« Nirpal Singh Dhaliwal | Main | To Answer Gary Younge’s Question »

April 03, 2006

Paul Krugman: John and Jerry

Paul Krugman today lays into John McCain over the rapproachment with Jerry Falwell. Fair play really, Falwell is an odious little bigot (IMHO) and I certainly would be uncomfortable being in the same political party (which, not being American, of course I won’t be).

One slight quibble though.

By welcoming Mr. Falwell and people like him as members of their party, Republicans are saying that it's O.K. — not necessarily correct, but O.K. — to declare {...} that Jews can't go to heaven. And voters should judge the Republican Party accordingly.

I’m not the world’s greatest expert on comparative religion but I do rather doubt that anyone is going to pay a blind bit of notice to that particular proposition. From what I can see at Wikipedia there’s a large number of Jews who don’t think that Jews can go to heaven:

However, many secular or liberal Jews state that there is no afterlife or that Judaism concentrates on the here and now.

However much Falwell and McCain insist upon this generally accepted piece of liberal Jewish theology I really rather doubt that they’ll attract secular and liberal Jews to the Republican Party.

Tags

Well, I'll be damned. At least, that's what the Rev. Jerry Falwell says. Last month Mr. Falwell issued a statement explaining that, in his view, Jews can't go to heaven unless they convert to Christianity. And what Mr. Falwell says matters — maybe not in heaven, but here on earth. After all, he's a kingmaker in today's Republican Party.

Senator John McCain obviously believes that he can't get the Republican presidential nomination without Mr. Falwell's approval.

During the 2000 campaign, Mr. McCain denounced Mr. Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance." But next month Mr. McCain will be a commencement speaker at Liberty University, which Mr. Falwell founded.

On "Meet the Press" yesterday, Mr. McCain was asked to explain his apparent flip-flop. "I believe," he replied, "that the Christian right has a major role to play in the Republican Party.

"One reason is because they're so active and their followers are. And I believe they have a right to be a part of our party."

So what has happened since the 2000 campaign to convince Mr. McCain that Mr. Falwell is not, in fact, an agent of intolerance?

Maybe it was Mr. Falwell's TV appearance with Mr. Robertson on Sept. 13, 2001, during which the two religious leaders agreed that the terrorist attack two days earlier was divine punishment for American immorality.

"God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," said Mr. Falwell, who also declared:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"

Or maybe it was Mr. Falwell's appearance on "60 Minutes" in October 2002, when he declared, "I think Muhammad was a terrorist." Muhammad, he said, was "a violent man" — unlike Mr. Falwell, I guess, who said of terrorists that we should "blow them all away in the name of the Lord."

After each of these incidents, by the way, Mr. Falwell issued what were described as "apologies." But they weren't apologies — they were statements along the lines of, "I'm sorry that some people were upset by what I said."

It's clear that in each case Mr. Falwell's offensive remarks were not a slip of the tongue; they reflected his deeply held beliefs.

And that's why it's important to hold someone like Mr. McCain — who is still widely regarded as a moderate, in spite of his extremely conservative voting record — accountable when he cozies up to Mr. Falwell.

Nobody thinks that Mr. McCain shares all of Mr. Falwell's views. But when Mr. McCain said that the Christian right has a right to be part of the Republican Party, he was in effect saying that Mr. Falwell's statements are within the realm of acceptable political discourse.

Just to be clear: this is a free country, and Mr. Falwell has a right to say what he thinks, even if his views include the belief that other people, by saying what they think, brought down God's wrath on America.

By the same token, any political party has a right to include Mr. Falwell and his supporters, just as any politician has a right to make a political alliance with Mr. Falwell.

But if you choose to make common cause with religious extremists, you are accepting some responsibility for their extremism.

By welcoming Mr. Falwell and people like him as members of their party, Republicans are saying that it's O.K. — not necessarily correct, but O.K. — to declare that 9/11 was America's punishment for its tolerance of abortion and homosexuality, that Islam is a terrorist religion, and that Jews can't go to heaven. And voters should judge the Republican Party accordingly.

As for Mr. McCain: his denunciation of Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robertson six years ago helped give him a reputation as a moderate on social issues.

Now that he has made up with Mr. Falwell and endorsed South Dakota's ban on abortion even in the case of rape or incest, only two conclusions are possible: either he isn't a social moderate after all, or he's a cynical political opportunist. 

April 3, 2006 in Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d83480462953ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Paul Krugman: John and Jerry:

Comments

By welcoming Mr. Falwell and people like him as members of their party, Republicans are saying that it's O.K. — not necessarily correct, but O.K. — to declare {...} that Jews can't go to heaven. And voters should judge the Republican Party accordingly.

Brave Krugman. This is completely predicable from a man who feverishly jumped on the opportunity to blame George W. Bush for worldwide Muslim anti-Semitism, expressed at the Organization of the Islamic Conference in the call by ex-Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir's call for Muslims to "defeat" world Jewry, who "rule the world by proxy". At that time, Krugman was concerned with scoring partisan points against Bush -- he never explained how the President might be blamed for a political tendency that annealed around 1967, but has roots in World War II and before -- and making hay out of the contemporaneous General Boykin incident.

Now again he obsesses over a toothless Christian anti-Semitism, this time against the backdrop of Iran's nuclear race and the expressed desire of its president to "[wipe] Israel off the map". Why one theocrat, caged by a liberal democratic society, matters more than another who is helming a terrorist state is an unexplained mystery. Additionally inexplicable is the tendency among left-liberals to ignore or apologize for this kind of hatred (often while fixating bizarrely on the sins of Ahmadinejad's target, Israel).

Paul, haven't you noticed that today's "primary preserve" of anti-Semitism in mainstream Western politics is on the Left? I guess you might not, if it's all just a partisan game to you. But you'll forgive those of us who think the welfare of Jews is more important than frottaging some dusty old right-wing bogeyman.

Posted by: John-Paul Pagano | Apr 4, 2006 1:48:31 AM

So Krugman thinks it's a bizarre anomaly of some kind if a religious person to believes that his theology is accurate?

It's not unheard-of for Christian theologies to hold that you won't qualify for heaven unless you believe in the divinity of Christ. The divinity of Christ is actually a pretty big issue with Christians, oddly enough.

Christians believe that nobody who fails to satisfy the Christian requirements for getting into the Christian heaven is going to go there. It's nothing in particular against Jews, Zoroastrians, atheists, Baha'is, animist pantheists, or mormons.

He's setting up a definition of "bigotry" which includes anybody who has any religion at all (or any value system at all, since that implies moral judgement), and takes no notice of whether you're actually prejudiced against anybody or not.

Jainists think you're S.O.L. if you eat meat, and there's a lot more carnivores on this planet than there are Jews. Why doesn't he go hassle the Jainists, then?

Whatta maroon.

Posted by: P. Froward | Apr 4, 2006 6:52:17 PM