Politics Today

March 14, 2006

Every now and again I get sent via e-mail a Christian news alert from well-meaning family members. Last week I got one that started as follows:

If you read a major national newspaper this week, you may have seen the screaming full-page ad beginning with this headline: "These Religious Leaders Have a Serious Gambling Problem..." The ad, which also runs on television, pictures Ralph Reed, formerly with the Christian Coalition, Rev. Lou Seldon from the Traditional Values Coalition, and Jim Dobson of Focus on the Family with a sinister photo of Jack Abramoff. Talk about guilt by association.

I was called the Nixon "hatchet man," so I ought to know a "hatchet job" when I see one, though I am not sure that I have ever seen anything quite this vicious since the McCarthy era.

The facts are these: Jim Dobson had nothing to do with the Indian tribes or Abramoff. The allegations in the attack are without any basis in fact. Jim has fought gambling in forty-three states. This is nothing less than libel.

The attack on these Christians is sponsored by a group called Defcon. Its website lists the people, a Who's Who of the extreme left, including same-sex "marriage" and pro-abortion activists, liberal professors, and ACLU luminaries. And they have the nerve to say that Dobson, Reed, and Sheldon have "waged war against our Constitution."

This piece, "Have You No Shame", distributed widely on the internet, comes from Charles Colson, whose sphragis denoting authorship comes in the second paragraph with the reference to working for Nixon. Today, of course, he is a well-known Christian writer and commentator.

What bothers me about this article is the tricky rhetorical bypass of the fact that Ralph Reed is deeply and factually implicated in the Abramoff scandal. Colson mentions an attack that included Jim Dobson of Focus on the Family, defends Dobson from this attack, and then proceeds as if Reed too has been defended. The reader is led to think that all these Christian leaders are being wrongfully smeared—libeled.

But such is not the case. Ralph Reed remains quite guilty, and a very careful reader will note that he is not actually defended here. Dobson himself, on his website, tries hard to distance himself from Reed.. surely a sign that all is not well. But Colson is intent on portraying this as a vicious attack, and does not for a moment allow that something may be amiss.

Colson is quite strong in his denial that Jim Dobson had anything to do with Abramoff: "The allegations in the attack are without any basis in fact." Well, in fact, there is evidence linking Dobson to Abramoff.. such as e-mails in which Abramoff mentions Dobson.. see the article by Max Blumenthal.

Now, I tend to believe that Dobson knew nothing about the machinations of which he was a part. I agree too that an ad attacking him for his unproven role was unfair.. but to ask him questions about what he knew is fair. And to say that those who attack him do so "without any basis in fact" is wrong.

It is interesting that Colson does not attack Blumenthal's article, but picks on a newspaper ad which pushes a legitimate question about Dobson's role a step too far. That step too far allows Colson to pitch the issue as an all out attack. He paints his attackers in the worst light he can come up with.. they are supporters of same-sex marriage and abortion along with liberal professors (that's me!) and ACLU activists. Oh my, what a group. But go to the actual list of those on the group's advisory board.. which Colson must mean when he writes "its website lists the people..." Read it and see if the above four categories seems reasonable to you, or rather a blunt and even "vicious" way of discrediting those who legitimately disagree with him.

I generally do not get too interested in the political back and forth. But this article by Colson is an example of what is not needed in our national discussion. I guess no one should hope that Colson and others on the left and right would stop writing articles like this, but as readers we have the responsibility to demand care from the news sources that we utilize.

I suggest two principles: 1) make sure those who are attacked are given decent representation, and not smeared with catch-phrases.. and 2) be offended at articles that try to pull the wool over your eyes with rhetorical tricks. Let's not give deceivers second and third chances.