Yesterday it was all over the news pages on the web: Pat Robertson says Ariel Sharon's stroke is an Act of God. I was toying with the idea of writing something about it, but wasn't feeling too excited about the whole idea. Pat Robertson has painted a bull's eye on his chest so many times since he ran for President that sometimes I think it's a deliberate ploy.
He'll make the most outrageous of comments, but in such a manner that when he's rightly pilloried for it, he can back off and look all innocent and confused. "Good gracious" he seems to be saying; "I didn't mean to cause such a ruckus". He will smile his folksy smile, chuckle his little laugh, and shake his head in rueful admission of his own foolishness.
If you keep at him after that he begins to come across like the victim, not the perpetrator in the circumstances. Not just to his followers either, but to anybody who falls for his aw shucks, folksy charm. All of a sudden he looks like the innocent country preacher who's ventured into waters he knows nothing about, and the sharks of the media have gone into a feeding frenzy over nothing of consequence.
The fact that he was able to trivialize calling for the assassination of a head of state into something minor is just one example of the man's political savvy. His experience with the press during his ill fated seeking of the Republican nomination back in 1992 taught him lessons he's not forgotten. He now knows how to use them to his best advantage.
He knows they will over react to anything he says. He can get his name in the news with an ease that most politicians and movie stars would envy. When he drops one of his little bombshells he does it knowing full well what kind of reaction it will elicit. He counts on it because of how well it suits his purposes.
Each time it happens he establishes himself, just that little bit more, as the one voice of reason speaking the word of God in a world increasingly hostile towards Christianity. He doesn't care what the media, or anybody else thinks of him. Every word out of his mouth is addressed to one audience and one audience only: the converted.
He's learned the truly valuable lesson that all politicians have learned when it comes to exploiting the media for their own gain: the almost total refusal of the press to offer any analysis of an event. He knows they will only report verbatim what he says and then seek out an opinion from an opposing source to serve as the rebuttal.
Article comments
1 - Phillip Winn
It's possible that Pat Robertson overestimates the size of his audience, but I'm positive you are. I know people that voted for Pat in the 1992 primaries, and most -- if not all -- of them just want Pat to shut up. He's gotten further and further out on a limb at a time when most of his former audience seems to have retreated a bit in the "culture wars." When he's talking about abortion, he's got a lot of support. When he talks about foreign policy, he's got much, much less.
I honestly believe he's drifting into senility, but I don't know him personally.
It's easy to read too much in the "religious right" from the outside, and certainly people who consider themselves leaders of the group will inflate their numbers, as leaders of groups like to do. But attendance at "Justice Sundays" has been low, and has resulted in much backlash among conservative Christians who think that opening churches to debate senate tactics is at least one step too far, if not more.
I don't think Pat's got a chance; what I think is that he enjoys the attention.
2 - Warren
If Pat does run in 2008, you'll hear more from conservative Christians who think he's an idiot. We can afford to be quieter now, because for all his bluster he's not in a position to hurt anyone (unless you count the missionaries he got kicked out of Venezuela the last time he opened his mouth).
As a Presidential candidate, he has potential to do a lot more harm. He'll draw a few voters away from real, viable candidates, and that could cost. If he runs, he'll find out exactly how unpopular he is among people that he seems to think love him.
3 - Baronius
I've got to agree with Phil and Warren on this one. Pat's show is one of the few places you can hear Christian news, so it has a following. I don't think too many people believe every word he says. A Robertson candidacy would be shot down quickly by:
- Beltway Christians, who want a candidate who can win
- Main Street Christians: they'll have plenty of choices on the right in 2008, and they'll vote for someone they can trust
- Republican moderates, for obvious reasons
- other Republican candidates: Republicans aren't as gentle as Democrats when running against preachers
- state and local Republican candidates, and state and local Republican organizations, fearing a general election backlash
That doesn't leave much of a natural constituency.
4 - phil
Pat Robertson is proof the idiocy comes in all forms of religion and on all sides of the issues. He is a disgrace to all Christians.
5 - gonzo marx
lol...Robertson = False Profit
pun intended
nuff said?
Excelsior!
6 - Michael Heumann
"Each time it happens he establishes himself, just that little bit more, as the one voice of reason speaking the word of God in a world increasingly hostile towards Christianity."
Hostility towards Christianity? In Iran, perhaps, but not in the US, as many Christian commentators like you claim. After all, how can a country like the US be hostile towards Christianity when its own president, the vast majority of the congress, and the bulk of the supreme court are either devoutly Christian or sympathetic to Christian values and beliefs? In a country (heck, a world) run by George W. Bush and John Roberts, why would any Christian ever consider supporting someone like Pat Robertson, a person whose negative image could easily undo all the support and power that Christians already have in this country? So if you want a world that is hostile to Christianity, then I'd suggest doing everything you can to get Pat Robertson elected--only someone as loony as he is can properly infuriate non-christians and undo the power and authority that Christians already have in this country.
7 - gonzo marx
not in a drooling sociopathic schizophrenic's wildest crystal meth fever dream coudl it even remotely be a "good idea" to let Robertson NEAR "the Button"
WTF are you thinking to even fantasize about it for even a microsecond
tsk tsk
Excelsior!
8 - Baronius
Hostility towards Christianity? In Iran, perhaps, but not in the US, as many Christian commentators like you claim.
Michael, the key here is *increasing* hostility towards Christianity. The country has always had a Christian president, a Christian-majority Supreme Court, and a Christian-majority Congress. We've never had such a strict interpretation of the establishment clause, or so many restrictions on private education. We've never had (this sounds so creepy I hate to say it, but it is true) such high levels of immigration from non-Christian countries, or such an emphasis on multiculturalism.
We've always had a Judeo-Christian understanding of moral law with regard to abortion, gay marriage, et cetera. I'm not saying everyone has agreed on all major issues; there's no Judeo-Christian-Mormon tradition of marriage. But the national debate, everything from affirmative action to zygotes, used to take place within a common framework. It would have been unthinkable to ask an Attorney General nominee if his religious views would inhibit his job performance.
9 - Warren
There is some hostility towards some Christianity in the US. But I think at times we want to be martyrs so badly that we imagine it's worse here than it is. I can think of many Christians in other parts of the world who would trade places with an American Christian in a heartbeat.
And sorry about the messed-up tag close in my previous comment. I fixed it.
10 - gonzo marx
Warren...i don't think there is any "hostility" towards Christianity here in the U.S.
rather it is an understandable reaction to the literal "holier-than-thou" attitude displayed by SOME people who refer to themselves as "christians"
there is also the factor involved of many in this Nation who understand and desire that Freedom OF Religion also means Freedom FROM religion, and guard the secular Nature of our government and the Rule of Law against encroachment from those of vociferous espousal of their religion and their desire to impose that via the government
thankfully there is the "establishment clause" and over the course of American history it has served to allow those who desire it, the means to worship, or not, as they see fit
Excelsior!
11 - Baronius
Warren - valid point. There's no-creche persecution, and there's massacred-village persecution. But it's too bad you fixed the code in comment #2. I liked it; it made me feel, I don't know, bolder somehow.