Just when you thought politics was safe from right-wing evangelists, they may be returning-and with tax-free aplomb.
In April 27 Nation, journalist Joe Conason argues that the seeming demise of Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and Jerry Falwell, coupled with Pat Robertson`s losing Republican presidential campaign in 1988, does not mean that fundamentalists have forsaken a craving for secular clout.
Instead, he contends that a new Robertson organization, founded in 1989 and called the Christian Coalition, is steaming along with a purposely low profile, organizing chapters in every county in at least 20 states. It has attracted the likes of Oliver North and Rev. Paul Weyrich; plans to back President Bush; and, judging by Conason disclosures about coalition strategy sessions, exhibits a seemingly pragmatic, and very partisan Republican, touch in trying to rally a Christian vote.
Which raises legal questions. By Robertson`s own estimate, the coalition spent $5 million last year and will spend $10 million this year. That`s all from tax-free income, since it has registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a ”social welfare organization.”
Conason makes a good case that such a declaration is balderdash, detailing a closed meeting of its leaders that he attended. There was scant mention of supposedly near-and-dear ”pro-family” issues such as abortion;
every speaker was a Republican; and much time was given to turning out the Christian vote for the GOP.
Indeed, counsel was offered on the tedious task of identifying ”pro-family” voters in a telephone canvass. The phone script opens, ”Do you usually vote for Republican or Democratic candidates? In 1988, did you support George Bush or Michael Dukakis?” If the answer is Democrat and Dukakis, the
”conversation is politely terminated and a new voter is dialed,” Conason writes.
So much for the coalition`s social welfare labors. Perhaps the IRS can help our budgetary welfare by re-evaluating its tax return and thus lowering the deficit.
Quickly: In May Scientific American, two British infectious-disease experts explore use of mathematical models in helping to combat AIDS, in particular in assessing potential impact of behavioral changes on the disease`s rate of advance (a tricky matter given the epidemic`s non-linear character). . . . April Smithsonian sympathetically profiles animal trainer/
writer Vicki Hearne, viewed alternately as the Joan of Arc and the Portia of pit bulls among peers and known for provocative claims that dialogue between humans and animals can be achieved via formal training. . . . April Spin compares the ”greatest hits” of T.S. Eliot and ”geriatric rock icon” Lou Reed. Huh? It concludes that while Eliot is one of the century`s most influential poets, Reed ”peaked at No. 16 on Billboard`s Top 40 in 1973.”
. . . In April 23 New York Review of Books, human rights activist Jeri Laber visits Czechoslovakia and is dismayed by new laws that she finds amount to a witch hunt against former die-hard communists. . . . A month after being exposed (quite literally) in a Spy photo, Arnold Schwarzenegger is treated more solicitously by May Disney Adventures, for kids (learn the real message of ”Terminator 2”). . . . A somewhat self-critical John McEnroe tells April Tennis how, in this his final full competitive year, he both battles a
”romantic/realist” conflict regarding his prospects and realizes how anger ”became a powerful habit.”
Finally, April 20 Time is notable for a sweeping redesign that was several years in the making. It`s dumb to judge by one issue, especially if you have trouble (as I do) coordinating shirts and neckties. But here goes:
It`s handsome in spots but seems a conservative derivative of current design and editorial wisdom (you can trace most redesigns to one of four or five overpaid Manhattan consultants). Seeking to be both peppier, a la Newsweek, and more thoughtful, there are improvements (a week in review section, for one) but also big flaws (some typography disrupts the photos), and it runs the risk of letting slip a consistent tone and feel. Example: A new core section includes longer stories, but the USA Todaying of journalism is divined with reviews now preceded by a one-sentence ”bottom line” precis, presumably so you need not grapple with the intellectual demands of reading the actual 5 to 10 paragraphs. All in all, uninspired.MAGS A
