Judge and Jury
Admitting that you’re wrong is a tough thing to do. Most of us prefer to hide our mistakes behind the door of denial, an act of which I’ve certainly been guilty more times than not. This happens to be one of the “not” times.
Wednesday, I opined on the endorsements of the day: Brownback for McCain, Robertson for Giuliani.
I committed my errors on the latter pairing, ascribing to Pat Robertson far greater leadership weight than he actually carries in the Religious Right. He carried that weight at one time, but no longer. I should have known better, or at least checked a few quick sources before publishing that post. But I didn’t … and thus the first error led to compounding errors, namely:
(1) The assumption that, given his falsely perceived influence, Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy G. represented a precedent-setting sacrifice of principle for politics, not by Robertson alone but by the entire RR movement
(2) This compromise perhaps signaled the beginning of the end of the movement’s influence, based on my follow-up assumption that, whether or not you agree with the RR’s two-plank platform, any movement that puts expediency before values is ultimately doomed.
And that, my friends, is what we call a cascade of utter nonsense.
I began to suspect the depths of my blunder when I read this post by Steve Benen later the same day. In it, Benen rightly points out that Robertson no longer holds the sway he used to and suggests Rev. Pat has always been more political than pure. After reading that analysis, just to be “safe,” I tagged an update to my original post, linking to Benen’s. In the 48 hours since, Benen posted again on the subject, with slightly more detail. Dick Polman also chimed in, offering comparable information validating Robertson’s growing marginalization in the RR, not to mention his history of placing politics first. This WSJ report was the final bullet in my riddled illusions.
Of course, you might be wondering why I am compelled to so thoroughly air my mistakes. Honestly, I’m not sure I have a great answer. Maybe it has something to do with my growing distaste for the obfuscation of the politicians and pundits about whom I regularly write, and my realization that’s it’s more than slightly hypocritical to constantly point out the splinters in their eyes, if I don’t start removing the beams in my own.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
3 Responses to “Judge and Jury”
Robertson still has his cable-TV show. That means he still has an audience. That means he still has influence.
He’s not going to make threats to leave the Republican Party. Does that make him more beneficial or less beneficial to the Republican Party?
I don’t know the answer to that, George, although I must admit I have some respect for Robertson’s realization that politics requires compromise and that foreign policy is perhaps the most important issue of the ’08 election, dwarfing social debates over reproductive and non-reproductive sex. However, while I think Robertson has recognized the correct prioritization of political matters in today’s world, he’s still (I fear) backing the wrong guy, and he’s doing so because his (Rev. Pat’s) views of how to deal with foreign policy are precisely the OPPOSITE of what we actually need.
Pete, I think I made a mistake in the opposite direction and wrote off Robertson too quickly. Robertson may not have much clout among the movers and shakers but, as George pointed out, he still has his TV show and has probably now convinced the million or so gray-haired old ladies who send him money to vote for Rudy. Of course I’m still convinced that Robertson picked Rudy because he is the most hawkish of the GOP contenders and Robertson is hoping for Armageddon.