Wednesday, November 7, 2007

STUNNED: Pat Robertson Endorses Rudy Giuliani

My mother went to work with Pat Robertson when he was setting up The 700 Club in Detroit, over 35 years ago. I was already pretty politically observant as a boy. Pat Robertson has obviously taken a posture on political matters in The United States, as I believe is appropriate in a nation where the people are the designated and accountable sovereign. He even declared his own candidacy for President in one cycle. And, many people have relied on him as a source of counsel for Christians who are not so keenly tuned to the process.

The news this morning is that Pat Robertson will endorse Rudolph Giuliani’s candidacy for the nomination of The Republican Party for President of The United States. CNN.com - CNN Political Ticker Pat Robertson endorses Giuliani «

I am most sorry for the Christians in this country who will still rely on Pat Robertson as affirming the legitimacy of a destructive and cowardly decision to cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani in their state’s primary or caucus. I can only assume that such a calculation is made on the basis of who can win the general election and/or the hope of holding some influence in a possible Giuliani administration. I believe that the prior calculation is misguided and false: even setting principle aside, Giuliani does not offer the best prospect of a Republican victory. And, the latter interest of having influence is a forlorn one.

This action is especially misguided when Giuliani’s positions on the issues are least consonant of all the candidates with what Robertson must know is a noble disposition for the nation. And, it is especially so when one of those candidates is one who defines his objectives and actions according to the character of Jesus Christ: Mike Huckabee. I have supported Huckabee all year because he is bound by what is not only proper but vital principle. But even more so because whether I agree with a prescription or not, his model is the character of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps Pat Robertson has buried his head too deeply in the conventional so-called “pragmatism” of American politics to cast his lot with such an ideal. But, whatever the perception, I will trust in the model of Christ’s character in addition to the most fundamental principles of human propriety and American principle, both of which Giuliani plainly misunderstands. I will not support a Republican candidate who cannot decipher the most basic principles of The Republican Party and the founding of The United States Of America. To paraphrase Michael Corleone: “It’s not personal. It’s strictly Christian American business.”

Personally, I long ago assumed the responsibility to respect such principles and make up my own mind. I would at this point say to Pat Robertson: “Thank you for your service, but Christian Americans should now consider your political counsel irrelevant.”

4 comments:

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Larry, Pat Robertson disagrees with Larry Perrault on Rudy Giuliani as a candidate and a human being. Accusing him of being "cowardly" and "destructive" in his decisions is itself a cowardly and ad hominem attack. Have you ever considered that Mr. Robertson may be correct in his assessments? No, I'm sure you have not considered that. You are right and people that disagree with you are wrong. That's the "philosophy" of a two-year-old. Say that you disagree with Robertson -- that's good enough. A little humility on your part would be truly refreshing.

steve

bt. said...

Interesting post. But what I find most interesting is that Pat Robertson's endorsement is newsworthy at all. Who cares? As a Christian, I find it disturbing that a mass of people ("Christian right") might actually listen to one man's opinion. I don't care if it is Robertson's, Dobson's or Humperdink's (yeah, I don't know him either.) These men depend upon the fact that so many people depend upon them to be "a source of counsel for Christians who are not so keenly tuned to the process." Sounds like the politics of power to me, and frankly, I'm sick of that. I also think that different people can pursue the character of Christ and not end up coming to the exact same conclusions on every issue. Thanks for letting me vent.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

I've written before about "Pro-Life, Inc.," which consists largely of people who insist that their favorite candidates must present the right-kind of rhetoric ("I'm strong pro-life!") but doesn't really insist that they actually DO anything to advance the cause of life. Are they advising young woman who are pregnant and very scared? Are they providing money for woman who don't want to have a baby because they can't afford it? Are they helping protect young women who are being pressured by boyfriends or (more often) parents to have an abortion? Are they themselves willing to adopt babies, including those who don't have white skin and blue eyes? As Larry has suggested previously, abortion is NOT going to be outlawed in the U.S. Given that face, what are we going to do? Are we going to rail (forever) about abortion? Giuliani has said that he will appoint Supreme Court justices similar in philosophy to Alito and Roberts. Frankly, at this point and in this political context, that is enough. Pat Robertson believes Giuliani and so do I.

steve

Larry Perrault said...

Steve:

I understand if you are incapable of sorting out logic and syntax. But, a careful look at both will reveal that your comments are inapplicable. The adjectives of "cowardly" and destructive was applied to a decision, not to a person. None of us can claim never to have made a "foolish" decision. But when we have, it is not thefefor apt or constructive to label us a "fool."

And, protest about someone always thinking they are right are tiresome. If you don't think you are right, which your typical disparaging rhetoric clearly suggests you DO, PLEASE spare me the bother of engaging a disingenous proposition.

br:

I don't and don't advise relying on designated "leaders" to determine how to behave, and particularly so in how one votes. But, here is how it will happen with many people:

It's hard for some of us to assimilate, but many, perhaps near most, people are more concerned with their day-to-day diversions than on studying and analyzing society at the macro level. And, many in this case, are influenced by mass pop-culture to believe what they are told about who has the best prospect of winning. They want to win and they want to go along with consensus (except for some natural contrarians who value being different).

Given those factors, they will rely on a "leader: (Christian or whatever) to liberate them by affirming their impulses. None of this dictates or precludes an impetus to "pursue the character of Christ." Different people honestly reach different conclusions, but contradictory conclusions are not both correct.

Steve:

...more ubapplicable bilge You know that I believe that the behaviors you describe ought to be engaged and that Christians can be derelict about them. You even indict those who are NOT demonstrably so derelict.

And with respect to the cowardliness and destructiveness of decisions, a decision can be driven by fear of a possible consequence, even though it defies another instinct. And its effects can be destructive, in this case of American society and principles and those of The Republican Party, while the decider makes it with the purest of intentions. Again, I know that some people are to distracted or dense to distinguish that.