The enduring anomalies that are referred to in the title of this brief have to do with religion and politics. Both of those subjects have fascinated me since I was a lad of six years. Now that I am entering my 86th year, it might be said that I am older but no wiser or alternatively that I am too soon old and too late wise. But this is the season for politics and I am struck by two puzzling anomalies. Let us deal first with the political end of this question. As of this writing on February 8, it appears that John McCain, the war hero, has virtually sewed up the Republican nomination for the presidency. A female commentator this morning, based here in the East, said that he only had to worry about “that hick” from Arkansas. She should have remembered that Arkansas has produced some memorable scholars such as William Fulbright and we should not overlook Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, who went on to serve two terms as President of this country.
It would appear to me, a non-Republican, that the party of the elephant is in great shape. Their nominee is virtually in place some nine months before the November election. He proclaims loudly and effusively that he is a conservative. All signs point to the thought that the party has nine months to come together, to heal the fractures, and to go on to support the conservative candidate for the presidency. The anomaly is that John McCain, the so-called conservative candidate, is now being attacked from several quarters because there are those who contend that he is not conservative enough. This phenomenon is matched only in the Democratic Party, where there are black people who contend that Barack Obama is not black enough. But this essay is about the Republican Party and we will get to the Democrats sooner or later, before I quit writing essays.
John McCain endured five and a half years of torture by the North Vietnamese in their prison system after he was shot down during the war with Vietnam. It would seem that a war hero running for the presidency might be a shoo-in but that certainly is not the case. First there is Laura Ingraham, a right-wing radio commentator, who contends that McCain is not conservative enough for her and her listeners. Then we have Ann Coulter, who purports to be an author of some sort, but when she appears in interviews, her vitriol is unending. Madame Coulter is the most unlovable creature that I can imagine. Yet there was a gossip columnist who reported that she and her boyfriend had recently broken up. I am at a total loss to understand why any man would find her the least bit attractive.
From the male side of the attacks on John McCain, there is Rush Limbaugh. Rush appears three hours per day on a syndicated radio program, and while I am not a listener, I gather that he has more hatred for people who do not agree with him than any sane person could imagine. Limbaugh is beyond the farthest reaches of the lunatic right.
Finally there is James Dobson, a minister of the Nazarene Church. I happen to know a little about that church because as a child, my parents demanded that I attend their services. The Nazarene’s believe that every word in the Bible, whichever version you choose, is literally and absolutely true. Speaking for myself, I must observe that Christians who become allied with the Nazarene sect are bordering on becoming nutty as a fruitcake.
So there we have four people – Ingraham, Coulter, Limbaugh, and Dobson – all attacking John McCain on the ground that he is not conservative enough.
I am not a defender of John McCain and have no intention whatsoever of ever voting for him. But the anomaly is that until now, the Democratic candidates have said virtually nothing against John McCain. The attack has come almost exclusively from the right-wing nuts who have arrogated the right to speak for the entire Republican Party.
John McCain appeared before the convention of the CPAC organization this week. I assume CPAC stands for Conservative Political Action Conference. His speech was laced with apologies. As far as I am concerned, McCain has nothing to apologize for. None of his attackers have ever faced the threats in life that McCain has faced. Yet here he is apologizing to the CPAC convention. Another anomaly.
Finally, if the attacks coming from the Republican Party are not enough, I find today that McCain is being endorsed in a fashion by none other than George W. Bush. It seems to me that any candidate in 2008 would regard Bush’s endorsement as nothing less than an anathema. Can anyone imagine an independent voter saying that he would support McCain because George Bush recommended him? I can imagine that Howard Dean, the Democratic National Chairman, is giggling with great glee. It is not enough that McCain has suggested that we should stay in Iraq for 100 years but now he has the endorsement of the President who is presiding over the recession, or the depression, that has dampened the American economy.
Well, for an old-timer who has been around the block a time or two, it presents an anomaly. It is a case of too soon old, too late smart or a matter of growing older but no smarter.
Now that we have dealt with the political aspects of my anomaly, perhaps it is time to turn to the religious aspects of that question. My experience with religious organizations is that uniformly they contend that their religion is a force for peace. As far as this old observer is able to understand, there are no religions that endorse war as a fundamental principle. Most all contend that they are peaceful in nature.
Before accepting that premise, I must remember the Crusades that were aimed at turning the Moslems into Christians and the Inquisition in which the Jews were burned at the stake for their failure to accept the message of Jesus Christ. In sum and substance, I hear what the religionists have to say about their peaceful intentions, but my ¬-skepticism has yet to be satisfied.
If we take the current war in Iraq as an example, polls for the past two years have indicated that nearly 70% of American citizens wish for that war to be concluded and for the troops to be brought home. Yet the war goes on. The war is unsupported by the Christian nations of Western Europe and by the Hindus of India or the Buddhists who reside in oriental countries. When you scrape away all of the hash about radical Islamic fascist insurgents and fighting them over there to save fighting them here, it seems to me that the war is supported primarily by those citizens who reside in what we call the Bible Belt.
The anomaly here is that the more religious, particularly of the Protestant faith, the more there is support for the war. How can a religion that preaches peace support a war that is now into its seventh year with thousands dead and with our treasury being depleted at an alarming rate? This is nothing more than the Crusades and the Inquisition all over again. The Crusades and Inquisition made no sense then and now, 700 years later. The war in Iraq makes no sense either. Yet we have some of our politicians contending that only they stand in the way of a caliphate being carried out by those horrible radical Islamic Fascists.
In 1942, I joined the American Army as a volunteer because it was the right thing to do. In the year 2008, joining the American Army to stamp out the imaginary caliphate is clearly the wrong thing to do and will get those volunteers killed in the bargain.
Well as you can see, this old essayist is still wrestling with the anomalies both political and religious. I leave you now to sing a verse or two of “Onward, Christian Soldiers, Marching As To War.” That is a rousing hymn but it does nothing to resolve the anomalies that are boiling in my soul. Perhaps it would be better for Christians, Moslems, Jews, and heathens to sing “Ain’t Gonna Study War No More.” At least it would make me feel better to hear that old spiritual.
E. E. CARR
February 8, 2008
Essay 291
~~~
Kevin’s commentary: There are many things upon which Pop and I agree. The abject worthlessness of Ann Coulter is perhaps the strongest of those. Despite never meeting her, I hate that woman in a way that – were it not for her – I would not even know that I was capable of hating.
I had forgotten about the 100 year Iraq thing. That was pretty dumb to say. It’s no 47%er comment though. If I were to advise the next Republican candidate, my rules for personal conduct would be simple:
1) You are always being recorded
2) Given rule 1, always always always think before you speak.
Ain’t gonna study war no more is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EIzKAGwJ-0
Lastly I would note that I think that being a war hero and running the country well have very little to do with one another. At best it can show a sense of discipline or whatnot, and can indicate the quality of a person’s character which is important but not as important (at least to me) as policy decisions.