In the polarized environment that is contemporary American politics, one regularly encounters claims that the rhetoric and actions of the Christian right serve to coarsen the public dialogue and threaten the values of democratic governance. In The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, Jon Shields subjects such claims to critical examination and argues that at best these indictments are substantially overstated and at worst demonstrably false. Indeed, Shields's empirical examination of the Christian right shows that it is largely beneficial to representative democracy, primarily through increased citizen participation in the political process, diversification of views presented in the public square, and heightened levels of public debate on moral and cultural issues.

This work is thought-provoking and impressive. Utilizing a multiple method approach—personal interviews, content analysis of primary source material, survey data (ANES), and participant observation (Shields is a strong proponent of Fenno's “soaking and poking”)—Shields constructs an argument that has three main claims. First, the Christian right has significantly increased participation in American politics by activating and mobilizing a segment of the public that had been largely apathetic toward and alienated from the political realm. Second, the Christian right has raised the level of public discourse by presenting new viewpoints supported with well-reasoned arguments and contributing to a structured and clarified partisan system in which citizens can register issue preferences with much greater ease than was possible previously. Finally, the Christian right has increased the presence of what Shields labels “deliberative norms” within the polity, thereby raising the quality of American democracy.

Doubtlessly, Shields's first claim is correct: the Christian right has significantly increased participation in American politics. Chapter 5 presents analyses of ANES data strongly supporting this argument. Since the early 1970s, conservative evangelical Protestants (Shields delineates conservative and liberal evangelicals based on their views on abortion) have become much more active in American electoral politics, not only in terms of voter turnout but also in areas of participation such as attempting to influence the vote choice of others and public displays of political messages. Shields's description of the political activation of conservative evangelicals as a “startling development” (2) is accurate: from the late 1920s through the 1960s, conservative evangelical whites were among the most politically alienated groups in America. It is true, too, that academics and other political observers give the Christian right very little credit for its efforts. This is strange given that most who profess an interest in the health of the American polity at least pay lip service to the benefits of high levels of participation and the inclusion of alienated or oppressed groups. This point Shields discusses at length throughout the book.

Shields also strongly supports his second claim. Through interviews with leaders of Christian right groups, examination of materials prepared and utilized by these groups, and participant observation with pro-life groups, Shields convincingly shows that the Christian right adds to a diversity of viewpoints. (Shields uses pro-life groups as representative of the Christian right in his participant observations; he acknowledges the limitations created by doing so.) This increased diversity thickens the public dialogue. The carefully reasoned arguments of Christian right members serve to heighten the quality of this dialogue. Indeed, the participant observation findings presented in chapter 3 are among the most interesting elements of this book and are sure to surprise those readers with negative perceptions of the Christian right.

Evaluation of Shields's third major claim—that the Christian right fosters “deliberative norms”—is somewhat more difficult. Here readers will get the largest intellectual payoff from reading this book. Ostensibly, the argument is well supported. Early in chapter 1 (19), Shields outlines his five deliberative norms:

Shields readily admits that Christian right leaders and followers are rarely open to alternative views on the issues of importance to them. However, they overwhelmingly preach and practice the other four norms that contribute to deliberation in the public realm. Even taking into account extremists such as pro-life advocates that engage in violence, Shields demonstrates that the majority of members of the Christian right are quite civil, ask questions and listen to the responses of those who disagree with them, and construct careful arguments that strive to avoid simple religious justification. In many instances, they do these things much more frequently than their opponents. However, while these practices are clearly beneficial in public dialogue, I fail to see how they can contribute to real deliberation as long as members of the Christian right are unwilling to consider alternative points of view. A primary concern of those who worry about the possible negative impact of the Christian right is the movement's moral certitude. Unflinching belief in the rightness of one's position and the wrongness of all other positions on any issue prevents compromise, a possibility that I would argue must be present in order for meaningful deliberation to occur. Though Shields clearly states that he is not arguing that Christian right members are deliberative democrats—only that they practice many deliberative norms—one often gets the sense that the practice of these norms is primarily for strategic reasons, done in the hopes of achieving the Christian right's desired outcomes. There is nothing inherently wrong in doing this, and such actions are not unique to the Christian right. Many social movements and organized interests engage in similar tactics on a regular basis. However, it is unlikely that the practice of these norms could produce meaningful deliberation among members of the Christian right—possibly among members of the polity who observe the actions of the movement, but not among the members themselves.

This is a strong piece of scholarship. Not everyone will agree with Shields's conclusions, but anyone interested in the American polity will be well served by carefully considering this work.