The Almighty and
U.S. Elections
By P. SAINATH
16/09/08 "Counterpunch'
-- - Barack Obama made sure his eyes looked unblinking into
the TV camera as he said: "I believe (in) -- Jesus Christ died
for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him." Barely an hour
later, John McCain said from the very same platform (into the
same television cameras) that being a follower of Christ "means
I'm saved and forgiven. We're talking about the world. Our faith
encompasses not just the United States but the world." Whatever
it means to Obama and McCain, it means God is alive and well and
a frontrunner in US election campaigns.
Both Presidential candidates were confessing their faith to
Pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church. This was in
mid-August and their first major public appearance on the same
platform - though not together but one immediately after the
other. Both were reaching audiences of millions, but were
basically aiming at a large religious constituency. Both knew
what they had to say and how to say it. Neither had a problem
with the idea that two potential presidents of the United States
could submit themselves to interviews and (absolution?) on a
religious platform of one faith.
It is of course legitimate for candidates to harbor religious
beliefs. It is also true that this was probably the first among
modern nations to have a written constitution making a strong
and sharp separation of church and state. Among the founders of
the United States were those who had seen religious persecution
in Europe. Hence their wall between Church and State. It's
precisely that separation that begins to erode in such public
displays of faith.
Let's suppose this had happened in, say, Pakistan. Say Zardari
and Sharif or whoever, had had their opening debate at the Grand
Mosque. You'd never have heard the end of it in the US media. It
would have been the 'aha' proof, if any were needed, of
religious zealotry, bigotry, fundamentalism and the rest of it.
Here though, the swamp of analysis in the mainstream media that
followed the Saddleback event had no such conclusions to draw.
Not even in mild, diluted terms.
The media not only fear (and sometimes suck up to) the religious
right, they also factor in what they see as vital sensitivities
of their audiences. For all its world leader status and
excellence in scientific research, far more people in this
country believe in the Devil than in Darwin, as one late 2007
poll put it. Belief in (literal) Hell and the Devil was firm
amongst 62 per cent of those surveyed. Darwin, complete with
evolution / 'natural selection' clocked in with a poor 42 per
cent. (About the same as Obama's rating in his latest polls.)
Also noteworthy: 79 per cent believed in miracles, 75 per cent
in heaven. Witches and UFOs draw roughly the same score, with
about a third of the populace believing in them. The UFOs have
it by a short head among the general population 35 per cent
against 31 per cent for witches. But witches outclass UFOs
amongst born again Christians - amongst whom Darwin fares worse
than both, with a mere 16 per cent. (You've got to hand it to
the Harris pollsters. Someday, someone must pull off this
exercise at the level of the Indian political class with its
godmen and tantriks.)
The religious (and spiritual-moral) motif in the US presidential
race extends far beyond Saddleback, though. And not just in
terms of prayers at the Conventions of both Republicans and
Democrats. The choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate
had a lot to do with it, too. It was a move aimed at getting
unhappy Evangelicals to board the McCain bandwagon. To that
extent, it's even a move that has worked, apart from putting the
Obama camp into confusion and despondency. The more so since the
Democrats have tried hard to broaden their base amongst 'faith
voters' for some time now.
This is partly based on the dangerous and fragile notion that
the Left-inclined, the anti-Bush voters, those angry over the
economy will vote Democrat anyway. So let's target the 'faith
voters' a bit more.
Religious writers and religious correspondents of the daily did
spot this even before the Democrats held their Convention in
Denver. They pointed to the fact that the party had a new "faith
caucus" and was throwing up themes like: "Faith in 2009. How an
Obama Administration will Engage People of Faith." Of course,
the religious events at their events were billed as
"inter-faith" services, but their scope was more Christian than
anything else. Of course, Jewish sentiments and votes are also
an important factor in US elections.
Other religions have made disastrous forays into US Presidential
races. None more humbling than the debacle of year 2000, when
several Muslim leaders and bodies decided and declared that the
best candidate for Muslims was a George W. Bush. As the San
Francisco Chronicle's Religion Writer points out: " The decision
was heavily influenced by Bush's public declaration to end the
use of secret evidence in immigration cases, a form of racial
profiling, that disproportionately affected Muslims. Muslim
leaders touted the fact that the bloc vote delivered thousands
of extra Bush votes in Florida, where Bush's margin was in the
hundreds." The rest is history.
Demonizing Muslims and Islam has multiplied manifold since then.
The Hillary Clinton campaign did not lag far behind the McCain
one when it came to reminding people that Obama's middle name is
Hussein. Even while being given a mudbath on that one, Obama
faced flak from the media for his association with his -
Christian - pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright holds what
in the US media are "controversial" views -- like saying that
9/11 was a result of the USA's own terrorism elsewhere. Obama
quickly distanced himself from his pastor. Now, the Democrats
wait, hoping that Sarah Palin's church and pastor will do her
some damage. They could be hoping in vain. True, a recent sermon
there said that bomb blasts and suicide attacks directed at
Israel were punishment for the Jews not converting to
Christianity. But outrageous statements on the Right get off
more lightly than the mildest criticisms from elsewhere. God and
the media favor the Big Battalions.
In India, we do have the Bharatiya Janata Party that has worked
hard, consciously and pretty explicitly at suffusing every
sphere of activity with religion - that is, their Brahmanical
brand of Hinduism In government, in education - and even in and
with the Army, it has spared no effort to whip up religiosity
and carry God all the way to the voting booth. While it has made
significant advances in all these efforts, it gets more complex
at election time. Inflation will be a much bigger God in the
next election and the BJP will seat him high up on their
pantheon. Sickening amounts of blood has been spilt in the name
of God. But God in this avatar always faces challenge and
criticism. Other parties of the Hindu Right, like the Shiv Sena,
would have a very poor base if their radical religious rhetoric
were not also pinned on to issues of regional identity and fears
of discrimination against "sons-of-the-soil" in jobs and
positions of authority. There have been coalitions, even at the
Centre, with no major religious motif. And there have been
several movements and parties, essentially atheistic, that have
come to power in the states on non-religious platforms. Far more
Muslims have voted to send Communists to parliament than to seat
candidates of the Muslim League there. And while drawing wide
conclusions from it would be very wrong - you still do have an
upper caste Hindu woman for President, a Sikh as Prime Minister,
a Dalit as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an atheist as
Speaker of the nation's parliament. As complex and confusing as
it gets, though perhaps logical when politics is seen as a mix
of so many diverse streams.
Here in America, the first modern state to legally separate
church and state, it's different. God moves in a strange way his
wonders to perform. And sometimes, during elections, for
instance, it really leaves you wondering.
P. Sainath is the rural affairs editor of The Hindu, where this
piece appears, and is the author of Everybody Loves a Good
Drought. This fall he is giving a course at UC Berkeley. He can
be reached at: psainath@vsnl.com.
Click on
"comments" below to read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary.
Do not include personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our
guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity –
are not permitted.
See our complete
Comment
Policy and use this link
to notify us if you have concerns about a
comment. We’ll promptly
review and remove any inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and
educational purposes. Information Clearing House
has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator
of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
