The Pilgrim’s Protest

By Caleb Wimble
In the midst of what has been without a doubt one of the most unique presidential races in the history of our nation, we’ve seen even more than our country’s usual share of political sophistry. Mud-slinging and back-biting abound with profusion, especially for a point so early in the election process. It seems, however, that the worst of this rhetorical refuse has been reserved for the primaries. The recent “pastoral scandals” in the campaigns of both Obama and McCain respectively have received remarkable media attention and, if student conversation here at CIU is a reliable indicator, have altered the standings of many prospective supporters of either candidate. The question of why this has occurred begs to be answered, and it may be that we uncover an interesting facet of voter psychology in the process.
When the U.S.-damning inflammatory sermons of Barrack Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, first fell under the media spotlight, it was seen by a number of political analysts as the potential silver bullet for Obama’s presidential aspirations. It seemed as though every pundit on the networks had a field day with the news, each major station playing repeated footage from several of the objectionable sermons for weeks following. Obama’s responsive speech, “A More Perfect Union,” served as moderately effective damage control, but there was no denying that the public revelation of his pastor’s incendiary, anti-American remarks would have a lasting effect on voters.
Several weeks ago a similar incident occurred within McCain’s campaign, albeit with less of a commotion. Pastor John Hagee, a controversial pro-Israeli activist who has called for invasion of Iran since 2006 (citing the need to fulfill biblical prophecy), announced his official endorsement of Senator John McCain. McCain, who had been courting the endorsement for over a year, stated that he was “very honored” by the endorsement, calling Hagee a “man of principle [who] does not stand boldly on both sides of any issue.” While Hagee may truly not stand on both sides of any issue, it has been well-noted by the media that he certainly takes a strong stance on a single side of many. Beyond his statements regarding Iran and Israel, we have been repeatedly reminded by the press that he has also called for an “unrelenting war against the Catholic church,” to which he refers as the “Great Whore” and the “anti-christ.”
More interesting than these events themselves, perhaps, is the fallout generated as a result. Beyond the immediate effect both incidents had upon the polls, the degree of relevance placed upon these endorsements by American voters at large is of remarkable note. Few deny that the last century saw an incredible decline in the depth and candor of the process of political campaigning - instead of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, for instance, we receive little more than 10-second sound bytes promising some vague description of “change” or “firmness of experience.” Candidates in general have developed a dubious reputation for the uncanny ability to switch sides of the fence without so much as stepping over the wire. But even within the midst of this shallow superficiality in the political sphere, should we not expect a more rigorous, reasonable response from the American people?
Instead of effecting change and decrying such fickle reversals in the voting populace, it may be that we are doing the very opposite. Rather than encouraging our candidates to strive for depth of character and clear pursuit of purpose, we leap at the chance to attack the very core of their moral fiber on the basis of a single endorsement. Have we truly become so cursory in our rationality that we believe the support of one man to be an indisputable metonymy of another’s position?
The results of the extent to which this line of thought could be carried is a rather telling indicator of its illogic. Do we honestly believe that our candidates should accept only the support of those whose worldview and opinions are in absolute alignment with their own? In essence, can we truly hold every endorser to a standard next-door to perfection? It may do us some measure of good to examine ourselves in the process of judging candidates in such a regard. We, as supporters and voters, are offering our own version of endorsement for our respective candidates of choice, who each in turn gladly accept the offer of our vote as a portion of their campaign infrastructure.
It is true that few of us hold to political views as extreme as those of Reverend Wright or Pastor Hagee. But certainly few of us would claim to be in absolute sync with the policies or morality of any political candidate, let alone that of our presidential ticket. Endorsements do not necessarily work two ways; though a candidate may be glad for the affirmation of a particular public figure, and likewise hold some measure of respect and appreciation for the figure himself, it seems a tenuous stretch to believe that the candidate is necessarily condoning any of the words or actions of the figure beyond the endorsement itself.
Perhaps in the midst of this public outcry we may take a stand for a more honorable treatment of our nation’s political process. And perhaps we might also allow ourselves to be humbled by a gentle reminder of our own shortcomings as human beings before so readily casting our condemnation of others. After all, if Christians are to be considered the representatives and endorsers of Christ, should this world consider their failings to be reflective of his character?