Romney’s Double Standard

How can a candidate oppose a federal abortion amendment while supporting a federal marriage amendment? The Independent Gay Forum reproduces fresh Romney quotes on this question. Jon Rauch sums it up:

So it’s official: Romney favors a constitutional amendment to prevent gay couples from marrying, but not to prevent what most pro-lifers regard as infanticide. Not even Marx (Groucho) could find a consistent principle here, unless political expediency counts.

That last sentence could apply to Romney’s entire campaign, I’m afraid.

Faith and the Universe

Cometdavidlilloafpgetty

I’ve quoted Carl Sagan recently on the intersection of science and faith and there’s a helpful piece on him in the NYT today. What I think he gets – and what my generation perhaps has grown to internalize – is the utter insignificance of this planet, let alone human beings, in the context of what we have come to know about the universe. This knowledge was unknown to those who wrote the Bible; the endless expansion of the cosmos and the infinitesimal speck of it that we represent was beyond their knowledge. Yes, many suspected it or believed it or had myths about it. But we know. And that knowledge alters faith. For me, it pushes me toward deeper appreciation of spiritual mystery, and the understanding that if God exists, then God must be as beyond our human understanding as outer space is beyond our visitation. At the same time, it deepens my conviction in God’s existence. It makes God realer and yet more distant than before – and therefore makes the Incarnation even more astonishing as an event in human history.

The point I’m making, I guess, is the one Sagan made. It is not to pose a crude opposition between science and faith, as Sam Harris does (and my next response is imminent); it is to see the two in a constant interaction in the pursuit of ultimate truth. Sagan grasped that; he saw the "pseudo-religion" of those who shunned scientific knowledge. Denial of evolution, in my view, is a sign of weak faith, not strong faith. It’s a function of terrible fear, not the confidence of a loving God. Which is why some ( but not all) forms of fundamentalism are indeed, in my view, pseudo-religion; and some of what passes for evangelicalism (but not all) is pseudo-Christianity. No faith based on fear is real faith. The first thing Jesus told us is: "Be not afraid." The last thing we should be afraid of is the truth about our world.

(Photo: McNaught comet in Peru last month by David Lillo/AFP/Getty.)

“Slam Dunk”

Did I actually read this this morning?

One person who has read early drafts of the book said Mr. Tenet defended himself by carefully parsing the ‘slam dunk’ comment: he said he was not telling Mr. Bush that there was rock-solid evidence that Mr. Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, only that the president could make a ‘slam dunk’ case to the American public about these weapons programs.

So the case for Saddam’s WMDs was not a "slam dunk". But the ability to foster enough fear and panic among Americans to persuade them to go to war on the basis of the WMD intelligence was a "slam dunk." Or at least that’s a plausible inference. If that’s true, then the betrayal of faith is even deeper than we imagined.

President Giuliani

Giulianidavidpaulmorrisgetty_2

One Republican reader thinks it’s now the likeliest scenario:

I was speaking with a Republican political operative in Sarasota some two months ago. This was after the drubbing we took in November. We had been watching Rudy’s polling throughout 2005 and 2006. What you and other moderates never understood is where the rank and file of the Republican Party has been going, so concentrated were you on the bogeyman that you had constructed around "Christianism". He and I agreed that not only is Rudy the favorite to get the nomination, but Rudy will probably win the presidency.

The three Big Dogs throughout 2005 were Rice, McCain, and Rudy. Once Condi had made it clear that she wasn’t going forward (at least as a Presidential candidate), Mitt Romney was able to move up to the top tier. Romney has tried to corral the "conservative" wing that was supposed to coalesce around the Washington Beltway’s conservative candidate, George Allen. However, the flips and flops outlined by you as well as those conservatives not posting on the Corner appear to have damaged Romney in the short term. McCain is not trusted by the base.

You’ve overblown the power of the "Christianists". You’ll see this when Rudy walks away with South Carolina and gets the support of guys like Haley Barbour and Jeb Bush (who is already, silently, in Rudy’s corner). "Christianists" don’t win elections; Republicans do. That’s what the polling is saying – people in our party are recovering a more Republican identity and embracing the idea of a larger tent. All that was needed was for the exclusionary wing to play themselves out …

Remember, the Jim Webbs in the Democratic Party’s leadership cadre are few and very far between. When you admit that to yourself, Andrew, you might begin to understand why Rudy will not only be the Republican nominee, but the next President, as well.

Americans don’t vote for defeat, and don’t vote for failure. Bush was punished because he was seen to be FAILING (you watch the polling turn around if Petraeus starts succeeding in Iraq). They will vote for the candidate who can bring them victory and peace. When you get that, you will get the next campaign.

Liberals don’t get this; and that is why they are not prepared to govern a nation at war. Rudy is. The rank and file know this in their bones.

Actually, this was the core argument of my column last Sunday. My major fear with Giuliani is civil liberties. He hasn’t met one he wouldn’t get rid of. And I doubt the mayor who backed the NYPD in the Diallo case is going to stop torture. But from the perspective of saving Republicanism from the abyss of Christianism, Rudy is definitely the candidate to watch. McCain is fading, I’m afraid. Rudy is just beginning.

(Photo: David Paul Morris/Getty.)