The Latest Gerson Screed

We find the ancient liberal smear that limited government conservatism means un-Christian cruelty. There have been arguments over the social Gospel throughout human history. I side with Thompson against the notion of government as a force for spiritual reformation and mandatory charity. What’s objectionable about Gerson’s piece is the notion that Thompson’s version of Christian politics is not a genuine disagreement but a function of "shallow" theology. Different theology, not shallower. Poulos agrees:

Gerson would seem to have us think that a Christian is defective unless he or she supports the use of every tool at the federal government’s disposal to minimize the risk of new terrorists being created.

Larison is tarter:

It is now "isolationist" to oppose foreign aid for disease prevention on a continent where the United States has negligible interests, because apparently our resources are as infinite as the ever-multiplying "interests" that the Gersons of the world discover for us in every problem around the world.  More than that, Gerson tells us, Fred has revealed his lack of "moral seriousness."  For Gerson, governing isn’t a matter of making choices and setting priorities in the American interest, but of unburdening his conscience about suffering on the other side of the world with someone else’s money.  I can understand why Gerson is annoyed–this kind of foreign aid was one of his favourite administration policies–but the reasoning here is beyond laughable.

Obama, Farrakhan, Double Standards

Now, there’s a new bar for Obama to meet: Abraham Foxman now demands that Obama leave his own church because his preacher has all sorts of crazy views that relate to politics. Examining Jeremiah Wright’s theology as it has influenced Obama’s thinking seems to me to be interesting and even important. And Obama will have to take some lumps for it. But demanding someone leave their own church because of some political views espoused by their pastor seems a bit over-the-top to me. David Bernstein doesn’t go that far but he argues it is not enough for Obama to condemn Farrakhan, as he has, nor to condemn Wright for things he has said directly related to the campaign, as he has, but to condemn Wright for his church-sponsored magazine’s kind words for Farrakhan. I don’t think this kind of pressure has any logical end – except for where Foxman wants to go. And Obama should resist being pushed around.

I should add, contra Bernstein, that I think it’s fair to criticize candidates when they are endorsed by a religious figure on the campaign trail, when they have a religious figure hold a campaign fundraiser for them, or when, as in Giuliani’s case, they employ a priest credibly charged with child molestation. But holding a candidate answerable for everything a magazine sponsored by his church says unrelated to the campaign is a step designed purely to sling the smear of anti-Semitism onto someone whose life and career has been transcending racial and religious barriers, not deepening them.

McCain Derangement Syndrome

Gerard Baker nails it:

I sense that the syndrome says something about what has gone so badly wrong with the conservative movement in the past ten years. It has become so intolerant and exclusive that once orthodox views are now regarded as heresy; while views once merely narrow and eccentric are now prerequisites for membership.