• Home
• Articles
• Support
• About
• Links
Times Watch for 05/01/03
Liberal Lieberman’s Non-Threatening Religion
In one sense, Adam Nagourney’s story on Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman is heartening. “Crash Course in Judaism for Lieberman’s Aides” is a sympathetic look at the trials faced by a devout politician. Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew, a form of observance which entails, among other strictures, a prohibition on politicking from dusk on Friday to past dusk on Saturday.
But is Lieberman getting breaks because of a new-found respect for religious belief at the Times, or is it because a liberal Jewish Democrat is a less inviting target than conservative Christians like Attorney General John Ashcroft and Sen. Rick Santorum?
Nagourney writes: “There has been much speculation, even among Mr. Lieberman's closest aides, about whether the nation is prepared to elect its first Jewish president next year beyond questions like whether Mr. Lieberman is too conservative for voters in Democratic primaries.”
(For one, Lieberman is no conservative. He holds a lifetime rating of 20 from the American Conservative Union . To put that in perspective, Ted Kennedy’s rating is 3 while Jesse Helms’ is 99.)
“A more immediate question for Mr. Lieberman's campaign is turning out to be logistical, and it has potentially serious implications for how voters perceive him. How does an Orthodox Jew run for president while obeying the extensive and intricate rules that govern the activities of religiously conservative members of his faith?”
Contrast that respectful treatment of Lieberman to that received by conservative Republican John Ashcroft. A particularly fear-mongering Times front-page story from 2001 is headlined “Religious Right Made Big Bush to Put Ashcroft in Justice Dept.” To make sure we get the hint, the story uses the word “conservative” 18 times. By contrast, today’s Times ponders whether the liberal Lieberman is too conservative to win the Democratic primary!
The Jan. 2001 story on Ashcroft notes he was “the leading recipient of campaign contributions from clergy and religious organizations” and adds, “in addressing the sensitive issue of how to blend religion and politics, Mr. Ashcroft has written that he has strived to balance politics and faith…. Mr. Ashcroft has woven his private faith into his public life….In his writings and speeches, he has emphasized that he views morality as integral to good government. When he was governor of Missouri and had the authority to choose judges, he seemed to have made a practice of trying to evaluate the moral mettle of judicial candidates.”
By contrast, Lieberman’s strict observance poses a mere inconvenience; it’s not a troubling aspect of his political character or a threat to the separation of church and state (the article’s subhead reads: “A candidate’s logistical problems could sway voters.”)
Lieberman also wasn’t questioned whether he could keep his personal morality separate from politics, even though as Gore’s running-mate in 2000 Lieberman claimed Americans the Democrat’s prescription drug plan was based on the Fifth Commandment (to honor your father and mother).
Does the respectful treatment granted Lieberman’s religion signal that the Times finally stopped trying to scare voters with the religion bogeyman? Unfortunately, judging by the paper’s coverage of Sen. Santorum, Times Watch rather doubts it.
E-mail Times Watch Director, Clay Waters, with Times Watch feedback at cwaters@mediaresearch.org