My Turn: Robertson puts foot in mouth
Once again, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson has stuck his foot firmly in his mouth. Last Monday, he called for the United States government to assassinate Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez.
Mr. Robertson suggested American agents “take out” Mr. Chavez to keep Venezuela from becoming a “launching pad for communist influence and Muslim extremism” in Latin America and beyond.
With friends like Pat Robertson, President Bush doesn’t need any more enemies. Mr. Robertson’s inflammatory remarks can only add to the tension that already exists between the United States and Venezuela. By the way, Venezuela now provides about 10-15 percent of our nation’s imported oil.
As a U.S. citizen, Mr. Robertson is entitled to his First Amendment rights to free speech, however ludicrous and offensive that speech might be.
But, when he used his public pulpit, the Christian Broadcast Network’s “The 700 Club” to spew his venom, I believe he crossed the line from free speech to public policy advocate, and a dangerous one at that.
Mr. Robertson’s call for the assassination of Mr. Chavez was both un-Christian and illegal. It should have been immediately and strongly denounced by the United States government. Although the Bush administration did distance itself from Mr. Robertson, as of this writing, I know of no outright denouncement from the White House of Mr. Robertson’s remarks.
A State Department spokesman called Mr. Robertson’s remarks “inappropriate.” No, Janet Jackson baring her breast on national television was inappropriate. Mr. Robertson’s call for the United States government to assassinate another head of state, President Chavez, was inexcusable.
The spokesman did say later that, “This is not the policy of the United States government. We do not share his views.”
Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said about Robertson’s remarks,”Our department doesn’t do that kind of thing. It’s against the law. He’s a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time.”
Mild disclaimers by the State Department and Defense Department appeared to ignore the obvious: Pat Robertson is not just another “private citizen.” He is a well-known, highly-controversial public personality who’s even been a candidate for president. He is also, at times, a demagogue, who panders to our preoccupations and prejudices.
Given Robertson’s considerable influence, for good or bad, I believe President Bush should have immediately denounced Mr. Robertson’s remarks. He should have done so, not because President Chavez is a friend of the United States. Clearly, he is not. His mentor is Fidel Castro. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated, Mr. Chavez is “a negative force” in the region.
Instead, President Bush should have denounced Mr. Robertson’s incendiary remarks because it would have been the right thing to do, even if it did alienate part of the president’s political support base. It was a missed opportunity for the president to demonstrate the moral courage he has often shown to the nation, and to the world, especially since 9/11.
To his credit, last Wednesday, Mr. Robertson did issue a formal apology for his call for the assassination of Mr. Chavez. He did so, finally, after tediously temporizing about being misquoted and misinterpreted by the media. Any hope Mr. Robertson won’t put his foot in his mouth again would be the “triumph of hope over experience.”
Indeed, he personifies the old adage that “It is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
Thomas B. Vaughn is a professor at Motlow College and co-host of “Viewpoints,” a radio show that airs on WCPI 91.3 FM.