The Passion of the Christ: The Key to a Republican Landslide

Men's News Daily ^ | March 11, 2004 | Bruce Walker

[presidio9]

John Kerry looks strong now; George W. Bush looks weak. What are the chances that John Kerry could actually win the 2004 Election? What are the chances that Democrats could win a broadly based victory in November? Not good. America is not divided into two relatively equal ideological camps. America is conservative - overwhelmingly conservative. The highly respected, bipartisan Battleground Poll in the September 2003 reveals that 59% of the American people describe themselves as conservative (42%) or very conservative (17%) and 35% of Americans describe themselves as liberal (25%) or very liberal (10%). The September 2003 Battleground Poll results are not an anomaly. The two previous Battleground Poll results show an almost identical ideological breakdown. Even if those who identify themselves as moderate or who do not express an opinion regarding ideology are included as actually liberal, Americans conservatives constitute a far greater percentage of the electorate than those other groups combined. So how does President Bush begin to draw the ideological line in the sand? There are several different approaches, and there is no reason not to take each approach slowly and consistently beginning now. President Bush begin the refrain "I am a conservative and my opponent is a liberal."

How does Kerry respond to that? If he acknowledges that statement is true, then he has placed himself firmly in the camp of the minority ideology. If he denies that statement or equivocates, then he opens the door to a pandora's box of past statements and votes. If he ignores the statement, then he allows President Bush to define that issue completely.

But there is a stronger demarcation in American society today, and that vast chasm appears most clear in the success of The Passion of Christ, despite all the Leftist hatred of Mel Gibson and his film. President Bush should fight this campaign on religious faith, and he should fight it in a way that shows just how intolerant and bigoted Leftists are about religion. The Passion of Christ is excruciatingly vivid, but Hollywood has been churning out excruciatingly vivid films with graphic violence, explicit sex and often perverse sex scenes and highly offensive dialogue and images for years. It is the message of The Passion of Christ that infuriates Leftists.

Americans overwhelmingly believe that Jesus was crucified for the sake of mankind. Mel Gibson has done nothing more than restate and defend what the American people believe. President Bush should do the same, but he should restate and defend even more generally held religious American beliefs. How? The Republican Platform ask for a constitutional amendment that requires the words "Under God" be included in the Pledge of Allegiance, that the phrase "In God We Trust" be on all American currency and coins, and that the existing references to God in our national anthem remain. Most people are not familiar with the last stanza to The Star Spangled Banner, but these lines from that stanza are unmistakably religious:

Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: ““In God is our trust!”

The platform provision, endorsed by President Bush, should also make it quite clear that preserving these three formal and long held demonstrations of the religious faith in our federal government are the only demands that religious people will make upon the American government recognizing the importance of God in our public life. President Bush should endorse this amendment and point out that the amendment threatens only the agenda of those people who wish to remove all symbols of God from our existing federal government. This is an amendment, like the Bill of Rights itself, intended to preserve those values which the Founding Fathers considered so obvious that these rights were not included in the original Constitution. What would John Kerry say about this proposed amendment? Kerry could ignore the issue, and appear weak and craven. Kerry could say that the amendment "is not important," and then hear President Bush explain to him that moral values are at the very heart of our national and even our global problems.

Kerry could warn that such an amendment would open the door to a national religion, but because the amendment would only preserve the existing and because the amendment process itself is so arduous, Kerry would look silly. Kerry could warn that the amendment is unconstitutional, but because it is an amendment to the Constitution, then unless it deprives a state of its equal representation in the Senate, it could not be "unconstitutional."

Kerry could endorse this amendment, but if he did so, he would appear to be following President Bush on an important issue and this would badly fracture the Leftist core of the Democrat Party. Kerry could pretend to support the amendment, but if he did so, Republicans could pass the resolution quickly in the House of Representatives and then present it as a resolution in the United States Senate and Kerry would either have to support it or support a filibuster or vote against it.

This issue - we should hope - would sharply divide America, and this division would be reflected in every state and federal election, because states and the federal government all have a clear constitutional role to play in the ratification of constitutional amendments. Republicans in the House of Representatives could compel a vote very quickly on this amendment. What if 340 House members voted for the amendment and 95 House Democrats voted against it? What would those 95 House Democrats say in the November 2002 election? Republicans could convene special sessions of state legislatures. What if the legislatures in South Dakota, North Dakota, Indiana, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Louisianan, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Colorado, Oregon and Florida passed a resolution endorsing the amendment? Which members of those state legislatures would vote against the amendment? What would the Democrat and Republican senate candidates in those states say?

Leftists love to whine about wedge issues, even as they create wedge issues all the time. Their real concern is when conservatives fight back. It is time to fight back. It is time to ask Americans if they want a government based upon their sovereignty and their faith in a Blessed Creator or if they want a government based upon the sovereignty of judges and other bureaucrats and their faith in atheism. If the question is asked, the good guys - that’s us - will win. Let’s ask.

[My2Cents]

I know of at least one liberal secularist who saw the film, and her response was, "It was really clear from the movie that those who killed Jesus was all of us." Praise God.

[ZULU]

No. BUt MOST Conservatives believe in the core Judaeo-Christian values upon which this nation was founded, and all liberals reject them.

[RightWhale]

Passion may be viewed as a strong response to WTC911. It is war, total war. War fought in the postmodern style of corporate packaged culture. The battlegrounds are aesthetics and symbolism through semiotics. The weapon is art.

[jaime1959]

> President Bush begin the refrain "I am a conservative and my opponent is a liberal." <

Well, half of that statement is true (the liberal part).

[My2Cents]

Dittos, regarding your comment on Lord of the Rings! Good versus evil, and the character qualities required to fight on behalf of the good. I thought it either a blind coincidence, but more likely God making a direct point, that the evening in which Return of the King was sweeping the Oscars, "The Passion" was the number-one movie in America.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"I get the distinct feeling that a lot of folks around these parts believe that only conservative christians are going to see this movie. Or, that the message of the movie has no meaning to liberals. Both ideas don't make any sense at all to me."

That is a very valid observation. However, among the viewers are many Christians who have been maligned and marginalized. They don't have to let themselves be.

[My2Cents]

Well-said. I agree with you 100%. And Mel's movie is the equivalent to "D-Day" in the culture war, IMHO.

[Jim Noble]

The wedge issue is, "Is the American state legitimate?"

If you answer yes, it is, the next question is, do you acknowledge that Men are created, that their Creator exists and endows them with rights, and that governments are instituted among Men to secure those rights as the Creator intended?

If you answer "yes", you're on the right side.

If, however, you don't believe any of this Creator and government stuff-then what possible basis to you claim for the American state to rule?

[Jim Noble]

And Mel's movie is the equivalent to "D-Day" in the culture war, IMHO

And gay marriage is Stalingrad...

[nickcarraway]

interesting

[AlbionGirl]

Would that his analysis be true. If GW started down the Church/state road this author is recommending, he would lose the election in landslide proportion. The electorate is inarguably philosophically Conservative but as inarguably operationally liberal.

A people truly jealous of their liberty would have never allowed government to grow to the size it's become. NEVER! Additionally, any people jealous of their liberty would have started dragging judges by the collars of their polyester robes down the flight of stairs leading to Halls of Justice, nationwide, decades ago.

The only way his assertion becomes vital is if GW can mobilize that part of the electorate that usually doesn't vote to vote his way.

[Qwinn]

Oh, I believe completely that there are people who self-describe as liberal (or, at least, Democrat) who are religious and who appreciate this movie.

The thing is, though, that most of them -have- to realize that -most- of the vicious attacks against Christianity and this movie came from the Left (Krauthammer, Safire and Malzberg excepted - and it's going to be hard for me to forgive them for blurring what would otherwise have been an extremely distinct line).

I think the point of the article is that this is going to disaffect a lot of self-described liberals from the Left. They're going to soon see that they'll have to side with their Faith, or with their leadership, because they can't side with both.

The author thinks they'll side with their Faith - and that will result in a landslide. I don't know about that - I'm a bit more cynical - I think that -most- of them will side with their politics. After all, they were slow-witted enough to stick with that leadership up until now. However, I think that -enough- of them (even if just a minority) will side with their Faith to tip the balance and make it a decisive victory for Bush, if not a landslide.

Qwinn

[MEGoody]

"It does not however, completely override my deeply ingrained cynicism when I see people making a ton of money on their faith."

Seems like everyone thought (and told Mel) that this was going to be a big flop. But Mel made the movie anyway out of a commitment to bring the account of the last 12 hours of the life of Christ to the big screen.

The fact that he is making millions off it is a "happenstance" (a pleasant one I'm sure). No one else had the slightest inkling it would be such a financial success.

[presidio9]

Actually, I think the assumption here is that charging up the Religious Right is far more useful than respecting the sensitivities of the handful of coservative athiests, and I agree with it.

[presidio9]

Oh, I believe completely that there are people who self-describe as liberal (or, at least, Democrat) who are religious and who appreciate this movie.

Sure there are. But they are the ones who volunteer in soup kitchens, and think that the primary role of government is to care for people. They opposed the war on truely moral grounds. They are naive. The expect the best of intentions. If they can be persuaded to take some interest in how government really works, they are fairly easy to convert to conservativism. Abortion often keeps them from voting at all.

[SedVictaCatoni]

The Republican Platform ask for a constitutional amendment that requires the words "Under God" be included in the Pledge of Allegiance, that the phrase "In God We Trust" be on all American currency and coins, and that the existing references to God in our national anthem remain.

Wow, that's a great idea. I further propose the following additional amendment:

Amendment XXIX

Section 1. The twenty-third day of May shall be known as National Pickle Day.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[Blood of Tyrants]

As Rush says, the only way that liberals get elected is by fooling the people into believe that they aren't liberal.

[My2Cents]

I hadn't thought of it like that, but I think you're right.

[meema]

Unfortunately, I think it's all of the above. Ignorance of many things plus political expediancy.
It does not make me happy to believe this now. I believed in his veracity to the point of tears.
I wish I still did. It would make me a lot happier.