Wallis on Gaffe Robertson

We'll wrap up the Robertson screwup by taking note of Jim Wallis' article condemning Robertson's call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, two portions of which I found interesting:

The fun begins with paragraph three, in which Wallis observes, probably correctly, that "It's clear Robertson must not have first asked himself " 'What would Jesus do?' " The tendency to reduce difficult moral questions to WWJD is not without potential problems, especially when the subject is public policy. I'll expand on this later, but for now let's stick with one obvious fact: there's only one Jesus, and I'm not Him. I don't have his wisdom, his moral strength, his intimate relationship with the Father, or his capacity for miracles. In public policy WWJD becomes more complicated because Jesus in the gospels was founding a church, not a state. The standards of behaviour appropriate for the leaders of a church do not neccessarily apply in all cases to political leaders.

Wallis goes over-the-top in his penultimate paragraph:

It's time to name Robertson for what he is: an American fundamentalist whose theocratic views are not much different from the "Muslim extremists" he continually assails.

One need not support Robertson to see that this goes well beyond the truth. Robertson's call for Chavez' assassination, misguided as it was, was based on secular grounds, not biblical. Robertson, who has never hesitated to attribute his political musings to God (see my earlier post Kos 1, Robertson 0, below), did not do so here, and the only doctrine he cites is the Monroe Doctrine. Finally Robertson, unlike the muslim extremists (What's with the scare quotes here, anyway?) does not call for the killing of random Venezuelans, while Osama bin Laden and other radical Muslims have no qualms about killing civilians. This is a big difference.

I do agree with Wallis that Robertson should step down before he causes the church, and especially conservative evangelicals, any further embarrassment. And that, barring any unexpectedly interesting further developments, should suffice as far as Gaffe Robertson is concerned.

The Problem with Pat

As you might expect, the left is having a blast with Pat Robertson. Daily Kos in particular is having a field day asking a fair question: Why can't the administration condemn Robertson's remarks more strongly?

Let me give you a couple possible answers:

1. For better or for worse Robertson once was a leader of the Christian right, and while his influence has waned even among evangelicals (something that the media have yet to grasp) the administration does not want to humiliate him. Part of this is political calculation, part of this is a sense of loyalty -- he may be something of a loose cannon, but he's kin, a brother in Christ, and he used to matter, so we don't want to add to his embarassment.

2. A too-strong condemnation of Robertson might embolden Hugo Chavez. As I noted yesterday Chavez is not a direct threat to US security, but he is becoming a dictator, he is an anti-American radical, and he might use revenue from Venezuela's petroleum industry to develop weapons of mass destruction, at which point he would be a threat to US security. Robertson's comments were bizarre but that doesn't mean that Chavez is not a problem. Hugo Chavez should not be allowed to profit from Robertson's gaffe.

That having been said, Robertson's attempt to downplay his comments -- Earlier today Robertson argued that his call to "take him (Chavez) out" might have referred to kidnapping -- was either the product of senility or transparently dishonest and disgraceful.

The problem with Robertson is that he has a show, the 700 Club, and he owns a network, CBN, which makes him look more important than he actually is to those with a shallow understanding of Christian conservatism.

I can testify from personal experience that Robertson has little influence within the leadership of the conservative movement, even among evangelicals. Not once during my time with the Mackinac Center or the Heritage Foundation did I hear a staffer or policy wonk refer to Robertson as a knowledgeable commentator or an important political player. More than once I've heard Christian political activists -- staunch conservatives -- confess to being embarassed by Robertson.

I think Robertson should retire before he causes us any further embarassment. But I don't blame the Bush administration for treating Robertson relatively gently.

Worse Than a Crime

Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is, to borrow the words of Talleyrand, "Worse than a crime, it's a blunder."

Leaving aside the question of whether or not it is ever proper for a government to kill the leader of a rival state (US special forces and intelligence services are still prohibited from carrying out such a mission.) there is little justification for the US to whack Chavez.

Robertson is speculating wildly that Chavez might provide support to terrorists. Unlike Iraq Venezuela is not a muslim country and is unlikely to be of much value as a jihadist recruiting or training ground. I have yet to see any indications that Chavez is developing nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Chavez has forged a close relationship with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, but Castro, for all his faults, has never been closely aligned with terrorist groups.

That's not to say Chavez is a good guy, or that he might not become a serious threat in time. He has pretty much short circuited Venezuelan democracy, establishing himself as a fairly typical latin American strongman in the mold of Juan Peron. In time he could, if he choses, use revenue from Venezuela's nationalized oil industry to become a regional power or even, following the steps of Saddam Hussein, begin to tinker with weapons of mass destruction.

Now if Robertson wants to call attention to a possible future threat from Chavez, that would be fine and maybe even edifying. The last thing the US needs on top of its other foreign policy problems is the revival of latin American communism or the rise of an aggressive Peronism, and if the opening presents itself it would be better to begin dealing with Chavez sooner rather than later. But to call for Chavez to be murdered is irresponsible and guarantees Robertson the worst kind of attention. Rather than spur a serious discussion of the situation in Venezuela, Robertson has triggered an outpouring of well-deserved criticism which is bound to translate into a less than healthy sympathy for Chavez.

Of course, the administration is not going to take any action against the Venezuelan government, military or diplomatic, open or covert. Chavez is not that great a threat yet and Robertson, for all the attention he receives, is not all that influential. Robertson's comments were a huge blunder, and in this case the blunder of manufacturing sympathy for Chavez may prove to be worse than the crime of calling impotently for his assassination.

Oh well, it could have been worse. At least Robertson didn't claim that God wants us to assassinate anyone.

Petrificus Totalis!

I have stayed clear of the Roberts nomination controversy up to now because on the surface at least the question of Roberts' fitness for the bench hinged on his Catholicism, a topic that I approach with some caution. You see, I'm a Protestant, which is to say I tend to view issues of faith in a relatively straightforward manner, with almost all the big questions settled in the Bible itself. Whatever's left over I just pray over myself and figure God will give me an answer somehow. Catholicism, on the other hand, involves a bewildering array of pronouncements from any of a couple hundred Popes with imposing titles like Petrificus Totalis, or Expecto Patronum or Sectum Sempra.

Oh, wait, those are incantations from the Harry Potter books. But you get the general idea. And it doesn't matter anyway.

To recap, late last month John Roberts met with Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), who asked the Supreme Court nominee what he would do if the law required a ruling that [the Catholic Church] considers immoral -- an interesting question for reasons I'll get to shortly. Roberts reportedly paused and then replied that he would have to recuse himself.

It is by now pretty much settled that the source for this story was Dick Durbin himself, and it is also widely speculated that the exchange did not take place as Durbin reported it. But for sake of discussion, let's assume that the exchange happened just as Durbin reported it.

The story is being taken as evidence of a Democratic hostility towards Catholicism. This is too narrow, because Durbin's problem isn't with the pronouncements of Popes, but with the notion of authority in general. Protestants with their sola scriptura, (which I'm pretty sure is not found in Harry Potter) Jews with the Torah, even Zoroastrians with their Avesta, all could find themselves in the theoretical pickle that Durbin put to Roberts.

The dilemma raised by Durbin also assumes that there is at least some validity to the notion that judges, even on the Supreme Court, are there to interpret existing laws rather than make laws that they themselves deem wise. Without some notion of the law as something distinct from the policy preferences of whoever happens to be sitting on the Supreme Court at the time, there can be no conflict between the law and the moral demands of any deity because the Supreme Court Justice is free to make the law as he sees fit, and who's to stop him or her from consulting whatever god or gods he or she might happen to believe in?

Of course, it would be interesting to find out what answer Sen. Durbin would give: would he say follow your religion and endorse theocracy, or would he say "follow the law" and implicitly endorse conservative legal theory? Or would he follow Roberts and recuse himself?

And if Durbin would recuse himself, here are a couple follow-up questions: Does he believe that it is unwise put place persons with strong religious convictions on the high court because they will be prone to encounter personal conflicts? If not, why do you think this exchange was so important in the first place?

Finally, it might be interesting to find out what sorts of issues Durbin thinks are likely to create a conflict between "settled law" and Roberts' Catholic faith. If there are any plausible answers beyond "abortion" then I'm an alumni of Hogwarts.

Sojourners Backing Cindy Sheehan

Meanwhile, Sojourners, a publication devoted to the thinking of left-of-center Christians, has adopted Cindy Sheehan. Interestingly enough their approving story on Sheehan was written by one Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas. Jensen describes himself as "not of the church" but his article was based on a speech he gave inside a church building, which makes it Christian, I guess. Sojourners also provided a link to Sheehan's Gold Star Families for Peace, so for now at least Jim Wallis' outfit is committed to Cindy.

As I warned yesterday, Cindy Sheehan is in over her head as a political spokesperson, and emotionally she just seems like she's not ready for the responsibility she has taken on herself. Rather than tell us about her son, which might be both therapeutic for her and valuable to the national discourse, (the basic human cost of war shouldn't be forgotten) Ms. Sheehan continues to repeat the caustic rhetoric of the radical left, full of sinister neocons pursuing blood for oil, led by the man she calls "that filth-spewer and warmonger, George Bush."

It can be dangerous to psychoanalyze from a distance, and I'm not a psychiatrist, so call the following a gut feeling: you remember the five stages of grief don't you? Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance? Well Cindy Sheehan strikes me as someone who is stuck in Anger. That's a bad place to be for nearly a year and a half. You build up a lot of bile that's liable to come out at the wrong time. Need evidence? Sheehan alluded to her anger problem when she spoke at a Veterans for Peace Convention earlier this month and said "...I know I don't look like I'm outraged, I'm always so calm and everything, that's because if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop til it was dead. So I can't even start, cause I know how dangerous that would be..."

There is a very real chance that the Cindy Sheehan media stunt will all end very badly, and Sojourners is adopting her without reservation and with only a pretense of attempting to put her in some sort of biblical perspective.

Just be on your toes Jim. The next time Ms. Sheehan turns ugly you don't want any of the acid to get on your magazine.

A Grief Observed on CNN

Cindy Sheehan is a sad figure, a victim twice over: first of war when her son was killed in combat, second of politics when the heroic notion that she could "make a difference" overwhelmed her already strained-to-the-breaking-point psyche.

She and her supporters in the anti-war left had just enough wits to parley her status as a grieving mom into national fame (or is it notoriety?) in the middle of a long Presidential vacation in the slow news month of August. Unfortunately, neither of them appears to have fully thought through what to do with the nation's attention now that they have it.

She has just reached the halfway point in her fifteen minutes of fame. This is the point where the victim of instant celebrity begins to crack up under the pressure of having to deliver something worthy of the nation's attention. And as cruel as the following must seem it needs to be said: Cindy Sheehan has no unique insight on war to share with us. There are roughly 1,800 young men and women who have lost their lives in the Iraq war, which adds up to 1,800 mothers (and 1,800 fathers, for that matter) and they all, understandably, want to know why. All of them will tell you it hurts to lose a loved one in the prime of his or her life. One will get a similar story from the hundreds of thousands of mothers and dads who suddenly lose young ones to drugs, crime, or accidents. And nearly all of them will do something very similar to what Cindy Sheehan has done: they will ask "Why?"

Most of the time the rest of us allow them to grieve and ask their existential questions in private, with their closest friends and spiritual advisors. The difference between them and Cindy Sheehan is that she got in front of a microphone at a time (August) and a place (Crawford Texas) where the media were most hungry for a political story. And now Cindy Sheehan has to live with the consequences of being a political story on top of being a grieving mom. And one of the consequences of being a political story is having your political views examined in far greater depth than most private citizens -- let alone those suffering from a shocking loss like the one she has suffered -- ever have to.

The results aren't pretty. A letter from Cindy Sheehan to ABC News Nightline has now surfaced and been authenticated, in which Sheehan alleges that

...my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11.

Christopher Hitchens, writing in Slate, calls Sheehan's protest "Sinister Piffle". This is harsh but it is to be expected from supporters of the Iraq war, who after all believe in all sincerity that the middle-eastern region is in desperate need of reform. For all the sympathy that civilized people might have for a grieving mother, one cannot seriously expect that the advocates of the Iraq war will cease their advocacy, or fail to respond to any anti-war spokesman who develops a significant audience, grieving mom or not.

Grief does things to people's minds, and leaves us all prone to terrible thoughts. Left to grieve without the nation looking in Cindy Sheehan's rant about neocons and the PNAC would have been allowed to pass decently into the air, forgotten or forgiven as the anguished shriek of a mother deprived of her son. Instead it, and her contacts with Michael Moore, Moveon, and the rest of the antiwar left will become part of the national discourse, recorded, dissected, and possibly held against her for years in the future. Already there are signs that Cindy Sheehan's protest has led to strains within her family: Cherie Quartarolo, Cindy Sheehan's sister-in-law and godmother to her lost son, issued a statement on behalf of several family members, alleging that Sheehan "appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation."

One can only wish that there were someone close to Cindy Sheehan who saw where this is heading, the permanent damage to her reputation and relationships that could result from her fifteen minutes of fame. Cindy Sheehan is simply in over her head. It's time for someone who loves her, her priest or a family member or a close friend, to put an arm around her and lead her away from Crawford, back home, where she can mourn the loss of her son Casey.

Kos 1, Robertson 0

I'm not a fan of Daily Kos but must give credit for this post from earlier today that struck me as rather clever, and neatly illustrates one of the pitfalls of evangelical politics:

God is a waffler. Pat Robertson said God told him that Iraq would be a bloody disaster. But the same God told George Bush it wouldn't, which so surprised Robertson, he almost dropped the pennies he was stealing off a dead woman's eyes. But why is God talking out of two sides of his mouth? Flip-flop. God told us to beat our swords into plowshares. God: Wrong on defense, wrong for America.

Now most evangelical Christians that I know will accept a limited version of "private revelation", in the form of a "still small voice" that provides advice and insight. I'm open to that possiblity myself.

But private revelations in the real world are not on par with scripture and, to make matters worse, sometimes wrong. So whenever Robertson starts passing around his private revelations on the political future I get very, very nervous.

This wouldn't be the first time that Robertson has let slip one of these juicy bits of intel from the Big Guy. Back on Jan 2, 2004 Pat alerted us that:

I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. The Lord has just blessed him.

Considering that the election ultimately hinged on a relatively close vote in one state (Ohio), I don't think that Robertson heard God right. (No, I'm not arguing that the 2004 vote was stolen, but the result was only a blowout compared to 2000)

The point? If God tells you something, keep it under your hat. Or if you just can't help yourself, tell it to a few close friends that you can trust to keep a secret. Please don't blurt it out on national television. By all means do God's will, in politics as in everything else. But leave God with plausible deniability.