[Mb-civic] John and Jerry By PAUL KRUGMAN

[Michael Butler]

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

April 3, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
John and Jerry
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Well, I'll be damned. At least, that's what the Rev. Jerry Falwell says.
Last month Mr. Falwell issued a statement explaining that, in his view, Jews
can't go to heaven unless they convert to Christianity. And what Mr. Falwell
says matters ‹ maybe not in heaven, but here on earth. After all, he's a
kingmaker in today's Republican Party.

Senator John McCain obviously believes that he can't get the Republican
presidential nomination without Mr. Falwell's approval. During the 2000
campaign, Mr. McCain denounced Mr. Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson as
"agents of intolerance." But next month Mr. McCain will be a commencement
speaker at Liberty University, which Mr. Falwell founded.

On "Meet the Press" yesterday, Mr. McCain was asked to explain his apparent
flip-flop. "I believe," he replied, "that the Christian right has a major
role to play in the Republican Party. One reason is because they're so
active and their followers are. And I believe they have a right to be a part
of our party."

So what has happened since the 2000 campaign to convince Mr. McCain that Mr.
Falwell is not, in fact, an agent of intolerance?

Maybe it was Mr. Falwell's TV appearance with Mr. Robertson on Sept. 13,
2001, during which the two religious leaders agreed that the terrorist
attack two days earlier was divine punishment for American immorality. "God
continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us
probably what we deserve," said Mr. Falwell, who also declared, "I really
believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the
gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative
lifestyle, the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way ‹ all of them who have
tried to secularize America ‹ I point the finger in their face and say, 'You
helped this happen.' "

Or maybe it was Mr. Falwell's appearance on "60 Minutes" in October 2002,
when he declared, "I think Muhammad was a terrorist." Muhammad, he said, was
"a violent man" ‹ unlike Mr. Falwell, I guess, who said of terrorists that
we should "blow them all away in the name of the Lord."

After each of these incidents, by the way, Mr. Falwell issued what were
described as "apologies." But they weren't apologies ‹ they were statements
along the lines of, "I'm sorry that some people were upset by what I said."
It's clear that in each case Mr. Falwell's offensive remarks were not a slip
of the tongue; they reflected his deeply held beliefs.

And that's why it's important to hold someone like Mr. McCain ‹ who is still
widely regarded as a moderate, in spite of his extremely conservative voting
record ‹ accountable when he cozies up to Mr. Falwell. Nobody thinks that
Mr. McCain shares all of Mr. Falwell's views. But when Mr. McCain said that
the Christian right had a right to be part of the Republican Party, he was
in effect saying that Mr. Falwell's statements were within the realm of
acceptable political discourse.

Just to be clear: this is a free country, and Mr. Falwell has a right to say
what he thinks, even if his views include the belief that other people, by
saying what they think, brought down God's wrath on America. By the same
token, any political party has a right to include Mr. Falwell and his
supporters, just as any politician has a right to make a political alliance
with Mr. Falwell.

But if you choose to make common cause with religious extremists, you are
accepting some responsibility for their extremism. By welcoming Mr. Falwell
and people like him as members of their party, Republicans are saying that
it's O.K. ‹ not necessarily correct, but O.K. ‹ to declare that 9/11 was
America's punishment for its tolerance of abortion and homosexuality, that
Islam is a terrorist religion, and that Jews can't go to heaven. And voters
should judge the Republican Party accordingly.

As for Mr. McCain: his denunciation of Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robertson six
years ago helped give him a reputation as a moderate on social issues. Now
that he has made up with Mr. Falwell and endorsed South Dakota's ban on
abortion even in the case of rape or incest, only two conclusions are
possible: either he isn't a social moderate after all, or he's a cynical
political opportunist.

Bob Herbert is on vacation.

Home

    * World
    * U.S.
    * N.Y. / Region
    * Business
    * Technology
    * Science
    * Health
    * Sports
    * Opinion
    * Arts
    * Style
    * Travel
    * Jobs
    * Real Estate
    * Autos
    * Back to Top

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

    * Privacy Policy
    * Search
    * Corrections
    * XML
    * Help
    * Contact Us
    * Work for Us
    * Site Map