Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Dec. 20, 1999 /11 Teves, 5760

David Limbaugh

David Limbaugh
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
David Corn
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Arianna Huffington
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Robert Samuelson
Debbie Schlussel
Sam Schulman
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports
Weekly Standard



Bush: Rendering unto Caesar -- THE THOUGHT POLICE have been lying in wait throughout the presidential campaign season waiting to pounce, and during Monday night's debate, George W. Bush gave them a big chunk of red meat.

The candidates were asked to reveal their favorite political philosopher. George W. Bush rather undramatically announced that Jesus had made a profound difference in his life once he accepted Him into his heart.

Following the debate certain commentators went ballistic. NY Times columnist Maurine Dowd mercilessly mocked Bush for "playing the Jesus card." TV pundit Chris Matthews lambasted Bush for invoking Christ in a debate about "secular" politics.

Matthews, a Christian himself and a Democrat, is usually fair to Republicans and intellectually honest. So I was surprised and completely taken aback by his sardonic remarks. In fairness and to his credit, Matthews later apologized for "being a wise-guy." But his statements still need to be addressed.

Matthews said, "I thought we were supposed to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" -- implying that even Christ agrees with him that politics and religion don't mix.

Of course, with that pronouncement Christ was not forbidding politicians from invoking his name, nor Christians from being involved in politics or serving in government.

Matthews and others also asserted that Bush's answer was the height of opportunism -- that he only brought up Christ to pander to Bible Belt voters in Iowa. That seems very unlikely, given the fact that Bush had no way of anticipating this question. In fact, most observers agreed that he seemed completely spontaneous and sincere -- maybe even a bit sheepish about having to answer such a personal question.

Plus, the pandering argument completely loses steam when considered in light of Bush's other responses that evening and prior. Rarely in the debate, or in the two preceding it, did Bush even address moral issues, much less Christianity. Other candidates such as Keyes and Bauer have made the nation's moral decline their conspicuous cause for running.

More significantly, when Gary Bauer pressed Bush to commit to naming a pro-life candidate as his running mate, he steadfastly refused. If Bush's purpose had been to shore up his Bible Belt support it is highly doubtful that he would have rejected Bauer's offer.

Matthews' most offensive contention, though, was that Bush was being unresponsive to the question, which called for his favorite political philosopher. By injecting Christ into the debate at that point Bush obviously could not be a very informed Christian -- or maybe even a Christian at all. For true Christians, according to Matthews, believe that Christ was God incarnate, not just some political philosopher or great moral teacher. Bush's answer, then, exposed his failure to appreciate Christ's infinite superiority to the other "pantheon of earthly philosophers."

What is exposed here is not Bush's error, but Matthews'. His reaction betrays the common liberal paranoia about conservative Christians participating in the political debate.

The fallacy in Matthews' position, taken to its logical conclusion, is that it assumes that Christianity is something that should be practiced in private and only publicly at church. To the contrary, Bush's answer reveals his understanding that Christians believe that following Christ and his teachings is mandated for all aspects of life, including political.

This does not mean that Christian conservatives believe that the government should establish a religion in contravention of the First Amendment. But they do believe, as did the overwhelming majority of the framers of this nation, that Christians should actively participate in government and in solving society's problems. And they are quite correct about that. Christians cannot build a Chinese firewall between their private lives and their public persona, between their Christianity and their governance.

No matter which candidate ultimately becomes the 43rd president of the United States he will bring his world view to the White House, and it necessarily will affect his approach to the presidency -- just as the world view of the framers was incorporated into this nation's founding documents.

And as for Bush, he would probably have a much better chance of becoming number 43 if he would reconsider his answer to Gary Bauer about choosing a pro-life running mate.

JWR contributor David Limbaugh is an attorney practicing in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and a political analyst and commentator. Send your comments to him by clicking here.


12/15/99: Beltway media bias
12/13/99: White House ambulance chasing
12/08/99: Clinton's labor pains
12/06/99:The lust for power
12/01/99: In defense of liberty
11/29/99: Are Republicans obsolete?
11/24/99: Say you're sorry, Mr. President
11/22/99: Architects of victory
11/17/99: Trump's tax on freedom
11/15/99: GOP caves again
11/10/99: Triangulation and 'The Third Way'
11/08/99: Sticks and stones
11/03/99: Keyes vs. media lapdogs
11/01/99: Signs of the times
10/27/99: The false charge of isolationism
10/25/99: A matter of freedom
10/20/99: Clinton's mini-meltdown
10/18/99: Senate GOP shows statesmanship
10/13/99: Senate must reject nuclear treaty
10/11/99: Bush bites feeding hand
10/06/99: Jesse accidentally opens door for Pat
10/04/99: Clinton and his media enablers
09/29/99: Reagan: Big-tent conservatism
09/27/99: The Clinton/Gore taint?
09/22/99: Have gun (tragedy), will travel
09/20/99: Hillary's blunders and bloopers
09/15/99: GOP must remain conservative
09/13/99:Time for Bush to take charge, please
09/10/99: Bush's education plan: Dubya confounds again
09/07/99: Pat, savior or spoiler?
09/02/99: Character doesn't matter?
08/30/99: Should we judge?
08/25/99: Dubyah's drug question: Not a hill to die on
08/23/99: Should Dubyah start buying soap ... for all that mud?
08/16/99: 'W' stands for 'winner'
08/11/99: The truth about tax cuts
08/09/99: Hillary: Threading the needle
08/04/99: What would you do?
08/02/99: No appeasement for China
07/30/99: Hate Crimes Bill: Cynical Symbolism
07/26/99: Itís the 'moderates', stupid
07/21/99: JFK Jr. and Diana: the pain of privilege
07/19/99: Smith, Bush and the GOP
07/14/99: GOP must be a party of ideas
07/12/99: Gore's gender gap
07/08/99: Clintonís faustian bargain: our justice
07/06/99: The key to Bush's $36 million
06/30/99: Gore: a soda in every fountain
06/28/99: 'Sacred wall' or religious barrier?
06/23/99: GOP must lead in foreign policy
06/21/99: Crumbs of compassion
06/16/99: Compassionate conservatism: face-lift or body transplant?
06/10/99: Victory in Kosovo? Now What?