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.
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.
posted by A. at 11:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home