Conservatives Have Had it With Mixing Religion and Politics
Two leading conservative columnists take aim at Huckabee and the influence of religion in politics.
Both Charles Krauthammer and Peggy Noonan wrote columns in which they take offensive at the tendency of some Republicans to mix religion and politics to such an extent that religion seems to be the key issue for them and many voters. Noonan wonders whether Reagan “would survive in today’s GOP.” My take on it: he would have a very hard time winning the nomination and Barry Goldwater would’ve been destroyed instantly.
The former speechwriter of Reagan also wonders: “In my lifetime faith has been a significant issue in presidential politics, but not the sole determinative one. Is that changing?” She goes on to say that “if it is, it is not progress.”
She’s right of course, but one has to wonder where Mrs. Noonan was the last couple of years. As I’ve pointed out many times in the past, one of the major mistakes of the GOP is that it has let Religious Conservatives set and control the agenda, at least to too large a degree. In order to get elected, Republicans have courted the Religious Right for years. This has caused these people to become increasingly influential and bold.
And today we see the fruits of this strategy to win elections: the religious right isn’t pretending any longer that it’s not all about faith to them. It most definitely is.
Noonan is right to point out that religion or faith always plays a role. Characters are formed partially by faith. Views are also influenced by one’s faith, whether one likes it or not. However, there has to be a balance. As Noonan explains, this balance seems to be gone nowadays. This is, of course, due to the fact that the true Religious Right doesn’t consider it an issue of compromise. These people truly don’t see anything wrong with faith not influencing politics, but dominating it.
So, what has to happen? Well, traditional, moderate and libertarian conservatives have to – for once and for all – fight back. They’ve got to make clear to the Evangelical base, basically, that they’re willing to give them something in return for their supports, but that they won’t be allowed to set the agenda. Nor will they be allowed to ever pollute the political debate as much as they’ve done this year (and will most likely continue to do in 08).
How to do that? By supporting candidates who aren’t massively supported by the religious right, among other things. That means that, although I respect Governor Huckabee he has to lose. He may win Iowa, but after that other Republican voters have to basically wipe him off the Republican map.
Also see Balloon Juice for a round-up of American conservative bloggers criticizing Huckabee. One of the people quoted by John Cole is Ace: “Not that what one blogger thinks matters that much, but if Huckabee gets the nomination, I’m voting Democratic. It’s not just an idle threat; I just won’t vote for him and in fact won’t even vote third party or stay home.”
John Cole himself comments: “I simply can not tell you how much I am enjoying this. The GOP has been pandering to these stupid bastards for years, and every time I pointed it out I was called ‘anti-Christian’ or something or other. Those of us who saw what the party was becoming were told to shut up, that it was good politics.”
The reaction of conservatives to the rise of Huckabee surprises me to be honest. I said for months that Huckabee should be a first tier candidate because he’s not just someone Evangelicals could support, he’s one of them. They’ve been empowered and courted for years, but somehow some conservatives seem to think that they wouldn’t support one of their own.
Of course they would. This is simply the first time that one of their own has a shot at winning the nomination.
How this development can surprise anyone is beyond me.
What I find most surprising about Huckabee’s surge is that it took Evangelicals so long to notice him. I thought they had already forgotten about him, basically. Seemingly, however, it only took them a couple of months to figure out that Giuliani isn’t one of them, same goes for Thompson, McCain and Romney.
Rick Moran also weighs in: “Simply put, the intrusion of religion into politics has gone beyond what it should in a healthy democracy and somebody, somewhere has to say so.” And:
What Krauthammer is saying – and what I am agreeing with – is that a line has been crossed, most notably on the Republican side, that seeks to give religion a privileged position in policy debates – absolute moral authority with a vengeance based not on the efficacy of one’s position on the issues but rather on the strength or nature of their religious beliefs…
ut there is a huge difference between being inspired or animated in your politics by religion and thrusting your religious beliefs forward as “proof” of your superiority as a candidate. Or that your faith gives you a privileged position in a debate over public policy issues.
And that, boys and girls, is the problem with this GOP field. The Democrats have their own agenda when it comes to trying to appeal to Christians. Witness Barack Obama’s efforts in South Carolina where he staged a “Gospel-fest” featuring some of the country’s finest Gospel singers. But Obama seems to wear his faith like an old coat – comfortable and roomy. Candidates Romney and Huckabee wear their faith like a straitjacket, the tenets of which limit their worldview while binding them to positions on social issues that brook no opposition because they are based on holy writ.
And many agree with you:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=9311( with quotes from other conservative bloggers)
It is inaccurate to suggest that Huckabee is popular simply because he is a Christian. He is popular because he is regarded by many as the most sincere, most well-spoken and charismatic candidate, who also happens to have the most executive experience. He does not have gaudy personal skeletons in his closet, as Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have a cemetary full of them. He does not appear to be a flip-flopper like Mitt Romney whose sincerity about almost any issue is tentative at best (and who has only four years of experience as an elected politician – less than George W. Bush had when he was elected).
Right-wing pundits like the ones mentioned in this article have few solutions and have contributed to many problems. They championed the election and candidacy of Bush eight years ago – why trust their judgment now? Who do these all-wise people suggest as an alternative? Giuliani?
The GOP would not be in power for the much-despised "religious right." If they keep making comments like this, they might soon discover what it’s like to try to win without us.
Frankly, I think they’d be better off without the Religious Right. The only question I have is: what took them so long it figure it out?
More this – it probably increases the democratic candidate’s chances but more importantly it allows for some needed improvement in a party that, for its flaws, is a given and important part of the US.
It’s not all about religion, but it’s very much about respect for the religious values of the majority of people in this country. The Religious Right made itself a power when Christians noticed they were being marginalized. Stop the leftward movement and the center will stabilize again.
I’d probably vote for a true fiscal conservative over Mr. Huckabee in 2008 – if that were an option.
But since there’s no hope of that I’ll go with the guy who’s most likely to try to hold the line on gay "marriage" and abortion and promote Christian values.
I wonder how vindicated members of the religious Right will feel when That secularist Woman beats the preacher in November, 2008.
"But since there’s no hope of that I’ll go with the guy who’s most likely to try to hold the line on gay "marriage" and abortion and promote Christian values."
Do you want the US government to deny gay couples the 1′000+ benefits heterosexual civil couples get, or are you talking about the church thing? There shouldn’t be a ban here – churches in respective states can say whether pastors can wed gay couples, but the US is not supposed to be the kind of nation that says "Our christian churches are not supposed to admit that gays are just as worthy of marriage (even though we don’t kill boys with long hair or people in drag, we still think that the part on homosexuality really should be upheld. No arbitration here, no sirree)."
"abortion and promote Christian values."
I’ve been through this – a ban is an abomination even in theory, and seeing as "Christian values" are and should be in continuing flux I’m just looking for a candidate that doesn’t try to fuse the teachings of christianity with foreign policy, fiscal policy, gun issues or welfare issues.
"Christian values" in the biblical sense would mean that men wearing usually feminine garb would, well, get stoned to death. This is why any position or mental consideration based on the bible is dismissable in my view - it would depend on either imposing the bible completely (which would ruin society and destroy the constitution) or editing out the parts that make sense. Which doesn’t make sense, considering one would give gravitas to the parts one took out based on the notion that it is divinely ordained, but since this divinity gives his complete approval of a book that denies important freedoms you are left with some simple choices.
A) I want to "create" a "society" based entirely on the bible, for it is perfect. I will be justly laughed into the margins or thrown into jail for trying to make more of humanity fall under theocracy.
B) I say that one specific part of the bible must be respected because it is of a divine nature, yet at the same time I must admit that the bible is flawed or incompatible with human rights, thus I admit that the bible can’t be divine. In short, if I am to say that this part has particular gravity because of its divine origin, then I can’t say that this other part is not divine – the gravity of one part depends on all parts being taken with equal respect, but this would send me back to A).
C) I say that it is very divine that the christianity is in a beautiful, co-existant, preordained flux, and the fact that I arbitrarily take out a few parts here and there in the manner described in B is just the kind of christianity that is meant to be.
D) Thus I say that the bible is wrong and can’t be followed in its entirety, once again leaving others to wonder why I bother with using the bible as a factor in my thinking in the first place – it is just a philosophical text among others.
E) I say that the bible, if read correctly, provides an important basis for a good, secular, democratic, responsible and virtuous state. The stuff about the otherwordly is just the cultural/esthetical gelatine capsule easing the intake of the teachings that are actually compatible with humanity.
F) I can’t really say why I need the whole divine aspect of the bible – after all, I have admitted it can’t be divine according to the biblical definition of that which is divine or derives from the divine – and so we could just as well use a book that doesn’t say that gays or cross-dressers should get stoned yet still contains all the truly ethical or civic parts of the bible. Said teachings do not require a heaven, hell or an imposing creator of these teachings to have gravity.
G) I say that turning towards the type of book described in F) would have a negative impact on society.
The above probably has holes, might be logically flawed or unfair, could be fisked or could just be insulting. I didn’t intend for any of this and a deconstruction of it will mean that I must think harder for the next iteration.
"I wonder how vindicated members of the religious Right will feel when That secularist Woman beats the preacher in November, 2008."
They’ll might spend the entire presidential period looking for anecdotes that prove some shibboleth conspiracy is about to send them to the circus, or at least disrespeccting them. Or something.
Pssssst…
With Ed Rollins joining Huckabee’s team, I think it’s possible (likely?) that he’ll try to construct a truce between the various factions of the GOP and get them behind Huckabee. What will need to happen is a de-emphasis of religion and a fine tuning of the economic message. Some fiscal conservatives who oppose the rise of social conservatism will not accept such a compromise, but I think a lot of them will- especially if it becomes evident that independent voters might embrace Huckabee the way they did Reagan.
The only ones who have made religion the main issue are the bloggers and main stream media who are, apparently scared to death of it, and continue to harp on it.
Nalora: I agree, and like you I took issue with the way Michael characterizes it here:
Who’s polluting? If Chris Matthews hadn’t asked for a show of hands on evolution, do you really think that any of the candidates would have declared themselves the "Creationist" candidate, or run ads on this ‘issue’? How many times have Huckabee and Romney been asked about their religious views in interviews and at debates? They do ‘run’ on their religious faith being important to them, I’ll concede to that. But it’s the media that has polluted, not the candidates. It’s pretty obvious that some in the MSM know that the religious issues can be a liability to the GOP in the general election, and they’ve sought to paint these candidates as theocrats. Meanwhile they ignore Dem candidates who court black Christians.