Filed under: Author - ACG, Politics, Religion | Tags: Creationism, Gay rights, Religious politics
Hucka-being John McCain
While our friend Progressive Conservative at “The Big Stick” wondered aloud today whether the maverick spirit of 2000’s John McCain lives on in 2008’s Candidate McCain, the man himself continued his sell-out to the fundamentalist wing of the Republican party by pulling out the Republican Party’s perennial election year distraction: the danger posed by The Gays. This time the issue was adoption: guess where McCain stands.
McCain’s defense of his opposition to gay adoption is right out of the “family values” theo-conservatives’ playbook – “we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so” – and it has always struck me as odd in the extreme. The appeal is essentially only to tradition, without any attempt to grapple with the real reason behind the issue: we’ve always done it this way, so we ought to continue. What is tradition, but a shield to hide behind when all other arguments fail? That we as a nation should turn away willing parents when children languish in orphanages, to the detriment of their futures, is an appalling disgrace. When a “pro-family” position requires one to sacrifice the best interests of the child at the altar of the Old Testament’s outdated Levitical morality, “family values” cease to be about the family, and become solely about the politics. The greatest ruse ever pulled on the American voter was to convince him that defending the family meant being an evangelical Christian, ergo a Bush/Huckabee Republican. In time, ridiculous contradictions like this one will give the lie to that old canard.
And it’s downhill from there. While one side of McCain’s mouth casts him as a practical, thoughtful, reasoned and progressive conservative like Teddy Roosevelt, the other pulls creationism into the public school classroom. “[Teaching evolution is] up to the school boards,” he has said on the issue. “That’s why we have local control over education.”
No. It isn’t. Local control over education is meant to allow schools to tailor their curriculum to subjective beliefs and standards, to allow them to teach local history, languages, and literature. Science is not a subjective belief. It is an objective methodology geared to uncovering the facts that knit the universe together, and as such it does not vary based on locale. Gravity works the same in Louisiana as it does in Manhattan, and it ought to be taught as such. McCain’s subtle endorsement of creationism is just the latest in a swing right on that issue. Take McCain’s recent keynote speech at the Discovery Institute. This is the man who reluctantly campaigned at Bob Jones University, now embracing his role as the avatar of theocratic religion.
McCain attempts to mask his endorsement of the religious right mainline by couching it in the rhetoric of “local control” – let the states/cities/towns decide issues like abortion, gay rights, and science. This is a thinly veiled attempt to pass the buck, and a tactic commonly used by McCain to exculpate himself from endorsing far-right positions by nominally devolving the issue to others who he knows will make the (religious-)right decisions. McCain won’t destroy women’s rights: his Supreme Court appointees will. McCain won’t endorse homophobic bigotry. But he will idly stand by while states do it. McCain won’t teach creationism. But he will subtly endorse it, and let others teach it if they want to. Make no mistake: McCain may interpose a middleman between him and some radically theocratic positions, but the result is the same. Invoking states’ rights on issues of federal constitutional law only absolves him of the responsibility for the decision, a cop-out I frankly didn’t expect from Senator John McCain, straight-talking maverick extraordinaire.
And that’s the real story. McCain is no longer his own man. We get our term “candidate” from the Roman rite by which the politician, prior to an election, donned a white robe to symbolize his purity of mind and devotion to justice. It may be true that no candidate ever has, then or now, maintained that purity in fact. As for McCain at least, his white robe has already been blackened by the dirty hands of a million special interests, not the least of whom sit happily in their megachurches and marvel at the speed and grace with which they turned the politician who once called them “agents of intolerance” so firmly into their man.
No Comments Yet so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
In the interest of being ‘fair and balanced’…
Barrack Obama on gay marriage:
“I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states.”
“Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
“The heightened focus on marriage is a distraction from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination and gays and lesbians. “
Source
(Just for the record, I really like the overall details of his ideas on gay marriage. But I also think it’s unfair to characterize McCain’s position as much different. )
Comment by Progressive Conservative July 16, 2008 @ 9:36 amI also found this nice link in your Rostrum section:
McCain Clarifies Remark on Gay Adoption
Comment by Progressive Conservative July 16, 2008 @ 9:43 amAs you know Ames, I also agree with you 100% that teaching ID in schools is ridiculous.
Comment by Progressive Conservative July 16, 2008 @ 9:44 amI do know that – I think most people agree with us, luckily, PC. And the difference between Obama and McCain on gay rights is that McCain has the Supreme Court picks to back them up with action. Obama doesn’t/won’t/can’t.
And McCain’s “clarifications” didn’t help.
Comment by Ames July 16, 2008 @ 9:46 amAlso in the fairness of balance, as I’ve brought up a couple of times before, the only thing Obama is against is the term marriage. He is fully supportive of everything else about gay rights, including full adoption rights and legal rights to homosexual couples.
That’s very different than McCain.
Comment by oneiroi July 16, 2008 @ 10:33 ammccain has been consistent on his opposition to gay marriage, adoption by gays, and abortion rights.
he has not been consistent in his public persona as friend to the fundamentalist/evangelical republican base.
here are some excerpts from the speech delivered in february 2000 at virginia beach, prior to the virginia primary …
(you can find the whole transcript here …
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/28/se.01.html )
***
My friends, I am a Reagan Republican who will defeat Al Gore.
(APPLAUSE)
Unfortunately, Governor Bush is a Pat Robertson Republican who will lose to Al Gore.
I recognize and celebrate that our country is founded upon Judeo- Christian values, and I have pledged my life to defend America and all her values, the values that have made us the noblest experiment in history. But public — but political intolerance by any political party is neither a Judeo-Christian nor an American value. The political… (APPLAUSE)
The political tactics of division and slander are not our values, they are…
(APPLAUSE)
They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.
(APPLAUSE)
Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.
—
We are the party of Ronald Reagan, not Pat Robertson. We are the party…
(APPLAUSE)
We are the party of Theodore Roosevelt, not the party of special interests. We are…
(APPLAUSE)
We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, not…
(APPLAUSE)
We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, not Bob Jones.
(nevermind that the the republican party of abraham lincoln was different from the republican party of t.r., and both of these were even more different than the republican party of reagan.)
then, as we know, mccain reluctantly made an appearance at bob jones’ university before the south carolina primary … but by that time, he had already had a mixed-race child out of wedlock …
those “agents of intolerance” on the republican side win elections.
so that is why mccain is replacing previous campaign leaders with rove proteges … and that is why we see mccain spending a lot of time and rhetoric trying to present himself as a friend to those same agents …
p.c. … you have said before on your blog that while you disagree with the evangelical bent of the republican party, you definitely like the votes evangelicals bring.
but evangelicals exact a price for their participation. mccain knows this … hence, pandering …
and speaking of the the votes evangelicals bring … what about the votes mccain in 2000 could have garnered? i am a lifelong democrat and liberal. i am absolutely pro-choice, but i will admit that during the 2000 primary season, i was impressed with mccain … i wanted to learn more about him … i liked what he had to say. i can’t imagine i was the only democrat who thought this way.
now, the mccain of 2008? he’s a caricature of the oft-referenced “maverick” …
Comment by didionsmommy July 16, 2008 @ 11:47 amwait … there’s more …
in april 2006, tim russert asked mccain if he still thought jerry falwell was an “agent of intolerance” … guess what mccain said?
http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/mccainfal.320.240.mov
as far as i know … falwell NEVER changed his opinion on things … and remember, this was in 2006 AFTER FALWELL AND ROBERTSON gave their incisive analysis of the 9/11 attacks …
Comment by didionsmommy July 16, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
sorry … there’s still more …
about six months after mccain told russert he no longer found falwell to be one of those intolerance agents, mccain assembled his exploratory committee for the 2008 campaign …
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/02/01/cq_2221.html
while the nyt article doesn’t list any big evangelical donors, it does appear as though mccain was getting some of his ducks in a row during the russert interview.
o.k. … i’m done … sorry for the bombardment …
Comment by didionsmommy July 16, 2008 @ 12:08 pmAgreed Didi,
This is the main reason I don’t think McCain can pull this off in the election. He’s straddling a fence by trying to appeal to conservatives while also maintaining his integrity as a “maverick”.
And I don’t think it really can be done.
Comment by oneiroi July 16, 2008 @ 12:27 pmyou know who mccain ‘08 reminds me of?
bush, sr ‘92 … i remember how awkward he looked and sounded making speeches for evangelicals … of course, mccain is more of a social conservative than bush, sr. … but there is still awkwardness from mccain …
Comment by didionsmommy July 16, 2008 @ 12:41 pmdidionsmommy said:
p.c. … you have said before on your blog that while you disagree with the evangelical bent of the republican party, you definitely like the votes evangelicals bring.
To the contrary, what I have said is this:
“We cannot go to independent and liberal voters and ever hope to win their support when we make our arguements for public policy with a Bible in one hand. We have to learn how to legislate these moral issues with a non-religious rationale. If this means foregoing the support of the Religious Right then so be it.”
Source
“We have welcomed what we perceive as a weaking of the power older evangelicals hold over the GOP. If the GOP is going to be saved, we feel that the stranglehold of the Religious Right must be broken.”
Source
My feeling is that there’s nothing wrong with including evangelicals, but we have to get the crazy ones under control. Maybe McCain is just the person to do that.
Comment by Progressive Conservative July 16, 2008 @ 1:59 pmYou suggest, I imagine, compromise with evangelical voters. While that’s a nice idea, I think evangelicals have proven time and time again that compromise is not really an option. Theirs is a worldview where it’s either Rapture or Antichrist, Heaven or Hell. Putting smacking down gay rights on the backburner isn’t, as I see it, an option for them. The GOP needs to not only get rid of their “stranglehold”; it needs to get rid of them.
Comment by Ames July 16, 2008 @ 2:09 pmI think I would same the same about many atheists that I have seen in the blogosphere. But you have contended before that these are simply people who ‘over-stepped’.
I disagree with your generalization. For example, most of the people in my church would consider themselves evangelical in the sense that they believe a good Christian should ’spread their faith’. But they choose to do so primarily with their works, not their words. That example played a large part in renewing and strengthening my own faith. I would even go so far as to say that Catholics are evangelical in much the same way. They would not fit into your image of an evangelical Ames. It’s all a matter of tactics.
Just like every other movement since the beginning of time, there are good and bad apples. Young evangelicals are much different than the baby boomer evangelicals that corrupted the GOP. I believe we should give them a chance to prove themselves.
Comment by Progressive Conservative July 16, 2008 @ 2:31 pmbelieve me, p.c., somewhere on your blog … perhaps in a comment … you say you’ll take those evangelical votes … i certainly would not make that up … i remember it because i viewed it as a contradiction to many of your positions …
***
regarding the difference between younger evangelicals and their elders … can you provide some other evidence — outside of your church — that supports your assertion?
i have watched documentaries about gay teens affirming their christian faith … there are also plenty of other examples of gay-friendly churches (even catholic ones) … and there is the schism in the anglican church …
however … where are the charismatic, mainstream, young evangelical leaders who profess tolerance?
i am glad you go to a church that seems to be inclusive …
but your church does not the current evangelical bloc of the republican party make …
Comment by didionsmommy July 16, 2008 @ 2:46 pmbtw … catholicism is absolutely evangelical inasmuch as it has a missionary bent …
christianity, itself, is an evangelical religion. (a lot of people — especially rabid evangelical protestants — forget that catholics are christians … actually, they are the first christian church.)
Comment by didionsmommy July 16, 2008 @ 2:49 pmDidionsmommy,
Please see the article I quoted in that second post I referenced. It goes into a lot of detail about changing attitudes among younger evangelicals.
Also, I DO welcome the votes of evangelicals, but not at the expense of the part or conservatism in general. I also believe that they do themselves a disservice by functioning as a voting bloc. As a general rule I’m not a fan of predictable voting behavior. It’s the surest way to get yourself ignored by politicians.
Comment by Progressive Conservative July 16, 2008 @ 3:08 pmPC, first I’d never insult your friends & their beliefs, or your own, and I’m glad you didn’t read an insult into my slight against “evangelicals.” As Collin pointed out a while ago, I need a better term for what I use the term to mean, but when I refer to evangelicals I refer not to “those who evangelize” but rather to those for whom evangelizing, and evangelizing by conversion & politicking rather than good works, is the only pursuit in the world that matters. I refer to, for example, Mike Huckabee: not to all individuals who think their religion is best, but only to those who take that belief to its extreme and try to ram their faith down everyone else’s throat with whatever tool they can find.
Comment by Ames July 16, 2008 @ 3:23 pmi love the last quote of the seattle times article …
Braun, the seminary student, said he’s not totally committed to any candidate yet.
“I just keep thinking, if Jesus were alive now, he wouldn’t necessarily be voting Republican,” he said.
good to know young christians are examining their faith in a global context and that their self-righteousness is still intact.
the article indicates that these young people are “leaving” the gop for a multitude of reasons … some of them because mccain isn’t a proven evangelical conservative …
Shane Claiborne, a Philadelphia Christian activist and author of “Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals,” has a different name for these folks: “political misfits.”
Claiborne has traveled around the country the past several years, speaking and preaching mostly to college-age Christians who are “both socially conservative and globally aware.” That makes them disenchanted with both major parties, he said.
“It’s not about liberal or conservative, or Democrats or Republicans,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a new evangelical left. … There’s a new evangelical stuck-in-the-middle.”
UW communications professor David Domke said some young evangelicals are breaking with the GOP for the same reasons many people broke from the party in the 2006 legislative elections — the unpopular war in Iraq; the Bush administration’s abysmal approval ratings; or, now, because of the tanking economy.
Others broke from the party when John McCain, who hasn’t held much appeal for evangelicals in the past, became the presumptive nominee.
yes, the article says other young people say there is “something more going on” to change their political thinking, but i believe what you go on to say in your post is premature …
We have welcomed what we perceive as a weaking of the power older evangelicals hold over the GOP. If the GOP is going to be saved, we feel that the stranglehold of the Religious Right must be broken. Young evangelicals, more flexible in their thinking and more willing to redefine themselves, will actually increase their voice as both sides seek their votes.
i’ll go back to what i have said in comments elsewhere … people like you need to stand up and be noticed by the republican-voting blocs with whom you disagree … if the participation of young people in past elections is any indicator, i wouldn’t hold my breath for a republican policy makeover at the hands of 20-something evangelical christians.
btw … here is the link to the original article …
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2004406277&zsection_id=2003956730&slug=evangvote11m&date=20080511
Comment by didionsmommy July 16, 2008 @ 3:33 pmDM, believe me, I’m trying. There are more of us out there, but we are a disjointed group by nature.
By the way, I found some more of my writing to back up my anti-loony-evangelicals street cred.
Evangelical Christianity
Comment by Progressive Conservative July 16, 2008 @ 8:10 pmi remember that post very well, and, certainly, i don’t doubt your disdain for loony evangelicals … but, i have to admit, i don’t fully understand voting with them …
you say that predictable voting blocs are a sure way to get ignored, but the evangelical wing of the republican party has proven exactly the opposite. they have made themselves so important, any and all republican politicians HAVE to pay attention to them. hence, we have john mccain painfully trying to recreate himself.
Comment by didionsmommy July 16, 2008 @ 10:09 pmI think i could say the same about liberal environmental groups and atheists….
GOP candidates have to give them lip service. Bush was one of them and what did he do for them in 8 years? Abortion is still legal. there’s no constitional ban on gay marriage. ID isn’t being required as part of No Child Left Behind.
For all the talk about how Bush was in bed with those guys he sure didn’t do much to make them happy. I suspect McCain will do even less.
Comment by Progressive Conservative July 16, 2008 @ 11:01 pman example, oneiroi: while no-one responded to your first comment on this thread, notice that it did guide the debate, very well, in fact.
Comment by Ames July 17, 2008 @ 8:39 amyes, oneiroi … ames is right. (again!)
pc … i have commented on your site, that if i were an evangelical i would be hoppin’ mad at karl rove and w, et al. precisely because there aren’t another dozen or so amendments to the constitution protecting and promoting the evangelical agenda* …
nonetheless, the evangelical agenda continues to frighten, annoy, enrage, and disgust me because it distracts from real bipartisan efforts to address important social and political issues. it’s like a tumor that flares up and goes into remission and flares up and … bottom line: the best thing to do is to remove it …
voting with evangelicals does not remove the tumor.
as for standing up and telling the rnc you’re mad as hell and you’re not going to take it anymore … you can do that by voting for obama.
*there are places evangelicals have made REAL inroads … the death-by-attrition attack on abortion rights in red states … oh, and then there was the kansas state school board deciding evolution was flawed …
Comment by didionsmommy July 17, 2008 @ 2:58 pmDM,
I am not voting with evangelicals…they are voting with me. There IS a difference.
And I don’t see how voting for Obama helps the Republican cause.
Comment by Progressive Conservative July 17, 2008 @ 4:12 pm[...] I said, el retard. Ames at Submitted to a Candid World frames the larger implications of pandering to right-wing nutwads on this issue, both for John McCain’s campaign and for the [...]
Pingback by Have you ever seen the Tardosaurus? (And other batshittery…links post!) « break the terror July 30, 2008 @ 11:20 pm[...] Re-Invention of John McCain, and the Sad Paradox of Fundamentalist Family Values” over at Submitted to a Candid World. It says (in part): McCain attempts to mask his endorsement of the religious right mainline by [...]
Pingback by Bay of Fundie » Blog Archive » Carnival of the Liberals with Senator John McCain July 31, 2008 @ 1:00 am