Pat Robertson is (Almost) Right
You will be hard pressed to find subjects on which Rev. Robertson and I agree. Even on the subject of this post, my agreement is less with what he said in early November to justify his endorsement of Rudy G., more with what he implied.
He said: “… the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists” … other issues “pale into insignificance.”
Translation: Foreign policy is more important than culture policy as we consider the next U.S. President.
Granted, I’m not the first voter (nor will I be the last) to recognize that Robertson’s translated message is spot on. Yes, it’d be nice if the Reverend would tone down his rhetoric and dispense with his persistent, end-of-times madness. It would also be encouraging if his priority ranking of foreign policy led him to endorse a candidate other than Rudy G., i.e., someone (anyone) who would take us in a different direction than Bush/Cheney. But beyond all that, Robertson has a point.
The culture-war touchstones that Karl Rove used to sharpen the GOP’s campaign swords are increasingly yesterday’s news. America’s place in the world and how it relates to that world are the “it factors” that should (though I fear won’t) dominate our Presidential voting decisions.
Now, in agreeing with Robertson’s re-ordering of the universe, I want to be clear that I’m considering much more than Iraq. In fact, during the four-plus weeks since Robertson broke with the Christian Right to downplay the culture wars of the last 30 years, I’ve grown increasingly fixated on two, beyond-Iraq assumptions.
1. The social issues at the core of today’s culture wars will be moot within a generation. There are hints the tide is already turning and will continue to turn. Gen Y, my son’s generation, the first U.S. generation with a super-majority that’s effectively color-blind, seems to be equally open-minded on matters of choice, on whom we choose to love and when we choose to reproduce. If that’s true – if the enlightenment of our children has effectively decided these issues – then there’s little reason to continue fighting about them.
2. Foreign policy touches more topics and has more ramifications, near-term and long-term, than any other category of issues on the table in this election. The candidates’ beliefs about and approaches to foreign policy are not only central to the “obvious” issues (Iraq, war on terror, torture, etc.), they will also affect how the candidates view and respond to:
• Immigration
• Global warming – we can’t act alone; China, India, Russia, and others must contribute to any meaningful response
• Economy – oil imports, trade deficits, the slide of the dollar, exported jobs, open trade
• Healthcare – imported drugs, AIDS crisis in Africa, the threat of pandemics.
Unfortunately, despite the weight and scope of foreign policy, there are multiple signs that this “should-be it factor” will play a lesser role than warranted. Consider …
• In the presidential primary debates, both the professional and pedestrian question-askers continue to devote attention to time-wasting questions, from creationism to diamonds-and-pearls.
• Though Iraq is only one piece of the foreign-policy equation, it has been the central piece for so long that, with Iraq “exhaustion” now setting in, other foreign-policy issues may likewise be ignored or forgotten or shuffled to the side.
• The voters I speak with on a regular basis hint that, once they’re in the voting booth, they will resort to their old parochial ways, voting for the candidate who can best bribe them with perceived guarantees about their jobs, their mortgages, and their health insurance — regardless of that candidate’s positions on or recommended approach to foreign policy.
• Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — a charming fellow in many respects, but terribly un-credentialed on foreign policy — is the GOP’s new love. Why? In part because — despite Pat Robertson’s attempted shuffling of the deck of policy priorities — the rest of the Christian right is not quite ready to give up their blind allegiance to an outdated agenda.
• Even one of my favorite centrist groups, the Republican Leadership Council, continues to focus on social matters rather than foreign policy. Granted, the RLC’s near-term decision to re-build the party via local and state races argues against a global perspective. But with leaders like Danforth -– whose C.V. includes member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Presidential representative to the U.N., special envoy to Sudan, etc. -– you’d think the RLC would be more precise and more involved on foreign policy than passing references to terribly vague and clichéd phrases like “strong national defense” and “engaged foreign policy.” Maybe they’re assuming social moderates will naturally be foreign-policy moderates, although one look at Rudy G. proves that assumption dead wrong.
And so again, while foreign policy should be the principal decision-matrix in the next election, it very well may not be … unless, of course, those of us who recognize its importance argue for its rightful place, pervasively and consistently.
We must convince our families and colleagues that, more than anything else, we need an international statesman in the White House, someone who can deftly balance hard and soft power, strength and dialogue, in order to re-establish America’s credibility, its leadership, and its moral standing on this planet. As Rev. Robertson said: all other issues “pale into insignificance.”
Check it out:
Leading candidates’ foreign policy essays in Foreign Affairs.
“The world in their hands,” from The Economist, December 1, 2007.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “Pat Robertson is (Almost) Right”
This is specific, not general; it is not a general foreign-policy statement. It does not call for less confrontation with our enemies, but more; it does not call for unrelated activities that have tenuous connections at best such as alternative energy development, foreign aid, etc.
Domestic and social issues have not become irrelevent and will not in the years to come.
You’re correct. And that’s why I wrote that Robertson is almost right; that’s also why I emphasized the underlying premise of his statement, namely that foreign affairs are predominant vs. domestic affairs in the context of the 2008 elections. Granted, taking that general cue on which I agree with Rev. Pat, I arrive at a much different conclusion than he does, but I still believe the underlying premise is a good one: If we vote on domestic issues first, we fail to recognize the most critical role of the White House from Jan. 2009 to Dec. 2012.
I’m not saying they have; I’m saying they’re less important than foreign policy issues in the 2008 election for President, for the reasons listed in the post. I’m also predicting that certain social issues (abortion and gay marriage) will be effectively decided within a generation. That’s still up to 20 years off.
Absolutely, foreing policy is most important now.
As it relates to terrorism, we need to grill the candidated on the how, not the what.
I couldn’t agree more that we need a statesman, one who understands the difference between talking to others and talking at them.
We can’t do it all alone, so regaining our creditbilty
and due respect is of utmost importance.
Running down the list of other priority issues (was Afghanistan mentioned?) I can’t help but feel sorry for the next president, whoever that will turn out to be. I don;t know if ever a new president has had such a full plate waiting for him/her.
And in the midst of such an awful political climate, too. I hope there is at least a brief honeymoon period before the fighting resumes.
That was my point.
I am not neglecting Iraq, nor other foreign issues, including the need to improve our intelligence service (and then to use it rather than act largely independently when deciding to go to war somewhere), but domestic issues are important, more important to many people than what happens elsewhere. Certainly people will want to see more being done for health care here in this country before rushing to spend more huge sums of money elsewhere, to name an easy-to-name example.
I wish I shared your conviction that the old social issues are fading into irrelevancy, but I can’t, for at least three reasons:
1) Even if today’s youth are trending away from anti-choicism and homophobia, we can expect that to be met with a furious rear-guard reaction by Robetson and his cohorts. There hasn’t been a big breakthrough on the gay rights front since the Massachusetts gay marriage decision, but it’s coming. See if these issues don’t jump to the top of the ledger when the first state legalizes gay marriage democratically.
2) For every social issue that is fading, we still have plenty that seem to be rising in salience. Church/state, immigration, and to a large extent race seem to be growing in significance. The “color-blindness” of this generation isn’t necessarily a recipe for racial comity — rather, I predict that racial discourse in this country will move around Charles Taylor’s “politics of recognition”, where people want their identity (racial, sexual, religious, and otherwise) to be known and respected by their cohorts (see my Racism as Subjectification paper).
3) As I wrote in my most recent post, the war on terror isn’t going to make the cultural issues fade away, it’s just going to change their framing. Torture is, in my opinion, a “cultural” issue, but one that is being debated within the framework of our national security commitments. The Nativism on the immigration front is also being reflected towards a general distrust towards outsiders. Even more “classic” social issues, like women’s rights, are currently being debated through the lens of Muslim nations whose policies on the subject make a significant portion of our “clash of civilizations” rhetoric.
Pete -
The Washington Post link you provide to document “the tide is turning” doesn’t seem to prove your point about attitudes changing re. “on whom we choose to love and when we choose to reproduce.” Here’s a link that appears to do better on the first score. I couldn’t find recent data on the abortion issue, but the Guttmacher Institute has shown that between 1988 and 1995, young male approval of abortion declined.
Interesting post, but I wonder if something trending in a certain direction means that it inevitably will keep trending in that direction? If anything, American history shows that waves of religious awakening profoundly influence the course of public events, as evidenced by abolitionism that grew out of the religious fervor in early to mid 19th century America. The swinging of the pendulum might be a more apt analogy.
“I can’t help but feel sorry for the next president, whoever that will turn out to be. I don;t know if ever a new president has had such a full plate waiting for him/her.” – domajot
Any of the candidates has to be aware of the fact they would be inheriting an incredible mess… very much the opposite of the state of the union that was inherited in 2000. The obvious moral is that’s it’s a hell of a lot easier to screw things up than it is to run them efficiently.
Foreign policy has always been important, at least in my lifetime, and it will continue to be a priority. But we will continue to neglect environmental issues are our peril. Access to affordable healthcare for all Americans has also been neglected for too long. There is lots of work to be done, and much ground to be made up for.