Loading ...Weird religion and politics piece in the New York Times
flockwood I have an Nikon SLR camera that focuses automatically. Which is great except for those rare occasions when it focuses, automatically, on the wrong object. I thought of my camera as I read a story in today’s Times, which focuses, perfectly, on the wrong items. The result: the key items are blurred, sometimes beyond recognition.
The piece begins: “When Senator John McCain won the endorsement of the Rev. John C. Hagee in February, his campaign hoped it would shore up his conservative credentials among evangelicals and build enthusiasm among a voting bloc that would be critical for him in November. The Rev. John C. Hagee, who has been criticized over his views on Catholics and Jews, endorsed John McCain in February. But since then, Mr. Hagee has been on the defensive over some of his views about Catholics and Jews, and he and Mr. McCain’s campaign have been silent about his endorsement. The controversial endorsement points to Mr. McCain’s tenuous relationship with conservative evangelicals…”
No. The endorsement does not point to McCain’s allegedly tenuous relationship with conservative evangelicals. The Times points its lens at February 2000 “when McCain called Falwell and Robertson ‘agents of intolerance’ and at November 2008. But it should have focused on this date: March 4, 2008.
The Hagee endorsement, first and foremost, was not sought with an eye toward a national election in November. It was sought with an eye toward the March 4 Texas Republican primary. John McCain believed, correctly, that he could deliver a knockout blow to Mike Huckabee by winning big in the Lone Star State. But to win, McCain would need substantial support from Texas evangelical voters. If Texas evangelicals voted for Huckabee 3 to 1 or 5 to 1 or 10 to 1, Huckabee would be able to pull a huge upset. The likely result: Huckabee would fight on, winning Mississippi on March 11 and raising big questions about McCain’s electability.
Given that nightmare scenario, Hagee was a real plum. Why? 1.) Hagee is a Texan. 2.) Hagee has disproportionate name ID and influence in Texas. 3.) Hagee is (or was) off the radar screen for most of the secular media, so McCain gambled there would be little blowback from the Manhattan media. 4.) Hagee had donated $2,300 to Huckabee’s campaign, and had allowed the Arkansas preacher-politician to preach at his San Antonio church in December. So a Hagee endorsement would come as a huge blow to Huckabee in Texas. and show that Texas evangelicals weren’t united behind Huckabee.
Hagee was enlisted to help derail Huckabee. In Texas. In March. And it worked.
The Times suggests that McCain’s unwillingness to talk about Hagee in April shows that the endorsement backfired. Far from it. The endorsement worked like a charm. McCain knows this. Hagee knows this, too.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
An endorsement from John Hagee, and considering Condi Rice as a running mate. This is getting scarier all the time.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Frank, that was a great analysis. As one of my history professors used to say, history kind of makes sense if you put it in chronological order.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:07 am
It shows how politically savvy you have to be to upstage each other when you run for a main office. Sometimes the results are not to pretty. Other times the plan works.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
The analysis seems to ignore the fact that what works in the short run can have seriously negative consequences in the long run. The blowback from that endorsement is continuing nationally, which is where the votes get counted (except in FL) in November.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Gravis,
Your analysis of Frank’s analysis seems to ignore the fact that in order to get to the national election, McCain first had to win the nomination…
April 9th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
That’s right, David. Politics is often the art of winning today’s battle first and worrying about tomorrow’s battle tomorrow. And frankly I don’t see it hurting him that much anyway.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:32 am
I’m not a Hagee man, but I wouldn’t mind Condelezza Rice as Vice President.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Condoleeza Rice has too much pride to be the token black candidate on a (pale) white man’s ticket. Or, if she doesn’t, she ought to.
April 10th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Why would she be a ‘token’ Caleb? Truth is, I’d ten to one rather have her as President than McCain, people like her, or I do, because she’s balanced, smart, why should race have anything to do with it? To be frank, if a person votes for somebody simply because of their race or sex, then they are sexist or racist, America is ready for a woman or a black, I just wish it wasn’t Hillary or Obama, does tyhat make me a racist or sexist because I wont vote for either? Truth is, I’m not real keen on McCain neither.
April 10th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
There’s a reason that the Republican Party gets less than 10% of the black vote nationally. Intellectually, they know they need to pick up black votes, but they can’t figure a way to do it, without changing the policies that cost them 90% of that vote now.
Rice may well be a fine person, but I suspect that her appeal to the ticket goes as much to race as it does to qualifications. If, by putting her on the ticket, the Republicans could draw even another 10% of the black vote, that would be a significant number of votes. And because Rice is so popular among Republicans, she would be attractive to white voters, too. And, let’s face it, the Republicans have always had a gender gap, too. They draw far more male voters than female. A woman on the ticket wouldn’t hurt that. Rice is popular enough that she doesn’t alienate anyone, and may draw support from previously untapped markets.
I’m not saying it’s a bad choice at all; in many ways, it would be a brilliant choice, politically. But Rice would know that she was chosen in large part because of her race, and I don’t necessarily think she’d like that.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I can’t say that it is fair, but I can honestly say, I couldn’t like Condelezza Rice anymore if she were lily-white, if she did turn down John McCain, I certainly couldn’t blame her, she has too much class than to serve under the likes. This has got to be, for me personally, one of the saddest elections I’ve ever endured. But I will say this, so there is no doubt, I am an American, once the election is finished, we should lay aside our differences and put our country first above whoever becomes our leader. I wasn’t a friend of Bill, but I did pray for him, whether you like or dislike the person, I believe you should pray that they would make proper choices for the country, I will do this for either of the three, the way it’s looking, it looks like Obama will be the one, I won’t do him any different than Clinton.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:29 am
Speaking about race and party, I attended a hispanic issues conference as a representative of the Idaho State Health and Welfare Department back in 1997 or 1998 (I can’t remember if it was late 97 or early 98). I believe that I was one of 5 caucasians in a conference of over 500 people. During the opening lunch meeting before we broke into different classes, the mayor of Boise, who happened to be white, was late for his opening remarks. The person conducting the meeting started to speak harshly of the mayor, saying that the Republican mayor “obviously had better things to do than speak to a bunch of Democrat Chicanos.” He had to eat his words when the mayor walked in and apologized but had experienced an issue with his family and had to take care of that before he came. I hadn’t even known it was going to be a “political” conference, but as things went on I realized that my “whiteness” was probably just as much in the minority as my conservative political views.
During the next day I attended a meeting where the democratic candidates for governor and congress were there stumping for votes, declaring what they would do for the Hispanic community. They too, obviously, were ripping on the absense of the GOP candidates. One courageous hispanic young lady stood up and after declaring that her family had always voted Republican, as the candidates what they would tell her to change her mind. The gubernatorial candidate spoke right up, stating, “Well, young lady, the Democratic party is the party of civil rights. We passed the civil rights act of 1964. It was under President Johnson that all that happened! As a hispanic person, you have a duty to vote for the party that gave minorities more rights in this country!” (That whole line of thinking can be debated…but that’s for another thread.)
I couldn’t stand it, so I raised my hand, was called on, and then said, “Mr. Huntley, by that same reasoning, every African American should be voting Republican.” When he blankly started at me, I simply stated, “Well, didn’t Lincoln free the slaves?”
I think it was a good think that the conference ended that hour and I was on my way home to eastern Idaho!
April 11th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Following the Civil War, African-Americans voted predominantly Republican until the 1930′s, for the reason David mentioned.
Also, with regard to the Civil Rights Act, a higher percentage of Republicans in Congress voted for it than Democrats. The opposition came primarily from Southern Democrats.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Some columnist who is African-American, I think it was Leonard Pitts, recently sparked a debate about why blacks don’t vote Republican. He observed that conservatives generally take positions that oppose the interests of blacks while liberals support black issues. What many readers misunderstood is that, historically speaking, the two major parties have moved and even swapped places on politcal spectrum. The Democratic opponents of Civil Rights were conservatives. It is silly to pretend that the Party of Lincoln, the one that won freedom for slaves, was ideologically the same as the party of Reagan. Blacks don’t vote Republicans today because today’s Republican Party doesn’t support them.
In the 2000 Republican Convention, when Condaleeza Rice spoke about her childhood in the deep South, she said that her family was Republican because of the party’s stance on Civil Rights. Yet some of those Democratic Party segregationists of the 1950s, men like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, were by that time staunch members of the GOP. What a joke.
Dr. Rice and Gen. Colin Powell were very much on display at the 2000 convention. Not to take anything away from their achievements or talents, but it’s safe to say that both were put front and center because of their skin color. They are exceptional individuals in more than one sense of the word. Rice could be a decent Vice President; we’ve certainly had worse! But if she gets the nomination it will be primarily for reasons of politics and image, not because of her intelligence or competence.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Actually, Larry, though some blacks did switch to the Democratic Party in the ’30s, most remained Republican voters until the ’60s. Martin Luther King, Sr., supported Nixon over Kennedy in 1960, and switched his loyalty only when Kennedy helped get his son out of jail. The great Kentucky author Irvin Cobb once wrote that, after leaving Western Kentucky, he saw his first Jew and his first white Republican on the same day.
Lyndon Johnson began as a segregationist, and only became an integrationist when he became interested in national office.
The parties’ positions have completely flip-flopped on the issue of race. The Republican Party today is simply too overwhelmed with ex-Dixiecrats to do much for blacks, though God knows it loves them as tokens.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Caleb, to say that the parties have “completely flip-flopped” on race is an overstatement. There is no Republican equivalent to the Ku Klux Klan-loving, segregationist, Jim Crow, stand-in-the-schoolhouse-door Democrats of the past. Those days and politicians are thankfully gone.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
You’re right, Larry, the Republicans are more subtle in their racism than the Dems ever were. Their tactics have always been a little more underhanded, like the widespread intimidation of black voters in which people like former Chief Justice Rehnquist used to participate in in Phoenix, resurrected by the Bushes in Florida in 2000 and 2004. There’s a reason that it was such a big deal for Arizona to recognize Martin Luther King day: Barry Goldwater had always opposed it, as did John McCain initially. And the holiday had to be shoved down Ronald Reagan’s throat, too.
You would think that these folks could sit still long enough to allow a holiday honoring King, but the racism always shines through in some manner. They can’t help it.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
You know, I sort of expected the posts I just read about “these folks” and “Blacks don’t vote Republicans today because today’s Republican Party doesn’t support them.”
That is why I said what I said at that hispanic conference. I’m sure I’ll ruffle some feathers, but some of what I’ve read on this thread shows the attitude that I think is at the heart of the racial divisions in our country. Generalization of that kind is no better than blatant racism. Let’s be honest with ourselves; the thoughts of “blacks vote Democrat” come from the same general place in the brain as “blacks cannot think for themselves.” Both should be recognized as blatantly untrue. If even one black person votes Republican than obviously it is untrue. Individual Blacks, hispanics and whites can and do think for themselves. To resign races to groupthink diminishes their abilities. I get sick and tired of hearing a black man or woman being called an “Uncle Tom” because their political leanings happen to bend the way of the GOP.
From the other side, I see over and over again the GOP steamrolling the Dems in my state because too many Mormons think that they can’t “good members of the church and be democrats.” While I certainly don’t agree with the politics of Harry Reid, I would never say he isn’t a “good Mormon.” I have no idea what his personal relationship is with his Savior. That’s between him and the Lord.
Both my father and father-in-law are every Sunday attending, died-in-the-wool Mormons yet they are both Democrats. I don’t agree with them politically, but I certainly respect their ideas and realize from where they spring.
When I was 17, my father and I had a political discussion, about what I don’t recall, but I to remember stating to him that I was a Democrat. I thought that would please him. He asked me why and when I couldn’t really explain my reasonings he told me in a voice I will always remember, “David, don’t you ever let me hear you call yourself Republican, Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, until you can explain to yourself exactly why that is.” Then he added, “And I’ll love you even if you’re a Republican.” I’ve never forgotten that lesson. I wish more people in this country could teach personal integrity like my father.
I realize that I’m an idealist, but until everyone in this country starts to think for himself/herself when it comes to such important things, we’re just running in the same circles and while the slavery is not as literal as the 19th century, the enslavement of the mind by being susceptible to group think can be just as damning in it’s own way.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
In all honesty, the Democrats seem more racist to me, I wish we could treat people by their caharacter and content of the heart, but if your white and you fire a minority, see how fast it takes the government to come down on you? Why does everything have to be about race? Why can’t we like or dislike someone of a different race, without hearing your a racist? I don’t get it! If I don’t vote for Obama, I’m a racist, what’s up with that? I hate this, I truly do, it’s not minorities I have a problem with, but the hypocritical, double-standard we’re under. And no, I don’t want to repress anybody, but don’t expect me to be o.k. with quotas, that to me, is more of a Democrat thing, not Republican. That is so phoney, you tell me one thing genuine about that?!
April 12th, 2008 at 1:41 am
I am a evangelical conservative Republican, and I truly feel that the worst day of this entire campaign was the day Mike Huckabee bowed out. He is someone that I know I can trust and depend on. For the first time since I became eligible to vote (35 years ago), I may not exercise that priviledge. Watching McCain, Clinton and Obama in action, especially the latter two, is an embarressment that I never thought I’d see in our wonderful country. It’s just plain sad.
April 12th, 2008 at 6:15 am
David, I don’t understand your reaction. Isn’t it normal for people to vote for parties and candidates that support their interests? Good, good. Now then, can you see that the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates of today are generally more in line with those issues that matter to most minorities? What is so controversial about that? That ain’t racism; it’s political reality and it’s perfectly acceptable. Here we are, more that a century after the formal end of slavery, and yet many African Americans are still dealing with constant racial prejudice, poverty, and endemic incarceration. Would you really call it racism to work for political solutions to these evils?
As for the “Uncle Tom” stuff and comments that people can’t think for themselves, how do you draw that out of our discussion here? Who said that minorities cannot act or think as individuals? I don’t see where anyone criticized Rice or Powell for their affiliation with the Republican Party. That’s their personal choice and it fits their personal interests. All that we said was that these two persons were also being used as images of a new GOP, to entice new constituencies. What is so controversial about that?
It shouldn’t be necessary to state the obvious, that some Republican politicians work for the good of minorities on some issues. Sen. McCain has surely taken heat for his stance on immigration reform. And while my disgust for President Bush is deep, I will readily point out that he is genuinely open to women and ethnic minorities. Some of his closest confidants were Harriet Miers, Karen Hughes, and Alberto Gonzales. He appointed them to their positions on the basis of personal trust, regardless of their demographics. That kind of openness is a really great quality in a leader (though I can’t say much for the particular individuals that he selected). I have a good friend who works for a Hispanic special interests group in DC. Most of the politicians that he works with are Democratic, but that’s just how it works out. The party does not matter to him, it’s all about who will work for his issues.
Yes, David, you did ruffle some feathers. You might want to be more conservative with your words when using phrases like “blatant racism”, especially when there is no basis for such accusations.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I have to agree with Gina Fuell, I’ve been a voter since 1980, and this may be the first time in my life I can’t vote for either of the candidates.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:25 am
I have been watching this election process and the further it goes the more the temperament gets out of whack. I have noticed that my own posts are fueled by the constant badgering that goes on between candidates and parties. I find myself pulling back on my opinions as a way of not participating. In one sense it is good training for a president but in another its a shame that these tactics are present in a group of people that carry the intellect these individuals posses. One other thing, poverty knows no color.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:45 am
The only security I have in this election, is the verse where the Lord raises up leaders, good or bad, for his divine plan and purpose, neither of the 3 are exactly who I can warm up with, but which ever one is, he will be used, whether they know it or not.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Jose,
My reaction was to the “blatant generalization” of grouping anyone together and saying that a particular party represents “their” interests? What exactly are the interests of Black Americans. Are they exactly the same for every Black American? You use the term, quoting Mr. Pitts or maybe paraphrasing his words, “black issues.” What are those? Are they the same for each Black American?
And please, don’t tell me you haven’t heard or read of a Black American being called an Uncle Tom (or it at least being implied) for not following the group.
Also, I tend to use the words that I feel fit the discussion. I realize the connotation that the word “racism” has in our society. Let’s look at another definition however:
“a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.”
Look at the definition before the comma. Note that the second part states “usually.” That means “not always.”
Are not generalizations such as “black issues” or “black interests,” when you get down to the core, beliefs that “inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement?”
You’re right, I shouldn’t have used the word “racism” but rather generalization, and I was not calling you or anyone else racist, just noting that I believe the thoughts that there should be “black issues” or “white issues” or that we should group issues in that way at all is part of the problem that we face in this country.
Martin Luther King, Jr. is a personal hero of mine. No one should have ever opposed a holiday in his honor. He was just a much a national hero as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, in my mind. I keep going back to my favorite, and perhaps the most famous, line of his “I Have a Dream” speech.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Another line from that day should also be remembered.
“The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.”
When I see words like, “Dr. Rice and Gen. Colin Powell were very much on display at the 2000 convention. Not to take anything away from their achievements or talents, but it’s safe to say that both were put front and center because of their skin color,” I ask, why do you think that? Why do anxiously run for the worst possible thought of why the GOP would do that? Do you not think that Gen. Powell and Dr. Rice would have the integrity to tell the GOP “No!” if they thought they were being used as puppets? And perhaps, yes just perhaps, those who asked them to speak did so not because of “the color of their skin, [but because of] the content of their character.”
Do you think that the President’s nephew was asked to speak simply because of the color of his skin?
We only will be truly “free” when in the words of Dr. King, “all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands…,” and in my words, all are able to think for themselves and vote for the ideals that they themselves believe, not what they have been taught by so called “leaders” like Jesse Jackson and Nancy Pelosi on the left, or Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on the right.
Are there obvious racists in the GOP? I’m sure there are. However, I see the same thing in the Democratic party, but it is much more subtle. There are those in the Dems that think that blacks and other minorities need to be “protected.” They might not say it, but their policies sure scream it loud and clear. Is that not a form of racism also? Which is worse? Fight against injustice, yes, but there is a fine line between racism and injustice and that which hurts the group because they are given that which hasn’t been earned. Tell me that welfare has not hurt minorities in this country? I worked there. I saw it. There are too many examples of those who have done it to say that anyone in this country, no matter the color of their skin, can make it in life by work and effort. If the government helps, in the form of grants or loans, let them do so equally for all and not in the form of quotas.
When it comes to “race relations” that is the only hope I see. Anything less than that will keep us in an adversorial relationship forever.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
David, if you stop and think about how you react to things yourself, you can understand how “our leaders” get out of hand, above all, they are human. Our perspective of them isn’t. To be harassed and badgered on a topic often leads to words you can’t take back. It does explain to me how some of the greatest writers liked their solitude.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
“words you can’t take back…”
Personally, I think that is one of the things that bugs me more than anything. Every one of us has uttered words that, on retrospect, we would have said differently. However, in our society, people are crucified for words instead of actions just because we can and the sincerist of apologies goes unheard and unrecognized, especially if you’re from a different political or religious persuasion.
Jose was right, I should have used a different words. I’m not sure if the word choice should have been not using “blatant” or not using “racism” to be quite honest. And I wasn’t calling someone racist, but simply saying that the attitudes lead to it.
One of my favorite writers is Thoreau. Sometimes I think all of us should spend some time at our own “Walden Pond.”
April 12th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
David says:
“Are not generalizations such as ‘black issues’ or ‘black interests,’ when you get down to the core, beliefs that ‘inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement?’”
No. Pure and simple, no.
I’m looking at empirical evidence, and you’re arguing against causality. Those are different things. You don’t have to hypothesize some kind of genetic racial predisposition to recognize that blacks in America are disproportionately poor, undereducated, malnourished, and disempowered. That’s a fact, not an ideology or a prejudice. If you think it’s racist to call that a “black issue” then I’m sorry for offending you. I wish it weren’t necessary.
David, you say that because race shouldn’t matter in an ideal world, we ought to pretend that there is no race problem. Thanks, but I will keep working in the real world as long as the good Lord says. You seem really hung up on generalizations, which is odd when you then have to make a big deal of explaining and justifying the word “usually” when defining racism. Of course the group of tens of millions of black Americans will include variety in so many ways. But because those individuals are not identical clones, you argue that it is wrong to make any generalizations. Why must a generalization always be improper? Why can we not use meaningful approximations when they help us to understand tendencies and trends, and when they lead us to efficient and effective solutions to problems?
Politicians have to make compromises and sometimes sacrifice a little dignity to help a movement. I have entirely too much respect for Rice and Powell to pretend that they didn’t understand exactly what they were doing at the 2000 convention. Like everyone else there, they were helping the party. Of course they were intelligent and eloquent, but so were many other party members. Do you really want to say that it was coincidence that these two attractive and popular black Americans got a primetime moment when others did not? And about the President’s nephew, George P. Bush, whose mother is from Mexico. Do you think that he is unaware of his value as someone able to reach out to the Hispanic community? Of course he is smart and talented. But do you think it’s irrelevant that he speaks fluent Spanish and is handsome as well? Politicians do what they gotta do and they use any edge that they can. And yes, it’s bipartisan.
When Dr. Rice spoke to the 2000 convention and showed them that a black woman could be a force within the party, that was fine. I applaud her achievements. The problem was that Rice basically lied to the conventioneers and to the American public by implying that the parties of 2000 were comparable to the parties of the 1950s, when in fact they had essentially switched positions on the issue of race.
And for all of you who rail against quotas and want to prove that some Democrats are hypocritical or even prejudiced, knock yourselves out. I won’t stand in your way, because I agree with those sentimens, but I sure don’t know who you’re arguing against.
April 12th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Jose,
Why do I have to be arguing against “someone?” I’m not. Not even you, although you’ve taken it that way. I’m arguing against thoughts that I think move us backwards, not forwards.