Patrick Hynes's new book "In Defense of the Religious Right" only engages secular arguments shallowly but remains refreshingly free of venom and makes a number of good points, albeit in support of an unjust agenda far more divisive than he recognizes it to be.

One of his best points throughout is that liberals who rant against the religious right, frequently in stereotyped, inaccurate terms, needlessly alienate voters who have some sympathies in that direction. He doesn't understand our anger very well, but he's right about its effect as a style of argument (unless, I would say, the anger is carefully presented, doesn't overwhelm a progressive message, and does not function merely to avoid debate with religious or social conservative views). Furthering his argument that the religious right are the in mainstream of the country's thinking, Hynes draws on an Atlantic Monthly article by E.J. Dionne to observe that most Americans don't want to fight a culture war. He argues that liberals' use of the term "backlash" to describe Christian conservative political activism implies that it is liberals who are attempting to change the status quo, who have an agenda. Many Americans, in his account, who aren't members of the Christian right nonetheless share many of its moral impulses and policy views.

Hynes maintains that although liberals charge social conservatives with unfairly using religious justifications for their policy preferences, many liberals do the same either on their own initiative or in response, and cites a half-dozen persuasive examples (he points to the familiar "Jesus would be a liberal!" type of exclamation). He fully acknowledges the sincerity of many liberals' religious belief, such as that of President Carter or Sojourners editor Jim Wallis. But he notes that contrary to religious and secular liberal contentions, right-wing evangelicals do care about the poor, but advocate local government action and non-governmental charity, and believe that large-scale, federal government action in accord with the religious left's counsel harms the economy. (His brief argument is not likely to be persuasive to anyone who knows a reasonable amount about the complexity of the challenges facing the working class and doesn't already advocate a more-or-less laissez-faire philosophy.)

Hynes, a political consultant, fails to take liberal values and arguments seriously. He is dismissive, for example, of social equality, calling such terminology about gay marriage "verbal tics" rather than obviously real moral claims. Gay people are strangely unreal in his version of the debate; gay activists and their social agitating in opposition to majority views define the left in his mind, and he fails to attend to the reasons they have for fighting to change the status quo. He should know better than to idealize the majority; religious people have been in the forefront of all kinds of social reform efforts throughout the nation’s history. But his frequently well-reasoned, pugilistic book, dense with analysis of polling data and a sharp political sensibility, offers a window into social-conservative thought and an effective political approach, subtler than Karl Rove-style red meat, that will likely have many takers come election season.

There are many ways to think about religion and its relationship with politics. In the end, Sen. Obama's approach probably carries a different emphasis from what mine would be. But the speech, which has gotten lots of quick progressive criticism, is, as Nathan Newman has suggested, extremely thoughtful and nuanced. Before you judge it, you should read the entire thing, available here, for yourself. (You can also listen to it there too.)