In an initiative that, frankly, didn’t get a whole lot of media attention in North Dakota (probably because Byron didn’t send out a press release given that most of the reporters in the state see political reporting as nothing more than rewording statements from opposing factions into articles) a group of fifty left-wing religious leaders sent Byron Dorgan a message telling him to de-fund a new nuclear weapons initiative.
Dorgan, upon receiving that letter, complied:
In writing Senator Dorgan, the 50 North Dakota clerics urged him to “to oppose the administration’s proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). In particular we are writing to ask you to delete all funding for this program from next year’s federal budget. We applaud the bipartisan House decision to zero out funding for the new nuclear warhead, and hope you will agree to this course of action when you consider in conference committee the fate of the RRW program.”
For whatever reason, Dorgan agreed with the concerned clerics of his native North Dakota, and no RRW spending was included in the 2008 appropriations legislation that President Bush eventually signed. “This victory is an example of people of different faiths coming together to make a tangible impact on the legislative process,” the United Methodist lobby office boasted. “With one unified voice, these North Dakota clergy of different denominations, but shared values, lobbied Congress to end an immoral, dangerous and wasteful new nuclear weapon program.”
Curiously, no one is demanding to know why Senator Dorgan is making policy based on ministers’ recommendations, nor is anyone citing this leftist policy as proof of creeping theocracy.
When President Bush listens to the counsel of people like James Dobson, the left accuses him of being a theocrat. If someone like Byron Dorgan listens to a bunch of liberal religious leaders, is that not also being a theocrat? As defined by the leftists who criticize Bush?
Personally, I don’t have much of a problem with Dorgan and Bush listening to religious leaders. In each case we have a political leader listening constituents who also happen to be religious leaders. So the religious aspect in and of itself doesn’t bother much, but Dorgan gutting appropriations to keep our nuclear arsenal up to date does bother me.
Why did Dorgan listen to these people, especially when most of his constituency here in North Dakota is very hawkish when it comes to national security matters? I suspect it has a lot to do with Dorgan wanting to further his far-left agenda on national security matters while still appearing to be doing the bidding of his constituency.
Regardless, unilaterally divesting ourselves of one of our most potent weapons even as the threat to our national security from the rest of the world grows is the very pinnacle of folly and naive national security planning. Perhaps if we actually lived in the utopian world these religious leaders seem to dwell in - one where all peace takes is the destruction of our weapons - gutting funding for our nuclear arsenal might make sense. But the world isn’t really like that. In the real world, there are tyrants who would see this country brought to its knees for no other reason than because we are who we are.
If only Byron Dorgan and these religious friends of his lived in the real world.