A Rather Expected Departure

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

We need to be clear about something. Dan Rather departed CBS because he knew a review panel would find that he had violated a cardinal rule of the MSM. Maintain plausible deniability in the liberal coloration of the news. In the quiet watering holes of New York and the private places of their hearts, national journalists know that the scribes and voices of the nation’s major media are colossally more liberal that then the national norm. And they believe that it is honorable to demean the philosophies of the center and right through their work.

They also know that it has to be done in such as way as to maintain deniability. It is a time-tested skill.

Whether because of advancing age or political passion, Rather violated the cardinal rule. He was exposed. The back rooms were aghast at the carelessness. It endangered the honorable quest to undermine the unwashed masses and their silly conservative ideology.

We predicted bloodshed at CBS in this spot on October 29:

“CBS News will emerge from this election the most damaged media entity and it is likely that there will be big changes in the offing. Can you imagine how Edward R. Murrow would feel about his network criticizing soldiers in the field during a time of war. He’s doing somersaults in his grave.”

Even CBS’ comrades-in-arms at the NY Times said today, “Mr. Rather's decision represents an abrupt, somewhat ignominious end to the nearly 24 years that he spent in one of the most visible jobs in journalism.”

Rather had become too obvious, and as such, too dangerous to the cause.

--James Jewell

Green Tea, Moral Values and the Elites

Monday, November 22, 2004

During the presidential campaign, Candy Crowley of CNN found herself sitting with John Kerry in a super-ordinary coffee shop in Dubuque, Iowa. The veteran political correspondent ordered coffee. The senator, from Massachusetts, ordered green tea. The waitress was puzzled.

I spent many of my formative years in eastern Iowa, and I can assure you that while Iowans are not all a bunch of hayseeds, green tea is not high on the beverage list, and this story is quite revealing.

The Crowley incident is related in a column today by Terry Mattingly, a longtime journalist covering the Christian community and now a professor at Palm Beach Atlantic College. His column is syndicated by Scripps-Howard. It is another good analysis of the impact of evangelicals and moral values on the election. Mattingly writes:

Crowley grew up in the Midwest and she thinks she can tell red zones from blue zones. Democrats have cornered the green-tea crowd, she said. Republicans are winning what Capital Beltway insiders now call the “Applebee’s vote.” This schism may have as much to do with cappuccinos and chainsaws as with the New York Times and the Southern Baptist Convention.
Faith played a major role, but it’s simplistic to say that religious people voted for President George W. Bush and secularists for Kerry, said Crowley. The religious left has its own moral and spiritual beliefs and it will, in future elections, find ways to express them in the public square.

It would also be inaccurate to claim that evangelicals marched into voting booths and seized control. Bush won 52 percent of Catholic voters, facing a Catholic candidate, and 59 percent of the overall Protestant vote. The New York Times noted that the president, in four years, raised his share of the Jewish vote from 19 to 25 percent, winning two-thirds of the Orthodox Jewish votes.

The elites just didn’t get it. “Somewhere along the line, all of us missed this moral-values thing,” said Crowley.

--James Jewell

No Need to Puff Graham in LA This Week

Sunday, November 21, 2004

Billy Graham is preaching a crusade in Los Angeles this week, 55 years after the tent revival there that was “puffed” by William Randolph Hearst’s papers and launched the remarkable international Christian ministry of the world’s most famous Protestant. A NY Times article yesterday recounts the straightforward Gospel message that his been the staple of the 86-year-old evangelist.

Mainstream reporters seem amazed that preachers like Graham focus mostly on issues of personal faith, probably because their only exposure to evangelicals has been when the faith community takes on politically charged issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

The Times writes of Graham: “Much of his message seemed focused on personal responsibility. ‘You kill and covet but you cannot get what you want. You quarrel and fight; you do not have because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive because you ask with wrong motives. Sin has affected our minds. We go to church. We pray. We're good people. We're moral people. But He looks at us through His own righteousness and He sees the defects in all of us. Sin.’"

Graham’s whole message is geared to generating decisions among his listeners to receive Jesus Christ as Savior. (President Bush credits Dr. Graham for leading him to Christ.) The evangelist is old and bent. The issues swirling around the world are different. But Gospel message he preaches is indistinguishable from 55 years ago.

--James Jewell

Talking Dirty on Television

Saturday, November 20, 2004

As a culture we have allowed almost every private or prurient thought to be shown or suggested on television or radio. When someone in the media crosses the few remaining lines, we cry to the FCC. But determining media content has never been the true role of government, and it has shown itself to be awkward, ineffective, and uncomfortable at drawing and enforcing the limits of permissible speech or content.

When a an sexually provocative skit is used to lead into a primetime football game, as ABC did last Monday; or a breast is bared during a Super Bowl half-time show, we turn to government to enforce our outrage. Politicians huff and millions of households bemoan the drift from decency. But the penalties are laughable—CBS was fined $550,000 for the Super Bowl offense; ABC’s punishment probably won’t reach that level—and unsatisfying.

The role belongs to the people; to all of us as viewers and consumers. Media content is a reflection of our cultural mores. Although we blame Hollywood or New York, our attention has to be corporate board rooms. Media content does not endure if it is not supported by advertisers and viewed by those who consume the advertisers’ products.

Our outrage is selective. The provocative ABC skit featured a comely actress from their surprise hit, Desperate Housewives, the content of which is so much more sexually explicit than the skit that it makes the reaction to the pre-football gambit a little hollow. We have come to the point as a culture where the only lines we draw are timetables, not decency or social edification. As long as Johnny or Suzy are probably in bed, roll out the crud.

As decision makers in the entertainment industry continue to push up against and frequently cross the lines of acceptability, the Americans who voted for moral values in the last election will push government to do something. However, the call for action is misdirected. It is for the newly discovered “values coalition” to organize consumer action, not government hand slapping.

--James Jewell

Blogerror: Interstate 69 Story Was a Hoax

In a demonstration of amateur blogging, I used information from a blog I was unfamiliar with as a source for my previous post on Interstate 69. The link for a report on legislation by Rep. Hostettler was to The Hoosier Gazette, which if had I looked more closely I would have seen that it is a site that uses both fiction and real-life stories. The story was apparently a total hoax. I apologize to the Indiana congressman, and congratulate the Gazette on very funny gag, which snagged me and other bloggers.

Christian Statesmanship and Absurdity

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

Throughout history it is clear that a statesman who lives an robust and authentic Christian life is of much good to the republic. Where would the world be without Britain’s William Wilberforce, who because of Christian conviction persevered his entire Parliamentary career to end the British slave trade? Where would the nation be without the solid Puritan ethic of John Adams? Where would our national soul be with the conviction of Abraham Lincoln? Would populism have advanced without the powerful voice of William Jennings Bryan? (See this excellent article on what Christians have done with political power historically.)

It is perilous to single out men and women of our time as Christian examples, because the partisanship that rules the day sours the analysis. But some try, as they should. This summer the Center for Christian Statesmanship in Washington, D.C. presented its annual Distinguished Christian Statesman Award to Indiana Congressman John Hostettler. The Center said it gave the award to Hostettler because: “When he has to make decisions on Capitol Hill, he always prays about those decisions and seeks God’s guidance and direction. This is a person who is striving to serve Christ in the public arena.”

I’d never heard of Congressman Hostettler, so I can’t argue with the Center’s choice. Unfortunately, my introduction to the Hoosier legislator was continued in the blogosphere, where I learned that Hostettler is introducing legislation in the House that would change the name of an Interstate 69 extension to a more moral sounding number. As Dave Barry would say: I’m not making this up. Perhaps we should renumber the new Indiana highway Interstate 3, after the Trinity. Or the number of Christ, 7. Maybe 12, for the disciples. It would advance the Kingdom if we could eliminate the number 69 all together, and just count 66...67...68...70. While we’re at it, let’s get rid of the number 6, so we can’t come up with 666. And the number six sounds too much like sex.

Congressman, what are you thinking? With the wind of Christian conviction at your back, address the important issues of state. On the other hand, it does give us something to laugh at.

--James Jewell

Religious Rights at Christmas

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

About this time each year I conduct an informal search--both tragic and humorous-- for Christmas cards that have any reference to the birth of Jesus Christ. One store was kind enough to set aside a section of the Christmas card holdings and title it “religious.” If you think about it, that’s like setting aside a section of a bookstore for books. Of course, most people just don’t think about it.

Arguing against the secularization of the Christmas holiday by our culture is at this point like pushing a rope uphill, but it is still worth fighting as Christians for our right to observe Christmas as a sacred holiday.

From that battleground comes this story from Portland, Oregon:

An Oregon school district has agreed to change its policy prohibiting students from handing out religious Christmas cards to their classmates.

The case involves a 6-year-old kindergarten student who tried to hand out a card explaining the meaning of the candy cane at a class party last December. The card noted that candy canes are shaped like a "J" for Jesus, with white symbolizing Jesus' purity and red representing the blood Jesus shed for his followers.

"We are pleased to resolve this issue in a manner that safeguards the constitutional rights of our client and all students in the Gresham-Barlow School District," said Stuart J. Roth, Senior Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented the student.

"It is unfortunate it took a lawsuit to bring about this change -- but it is encouraging that students will now be able to exercise their free speech rights in the classroom -- including the use of religious references and religious messages if they so desire -- without being censored."

Imagine that.

--James Jewell

More on What Evangelicals Want

Monday, November 15, 2004

There is good discussion among evangelicals concerning the aftermath of the election and what their response and opportunities could and should be. I made my initial sentiments known on November 5, and now appreciate this good new list of evangelical concerns by Christian journalist Stan Guthrie.

In the piece, I’m pleased to see this quote from Charles Colson:

Some fear limiting ourselves to a quid pro quo relationship with Caesar. Says Charles Colson, a former Watergate insider who now heads Prison Fellowship, ‘I disassociate myself from anyone who says, ‘Now we voted for you, it’s payback time. Give us our due.’ That’s what special interest groups do, and we’re not a special interest group. We vote our conscience and what we believe is in the best general interest.”

--jwpj

The News That Wasn’t: Scott Peterson is a Convicted Nobody

One of the top national stories of the week was not national news at all.

Have you ever heard of Russ Smith, Fred Neulander, Nikoly Soltys, Richard Sharpe, Mark Winger, or James Pitts. Probably not. These were men who were convicted recently of murdering their wives in celebrated local cases that never received more than brief mention in the national news. They all killed their mates. A prosecution presented evidence of their guilt, a defense attorney argued that they were innocent, and a jury decided there was their guilt was beyond a reasonable doubt. They left grieving families, and often motherless children.

But none of this was significant news beyond the locale where the crimes were committed.

The true-life crime shows--entertainment fare—might have been interested, but not the national news shows. That’s because every year some 572,000 women are the victims of violence committed by an intimate (spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend), according the Bureau of Justice Statistics. One-third of the 90-100 women killed in America every week are murdered by husbands or boyfriends.

There was no good reason to treat the trial or conviction of Scott Peterson any differently. To the nation, Scott Peterson was a nobody who murdered his wife, was convicted by a jury of his peers, and will pay for it with his life—either by execution or the slow death of life in prison. It became national news because media decided to make it news.

Media gatekeepers not only decide which news to present; they decide what they will define as news. The O.J. Simpson Trial was such a media hit that decision makers decided to duplicate it without the benefit of a celebrity. At least we knew Simpson and even liked him, or at least admired his athletic prowess and broadcasting ability.

Scott Peterson could have easily been another Smith, Neulander, Soltys, Sharpe, Winger, or Pitts, but for a few media gatekeepers who decided his story had the drama and salacious appeal necessary to attract wider attention. Their reading of the prurient interest of the audience was right, of course. It had all of that and more. Their news judgment was wrong. It was never national news, and it still isn’t

Conservative media darling Fox News Channel was the worst offender, and the network bragged often in recent days about their blanket coverage. In this case, in their drive to overtake the news operations of the major networks, the decision makers at Fox News Channel more closely resembled the poor taste of their cousins at the Fox network.

Of course, at the end we were all interested in the verdict, but that doesn’t validate the over-coverage by media. It simply demonstrates media power to control the national discussion.

Let’s grant Scott Peterson the lonely agony he deserves. Move on to something else. This was never national news.

--James Jewell

Blogs Praised and Prodded at Online News Association

The AP reported Saturday that blogs took center stage at the ONA conference. The article reads in part:

Blogs have begun to play a major role in both elevating politics-related stories to more established media outlets and punching holes in flawed journalism by those same newspapers and television news programs. But some at the gathering said they can face a near-constant struggle to establish the credibility enjoyed by professionals.

Blogs have begun to play a major role in both elevating politics-related stories to more established media outlets and punching holes in flawed journalism by those same newspapers and television news programs. But some at the gathering said they can face a near-constant struggle to establish the credibility enjoyed by professionals."

Things get picked up by bloggers that take awhile to get picked up by the mainstream media," said Mark Glaser, a columnist for the Online Journalism Review who writes about Web logs.

"Bloggers have to start from scratch in building trust."Glaser noted the importance of bloggers in tearing down CBS News' election season story about President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. The constant barrage of questions and charges from the Web kept heat on the network until it admitted a mistake in relying on fake documents for the story, which said Bush's commander felt pressured to sugarcoat an evaluation after the future president failed to take a medical exam.

Mindy McAdams, a journalism professor at the University of Florida, applauded the work by bloggers, but urged them to adhere to ethical standards held by mainstream journalists."Our credibility is suffering with so many people rushing to publish things without checking them out," McAdams said after Cox's speech.

"Blogging is really great. I like that more and more people have a voice. That's good ... But it doesn't give people who call themselves journalists an excuse to not check out the information."

--jwpj

Back Down the Sawdust Trail

Friday, November 12, 2004

Just as the longed-for influence of evangelical Christian voters is being acknowledged in nearly every quarter, and strategists from both the West Wing and the Left wing are asking how to deal with this powerful group of believers, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have stepped back on stage and provided the caricatures our adversaries need to force the faith groups back outside, back to our tent meetings.

The old leaders of the religious right are celebrating the role of evangelicals in the recent election, as they should. But they are also seeking to have a major voice in the discussion to come, something they should avoid.

This week, Falwell announced that he was launching the Faith and Values Coalition. "The group's central premise is to utilize the momentum of the November 2 elections to maintain an evangelical revolution of voters who will continue to go to the polls to 'vote Christian,” Falwell said. “Essentially, the Coalition is a 21st century resurrection of the Moral Majority.”

For years, Robertson and Falwell have been the two most-reviled conservative Christian figures in America. Much of the bile is unfair; unfortunately, part is deserved. The last time we heard from Robertson was just a few weeks ago, when he was playing for ink by dissing the President on Iraq (remember: he told the president that Iraq would be messy). The last time we heard from Falwell he was characterizing the attacks of 9/11 as the judgment of God on America for its tolerance of homosexuality and other social sins.

This is no time for their re-emergence. It will divide the cultural conservatives that came together powerfully in this election, and make the new coalition vulnerable to the wiles of liberals who will soon be schmoozing its fringes and singing Amazing Grace at every gathering. Yesterday in The Washington Post, Sojourners head Jim Wallis, an evangelical liberal, said: “There is a vast religious middle, including progressive evangelicals, resurgent mainline Protestants and socially conservative African Americans, that could be attracted by biblically based prophetic appeals to make peace, fight poverty and spread social justice.”
It is wrong to conclude that America has found Jesus. And even more wrong to conclude that when voters cited moral values they were signing membership cards to the new Moral Majority. The values voters were a blend of white evangelicals, conservative Catholics, family-oriented blacks and Hispanics, and other deists who connected with the morality and goodness of the President. Many will run the other way when Jerry comes calling.

We Are The Mainstream
The values voters are now centrist, Atlanta writer Shaunti Feldhahn argued in the Journal-Constitution:

“Many media leaders were shocked that moral values topped the list of "most important issues" in the election, that being a regular churchgoer was the best predictor of presidential choice, and that the religious right came out in such numbers.

That surprise demonstrates just how out of touch the elite media and the liberal establishment are. For values voters are not the "religious right." We are the mainstream.
Our values are absolutely in keeping with the mores that founded this country and run deep through our culture to this day --- including among minorities who voted for Sen. John Kerry in spite of his social stands, not because of them

As strange as this sounds after years of media messages to the contrary, this election demonstrated that those holding traditional moral beliefs are centrist. Those who say otherwise prove that they are actually the ones out of the mainstream, way off on the left bank somewhere.

This makes the recent calls for President Bush to stop pandering to his right-wing base and govern from the center all the more nonsensical. On moral issues at least, he has been governing from the center --- the center of America, just not the center of a party divide that has increasingly skewed left. That the Democrats felt comfortable putting the race in the hands of their most liberal senator --- who opposed a ban on partial-birth abortion, for goodness' sake! --- shows how far left the party has drifted.”

Right and Wrong
James Dobson may have captured one aspect of these voters: “A values voter,” he said, “is someone with "a Christian worldview who begins with the assumption that God is -- that he not only exists, but he is the definer of right and wrong, and there are some things that are moral and some things that are immoral, some things that are evil and some things that are good. Although liberals may mock Bush for his good-vs.-evil approach to the world, it is seen by many of us not as a negative but as a positive.”

A Good Man
"The first thing that drew me to Bush was his morals and his character," said Nancy Wallace, 44, a homemaker in suburban Columbus. "There was never really a choice for us," Mrs. Wallace said. “And I'm speaking not only for me but for my husband and neighbors. He's just an honest, hard-working, good man who had a tragedy to deal with and I think he did a great job.”

Character Can Trump Self-Interest
The new values coalition is full of people who see character as more important than self-interest. The Marin (CA) Independent Journal reported: "When Sausalito resident Marty Krasney was in Ohio this month working on the Kerry campaign, he met a woman with a life-threatening disease who lacked health care insurance and could have benefited from stem cell research. Krasney was surprised when the woman told him she planned to vote for George W. Bush, not John Kerry. 'I can't vote for a baby killer,'” she told him. It is this combination of conviction and character that has Democrats across the country scratching their heads and pondering just what they need to do to restore the party's majority status.

Evangelicals Have Many Concerns
Even if the new values coalition was comprised completely of evangelicals, there is not unanimity on many issues and (as I argued on Nov. 5 in this space) the bloc is not concerned only about the issues of the old Moral Majority.

I have helped Jerry Falwell in a number of public relations challenges over the years and I have a high opinion of him as a person. He’s a much better man than the nation knows. He’s a good and compassionate person, and a loving father and grandfather. He’s fought the good fight. But his day is past. He can no longer be effective in helping the movement go forward because he is a polarizing figure and he divides the new values coalition. Jerry, please pass the torch.

If the old guard of the religious right demands the spotlight, the MSM will be more than glad to grant it to them, and the new Christian values coalition will head back down the old sawdust trail.

--James Jewell

What About Freedom?

I noticed a post on a website called Dolphin while surfing the Blog Explosion earlier this week, and since I had to actually work on something then that I could bill my time for, I promised him I would respond this week. So here we go.

Dolphin, you showed in your post that you don’t know squat about evangelicals. But that’s OK. The reason you don’t is because you’ve made the mistake of listening only to the most vocal leaders of the religious right. You quote Pat Robertson in your piece. To assume that Pat Robertson speaks for the broad coalition of what is already being called “values voters” makes as much sense as conservatives quoting Michael Moore as the representative of the Democratic Party. They represent the extremes and crystallizing our impressions around their positions does nothing constructive.

I contend in another post today that the new values coalition is much broader than the white evangelicals of the old Moral Majority (which I sense you are too young to remember). And last Friday, Nov. 5, I explored what it is that the broader evangelical community may want from the Administration. These pieces will give you a more complete view of evangelical Christians.

Conservative Judges
Cultural conservatives will indeed argue for judges who are strict constructionists. It’s not likely that Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned, but the entire judiciary has drifted to activism that is not healthy for our republic, so putting more conservatives on the bench is a worthwhile goal, in my view.

No Homosexual Marriage
There aren’t many evangelicals that really want to think about what you do in your bedroom, straight or gay, not to mention restrict your freedom to engage in whatever consensual activity you wish. Have at it; it’s your body and your soul.

There is a range of opinion in the evangelical community and among cultural conservatives—and certainly in the larger coalition of values voters—on what rights and benefits should be provided to homosexuals in committed relationships. And that is where the homosexual community and those who took up their cause made such a grievous tactical error. Done gradually, homosexual couples would have eventually received all of the important benefits, such as insurance coverage, afforded married couples. There would be continuing opposition among the most conservative groups, but they would be on the losing side.

Through either stupidity or arrogance, those pushing what evangelicals call the “gay agenda” instead went for broke in Massachusetts, and then San Francisco, and New York, and on and on. By threatening the definition and what Christians believe is the sanctity of what Western Civilization has called marriage for 4,000 years, the liberals pushed a dangerous button. The values voters said “no” in a big way. Gay marriage is dead in America for our lifetime, at least. It’s a non-starter.

How did restricting the right to gay marriage make me feel any better? You have to look at an issue such as the institution of marriage outside the realm of personal rights or freedoms. Societal institutions are important glue to maintaining civilization, as we know it. Preserving marriage as marriage does keep a piece of the foundation in place. Doesn’t help my marriage—my wife and I have the challenge of keeping it together. But I believe it is one of the pillars of our society.

The homosexuals will have to come up with something new. God gave this one to the men and women.

Stop Abortion
Many people believe that aborting a fetus is murder. Strip away all of the extra rhetoric and the argument comes down to your answer to the question of whether ending the life of a fetus is murder or tissue removal.

Those who believe that an abortion is an act of murder are committed to doing what they can to restrict the freedom to murder. If you don’t believe that abortion is murder, you will never understand why the pro-life people so passionately want to take away your freedom to do so.

Dolphin, I don’t really think you’re in a freedom deficit. You’re just whining! That’s the way I see it.

--James Jewell

A Veteran of the Greatest Generation

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Veteran’s Day 2004
When I think of veterans on their day I picture proud but bowed men now in their seventies and eighties speaking hesitantly about their service a lifetime ago in the killing fields of Europe and Asia. We owe our nation to them, because of their moral strength, their youthful sacrifices, and their country-building ethic.

There has been much courage and dreadful sacrifice by veterans in the intervening years, but for me Veteran’s Day 2004 is a memorial for my favorite veteran, my father, who left us in January of this year at the age of 79.

“They were better than we are,” said the commentator, probably Tom Brokaw, about the generation that saved the world from the last century’s Axis of Evil. The stark statement is true, we know. My father, Harry Jewell, was better than I am, I know.

Dad was a member of what they’re calling The Greatest Generation. He served his country mostly in Italy during World War II, and he was a hero of the American variety—putting his life on the line to save the world, and spending his life to serve his family, assuring their well-being in so many ways.

Dad told very few stories of the War, like most of his comrades in arms who saw their service as opportunities for duty, not celebrity; and didn’t relish the ugly memories. But from time to time we’d pull out a remarkable tale. Such as the time he was racing his jeep across an open field, with German artillery following him, but missing by just a few paces each time. Or the time he and others stepped inside a building, and their friend was obliterated by a shell on the front step. Death was always so close.

A sense of purpose prevailed and soldiers like Dad never asked why. Evil is evil, but men like Dad didn’t have any trouble recognizing it, as many seem to today.

A man of deep faith, my Dad demonstrated his peace with God in his final days and his homegoing. In life and at death he was an example to all of us.

Thank you veterans then and now. And thanks Dad. I miss you.

--James Jewell

The Dearth of Judicial Purity

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

One of the consequences of a toxic political environment is that there is little integrity in political rhetoric. Not to say there isn’t integrity in individuals (a different discussion), just not in the discussion and application of political philosophy.

One of the joys of a post-election honeymoon is that for a season people drop their guard and tell the truth. But after what is likely to be the shortest post-election honeymoon in history, there is already an eruption of disingenuous debate about the nomination of a new chief justice and, over four years, additional justices. (Of course, Rehnquist may rally and the others granted additional stamina, making all of this theoretical).

There are few purists when it comes to jurists, and none of them would be candidates for legislative confirmation. Over time, the acceptable range of judicial philosophy has included both strict and broad constructionists and varied degrees of recognition of social dynamism or change.

There is no successful strict constructionist who would say that slavery should have been continued because it was implied in the original Constitution; few would call for the vote to be taken from women because the Constitution didn’t grant it. On the other hand, civil libertarians become Constitutional purists when there is an attempt to restrict pornography or to avoid same-sex marriage.

(This just in: President Bush has launched an internal review of the pros and cons of nominating Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as the chief justice if ailing William Rehnquist retires, the Drudge Reported claimed. A top White House source familiar with Bush’s thinking explains the review of Thomas as chief justice is one of several options currently under serious consideration. But Thomas is Bush’s personal favorite to take the position. What an interesting trial balloon.)

Pure judicial philosophy is rare in modern society. If (in theory) abortion had been prescribed by the Constitution, those of us who are pro-life would be looking for the same judicial and legislative activism that outlawed slavery. But the right to an abortion was created out of whole cloth by an activist court; so the pro-life movement needs a pride of conservative tigers on the bench.

The courts have been drifting dramatically left in recent years and legislating from the bench has been commonplace. The need for a return to restraint is seen in many areas where activists have established laws and rights with only incidental reference to the Constitution. (Judge Bork on Hannity Monday night pointed out that in modern history there isn’t an example of a Supreme Court justice drifting right, but many examples of leftward drift).

A court with more strict constructionists may or may not result in the reversing of Roe v. Wade. Nonetheless, preserving the authority of the Constitution and the intent of the founders is important. Strong constitutions are essential in the origin and health of nations.

There shouldn’t be a topical litmus test of any kind. Judges should be chosen for legal competence, integrity, and reasoned judicial philosophy. Not for what their philosophy may lead to in the way of social change. But, of course, that would have real integrity.

--James Jewell

The Supreme Court and a Second Term President

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

In 1936, Franklin Roosevelt won a second of four elections as President by 10 million votes, and while he certainly enjoyed what today we would call a mandate, he had problems with the justices of the Supreme Court, most of whom had been appointed by Republican Presidents. The Court's opposition to some of his proposed New Deal legislation upset Roosevelt, who resented the fact that they could veto legislation that clearly had the support of the vast majority of the public.

Roosevelt suggested that their age was a major problem, as six of the judges were over 70. He announced that he was going to ask Congress to pass a bill enabling the president to expand the Supreme Court by adding one new judge, up to a maximum off six, for every current judge over the age of 70. Washington called it “packing the court.” Talk about second term hubris!

In a radio speech on March 9, 1937, Roosevelt said:

“If by that phrase "packing the Court" it is charged that I wish to place on the bench spineless puppets who would disregard the law and would decide specific cases as I wished them to be decided, I make this answer: that no president fit for his office would appoint, and no Senate of honorable men fit for their office would confirm, that kind of appointees to the Supreme Court.

But if by that phrase the charge is made that I would appoint and the Senate would confirm justices worthy to sit beside present members of the Court, who understand modern conditions, that I will appoint justices who will not undertake to override the judgment of the Congress on legislative policy, that I will appoint justices who will act as justices and not as legislators - if the appointment of such justices can be called "packing the Courts," then I say that I and with me the vast majority of the American people favor doing just that thing - now.”

Notice that Roosevelt’s strategy is to imply that the justices on this conservative court are legislating, not interpreting the Constitution. That sounds familiar.

While the legislation didn’t make it through Congress, Roosevelt got what he wanted. One justice announced that he had changed his mind about voting against minimum wage legislation. Chief Justice CharlesHughes also reversed his opinion on the Social Security Act and the National Labor Relations Act and by a 5-4 vote they were now declared to be constitutional. Then Willis Van Devanter, probably the most conservative of the justices, announced his intention to resign. He was replaced by Hugo Black, a Democrat and a strong supporter of the New Deal.

The Court caved. Roosevelt had the satisfaction of knowing he had a Supreme Court that was now less likely to block his legislation.

Check out a line from Roosevelt’s 1937 speech:

“I hope that you have re-read the Constitution of the United States in these past few weeks. Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again.”

The Bible! Today, the ACLU would be up in arms.

--James Jewell

The Kingdom of God Does Not Arrive on Air Force One

Monday, November 08, 2004

During the Reagan years, when Christian conservatives first were experiencing a modicum of political power, former Nixon aide and evangelical powerhouse Charles Colson warned famously: “The Kingdom of God does not arrive on Air Force One,” and cautioned that politicians play religious leaders like a fiddle (as he did when he was twisting arms for President Nixon).

How is 2004 different than the 1980s? Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative public interest law firm in Washington, D.C., speaking about religious conservatives, said in the Nov. 5 Newsday: "This is not the same movement that we saw in the 1980s. This is a religious resurgence, and also a retooling. This is a much more diverse group of people, united across a broad range of issues."

This comparison is worth exploring more completely another day.

Now, How Will Bush Govern?
Kim Lawton of PBS’ Religion and Ethics Newsweekly asked Joe Loconte of the Heritage Foundation about pressures by the evangelicals on President Bush. Loconte said:

“Surprisingly, I think we are going to see President Bush govern more like a principled pragmatist than many of his critics are right now assuming. They are assuming that he owes his great debt to his religious, conservative base on certain issues and that he is going to push the cultural agenda forward. But I don't think that's really Bush's governing style, 'cause he has shown real restraint on some of these cultural issues, these hot button cultural issues -- stem cell research, for example. He was only kind of pulled into the gay marriage debate, somewhat unwillingly. So I think there is going to be much more of a kind of a principled pragmatism to deal with these issues in the next months and years.

[The evangelicals] are certainly going to want to see the president hold the line on embryonic stem cell research -- no federal funding for that. Bush has said plainly in the debates, he's against federal funding for abortion -- he'll hold the line on that. Let's take Supreme Court judges, where the cultural issues tend to bubble up so much. Bush's line here has been that he wants judges who will -- who know the difference between their own opinions and settled constitutional law. So I don't think that Bush is going to bring before the court, for example, a judge who would overturn ROE V. WADE. And Bush himself has said he doesn't think the country is ready for that. So, certainly, Bush is going to hold the line on some of these issues, but I think be very, very cautious about trying to push the cultural agenda much further than where a general consensus of the country is.”

Pro-Bush Writer Finds Herself in Minority
Humorist Judy Gruen tells. Religion News Service: As a journalist and religious Jew, I am not threatened by the basic Christian values of America and of President Bush. I am more threatened by the moral relativism of the left, where third-trimester abortions are coyly framed only as a woman's "right to choose," and those who fight to preserve the institution of marriage are called bigots. Most likely, I'll remain a minority among journalists for my conservative views. But I hope that in the next four years, the good effects that I expect from President Bush's policies for the entire country will at least make me seem less strange to my colleagues on the left.

Gruen provides interesting perspective on the rough and tumble presidential contest:

“Let’s face it: the presidential election season was rife with accusations of war-mongering, bitter party divisiveness, media bias, fears of election fraud, worries about a tie in the electoral college, and even disputes about how to handle relations with France. All this is true . . . of the presidential election of 1800. In reading David McCullough’s fantastic biography, John Adams, I have been struck by how much history from the earliest years of our nationhood mirrors our own, but in far more extreme measures. In fact, the poisonous atmosphere surrounding the presidential election of 1800 makes what we have seen in the current election seem like a game a whiffle ball. Back in 1800, many Americans worried that the country might not even survive such a bitter election. And yet it did, despite the election ending up a tie in the electoral college, with Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr receiving an equal number of votes. Jefferson became president when the vote was sent to the House of Representatives.”

Presidential Faith and Fortitude
This from Rebecca Hagelin at Heritage:

"'Life is bigger than politics.' This is an astounding statement from a political figure who has been twice elected as the most powerful man in the world. But it is precisely because the American people know that George Bush understands what is of value that they have given him a mandate and the privilege of power. America knows that for George Bush, being president isn't about politics … it's about life itself.

Of course, the faith and fortitude that has come to characterize George Bush was most vividly evident in the days immediately after 9-11. The world saw a president who was calm, determined, resolved and absolutely committed to fighting evil. And the same demeanor has been continuously evident ever since through all the difficult and gut-wrenching days of war and criticism.George Bush is not the world's best debater or smoothest talker. We all love a great speech, a witty debate, a clever comeback. But what we desire – what we need in this age of uncertainty – is a leader who lives his faith, adheres to core principles and remains steadfast in the face of adversity.”

--James Jewell

What Do The Evangelicals Want?

Friday, November 05, 2004

To the dismay of the secular left and the surprise of even many conservative Christians, the evangelicals appear to have been the cavalry in George Bush’s charge to victory. It was the MSM that first reported this and it has been the most prominent point in post-election analysis.
The next question being asked is “What will the evangelicals expect from the President?”

At the President’s first post-election press conference, he was asked how in choosing the next Supreme Court justice he would balance the pressure from evangelicals and his stated desire to reduce the nation's partisan tensions. He said only that there is no current vacancy.

Michael Cromartie, director of the Evangelicals in Civic Life project at the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, said evangelicals may not win every political battle ahead, but there is no question they will loom large in the Republican Party for years to come. "They're not taking over the party," he said, "but they are major players in the party. They're major players at the table of Republican discourse."

But just what is it evangelicals want? What will evangelicals request of a President who was re-elected because they worked so hard for it?

A few thoughts here. First, it is interesting to observe the MSM now calling the group “evangelicals,” not the Christian right, or religious right, or fundamentalist fringe. That’s a new thing.

Second, it is more complicated than some may think to answer the question of evangelical desires, because evangelicals are not a monolithic group, any more than Catholics or union members, or Hispanics. On many issues of economic policy or foreign policy evangelicals have many views. In fact, the group can’t agree on many theological issues—its made up of the dispensationalists and the charismatics, the Wesleyans and the Calvinists, the fundamentalists and the grace movement. They say if you have two Baptists in the room there are three opinions.

But there are some actions that a large majority of evangelicals would want from President Bush in his second term. Here’s what I believe are the 10 things evangelicals want from the President:

1. Conservative Supreme Court Justices. Evangelicals believe that many of their set-backs are the result of an activist judiciary. This isn’t just about Roe v. Wade. We agree with Bush’s statement at his press conference that he should choose justices who know "the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law."

2. Constitutional Amendment on Marriage: Although evangelicals have varied opinions on what recognition and benefits should be provided to gay unions, most believe that the Federal Marriage Amendment is necessary because the courts still pose a danger to definition of marriage. Evangelicals believe the only way we are going to settle it once and for all is by an amendment to the Constitution.

3. Compassionate Conservatism: Encourage American citizens to care for the poor and give a lift to those who are struggling to make it. Without increasing the role of government, advance the efforts of the church-based and non-profit sectors, of volunteerism, and the efforts of what the first President Bush called “points of light.”

4. Security for America and Western Civilization: Strengthen America in the War on Terrorism and also in the clash of civilizations against radical Islam. Evangelicals recognize and can say what the Administration has had to be more diplomatic about—this battle against terrorism is largely against Islamic extremists who are seeking to dominant the world.

5. Religious Freedom Around the World: Defend the persecuted Church and others of faith around the world, and drive for religious freedom as a part of emerging democracies, even in the Muslim world and in China.

6. Religious Influence at Home: Defend the right of people of faith in this country to be part of the free exchange of ideas, to include religious thought in the public square. Evangelicals want a level playing field in our own country, with no preference given to secular thought or even Islam.

7. Personal Moral Leadership: Evangelicals expect the President and his Administration to demonstrate personal morality. While recognizing that the President is not minister-in-chief, when morality is modeled in the Oval Office, it is more widely honored throughout the country.

8. Sanctity of Life: Apart from the question of the Supreme Court, evangelicals want the President to do what he can to preserve the sanctity of life by resisting the encroachment of abortion, euthanasia, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research.

9. Promote Character: Use the “bully pulpit” to speak out against real racism, to call for personal responsibility, to call for people to grasp opportunity and take initiative, and to argue against the victimization mindset. Evangelicals believe in hard work, taking responsibility, and accepting the consequences of bad decisions.

10. Human Rights: Emphasize in foreign policy the protection of human rights, whether it's stopping sex-trafficking, slavery and genocide in Sudan, the spread of AIDS in Africa, or the remaining human rights abuses in China.

Congratulations, Mr. President. There’s the list. It’s what the evangelicals waited in line for on election day. Now you know.

--James Jewell

Thank You, Mayor Newsom

One question that I’ve heard this week is “who was most responsible for Bush’s re-election.” In addition to the President himself, there are several candidates,—Karl Rove is one that comes to mind. But the leading candidate may be San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Back in March 2004, Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, the law firm that filed suit against Newsom and other public figures that were playing fast and loose with the gay marriage issue, wrote:

“My hat’s off to Mayor Newsome for waking up the rest of the sleeping Americans who were fooled into thinking that the same-sex marriage movement was about tolerance and equality. It’s not, and it never has been. Mayor Newsome has clarified what the movement is all about. His message is loud and clear. America has heard and they will respond.”

Respond they did. Now, the Democrats are suggesting that the San Francisco action had its toll. "I believe it did energize a very conservative vote," Senator Dianne Feinstein, a fellow Democrat and Newsom supporter said of the same-sex marriages in San Francisco. "I think it gave them a position to rally around. I'm not casting a value judgment. I'm just saying I do believe that's what happened."

On the other hand, there are a lot of candidates in naming the one who most energized the conservative base. Michael Moore and Whoopi Goldberg also come to mind.

--James Jewell

Simply Picking a Good Man

Those who spend their time obsessing on politics and the intricacies of governing forget that most people in the country are living their lives, raising their kids, finding good entertainment, going to church, walking the dog, and shopping at Walmart. As we expect a politicized America, what we find mostly is America doing other things and paying attention to politics when they have to.

With this as a premise, I found the most compelling reason that George Bush won re-election so handily in a New York Times article yesterday titled War? Jobs? No, Character Counted Most to Voters.

"The first thing that drew me to Bush was his morals and his character," said Nancy Wallace, 44, a homemaker here in this tidy suburb of Columbus.

Mrs. Wallace grew up in a family of Democratic union members and coal miners but abandoned the Democrats two decades ago, or, as she put it, they abandoned her. She voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, she said, and never wavered in her support in the dark days that followed: Sept. 11, a recession that hit Ohio especially hard, the war in Iraq.

"There was never really a choice for us," Mrs. Wallace said. "And I'm speaking not only for me but for my husband and neighbors. He's just an honest, hard-working, good man who had a tragedy to deal with and I think he did a great job."

Many of those who voted for Mr. Bush said they often disagreed with his actions. Some opposed the war in Iraq, disapproved of his handling of the economy, differed on stem-cell research or abortion. Several said they feared he would appoint Supreme Court justices who are too far to the right.

But even when they disagreed with Mr. Bush, they said, they admired his resolution, a trait Mr. Kerry portrayed as stubbornness.

"Bush doesn't let polls influence him," said Sandy Johnson, 45, who had just finished listening to Mr. Bush's victory speech on the radio in her home office in Carver County, Minn., which went overwhelmingly for Mr. Bush. "Even when he makes decisions that may not be popular, even on security, he does it in the best interest of the country and he does what he thinks is right. So in a way, all of that comes down to integrity."

Ms. Johnson said she grew tired of the accusations that Mr. Kerry had "flip-flopped." Still, she said, "I came away from this thinking that Kerry lacked integrity. I wasn't sure what he believed. He needs to be everything to everybody around the world. You cannot say that about Bush, even if you don't agree with him."

She described an American cultural divide in a deeply personal way.

"I have been made to feel by the liberal people that my faith makes me weird," Ms. Johnson said. "I don't wear my religion on my sleeve either; I'm quiet about it. But I firmly believe that my country was founded on faith, and when I saw the popular vote this time, it made me feel like I'm not such an outsider, that there are others like me, and a lot of them."

--James Jewell

Post-Election Blogview

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Relieved that the election is over, and downright giddy about the presidential result and the apparent move of the nation to the center-right, we decided this morning to surf the Pundits at Blogs4God to listen in on the chatter. Here’s a sampling:

Veritas: Did you know that Kerry's margin of victory was smaller in Pennsylvania than was Bush's in Ohio?

Midwest Conservative Journal : When asked what he planned to do if Kerry lost the election, Soros said that he plans to enter a monastery for a time because he will need to contemplate what is wrong with the people of this country.. . .Michael Moore is not dealing with yesterday very well at all. But in Mike's defense, you'd be bent too if you'd spent your own money and all that time and effort to make a very long Kerry campaign commercial only to have your man lose as badly as Senator Kerry did. But cheer up, Mike. They're probably going to give you an Oscar for the thing and so you'll get at least one world-wide forum soon to tell us how stupid and evil we are.

The folks at provided Junkyard Blog more thoughts on what we commented on yesterday—the partial courage at NBC—from an interview of Brokaw by Imus:

Imus: What was the the President waiting for to declare victory---some network to award him Nevada or New Mexico?

Brokaw: No. I think he was at one point. We had emails and calls from the White House [asking] "Why aren't you calling Nevada and New Mexico?"

We were not going to get into that position as long as the Kerry people were contesting Ohio, as I think they had every right to do. We wanted to let that play out because they felt they could pull that back into their column. That's why their doing that. And after what we went through 4 years ago, we weren't going to get into a position where we were going to declare a winner and have to pull that back or something else would happen.

So, we just stopped declaring states after Ohio at 269.

Well! How convenient! So NBC knew if they called Nevada, they would be forced to admit Bush won the majority of electoral votes. So they held out hope for Kerry and refused to call it.

One Hand Clapping comments John Kerry's concession speech was gracious and gentlemanly. I really liked his near-closing line, "I saw in them the truth that America is not only great, but it is good." It brought to my mind de Tocqueville's observation that America is great because Americans are good, and that when Americans cease to be good, America will cease to be great. Kerry gave the explanation for his concession clearly, cogently and gently. Whatever criticisms have been offered about his turgid speaking style in recent months (many by his ideological allies), this speech, ironically, was well composed and finely delivered. He stated that he wanted the election to be decided by the voters, not courts, and having done the arithmetic, he bowed out as gracefully as anyone had a right to expect. All Americans were well served by John Kerry at the close of his campaign.

From The Ever-Changing Selection : Kerry concedes. What a relief. When I went to bed at 3am last night, I thought I might have to break out the surplus Sore Loserman shirts. The Democrats obviously saw that Kerry wasn't going to overtake Bush's lead in Ohio with the outstanding provisional ballots. It's too early to make any sort of definitive statement about this race. I suspect, however, that when all is said and done, evangelical Christians will have played a (if not the) deciding role in the president's re-election. Chris Matthews says pretty much the same thing, and the New Republic's election blog concurs. Exit polls showed that evangelicals went about 75 percent for Bush in swing states like Ohio, energized in no small part by the various anti-gay marriage amendments in the states (all of which won, even in liberal bastions like Oregon). The voters had enough of Democrats trying to change the culture via the Courts, so they made their voices heard. The president benefits because he speaks the language of faith and believers identify with him.

Very interesting article by Rick Penner at Right Left Whatever : The results of the election have apparently baffled liberals: they're shocked and “disturbed” that values could be more important to many Americans than economic conditions. I’ve written about this here, before, but I’ll repeat: a highly prophetic book that came out just before the 2000 election has a great deal to say on this: book entitled The Fourth Great Awakening & the Future of Egalitarianism by Robert William Fogel. . . .He sees the last Awakening as a shift from the push for egalitarianism of material needs during the 3rd Awakening to a yearning for egalitarianism of spiritual needs (also called “immaterial” needs or “knowledge capital”).

He says that the new equity issues of the 4th Awakening -- unlike the 3rd Awakening -- “do not arise from the shock of rapid urbanization, the destruction of small businesses by competition from industrial giants, the massive destitution created by the prolonged unemployment of up to one-quarter of prime-age workers, the disappearance of the frontier as a safety valve for urban unemployment and poverty.”

Rather, people now want to “have an understanding of life’s opportunities, a sense of which opportunities are most attractive to him or her at each stage of life, and the requisite educational, material, and spiritual resources to pursue these opportunities.”

Surprisingly: “Like it or not, the reform agenda spelled out by the religious Right, with its focus on the restoration of the traditional family and its emphasis on equality of opportunity, more fully addresses the new issues of egalitarianism than does the agenda of the Third Great Awakening.”

Fogel goes on to say that Republicans and conservatives will probably benefit the most from this 4th Awakening -- such that Republicans will predominate over the next decade or two.

From Viewpoint Journal: Kerry’s loss is not the biggest blow to the DNC in this election. The biggest loss for Dems in this election cycle was the loss of their Senate Minority Chair, Tom Daschle. Senator Daschle is, in my opinion, the DNC’s strongest party leader. A few years back, he managed to tilt the balance of power in the Senate, giving Democrats control for almost two years and, even after losing the majority status again in 2002, managed to turn back an impressive number of conservative initiatives and block a sizable number of Bush’s judicial picks. Speaking as a staunch Republican, it looked to me as if Daschle was the guy in charge in the US Senate, not Bill Frist. But now, of course, Daschle has been ousted, and his loss is, by far, the biggest blow for Democrats

At Priorities & Frivolities: Bush proposed the federal marriage amendment to spark social conservatives nationwide. But it also translated into a pitch for Ohio, where an initiative passed overwhelmingly last night. And it translated into a pitch for socially conservative blacks in that crucial state. Consider: in 2000, Bush got just 9% of Ohio's African Americans. Last night, he got 16%. In 2000, he got about 8% of blacks across the country. Last night, he got 11%. To be sure, these exit-poll results may be somewhat off, and it's hard to determine how much of Bush's increases can be directly attributed to black voters. Still, here's a rather important case in which the Republican base strategy crossed the line and undermined Kerry as much as it boosted the president.

And finally, check out the national map of how counties voted in the presidential election. We are not a nation of Republicans in the mountain West, Midwest and South, edged by Democrats on the coasts and in the Great Lakes region. Most of the nation looks red, with a huge concentration of blue in the urban centers.

--jwpj