This provocative book presents two major theses. First, contrary to popular and conventional scholarly opinion, activists in the most recent manifestations of the American Christian Right exhibit traits conducive to democratic civility and deliberation, including eschewing explicitly theological arguments in favor of more secular alternatives, and actually listening to their opponents. Second, the Christian Right has empowered previously inactive and disadvantaged citizens, ironically fulfilling one of the primary goals articulated by the “New Left” in the 1960s and 1970s.

The evidence for the first thesis consists of qualitative participant observation of groups affiliated with “right to life” perspectives on abortion. Using interviews and participant observation (observing interaction between Christian Right activists and their opponents), Shields shows that activists tend to avoid stridency and direct religious appeals on both tactical and ethical grounds. Militancy is considered counterproductive in attempts to persuade people not convinced of the goals of the Christian Right, and is also considered disrespectful of opponents. The latter consideration is characterized by activists as authentically Christian, in that listening and responding to one's opponents affirms the value and integrity of every human person. Shields also is attentive to the tension between the need for civility in dealing with people outside the movement and the desirability of more explicitly passionate, theological rhetoric when attempting to mobilize sympathetic potential supporters.

The second thesis is documented primarily through analysis of data from the 1972–2004 American National Election Studies. Shields shows that conservative Christians have become more active in politics, more committed to the Republican Party, and less likely to split their tickets, while the rest of the electorate seems to have moved in the opposite direction. Shields also shows that attempts at mobilization on the part of conservative religious groups have an effect above and beyond religious belief or affiliation.

It is perhaps important to note that Shields' claims are limited in important ways. Shields contrasts more recent manifestations of the Christian Right with earlier attempts to mobilize conservative Christians. Shields compares contemporary right to life groups with the militancy and lack of civility that characterized pioneering leaders of the Christian Right, such as Jerry Falwell, Randall Terry, and Pat Robertson. Shields also contrasts the subjects of his study with ultra-fundamentalists, who comprise the membership in groups such as Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. A more important issue, which I will address below, is that Shields confines attention in his qualitative analyses to groups focused primarily on the issue of abortion.

Shields' empirical case is limited by his focus on right to life groups. The decision is defensible, in that abortion has been on the Christian Right's agenda for a long time (relative to other issues such as same-sex marriage) and has occasioned “uncivil” activity in the past. However, as Shields points out, the abortion issue is an unusual one, in that the “pro-choice” position is, in fact, the status quo, and supporters of legal abortion have no incentive to engage in dialogue with their opponents. By contrast, pro-life activists seek to change current law, and thus have incentives to engage in constructive interaction both with opponents and with persons who are indifferent to the issue. This is no objection, as it points to an important direction for future research. One wonders whether the same tactics would be employed by opponents of same-sex marriage, in which the Christian Right position (for now) constitutes the status quo. Shields' research generates an important empirical question: Do the rhetorical strategies of conservative Christians (and their opponents) vary according to the legal status of the issues in question? Are conservative Christians civil and deliberative across issues, or does their rhetoric depend on whether they are defending or attempting to change the current state of the law?

Shields' normative case is also intriguing, and, again, raises important questions. Shields points out that the tactics of Christian Right activists have come to approximate those praised by democratic theorists such as John Rawls, and that Christian Right activists share some of the same goals espoused over a generation ago by the “New Left.” As such, the contemporary Christian Right may enhance, rather than detract from, “small-d” democracy. However, this rosy assessment depends crucially on the controversial assumption that it is possible to distinguish the value of means from ends. In other words, it is possible to advance the pro-life agenda (or, by extension, a conservative position on any other social issue) in a civil, deliberative, and democratic manner, and that such democratic advocacy, in fact, enhances democracy.

While such an assumption is defensible, it is also quite controversial. It seems at least arguable that denying women the right to choose abortion may constitute a denial of equality, and, therefore, of full citizenship. If effective participation in the paid labor force requires control over one's fertility, it might be suggested that limiting access to legal abortion constitutes a denial of equal protection. A similar case might be made for same-sex marriage. Aside from the material and legal benefits associated with marriage, it might well be argued that marriage is a self-defining act, which allows marriage partners to participate in democratic self-governance (i.e., governance of the self). If prerogatives such as controlling one's own fertility (and sexuality) or engaging in the lifetime commitment associated with marriage are essential aspects of democratic citizenship, it might follow that attempts to deny these prerogatives to other citizens are inherently anti-democratic, regardless of the level of “civility” with which the attempts are made. Arguably, democratic means can be used to serve undemocratic ends, and such a characterization of the Christian Right seems at least possible.

The above considerations are not so much objections as suggestions for further research and analysis. As is typical of excellent books, The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right raises more questions than it answers, and has added immeasurably to the continuing conversation regarding the political roles of religion in democratic politics.