In a congressional district described as “the opposite of the district represented by Nancy Pelosi,” the seat opened by the retirement of the longtime Republican congressman has attracted a wide range of conservatives. One of them is a middle-aged political science professor who has never held office but has spent years thinking about how Christians should engage in the public square. Hunter Baker is serious about representing the district, and about going back to teaching when he’s done.

Baker, who teaches at Union University, is a Southern Baptist and a research fellow of the denomination’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He won the 2011 Michael Novak award from the Acton Institute. His first book criticized modern secularism and his latest, The System Has a Soul, reflects on Christianity, liberty and political life. He and his wife have two children.

Baker’s also running as an open Christian, and one with a classic testimony. “I may be one of the few people ever to go to Florida State University to become a Christian,” he says, because he went to college “a very secular individual.” He thanks Robbie Castleman, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, and the Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft’s book Between Heaven and Hell for pointing him to Christ. “I came first to admire the Christians I met and then became intellectually convinced of the resurrection of Christ. My life really began at that point.”

In an interview with Stream senior editor David Mills, Baker gave his thoughts on Christians in politics, religious liberty, the free market and the alternatives, and other subjects.

A summary of the interview can be found here.

Why run? You’re a teacher, not a career politician.

In essence, I felt called. I love teaching, writing, and speaking, but my concerns over religious liberty have continued to grow. I just felt that I had to enter the fray and do anything I can to shift the balance.

Why run as a Republican?

I have been a Republican for virtually my entire life. The first president I really remember was Carter, but the first one I loved was Reagan. I think my political sensibilities were first formed by the Cold War and then later by the pro-life movement. In both cases, I judge the Republican party to occupy the better ground.

Is it possible for a Christian to run as a Democrat?

I think it is possible to run as a pro-life Democrat, yes, but it’s barely viable to be a pro-life Democrat today. There may be only two remaining in Congress. They will be completely marginalized by their caucus. Politically, it does not compute.

I think a pro-choice Christian is in the same league as a pro-segregation Christian. The issue of justice is pretty fundamental. I just don’t see the negotiation. Christians should be pro-life. Period.

How much does character matter in a politician? At what point should a Christian vote for the candidate of better character when he agrees more with the candidate of lesser character?

The logic is a little different depending on whether you are voting for executives or legislators. Party is somewhat more important with legislatures because of the control the majority group has over process and committees. If you want to vote character first, you’re better off doing it with the executives.

Now, if you’re in the primary for a legislative race, please do vote on character. It is essential. Voting for the team is less than satisfying when you don’t believe in the player you are sending.

How much does experience matter? What will you say if one of your opponents bases his campaign on superior political experience, especially if you more or less agree on the issues?

I will never denigrate experience. One of the things I’ve learned in life is that it counts. I didn’t believe that as a young person, but I do now. But none of my opponents have experience in Congress.

On the other side, what has having been an academic and someone who’s studied the political questions taught you can use in a life of practical politics?

While I have not held office, I have spent virtually my entire adult life grappling with politics as a subject both fundamentally and with sophistication. I know my Burke, Kirk, Buckley, Hayek, Friedman, Chambers, Kemp, etc.

I read outside of the conservative world, too. For example, I have a strong grasp of John Kenneth Galbraith’s critique of modern capitalism. Galbraith taught me a couple of things. First, the left essentially has to accept that democratic capitalism has resulted in a massive improvement in well-being for the citizens blessed to live in that kind of a system. They don’t advertise it, but the undercurrent of acceptance has to be there.

But second, Galbraith poses some hard questions about public versus private goods. He is less interested in redistribution and more interested in increasing the public goods that everyone can enjoy. Think parks, libraries, sidewalks, and things of that nature. That’s worth thinking about.

I think all the reading, writing, and speaking improves my understanding and my advocacy.

Why do you stress religious freedom so much? Isn’t it partly special pleading for Christians to keep powers they’ve lost as society’s consensus has changed? For example, few Christians object to laws forcing racists, even if their racism is religiously-based, to serve black customers. What grounds have Christians for objecting to laws forcing them to serve homosexual people when society now sees that characteristic as equivalent to race?

A good question and certainly one of the things floating in the background. The first thing to say is that our laws regarding race are an extreme remedy for a systematic and thorough-going evil. Freedom of contract is a big deal. It’s part of a person’s integrity. The civil rights laws intruded upon that territory. But the reason you can justify the intrusion is because of the incredible negative effect upon an entire class of citizens purely because of their race.

I tell students that virtue is related to freedom. The segregationists didn’t exercise virtue and the result was a loss of freedom.

The problem, though, is that we used this social atomic bomb of equality (something that can erode private judgment, conscience, and faith) in such a way as to radically expand the power of government. And now this same method can be used to impede even upon judgment that is not invidious and systematic in the same way the race crisis was.

Frankly, you can observe that in some of the cases we have seen. The florist serves gay customers for years with no problem. When they want flowers for the wedding, she objects. Given her beliefs — which were perfectly fine ten minutes ago, mind you — her simple choice to decline is specific and reasonable. We aren’t talking about gay-straight apartheid, here.

In addition, I’ll just repeat what Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in his dissent in the Obergefell decision. A newly discovered right is going to threaten a right that is actually in the Constitution. I’ll add my own gloss. The Supreme Court tends to be more zealous to protect the rights it discovers than it is the ones that are plainly available in the text. You don’t need a lot of penumbras and emanations, the kind of rationalizations the justices used to justify abortion, to reach real religious liberty.

And it’s the “free exercise” of religion. Not the much weaker “freedom of worship,” as Hillary Clinton likes to put it.

What’s the dynamic that leads from the approval of same-sex “marriage” to the restriction of religious freedom? Why in practice does the first seem inevitably to lead to the second? (I’m looking for a “he who says this must say that, and he who says that must say this, etc.” kind of answer. Spell it out, in other words.)

When we say that gay marriage is a right, then we esteem that status highly in legal and social terms. During the hearing on the Obergefell decision, one of the justices asked the Solicitor General what would happen to the non-profit and tax-exempt status of religious organizations if the court were to rule for gay marriage. He didn’t run from the question. He said it “would be an issue.”

In essence, we are turning sexual orientation and making it a protected class in the same way we currently protect race and sex as categories. That creates an obvious collision between those who think gay marriage and homosexuality are wrong and the government. As a result, you see various American governments cracking down on the dissenters, like those bakers and florists you read about.

Do you think Christianity requires one understanding of economics the way it requires one understanding of the right to life of the unborn and of marriage? To put it a different way, can a Christian be a libertarian or a socialist?

I know of some Christians who argue that the Bible argues for capitalism. I’m less certain, despite my ardent support for free markets. Aquinas, for example, says that private ownership of land is not part of the natural law. Instead, I think he sees it as a way to adapt the law to simple prudence. So, even if land ownership may not be divinely mandated, it turns out to be a very good practice for the community.

I have consistently found myself on the capitalist side of the equation. For me, it comes down to a couple of things. First, I think that government should mostly be directed toward the punishment and restraint of evil. People who are being largely productive and virtuous should not face a lot of control from the government.

Second, I don’t think you can really compare the records of the more and less free economies and come away without realizing that free markets tend to produce better outcomes for people: more growth, more opportunity, more life-saving technology, etc.

What I’m saying, then, is that my understanding of what is at the core of government (coercion) and simple prudence lead me toward favoring something like democratic capitalism.

To take the other side, can a Christian be a socialist?

Can Christians be socialists? I think they can. Easier to be a socialist than to be pro-choice, though those things oddly travel together. If we’re honest with ourselves, though, socialism is dead.

Instead, you get this Bernie Sanders version where the state just dictates things to private industry in terms of taxes, wages, benefits, etc. The state loves that. Not a lot of responsibility, but all of the credit. To me, it’s immature, but I don’t deny that many people like it and find it beneficial. I do have a suspicion that it is not all that sustainable outside of the demographic miracle of the twentieth century where you have tons of young people and not so many old people at the same time.

You speak a lot about freedom and liberty. What about the common good and solidarity? Don’t conservatives fail in focusing so much on freedom and ignoring, at least in the way they speak, the common good and solidarity?

I don’t think it is right to say that conservatives fail in this regard. They just prefer to move the common good and solidarity outside the realm of coercion and force (the government) and to locate those activities more in the voluntary sphere (family, church, mediating institutions, charities, etc.).

Dietrich Bonhoeffer spoke of marriage as something like an office that we occupy in relation to society. I like to think about a society where we are all intentional about fulfilling our offices: husband, wife, father, mother, son, daughter, neighbor, friend, etc. How would it change the world if we took those duties more seriously?

Or maybe take the word “office” and change it to “post.” I remember a young man was thinking about leaving his wife and children. A friend of his bolstered his commitment by telling him that he must “stay at your post.” We aren’t free to abandon our posts.

I think government can be a lazy shortcut. Or maybe it ends up being where we go when the other things fall apart. That’s why conservatives and Christians (at least those on the right) emphasize spiritual renewal and virtue rather than more government programs.

Does the Christian bring anything important to the understanding of economic issues that the secular conservative doesn’t see or understand?

I have trouble processing exactly what a “secular conservative” is. On one hand, I think about Friedman and Hayek, but they both disclaimed the label. They preferred to be called liberals, as in “classical liberals.” On the other, maybe we might mean someone who is not religious but who esteems tradition.

Christians often end up being fellow travelers with these folks for various reasons. I think one of the critical Christian contributions has to do with the high value we place upon the individual as a person made in the image of God. As long as we keep that front and center, we help give a soul to worldly philosophies.

Do you think abortion and marriage a matter for the states to decide, as some of your peers argue, or matters that should be settled nationally by appeal to the Constitution?

As a general principle, I think that when Hillary Clinton says the unborn child has no constitutional rights, she is describing an unjust law. Augustine, Aquinas, Martin Luther King, Jr., and others tell us an unjust law is no law at all. Roe is an unjust law.

You can win that with the Supreme Court ruling abortion unconstitutional the way it once ruled it constitutional, or you can win democratically. I might rather win democratically state by state as we convince the people of the injustice of Roe. The moral legitimacy would likely be greater and more enduring in that case.

Why have so many corporations used their power to advance the LGBT cause? Have conservatives in the past been too naive about the effects of capitalism and the market on our society’s understanding of the moral order?

Corporations and capitalism are not the same thing. I tend to think that corporations are not necessarily all that crazy about real capitalism. Many want to achieve great size and wealth and then use regulation to block the up and comers. Administrative compliance with government regulations is expensive and the costs can keep new and small companies from surmounting the obstacles.

With regard to social issues, corporations just want uniformity. They don’t want to mess with the laws of different jurisdictions and deal with their employees in varying contexts. So they just take the prevailing consensus or the one they see eventually winning and back that.

As a secondary issue, the corporate executive class is made up of human beings with money who crave status. You don’t get to be friends with the people of fashion by opposing fashionable ideas.

Going in a slightly different direction, I do want to say that the market is not a panacea. Peter Drucker is one of my heroes. He says the market should rule everywhere except where it shouldn’t. That sounds clever, but what he means is that the logic of supply and demand can take you into some bad places. Narcotics, pornography, all kinds of things are desirable and yet bad. We can’t just assume the market will take care of everything for us. And that takes us back to the relationship between virtue and freedom.

What do you say about the most popular leftist causes, particularly the attack on economic inequality? Do you think Bernie Sanders is on to something, whatever you think about his proposed policies?

I’ve addressed some of this already, but I do think that massive inequality creates problems. It is simply true that capitalism leads to the creation of things that make human life better, that extend it, etc. But the huge gap does grate on people. I’ve been asking students about this over the years and they do not stop caring about the gap even if I create a scenario in which there is big inequality, but they are absolutely, objectively better off.

To me, the gap can be justified or not. Consider Steve Jobs. Whatever that man was paid, he was worth it. I can’t find fault with his wealth. But the same is not always clear. I have to concede that. Some CEO’s are paid ridiculous amounts after they fail. You wouldn’t be crazy to wonder whether executive pay is purely a market issue or whether networks of elite expectations have anything to do with it.

Who have been the political thinkers you’ve learned from, living and dead?

I mentioned several earlier. I’ll add Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Locke, Montesquieu, various American founders, Burke, Paine, even Machiavelli. Hayek, Friedman, [John] Rawls, [Michael J.] Sandel. … We could go on and on. I teach political thought these days.

Who are your heroes among professional politicians, again living and dead? Why?

I’m very much a Reagan and Thatcher guy. Reagan for his astounding boldness and conviction with regard to the Cold War. Thatcher for her sheer grit in confronting a bad quasi-socialist model in England and making important changes. Churchill is big for me, too. You almost have to be dead not to like Churchill.

What role does race have in American society? How deep do the divisions remain and how will you respond to them?

I once had the opportunity to talk about race and poverty with a man who is Democrat party royalty. I won’t say his name, but his father was in the cabinet. When we got to the War on Poverty, he said, “We had such good intentions, but I think we hurt people.” He hadn’t turned into a super-capitalist or anything like that, but he recognized the damage done by the structure of those programs and the way it hurt things like family formation in the underclass, with a disproportionate impact on African-Americans. That’s a classic critique, but a true one, I think.

On the divisions that remain, I think that is really difficult for me to truly understand. I can recall a single woman talking about how she feels walking out into a parking lot alone at night. I suddenly realized that I had never considered how that feels. After all, I’m a 6’2”, 250 pound guy. I think race is similar. I don’t know what it is like to be black.

I recently read Michele Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow. We taught it in an honors class. I take issue with a lot of what she presents, but she has some points that are hard to refute.

For example, I suspect she is right that the black community experiences an enhanced level of police attention. And I would guess that she is right about the impact of too many African-Americans having a felony status that affects them for the rest of their lives.

A lot of the controversy is empirical in nature. I’d like to see a really sophisticated debate on these issues. I also like the Harvard sociologist James Q. Wilson’s thoughts on representative bureaucracy. That’s the notion that you should try to have law enforcement officers who correspond at some level to the community they police. I think that can help.

More broadly, I don’t have a great answer to racial division other than to say that I do think with many conservatives that economic growth is something of an elixir. More jobs, more opportunities, rising wages . . . all of these things help with division. We’re in a low growth phase. It’s no surprise we are focused on the things that divide us.

If the election somehow came down to Trump v. Sanders, who would you vote for?

Not a great choice either way. To me, Trump is a wild card. I don’t know that there is actually any real policy there. It’s a charisma more than a policy. Sanders embodies that kind of politics I referred to as fundamentally immature. I think I’ll leave it there.

 

The interview was conducted by email. It has been edited for clarity and meaning.