In the course of preaching a crusade against Islam, Lt. Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin threw out the thought that George W. Bush is in the White House "because God put him there." He is not the only one who thinks so.The general, who heads anti-terrorist intelligence work in the Pentagon, astonished the talking classes enough with his comparisons between the size of Christian and Islamic gods. There was little reaction to his assertion that God -- rather than the usual suspects, namely, voters or the Supreme Court -- chose the president, but it's almost an article of faith in the churches he attends. I've seen it in e-mail. I've heard it from fellow Catholics, who should know better.
The odd way Mr. Bush took office feeds the notion that he is the choice of God. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of Floridians who voted for Al Gore saw their ballots turn into votes for Pat Buchanan. Now, you could attribute that to Palm Beach County Elections Supervisor Theresa LePore trying unwisely to be helpful, But, if you are so disposed, you could attribute it to a miracle. Many Americans are disposed to see miracles where others see butterfly ballots.
The proportion of each group in the electorate is a mystery. I tried Google and Nexis and can't find any poll on how many people think Mr. Bush is literally God-anointed. That's a pity. The question may be beneath the poll-takers' dignity, but it could be important for the country.The belief that God chose Mr. Bush is a show-stopper. It means that God wanted Mr. Bush to chastise Saddam Hussein, that God authorized the borrowing of $500 billion with no hope of repaying it, and that God wants the rich to grow fat on tax cuts while the poor are sent away empty-handed, although that last part is uncharacteristic of the God of the Old and New Testaments. Such belief downgrades Karl Rove and Dick Cheney admirably, but it makes it hard to argue with Mr. Bush. That would be like arguing with God.
This claim for Mr. Bush extends beyond the republic's normal and routine religious squabbles over Sunday blue laws, Christmas creches, using peyote, posting the Ten Commandments or wearing a veil in a driver license photo. Those upsets can be adjusted on the basis of the greatest good for the greatest number. Although someone is always unhappy, our constitutional system is designed to extend wide freedom to the individual believer short of harming others.
Those questions tend to be settled, like everything else in politics and government, from analyses of who benefits how much compared with who gives up what.
Although the parties and lobbyists like to paint their positions in bright colors, hardly anyone can be consistent. The ideologically consistent are called cranks. Pharmaceutical companies, for instance, don't like the Food and Drug Administration spending a lot of time making sure their products won't kill people, but they want a strong FDA to block Americans from getting drugs from Canada.
Because election-by-God doesn't fit any scenarios for political debate, the governing classes simply don't discuss it. Its adherents are leery of the social sciences and media and so resist being studied, they don't know how to phrase views for political debate and don't feel a need to learn.
So how many are out there? No one seems to know. At a wild guess, they are fewer than they think they are and more than the rest of us think, fewer than the soccer moms but more than the Cuban-American bloc that politicians of both parties feel a need to cultivate.
One problem with their belief is that it implies God sat out the 1992 and '96 elections and then intervened decisively in 2000. In normal debate, that would raise a question of why. And where was God when Pat Robertson needed him?
They probably have an answer for such questions. But if they remember that Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and others have been warning for years that God will punish us for such sins as Bill Clinton, they must have to face up to this question: Is President Bush our long-promised punishment?
