BEST OF THE WEB TODAY
|
Taking a Holiday
We'll be off tomorrow and Monday, returning Wednesday, Dec. 26. Have a merry Christmas and a sparkling solstice.
Is it really true
The nativists are restless?
Not enough to vote
No Truck With Huck--IV
A big reason for Mike Huckabee's rise--and for many conservatives' discomfort with it--is the way in which he has campaigned on his religion. Huckabee is a Southern Baptist and a former pastor, and his strongest competitor for the social conservative vote is Mitt Romney, a Mormon. Many more traditional Christians, especially evangelicals, believe Mormonism is a heresy, and Huckabee is trying to make political hay of this theological dispute. In an interview with the New York Times, he scoffed (albeit in an "innocent voice"): "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
Peggy Noonan explains why this troubles her:
There is a sense in Iowa now that faith has been heightened as a determining factor in how to vote, that such things as executive ability, professional history, temperament, character, political philosophy and professed stands are secondary, tertiary.
But they are not, and cannot be. They are central. Things seem to be getting out of kilter, with the emphasis shifting too far.
Huckabee has a Christmas ad out, in which he says that "what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ." As the Associated Press reports, this is too much even for one notable conservative Christian activist:
Catholic League president Bill Donahue [sic; his name is spelled Donohue] said the former Arkansas governor went way beyond wishing people a joyous holiday.
He was especially disturbed by the cross-like image created by a white bookcase in the background of the ad, saying he believed it was a subliminal message.
"What he's trying to say to the evangelicals in western Iowa (is): I'm the real thing," Donahue said Tuesday on Fox News Channel's "Fox and Friends." "You know what, sell yourself on your issues, not on what your religion is."
The Huckabee boomlet, and the unease it has prompted among many conservatives, has occasioned much secular liberal Schadenfreude. This is what you get for getting into bed with the religious right, they say. So before we elaborate on what troubles us about Huckabee, we'd like to reiterate our sympathy for the religious right.
As we noted in The Wall Street Journal 2 1/2 years ago, we are not a religious believer, and our views on social issues are middle-of-the-road. But we are appalled by the undemocratic suggestion that separation of church and state means religious believers who hold conservative social views must be excluded from public debate on those questions. Furthermore, the secular left's purported fears of "theocracy" have no basis in reality. As we wrote in 2005:
Last week an article in The Nation, a left-wing weekly, described the motley collection of religious figures who gathered for Justice Sunday [a rally against Democratic filibusters of Bush judicial nominees]. A black minister stood next to a preacher with a six-degrees-of-separation connection to the Ku Klux Klan. A Catholic shared the stage with a Baptist theologian who had described Roman Catholicism as "a false church."
These folks may not be your cup of tea, but this was a highly ecumenical group, united on some issues of morality and politics but deeply divided on matters of faith. The thought that they could ever agree enough to impose a theocracy is laughable.
And the religious right includes not only Christians of various stripes but also Orthodox Jews and even conservative Muslims. Far from the sectarian movement its foes portray, it is in truth a manifestation of the religious pluralism that makes America great. Therein lies its strength.
Politicizing matters of theology runs counter to this pluralistic tradition, and it ultimately is a political loser. There aren't enough Southern Baptists, or evangelical Christians, to elect a president. The religious right is powerful, and deserves to be taken seriously, only insofar as it transcends theological differences and focuses on issues. If it does not, it degenerates into just another form of identity politics. (Blogger Marc Ambinder raises an interesting analogy to failed Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, whose supporters used her "identity as a born again evangelical" as a selling point.)
A successful national politician has to have an appeal beyond identity politics, which is why Barack Obama has a chance, and why his campaign is good for the Democrats, whereas the same could not be said for Jesse Jackson in the 1980s or Al Sharpton in 2004. But it would have been invidious to respond to Jackson's and Sharpton's divisive campaigns by saying: That's what you get for letting black people participate in politics. Sometimes people use their franchise unwisely, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be disenfranchised.
Oh Great, Another Fruitcake for Christmas
"Cynthia McKinney Announces Presidential Bid"--headline, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Dec. 19
Tough Guys
House Democrats have done the right thing and passed a bill that will prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax--established in the late 1960s in an effort to soak a few millionaires--from hitting tens of millions of middle-class taxpayers. To do so, they had to abandon their so-called Paygo pledge--a promise not to reduce any taxes without increasing others.
The Wall Street Journal explained in an editorial last week why Paygo was bunk to begin with. Nonetheless, we got a kick out of a press release from the House Ways and Means Committee (Charlie Rangel, chairman) titled "Faced With Tough Choices, House Democrats Side With America's Working Families":
While the precise nature of the legislation--providing tax relief without adhering to the principle of "pay-as-you-go" (PAYGO)--was not the preferred option of House Democrats, allowing the AMT to eat away at incomes of middle-class families was something that the Democrats could not let happen. . . .
The Administration's very clever and deceptive trick has left House Democrats in the difficult position of choosing between American taxpayers and future generations.
So the Democrats are presenting themselves as a profile in courage for, by their own lights, putting the interests of American taxpayers over those of "future generations"--who, for the moment at least, do not vote.
A Soldier's Story
"Senator Edward M. Kennedy [Tuesday] urged Army Secretary Pete Geren to "provide the resources needed" to deter soldiers from cheating on Army correspondences [sic] courses to earn points for promotion," the Boston Globe reports:
"The tests are obviously important in demonstrating that our soldiers have the knowledge needed to carry out their duties effectively. They also provide promotion points," Kennedy told Geren in a letter dated yesterday. "I was shocked to read of one website that provides answer keys and boasts that "[w]ith cheap prices and fast service, you can be wearing that E-5 [sergeant] rank before you know it."
Kennedy knows a thing or two about cheating, as NNDB.com notes:
Kennedy earned C grades at the private Milton Academy, but was admitted to Harvard as a "legacy"--his father and older brothers had attended there, so the younger and dimmer Kennedy's admission was virtually assured. While attending, he was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying a classmate to cheat for him. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England, pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea, where a war was raging. Kennedy was assigned to Paris, never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged.
So Kennedy had to enter the Army because he cheated, and he sort of cheated (his father "pulled the necessary strings") to get out of the army. But at least he didn't cheat to become a sergeant!
'Strong Bush Advocate'
From the New York Times:
Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey has signaled in his first weeks on the job that he intends to be a forceful advocate for some of President Bush's most controversial antiterrorism policies, even if that means angering Congressional leaders who hoped that he would instead focus on repairing the strained relationship between the Justice Department and Capitol Hill.
In what was billed as a major policy speech on Wednesday to a panel of the American Bar Association, Mr. Mukasey suggested that lawmakers who opposed legislation before Congress to broaden eavesdropping powers--and to offer legal protection for telephone utilities that cooperate--were undermining the ability to deal with terrorist threats.
"We've seen what happens when terrorists go undetected," he said. "We have to do everything possible within the law to prevent terrorists from translating their warped beliefs into action. To stop them, we have to know their intentions, and one of the best ways to do that is by intercepting their communications."
The headline for this Times piece reads, "Mukasey Signals He'll Be a Strong Bush Advocate." Yet The Wall Street Journal reports that Mukasey has "issued guidelines aimed at limiting contacts between the White House and the Justice Department, seeking to overcome allegations of political interference that dogged his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales."
In institutional terms, then, it would seem Mukasey is anything but "a strong Bush advocate." But the Times seems to have conflated the nation's interests with those of President Bush. Unless you favor making it easier for terrorists to attack America, in this view, you're a "Bush advocate."
Andrew Sullivan Is Shocked to the Core
"The Gov's 'Hannah Montana' freebies: State senator who got him in says it was 'torture' to sit with '20,000 screaming 11-year-olds' "--headline and subheadline, Chicago Sun-Times, Dec. 20
We Blame Bush
"Sodium Issue Clouds Enceladus"--headline, BBC Web site, Dec. 16
The Eye of the Tiger
"Survivor Is Poised to Lead South Africa"--headline, New York Times, Dec. 20
'Yoo Hoo? Jessica?'
"T.O. Playfully Calls Out Jessica Simpson"--headline, Associated Press, Dec. 19
It's Always in the Last Place You Look
"Nurse Finds Her Niche"--headline, Paris (Texas) News, Dec. 19
Breaking News From 1939
"Quietly, the German-Polish Border Dissolves"--headline, New York Times (Paris edition), Dec. 19
News You Can Use
"Don't Drink and Drive"--headline, WTVN-AM Web site (Columbus, Ohio), Dec. 19
Bottom Stories of the Day
- "Hillary Slams Health Insurers"--headline, Chicago Sun-Times, Dec. 19
- "Democrats Again Impotent to Rein In Iraq War Funds"--headline, Agence France-Presse, Dec. 19
Nativist Politics
Tom Tancredo may be out of the presidential race, but a different kind of nativism is alive and well, the Los Angeles Times reports: "At least five presidential contenders have put out ads or video messages celebrating Christmas."
By our count, it's at least six: Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Mrs. Clinton's is especially bad: She portrays herself as Santa Claus, albeit mercifully sans beard and red suit. The ad portrays her wrapping presents with tags like "Universal Health Care," "Alternative Energy," and "Middle Class Tax Breaks." Then she says: "Where did I put universal pre-K [i.e., government-funded nursery school]? Ah, there it is!"
Well, this takes us back. In 1992, as the New York Times noted, a stock line of the late Paul Tsongas was, "I'm not running to be Santa Claus." Tsongas, of course, lost to Mrs. Claus--uh, make that to Bill Clinton. Mrs. Clinton seems to be betting that Democrats still believe in St. Nick. It's almost enough to inspire us to enlist in the War Against Christmas.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Dagny Billings, Michael Segal, Dan O'Shea, David Huff, Drew Kelly, Steve Smitherman, Steve Prestegard, Merv Benson, Brent Heath, Mike Stevens, Ed Lasky, Randy Knight, Bruce Goldman, Mark Fisher, Ronald Morris, George Sturve, Boze Herrington, Paul Martin, Ray Hendel, Don Stewart, Jared Sivlerman and Ethel Fenig. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
No comments:
Post a Comment