How idiotic were Robertson's comments?

Pat Robertson is drawing a lot of flak for comments made over the weekend. And deservedly so.

Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Rev. Pat Robertson claimed yesterday.

"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

"I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy."

Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.

"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together.""

As Glenn Reynolds says, there's a reason "why Pat Robertson was one of the original models for the term 'idiotarian.'" The comments made are harsh, offensive to hear, offensive to our sensibilities. And they're counter-productive. Joe Gandelman calls him "A Skunk Spraying Inside The GOP Tent" and that's appropriate.

This kind of verbal overkill stops political debate - cold. So Robertson now says our judges are in some ways worse than terrorists. Why? Because they don't rule the way HE wants. And Republicans (rightfully) complained about some of the verbal excesses of Michael Moore?

What happens to a tent when a skunk sprays in the tent? The tent smells. And some people leave the tent.

I can't disagree with a word of that.

That said, were Robertson's comments actually wrong? As a practical matter, I think that they were. The judiciary is, in many ways, out-of-control. Like every other branch of government. If Lord Acton was wrong, I'm not aware of any great evidence in the American body politic to show it. But I don't know that it's irredeemably out-of-control, and I certainly don't think that judges are, as a group and on the whole, "anti-American", however you would choose to define that. Pat Robertson's comments are worthy of whatever approbation you want to heap upon them.

As a broad theoretical statement, however, there's some truth to what he's saying. Al Qaeda poses no threat to the existence of America. Which is not to say that it poses no threat, because it does. What happened in New York and Washington was horrifying, and we must do everything in our power to prevent similar events from happening again. But America is more than a piece of real estate, or a collection of peoples - America is an idea, an ideal, and external terrorists, however hard they might try, have no power to destroy America. As a marriage can only be broken from the inside, so can America only be brought down by actions inside by people representing it.

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
- Abraham Lincoln, 1838

Obviously, the world is a smaller place now than it was in Lincoln's time. It is not impossible to imagine a time when there is an external force capable of reaching America and conquering it, though it's difficult to picture the scenario under which it's likely in the forseeable future. But the main point, that "if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher" is, I think, still perfectly valid.

And that's what Robertson seems to be saying here. Terrorists can destroy buildings - judges can destroy the Constitution. In the long run, which destruction does more damage to America the idea?