I know we always claim we’re going to stop talking about Pat Robertson but he keeps making it difficult. We just don’t know how to quit you, Pat! Whatever his other merits, the televangelist has an amazing ability to make news. Such as today when he gave Rudy Guiliani his endorsement for president. Even more newsworthy, Guiliani took the endorsement! Here’s how The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza wrote it up:
Pat Robertson, one of the most influential figures in the social conservative movement, announced his support for Rudy Giuliani’s presidential bid this morning at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
Robertson’s support was coveted by several of the leading Republican candidates and provides Giuliani with a major boost as the former New York City mayor seeks to convince social conservatives that, despite his positions supporting abortion rights and gay rights, he is an acceptable choice as the GOP nominee.
I’m not sure how coveted Robertson’s support was, but I’m not terribly in tune politically. I’m sitting here trying to decide who is hurt more by this alliance, but obviously they wouldn’t have done it if they didn’t both stand to gain from it. So what should reporters covering this story consider? The most fascinating aspect to me is that the founder of the Christian Coalition would endorse a candidate who unequivocally supports abortion. Reporters have already queried him on it and Robertson provided some excuse for the incongruity, saying that Guiliani would appoint the right Supreme Court Justices and that no president can do much on the abortion issue. Cillizza sat down with Robertson and Guiliani to find out more about the ties that bind the two:
[Robertson] insisted that while some on the “fringe” of the social conservative movement may see Giuliani as an unacceptable nominee, the “core know better.”
Robertson said although he and Giuliani disagree on social issues, those disagreements “pale into insignificance” when measured against the import of the fight against global terrorism and radical Islam. “We need a man who sees clearly how to deal with that issue,” said Robertson.
I love Robertson talking about the fringe of the social conservative movement. Anyway, a good question for reporters to answer is whether Robertson is a leader of the religious right whose change of heart signifies a larger shift in the religious and political views of a large sector of the population, an old man who is sad to have lost his prominence and is struggling to get it back, or something altogether different. After referring to him as a pillar and prominent leader of the religious right, Cillizza quotes a different view from the Post’s religion reporter:
In May our colleauge Alan Cooperman described Robertson as a member of “an older generation of evangelical leaders” that includes the Rev. Billy Graham, psychologist James C. Dobson and the Rev. D. James Kennedy, who are “ailing or nearing retirement,” and who are seeing their movement “tugged in different directions” by a new crop of activists.
If abortion is no longer a make or break issue for the religious right, and if evangelicals begin to break along different lines, what might those lines be? Big government social welfare programs vs. big government anti-terrorism programs? It certainly seems like it could happen. Fact is, the most recent incarnation of Protestant activism (on both left and right) is just that: the most recent incarnation. If Robertson is indicative of a new religious right primarily backing the global war on terrorism, it’s not that different than some of the religious divides we saw prior to and during World War II.
And what does a new political breakdown do to the pro-life movement? Will Democrats start courting those religious adherents and others who loathe legalized abortion on demand? Is that better for the pro-life movement or the pro-choice movement?
The thing is, though, that I’m not so sure who Pat Robertson represents. I don’t want to pull a proverbial Pauline Kael and think he has no influence because he doesn’t influence me. Does his endorsement have news value? Most certainly. Does he represent a huge swath of voters? I’ve always felt his congregation was the mainstream media more than religious voters. In fact, tmatt has called on that congregation to excommunicate Robertson. After Robertson made one of his trademark statements in January 2006 (I believe it was the one where he said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s stroke was divine retribution), Washington Monthly’s Amy Sullivan had this to say:
As for Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, their heyday was 20 years ago; the only reason they’re still booked as talking heads is that most producers don’t know these two men no longer have any power. But more than that, they’re just not representative of today’s evangelicals. Robertson is a Pentecostal and Falwell is a fundamentalist, and while you could broadly say that most Pentecostals and fundamentalists are evangelicals, not all evangelicals are Pentecostals or fundamentalists. That’s why some of the more extreme theological statements you hear from those two (God let 9/11 happen because of gays and women and the ACLU) aren’t shared by a lot of evangelicals. That’s not to say that many evangelicals (and some of the names I mentioned) don’t hold intolerant, troubling views. But when we criticize them, we should be able to distinguish between widely-held beliefs and the wacked-out positions of a couple of has-beens.
So once again Robertson forces some good media criticism questions. How do we ID him? Does his endorsement mean anything? If so, what? What should reporters dig into for further clarification?
 | Posted at 12:54 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (7) |
November 7, 2007, at 1:35 pm
That sounds like the real story here — it’s wagon-circling. Robertson decided to back the guy most likely to make evangelicals bolt the party. It seems like a continuation of a topic already discussed here, of how much conservative Christians identify with Republicans and how much they want to be an independent political force. Robertson has evidently chosen the former.
November 7, 2007, at 5:24 pm
Pat robertson clearly sold out. The Christian right needs to rally support behind Mitt Romney.
He is the stong leader America needs.
He is for the constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman.
He is for strenghtening Americas families. We need a conservative family man.
November 7, 2007, at 6:13 pm
I think Pat has gone off the rails …or is still off the rails. The media will make a big deal of this but I think most “values voters” will shrug it off. Those who are passionate about the issues of the right to life, the traditional family, and oppose homosexual normalization, are not going to be swayed by the likes of Pat Robertson who was never a very bright bulb in cultural war against the darkness. I don’t think most people who are really convinced on cultural issues are likely to change their opinion because of any so-called leader. It is ideas and issues that concern us. We are not a bunch of lemmings, despite what the media may think. Unfortunately there are some smooshy half-informed quasi-evangelicals out there who will take Pat’s endorsement as cover. But they were not reliable anyway.
November 7, 2007, at 6:27 pm
Maybe Robertson has come to believe, like I and Giuliani, that my sister IS a conservative, Christian, family gal, who God just happenned to make gay, and that by helping the poorest among us we will certainly lower the amount of abortions. Do we really want less abortions, or do we want to have the same amount as now, and add the deaths of young women who have it done in a bad way? No one will stop abortions. Let’s keep them safe, legal, and very, very rare.
November 7, 2007, at 6:28 pm
I’m a graduate of Regent University, the school that Pat Robertson founded originally as CBNU (Christian Broadcasting Network University). I have met Mr. Robertson and have been a member of the 700 club and provided monthly support for several years.
While Mr. Robertson certainly has credibility with mainstream Evangelicals (unlike, say, Benny Hinn or other “faith healers,”) he fails to see the importance of NOT undermining the credibility of the Gospel.
I am a born-again bible-believing Christian and while I agree that as a country, we need to focus on protecting ourselves from the Islamic “revolution,” more-so, we need to protect our society from social and willful evils that threaten the very fabric upon which the country was founded.
The moral relativism in which this country has been sinking is shockingly apparent in Mr. Robertson’s enorsement of Rudy Guliani. As a social conscious thinker, I could never vote for a person who believes that killing unborn children is ok. That’s paramount to saying “Hitler did the right thing…” which hopefully we all know isn’t true.
Death is death — regardless of age, it’s death, murder, and sin.
How relevant is the sin issue? I think the sin issue is the front-and-center issue here. The threat of an Islamic takeover of the US will be greatly and deftly defeated provided this country return to it’s roots and endorse God, rather than a cause, as the underlying fabric of this country.
This country needs a moral foundation — one that is free from ambiguity and one that is built on the foundation of Biblical certainty, rather than the threat of an evil takeover.
November 7, 2007, at 8:10 pm
Who really cares what Pat Robertson thinks? This is the same man who spouted off at the mouth after 9/11 saying homosexuals were the cause of that tragedy.
What a buffoon! Robertson is nothing but a self-loathing man who believes he has the answers. He has a huge god complex and I feel sad for those people who blindly swallow his drivel.
As for Rudy Guiliani, he is a RHINO, a Republican In Name Only. If you look at his political history, he switched from the Democractic Party to the GOP.
Yes, life is life and each life is precious. The same people who want to stop abortion believe that government-sponsored torture camps and government-sponsored killing under the guise of punishment is okay. I’ll stop supporting a woman’s right to choose the day Bush closes each and every gulag he created and when each and every country ends the practice of the Death Penalty.
Our country’s priorities are way out of whack. Christ is standing up there shaking his head. Jesus would never bomb anyone nor would he approve of torture. Bush pandered to Christians to get votes, lied to them and made you people believe he was doing the right thing.
Shame on each and every person who voted for him. Bush has passed an executive order that states if we ever have another 9/11, the sitting president can inflict martial law on us all; even our businesses, our churches, our schools.
Stop, look, listen and research where the Republicans want to take this country.
You will have true freedom when you stop allowing your pastor, and your political party make your mind up for you!
November 8, 2007, at 12:00 pm
robertson has or is selling out what we stand for.
robertson is a “chump” leading his protected sheep to death.