The Return of “What’s Funny?”
Apparently, Comedy Central, even after censoring “South Park” for its Islamic insults, is considering developing a program all about Jesus. I agree with Joseph Bottum and The Anchoress – I’ m not offended, and there will be no riots or terrorism. But I also bet it will not be very funny, and therefore, few people will watch. Of course, in this day and age it does not take a lot of viewers to keep something on the air – so don’t be surprised if “success” is claimed – but don’t be fooled either.
“South Park” and Comedy Central lead “On Faith” to ask:
What is the obligation of a Western, democratic government to protect individual freedoms in light of a realistic terrorist threat? Are the producers of South Park right to forfeit their freedom of expression in the interests of protecting their employees? Are the governments of Europe right to ban burqas in the interest of fostering a more open society?
Frankly, that question is a reflection of why Newsweek is on life support. In many ways it was asked and answered a century ago. Yeah, I’m talking about the legal battles over Mormon polygamy. Simply put, government should not interfere with religious belief, and generally not religious speech, but it can and should interfere with religious practice when said practice harms the normal operation of society. The problem is not South Park or burqas – it’s terrorism.
Here’s what I know: We hunt down terrorists – they die in battle, they are executed, or they spend the rest of their natural lives in jail. Pretty soon Islam will reform to the point where it does not produce them. Behavioral consequences drive philosophy just as much as philosophy drives behavior, it just takes patience.
Which brings us back to presidential politics. Because of that very phenomenon, we need worry less about a candidate’s religion and more about his policy. Think about it.
Spinning…
Sometimes spin is so obvious that it needs to be pointed out just for giggles. Consider:
HuffPo trying to spin the unspinnable, and
Michael Gerson trying to make an economic case for Tim Pawlenty. There are a lot of reasons to like Tim Pawlenty, but economics? Over Romney? Yeah, that’s giggle inducing.
Hubris…
Look, rescinding Franklin Graham’s invitation to pray at the Pentagon is a no-class move typical of this administration. But Graham’s response is not doing Evangelicals any good either:
Continuing to escalate his criticisms of President Obama for not restoring Graham’s rescinded invitation to a prayer event at the Pentagon, Graham has warned the president that “millions of Evangelical Christians that voted for Barack Obama in this last election” likely won’t “be at the table next time” because Obama is not giving Graham and his allies their due.
There should be a National Day of Prayer, but Evangelical hubris is a large part of why we are in this mess. When they got exclusionary over Mormons, they almost guaranteed this kind of stuff. Mormons weren’t going to protest, but you knew someone would.
It is time for politically active Evangelicals to grow up just a little. We have got to learn how to build coalitions and think more broadly – it’s not always “us against them.” Or more prudently, sometimes what helps us, also helps them. First we had to beat Hitler, therefore we allied with Stalin. Eventually we beat Stalin too. First we need a National Day of Prayer at all, eventually people will figure out whose prayers are best.
Raw Bigotry…
One letter writer to the MormonTimes in re Beck/Liberty University:
“The real question is how the radical LDS right wing is going to live with the evangelical radical right. I think this is the craziest conflict on the globe. Both sides trying to stake out their pure version of the cultural right. Maybe, we LDS ought to rethink our infatuation with that line of political thought. The telestial kingdom will freeze over before Mormons are accepted by ‘those people.’ Just ask Mitt Romney.”
There is some serious wisdom there.
And the next time anybody talks about “right wing hate speech, consider this (forwarded by a reader) from The San Fran Chron:
This is the good news: many of the world’s most powerful, hurtful, wretched old men will soon be dead.
Does that sound cruel? Unkind? I might be OK with that. In fact, I might very much be in the mood to not really mind at all if a whole slew of these nefarious creatures of sociospiritual corrosion were to, say, spontaneously combust, or be struck by lightning, or perhaps accidentally fall into a giant, roiling vat of Astroglide and turpentine and a million duplicitous prayers. Whoops! Sorry, Monsignor!
[...]
Because here we find a very bizarre cluster of powerful, pale, sickly old men who are now sliding back into view thanks to a new documentary, “8: The Mormon Proposition,” the trailer for which is available for your deep sighing and open cringing right now.
While I have no idea as to the overall quality of the film itself, the trailer alone seems to reveal a fine-looking flick that, at bare minimum, details just how ruthlessly, how hatefully the Church of Latter Day Homophobes worked to terrify and intimidate its own uninformed followers into funding — to the tune of nearly $18 million — one of the most detestable pieces of legislation in California’s history, not to mention the church’s own “secretive, decades-long crusade against gay rights.”
You know, I am struck by the fact that only on the left is perceived hatred considered justification for the real thing. Those of us on the religious right operate by an entirely different paradigm – something about “return no man evil for evil….”
Lowell adds . . .
By the way, Senator Robert Bennett has been ignominiously denied nomination, not in a Republican primary, but by Utah’s caucus-style GOP nominating convention. Like most caucuses, the Utah process produces some pretty extreme results. This was one of those occasions.
But why is Bennett’s public political execution relevant to this blog? Because it gives rise to yet another of Lowell’s Political Prophecies: First, the hard-right in Utah is going to start attacking Romney because he supported Bennett, even coming into Utah to campaign for him. Romney has stated publicly that voting for TARP was the right thing to do, even though he’s not happy with the execution. Bennett’s support for TARP was cited by the ultra-conservative oracles in Utah as a major reason that the 3-term Republican senator had to go. Second, the Utah hard right’s attacks on Romney will give cover to Romney opponent who oppose him because of his faith, or who want to take advantage of discomfort over his faith (think Mike Huckabee). They will simply say, “Hey! Even Romney’s fellow Mormons in Utah think he’s a RINO!” It is certainly not a bad thing that people will be talking about Romney’s position on the issues, and not about his religion, but I don’t think positions will be the real reason that a lot of those folks oppose the man.
John chimes back in…
We sometimes write our Monday posts “thorough the weekend.” That Lowell was being prophetic above, we both agreed Saturday night, but neither of us knew it would come to pass as soon as Sunday morning. Consider the NYTimes:
Mr. Bennett, 76, was outmatched in delegate votes by two relative newcomers despite an enthusiastic endorsement and convention speech from Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and local Utah hero, and a political pedigree of deep Mormon roots and public service.
Bennett was dogged by his support for the Troubled Asset Relief Program and for co-sponsoring a healthcare bill with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oreg.). To help make his case to the 3,452 delegates, he even tapped the star power of former Massachusetts governor – and fellow Mormon – Mitt Romney to make a final pitch.
Well, there you have it – the line has been drawn and now it will just be up to Romney’s opposition to walk it.
But typically, the national press does not tell the whole story. Consider this from the SLTrib:
Lee’s campaign said it was damaged by a controversial mailer that showed up in delegates’ mailboxes on Friday. It pictured Lee’s picture over the LDS temple and Bennett’s picture over the Capitol, questioning “Which candidate really has Utah values?”
It was sent by a group calling itself “Utah Defenders of Constitutional Integrity,” and was apparently sent from Cleveland, but there is nothing else known about the group. Both Lee and Bennett’s camp denied having any hand in the mailing and Lee condemned the attack ad during his speech.
“Some falsely accused me of accepting illegal contributions. Others that appeared to support me are patently offensive,” he said, denying that they were in any way connected to his campaign.
But Lee’s spokesman, Dan Hauser, said before the final vote that there was no question the Mormon mailer hurt the campaign.
“If you asked us in January if we would be happy with the position we’re in, absolutely,” he said. “Do I think we lost some votes because of the mailers? Absolutely. And I think it was a slow drip over the week of all the false attacks. It was just drip, drip, drip.”
Michael Richards of Herriman who is LDS and a Mike Lee supporter said the ad was “repulsive. “
“It’s not a religious thing. This is not about religion… it’s about who supports the Constitution,” he said.
Normally, we would attack such a thing on its face – playing the religion card in this fashion is repulsive. But consider it in light of Romney’s plight in this mess as described by Lowell. “The Mormon Card” was played not against Bennett, but against Bennett’s opposition, regardless of who played it, and yet MSM is trying to use it against Romney who endorsed Bennett. Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it too!
But I think the best take on the Bennett thing came from Robet Costa in The Corner:
Seeing Romney out on a limb, daring to debate the tea party
about the future of the GOP, is refreshing. Right or wrong, he’s at least showing that he can lead.
And just a little more from Lowell:
Amid the chorus of glee over Sen. Bennett’s needlessly ignominious political execution, let me sound a discordant note: This event is more about Utah’s caucus-style political nominating system than about Bennett’s supposed sins. Apparently the Senator’s worst misdeed was to vote for TARP. Is anyone really suggesting that vote as a basis for throwing out not only Bennett, who is Utah’s Mr. Republican, but the rest of the GOP senators?
In Utah’s caucuses, the political parties’ base rules the nominating process more than in just about any other state. Before we get too excited about the significance of Bennett’s ouster as an expression of conservative outrage, let’s note that Representative Jim Matheson now faces a primary. Matheson is the lone Democrat in Utah’s delegation. His sin? Voting against Obamacare. In Utah’s caucus system, being insufficiently liberal can get you in as much trouble as not being conservative enough. I like this comment:
Much in the same fashion as what Utah Conservatives accomplished against Senator Bennett, an ideological sense of pureness has overcome Utah Liberals, who want to remove their one chance of representation in Washington, because he isn’t big government enough…. if the Republican Caucus wants to emerge a stronger and healthier coalition come November, I would suggest a gameplan for maintaining a sense of Ronald Reagan’s big tent and his 80 percent friend, not a 20 percent foe approach. If we lose the Ronald Reagan Republican formation, than our movement will shrivel and die, especially if we don’t reinstate the Eleventh Commandment of Republican politics.
Incumbents might be safe in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, North Carolina and other states, but in Utah they better watch out, because the ideologues are coming for them!
Writers in the blogosphere (including yours truly) often criticize our national political class. Well, Bennett is one of the good guys: decent, thoughtful, conservative, classy, and well-spoken. The hard-core right-wingers in Utah who, amid their gloating, are calling Bennett a RINO have a very heavy lift in winning that argument. Others, like Dan Riehl, wonder whether the tea partiers are controlling the situation quite as much as they think they are.
The tea partiers are mostly a great and important phenomenon, but excesses are excesses, no matter who commits them, and the Bennett episode was one. Excuse me if I don’t join in the celebration.
Posted in Political Strategy, Reading List, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 8 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
TVHall on 10 May 2010 at 2:37 pm #
Lowell, it sounds like you need to take a step back view this from a bit less personal perspective. It’s nice that you think Sen. Bennett is “one of the good guys.” However, I’m sure the same thing could have been said for Sen. Smoot, but that didn’t stop him from putting his name on one of the most disastrous pieces of legislation in this nation’s history.
From what I can gather, there were more problems with Sen. Bennett than just his TARP vote. I suspect his work with Sen. Wyden on “health care reform” was at least as damaging. These issues, and others, created this confrontation.
Sen. Bennett had shown signs of having “gone native” in the Washington culture. This certainly puts him out of step with his constituency, of which the state party delegates are a major part. Calling them names does not change that fact.
If you’re really interested in understanding the sentiment underlying the current mood on the right side of the political spectrum, I suggest you take a good look at the notion of “working with” Democrats to “get things done.” That rubber band has been stretched to its terminus and is due, perhaps overdue, to snap back.
The Conservative base has had its fill of politicians they’ve elected going to Washington and accepting every fraudulent premise the left wing regurgitates. For years, they’ve been putting up with it in the name of pragmatism. That action has now brought us to the edge of the abyss, with no discernible method for avoiding it, save coming to a complete stop and carefully backing away.
I understand your concern about how others will use this development for their own purposes, but there is only so much that can, or even should, be done to prevent that. Painting people to your right as extremists, especially when those individuals are still closer to the center than anyone on the left these days, is just as likely to be used by the opposition in the same manner.
Finally, Sen. Bennett made his own bed and now he gets to sleep in it. Besides, during the term limits debate a few years back, those in favor of limits were told that term limits were unnecessary. The voters could limit their representative’s term any time they came up for a vote. Well, The Utah Republican Party has done just that. And I doubt that Sen. Bennett had any exclusive claim on representing Conservative principles in the Senate.
sewinglady on 11 May 2010 at 9:24 am #
I am also somewhat concerned by Lowell’s analysis of the Bennett episode. My brother called me Saturday right after Bennett’s ouster because he thought I would be interested; he was right. By the way, Bennett is also guilty of lots of earmarks, which has not made him popular with the Tea Party people.
I am a citizen of Arizona now, and I have been for 18 years, with the illustrious John McCain to “represent” me. I am currently supporting J. D. Hayworth in his primary against John McCain. This same brother who could easily understand why people in Utah are fed up with Sen. Bennett kept telling me that John McCain “is one of the good guys.” No he isn’t. As my husband says, “I can’t trust him to do anything I want.”
This year McCain has been behaving himself because he is in a contested primary. Many years he hasn’t had any opponents at all; hence, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold; just look at some of the awful legislation he has been part of. If it weren’t for our support of J. D. in the primary, John McCain probably would be meeting with Lindsey Graham about Cap and Trade, or even Amnesty II. He is so concerned about “reaching across the aisle” that he’s offended many of us who need him to stand firm on issues that really matter. THE BORDER BEING ONE OF THEM!!! J.D. Hayworth, who has taken some earmarks, has always been strong on the border, and that is a plus for him. JM tried pushing amnesty without proper attention to the border, and that has hurt him here in AZ.
Mitt Romney’s endorsement of John McCain disappointed me, but I have decided that if I were in his position, JM is a far worse political enemy to have than J.D., even if J.D. wins. John McCain is not a very forgiving person–witness his continual punishment of George W. Bush for beating him in the primary. I keep wishing JM would go after Obama with as much vigor as he did GWB.
Arizona’s new immigration law is simply a reflection of the same type of political move as the ousting of Bennett and contesting John McCain in the primary. We simply cannot get their attention any other way. Of course, Arizona’s law is simply taking federal law and making it state law so that we can get enforcement, which, of course, the federal gov’t refuses to do. How do you ignore your own laws? How can you ignore the rights of the citizens of your own country in favor of other people who don’t have such claims on you? I cannot figure out why they think even all hispanics support amnesty. The widespread support for our new law in AZ proves that there are many out there, even of hispanic descent, who have no desire to endlessly sustain and support those who break the law to get here. I happened to be at the state capitol during the signing of the new immigration law. The protest was peaceful, and many of the protesters were too young to vote. There were others there protesting marching around waving the Mexican flag. I have a picture of it, if you don’t believe me. If they want to live under the Mexican flag, they can go to Mexico. I’m not stopping them. Waving the Mexican flag does not win much support for their cause.
Lowell Brown on 11 May 2010 at 11:37 pm #
TVHall, I think you are over-reading what I am saying in my post. I don’t think anyone can deny that Utah’s caucus system (they were called “mass meetings” when I lived there) is a reflection of the organizing ability of those with a particular agenda, not of the popular will. In a Republican primary, Bennett would have won. In a Democrat primary, Matheson would have had no trouble. The extremes dominate in Utah’s political conventions. I have been part of three such campaigns back in my youth and have followed the process ever since. The state convention is not representative of what the rank and file of each party believe.
Bennett voted for TARP. So did Tom Coburn. Do you think Coburn should go too? Bennett co-sponsored the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act, which never even got a vote in committee. It was just a proposal, one which the Wall Street Journal editorialized was a good start and the kind of bipartisan legislation that was needed if our health care system was to be reformed. The Bennett-Wyden bill had provisions that both left and right would dislike. Maybe it wasn’t perfect, but it would have been a good beginning for real discussion, and it sure is better than what we ended up with. And proposing that bill was a reason to deny Bennett even a spot on the primary ballot? Come on!
My point is that those who got rid of Bob Bennett went overboard. Unless the Tea Party folks are careful they will end up with some disastrous unintended consequences. Here in California where I live now, Tea Party elements are supporting a state legislator named Chuck DeVore who is running for the U.S. Senate. DeVore has about 7% support in the polls and his numbers have not moved for months. The two front-runners are Tom Campbell, a moderate Republican in the Lindsay Graham mold, and Carly Fiorina, a real conservative – pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, you name it. But the Tea Party folks may give just enough support to DeVore to nominate Campbell, who will lose to Barbara Boxer in the general election. I don’t know about you, but I want Boxer out of the Senate.
That’s what I mean by “excess.” At least in Utah the GOP will keep Bennett’s old seat. But are Tim Bridgewater, a career office-seeker, or the very inexperienced Mike Lee, really the best Utah has to offer to the United States Senate? Or are they just the guys the Tea Party movement made possible by throwing Bennett out?
Anyway, Bob Bennett was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and ran into some political headwinds that would have stopped just about any incumbent running for re-election in Utah. Just don’t tell me his ouster is an inspiring example of the people rising up against bad government. It was a bunch of really angry people taking out their frustrations on a politician.
TVHall on 12 May 2010 at 2:49 pm #
Lowell, in answer to a few of your queries, I don’t presume to be well versed on the intricacies of Utah politics. Although, I have had an older brother provide anecdotal evidence of just how conservative a Utah conservative can be. I’ll have to take your word for the likelihood of Sen. Bennett winning a primary vote. But I do wonder just how “bloody” that primary would have been; with as fed up as the party activists obviously are with Sen. Bennett.
As for TARP, Paul Ryan voted for it as well. How do the “Tea Party folks” feel about him? TARP and the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act were just the most visual aspects of Sen. Bennett’s problem. It’s pretty clear, even from sources outside of Utah (i.e. Jonah Goldberg and Tony Blankley), that they were part of an overall trend that activists in his state party had grown weary of.
The main point of my post was that there is a growing segment of Conservatives that are tired of electing representatives that refuse to stand up for conservative principles once they get to Washington. The root of this being an inability to reject the false premises continually put forth by the left.
I take a back seat to no one in desiring Sen. Boxer’s “retirement.” But if you’re worried about unintended consequences, I think our current Governor could be Exhibit A in that discussion. However, California may not be the best place to look for examples in any political discussion. The current race for Governor just about says it all, in that regard.
As for Utah and Sen. Bennett, I don’t think I implied that his “ouster” was inspiring. There is little to do with politics that would warrant that adjective. I also don’t think replacing him will be that monumental a task. Only time will tell if either Bridgewater or Lee is up to it.
My own preference is that all politicians should be kept on as short a lease as possible. What is they say about politicians and diapers?
John Schroeder on 12 May 2010 at 4:02 pm #
TVHall:
I, like you, can claim no expertise on Utah politics, but I do trust my blogging partner on such matter implicitly. But having said that, your comment that “a growing segment of Conservatives that are tired of electing representatives that refuse to stand up for conservative principles once they get to Washington.” I have to ask you, what does it mean to “stand up”?
From my perspective, part of being conservative is playing within the rules and conventions and mores of traditional American government. In many cases, to “stand up” to Dems/Liberals would mean tactics that are definitively outside those traditions. How can we in good conscience filibuster judicial nominees in the same fashion as the Dems during the Bush administration when all we asked from them at the time was to respect the traditional use of the filibuster? Should we, when we are next in the majority, use reconciliation to pass our agenda when the will of the nation clearly against us?
In essence, do we want to become as big a jerk as our opponents?
All Bennett did, from what I can tell, is play by the traditional rules. If we sacrifice that, I think we sacrifice our political souls. We cannot claim to be conservative if we legislate in the same fashion as liberals. Such would, I believe, bring us to civil war of a sort. We would see such extreme swings in governmental policy that the nation wold destabilize
Doug King on 12 May 2010 at 9:05 pm #
Not being a Utah resident, I don’t have an opinion about Senator Bennett. I’d like to think his defeat shows politicians should not assume conservative Utah Mormons will rubberstamp whatever the GOP does. But since this was an under-attended caucus event, I’m not sure what it really means other than the Tea Party is gaining strength. Time will tell if that’s a good thing.
The above comments are interesting and reveal the divide between ideology and pragmatism. Lately, I’ve found myself moving closer to the practical Center and further away from the uncompromising, hard Right. It’s true some unprincipled politicians try to occupy the middle (Specter comes to mind). But what’s the point of ideological purity if candidates are unelectable? (Ron Paul comes to mind.)
President Kennedy said:
I think cherished myths plague both sides of the political spectrum, and because Americans are so convinced “we” are right and “they” are wrong, the nation rarely comes together to solve problems. We spend too much time with pundits who reinforce our myths rather than considering other points of view.
Some examples of harmful myths: all good ideas originate from my political party; government can spend itself out of a recession; having big government programs and low taxes at the same time is healthy; big corporations cause all our problems; poor people cause all our problems; racism causes all our problems; illegal immigrants cause all our problems; it’s only fair that the “rich” pay the way for everyone else; we can have a full-employment Green economy; the founders intended America to have a Christian government; government cannot sanction religious expression; etc.
John Adams noted “facts are stubborn things.” Facts are independent of myth. Unless we are willing to explore the complexities of our problems – including carefully listening to different viewpoints – we are going to remain stuck in our national rut.
TVHall on 12 May 2010 at 9:31 pm #
John, in both posts I specifically referenced the problem of accepting left wing premises which have no basis in reality. I think that makes the thrust of my argument pretty clear.
I’m not sure where filibustering judicial nominees came into this discussion, but I will address your analogy. While “playing within rules and conventions and mores of traditional American government” is a part of being a Conservative. I’m not sure how much sense it makes to abide by rules that are no longer in force. It would be analogous to insisting your offensive linemen abide by the more restrictive blocking rules that were in place prior to the mid-1970s, while the other teams use current allowances.
I’m perfectly willing to stipulate that this results in a fairly delicate dance, but that, as they say, is life. I suppose the bottom line in all of this is as Lowell, Jonah, and Tony have aptly stated, and I concur. Sen. Bennett was some variant of in the wrong place at the wrong time. While his shortcomings were not overly egregious, the more active part of his constituency felt it was time to “take the team in another direction.”
It remains to be seen whether that action has positive or negative results. I just wonder if the reaction here has been somewhat inflated. Along with the potential negative impacts stated, there are some positives. If nothing else, it is a relatively low risk method for sending a message. One that appears to have come through loud and clear, judging from some of the politicians’ comments reported on in the media.
jmh on 15 May 2010 at 3:39 pm #
Sen. Bennett may indeed be one of the good guys…however, the people he served, his constituents, decided that he has not reflected their wishes and values- for more reasons than the TARP vote. I am from Utah, although I do not live there now.I think that the voters there are entitled to replace those who represent them, even if they are “one of the good guys”, and it sounds a tad condescending to infer that, in booting Bennett they know not what they do….I believe that Sen. Bennett promised to serve only 2 terms, he has had three. The seat was not promised to him for life, or for as long as HE wanted it.All politicians serve at the leisure of the citizenry, a lesson some seem to forget. Further, the fact that Sen. Bennett, instead of thanking the state for the opportunity to serve as long as he has, and promising to work hard to see that another Republican takes his place ( a statement that would have been classy and gracious and would have endeared him to the people…) is even toying with pulling a “Crist” and splitting the party by either going independent or write in…augers against his good guy status, and smacks of entitlement and personal pique- neither sentiment being a positive reflection on his person or career.
Our country does not have enough distance from the abyss to have the entrenched political class glad hand each other as they make deals and compromises that jeopardize America’s foundation and principles it was forged from. A health care plan with an individual mandate is not made better because it comes from a Republican ( or Republican and Democrat)…same with cap and trade….
Perhaps Sen.. Bennett missed the memo but THE PEOPLE have had it with paternalistic politics…and are done with having stuff shoved down our throats, because our betters know what is good for us. The good news all around is that Sen. Bennett now has the opportunity to catch up, should he be interested enough to do so.
I am opposed to term limits, but I think we are better off not having career politicians who go to Washington and stay…even if they are good ones.