ONE NATION UNDER GOD
bryan beller (8.17.00)

The race for the moral center continues, leaving precedent in its wake - for both better and worse.

It took a while - oh, only six or seven years - but the Republicans finally figured out how most key voters (read: swing voters and independents) feel about Bill Clinton. He's seen as a politically gifted steward of remarkable economic times, for which he deserves credit - but also as a man capable of outrageously immoral decisions in his personal life. Voters were savvy enough to realize that his behavior, while betraying a pathological lack of judgment (and certainly offensive to those who enjoy a quality cigar now and then), did not warrant removal from office, nor did it disqualify his economic successes as President. This hardly constitutes a free ride; even with Clinton's triumphs duly noted and appreciated, those same voters would most likely vote him out of office were he on the ballot in November. He's not, of course, but Al Gore is. The Republicans are banking on the complex sentiment carrying over.

After all, attacking Gore for guilt-by-association with Clinton's economic record of the past eight years is, shall we say, not a likely winning strategy for the GOP in November. Hence Bush's "compassionate conservatism" - code words for W.'s intention to practice a Republican version of economic Clintonism. Whatever it means, it gives good quote and seems to be working. The voters aren't afraid of Bush getting in there and trying to demolish entire departments of the federal government.

So, feeling flush in its newfound centrist image, the GOP held its convention. Say what you will, it certainly presented a unified message: Yes, the economy's been good, but the Clinton/Gore administration has allowed - and even encouraged - the decaying of the moral center of the country. When Bush says "moral," does he imply religion? Tough to say for sure, though W. is quite sure that such a thing could never happen on his watch - after all, Jesus is his favorite philosopher, so much so that he declared June 10, 2000 to be "Jesus Day" in Texas. The message seems to be that Clinton never had a national "Jesus Day" because he was too busy making us all rich and dampening the panties of White House interns, and why should Gore be any different? Dick Cheney drove it home by telling voters that when you looked at one (Clinton), you couldn't help but think of the other (Gore). Flawed logic, but a damning and lasting public definition of a candidate having some difficulty stepping out of Clinton's shadow.

Gore had other serious problems. Polls began showing: a) he wasn't getting full credit for the economy of the last eight years; b) his experience wasn't translating into a perception of possession of strong leadership qualities. It was illogical but true: Gore was getting Clinton's negative ethical runoff without much benefit from having been by his side. Meanwhile, Bush had the GOP sitting closer to the center than they'd been in years, and the attack on Gore's ethics had legs. All this, even though Gore is about as sexually anti-Clinton as you can get, and proclaims that, when faced with a tough decision, he asks himself, "What would Jesus do?"

In this case, Jesus picked an Orthodox Jew as a running mate.

As political moves go, it was a bold stroke from someone not known for bold strokes, which only served to magnify its positive effects. Here's a short list of how Joe Lieberman helps Gore politically:


1. It subtly refutes the GOP's newfound "inclusiveness." Could you imagine an Orthodox Jew on the Republican ticket? What would Bob Jones think?

2. It's a groundbreaking decision (first Jew on a national ticket) and Gore gets credit for taking a winning risk.

3. It finally provides Gore with a break from Clinton in a positive way. Joe Lieberman has long been known as the "conscience of the Senate" and was the first Democrat to take to the floor to condemn Clinton for his behavior in the Lewinsky scandal.

4. It reaffirms Gore's commitment to Clinton's economic centrism and "New Democrat" ideals. Lieberman is the sitting president of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group devoted to keeping the party business-friendly and keeping the lefties out in the cold.

5. It polarizes the Religious Right. They say politics makes strange bedfellows, but how about religion? Lieberman counts ultra-con valuesmeister Bill Bennett and the Rev. Jerry Falwell as friends and occasional allies. There isn't a whole lot the Christian right can say about him without appearing anti-Semitic. Bush was careful to hold his tongue when asked for comment.

6. It helps the Democratic party. How? Though a tiny minority of the overall population, Jewish voters carry weight in some states you may have heard of - Florida, California, New York. New York is especially interesting. I don't see many Jewish New York City voters (where Hillary needs 60% to win) pulling the levers for Gore/Lieberman/Lazio. As you may recall, Hillary and the Jews of NYC have had a stormy courtship. This should help bring them back home. Yes, it's that simple.


All in all, lots of dead birds and only one stone in the air. All of a sudden the center - especially the moral center - was back in play. It's hard to associate Gore with Clinton when he's out there campaigning with the guy who dogged him out for being a slut in front of the whole country. Nice throw, Al.

Now here's the rub. For years, both successfully and unsuccessfully, Republicans have positioned themselves as the party of God-fearing Americans, meaning Christian God-fearing Americans. (One would not assume their devotion to religious causes to be for the benefit of Zen Buddhists.) It's no secret that the Christian Coalition is a major fund-raising arm of the Republican party, and that the enactment of Christian principles into law is a goal of the party itself. I can understand economic differences between parties, and contrary to what some might think I've entertained the logic of certain sensible Republican positions on the over-regulation of small business. But as a Jew, it is fairly difficult to justify the idea of casting a vote for a party whose stated position is to enact law based on a religion - or even a religious "value" - that is not my own. Whether or not I practice Judaism on a regular basis makes no difference; I could be a chicken-slicing pagan and still know for sure that I don't practice Christianity. In my strong and unwavering opinion, the government should have no part of it. Forget about separation of church and state - this is a matter of self-defense.

Many Jews and secularists agree on the issue of keeping religion out of American politics to the extent that it's possible. So where were they when Joe Lieberman, less than forty-eight hours after being picked as Gore's running mate, gave a speech in which he mentioned the word "God" over twelve times (surely a record of some sort for a Democratic candidate)? And when he proclaimed Gore to be "a servant of God Almighty?" And when he opened his speech .with a prayer?!

Let's have a reality check here. Suppose the candidate in question was in fact a born-again Christian and opened his stump speech with a prayer. Wouldn't liberals, secularists, and members of other religions be screaming bloody murder? What if he was a Muslim? Imagine if a party's nominee gave praise to Allah twelve times in a span of ten minutes. Does this belong in politics? Not according to traditional opponents of religion in government, who have naturally found themselves aligned against the Christian Coalition over the past twelve years. Yet they remain strangely silent, preferring to challenge Lieberman's positions on, say, school choice.

But back to the issue at hand. If an educated Muslim or Christian cared deeply about religion, would it not be a stretch to be offended by Joe's reference to God? After all, they know he's Jewish, and Jews believe in one God and one God only - not Christ, not Mohammed, not the Holy Trinity, not anyone else. Why shouldn't they want their vision of God discussed on the national stage? And what of the secularists of society (hardly a small number)? If they don't want to hear their elected officials talking about God, does that make them all devoid of "morals?" Does this include military atheists? And scientists? Is it possible to portray a sense of decency and morally-based patriotism without a Pavlovian genuflection to an accepted major religion and its dogma? Maybe someone should ask John McCain.

Don't get me wrong. I'm quite happy that a Jew is on a national ticket, and I have no doubt that Joe Lieberman's religious beliefs are sincere. And unlike the Christian Coalition, I don't see Joe trying to foist Orthodox Judaism onto the public at large by seeking the appointment of state and federal judges who share their beliefs. I also hear and understand those who say that Gore had to do it for all of the legitimate political reasons stated above. From an electoral standpoint, it's hard to find fault in Gore's pick. No one has ever accused Al Gore of not being sufficiently opportunistic.

But if a standard is applied, it should be applied to all. To those offended by religion in politics - and especially Jews who have stood in opposition to Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, and the politicians who curry their favor - the unconditional acceptance of Joe Lieberman as Gore's running mate is a hypocrisy of high order until such time that he stops praying in public and starts talking - and keeps talking - about substantive issues relevant to this campaign.