Good Wednesday afternoon Fellow Seekers,
Columnist Paul Waldman of the American Prospect argues that coverage of Pat Robertson’s recent endorsement of Rudy Giuliani didn’t feature enough discussion of Robertson’s crazy claims over recent years nor enough (any?) demands from the punditocracy that Giuliani repudiate the claims and the man who made them. Wrote Waldman:
Try to imagine what would have happened if Hillary Clinton had called a press conference to announce that she had secured the endorsement of Minister Louis Farrakhan. Reporters would be apoplectic with the shock of it. How could she do such a thing? What about all the crazy things Farrakhan has said? What about the anti-Semitism? Why would she want to be associated with such a man?
Yet no reporters were willing to say that the man smiling next to Giuliani at that triumphant press conference is, quite simply, a raving lunatic.
A few mentioned one or two of Robertson’s more colorful statements, including the fact that he blamed September 11 on God’s displeasure with America’s toleration of abortion and homosexuality. But that’s only the beginning of Robertson’s lengthy record of bizarre and hateful pronouncements. To review some of the greatest hits: Robertson has called for the assassination of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez; claimed that Ariel Sharon’s stroke was God’s punishment for Sharon relinquishing Gaza to the Palestinians; said that Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists harbor “the spirit of the Antichrist”; claimed that his personal prayers alter the course of hurricanes; said that feminism “encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians”; invested millions in a Liberian gold mine, then publicly defended brutal Liberian warlord-turned-dictator Charles Taylor; and regularly relays specific messages he claims God has delivered to him regarding divine wrath soon to be visited on the United States. (This January, Robertson said God told him there would be a major terrorist attack some time in 2007. “The Lord didn’t say nuclear,” he said, “but I do believe it’ll be something like that — that’ll be a mass killing, possibly millions of people.”)
As you know by now, I’m fairly obsessed with the flaws of human nature that impel us embrace arguments that confirm what we already believe, and to selectively perceive the facts so we can feel that our side is, if not blameless, at least more sinned against than sinning. So I try to pause and think hard about contrary evidence when confronted by a claim, like Waldman’s, that the refs (in this case, the big media) are biased against my side.
At the very least, I remind myself that it would be unfair to assume that Giuliani shares all of Robertson’s views and that I have explicitly rejected such guilt by association arguments. But Waldman isn’t making a guilt by association, he is arguing that the so-called objective media react differently when a Democrat associates with a lefty zealot than they do when a Republican does with a righty.
What do you think of Waldman’s double standardism complaint?
This is a fascinating argument, and one I would love to hear more opinions about. We regale in free speech, but condemn the rights of the conservative talk show hosts to have their opinions. We support Reverends Jackson and Sharpton when they call for the firing of Don Imus, but do not demand an apology from them for their behavior in the Duke Rape Case.
Personally, I would have preferred Mr. Giuliani said thanks but no thanks to this endorsement. I agree, Rev. Robertson’s history is one that I find personally difficult to fathom. His comments and beliefs are frankly scary at times, and I fear his followers tend to blindly agree with his teachings. Of course, the same can be said of Minister Farrakhan and his followers as well.
Most “extremists” in all areas of life (religion, politics, economists and environmentalists) tend to be judged by the most outrageous of their views. It is of little wonder that many conservatives support the war on terror, because they belief that most Muslims are extremists. Nonetheless, one does ask themselves the question: If Giuliani should reject the endorsement of Rev Robertson because of his extreme views, should we also reject negotiating with Iran because of President Ahmadinejad’s extreme views? Perhaps this is a comparative stretch, but isn’t there a similarity in the logic? I do not support military action against Iran, but it is clear that Ahmadinejad would love to see the destruction of the U.S. We need to find another way to solve the problem that appears to be growing in Iran, but that is for another topic.
I have never voted for a politician who aligned 100% with my views. I suppose the only way for me to do that is to run for office, and vote for myself! While I would have preferred Mr. Giuliani rejected the endorsement, in and of itself, I can’t make that be the tipping point in my final decision to support him. Of all the Republican candidates, at least he is not set on a pro-life course. He tends to fall more on the moderate side of social issues, and that is important to me.
While I am unwilling to support any of the Democratic candidates at this time, I certainly will not judge them on the endorsements they receive.
Sometimes you just can’t help who loves you . . .
An endorsement from a crazed Christian conservative leader like Robertson is simply a routine matter for an authoritarian rightist candidate like Guiliani. He’s just rounding up his “base”. The voters that Robertson represents are the backbone of the Repub party, without whom they simply cannot win. It’s remarkable that the MSM even mentioned ANY data that would allow a viewer to remember that Robertson is a lunatic.
Frankly, the Dems don’t really have crazed extremists like this as a crucial element of their “base”, so a similar event can’t happen. Indeed, since “independents” are supposedly unhappy with the level of religiosity emanating from the Evangelical Repub party these days, perhaps some conservatives would argue that even covering this endorsement is another sign of the “lib’rul media”, ha-ha.
The fact that most Americans are unaware of the consistent looniness of Robertson’s public statements, and never hear any real sustained objection to his “views”, is another matter entirely.
Again, the whole point of the Republican ‘base’ is that there are a significant number of people who don’t consider Robertson (and his ilk) to be loony (my apologies to our Canadian friends).
Whether there are as many of these basic loonies as there were four years ago is another question — some recent polls of attitudes of Evangelicals towards things like the environment and social responsibility are cause for hope.
Basically you can say just about any crazy thing and as long as you cloak in in the guise of religion, the media will be very leery of criticizing you. Dennis Kucinch’s visitation with a ufo is in terms of the available evidence less crazy than Robertson’s core beliefs about the Day of Jubilee or Louis Farrakhan’s numerology, but you wouldn’t know it from the coverage. Nothing scares the media more than the representation that they are anti-religious. The logic goes, that if you’re anti-crackpot, you’re anti-religious; if you’re anti-religious, you hate God.