Slate's Bizbox
the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

Michael Chabon and Frank Rich

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910111213141516
from: Frank Rich

Does Piety Breed Purity?

Posted Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2001, at 8:00 PM ET

Dear Michael,

Well, I see this morning, thanks to Michael Janofsky's piece in the New York Times, that the Texas fugitives had a smarter idea than I did in their now-terminated effort to elude the authorities. Instead of hiding out in the anonymous confines of Broadway's Seussical, they hid out in their southern Colorado trailer park by presenting themselves as religious folk. "One of the men even attended a Bible-reading group at the park," Janofsky writes. He also quotes a woman next door: "They told people they were here to attend a religious convention. Whenever they would go outside to work on a vehicle, they would play religious music."

This is brilliant. It's part of the political correctness code in the country--one the right never talks about--that we are not to question the piety of anyone who is ostentatious in a display of faith. These Texas convicts weren't stupid and might have gotten away with this indefinitely had it not been for the intervention of America's foremost crime-prevention institution, TV's America's Most Wanted.

One of the tactics of the right in defending John Ashcroft--a nomination that we learn this morning was put on hold for a week in the Senate Judiciary Committee (if only a week)--is to claim that anyone who criticizes his record is ignoring or demeaning his obvious piety. Someone this devout must have absolutely pure motives, this line of thinking goes--and anyone who says otherwise must be a religious bigot. It's amazing how successful this technique is in putting liberals (and much of the liberal media) on the defensive.

To answer your previous question about Medved, I don't think he was being nasty, just irritated by all those secular Jews back East. Now there is a "bad for the Jews" moment that all Jews regardless of geography, politics, or degree of secularity can be upset about--the appalling last-minute Bill Clinton pardon of Marc Rich. (No relation to me, thank God!) Rich is the commodities trainer who evaded nearly $50 million in taxes, traded oil with Iran during the hostage crisis, and successfully went on the lam 18 years ago to Switzerland, where he happily made more millions, if not billions. Now it turns out that this utterly inexplicable pardon had as its clandestine backers what the Times calls "a virtual Who's Who of Israeli society and Jewish philanthropy." Rich was a thief of taxpayers' money who never served a day of time, but his good works for various good Jewish and Israeli causes makes it all OK! Though the Texas fugitives weren't so lucky in their efforts to elude the law, it wasn't because they picked the wrong strategy.

Best,
Frank

</?xml:namespace>

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910111213141516
from: Frank Rich

Does Piety Breed Purity?

Posted Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2001, at 8:00 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Michael Chabon's latest novel is The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. Frank Rich is an op-ed columnist for the New York Times and author, most recently, of Ghost Light.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray:




Thank you Mr Rich for bringing up the no tanks in the streets comment repeated by all the talking heads on TV. I too was shocked by it. We should be celebrating because there are no tanks in the streets? We settle for so little. They had an election in Canada recently, with very high turnout(by American standards) modern voting machines, and yes no tank in the streets. The winner was declared within hours. Unlike the US they can be certain that the man in charge was elected fair and square.

Why do the talking heads repeat empty pieties? Healing, closure, no tanks, peaceful transfer? Is it to create a false sense that the system works even when there are signs that the system failed?

--James Lynch

(To reply, click here.)


The news coverage of the inauguration seemed so rote. It reminded me of my local cable access channel, which replays the same prom footage over and over and at odd times. It's odd to channel surf and come across high-schoolers decked out in tuxes and gowns, standing awkwardly on lawns, getting into limos, walking into a dance hall over and again. I'm sure the kids in the video might like the event, and must love seeing it.

So too this inauguration. The hard core Bushies and the hard core Clinton-haters were likely cheered and moved by the whole coronation process. But really. It was so forlorn.

And even Bush's well-crafted--it's a pleasure to read--acceptance speech sounded tin coming from him. Every time he speaks, even when the rhetoric's lofty, I can't help but hear the C- student he usually is, the one who describes or explains things by restating the obvious (I'm a uniter, not divider, and that means I try to bring people together, not push them apart.). I'm so used to circular logic from Bush that I'm edge whenever he speaks.

And too, Clinton's 7.5 minute farewell, it seemed to me, had more oomph and staying power than W.'s 14 minute at bat. So as Rich suggests, W. pales not only because I usually find him dim, but also, in this case, by comparison to Clinton's superior oratory style.

--Nick Carbone

(To reply, click here.)

(1/22)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Over the Line
Harold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
PLUS » Milbank: The President's Lullaby