1. Reject and Denounce: Not Coming Soon to an NBC Affiliate Near You
Sen. John McCain's embrace of the endorsement of Texas televangelist, prosperity preacher, and Christian Zionist zealot John Hagee has led many astute and inquiring minds to ask: Will Tim Russert ask McCain to "reject and denounce" Hagee's support, just as he asked Sen. Barack Obama to "reject and denounce" the support of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan -- even though Obama had never even asked for Farrakhan's support as McCain had solicited Hagee's?
The answer, of course, is no, and here's why: Hagee is a good, white Christian leader -- controversial, inflammatory, and divisive to many, but a hero to millions of Americans and therefore to Republican candidates who want those millions of votes. But Hagee's influence doesn't end with his audience taken in by his "anointed" preaching or his claim to understand God's biblically-prophesied plan for the end of the world. For the neoconservative punditocracy, the fact that his eschatology aligns so nicely with their real politik objectives is more than a coalition-building convenience. Although someone like Bill Kristol, who is scheduled to speak at this year's Christians United for Israel (CUFI) summit, would probably not openly embrace Hagee's dispensationalism, the fact that marching to war is buttressed by a divine mandate helps build a shield of self-righteousness. How dare you patchouli-scented pacifists question us now?
One of the other scheduled speakers at the 2008 CUFI summit is Rick Santorum, who since losing his Senate reelection bid in 2006, has been working at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center's Program to Protect America's Freedom, and is producing a feature film on "radical Islam" that is scheduled to open in October. (He told me that I would "love it." We'll see.) A few months ago, I asked Santorum, who is Catholic, what he thought of Hagee. Santorum replied, "I don't necessarily in all candor buy into all the biblical analogies they make, that's not where I'm coming from theologically, but from the standpoint of factually what's going on in the Middle East, and who the enemy is and what they're doing and the analysis of the geopolitics, I think is generally pretty good."
Hagee gets a pass not only in Santorum's world, but also among Russert's cohort, the inside-the-beltway chattering class, and in the halls of Congress. Would any member of Congress dare to question whether the Christian Zionist cause, in rejecting the possibility of a two-state solution, opposes peace while it awaits the return of the prince of peace? Would any (particularly Jewish) member of Congress reject Hagee's stance on the two-state solution as contrary to the Jewish concept of tikkun olam, which means "to repair the world?" They all quake in their boots over the possibility of being labeled anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. So they dismiss Hagee's eschatology as harmless fantasy, and praise his "love" of Israel.
But of course, it's not harmless. Hagee and like-minded dispensationalists lead millions of Americans to believe that the solutions to the world's crises are found in their bibles. They reject press coverage, critical thinking, and academic analyses that do not comport with their biblical views. Is that good for Israel, for America, or for the human race? These are the questions no one dares to raise, much less answer. So we're, unfortunately, a long way from rejecting and denouncing.
2. Hagee at the Grassroots
I've covered more than a couple events hosted by Hagee, or at which he was a featured speaker. You haven't seen a real swoon until you've been to a Pentecostal/charismatic church service with one of "God's anointed" preachers, like Hagee, telling the rapt audience what the bible means, or ordering them to wave their tithing envelopes in the air. A woman sitting next to me at an event at John and Anne Gimenez's church in Virginia Beach, Virginia last year, at which Hagee was a featured speaker, grabbed my arm as he took the stage and gasped, "Oh, there he is!" (She had never seen him in person but had long admired him.)
That's why, in an interview last week, Bishop Harry Jackson, who has just co-authored a book with the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins on the future of the religious right (more on that below), told me that the Hagee endorsement of McCain is "huge" for conservative evangelicals.
For more on what Hagee is all about, get yourself a copy of my book.
3. The Catholic Question
While McCain was was lambasted by mainstream Catholics for accepting the Hagee endorsement, the Catholic League's Bill Donohue led the media coverage. Because Donohue (who has uttered such gems as "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular") is hardly a model of religious tolerance himself, the coverage had the effect of either elevating Donohue to the status of tolerance watchdog (ahem) or calling the whole thing a wash because a blowhard was attacking someone else for, well, being a blowhard.
On Monday, Hagee issued a statement that, in a nutshell, said that he loves Catholics and, heck, some of his best friends are Catholic. Or used to be. Or something like that.
But as my colleague Gershom Gorenberg pointed out on TAPPED, it was odd that the press coverage seemed limited to Hagee's anti-Catholic remarks. Hagee doesn't confine his "faith"-based venom to Catholics. Although he claims to love the Jews, he believes their "rebellion" brought them punishments like the Holocaust, or that after 2,000 or so years, they'll finally understand that they need to follow Jesus when he returns -- lest they be burned alive in a lake of hellfire.
Hagee has made at least as many anti-Muslim and anti-Arab statements, facilitated anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiment through CUFI, sponsoring speakers who portray Islam as the enemy in an epic battle between good and evil, saber-rattling for war with Muslim nations, and portraying Satan as the force that wants to share Jerusalem with Israel. And his views on feminists, environmentalists, LGBT people, and "secular humanists" are none too pretty, either.
4. Harry Jackson and Tony Perkins Push a "New" Evangelical Agenda
Last week, at a press conference held by the National Black Pro-Life Union, which was commemorating Black History Month with an event condemning the "black genocide" of abortion, I caught up with Jackson, whose new book, Personal Faith, Public Policy, will be released this week. In it, Jackson and Perkins aim to create a new agenda around seven "urgent issues," including abortion, immigration, poverty, race, religion, family, and the environment. I'll have more on the book after I've had a chance to review it.
In the excerpt passed out to reporters at the press conference, however, the pair recount their distress at a 2006 White House meeting at which Karl Rove minimized the role the Christian right vote played in the 2004 presidential election in Ohio. They write, "Rove's statement was either convenient amnesia or an attempt to rewrite history. Rove's cavalier manner served to convince us that the Christian moral values agenda would no longer be a priority of the administration." As a result, they decided that "our Republican-only alliance has not successfully advanced our agenda. In hindsight, we can easily acknowledge our need to impact both political parties."
Jackson told me that he "rebuked" Rove, and others were "very, very taken aback." The talk we heard last year about a third party, Jackson added, was the result of "some of the bombs that went off in that meeting. ... We make the case [in the book] ... that the biggest things that were asked for, the [Republican] Party never, ever delivered." Jackson added that "a radically different approach has to be taken now" with both political parties, with the seven urgent issues as part of the strategy.
In other words, Jackson and Perkins are trying to create an agenda that's not just about abortion and gay marriage, and not just about being beholden to the Republican Party. Sound familiar? Will it be any less conservative? Stay tuned as a lot more evangelicals start throwing their hats in the ring.
5. What's Next for Huckabee?
Before Mike Huckabee dropped out of the Republican presidential race last night, the Washington Times hinted about what might be in his future. The Times reported that Huckabee may just be the next evangelical leader, filling the shoes of the departed Jerry Falwell, or the aging and increasingly incoherent James Dobson or Pat Robertson. But first, according to his aides, he would very much like to be McCain's running mate. "Several of Mr. Huckabee's close advisers," according to the piece, "speaking on the condition of anonymity to freely discuss possibilities, said he does not have an interest in a Cabinet position or in running for the U.S. Senate from Arkansas, but said being on a ticket as vice president would be an attractive alternative."
Contact me at tapthefundamentalistATgmailDOTcom.
