Ever since John Danforth wrote that devastating New York Times op-ed last week, I’ve been waiting to see whether he’s forced to take it all back. (I keep seeing the image of Karl Rove leaving a horse head in his bed….)
It would be pretty ordinary at this point. Conservatives who have crossed paths with Bush’s leadership of the party often reverse course immediately (Doug Wead, John DiIulio), sometimes in a graveling and embarrassing fashion.
So far, to Danforth’s credit, he hasn’t backed down. On NPR a couple of days ago, All Things Considered’s Debbie Elliott delved into Danforth’s concerns, which he didn’t hesitate to repeat.
“[R]eligious people have been involved in politics for a very long time and will continue to be, and, you know, I’m one of them. But I think that there is a big difference between individuals being involved in politics and even groups of individuals being involved in politics, on one hand, and a political party transforming itself into the political extension of a sectarian view.
First of all, there’s a constitutional danger. I mean, if government is the means of implementing a religious agenda, that raises obvious First Amendment issues. But beyond that, it’s divisive because the basic purpose of our government is, and I think always has been, to try to hold together a very diverse country. And if government presents itself as being the arm of a religious group, it’s very divisive for a country. Also, you know, I mean, just speaking to somebody who is a practicing Christian, I don’t understand the degree of certainty that religious people have that their religious views can be effectively implemented by government or by legislation.
Excellent. This was a primary point Danforth raised in his op-ed and, even several days later, he hadn’t backed down.
Having said that, Danforth still isn’t prepared to name names.
Elliott: How has President Bush–or has President Bush promoted this transformation of the party into what you call a political arm of conservative Christians?
Danforth: You know, I’m a great supporter of President Bush. I served in his administration. I’m not at all interested in weighing in on any particular individual. I’m simply talking about my own party. And, for example, in the state of Missouri, the state Legislature’s involvement in this doesn’t have anything to do with the president.
Elliott: Has a lot of this happened under his watch, though?
Danforth: I’ve given you my answer.
Well, one out of two ain’t bad.
Like Christie Todd Whitman, Danforth sees his party moving in the wrong direction and laments the Republicans’ loyalty to a far-right, Christian conservative base. But, apparently, it’s just a little too much to ask him to hold specific people accountable. That’s a shame.
That said, it’s nevertheless encouraging to hear Danforth stay true to his criticisms and not yield to pressure. It would have been easy for Danforth to cave and say he didn’t mean anything by that scathing NYT piece, but for the time being, he isn’t.
Post Script: Yes, I realize I’m applying the soft bigotry of low expectations here. Effectively, this is a post congratulating a Republican for simply repeating a criticism on the radio that he had written a few days prior. What can I tell you — the bar for encouraging signs from the other side of the aisle is astonishingly low nowadays.