That Wacky, Wacky Krauthammer Volume 4 Posted by Michael Cohen

In this week's edition of "That Wacky, Wacky Krauthammer" we discover that our good friend Charles has been in hibernation for the past 20 years and has just now discovered that Republicans are occasionally divisive during political campaigns. I know, I know, I'm as shocked as you are, but indeed the "Ever Wacky CK" has uncovered the truth.

Apparently, Krauthammer is outraged by the fact that Mike Huckabee is focusing on his Christian faith in Iowa as a way to remind voters that Mitt Romney is of course a Mormon. Chuck believes this is not only divisive, but "un-American."

I suspect that neither Jefferson's Providence nor Washington's Great Author nor Lincoln's Almighty would look kindly on the exploitation of religious differences for political gain. It is un-American. It is unfortunate that Romney has had to justify himself in response.

I don't disagree with the underlying notion here - but for any conservative and highly partisan Republican like Krauthammer to be upset by divisive political tactics . . . well talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Has Krauthammer ever heard of Willie Horton or Ronald Reagan's 1980 attacks on "welfare queens?" And what about gay marriage, the wedge issue of the 2004 campaign. Does Krauthammer think that was divisive? Hardly:

As for dividing Americans, who came up with the idea of radically altering the most ancient of all social institutions in the first place? Until the past few years, every civilization known to man has defined marriage as between people of opposite sex. To charge with "divisiveness" those who would do nothing more than resist a radical overturning of that norm is a sign of either gross partisanship or serious dimwittedness.

So not only is it not divisive to propose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and make it a key campaign theme, but it's divisive of Democrats to even make the charge in the first place! So again, let's review - Republicans attack Democrats on highly divisive wedge issues: OK. Republicans do it to Republicans - not OK!

But, let's get to the matter at hand - Mitt Romney's speech on religious faith. Here's what Romney had to say yesterday:

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Maybe it's just me, but that is one of the most divisive statements I've heard come out of a politician's mouth, on the subject of religion, in a long time. What is the message this sends to non-believers and atheists, which constitutes approximately 30 million Americans, a number far larger then the total number of Mormons in the world. In many respects, Romney's words are as divisive, if not more, then Huckabee's extolling of his "Christian faith." Indeed, Huckabee has never directly attacked Romney's Mormonism.

One would imagine that the constitutional protection of religious faith should allow for both believers and non-believers. Apparently not for Mitt Romney. And he goes even further:

Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.   

This strikes me as being highly debatable and a bit offensive (the pro-choice movement and homosexual rights movement seems only tangentially informed by religious conviction, but then I'm guessing Romney isn't counting those . . . at least any more).

Indeed, Romney even launches an ad hominem attack against those who believe that the separation of church and state must be adhered to:

But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. . . It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

This of course is absurd. Secularists are not trying to impose their "beliefs" on anyone else - they are trying to protect themselves from government sponsored religion. And they have good reason to be afraid of Mitt Romney, who has this to say:

Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests.

Personally, I would hope that our judges respect the rule of law, which is the actually the foundation on which our Constitution rests. In fact, I'm not sure how anyone could argue that our constitution rests on a "foundation of faith." Our Declaration of Independence, maybe, but in fact the word God never once appears in our Constitution.

I understand that Romney is trying to win over Christian voters in the Republican primary, but he has cast his message of religious tolerance in a way that frankly reeks of religious intolerance and that ignores the right of every American to absent themselves from religious affiliation. That might be worthy of a Krauthammer op-ed in the future; but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Let's face it, the GOP's political ascendancy in the last several years has been lubricated in large measure by those who largely value religious faith over secular adherence; and Republican officeholders have consistently and unabashedly played on this fact to try and win elections. But now as Republican office-seekers turn on each other, old Charles is stirred to moral outrage. This is selective outrage of the worst kind. But would we expect anything less from the One of Great Wackiness?

Comments

[Don Bacon]

Excellent post.

Cabbagewhacker likes Romney and believes that The Huckster doesn't even belong in the same company with the Final Four -- (Giuliani/Thompson/McCain/Romney). But gosh, there he is in Iowa where forty percent of the electors are bible-thumpers.

He probably didn't quarrel much when GW Bush, on December 13, 1999, after being asked who was his favorite political philosopher, said: "Christ, because he changed my heart. When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the savior, it changes your heart. It changes your life. And that's what happened to me."

Exploitation of religion for political gain? It's the American way. Anyhow, they're not serious, as Bush has proven. It's all theater.

[Mike M.]

I'd like to see more outrage over Romney's claim that atheists don't have a place in government or American society. I'd like to see it called bigotry because if an atheist ever said that about a Christian, that's what they'd call it.