Dr. Richard Land: February 2008 Archives

The good news from Iraq continues to accumulate. Former critics such as Anthony Cordesman have the integrity and the courage to believe their eyes when they are confronted with “major process in every area” when they visit the nation of Iraq. Cordesman went on to include that “if the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government—in security, governance, and development—there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state,” (Anthony Cordesman, “The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing from the Battlefield,” Feb. 13, 2008.)

There is manifold evidence of major progress in Iraq, starting at the local and regional level and now finally bubbling up to the level of the Baghdad government. The military success of the surge has opened the way for breathtaking progress in other areas. The situation in Anbar province has gone from grievous to inspiring. The response of the president’s opponents in the Congress has been “well, of course there’s been military progress against al-Qaida in Iraq,” which has been dealt devastating defeat after devastating defeat. But the president’s critics protest that the inspiring work of our soldiers has been for naught because there hasn’t been “national” reconciliation. The president’s opponents continue to raise the bar. Military success, regional reconciliation, and the fact that nearly a hundred thousand neighborhood volunteers are helping to police a near return to normalcy in Baghdad are not enough any longer.

The same people, who predicted the failure of the surge until it succeeded and then proclaimed that the positive results of the surge in producing regional reconciliation (which they predicted would never happen) are not sufficient, are now demanding nothing less than “national reconciliation.” Perhaps they demanded this because they never thought it would happen, but now it is. What a dilemma for the president’s opponents! The Iraqi parliament approved three tremendous significant pieces of legislation. First, the parliament passed a law granting substantial amnesty for prisoners, four out of five of whom are Sunni. Second, the parliament approved a $48 billion national budget (most of this is from oil revenues) that allocates government revenues to the provinces, including the Kurds and Anbar. Lastly, the parliament passed a law that returns more authority to the provinces governed by representatives to be elected in a vote by Oct. 1. While this last law has been vetoed (yet another symbol of democratic government), most observers feel that this too will be worked out by the representatives of the democratically elected Maliki government. The fact the law passed the parliament in the first place in itself should be tremendously encouraging to those who desire a stable and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East.

How tragic it would be if the president’s critics, in spite of all this undeniable good news, succeeded in forcing the U.S. to withdraw its military and development support from Iraq’s government—snatching catastrophic defeat from the jaws of victory.

The question has to be asked—do the president’s critics detest him so much that they are willing for their country and the cause of freedom to suffer defeat in order to deny President Bush vindication? I hope not.

What a titanic struggle for delegates is unfolding in the Democratic race for the White House! With Senators Clinton and Obama locked in hand-to-hand combat for every single delegate, it is beginning to look as if the Democrats may not have a candidate who will have the required 2,025 delegates to secure the nomination after all the primaries and caucuses are concluded.

How can that be? The answer to that question is the role that so-called “superdelegates” will play in the nominating process. Since superdelegates will make up approximately one fifth (19.6%) of all delegate votes at the convention in Denver, only 80% of delegates are selected by caucus or primary voters.

In a hotly contested and evenly divided race such as the one in which Senators Clinton and Obama are locked, it is almost impossible to gain the required 50% + 1 (2,025), especially since by party rule all Democratic caucuses and primaries award delegates proportionally, with a ban on decisive “winner-take-all” results. This is very democratic, but it makes it much more difficult for a candidate who wins the majority of states, but does so in close races, to amass the required majority of delegates.

Consequently, the superdelegates—which include all Democratic members of the U.S. Congress, Democratic Governors, the Democratic National Committee members, as well as all former Democratic Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Senate and House leaders, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee—will play a pivotal role.

These superdelegates—disproportionately middle-aged (that’s being charitable), white, and male—are free to vote their “consciences,” without regard to what throngs of Democratic primary or caucus voters in their districts or states may have done.

How “democratic” is that? It appears that the superdelegates are a symbol of liberal elitism. “Yes, you can vote for the candidate of your choice,” but if the people chose unwisely, the party elders, fulfilling the role of elitist “nanny” state, will decide what is “best for the people.”

Frankly, I doubt that the rank-and-file Democratic Party primary and caucus voters will sit still for this blatant paternalism. I certainly hope not!

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of being in virtually total agreement with the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union in its suit against a judge who ruled that marriages are invalid “if presided over by a minister who does not regularly serve a church or preach in a physical house of worship.”

As a minister who does “regularly serve a church” and “preach in a physical house of worship,” I disagree vehemently with the judge’s ruling. If the separation of church and state means anything, it means that the state (in this case a court) has no authority or power to decide which ministers are “kosher” and which ones are not. That authority is reserved solely for the denominational group that is ordaining or authorizing a person to officiate at religious marriage ceremonies. Surely this falls under the category of “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion in our glorious First Amendment.

The state has the right to decide who may get married to whom (bans on incest and polygamy, etc.) but not to decide who may perform religious marriage ceremonies. If the state is ever granted the right to decide which religious groups are “approved” and which are “disapproved,” then as a nation we will have descended from the heights of religious liberty to the depths of mere governmental toleration. As I remember, our forefathers fought a revolution to free us from such governmental intrusion on our consciences.

It now appears almost certain that the presidential contest in 2008 will be between Sen. McCain and either Sen.Clinton or Obama. I have been asked on many occasions which contest I would prefer. My answer is that, as a conservative, I would rather see a contest between Sen. McCain and Clinton, as her negatives are so high that she would be a more vulnerable candidate in a general election than Sen. Obama would be.

As an American, however, I believe that a campaign of McCain v. Obama would be a more positive and better experience for the country. Why? If it is Sen. McCain v. Sen. Clinton, it will be a much more divisive and bitter campaign (as all the previous Clinton campaigns have been.) Furthermore, it will inevitably degenerate in large part into another bitter “slanging match” in the blood feud between the part of the 60’s generation that turned against the Vietnam War and the part that continued to see it as their patriotic duty to support the war and the troops. The country does not need yet another round of that bitter debate in which no one wins and everyone loses. As satisfying as the moral symmetry of having Senator McCain, the Vietnam War hero, possibly defeating the draft dodger’s wife would be for many of us, it would be needlessly divisive for the country, whichever candidate was left standing at the end of the day. All my instincts tell me that the lure to descend to the dark side of such a contest would be virtually irresistible for far too many of our citizens.

However, a contest between Senators McCain and Obama would be about the future, not the past, and which direction the country wanted to go, domestically and internationally. The choices would be clear and distinct and would be conducted in a much more positive way than any debate between Sen. McCain and his supporters and Sen. Clinton and her supporters could ever be. Such a campaign could clear the air and could become the first chapter in an ongoing debate about America’s 21st century rather than the final chapter in the nation’s bitter debate about perhaps its most divisive issue of the 20th century—Vietnam.

The tidal wave of “Super Tuesday” has come and gone. What did it leave in its wake?

On the Democratic side, the race between Senators Clinton and Obama tightened rather than clarified. Sen. Obama won more states, but the really big prizes—New York, New Jersey, and California—went to Sen. Clinton. So the race for the Democratic nomination does not end, but continues, perhaps into the summer and maybe even the convention itself. Wow! I’m a “Baby Boomer,” so I can’t remember a national political convention where the nominee was not virtually certain before the convention started. (That is, unless you count watching the 1952 Republican convention on TV while still a toddler sitting on my mother’s lap—and I confess, I have only dim and partial memories of that experience.)

On the Republican side, clarity and closure seem to loom much sooner on the political calendar. Sen. McCain must now be seen as a prohibitive favorite to be the eventual presidential nominee.

Gov. Huckabee, as he often does, greatly exceeded the pundits' expectations by winning five states—Alabama, Arkasas, Georgia, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Governors Huckabee and Romney, however, are so far behind in delegates that it is difficult to construct a path from the present situation to nomination as the presidential candidate for either of them.

First, why has Gov. Huckabee not garnered more support from self-identified Evangelicals? I have known Gov. Huckabee for almost three decades. He is a fervent, sincere, and dedicated Evangelical who is rock solid on the social issues, which are of highest priority to a significant majority of the evangelical community. Yet, while Gov. Huckabee has received more support from Evangelicals than any of the other candidates in most states, he has not reached 50 percent support from self-identified Evangelicals. Why? Evangelicals are not one-dimensional. While they care overwhelming about the pro-life and marriage issues, many of them are national security “hawks” and many of them are economic conservatives and/or “supply-siders.”

Second, Gov. Romney, while a staunch economic conservative, has not been able to convince significant numbers of Evangelicals of the sincerity of his change to conservatism on the social issues. Most of us who have been fortunate enough to hear him personally relate the story of his change of views find him convincing; but he cannot have a small group discussion with all the Evangelicals in the electorate.

What are Senator McCain’s chances of uniting the Reagan coalition in the fall if he, as expected, is the GOP nominee? His prospects are excellent, in spite of what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, may say. Why? Senator McCain has a reliable, though not spotless, pro-life voting record, and he is a “super hawk” on national security issues.

More important, it is Senator Clinton or Senator Obama (recently named the Senate’s most liberal member by the prestigious and non-partisan National Journal) who will accomplish whatever uniting is necessary. Either one of them will generate a laser-sharp focus of what their respective administrations would mean to conservatives, and Sen. McCain would benefit greatly from that focus.