Robertson, Chávez and Derbez

The mainstream response to Pat Robertson, the televangelist who last Monday called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, is that he’s an out-of-control showboat who has a penchant for saying whacky things, and that he has to be reined in from time to time, even by members of his own Christian right movement. (And that it was the “reining-in” by more sensible members of the movement that accounted for his halting, half-hearted retraction two days later.)

A more accurate response is that yes, Robertson may be a right-wing showboat, but he’s not just a right-wing showboat. And with an audience of close to a million viewers and an ability to deliver votes to approved-of candidates, he’s certainly not a marginal showboat who happens to have a penchant for whacky remarks. In fact, his importance in certain circles may account for the White House’s rather tepid response to his call for Chávez’s assassination—when there was any response at all. As of this writing, neither the President nor the Vice President nor the Secretary of State has repudiated his remarks. A State Department spokesman simply said “we don’t share his views,” and Secretary of Defense Rumsfield blandly remarked that assassination of foreign leaders was against the law and “our department doesn’t do that kind of thing.”

Robertson’s power stems from Christian fundamentalism’s enormous under-the-radar following which, when brought to the surface at just the right moment, has had enormous influence, and whose resentment-based beliefs have become the makings of domestic and foreign policy. Ill-considered ideas that come from the fundamentalist right, apologies and retractions notwithstanding, have to be taken seriously.

One of the principal outlets for Robertson’s political opinions has been an on-line journal called World Net Daily (WND) whose editor, Joseph Farah, on the day following Robertson’s retraction, opined that given Chávez’s anti-U.S. posture, the preacher had a point in his call for assassination, but that “there are certain things you can’t say—no matter how much sense they make.” The idea of assassination, that is, has not necessarily been retracted by Robertson’s co-religionists, and its logic remains alive in the vast fundamentalist demi-monde. Like creationism or intelligent design, it may make an above-ground appearance when least expected.

Stewing in its nationalist resentment, the fundamentalist right seems to make little distinction among the various world governments that, from time to time, take a critical stance in regard to one U.S. policy or another.

Mexico’s conservative, very pro-U.S. foreign minister, Luis Ernesto Derbez, for example, has said many times said that his government had an obligation to protect the interests of its ten million or so citizens living in the United States. Last January, he said that if necessary he would pursue an “international strategy” toward that end.

In response to this foreign “invasion” (an invasion of both migrants and foreign policy), the same Joseph Farah, in a February 4 column, opined that the time had come for the U.S. to “conquer” Mexico and resolve the various bi-lateral disputes once and for all. Since Farah’s opinions circulate under the radar, hardly anyone took note beyond the many fundamentalists who read Farah’s column (shall we say religiously?), and who may have thought, “well, yes…” (And an ever-alert White House, which may have thought, “well, just in case, there’s a handy constituency…”)

Farah’s comments were made in the same off-hand, semi-ironic, easy-to-retract, semi-resentful (we’ll-show-‘em-who’s-boss) way that Robertson called for the “taking out” of Chávez. Like Robertson’s remarks they were quite oblivious to the facts.

He simply repeated what his readers already “knew”: that Mexico was dumping its “undesirables” in the U.S. to scam an over-generous welfare system and send the money back home. Never mind that labor force participation among Mexican migrants is well above the U.S. national average, and that a great many Mexican workers pay payroll taxes and contribute to a Social Security system from which they will never collect.

As for the “facts” about Chávez, the rightists go beyond the State Department’s charges of hemispheric “destabilization,” and simply link his name with Hitler, Sadaam, bin-Laden…and Fidel Castro. Case closed. But the State Department, try as it might, has yet to find any evidence that Chávez has been destabilizing the affairs of his neighbors. To the contrary, Venezuela has just agreed to provide Ecuador with an interest-free loan of oil to stabilize its recovery from a devastating national strike, and it has established barter agreements with most of the Caribbean nations (yes, including Cuba) to help stabilize their economies by providing them with affordable oil.

But the fundamentalist preachings and scribblings have little to do with facts. They are based on pure resentment—mostly directed at “elitists” who enforce the rules about the “certain things you can’t say.” It’s a resentment expertly played upon by preachers, editorialists and talk-show hosts, and made use of by the politicians who now occupy the White House.

When this resentment is brought to the surface—or surfaces on its own—it can have enormous effect.

That’s why Venezuela’s ambassador to the United States has sensibly asked for a strong and unconditional White House denunciation of Robertson’s remarks. Otherwise they will ferment in the fundamentalist sub-basement until they are ready to be transformed into policy.