I have to make another foray into the political, briefly. Hugh Hewitt directs us to this column by Patrick Hynes on Townhall.com about the use of religious references by Democrats to try to win support among America's religious. One expects a certain amount of interplay between left of center politics and theological meanderings from someone like Jim Wallis or Jimmy Carter. But, James Carville and Paul Begala saying "God is a Liberal"? How calculated can you get? How transparent and cynical.
“When did Jesus become pro-rich?”, asks Wallis. Typical party line meaningless slogan. If one asks for factual detail about whether tax cuts help people in all income brackets or whether social welfare programs really help the poor, one will be accused of avoiding the subject. Don't confuse us with substance when sound bites will do. Coincidentally, this kind of debate has become very concrete recently, as a friend of my wife who is struggling to rebuild a life after some hard times has faced up to the reality of government concern for the poor as envisioned by the liberal side of the aisle. She works as many hours as she can, has virtually nothing to her name, and is told by "relief" agencies that she is ineligible for aid, because she makes too much money at an $8.oo and hour part time job. Undoubtedly, if she were to walk in to work, insult her boss and get fired, then and only then would she qualify. She would then be sufficiently "dependent" on government feel good systems. Those who wish to improve their lot are penalized and those who show no initiative at all are given no reason to show initiative.
But I digress from the topic. Liberal politics can be debated. Liberal politics dressed in scriptural slogans can only be stomached, especially in light of the hypocrisy of often, roundly and mercilessly attacking moral and political conservatives. There have been many unanswered complaints about the constant use of liberal black churches for democratic campaigning by Clinton politicos and Jesse Jackson opportunists while at the same time screaming the mantra of separation of church and state anytime a conservative goes near a church. But, as Michael Novak discussed last week, fairness is not a concept one considers when winning at any cost is the objective. Still, it is not hard to see the double standard. Quoting Hynes' article:
The Democrat Party cannot long stand as one that demands separation of church and state in all -- even symbolic -- matters while at the same time claiming Biblical substantiation for liberal public policies. They cannot imply John Roberts’ queasiness about Roe v. Wade breaches the “impregnable wall,” as Sen. Dianne Feinstein did during Roberts’ confirmation hearings, while at the same time urge income redistribution because “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:25). They cannot call Republicans “theocrats” for trying to save Terri Schiavo while they also claim John the Baptist endorsed their welfare state when he said, “He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none …” (Luke 3:11).
One commenter made the proper distinction between giving away an extra coat and having the government take it from you for redistribution. Just a wee difference in emphasis. The irony of using the "rich man" label to jab at Republicans while Al Gore is aiding and abetting our enemies for pay at an event that once netted Bill Clinton a cool quarter million is disturbingly blatant.
I find such biblical quotes to be cynical, insulting, and a bit nauseating, which is not to say that there are not honest Christians who happen to be liberal. It is just that from the time I watched Ted Kennedy read a script of horrific lies about Robert Bork decades ago and saw only the zinger sound bites on the evening news that gave the illusion he was Bork's intellectual equal, I have understood that the sound bite is mightier than the truth, and no one understood that better than William Jefferson Clinton. The fawning of some media types after Clinton's performance in a black church at Coretta Scott King's memorial, that he really knew how to speak in a black church like no other white politician, only adds to my queasiness.
I guess the leaders of the Democratic party are lamely trying to fill his shoes, and they are failing.
No comments:
Post a Comment