John McCain: Pandering to Religious Extremists Pays Off

Sometimes political or religious pandering is so transparent and nauseating that you feel certain that it will backfire, but I wonder whether pandering can ever go that far because there are always people who are too happy to hear what they want. This may be the case with John McCain's recent and false statements about America being founded as a "Christian Nation."

Sure, he had to be repeating catch-phrases he knew were false solely to gain a little credibility with the Christian Right, but do you think they care? It seems like the phrase "Christian Nation" is like an aphrodisiac to some conservative evangelicals because all of the sudden their opposition to a McCain candidacy is beginning to fade a little. Talk about a cheap date...

“Comments like 'America was founded on Christian principles' by Senator John McCain just might make him president.  In an interview last Saturday with a Christian-oriented webset called Beliefnet, Senator McCain stated that "I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I would prefer someone who has a grounding in my faith."

The fact that the left-wing Muslim groups vociferously reacted against McCain's remarks, just added validity to his comments, and indeed value for his presidential nomination hopes.

Source: Christian Coalition (via Carpetbagger)

Apparently the Christian Coalition has been among the most hostile to John McCain out of all the Christian Right groups (not that they are still a very powerful force anyway). Pat Robertson himself has openly voiced his opposition to McCain (not that he has the same influence that he once wielded). If these two could warm up to McCain at all, it's possible that others on the Christian Right might begin to change their tune as well.

Perhaps by questioning the status of Mormons, McCain is trying to increase his status even further:

When asked if he considered Mormons to be Christians, McCain said, "I don't know. I respect their faith. I've never frankly looked at the Mormon religion. I've known a lot of Mormons who are wonderful people. More importantly, I don't think it should be held against Gov. Romney. The fact that he's a Mormon should not be a factor in people's judgment."

Source: Go Upstate

So let me get this straight: John McCain would prefer that America have a Christian president because a Christian president is necessary to uphold America's Christian heritage, and so the number one thing voters should think about is whether a candidate will carry on America's "Judeo Christian principled tradition." Despite the fact that he isn't sure that Mormons are really Christians, though, that shouldn't play any role in whether people vote for a Mormon like Mitt Romney — it certainly shouldn't be the "number one issue" they consider.

How could a man with such incoherent, muddled thinking ever rise as high in politics as John McCain has? I guess the answer is that religious pandering doesn't require clear, consistent, or logical thinking — he needs to continue pushing the "America is a Christian Nation" line in order to attract the Christian Right and he certainly can't afford to push away Mormon voters; at the same time, though, he can't also push away the Christian Right by letting them think that he would treat Mormons as genuine Christians. Oh, what tangled webs we weave...

Since it's unlikely that anyone will become the Republican candidate for president without the support of religious extremists, it's not hard to understand why John McCain would tell obvious falsehoods about the Constitution in order to gain their support. It's just disappointing, though, that he would turn out to be so power-hungry that he'd turn his back both on whatever value he place on honesty as well as the principles of the Constitution.

Of course, this assumes that the Christian Right really will still matter enough in the 2008 elections. Some leaders are threatening to turn their backs on the Republican Party entirely and promote a third-party candidate. James Dobson explains what happened at the recent CNP meeting which he attended:

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.

Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.

Source: The New York Times

There are several ways this could play out and chief among them are:

• Christian Right leaders bolt, but without enough followers to make a difference; this reveals that Christian Right leaders have little influence over their own followers and can be ignored by Republicans.
• Christian Right leaders bolt and bring enough followers to greatly reduce Republican votes; this reveals that Republicans cannot get elected without the support of theocrats.
• Christian Right leaders don't bolt and the GOP nominates a candidate with dubious anti-choice, anti-gay positions; this reveals that the theocrats were bluffing and that they have little influence or power with the Republican party anymore.
• Christian Right leaders don't bolt because Republicans nominate a strong anti-choice, anti-gay candidate; this reveals that Republicans aren't willing to test their power without the theocrats.

Christian Right leaders have been voting lock-step for Republicans for years and it hasn't gotten them as much as they want. In politics you have to be able and willing to compromise, so Republicans have regularly had to compromise on the theocratic agenda in order to get things done. In church, compromise can be tossed out the window for the sake of ideological and theological purity; this is what Christian Right leaders want to bring to politics and Republicans haven't been helping enough.

A third party might help the Christian Right achieve their goals, but it might also reveal that they are just a paper tiger. James Dobson is explicit in his willingness to sacrifice "electability" for the sake of ideological purity, but this runs the obvious risk of being shut out of the political process of government entirely and not having a direct voice in what happens. How extreme are the ranks of the Christian Right today? Are they willing to follow Dobson and others and take the chance of sacrificing getting anything at all for the sake of perhaps getting everything?