Ronnie and Jesus

Something I find peculiar about Republicans/conservatives is the strange compulsion their leaders seem to have to perpetually, and loudly, trumpet their Republican-ness and conservatism. I don't see prominent people on the left perpetually going on and on about what exemplary Democrats they are, or accusing others of not being "liberal" or "progressive" enough. I am not saying that there is nobody on the left who does that, but I don't see leading Democrats like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry etc. going around impugning the leftist credentials of others, for example. Maybe I suffer from selective amnesia, but thinking back to the last presidential election, in which there were numerous candidates vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, I remember them attacking each other in various ways, some of them pretty scurrilous, but I don't recall any of them accusing one of the others of simply not being ideologically pure enough to deserve the nomination, or putting him- or herself forward as the only one who is.

Observing the current race for the Republican nomination, I see all kinds of examples of that. Here's Rick Santorum telling you that he is the "true conservative" and here he is telling you that Newt Gingrich is some kind of impostor. Before dropping out of the race, Rick Perry wanted you to know that he is an "authentic conservative"; afterward, he insisted that Gingrich was the only true conservative left in the race. Romney says he's not just conservative, he's severely conservative. Today I see that Romney and Santorum are duking it out over each other's conservative credentials ahead of the Michigan primary. With the emphasis on ideological purity, I can't tell whether these guys are running for the presidency of the United States or for the chairmanship of some kind of right-wing politburo. Is it just an expression of insecurity? There's something weirdly fetishistic about this label obsession.

Despite differences of opinion about who today's One True Conservative is, there seems to be a fairly widespread consensus among those who think of themselves as staunchly conservative that one president who did govern in accordance with their worldview was Ronald Reagan. He vastly increased defense spending, and sent troops into Grenada to prevent the commies from taking over, and fought the reds by proxy in Central America. He went to Berlin and told Mr. Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". He fought for deregulation and fired the striking air traffic controllers. He kicked off his presidency with that oft-quoted line, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." He did all this and more, establishing himself as one of the more important deities in the pantheon of conservative American heroes. Conservatives look back at the 1980's and wish they could have another president just like Reagan.

And yet… various observers have pointed out that Reagan also raised taxes during his presidency. He signed a law granting amnesty to illegal aliens. He opined that people living below the poverty line should not pay taxes. He cooperated with notorious leftist extremists like Tip O'Neill. Those observers have asserted that with a record like that, it's pretty doubtful that Reagan, the conservative icon, could ever be a serious contender for today's Republican nomination, and I would have to agree with that. I personally have a hard time thinking of Reagan as a moderate, but by the standards of today's Republican party he would be found guilty of too many counts of giving aid and comfort to the enemy to be considered "a true conservative" and an acceptable presidential candidate.

Mortal Enemies

There's another guy who looms large in the background of the current Republican primary race. His name is Jesus; you have no doubt heard of him. We have certainly heard a lot from the candidates about "Judeo-Christian values" in this campaign season, mostly in the context of how these values are under attack from all directions and how only Mitt/Newt/Rick P./Rick S./Michelle/etc. can defend the faith. Newt sums it up nicely: "In a sense, our Judeo-Christian civilization is under attack from two fronts. On one front, you have a secular, atheist, elitism. And on the other front, you have radical Islamists. And both groups would like to eliminate our civilization if they could. For different reasons, but with equal passion." Or: "We see a president who is systematically trying to crush the traditional Judeo-Christian values of America" (Santorum on Obama).

I don't know of any other western democracy in which the appeal to religion is so constantly in the mouths of those who aspire to govern. This perpetual emphasis on how the man upstairs wants us to run the country puts us in good company with countries like, oh, Iran or Saudi Arabia. I guess that when you don't have anything substantive in the way of practical policy initiatives to bring the country forward, it's better to just change the subject and talk about your championing of "Judeo-Christian values".

And just between you and me, I wish these guys would drop the pretense of this ridiculous construction, "Judeo-Christian". Those of us to whom the "Judeo" part applies understand that the notion of shared heritage and purpose implied by that term counts only as long as we accept that wherever it conflicts with the "Christian" part, Jesus trumps Moses. Note to Newt, Rick et al.: We are deeply grateful for your willingness to accord us a kind of dhimmi status in exchange for our votes, but since we know you intend to govern according to the Jesus book, just drop the "Judeo" shtick because you're not fooling anyone anyway.

All this is not to say that living in the Jesus-driven state would necessarily be a bad thing. Let's keep an open mind. What would the Republican program look like if they really let Jesus write their platform?

For starters, I suppose they would push for a pretty strong social safety net: Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matthew 25:34-40)

No doubt they would campaign to eliminate any special treatment for the wealthy, expecting them instead to contribute to society in proportion to their means: Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (Matthew 19:21-24)

They might press for an even-handed and compassionate justice system: So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (John 8:7)

But enough of that, you get the idea… This Jesus guy sounds like some kind of dangerous socialist nut. We'd better make sure none of these foolish ideas get implemented in our future Christian state. It's a good thing this guy isn't running for the Republican nomination. But then with ideas like that, I guess he wouldn't have a chance anyway.

I say unto thee: Thou must pull thyself
up by thine own bootstraps, my son.