On 7 October 2003, the voters of California voted to recall Governor Gray Davis and elect Arnold Schwarzenegger as the new governor.  This is genuinely unbelievable in the truest sense of that overused term.   It could be a watershed on the politics of 2003-2004.  Let’s think about this together:

• First, however this election is viewed it must be regarded as fundamentally a referendum on the leadership of Gray Davis, governor since 1998.  Disaffection with Davis crystallized two years ago at the height of the energy crisis and the disaffection for him cut across all facets of California society.  Even union members, his core constituency, abandoned him.  With energy blackouts, high energy prices, a $38 billion deficit and partisan battles in Sacramento, the voters entrusted their government to an untested film star.  Davis lost his base: 25% of Democrats voted against him, as did 29% of African-Americans and a little over 33% of Latinos.  Astoundingly, Schwarzenegger captured about 50% of the male vote and nearly 40% of the female vote, despite the sexual charges against him.  So, the election is really about a call to repair the damaged structure of government.  The broadly shared discontent with economic stagnation and political gridlock turned into a recall effort against Gray Davis.  If Schwarzenegger is to succeed, there must be a significant restructuring of how government is done in California.  His challenges are enormous and few in the Democratic party want him to succeed.

• Second, I personally remain bothered by Schwarzenegger’s practices of groping, fondling and humiliating women.  As I argued on a previous program, such activity does not meet the standard of leadership.  Don’t forget, this is what Bill Clinton did and he was impeached.  Conservatives had better be very careful, lest they be charged with hypocrisy.  What Clinton did was reprehensible and, in my view, he lost his legitimacy to be the President.  Further, to somehow now attempt to justify Arnold’s behavior is wrong.  There is no doubt that there was politicking the last days of the campaign and it is doubtful all of the allegations against Arnold are true.  Unlike Bill Clinton, he has admitted to some of the accusations and has apologized.  He did not deny the undeniable as did Clinton with Monica Lewinsky.  If there is moral outrage about Clinton, there had better be moral outrage about Arnold.  Both still give no evidence of genuine repentance.  You cannot have one and ignore the other.  Perhaps the mess with Clinton and now the disastrous personal life of Arnold indicate that the American people want the sex lives of their leaders treated as a private matter, unless there is compelling evidence for it to be public.  Perhaps both Clinton beating impeachment and Arnold’s election as governor give evidence of the triumph of a permissive society.  It is difficult to be definitive at this point, but both men, in my judgment, represent a failure of leadership.  We as Christians and as conservatives had better own up to that fact, unless we be perceived as hypocrites.

• Third, what does Arnold’s election and the recall of Davis mean nationally?  The difficulty here is figuring out what is unique about California and what can be applied to the entire nation.  (1) Because there are so many factors unique to California in the recall campaign, most strategists are reluctant to make bold predictions about the national impact of this development.  Yet, there is voter discontent throughout the land.  The same kind of anger and frustration evident in California could register nationwide.  Gridlock in state governments coupled with fiscal crisis in nearly every state could make incumbents uneasy.  If the economy and especially the job situation do not improve, there could be a sentiment for thoroughgoing political change across the land.  But it is too early to reach such a conclusion.  (2) Yet, on the other hand a Republican governor of California could help President Bush in a state he lost in 2000 by 1.3 million votes.  Perhaps what the voters rebuffed in California was the negative politics of Davis and the Democrats.  If so, that is good news for Bush.  Like above, however, it is too early to tell.  (3) Because Arnold is a fiscal conservative, but moderate on abortion, homosexuality and gun control, some suggest that if he is successful, this will place immense pressure on the Republican party to abandon its conservative bent under the current Bush administration.  In other words, to win, Republicans must abandon their social conservative positions.  But to devalue life and deconstruct marriage is never a good thing.  I believe that what leaders must do today, both Republican and Democrat, is promote strong, fiscally responsible government coupled with strong, responsible leadership on social issues.  Leaders must set the standard in valuing life and in promoting healthy, stable heterosexual marriages.  In their own personal lives, such leaders must be paragons of virtue and model the ethics of good government.  If our leaders do this, people will follow them, whether they are Republican or Democratic.

See Dan Balz’s articles on the California election in the Washington Post (8 and 9 October 2003); E.J. Dionne, Jr., Washington Post (10 October 2003); David Broder, Washington Post (8 October 2003).

Back to top

PLURALISM IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION

Throughout Western Civilization, Christianity is being purged from the public square, replaced by what G. Edward Veith calls a “polytheistic civil religion.”  We are witnessing the recognition of the validity and equal representation of all religions, in effect recognizing and paying homage to many gods.  Several thoughts:

• First, only people, not nations, have saving faith.  Except for Christianity, all world religions are cultural religions.  Islam does not have the goal of salvation for humans; its goal is to rigidly apply the Qur’an to each aspect of society.  Hinduism justifies India’s caste system and its hierarchical society.  Shintoism perpetuates the ancestor worship and filial piety of Eastern society, as does Confucianism.  But genuine Christianity is for people, for every one of all nations, tribes and language.  This life is, therefore, only the front door to eternity and heaven, which is where our true citizenship is.  Yet as Christians we are to be good citizens and exercise salt and light as we seek to be in the world but not of it.  Listen to Veith: Historically, “prayer, religious symbols, the Bible, and the invocation of God have been seen as appropriate in the public square, as long as the state does not swallow up or take the place of the church and its supernatural gospel.  Christians can thus be patriotic and spiritual, as long as they do not confuse the two realms and keep their allegiances straight.”  But no longer.

• Second, the result of this “polytheistic civil religion” is that Christian religious symbols, prayers and the Bible must be purged from American society in the name of diversity.  Our society, Postmodern pluralists argue, cannot show favoritism towards Christianity.  Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. must all be treated as equals.  Chaplains in the military, in the prisons, and in the state legislatures are now from all major faiths.  The public square is no longer naked, as Richard Neuhaus argued years ago.  Today that square is filled with many gods and goddesses, all representing America’s new “polytheistic civil religion.”

• Third, for that reason, Christianity is no longer centered in the West; it has shifted south.  There is no better example of this shift than Archbishop Peter Jasper Akinola, Anglican churchman of Nigeria.  He leads the most vibrant and almost certainly largest Anglican community in the world, for Anglicanism’s center is now Africa, not England.  Reacting to a proposal in the Anglican Church to ordain a gay bishop, Akinola thundered, “This is an attack on the Church of God--a Satanic attack on God’s Church.”  Akinola represents a deep-rooted conservative tradition in African Christianity that is flourishing and growing.  Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians are watching African Christianity because what is at stake is the nature of religious authority, the relationship between the religious and secular spheres and even the possibility of existing with other faiths.  Akinola has argued that “We in Nigeria believe very strongly in the priority of the Scripture.  We want to see ourselves as a church that seeks to live in obedience to the dictates of the Scripture, regardless of whether that is convenient or inconvenient.”  For that reason he is astounded that England and American Anglicanism [Episcopalianism] “should conspire to turn their back on the clear teaching of the Bible on the matter of human sexuality.” 

The other factor so decisive to Akinola is that his nation is in the throes of an intense struggle between Islam and Christianity for the heart, soul and mind of Nigeria.  Muslims have been gaining ground because they teach that the West is decadent and sexually irresponsible.  If the Anglican Communion accepts gay bishops or approves gay unions, Muslims will gain an enormous propaganda victory in Nigeria--and in a dozen or so other African countries in which Christians and Muslims compete.  Akinola sees that the very existence of Christianity is at stake in Africa; and he is correct.  The Postmodern pluralism of the West that has created the “polytheistic civil religion” in America is also promoting a sexual ethic that could destroy Christianity in Africa.  Akinola sees this and seeks to prevent it from ever occurring.  He demonstrates far more biblical insight than the entire leadership of modern Anglicanism.

See Veith’s article in World (4 October 2003), p. 12 and Philip Jenkins’ article on Akinola in The Atlantic Monthly (November 2003), pp. 49-50.

Back to top

THE STRATEGIC ROLE OF JUSTICE O’CONNOR

The Supreme Court of the United States remains an enigma.  It has several key conservatives, among them Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.  The most strategic member is Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.  A 73-year old member of the Court, O’Connor has served 22 years.  It was widely speculated that she would retire from the Court this year; she has not.  In fact, it seems she will remain until the election of 2004 is over.  How strategic is she? 

In the words of columnist David Broder, “Holding the swing vote on the nine-person Supreme Court, she can and does set more policy than President Bush or all 100 members of the Senate, 435 representatives or 50 governors.”  During last month’s extraordinary pre-session hearing on the campaign finance law, McCain-Feingold, the advocates for both sides directed most of their comments toward O’Connor, knowing her vote will be the critical one.  She is in the center, with four on her right and four on her left, ideologically speaking.  In the University of Michigan case she voted with the majority upholding the principle of racial diversity in the law school, but turned around and joined the different coalition that struck down the mathematical point system of Michigan at the undergraduate level.  In the last week of June, law professor Erwin Chemerinsky observes, the Court upheld affirmative action programs for universities; invalidated a state law prohibiting private consensual homosexual activity; overturned a death sentence because of ineffective assistance of counsel; upheld a federal law requiring libraries that received federal funds to install Internet filters; and declared unconstitutional a California law that retroactively extended the statue of limitations for sex offenders.  In all these cases, Justice O’Connor was in the majority.  Indeed, she was the only justice in the majority in every one of these cases.  In Broder’s words, “No one else in America has more authority in more areas of domestic policy than she does.”  She is indisputably one of the most powerful women in America.  She shapes the Court’s final decisions quite often.  She should be at the top of our prayer lists when it comes to the Supreme Court.  She is in effect more powerful than the Chief Justice.

See Broder’s essay in the Washington Post (1 October 2003). 

Back to top