Christian Ideologues in a Machiavellian Political
World
Or, How can Christians work
within a political framework where principles of right and wrong are invoked
but are not followed?
By Dave Haigler
Attorney/Mediator/Arbitrator & County Democratic Chair, Taylor County, Texas
c. April 5, 2004
For tonight I first
wrote what I thought was a marvelous article entitled “The Unlikely Democrat –
How could a charter member of the religious right and Christian Coalition end
up becoming a Democrat in 2003 (with a few side comments on how the religious
right and Christian Coalition went wrong)?”
My wife and your president said it was wonderful, but would take an hour
to deliver and y’all were leaving by 6:30 whether I was finished speaking or
not, so I have prepared a new speech.
This one is entitled “Christian Ideologues in a Machiavellian Political
World -- or, How can Christians work
within a political framework where principles of right and wrong are invoked
but are not followed? A friendly editor
of the first draft said that this sub-title wasn’t clear, so lemme say it this
way – politics is a world where people use labels that are not accurate, or
more bluntly, they say one thing and do another.
Those
of you interested in the first article may read a copy, I’ve brought several along
with me, or email me at Dama@cox.net and I’ll
send you one. Dama stands for “Dave, Attorney, Mediator, Arbitrator, by the way
– I have to slip in a little advertisement.
First,
I want to thank Amy for that wonderful introduction. It is much better than the last one I received. A friend of mine introducing me said he’d
rather hear me speak than eat. Someone
asked him why, and he said, ‘cause he’d already heard me eat.
Second,
I want to honor my late father by explaining why I had to write the first
speech and then throw it out. Dad was a
college professor -- a teacher of the physical sciences, and his favorite
subject was astronomy. Whatever
question you ever asked Dad -- I used to tease him -- there was a 50 minute
lecture for an answer. I once asked Dad
an easy one like, “what time is it?”, and his answer went something like
this:
Son, time is a function of the earth elipting around the sun and
revolving on its own axis. The time it
takes to revolve on its own axis was divided into 24 smaller periods called
hours …
And
so on. Get the picture? I am my father’s proud son. So ask questions at your own risk. You can interrupt me and you can ask
whatever questions you want, but my wife will tell you, the answers are going
to be whatever I had already decided to say.
How’s that for candor?
More
candor than you get from politicians, you ask?
Well that leads me into my topic, because politicians have learned that
for the most part, if they tell the truth, you will not vote for them.
Since
a lot of Christians involved in politics are interested in abortion, and since
this is a Christian university, and most of you are probably Christians, let me
use abortion as an example.
I
spent two decades trying to get abortion outlawed in the Republican Party, but
it’s been 31 years since Roe v. Wade, and abortion is still legal.
Texas
has a parental-notice law. (A pro-life Republican friend of mine, who has studied the
abortion laws of all states, says “this is a weak law compared to many states
that have ‘forced parental consent laws’.”
My comment on that is, it may be weak, but Bush getting it passed as
governor here is what sent the signal to us pro-lifers then that he was really
committed to the pro-life cause. It was
the first and only pro-life bill ever passed here. The sentiment among Republican pro-live activists, among whom I
was one, then, was – if we elect him president, he will do all he can for our
cause.)
What happened afterwards at the federal level? The federal government has outlawed something called
“partial-birth abortion,” but that’s it.
The White House picture of the bill-signing against partial-birth
abortion had a bunch of white, middle-aged men reveling in its passage. There was not a female in sight. The pro-choicers had a field day with
this. It fulfilled their greatest
dreams of clear evidence that the pro-life movement was a bunch of old men
trying to force their laws on women’s bodies.
The bill signing was a PR disaster for the pro-life movement.
The
local Republicans passed a resolution last week saying let’s make abortion
harder for a minor to get by requiring parental or judicial consent, rather
than mere notice, and there was a flap over whether that was more or less strict. But abortion is still legal, and I suggest
it always will be.
For
single-issue voters choosing the Republican Party because it is, so-called,
more “pro-life” than the Democrats, and wondering why I say abortion will
remain legal, you may read my other, 1-hour speech where I answer that in
detail.
But
in summary, if abortion is your ideological issue in politics, here are your
choices in terms of what’s really going on in the two major parties:
·
On
the Republican side, you can argue over how strict you can be with it and still
meet the guidelines of Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court cases saying
a woman has constitutional rights of privacy over her medical &
reproductive matters that give her the right to choose an abortion.
·
On
the Democratic side, you can debate endlessly over how abortion should always
be the last resort for problem pregnancies, but how in the end, this has to be
between a woman and her doctor and her God.
I’ve
been on both sides now and that’s what I hear, in a nutshell. Take your pick.
What
I would hope, however, is that you broaden your perspective on the vast arena
of ethical issues involved in politics and not limit yourself to abortion as a
single issue.
Let’s
look at this broadly and then get down to specifics. Envision if you will several political spectrums:
Change Ideologue –
Machiavellian – Status Quo Ideologue “Machiavellian” = unprincipled, or “characterized
by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency or dishonesty.” @ A-Z Online Dictionary.
Reality
·
On
the Republican spectrum you have moderates and conservatives. I have not heard a Republican called a
liberal, I don’t think, since Nelson Rockefeller, who was VP under Ford during
1975-77. There was the term of derision
back then, “Rockefeller Republican,” which meant liberal. You have very few Republicans admitting
being even a moderate. Everyone there claims to be a “conservative.” The bad other guy was always a “moderate,”
historically until now.
·
With
the Democrats, you have liberals and conservatives on the left and right and
you have what Congressman Stenholm calls the “radical center.”
·
I’d
like to add a third spectrum to that discussion, in which I place
“Machiavellian” in the middle and “status-quo ideologue” on the right and
“change ideologue” on the left. (My editor says, “Getting a little complicated here.” So all I know to do is chart it out. Hopefully you all can see this slide.) And I use “Machia-vellian,” for
purposes of discussion, as what works -- what gets someone elected.
·
Think
of this Machiavellian spectrum as overlaying the others. That is, they say they’re
moderate, conservative, or whatever, but the Machiavellian overlay tells you
what they really are.
I would place certain current leaders at various
places on their respective spectrums:
·
I
would call President Bush a moderate on his spectrum, although he claims he’s a
conservative, and
·
I
would call Senator Kerry a liberal on his, which is what Bush’s people are
saying about Kerry but Kerry is not admitting.
·
But
I would place Bush’s moderate as more liberal to the left of Kerry’s liberal,
and
·
I’d
place Congressman Stenholm as more conservative to the right of Kerry.
·
And
I’ll tell you why in a minute. My editor says this is gibberish in print, but hopefully
you see it graphed out.
It is past time for Christian political so-called
“conservatives” to reconsider what is really right or correct according to
Christian conscience, rather than what is merely the right vs. left side of the
political spectrum. My editor said “amen” to this. Is anyone else getting it now?
Why not just give up
outlawing abortion and try to get other good stuff done with the
Republicans? I used to be a Republican
and thought they were the conservatives.
Boy, was I wrong, in at least four different ways:
·
One: The federal budget deficit: In the past 40 years, the deficit has shrunk
as a percentage of the gross domestic product under the Democratic presidents
(Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, & Clinton), and has increased under the
Republicans (Nixon-Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II). The only exception to that was when it shrunk 2.9% in Nixon’s
first term. Clinton, despite his personal
faults, left office with a budget surplus, but Bush II has incurred the largest
deficits in American history in only three years. For years all I heard from the Republicans was demonizing the
Democrats for “taxing and spending,” whereas the truth is, as Charlie Stenholm
says, the Republicans have been “borrowing and spending.”
(My anonymous
Republican editor said: “Great point
and one that irks me. Something I have
though about several times in the past.”)
·
Two: Squandering international good will and
credibility: After 9/11 almost every
nation in the world sent condolences and set up memorials for America’s dead
from the al Qaeda attacks. Today almost
every nation in the world suspects our excuses for attacking Iraq and requires
proof for all our intelligence claims instead of taking our word for things as
they used to do. Unfounded pre-emptive
attacks on other nations are not “conservative” by any prior definition of that
term. For my reasons for saying
“unfounded,” read my other speech or stick around afterwards and I’ll take as
long as you want to show you why.
(My anonymous
Republican editor says, “Although I disagree, your point that this is not
`conservative’ is effective rhetoric.”)
OK, if you’re still
unpersuaded on the grounds for invading Iraq being unfounded or false, then
stay tuned for events, because I think this election may very well become a
referendum on Iraq – what with the way things are going with the 9/11
Commission and the books that are coming out from Bush’s former staffers.
·
Three: Other social issues: For over 20 years, the Republican Party has
pandered to the religious right on issues like opposition to gay rights and
support for Israel. Yet the truth
is:
(1) The Republicans passed a federal bill that Clinton signed
supposedly to support heterosexual marriage, which doesn’t really support marriage
at all, and they have not dealt honestly with the “full faith and credit
clause” of the U.S. constitution. That
is, state laws in Massachusetts and Vermont have effectively legalized
homosexual unions in the U.S. because the “full faith and credit clause”
requires all the states to recognize the laws of any state. I think this is the sleeper that even the
media is afraid to touch. Any
congressional action to the contrary in this area is nothing but hypocritical
posturing by Tom DeLay & Co., because a statute cannot contradict the
constitution. Not that I’m proposing
this truth as a political party resolution.
It’s too much of a hot potato for any candidate or party to deal
with. I’m merely speaking as a
constitutional lawyer now. So what
about a constitutional amendment?
a.
At
the end of February this year, Bush was supposedly backing a constitutional ban
on gay marriage. This move makes me
want to throw up. It is Bush who injects this non-issue into the
presidential race when there is not a dime's worth of difference between Bush's
actual position and Kerry's or any of the other Democrats. All of them have said they
"oppose" G/L marriage but, in one nuanced wording or another,
civil unions are OK if states want to allow those.
b.
Without
naming names of who this panders to and doesn’t pander to, I would suggest in
general it panders only to the most-religious right who are going to vote for
him anyway, and the rest of his base who are going to vote for him anyway
disagree with the constitutional amendment and realize it could never work but
are keeping their mouths shut about it.
I think it hardens his Democratic opposition, because they both see and
are free to say that it’s a ploy with no intention to follow through. It’s a risky ploy unless it galvanizes his
religious-right base to get out and vote rather than staying at home, more than
if offends his opposition who might otherwise sit the November election
out. It could be like the weak
abortion-notice bill in Texas when he was governor that sent pro-lifers a
signal and galvanized us to fight so hard for him in 2000.
c.
All
the presidential candidates are on record several times saying those two things
– against gay/lesbian marriage, but favoring civil unions as a state
option. Even Dick Cheney agrees, and he
has a lesbian daughter.
d.
There
can be only one other plausible reason to invoke the specter of a
constitutional amendment, when such has no possibility of passing 2/3rds of
either house of the Congress, much less 3/4ths of the states. And that
reason is to set up us Democrats to tell the truth in saying a constitutional
amendment is not wise or possible, and thus insinuate Bush's more strongly in
support of heterosexual marriage than we are. (My Republican editor says
I may have a point here.)
e.
Give
me a break! How can the new Carl Rove version of gay bashing enhance
heterosexual marriage, for goodness sake?
f.
It's dejavu
all over again of Rove & Co. going against Texas Gov. Ann Richards in
1994 for supposedly having an "avowed homosexual" on her
staff. Why was that shocking, but Cheney's daughter supporting him
isn't? Why does Rove put it on us about homosexuality?
g.
I
hope this dung dropping backfires big time and it may very well backfire,
inasmuch as the USAToday poll of support for this constitutional amendment was
88/12% against, as of the end of February.
Maybe
we should just laugh at the lunacy and ludicrity (is that a word?) and not
get indignant over this Rove ploy, and maybe we'll get credit for the higher
ground someday. If the proper word is ludicrousness, instead of
ludicrity, I, like my president, stand behind all my misstatements. I
treasure my GWB doll, and am wearing out the batteries listening to the
marvelous Bushisms and maintaining my inspiration for a great retirement for
our president back to Crawford, Texas.
[Play
the doll now.] Please understand, I
respect the office of president, even if I laugh at some of the things he has
said.
(2) What about Republican pandering to Israel’s
supporters? Both Israel and the
Palestinians have legitimate beefs against each other. If we are going to be honest brokers between
the two, as we have tried to do ever since Jimmy Carter, we cannot have
credibility with one side if we announce in advance we are supporting the other
side.
a.
How
can we be even-handed between Israel and the Palestinians? American Fundamentalism is part of Bush’s
core constituency, and it is severely influenced by Dispensationalism. That’s the subject of another speech I
promised not to give tonight, but in summary this theology says that the Nation
of Israel is eternally the people of God, whether they believe in God or not,
and believers in the churches are eternally bound to defer to Israel in all
things or suffer the curses promised to the enemies of God’s people. This is in stark contrast with the
historical view that believers are the people of God -- first believers within
Old Testament Israel, then believers among the gentile nations and ultimately
believers within Israel who will be engrafted back into the family tree of
God.
b.
There
are still Americans, Christians and otherwise, who disclaim being
dispensationalists who still support Israel for a wide variety of reasons that
are not ideologically explainable, but the Dispensational position is the only
one I can rationally identify and debunk.
·
Four: Benefit Baiting: Bush says one thing and does another about funding programs,
according to House Appropriations Committee figures. Examples:
(1) Medicare funding: Last
January Bush proposed $400 billion extra for this over the next 10 years, which
averages $40 billion per year, but his first proposal under that promise was a
mere $6 billion, or 85% less than his goal.
Not only that, but he left 2/3rds of that so-called commitment to be
fulfilled after 2008, when he would no longer be president in any event.
(My
Republican editor says this is an “excellent point that should be
investigated,” and all I can say is, stay tuned, because there is a lot of
current press on Bush’s actuary who worked on this saying he was threatened
with firing if he admitted to the Democrats that the cost was going over
$400B.)
(2) Veterans benefits:
On Jan. 17, 2003, Bush visited a veterans hospital and said he would
provide “the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm’s
way.” That same day, his administration
cut off 164,000 veterans from health care access.
(My
Republican editor says about this point, “you need to document this. With documentation, this would be three
times as powerful.” All I can say is, I
have a picture of the event at the hospital on my computer. And the funding documentation comes from a
Congressional committee, remember. All
these examples come from a Congressional budget committee. All I wonder about is, and cannot connect
the dots on whether this is the same incident -- I’ve seen circulating among
Bush supporters on the internet a story about the president going to visit a
veteran in a hospital, kissing the man on the forehead and praying for
him. Christian Bush supporters, like my
15 year old granddaughter, often cite stories like this as an example of how
they want a praying president. I can
only wonder whether, if they knew he prayed one way and did another, they’d
feel the same. I don’t feel comfortable
with dissecting how a president prays, although a friend of mine wrote a recent
book on that, but I’m getting even more uncomfortable with claims that we
should support a president based on something so unknowable as how he may pray.)
(3) No child left behind:
Bush’s 2003 budget, his first after signing this bill, cut the funding
by $90 million overall, leaving the program $7 billion short of what was
authorized under the bill.
(4) Vocational/Technical education: Bush visited a technical college on Oct. 18, 2002, and said it
was the most important priority. Yet
his 2004 budget cuts vocational/technical education by 24% ($307 million).
(5) Port security: Bush
made a speech to port employees on June 24, 2002, saying how hard he was
working to improve port security.
However, his 2003 and 2004 budgets provided nothing for port security
grants, and in August he vetoed all $39 million for the Container Security
Initiative, which he had specifically touted.
(6) First responders:
Bush said he made sure “they got what’s needed,” and claimed he $3.5
billion in “new money” for first responders.
But he actually cut $1 billion in existing grants, and in August 2002 he
rejected $150 million in grants for them.
The Firefighters Union president said Bush was “stabbing them in the
back,” and the Virginia firefighters association president said Bush was merely
using firefighters for “one big photo opportunity.”
If private businesses
acted this way, they’d get lots of BBB complaints. It reminds me of a holiday retailer who doubles his prices one
day and announces a “sale” of one third off, the next.
At this point, my
Republican editor says I should sound disappointed but not angry, and I’m
working hard at it. Very hard.
Since the Republicans
under Bush, DeLay & Co. have stretched the truth and the meaning of
“conservative” beyond recognition in these ways, I switched to the Democratic
Party and recommend others consider the same.
We don’t know what “conservative” means anymore, but I think I can get
more done with an ideological agenda by working with the Democrats than with
the Republicans.
At least, consider
that what’s ethical for a Christian may sometimes mean change and
not the status quo, so therefore “conservative” as an ethical label will
not always work. Thank you very much.
Return to Haigler List of Articles