Obama attends church (in contrast to George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan). He has spoken publicly about his Christian faith. Nevertheless, Wisconsin Governor and potential presidential candidate Scott Walker has said he has no idea whether the president is Christian. After all, they’ve never discussed it. Oh, and even asking Walker the question is objectionable: “To me, this is a classic example of why people hate Washington and, increasingly, they dislike the press,’ he said. ‘The things they care about don’t even remotely come close to what you’re asking about.”
Curiously, he didn’t express any concern that “people” have a negative reaction to Repubs and religious conservatives who are the ones promoting the idea Obama isn’t a Christian (Byron York likewise assumes that any doubts about Obama’s religion are his own fault).
I suspect this is a classic example of the dilemma Repub politicians face. A lot of the core voters are convinced Obama is an unamerican, America-hating, closet Muslim, and they don’t want to be told they’re full of it. On the other hand, pushing this line in defiance of the facts might alienate people who aren’t die-hard Republicans. So Walker tries to thread the needle. Of course, as pointed out in the comments here, it’s unlikely Walker will ever suggest that, say, as he’s never discussed faith with Jeb Bush (assuming he hasn’t), he’d make the same observation.
The comments are on a post about a new column by conservative law professor Glenn Reynolds, arguing that while it’s perfectly reasonable to worry about presidential patriotism (and I remember how much he brought this up under W … oh. wait), the real issue is voters’ patriotism. Shouldn’t we make the right to vote contingent on whether they love this country? He cites Heinlein’s Starship Troopers, where the franchise is granted for military service as a role model: “a society where voters, too, had to demonstrate their patriotism before being allowed to vote … The thought was that such voters would be more careful, and less selfish, in their voting.”
Of course this is just one more in the string of Republican arguments that the Wrong People shouldn’t be allowed to vote, but it’s a really bad one. For starters, Heinlein’s franchise didn’t require patriotism, just military service. Timothy McVeigh would have qualified, for instance. People don’t automatically sign up to serve in the military out of patriotism, they sign up for a steady job, to learn valuable skills, to see the world, to see action, to test themselves in combat … None of which is meant as an insult to the military. Nothing’s wrong with those reasons, and having those motives doesn’t mean they’re not patriotic, but Reynolds is blurring two separate things.
And isn’t this a rather bizarre argument for a Republican to make, given that it disqualifies so many prominent people on that side of the aisle (including himself, because he sure hasn’t seen action according to his bio).
•Pundit Jonah Goldberg, who once said it was totally unreasonable to expect him to enlist when he has a wife, a child and a career (this at a time when “stop loss” orders calling soldiers back into service were taking people away from all three).
•Dick Cheney who “had better things to do” than serve.
•Tom DeLay who said he wanted to serve in Vietnam, but there were so many black kids enlisting the military had no room for white boys.
•Phil Gramm, who said his multiple deferments during ‘nam were irrelevant because a guy with his brains would never have seen combat anyway.
•George W. Bush who enlisted in the National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam, then blew off the Guard and never completed his service (in fairness, I’ve read articles by some military personnel who say anyone learning to fly the kind of planes the Guard had back then was showing a lot of courage).
I suspect Reynolds is using patriotism and national service as euphemisms for “anyone who votes for the traitor commie socialist dems.” Or maybe he wrote the column without applying a second’s thought.
(all rights to image belong to current holder)
