It's been a busy week for politicos. Among other headlines, Congress boldly used its legislative authority to overturn President Bush's veto on the water bill, which I suppose is a strong statement but... seriously? The water bill? It couldn't muster the troops enough to fight the White House on stem-cell research or children's health care, but it can all stand together and fight for the water bill? Seriously?
Congress' bizarre priorities aside, one story this week that I found particularly interesting was Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani.
I suppose that Robertson didn't exactly have his pick-of-the-litter in this bunch of Republican candidates. Between John "Is He Really Still Running?" McCain and Fred "Is He Really Still Alive?" Thompson, I suppose a candidate with as much of a pulse as Giuliani must be attractive to Robertson.
Pundits predict a bad year for the Christian right. Already marred by scandals surrounding some of their former poster boys - Mark Foley, Sen. David Vitter and Bob Allen, to name a few - evangelical voters scramble to keep the attention of a country turning away from social concerns and onto such trivial issues as the war in Iraq and getting children health care.
Maybe Robertson hopes that his endorsement will pull Giuliani to the table and get him to commit to appointing pro-life judges or something. I don't think that will be a very effective strategy. I would predict that if Giuliani is the next president of the United States, he will ignore the wants of the Christian right even more then President Bush does. (Remember the federal marriage amendment? How's that going? The White House really went to the mat on that one, didn't it?)
Be that as it may, the one thing the evangelical Christians always had going for them was consistency. Conservative Americans, even if they weren't born-again, always respected the religious lobby because they were steadfast in their ideals and tough on their issues. Now that's out the window.
Robertson claimed that it was Giuliani's strong street cred with security issues that convinced him to back the former New York mayor. But Giuliani is pro-choice. He's also in favor of civil unions. What ever happened to being steadfastly for the sanctity of life?
Unfortunately for Robertson, none of the Republican contenders who are steadfastly for the sanctity of life are polling too well right now. And I guess endorsing a candidate who actually agreed with evangelical Christians on social issues, despite polling numbers - someone like, say, Mike Huckabee - would have been too radical of an idea.
Robertson's endorsement will only invalidate the future influence of conservative Christian-based political organizations. If they don't have the courage of their convictions, what do they have left? It's hard to claim a mandate from heaven if they're willing to fudge it on issues as central to their platform as abortion and gay rights.
Robertson noted, in a Nov. 7 interview with Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza, that only the "fringe" of his followers will see Giuliani as an unacceptable candidate. Has Robertson forgotten that his followers already are the fringe of the political spectrum? Sure, they yield a few percentage points, maybe more in some of the redder states, but now they've traded away the one card they could always play: blanket moral superiority and supremacy.
As each election cycle passes, fewer and fewer voters take the mandates of the Christian right seriously. Robertson's flip-flop on the issues of absolute morality is a final nail in the coffin of the evangelical movement's political influence.
Roddy Flynn is a senior in the School of Public Affairs and a liberal columnist for The Eagle.
