Video Meliora, proboque; Deteriora sequor

As the (Political) World Turns

Ham o' Bone recently experienced the shockwave of his highly respected evangelical pastor, a big swingin' in these parts, making an about face on things political and now embracing the "religious center" (which otherwise appears indistinguishable from the religious left).

For one thing, this influential pastor has re-prioritized the relative importance of the life issues. He's gone all Sojourner on us it seems, a seamless garmentier, marked by a speech made in D.C. (where else?) declaring his declaration of independence from fellow evangelicals. The jist of it seems to be his sudden jealousy at the disjunction of evangelicals being "pro" war while the secular types being on the side of peace, when the opposite should occur. And of course my question is: where were you when it mattered? Like five years ago? Do I smell political opportunism? Mark Shea recently jumped on the Carter-ian bandwagon by suggesting that Bush was possibly the worst U.S. president in history. What interests me particularly is not Shea or Bone's pastor's comments so much as the timing. Is it a consequence of bona fide conviction or a consequence of the conviction that they want to be in the political center, where the action is, and we all know that the center is movin' on left (say like the Jefferson's 'Movin' on Up!'). Or is it the conviction that politics and religion should never kiss and right now there's too much smooching between conservative party and religion and too little between the liberal party and religion and one can feel better about oneself by dancin' with the other gal?

I don't know, I just find it interesting to see middle ager's undergo political makeovers. Would they re-make themselves but for the dismal state of affairs on the ground in Iraq? Would a more successfully prosecuted war have left them much more sanguine about things in general and in particular? What part does the relentless assault of a Bush-hating press have in swaying even people who were ostensibly on the right? I'm fascinated by the part propaganda and bias plays in this. (Obligatory disclaimer applies: I know I am not immune from propaganda bias and am probably reflecting it here since it's part of the human condition. The difference, I hope, is that I recognize FoxNews is skewed right whereas I've never met a liberal who concedes that NPR is skewed left.)

More to the point: What has the religious right have to do with war? I never saw the two as connected. The religious right didn't vote to prosecute the war in Iraq. The religious right never examined the classified intelligence reports (as did Hillary, who voted to prosecute the war). The religious right didn't instruct Saddam Hussein to violate the ceasefire treaty a dozen times or kick the weapons inspectors out. Evangelicals did vote for Bush in 2004, and perhaps that is seen by Bone's pastor as somehow supporting the war when in fact it's more that they were not too keen on losing the war, since it could turn Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground as fertile as the Fertile Crescent and/or could result in a civil war leaving millions dead. I'm not sure how it follows that continuing the war is seen as equivalent to supporting it initially.

On the other hand, a few religious right leaders did give support to Bush as he was ramping up for the war. Michael Novak comes to mind. But Novak wasn't elected to anything. And surely Christians are in general too ready to use the infamous waterboarding technique, which in terms of torture quacks like a duck to me. But giving the President the benefit of the doubt in 2002 now appears to somehow be conflated with being pro-war. It makes no sense.

But Bone's pastor, like many liberals neo or paleo, is fuzzy on the pertinent details. We don't even get the obligatory torture complaint. We get platitudes and attitudes, which are nice but in the end leave you a bit hungry for more. What I would've loved to see is a tracing of his change from a personal and explicatory basis - a bit more Francis Beckwith than Saul of Damascus to use an imperfect analogy, or rather a bit more Cardinal Newman than Paul Newman. A couple acid tests are: how did you feel about the original Gulf War, which was Phase I of this war? And two: did you support the economic sanctions that killed millions of Iraqis during the Clinton Administration? Pope JPII said "nay" on both and I respect him for it.

That's not to say consistency is the end all and be all. Heaven forfend! But at least give us something meaty to explain the turnabout. That's just fair play. Turnabout is fair play and so is explaining turnabouts.

Maybe he's feeling more pacifistic and considers it his new calling. Callings tend to be beyond the reach of argument or rational thought. Or maybe he is simply being stragetically pastoral. In other words, we know Christianity is infinitely more important than any political program, although there are areas where they collide - abortion is one, although you obviously need not be religious in order to see it as murder - in which there isn't room for prudential judgment. But on prudential issues like war or immigration a pastor might say: "Would I change my politics on those issues in order to reach more seculars so that they don't feel so viscerally offended by my religion?"

Perfume is far less important than politics, but it's almost like if you are a salesmen and there's a cologne you wear that some love and some hate, but mostly everyone who loves the cologne already owns what you're selling. So you put on some different cologne to woo the people who haven't bought. So on illegal immigration or the war or whatever you tell them: I am with you now. Because for them - the seculars - politics is the end all and be all. And you want to reach them with politics in order to eventually reach them with Someone far greater. (Though it feels a bit too Machivellian for me, but it's easier to do if you do have grave misgivings about immigration and the war and who doesn't have grave misgivings about the war given hindsight?) Shea & the pastor could simply be instinctively reacting against the unholy connection between politics and religion. Catholics, of all people, ought know how too close a connection between the two ends up nicht zu gut as the Germans say. But they could tell us so, ya know. Besides, perhaps the pastor is just trying to get on the same sides as the babes. As it says here:"Look for the babes, and that's where the social action is, that's where the success will be."