In Virginia Beach this morning, John McCain denounced Pat Robertson and
Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance." He made it clear that he did not
mean to impugn religious conservatives generally, praising Charles Colson
and James Dobson even though they do not support his candidacy. McCain
said that "we embrace the fine members of the religious conservative
community. But that does not mean that we will pander to their
self-appointed leaders."
McCain also tried to show that he was not aiming his fire exclusively at
the Right by mentioning Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan as "agents of
intolerance." Political analysts are always comparing religious
conservatives to black militants: They're mainstays of their respective
parties, but everybody else is turned off by politicians who pander to
them. McCain's denunciation of Robertson and Falwell is supposed to serve
the same purpose as Bill Clinton's denunciation of Sister Souljah in 1992
— to reassure the public that he will stand up to his party's unpopular
core constituencies.
Does the comparison work in this case? It is certainly true that
Republican leaders refuse to criticize Robertson and Falwell when they say
or do foolish things, just as Democrats indulge Farrakhan and Sharpton.
But Robertson and Falwell haven't done as much worth criticizing. Neither
man has incited murder or falsely charged someone with rape for political
purposes, as Sharpton has; they do not urge their followers to stop paying
taxes, tell them to stop thinking of themselves as Americans, or preach
that their opponents are subhuman, as Farrakhan does.
In 1992, meanwhile, Clinton didn't trash Benjamin Hooks or Jesse Jackson;
he took on Sister Souljah, who had suggested that black murderers take a
break from killing other blacks for a week and kill whites instead.
Robertson and Falwell have said nothing so outrageous. The equivalent
action by McCain would be to attack the folks who advocate bombing
abortion clinics — although this gesture would not be terribly
newsworthy, since Republicans have never tolerated them.
Moreover, McCain doesn't actually make the case against Robertson or
Falwell for anything they've done. He doesn't dispute Robertson's theories
about the Freemasons, or criticize Falwell for those videotapes suggesting
Clinton orchestrated murders. McCain simply takes it as a given that they
are intolerant, hateful, divisive, etc. He can do this because liberals
have made them into devil-figures. And liberals have made them
devil-figures because they oppose abortion and gay rights.
These are positions McCain shares (see next item). What then separates
Falwell and Robertson from Gary Bauer, a McCain supporter who was with him
today? McCain says that Falwell and Robertson have distorted his pro-life
position. But McCain has made confusing remarks about abortion. We think
that he was simply confused, and that his critics are wrong to suggest
that he is secretly pro-choice; but the latter interpretation is well
within the bounds of normal political debate.
The remaining difference is that Falwell and Robertson disagree vehemently
with McCain's position on campaign-finance reform. In McCain-speak, this
disagreement becomes "their failed philosophy that money is our message."
McCain and his spokesmen have already suggested that pro-lifers opposed to
him have turned "a cause into a business." The folks at the National Right
to Life Committee, he implies, are more interested in their pocketbooks
than in the unborn — an argument that will strike anyone who has spent
any time around the NRLC, even those of us who think the NRLC has gone
overboard in attacking McCain, as absurd. (Nobody who works for the NRLC
has ever made as much as McCain does.)
What, then, does McCain mean by "political intolerance" and "political
tactics of division and slander" that "shame our faith, our party, and our
country"? It's hard to avoid the conclusion that he means something like
"active opposition to John McCain." He keeps complaining about slander and
smears, but he dishes out far more than he takes.
Will John McCain pick a pro-life running mate if he wins the GOP
presidential nomination? Sounds like that's what he's told Gary Bauer. In
a conference call last week, Bauer said the following to his supporters,
some of whom have questioned his endorsement of McCain: "When I went to
talk to [McCain], I of course brought up immediately many of the issues
that you and I have great concerns about. ... After those conversations, I
am absolutely convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Senator McCain
is committed to a pro-life running mate." (Bauer repeats the claim today
in a
Washington Times op-ed: "I am personally satisfied that Mr. McCain is
committed to naming a pro-life running mate.")
Is it possible Bauer's simply getting taken in by vague pledges from
McCain to pick a running mate with compatible views? Possibly. Except that
Bauer, moments later in the conference call, lights into George W. Bush
for such tactics: "In five debates in a row, I directly asked Gov. Bush on
some of the things we care the most about. To this day, he continues to
not commit to a pro-life running mate."
Many pro-lifers, of course, have been satisfied with Bush's commitments;
National Right to Life endorsed him. It's Bauer's prerogative not to be
satisfied. If we assume he's holding Bush and McCain to the same standard
on abortion, however, it sounds like McCain made a specific pro-life
promise to Bauer.
