|
Below are the
first and then the last three paragraphs of a commentary written by the editor
of National Review. The whole
piece is worth the brief read. The question I
have is if the President keeps his distance on this issue and leaves it to the
Courts, why did he speak up and take sides of the issue of affirmative action,
which is not just about education or jobs but also a cultural issue, and
stem-cell research, which is not just about scientific research and medical
advances but also a cultural issue? I think we
know the answer, and it’s not about political principles. - KWC In
the Culture War By Rich Lowry, in the WP, Sunday, August 10, 2003; Page B01 @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36891-2003Aug8.html The Christian right
has infiltrated and taken over the White House -- in the person of the
president of the United States. If Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson had sat down
15 years ago and created the profile of their perfect president -- a born-again
Christian from the Bible Belt, flagrantly open about his faith -- George W.
Bush would fit it almost to a T. Yet he is not quite what anyone would have imagined. All around Bush a culture war rages,
but in it, he is at most a reluctant participant -- and perhaps a pacifist at
heart. …This is a loss for
those of us who are conservatives. It means that, on important issues, a
crucial player isn't
fully engaged.
Bush also has the power to make certain arguments out of bounds. Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum barely got
Bush's seal of approval when he tried to make a -- muddled, admittedly, but
reasonable -- case for the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws. Consequently,
few Republican politicians will attempt such a thing in the future. And
Connerly's cause is hurt when a conservative White House treats him as if he
has a social disease. More fundamentally, the effect of Bush's
accommodationist tendencies on these issues is to leave them to the courts. If Michigan voters can't be bothered
with the turmoil of voting on affirmative action, that means the issue is left
to the whim of Sandra Day O'Connor. If it's too touchy to talk about sodomy
laws (the White House studiously said nothing about the Texas case), only the
Supreme Court gets to speak to it. The administration no doubt fervently hopes
that the Massachusetts court pulls up shy of fully endorsing gay marriage, so
it can avoid the expedient of endorsing a marriage amendment that would create
a roiling national debate on what marriage means. In this way, Bush contributes to an
erosion of democratic government. The courts shouldn't be deciding cultural issues that are
at the very heart of the nation's common life. Otherwise, what is self-government for? There's nothing wrong -- nothing hateful
-- about open and passionate argument. Given the winning way his faith has
influenced his political persona, President Bush is perfectly positioned to
demonstrate this by example -- that we can fight, but still love, that a
"welcoming country" need not forfeit its right to govern itself. |
LOWRY President Keeps his distance 081003.doc
Description: MS-Word document
