 percent preferred the candidate who was not "born again." Further, 49 percent of those polled said they would vote for a candidate who favored a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, and 73 percent said they would be favorably disposed to vote for a candidate who would bring back public-school prayer.

These are bread-and-butter issues for Pat Robertson. George Bush may profess support for them, but in their hearts, the voters are not convinced. More than any other candidate, Pat Robertson is unshakably committed to conservative positions that motivate a large core of Americans.

Overcoming the Image of Religious Fanatic. Pat Robertson cannot escape having to deal with the fact that there are millions of people who know little about him but hold a negative image of television preachers in general. And the publicity about Pat's conversations with God convinces them that they don't want anything to do with this preacher in particular.

Since his adversaries have hundreds of hours of videotape of Pat's own words on "The 700 Club," and Robertson has been a rather prolific writer, they can amass lots of video clips and quotations to make the case that he is an extremist.

Most Americans don't practice their religion with the same enthusiasm and emotion as do charismatics and Pentecostals, and many even assume that people who carry on that way could not be of sound mind. The prospect that one of "them" might be a viable candidate for the presidency seems utterly preposterous.

But times change. In 1960, many people thought it inconceivable that a Roman Catholic could be elected president. After all, don't Catholics take their orders directly from the Vatican?

Walter Mondale, along with others before him, tried to pin the "religious wacko" label on Ronald Reagan, but it didn't work. Earlier in 1984, Ronnie Dugger noted in the Washington Post that on at least five occasions during his first term in office, the President had made

---

269

reference to his belief "that Armageddon may well occur during the present generation and could come in the Middle East." [1]

The fear Mondale attempted to ignite is that someone who believes that Russia is an "evil empire," and that nuclear holocaust is foreordained in Scripture, might "regard his finger on the button as an instrument of God's eternal purpose." [2]

Pat Robertson believes with all his heart that he is not a religious fanatic. But he recognizes that others do see him this way, so he has taken steps to give his own beliefs a mainstream image. In the political consulting business, this is known as "spin- doctoring." Cynically, "spindoctoring" is presenting some bad or politically damaging information to make it seem like an asset. A less cynical approach would be to say that "spin-doctoring" is the presentation of information in the most favorable light possible.

In the introduction to his campaign book, America, Dates With Destiny, Robertson describes his adult conversion experience in April 1956:

Two years later, he noted, "God blessed me with another kind of spiritual experience. His spirit entered my life. [4] To make sure that his reader understands that there is nothing weird about receiving the "gifts of the Holy Spirit," Robertson notes explicitly: "In those two rather orthodox, biblical experiences, my life was changed forever. [5]

On "The 700 Club," Robertson talked about personal conversations with God. That kind of testimony goes over well with his audience, but it is also the kind of stuff the media use for applying the "wacko" label, so Robertson's appearances on secular television have involved a careful selection of a language more acceptable to mainstream religious. In a 1986 interview, however, Robertson declined to reject the imagery of a one-on-one conversation with God. [14] There is simply

---

270

too much videotape suggesting that Robertson has those types of conversations to try to hide the belief just because it may be politically unpopular. Furthermore, to deny the personal relationship he believes he has with God would be to betray his followers who see nothing strange about this.

Enter the Spin Doctor. In early 1986, the Gallup Organization conducted a national survey for the Christian Broadcasting Network that queried the public's understanding of how God communicates with individuals.

A whopping 69 percent of adult Americans told Gallup that God has led or guided them in making decisions. [6] And more than a third (36 percent) believed God directly spoke to them "through some means." [7] Eleven percent claimed to have heard an audible voice. The survey never mentioned Robertson, but George Gallup, Jr., did:

Thus, when Robertson speaks of seeking God's guidance and having confidence that he knows God's will, Gallup says he believes the data indicate that "it strikes a responsive chord."

But Robertson paid for the poll! How can it have credible data? Why would he ask the question unless he were trying to convince people that he is not a religious extremist?

They are credible data, because they are gathered by the most credible polling organization in America. Robertson had Gallup ask the question because nobody else has asked it. And Robertson has frequently called upon Gallup to do polling for CBN.

Coincidentally, Andrew Greeley, the Catholic priest who writes best-selling novels and also happens to be a very good sociologist, recently replicated a study of paranormal experiences he had first conducted in 1973. [9] The results support George Gallup's conclusions. Greeley found a phenomenal rise in the proportion of Americans reporting paranormal experiences. The percentage of all adults reporting contact with the dead rose sharply from 27 percent in 1973 to 42 percent in 1986. [10] Widows and widowers reporting contact with de-

---

271

ceased spouses increased from 51 percent to 67 percent. Reports of extrasensory perception rose from 58 percent to 67 percent, and deja vu experiences similarly jumped from 59 percent to 67 percent. But perhaps the most startling finding of all was a 350 percent increase in the reporting of visions. In 1973, only 8 percent said they had experienced a vision, versus 29 percent in 1986.

What's happening? Is the whole country going nuts? Father Greeley doesn't think so. In fact, Greeley tested people who had had some of the deeper mystical experiences and found them to score very high on a standard test of personality health. [11]

The statistics cannot be explained away as the result of bad research or fudging data. The data were collected by the National Opinion Research Center, a top-flight academic polling organization affiliated with the University of Chicago. Greeley claims never to have had a psychic or mystical experience and notes that the Roman Catholic Church's posture toward the paranormal is currently one of "profound skepticism." [12]

How are we to account for the phenomenal growth in the proportion of people claiming paranormal experiences in a period of a dozen years? Greeley concludes that there probably isn't much, if any, increase. Rather, people simply are more comfortable in reporting such experiences, because a lot of highly visible people are openly talking about it.

Religious broadcasting, with its not-insignificant audience, provides a context for reporting and discussing religious experiences in a matter-of-fact manner. Celebrities from sports and entertainment who have had religious conversions are regular guests on the religious talk shows. Shirley MacLaine, who prefers to think of her experiences as alignment with the Universal Energy rather than contact with God, has done much to popularize spiritual movements in the secular culture.

The Gallup survey was a smart move on Robertson's behalf. It represents a step toward demonstrating that his religious beliefs may not be as "off the wall" and extremist as his adversaries claim. Most Americans don't speak in tongues or believe in miraculous healing, but many do. Pat Robertson is unlikely to break out in glossolalia during a press conference, and when his wife, Dede, was diagnosed with breast cancer, they didn't wait to see if prayer would work before electing surgery.

---

272

The 1980 Washington for Jesus rally commemorated Abraham Lincoln's proclamation of a national day of prayer and repentance, a powerful reminder that religion in the public square has not been restricted to early American history or the "peculiar anomalies" of Presidents Carter and Reagan. In this century, Woodrow Wilson stated our religious origins as bluntly as any contemporary televangelist:

Franklin D. Roosevelt, perceived as a secular aristocrat, called for a spiritual revival during his presidency:

Scarcely a generation ago, we were reminded of the origins of this nation and human rights by John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address

Robertson's detractors often forget that he is not the first presidential aspirant to suggest that God may be on his side or that a nationwide spiritual repentance is not such a bad idea for a president to endorse. Building a Coalition of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Voters. When the secular press considers Pat Robertson's candidacy, they tend to see evangelicals as his sole source of support. Furthermore, many of

---

273

them concede this bloc to him. But it is not that simple. Notes Robert Dugan, director of the National Association of Evangelicals' Office of Public Affairs:

Dugan has long pressed evangelicals to get involved in the political process. But he thinks they should get involved as individuals, each pursuing the dictates of conscience. He worries that organizational support of a candidate can be divisive and lead to compromise of principles. And he is also concerned that the evangelical community can lose its voice in the political process if that one candidate or party does not win. [17]

Pat Robertson is not foolish enough to take the evangelical and fundamentalist vote for granted. Almost a full year before his announcement of probable candidacy, Pat Robertson invited his televangelist colleagues to a private meeting in Washington to discuss a possible bid for the presidency. He knew he would need their backing if he was to have a chance of pulling together the large bloc of evangelical and fundamentalist voters. While the meeting was cordial, there was underlying tension. Some of them didn't care for the idea of his running for president, and they told him so. And some of them broke their pledge of confidentiality and told the press.

Over the next several months, there was plenty of evidence to support Dugan's caveat. Falwell made public his intention to actively back George Bush. Gary Jarmin, who has worked for Christian Voice and ACTV, made known his support for Jack Kemp.

The National Association of Evangelicals conducted a straw poll of 110 evangelicals attending a Washington workshop on religion and politics. While the attendees could not be considered representative of any group of evangelicals, the leadership, nevertheless, issued a

---

274

news release on the results, which was headed, "Evangelicals are widely divided over possible 1988 presidential candidates." [18]

Another sentiment held by many evangelicals was expressed in a cover story on Pat Robertson that appeared in a Seventh-day Adventist periodical:

But if attendance at Constitution Hall on September 17, 1986, can be taken as an indicator of evangelical leadership support, Robertson made an impressive start.

There is another dimension to the evangelical and fundamentalist coalition that has been overlooked by the political analysts. Traditionally, the Democratic party has enjoyed the luxury of taking black voters for granted because of the Republicans' upper-class, conservative image. Republicans are making some inroads, but they are limited to one or two percentage points. Why should Pat Robertson be able to cut into the Democratic lock on the black vote when other Republicans have not?

First, there are a lot of black evangelicals. Second, Robertson has a very good chance of mobilizing them. Something on the order of one-half of them regularly watch religious television. Black preachers are a visible presence at the annual meetings of the National Religious Broadcasters. Frederick Price is the only black preacher who has broken into the ranks of nationally syndicated televangelists, but there are a lot of black preachers on local television and a whole lot more on local radio.

Whether or not "The 700 Club" is a regular part of their television diet, there are few black evangelical television viewers who don't know that Pat Robertson ten years ago gave a break to Ben Kinchlow, a black man from the ghetto, by installing him as co-host of "The 700 Club." Kinchlow, an executive vice president of CBN, heads up the network's "Operation Blessing," a humanitarian outreach program that

---

275

distributed an estimated $45 million in aid in 1985. And when Robertson left his regular position on "The 700 Club," Kinchlow took over the top spot.

Third, Robertson's conservative views on many social issues are shared by a large percentage of blacks, presumably including many who are not evangelicals. True, they tend to support liberal social welfare programs, but blacks as a group tend to be quite conservative on many issues. For example, a 1985 survey conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that 84 percent of blacks favor harsher sentences for criminals, 55 percent support the death penalty for murder, 60 percent oppose letting homosexuals teach in public schools, and 43 percent support a ban on all abortions. [20]

A small shift in the percentage of black votes could make a big difference. And black churches with conservative pastors represent fertile ground for harvesting those votes.

But what about Jesse Jackson's bid for the Democratic nomination? Can blacks be expected to abandon their own and cross over to the Republican party? The Robertson people think a Jackson bid helps their cause. Jackson helps mobilize and register black voters. But a vote for Jackson is largely a symbolic vote. A vote for Robertson may be seen as a vote that counts.

The final dimension of maximizing support from fundamentalists and evangelicals is that Robertson "keep in check" the most radical elements of that constituency.

Back in 1984, the presidential candidacy of the Reverend Jesse Jackson was marred by the support he received from another minister, Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan, of course, is the Black Muslim whose anti-Semitic ravings were widely publicized and caused Jackson significant embarrassment. Jews were understandably infuriated when Jackson refused to repudiate Farrakhan publicly. But Jackson knew that to do so would weaken his strength with a larger segment of blacks in America than just Muslims. He had no choice but to try to straddle the fence.

Fence-straddling is uncomfortable and more dangerous than riding firm in the saddle. But it is part of the price Pat Robertson needs to pay for the support of his televangelist colleagues. The mass media have already served notice that Robertson, like Jackson, can expect to be held accountable for the excesses of his supporters.

---

276

The first televangelist to support Robertson publicly was Jimmy Swaggart. And even before the ink on the newspapers carrying the announcement had dried, political pundits were writing that Swaggart would be to Robertson what Louis Farrakhan was to Jesse Jackson.

Swaggart just happens to have the largest audience of any weekly syndicated religious television program. Almost 4 million people see his program during an average week, and more than 9 million monthly. In addition, he has a daily Bible-study program that attracts a couple of million viewers per week. Swaggart's endorsement potentially means a lot of votes. But when Jimmy Swaggart gets wound up, this populist Pentecostal's rantings and ravings can sound as intolerant as Louis Farrakhan's. And People for the American Way has publicized a compendium of Swaggart's gems.

Obviously, Robertson needs evangelists' support, but it must be diplomtically balanced by endorsements from other public figures, including more mainline religious leaders.

Persuading America that He is the Logical and Natural Successor to Ronald Reagan. Pat Robertson believes that the strength of the Republican resurgence in the United States during the late 1970s and the 1980s was built on commitment to conservative principles. His campaign is based on a combination of attributing the successes of the Reagan administration to the application of conservative principles and proposals and programs that reach well beyond the Reagan agenda. "We don't have to apologize for the record of the Republican party," Robertson told a state gathering of Republicans shortly after the 1986 elections. In a mood of optimism and confidence, he continued

In Pat Robertson's campaign, Ronald Reagan is seen as the unassailable architect of numerous achievements: a drop in interest rates from 21 percent to 7 percent; a drop in inflation from 15 percent to

---

277

2 percent or less; the creation of 8 l/2 million new jobs and 700,000 new businesses; a drop in the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent; plus a strengthening of our defenses and bringing the Soviets to the bargaining table in sincerity.

In a way, the Iran/contra scandal could turn out to benefit Robertson enormously. By disassociating themselves from the questionable, if not illegal, means the president used to support the contras, other candidates can also put some distance between themselves and the president's insistence that this is the place to halt communism in the Americas.

Perhaps Robertson alone will stand firmly with Reagan in insisting that America must stand up against communism in Central America. Should that happen, it could be a critical advantage.

Of all the issues in his years as president, Reagan has probably been least successful in convincing Americans and the Congress that our strategic interests are at stake in Central America. This is partly the result of the post-Vietnam nervousness about getting involved where we ought not to be involved. But it also stems from Reagan's inability to communicate effectively why it is in our strategic interest. And that may well be the result of inability or unwillingness to master the details of Central American geopolitics, a problem Robertson, with his factfinding trips to Central America and firm grasp of particulars, doesn't have.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted in spring 1987 asked what was the most important criterion for selecting a president; 48 percent said, "vision and a plan for the country." A distant second was "record of competence" (24 percent). Third and fourth, respectively, were "strong moral character" (17 percent) and "agrees with you on major issues" (9 percent). The pollsters concluded:

Because of his effective communication skills and the sincerity of his belief in the accomplishments of Ronald Reagan, Robertson may

---

278

end up at the front of the line of all those who would have American voters believe that they are natural successors to the President.

Contiincing Americans that Proposed Solutions to Problems are Reasonable Programs. As noted in the last chapter, an outsider has to pursue a high-risk campaign to overcome the incredible advantage of. the "incumbent," and Robertson's greatest risk is being labeled as extremist. His position on Central America is clearly a case in point. Robertson could succeed in alleviating concern about his religious beliefs only to pick up the extremist or fanatic label for his political and economic views.

"Pat Robertson,"claims People for the American Way strategist Jim Castelli, "is, very simply, an extremist whose views place him well outside the mainstream of both the Republican Party and the nation." [23] A lot of people want to stick that label on Robertson.

Controversial ideas can help draw attention to his candidacy, but Robertson hopes to be able to persuade a large portion of the general public that his views are also sensible.

There are a lot of issues about which the average American knows little or nothing. How and why the Federal Reserve Board ("the Fed") controls the money supply is a case in point. At best, the average citizen knows that the money supply has something to do with whether interest rates and inflation go up or down. Among those who do know something about how the Federal Reserve works, conventional wisdom holds that the Fed operates benevolently and above the influence of everyday politics- another dimension, as it were, of our system of checks and balances.

Robertson has expressed contrary-and controversial-views. He does not think the Fed should exist totally outside the control of elected officials. Rather than being forced to defend his views against accusations of extremism, Robertson wants to proclaim them boldly, in the certainty that a fair hearing will prove them to be workable, reasonable, and in line with the sentiments of the general public.

Below is a hypothetical news release of a Robertson campaign speech. The substance and words are taken verbatim from an interview with Robertson published in Conservative Digest in 1986:

---

279

The Federal Reserve Board, he noted, has the power to put the nation into a recession or to allow prosperity; it has the power to control our trade; and it can put millions of Americans out of work or create full employment.

Robertson argued that we have a situation where the president, who is elected by the people, directs his administration to drive the car with the foot on the gas, but a man sitting in the back seat has the power to apply the brake at will. "This is schizophrenic," he contended.

Robertson noted that when U.S. News and World Report takes its survey of readers, the Federal Reserve chairman, who is not an elected official, is named as the second most powerful man in the United States.

Robertson claimed that the Fed, which has the power of life and death over our society, is a creature of the banking elite and it is not even owned by the federal government. There has never been so much as an independent audit of the Fed by an outside accounting firm. "That's shocking in a free country," said Robertson.

The remedy Robertson proposed is to merge the functions of the Fed into the Treasury Department. [24]

These words are certain to send liberals howling that Robertson's views are outrageously extreme. But, in any case, Robertson doesn't expect liberals to vote for him.

Transform Sympathy into a Massive Voter Turnout. Since televangelists became highly visible during the 1980 presidential campaign, they have taken a pretty good bashing in the press. To the viewers and supporters of religious television, criticism of the televangelists is also criticism of them. The supporters of the televangelists mostly try to ignore the criticism. But it will become increasingly difficult to ignore as we move closer to the 1988 presidential elections. The more it appears that Pat Robertson is running well, the more strident will become the attacks against his religious faith.

Some of it will be honest opposition. But a lot of it will represent

---

280

irrational antireligious bigotry. This is why, in the end, the evangelical and fundamentalist communities will rally solidly behind Robertson. Notes Bob Dugan of the National Association of Evangelicals:

But there exists the potential for a sympathetic backlash beyond the evangelical and fundamentalist communities-even beyond the moderates and conservatives in mainline Protestant and Catholic churches. To win, Pat Robertson must catch that sympathy and transform it into votes.

To be sure, a lot of people do not like what Pat Robertson is trying to sell on the campaign trail. But as Americans listen to Robertson, they are going to find a man who seems likable and sincere. They are going to hear a man who clearly knows a great deal about the subjects he addresses. They are going to see a man who doesn't square up with all the nasty things said about him.

If he reaches out too eagerly for sympathy, he runs the risk of looking not tough enough to take the heat, or, even worse, as though he staged the attacks against himself.

But Pat Robertson will find a right time and a right way to catch the tide of antireligious bigotry and turn it into an opportunity.

Notes