"Faith"

In an "On Language" column published in The New York Times on February 18, 2007, William Safire referred to Tom Oliphant quoting Kirk O'Donnell, former counsel to Tip O'Neill, as saying of Social Security “after the Greenspan Commission fix, I asked Kirk how come nobody got electrocuted. Always sharp, he replied that the third rail is not like the one in the subway: if a Republican foot and a Democratic foot touch it simultaneously, nothing happens.”

Linking to this column, a weblog I never had heard of, at gelfmagazine.com, cited fifteen occassions in which a different issue was referred to as the "third rail of American politics." Social Security, health care, immigration reform, abortion, Arab-Israeli peace process, same-sex marriage, new taxes, welfare state, economic disparity, the draft, eminent domain, gun control, medicare, domestic surveillance powers, gas prices all have been cited as the elusive "third rail," suggesting that most experts have no clue what a third rail is.

And neither do I. Still, it came to mind when I was reading of the flare-up over Jeremiah Wright, race, and white grandmothers fearing black people. As this article in the July 16, 2007 issue of the Christian Science Monitor noted


More than the other Democratic candidates for president, Obama has made faith a centerpiece of his campaign.

He has warned the left against ceding the mantle of religion to the evangelical right. He speaks of the church as an abiding force in American public life, from the Boston Tea Party through the abolitionist and civil rights movements. He suffuses his speeches with biblical allusions – "I am my brother's keeper" is a favorite phrase. And he has cast his generation of black leaders as modern-day Joshuas, after Moses' successor, who led the Israelites to the Promised Land.

Obama now has been singed by the issue of faith. Meanwhile, liberal pundits/politicans/activists have pointed out the support John McCain has received from a couple of characters. Consider Reverend John Hagee, who has attacked the Roman Catholic Church, the people of New Orleans, and made light of a "slave auction" at his church, and who contends "It's true that [John] McCain's campaign sought my endorsement." And McCain boasts of the support of Reverend Rod Parsley, the Senator whom he has called his "spritual guide." His organization advocates prosecuting adulterers and compared Planned Parenthood to the Nazis, and he has vociferously attacked Islam, arguing there is no distinction between its moderate and extremist adherents.

But these endorsements got little media attention, a tiny fraction of the criticism Barack Obama has received from his relationship with Reverend Wright. Apparently, faith is not a "third rail" in the same manner as Social Security: a Republican and a Democratic foot have touched it simultaneously- and a furor has ensued, all directed against the Democrat, none against the Republican.

This also should serve as a cautionary tale to Democratic politicians, who have bought the line from the mainstream media that they must pledge allegiance to "faith" (the word "religion" appears to be illegal) or be annihilated by Republicans. Barack Obama has been the most outspoken about "faith" of all the Democratic candidates who have run for president during this cycle- and now his connection with his pastor not only has led to a swoon in his ratings but has caused unease among voters, who now look more carefully at racially-tinged remarks the Senator has made or might still make. Consider Obama's comment 3/20/08 on Philadelphia's WIP, a Philadelphia sports station: "But she is a typical white person who, you know, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, there is a reaction that has been bred into our experiences that don't go away and sometimes come out in the wrong way..."

The point is not that politicans must avoid religious behavior or activities when they are running for, or are in, office. Nor must they necessarily avoid any expression of their religious beliefs. But we should not assume that addressing openly and honestly (or dishonestly) one's Christian beliefs is a risk-free political tactic for a Democrat who aspires to the presidency.

Obama and McCain React To Clergymen

Senator Barack Obama's has responded to the hateful, anti-American exhortations of his (recently retired) pastor, Jeremiah Wright, by posting on The HuffingtonPost.com. Here they are in relevant part,reprinted from RealClear Politics, followed by my comments:


I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.... All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

I have one problem with this explanation- the too-common resort of politicians to denouncing/criticizing/disagreeing with "any" statement. It smacks of a blanket condemnation, intentionally avoiding acknowledgement of any specific statement being unacceptable.

But I'm being picky. Obama's statement otherwise is forthright and definitive. He asserts "vehement" disagreement with "all of the statements that hve been the subject of controversy" and maintains "they in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country." Note that the Senator: 1)condemns the statements; 2) says they do "not reflect my attitudes" (personalizing his opposition to the remarks); and 3) acknowledges that they contradict a ("my") "love for this country." Pretty strong stuff.

We all know about John McCain's tepid response to Reverend John Hagee's remarks about Roman Catholics and his failure to respond at all to Hagee's remarks about blacks, homosexuals, and an apparent lust for war with Iran: "We've had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics" (emphasis mine).

But how about Reverend Rod Parsley, pastor of the Pentecostal megachurch World Harvest Church of Columbus? At a campaign rally on February 26, 2008 in Cincinnati, Ohio, Parsley endorsed McCain as "a strong, true, consistent conservative" and McCain in turn called the evangelical minister "a spiritual guide." And I suppose this is the spiritual guidance the fellow from
Arizona gets from him:

Parsley has argued "The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore." Similarly, he says "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America." And, Mother Jones bureau chief David Corn says of Parsley "in 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis. In the past Parsley's church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status."

The mainstream media has focused attention on Reverend Jeremiah Wright but has virtually ignored Reverend Hagee and Reverend Parsley. Given that the latter two are extremists who have endorsed the traditional media's favorite politician, that comes as no surprise.